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").

Trump Faces Hurdles in Expanding Use of Sections 232, 301 Should IEEPA Tariffs Fall, Lawyers Say
November 17, 2025 by Jacob Kopnick|Top News

President Donald Trump may look to ramp up his use of sections 232 and 301 should the Supreme Court rule that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act can't be used for levying tariffs, various lawyers told us. However, the expanded use of these statutes, both as they are being used now and how they may be used to supplant the existing reciprocal and fentanyl trafficking tariffs, may encounter legal difficulties.

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Country of origin cases
CIT Reinstates Case on Section 301 Exclusions After Calendaring Mistake Led to Dismissal
November 10, 2025 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

The Court of International Trade on Nov. 7 granted importer Danfoss' motion to reopen its case seeking exclusions from Section 301 China tariffs on its scroll compressors and scroll-type compressors after the court dismissed the case for lack of prosecution. Judge Claire Kelly vacated the dismissal and said the case will remain on the customs case management calendar until Oct. 31, 2026 (Danfoss LLC v. United States, CIT # 23-00214).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity
Lawyer: Section 122 May Be a More Limited Fallback for Trump Should IEEPA Tariffs Fall
November 10, 2025 by Jacob Kopnick|Top News

Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 may be a more limited "fall-back option" for the Trump administration should the Supreme Court strike down all the tariffs President Donald Trump has imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Dr. Mona Paulsen, law professor at the London School of Economic Law School, wrote in a blog post.

Topics:Court of International Trade activity
Law Profs: IEEPA Decision May Be Nuanced
November 10, 2025 by Mara Lee|Top News

There are probably five justices who will find that the reciprocal tariffs were not permissible under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act that the president used to impose them, according to Georgetown University Law Center Professor Marty Lederman. Lederman, a senior fellow in the Supreme Court Institute at Georgetown, was one of two guests on the weekly Washington International Trade Association podcast that aired Nov. 7.

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Country of origin cases
3 New Lawsuits Filed at CIT Against IEEPA Tariffs After SCOTUS Argument
November 7, 2025 by Jacob Kopnick|Top News

Three new lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade Nov. 6 on the legality of President Donald Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act as his authority to impose tariffs, on the day after the Supreme Court appeared skeptical about the validity of such tariffs. One suit was filed by three importers, led by Del Monte Fresh Produce and represented by customs lawyer Myron Barlow; another was filed by importer Turn5, represented by Crowell & Moring; and a third was filed by importer Netuno USA by trade lawyer Vinicius Adam (Del Monte Fresh Produce v. United States, CIT # 25-00244) (Netuno USA v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00245) (Turn5 v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CIT # 25-00246).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings, Country of origin cases, Harmonized Tariff Schedule