Actuators used in automotive applications that were produced in Mexico from Chinese, Mexican, U.S. and Taiwanese components are correctly Mexican origin and shouldn't have been assessed Section 301 tariffs, importer Suprajit said in a Sept. 22 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Suprajit Controls v. U.S., CIT # 23-00181).
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. Almost three quarters of U.S. imports from China were subject to Section 301 tariffs, which ranged from 15% to 25%. The U.S. and China engaged in negotiations resulting in the “U.S.-China Phase One Trade Agreement”, signed in January 2020.
The Biden Administration took steps in 2021 to eliminate foreign policies subject to Section 301 investigations. The administration has extended and reinstated many of the tariffs enacted during the Trump administration but is conducting a review of all Section 301 actions against China.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
A direct forming hollow section line or “tube mill" is correctly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S. heading 8462 as a machine tool rather than under heading 8455 as a metal-rolling mill, according to a recently released CBP ruling. The ruling came in response to an application for further review of a denied protest filed by Dundee Products.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department must consider evidence on remand regarding the control antidumping duty respondent Shanghai Tainai could have exerted over its suppliers before the agency hits the company with partial adverse facts available, the Court of International Trade ruled. Issuing the Sept. 14 opinion in a case on the 2019-20 review of the AD order on tapered roller bearings from China, Judge Stephen Vaden said Commerce failed to consider the factors set by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in using AFA on a fully cooperative respondent that "lacks the ability to control its suppliers."
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Four witnesses asked Congress to pass Level the Playing Field Act 2.0, a proposal that would change trade remedy laws in favor of domestic manufacturers, at a House hearing called the "Chinese Communist Party Threat to American Manufacturing."
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York: