Trade Law Daily is a service of Warren Communications News.
Subscriber Login

Section 301 tariff exclusions

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has established an exclusion process for Section 301 tariffs on China. In a series of rounds since the tariffs took effect, importers have been able to request exclusions from the tariffs, as well as extensions to existing exclusions. Many exclusions have been allowed to expire, as well. Section 301 exclusions are applicable to all importers of a given good, which may be defined as an entire tariff schedule subheading or a subset of a subheading outlined in a written description.

to
articlessource documents
Refine Topic 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").

Importer Challenges CBP's Denial of Section 301 Exclusion for Car Side Protective Attachments
April 23, 2024 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

Importer MKI Enterprise Group, doing business as Winbo USA, filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on April 22 to contest CBP's denial of a Section 301 exclusion for its entries of "steel side protective attachments for motor vehicles, specifically side bars, fern bars, and bars" from China (MKI Enterprise Group v. United States, CIT # 22-00131).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Country of origin cases
Vehicle Side Bar Exporter Says Section 301 Tariff Exclusion Not Principal Use Provision
April 11, 2024 by Kathryn Nucci|Litigation

An exporter of vehicle side bars said April 8 that Section 301 tariff exclusions shouldn't necessarily be considered princpal use provisions, but should instead be analyzed as either principal use, eo nomine or actual use provisions on a case-by-case basis because no published guidance singles out a specific method (Keystone Automotive Operations v. U.S., CIT # 21-00215).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings, Country of origin cases, CBP CROSS Rulings