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. "surrogate value").

Acronyms: Use all capital letters to ensure the search is not looking for that letter sequence instead. (e.g., CIT).

Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., CBP +ruling).

Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., ruling -NY).

Simplest form: Use the simplest form of a term (e.g. "russian export control" instead of "russian export controls") or "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").

Mitsubishi Argues the US Unlawfully Applied Section 301 Tariffs After Granting Exclusions
April 22, 2026 by Jackson Lanzer|Litigation

The U.S. unlawfully applied Section 301 tariffs to Mitsubishi’s entries of selective catalytic reduction (SCR) catalyst blocks after initially granting the company’s exclusion requests, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should assert equitable estoppel, the company argued in an April 17 reply brief (Mitsubishi Power Americas v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1828).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings, Country of origin cases, Harmonized Tariff Schedule, Section 232 Exclusions
Chinese Auto Accessories Manufacturer Requests Extension in Section 301 Tariffs Exemption Case
April 8, 2026 by Jackson Lanzer|Litigation

Keystone Automotive Operations requested a 60-day extension to limited discovery in its case challenging CBP’s denial of its protest of the agency’s classification of the company’s entries and seeking the refund of duties imposed under Section 301, according to an April 7 status report and motion to amend the scheduling order filed with the Court of International Trade (Keystone Automotive Operations v. United States, CIT # 21-00215).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Country of origin cases, Tariff Refunds
Trade Associations Urge SCOTUS to Review, Limit USTR's Modification Authority Under Section 301
April 2, 2026 by Jacob Kopnick|Top News

A group of trade associations, led by the American Apparel and Footwear Association, filed an amicus brief in support of a group of importers' cert petition before the Supreme Court to review the legality of the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on China imposed during President Donald Trump's first administration (HMTX Industries v. United States, U.S. 25-1012).

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