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").

Importer Drops Case Seeking Section 301 Exclusions for Lawnmower Engines
November 19, 2024 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

Importer MTD Products dropped its case at the Court of International Trade seeking exclusions from Section 301 China tariffs on its spark-ignition reciprocating or rotary internal combustion piston engines. The company filed a complaint in June, claiming that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative established exclusions for engines of its type classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 8407.90.1020 and 8407.90.1010 (see 2406060034). Counsel for the importer didn't respond to a request for comment (MTD Products v. United States, CIT # 22-00174).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Harmonized Tariff Schedule, Section 301 tariffs
US and LED Light Importer Settle, Subjecting Importer to Section 301 Instead of 323 Tariffs
November 19, 2024 by Kathryn Nucci|Litigation

The U.S. and an importer reached a settlement in a 2021 classification dispute regarding Chinese-origin light-emitting diode (LED) lamps. Under the deal, the importer’s lights won't be subject to Section 232 tariffs, with a 25% additional duty, but will be subject to Section 301 tariffs (Super Bright LEDs v. U.S., CIT # 21-00099).

Topics:Country of origin cases, Harmonized Tariff Schedule, Section 301 tariffs
US Asks CIT to Amend PI in Suit on Section 301 Rate Hike on Needles, Syringes
November 13, 2024 by Jacob Kopnick|Top News

The U.S. asked the Court of International Trade to amend the preliminary injunction in a suit challenging certain Section 301 action on needles and syringes to reflect the government's stipulation that they will refund any Section 301 duties found to have been unlawfully collected on importer Retractable Technologies' entries. Retractable consented to the move (Retractable Technologies v. United States, CIT # 24-00185).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Section 301 tariffs
CIT Misunderstood Importer's Argument in Classification Dispute, Importer Says
November 8, 2024 by Kathryn Nucci|Litigation

After the Court of International Trade ruled that a Section 301 exclusion for side protective attachments for trucks is a principal use provision, not an eo nomine one (see 2410070030), a vehicle accessories importer asked CIT Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves on Nov. 6 to either reconsider or let it bring an interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Keystone Automotive Operations v. U.S., CIT # 21-00215).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Harmonized Tariff Schedule, Section 301 tariffs, Differential Pricing Analysis
CIT Rejects Bid to Halt Collection of Section 301 Duties on Importer's Needles, Syringes
November 6, 2024 by Jacob Kopnick|Top News

The Court of International Trade rejected importer Retractable Technologies' bids for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction stopping the collection of Section 301 duties on its needles and syringes. However, in a decision made public Nov. 4, Judge Claire Kelly did stop liquidation of Retractable's entries during the course of the company's suit, which challenges the legality of a Section 301 rate hike on needles and syringes.

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Section 301 tariffs