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").

CIT Drops Importer's Suit Seeking Section 301 Exclusions for Failure to Prosecute
November 5, 2024 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

The Court of International Trade on Nov. 1 dismissed importer Travelway Group International's customs suit for lack of prosecution. The company put its action on the customs case management calendar but failed to remove it or request an extension before time expired. Travelway brought the suit to argue that its backpacks and bags of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 4202.92.3120 and 4202.92.3131 qualify for Section 301 exclusions. Counsel for the importer didn't respond to a request for comment (Travelway Group International v. United States, CIT # 22-00312).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Harmonized Tariff Schedule, Section 301 tariffs
CIT Rejects Bids for TRO, PI on Collection of Section 301 Duties on Needles, Syringes
November 5, 2024 |Bulletin

The Court of International Trade in a decision made public Nov. 4 enjoined the liquidation of importer Retractable Technologies' entries of syringes during the course of its challenge to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's Section 301 tariff hike on needles and syringes. However, Judge Claire Kelly rejected Retractable's bids for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction on the collection of Section 301 tariffs on needles and syringes, finding that Retractable failed to show it would suffer irreparable harm if the duties are collected. The judge added that the balance of equities and public interest both weigh against taking such action.

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Section 301 tariffs
CIT Denies TRO, PI Bids on Collection of Section 301 Tariffs in Suit on Rate Hike
October 30, 2024 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 28 denied importer Retractable Technologies' motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the collection of certain Section 301 tariffs, though the court granted the company's motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining liquidation of its entries during the course of litigation. Judge Claire Kelly issued the confidential decision, giving the parties until Nov. 1 to review any confidential information in the opinion (Retractable Technologies v. U.S., CIT # 24-00185).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Section 301 tariffs
Law Professors Say Trump Tariff Actions May Survive Court Challenges
October 25, 2024 by Mara Lee|Top News

If a reelected President Donald Trump uses the existing Section 301 tariffs program to hike tariffs on all Chinese goods by at least 60%, that's likely to survive a court challenge, said two law professors who spoke during a Washington International Trade Association webinar on the executive branch's ability to make deals and impose trade restrictions without congressional say-so.

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Country of origin cases, Section 301 tariffs