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 Asks for 60 More Days to File Reply in Section 301 Case at CAFC
August 15, 2023 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

The U.S. asked for another 60 days to file its reply brief in the massive Section 301 litigation at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The government said the present suit is a test case for over 4,100 similar cases and an extension would allow DOJ more time to confer with all the federal agencies involved in the case (HMTX Industries v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity
Furniture Importer Files Suit at CIT Over Section 301 Product Exclusions
August 8, 2023 by Ben Perkins|Litigation

CBP incorrectly denied protests seeking retroactive refunds of Section 301 duties for entries of furniture parts and boxes imported from China, importer Store Supply Warehouse said in an Aug. 4 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The protested items consisted of nine entries of hardware racks, three entries of jewelry boxes and 10 entries of showcase parts imported through the Port of Savannah (Store Supply Warehouse v. U.S., CIT # 23-00035).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity
Retailer Groups Tell CAFC USTR Failed to Respond to Comments on China Tariffs
July 27, 2023 by Jacob Kopnick|Top News

A group of retail trade groups, led by the American Apparel and Footwear Association, said that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative failed to adequately respond to comments when imposing its lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on China. Submitting an amicus brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the massive case against the duties, the retail representatives argued that USTR illegally relied on the president's discretion as a response to the comments, violating the Administrative Procedure Act (HMTX Industries, et al. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity, Country of origin cases, Section 301 tariffs, Section 232 Exclusions