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 Files Second, Identical Complaint Launching Classification Battle Over Hoverboards
December 13, 2021 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

Importer 3BTech launched a second, identical classification battle over its electric scooters, known as hoverboards, in a Dec. 10 complaint in which it alleges the hoverboards were assessed duties under the wrong Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading at entry into the U.S. 3BTech argues for a different HTS subheading than the one given to it by CBP, and, failing that, argues for an exclusion from the Section 301 China tariffs granted by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (3BTech, Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00026).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings, Country of origin cases, Harmonized Tariff Schedule
Lawn Mower Engine Importer Seeks Duty-Free Treatment for Engine Entries at CIT
December 10, 2021 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

Importer MTD Products Inc. argued in its Dec. 8 complaint at the Court of International Trade that its lawn mower engines qualify for duty-free treatment and, in the alternative, an exclusion to the Section 301 China tariffs, and that CBP improperly denied its protest claiming as much. The importer brought in spark-ignition reciprocating or rotary internal combustion piston engines from China, each valued at less than $180, that are used in walk-behind, riding and zero-turn riding lawn mowers (MTD Products Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00036).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Harmonized Tariff Schedule
Importer Seeks Refund at CIT for Overpaid Duties Due to Customs Broker's Clerical Error
December 9, 2021 by Jacob Kopnick|Top News

CBP unfairly denied importer Compressed Air Systems' protest showing that it overpaid duties and fees for its air compressor and vacuum pump part entries, CAS argued in its Dec. 7 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Due to a clerical error committed by the customs broker, the entries were overvalued, CAS said. CBP then refused to fix the error after the importer protested CBP's liquidation of the entries, leading the company to file suit with the trade court (Compressed Air Systems, LLC v. CBP, CIT #21-00615).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Country of origin cases