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").

‘Not Possible’ to Suspend Section 301 Liquidations en Masse, DOJ Says
September 1, 2021 by Paul Gluckman|Top News

The Justice Department, in a major Section 301 litigation policy reversal, said Aug. 31 it agreed to stipulate that refunds will be available on liquidated customs entries from China with lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure if importers prevail in the massive volume of cases inundating the Court of International Trade to vacate the tariffs. Akin Gump lawyers for sample case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products responded on Aug. 31 that they're "pleased" with the government's stipulation as something the plaintiffs have advocated for months, but not with DOJ's "bewildering" proposal that importers would still be required to file spreadsheet submissions in a CBP repository.

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Section 301 tariffs
Apple, Intel File Section 301 Cases on 2-Year Anniversary of List 4A Notice
August 24, 2021 |Litigation

Apple and Intel were the two heavy hitters joining the Section 301 litigation Aug. 20, when two dozen complaints in total were filed at the Court of International Trade seeking to vacate the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese goods and get the duties refunded. It was the highest volume of complaints filed on a single day since early in the litigation that will be a year old Sept. 10. Aug. 20 marked two years after the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative published its Federal Register notice imposing List 4A tariffs (see 2108190063). Court rules require plaintiffs to begin an action within two years “after the cause of action first accrues.” Intel “timely filed this action with respect to any entry of merchandise on which List 4A duties have been assessed, and any entry of merchandise on which List 3 duties were not definitively assessed before August 20, 2019,” the chipmaker’s complaint said, using language typical in the others filed the same day. Importers will likely argue alternatively in complaints yet to come that their two-year clocks started when List 4A took effect Sept. 1, 2019, or when they paid their first tariffs or their customs entries reached liquidation.

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Country of origin cases, Section 301 tariffs
State Department Releases Digest of US Practice in International Law
August 23, 2021 |Other U.S.

The State Department released the 2020 Digest of United States Practice in International Law, detailing developments in the field for the 2020 calendar year. The publication provides a record of the “views and practice of the U.S. Government in public and private international law,” the State Department said Aug. 18. The publication discusses key court decisions on topics ranging from nationality, citizenship and passports to international crimes. A section on international trade covers investment disputes under free trade agreements, World Trade Organization developments and intellectual property and Section 301 proceedings.

Topics:Court of International Trade activity