The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative often found itself weighing the possible harm to U.S. consumers from the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs against the need to give the duties enough teeth to curb China’s allegedly unfair trade practices, the agency said in its 90-page “remand determination,” filed Aug. 1 at the Court of International Trade (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052). Submitting its bid to ease the court's concerns over modifications made to the third and fourth tariff waves, USTR provided its justifications for removing various goods from the tariff lists ranging from critical minerals to seafood products.
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:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade in a July 22 order consolidated three customs cases concerning the proper classification of electric scooters, known as hoverboards. Two of the cases, including the now-lead case, were brought by 3BTech, while the remaining action was brought by Pro-Com Products. The cases were launched to argue that the hoverboards were classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9503.00.0090, which provides for "Tricycles, scooters, pedal cars and similar wheeled toys; dollsʼ carriages; dolls, other toys; reduced-scale ('scale') models and similar recreational models, working or not; puzzles of all kinds; parts and accessories thereof: Other," and allows subject goods to enter duty-free (see 2112100053) (3BTech Inc. v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00026).
The Court of International Trade in a July 20 opinion redenominated the U.S.'s counterclaim in a customs case brought by importer Cyber Power Systems as a defense, ruling that the U.S. does not have the statutory authority to make the counterclaim. With the ruling, Judge Claire Kelly denied Cyber Power's motion to dismiss the counterclaim as moot. Kelly ruled that none of the sections in the U.S. code cited by the U.S. give a basis for the counterclaim, which sought to reclassify imported cables.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Supreme Court's key ruling that called into question federal agencies' authority to regulate major sectors of the economy if not explicitly delegated by Congress could positively impact plaintiffs in the massive case against the Section 301 China tariffs, Christopher Kane, partner at Simon Gluck, said in a LinkedIn post. Kane said he thought that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative overstepped its statutorily delegated authority by not engaging in the mandated deliberations before imposing the tariffs. Since the tariffs rise to the level of affecting a major segment of the U.S. economy, the West Virginia v. EPA decision would reverse the USTR's actions, Kane said.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York: