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").

US Makes Defense of Lists 3 and 4A China Tariff Action at Federal Circuit
December 26, 2023 by Jacob Kopnick|Top News

Plaintiffs in the massive ongoing Section 301 litigation "ignore" the president's role in imposing the China tariffs, the U.S. said last week, arguing that the thousands of companies leading the case would have the court impose an improper standard of review (HMTX Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings, Country of origin cases, Harmonized Tariff Schedule, Section 301 tariffs
US Adds USTR's Assistant GC to Section 301 Case at Federal Circuit
December 22, 2023 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

The U.S. on Dec. 20 added an attorney to the massive Section 301 litigation currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The government added Megan Grimball, assistant general counsel in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, bringing the number of government attorneys involved in the suit to nine. Grimball has worked at USTR since 2018 and, before that, as an attorney-adviser at the State Department.

DOJ Says It Can't Provide Former Employees' Addresses, Unredacted Emails in Discovery
December 22, 2023 by Kathryn Nucci|Litigation

An importer seeking to compel the government to provide addresses of former CBP employees and underacted versions of documents handed over during discovery didn't show the sufficient need for, or relevance of, either, DOJ said Dec. 20 (Lutron Electronics v. U.S.​​​​, CIT # 22-00264).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings, Country of origin cases
Chinese Automobile Equipment Exporter Asks CIT for Section 301 Tariffs Exemption
December 11, 2023 by Kathryn Nucci|Litigation

A Chinese automobile accessories exporter sought summary judgment at the Court of International Trade on Dec. 7 in its case contesting CBP's imposition of 25% Section 301 tariffs on its products (Keystone Automotive Operations v. U.S., CIT # 21-00215).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings, Country of origin cases, Harmonized Tariff Schedule
German Tool Company to Pay $1.9 Million to Settle Customs Fraud Claims
December 5, 2023 by Jacob Kopnick|Penalties

German company KingKong-Tools GmbH & Co KG, along with its American subsidiary King Kong Tools, will pay $1.9 million to resolve allegations of customs fraud, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia announced. The office alleged that King Kong falsely said its tool imports were made in Germany when they were made in China, misrepresenting their country of origin in violation of the False Claims Act.

Topics:Country of origin cases