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 Fights for Section 301 Exclusions on Telecommunications Cables at CIT
October 26, 2021 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

Importer Cyber Power Systems (USA) Inc.'s telecommunications cables qualify for Section 301 China tariff exclusions and the duties it paid on the cables should be refunded, the importer argued in an Oct. 22 complaint at the Court of International Trade challenging CBP's denial of its protest, which sought to apply a particular exclusion (Cyber Power Systems (USA) Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00200).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity
Air Fryers Are Not Ovens, Importer Tells CIT in Customs Tiff
October 22, 2021 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

Air fryers are not ovens, and should not be classified as such, air fryer importer Tristar Products argued in its Oct. 20 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Kicking off its classification battle at CIT, Tristar argued that the air fryers don't belong under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading for ovens and should be spared the 25% Section 301 China tariffs levied on ovens (Tristar Products, Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00563).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings
Plaintiffs Ask Court to Reverse Dismissals in LED Lamp Customs Spat Due to 'Excusable Neglect'
October 22, 2021 by Jacob Kopnick|Top News

The Court of International Trade should reconsider its dismissals of multiple classification lawsuits over LED lamps because the events that resulted in the dismissals constituted "excusable neglect," counsel for Target and other LED importers argued in an Oct. 15 motion. In 10 cases making the classification challenge, the plaintiffs' counsel, John Peterson of Neville Peterson, argued that the plaintiffs' failure to extend the case's stay on the Customs Case Management Calendar "reasonably resulted from events both practical and circumstantial" (Target General Merchandise, Inc. v. United States, CIT #14-00283).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings, Harmonized Tariff Schedule