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").

CBP: China Is Fertilizer's Country of Origin for Marking, but It Qualifies for USMCA Treatment
July 22, 2024 by Joanna Marsh|Customs Rulings

The Hyshield brand plant fertilizer produced by British Columbia-based Sipco Innovations ultimately should have China as its country of origin for marking purposes. However, the country of origin for the Hyshield product is Canada for Section 301 purposes, and it qualifies for preferential tariff treatment under USMCA, according to a May 8 ruling addressed to CBP’s Pharmaceuticals, Health and Chemicals Center of Excellence and Expertise in Newark, New Jersey, and recently released by CBP.

Topics:Country of origin cases
Importer Opposes US Bid to Withdraw Admission in Customs Suit on GPUs
July 2, 2024 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

Importer Atlas Power opposed the government's motion to withdraw one of its admissions of fact in a customs case on the assessment of Section 301 tariffs on graphics processing units. The U.S. moved the Court of International Trade to withdraw its admission that the subject merchandise is made "of parts of or accessories to ADP machines classified under subheading 8473.30.1180 of the HTSUS." Atlas said that its goods entered under subheading 8473.30.1180 and CBP didn't "object to the classification during the administrative proceedings leading to this litigation" (Atlas Power v. United States, CIT # 23-00084).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity