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").

DOJ Releases Internal USTR 'Decision Memos' for Section 301 Tariff Changes
March 28, 2022 by Paul Gluckman|Top News

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative sought confidential advice from “private-sector advisory committees,” believed to be under the Industry Trade Advisory Committee (ITAC) program managed jointly by USTR and the Commerce Department, before imposing the List 3 Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports, Stephen Vaughn, the agency’s then-general counsel, wrote then-USTR Robert Lighthizer on Sept. 17, 2018. The document was one of about a dozen “decision memos” spanning 488 pages that DOJ filed March 24 in the Section 301 litigation docket (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052) at the Court of International Trade as an “appendix” to oral argument held Feb. 1 (see 2202010059).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Section 301 tariffs
‘Procedural Burden’ Looms as 2 Tariff Lists Set to Expire 7 Weeks Apart
March 23, 2022 |Other U.S.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is wading into “unchartered waters” if it tries extending the lists 1 and 2 Section 301 tariffs on China past their four-year expiration deadlines under the 1974 Trade Act (see 2203140004), David Olave, a Sandler Travis associate and trade policy adviser, said in an email. List 1 is due to expire July 6, List 2 only seven weeks later on Aug. 23.

Topics:Country of origin cases
DOJ Says It Can Seek Reclassification in Court Even If CBP Didn't Pursue
March 18, 2022 by Ben Perkins|Top News

The government can seek reclassification of an importer's merchandise in court at a higher duty rate, even when CBP did not previously pursue the rate increase against the importer, DOJ said in March 15 brief in support of its counterclaim in a tariff classification suit brought by Cyber Power -- which says the counterclaim sets a dangerous precedent (Cyber Power Systems (USA) Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00200).

Chainsaw Chain Importers Agree to Pay $500K Settlement Over Misclassified Imports Case
March 18, 2022 by Jacob Kopnick|Top News

Two chainsaw chain and blade importers, TriLink Saw Chain and TriLink Global, agreed to pay $525,000 to settle allegations that the companies misclassified their imports, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Iowa said. The U.S. alleged that the importers purposely classified their chain saw chains and blades from September 2018 through June 2019 under the wrong Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading to avoid paying Section 301 China tariffs -- a violation of the False Claims Act.