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").

Flooring Entries Wrongly Hit With 10% Section 301 Tariffs Subject to Exclusion, Importer Says
September 2, 2025 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

CBP unlawfully applied 10% Section 301 duties to importer Shaw Industries Group's Chinese flooring entries, since the goods were subject to an exclusion from the tariffs, Shaw argued in an Aug. 29 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Shaw Industries Group v. United States, CIT # 21-00400).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Country of origin cases, Harmonized Tariff Schedule
Importer Says Plastic Lips With Lollipop Part Are Toys, Not Candy
August 27, 2025 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

CBP improperly classified certain toy lips as candy under Harmonized Tariff Schedule Chapter 17 instead of "other toys" under Chapter 95, said importer Imaginings, doing business as Flix Candy, in a complaint last week at the Court of International Trade. Flix said that while the lips consist of two components, the plastic lips and a candy lollipop, the lips give the item its "essential character" and thus qualify the goods for Chapter 95 classification (Imaginings 3, d/b/a Flix Candy v. United States, CIT # 21-00403).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings, Country of origin cases, Harmonized Tariff Schedule
Former Biden Official Says CAFC Likely to Soon Pare Back Trump Tariff Authority
August 14, 2025 by Jacob Kopnick|Other U.S.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will likely rule against the Trump administration in the lead case on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, though it's unclear under what exact rationale the court will do so, said Peter Harrell, a former National Security Council official during the Biden administration.

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity
US Agrees to Refund 3%, Section 301 Duties on Importer's Nitrile Rubber Gloves
August 11, 2025 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

The U.S. agreed to liquidate importer SW Technologies' nitrile rubber globes under the importer's preferred Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading -- a move which will see CBP refund SW Technologies ordinary customs duties and Section 301 tariffs. The goods were initially imported under HTS subheading 4015.19.1010, which covers non-medical gloves at a 3% duty rate. SW Technologies argued at the Court of International Trade that the gloves should have been classified under the duty-free subheading 4015.19.0550 as medical gloves. Per a stipulated judgment at CIT, the U.S. will liquidate the importer's entries under its preferred subheading and secondary subheading 9903.88.39, which exempts the goods from Section 301 duties (SW Technologies v. U.S., CIT # 23-00119).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Harmonized Tariff Schedule