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").

Chamber Objects to Legislation to Change AD/CVD Laws
December 3, 2021 |AD/CVD

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce objects to legislation meant to update antidumping and countervailing duty laws, it said in a letter to leadership of House Ways and Means Committee and its Trade Subcommittee. Soon after the Chamber sent its letter, lawmakers introduced the House version of the Eliminating Global Market Distortions to Protect American Jobs Act, the legislation that the Chamber has concerns about. "The Chamber opposes this bill, which has not been subject to the scrutiny and deliberation required for a complex, far-reaching measure amending U.S. AD/CVD laws," the Chamber said. "This major overhaul of U.S. trade laws could add to inflationary pressures by raising costs for a wide variety of goods, including many products sourced from U.S. allies and partners."

CBP Issues Guidance for Liquidation Extension Requests Related to Section 301 Litigation
December 3, 2021 |Litigation

CBP will deny liquidation extension requests that are filed "based solely on the pending CIT litigation challenging the lawfulness of the Section 301 duties on Chinese goods under List 3 and/or List 4A," the agency said in CSMS message. CBP will "place protests challenging the lawfulness of the Section 301 duties imposed on Chinese goods under List 3 and/or List 4A in 'Suspended' status under 'Other,' as CBP will not be acting on these protests at this time," it said. "The suspension of protests under the 'Other' category does not in any manner acknowledge the validity of such protests but is merely an administrative convenience for CBP. This guidance regarding liquidation extensions and protest processing does not pertain to entries filed under List 1 (subheading 9903.88.01), List 2 (subheading 9903.88.02), submissions pertaining to exclusion requests pending with the U.S. Trade Representative, or submissions not contesting the validity of List 3 and/or List 4A Section 301 duties on Chinese goods."

CIT Notes Jurisdictional Gray Area in Section 301 Refund Case, Gives Parties 30 Days to Finish Case
November 24, 2021 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

The Court of International Trade, noting an impasse on a key jurisdictional question in a customs case in a Nov. 22 letter, gave the litigants 30 days to work out a solution on how best to proceed. Acknowledging the legitimacy of both sides' jurisdictional claims, Judge Jane Restani said that if the parties fail to resolve the matter in 30 days, then the plaintiff, FD Sales Company, has 10 days to amend its complaint (FD Sales Company LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00224).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity