Trade Law Daily is a service of Warren Communications News.
Subscriber Login

Section 301 tariffs

Section 301 Tariffs are levied under the Trade Act of 1974 which grants the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) authority to investigate and take action to protect U.S. rights from trade agreements and respond to foreign trade practices. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 provides statutory means allowing the United States to impose sanctions on foreign countries violating U.S. trade agreements or engaging in acts that are “unjustifiable” or “unreasonable” and burdensome to U.S. commerce. Prior to 1995, the U.S. frequently used Section 301 to eliminate trade barriers and pressure other countries to open markets to U.S. goods.

The founding of the World Trade Organization in 1995 created an enforceable dispute settlement mechanism, reducing U.S. use of Section 301. The Trump administration began using Section 301 in 2018 to unilaterally enforce tariffs on countries and industries it deemed unfair to U.S. industries. The Trump administration adopted the policy shift to close what it deemed a persistent "trade gap" between the U.S. and foreign governments that it said disadvantaged U.S. firms. Additionally, it pointed to alleged weaknesses in the WTO trade dispute settlement process to justify many of its tariff actions -- particularly against China. The administration also cited failures in previous trade agreements to enhance foreign market access for U.S. firms and workers.

The Trump Administration launched a Section 301 investigation into Chinese trade policies in August 2017. Following the investigation, President Trump ordered the USTR to take five tariff actions between 2018 and 2019. Subsequent rounds of Section 301 actions against China have continued since. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative administers Section 301 tariffs, and has also created an exclusion process for importers to seek exemptions from the tariffs.

to
articlessource documents
Refine Trend Search
Clear Terms

Search Primer

Term list: Separate terms with spaces, not commas or semicolons.

Multi-word term: Place inside quotes to ensure an exact match (e.g. "China import").

Acronyms: Use all capital letters to ensure the search is not looking for that letter sequence instead.

Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., +CBP).

Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., -ruling).

Singular form: Always use the singular form when doing multi-word terms (e.g. "russian export control" instead of "russian export controls").

Shortest word form: When you have different word forms in a quoted (multi-word) term, you want to only include the shortest version if it is the last part of the expression (e.g., "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").

Surrogate Statement Unusable Due to Mass of Affiliate Transactions, Exporter Tells CAFC
October 16, 2025 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

Tapered roller bearing exporter Shanghai Tainai Bearing and importer C&U Americas filed a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 14, arguing, among other things, that the U.S. failed to adequately defend the Commerce Department's selection of Romanian firm Timken Romania as part of the surrogate value calculations. Tainai added that Commerce illegally decided to deduct the cost of Section 301 duties from the company's U.S. price in the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China (Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1405).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity, Country of origin cases
ITC, Commerce Overlooked Seasonal Trends of Chinese Vehicle Sales in Critical Circ. Finding, Companies Say
October 16, 2025 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

Exporter Kangdi Electric Vehicle (Hainan) and its affiliated importer Kandi America filed a pair of complaints at the Court of International Trade on Oct. 14 to contest the International Trade Commission's and Commerce Department's affirmative finding of critical circumstances regarding Chinese low speed personal transportation vehicles from China (Kangdi Electric Vehicle (Hainan) v. United States, CIT #'s 25-00201, -00202).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity
AD/CVD on Chinese-Origin Golf Carts Will End Imports Entirely, Exporter Says
October 14, 2025 by Kathryn Nucci|Litigation

In a complaint filed Oct. 8, exporter Tao Motor challenged the International Trade Commission’s affirmative injury and critical circumstances findings regarding golf carts from China. It said that imposing the Commerce Department’s recently calculated antidumping duty and countervailing duty rates would end all importation of Chinese-origin golf carts into the U.S. (Tao Motor v. United States, CIT # 25-00199).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Country of origin cases
Former Stein Shostak Partner Joins Squire Patton in Los Angeles
October 7, 2025 |Trade People

Chris Duncan, former partner at Stein Shostak, has joined Squire Patton in the international trade and foreign investment practice group in the firm's Los Angeles office, the firm announced. Prior to joining Stein Shostak, Duncan worked for 16 years at CBP as a senior attorney, most recently holding the position of assistant chief counsel in San Francisco. Duncan works on a host of customs issues, including on classification, Section 301 tariffs, valuation, country of origin and marking rules, the firm said.

Topics:Tariff classification rulings, Country of origin cases
Fleet Tracking Device Shouldn't Be Dutiable as 'Radio Navigational Aid', Importer Says
October 3, 2025 by Kathryn Nucci|Litigation

Importer Geotab said in a Sept. 30 complaint that its "GO Devices" -- used for “vehicle tracking and telematics” -- should've been classified as “other apparatus for the transmission or reception of voice, images or other data,” not “radio navigational aid apparatus.” As a result, they should have been liquidated under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8517, which provides for a 7.5% Section 301 duty on Chinese-origin products, not heading 8526, which carries a 25% Section 301 duty (Geotab Inc. v. United States, CIT # 23-00185).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings, Country of origin cases