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").

Importer Says Its Steel Wire Is Product of Japan Under Prior Use of 'Substantial Transformation' Test
June 16, 2025 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

Importer Monarch Metals told the Court of International Trade that its stainless steel wire imports are products of Japan and not China, meaning its goods were improperly subjected to Section 301 and Section 232 tariffs. In a complaint filed June 13, Monarch Metals said that under CBP's prior application of the substantial transformation test to steel wire, no substantial transformation occurs by drawing steel rod into steel wire (Monarch Metals v. United States, CIT # 24-00266).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings, Country of origin cases
Importer Severs Various Entries From 2 CIT Cases Challenging Imposition of Section 301 Duties
June 13, 2025 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

Importer American Eel Depot severed various entries from two of its cases at the Court of International Trade contesting the imposition of Section 301 duties on its frozen roasted eel entries (see 2106110061). American Eel brought its cases in 2021 to challenge CBP's denial of its protests claiming its eel imports originate in Europe and thus shouldn't be subject to the Section 301 tariffs on China. In one case, American Eel severed one entry from the case, and in another, it severed 22 entries from the case. In the first case, only one entry remains challenged by the importer, while 16 remain challenged in the second case. The company said it determined the entries shouldn't be included in the cases upon "further review." Counsel for the importer declined to comment (American Eel Depot v. United States, CIT #s 21-00278, -00279).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Country of origin cases
Importer Challenges Classification of Silicon Compounds at CIT
June 11, 2025 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

Importer AB Specialty Silicones' launched another case at the Court of International Trade to contest CBP's classification of its specialty silicone chemicals as organic-silicone compounds instead of as silicone compounds or organo-inorganic compounds. In a June 4 complaint, AB challenged the classification of one entry of its silicone compounds, arguing that it should only pay 3.7% duties for the product under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 2910.90.9051 or 3% under subheading 3910.00.0000 (AB Specialty Silicones v. United States, CIT # 25-00099).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings