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").

Court Preparing to Set Section 301 Oral Argument for Early 2022
November 12, 2021 by Paul Gluckman|Litigation

Lawyers for the Department of Justice and Section 301 sample-case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, “in preparation for scheduling oral argument” in the case, have until Nov. 12 to email the Court of International Trade about any “scheduling conflicts that would preclude their attendance at the hearing” in January or February of 2022, an order entered on Nov. 10 said. Akin Gump attorneys for HMTX and Jasco are scheduled to file their final papers with the court on Nov. 15. the Nov. 10 order appeared to dash any possibility oral argument would be held before year-end, as some lawyers involved in the litigation had expected, as an outside chance. Several thousand complaints have been filed in the massive Section 301 litigation since September 2020, all seeking to have the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports declared unlawful and any paid duties refunded with interest (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity
Akin Gump Files for Acer America in Section 301 Litigation
November 3, 2021 by Paul Gluckman|Litigation

Acer America and its repair and service subsidiary joined the massive Section 301 litigation, alleging in a Nov. 1 complaint at the Court of International Trade that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative ran afoul of the 1974 Trade Act and the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act when it imposed the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports. Acer’s complaint cites tariff exposure to 16 classifications of goods on List 3 and four on List 4A, including for PCs, speakers and projectors. Acer’s law firm is Akin Gump, which crafted the first-filed HMTX Industries-Jasco Products complaint in September 2020 that springboarded the roughly 3,800 nearly identical actions to follow, all seeking to have the tariff rulemakings vacated and the duties refunded with interest. HMTX-Jasco is now the designated sample case, and Akin Gump’s deadline is Nov. 15 for filing papers supporting its Aug. 2 motion for judgment on the agency record. It’s the final entry on the court’s April 13 scheduling order. Oral argument is expected next, possibly as soon as December (Acer America Corporation v. U.S., CIT #21-00575).

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