Imported glass mosaic tiles from China should have been granted Section 301 tariff exclusions due to their size, said importer Anatolia Tile & Stone in a May 31 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Anatolia is challenging CBP's denial of 42 protests, which sought to remove the 25% duty assigned by CBP at liquidation. The company asked the court to order CBP to reliquidate the entries and refund any excess duties paid with interest (Anatolia Tile & Stone v. U.S., CIT # 21-00245).
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:
Any plaintiff in the massive Section 301 litigation looking to dismiss their case must comply with the court's rules to file a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared in the case, the Court of International Trade said in a text-only order. The court clarified that this rule, USCIT Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), applies in the present action since the U.S. filed a Master Answer in the overarching test case, meaning the answer is considered to be filed in each Section 301 case "now pending or hereafter filed" in the court. Certain companies have begun dismissing their challenges to the China tariffs following the trade court's ruling that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative did not violate the law when implementing them (see 2303170063) (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT # 21-00052).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated May 22 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Plaintiffs in the massive Section 301 litigation officially filed on May 12 their notice of appeal of the Court of International Trade's decision upholding President Donald Trump's tariff action on China. The case was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. CIT had agreed that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative complied with Administrative Procedure Act requirements when it set lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs (see 2303170063) (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT # 21-00052).
The Court of International Trade granted importer Sonos' bid to voluntarily dismiss its case seeking Section 301 refunds on imports of wireless speakers and audio components. Sonos claimed that its imports were granted exclusions to the China tariffs and CBP failed to refund the duties, which totalled over $229,000 (see 2212120056). Erik Smithweiss, counsel for Sonos, said the matter was resolved administratively (Sonos v. United States, CIT # 22-00337).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated May 2 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated May 1 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):