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").

Plywood Importer Challenges Imposition of AD/CV Duties on Products From Cambodia
May 10, 2022 by Jacob Kopnick|Top News

CBP violated the law when it imposed antidumping and countervailing duties, Section 301 China tariffs, merchandise processing fees and harbor maintenance fees on importer Richmond International Forest Products' (RIFP's) hardwood plywood imports since the entries were made in Cambodia and not China, the importer said. In three separate but very similar complaints filed at the Court of International Trade, RIFP argued that CBP ignored evidence revealing that the hardwood plywood was made in Cambodia, thereby abusing its discretion when it imposed a host of duties on the products (Richmond International Forest Products v. United States, CIT #21-00063, #21-00318, #21-00319).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings, Country of origin cases, EAPA Litigation
Former Trade Manager Seeks Jury Trial Over Contested Firing for Stance on Section 301 Tariffs
April 29, 2022 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

Counsel for Jennifer Lam-Quang-Vinh, a customs broker and former senior manager of Global Trade and Customs at Springs Window Fashions, a producer and seller of window coverings, pushed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit to set up a jury trial over whether she was unlawfully fired. During an April 27 oral argument, counsel for Lam continued to make the case that she was illegally let go from her job for expressing her view that the company's window shades imports should be assessed Section 301 China tariffs and that a jury should look at the case (Jennifer Lam-Quang-Vinh v. Springs Window Fashions, W.D. Wis. #21-2665).

Topics:Country of origin cases