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 Vies for Preferred HTS Classification of Animal Antibiotic CTC Concentrate at CIT
February 28, 2022 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

CBP wrongly classified animal antibiotic chlortetracycline concentrate feed grade powder (CTC concentrate), resulting in the imposition of Section 301 China tariffs on the imports, Zoetis Services said in a Feb. 24 complaint at the Court of International Trade. While CBP classified the powder as a feed preparation, Zeotis says it should have classified it has a medicament (Zoetis Services LLC v. U.S., CIT #22-00056).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings
Dispute Over Origin of Power Supplies Headed to Trial, CIT Says
February 25, 2022 by Jacob Kopnick|Top News

Neither importer Cyber Power Systems (USA) Inc. nor the U.S. succeeded in persuading the Court of International Trade that their side was right in a tiff over the country of origin for shipments of uninterruptible power supplies and a surge voltage protector. Judge Leo Gordon, in a Feb. 24 order, denied both parties' motions for judgment, ordering the litigants to pick dates on which to set up a trial.

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings, Country of origin cases, CBP CROSS Rulings
No Proof USTR Weighed Section 301 ‘Update’ Report in Tariff Decisions, Plaintiffs Say
February 18, 2022 by Paul Gluckman|Top News

The U.S. Court of International Trade should deny the Department of Justice's motion to add a November 2018 investigatory “update” report from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to the administrative record in the Section 301 litigation (see 2202160033) because the government has failed to show that USTR “actually relied on or considered” the report when it was deciding to impose either the Lists 3 or List 4A tariffs on Chinese imports, Akin Gump lawyers for sample-case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products said in a partial opposition brief filed Feb. 16.

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Country of origin cases, Section 301 tariffs