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. "China import").

Acronyms: Use all capital letters to ensure the search is not looking for that letter sequence instead.

Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., +CBP).

Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., -ruling).

Singular form: Always use the singular form when doing multi-word terms (e.g. "russian export control" instead of "russian export controls").

Shortest word form: When you have different word forms in a quoted (multi-word) term, you want to only include the shortest version if it is the last part of the expression (e.g., "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").

Month Passes Since Section 301 Cases Stayed Without Assignment
May 27, 2021 |Litigation

Importers filed a daily average of 1.25 new Section 301 cases in the 20 business days since Chief Judge Mark Barnett of the U.S. Court of International Trade signed his April 28 administrative order automatically staying any new complaints without assigning them to the three-judge panel he shares with Judges Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves (see 2104290048). Court records show that’s slightly fewer than the 1.45 daily average of cases filed in the 20 days before Barnett’s order, all of which were also stayed but assigned to the panel. There’s no evidence suggesting Barnett’s order is reducing the influx of new Section 301 challenges, nor was that his intent. His rationale, he told an April 26 status conference, was his worry that a future case would create a "conflict" forcing the recusal of one or more of the judges (see 2104280035).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity
Plaintiffs' Argument for Leave to File Reply in Section 301 Injunction Fight 'Disregards the Law,' DOJ Says
May 27, 2021 |Litigation

Plaintiffs' arguments on why they should be able to file a reply brief in discussions on a preliminary injunction in the massive Section 301 litigation disregard and misunderstand the law, as well as the Department of Justice's previous arguments, DOJ said in a May 26 response. DOJ deferred to the court's discretion whether they believe the plaintiff's proposed reply "aids the court's understanding of the disagreement between the [p]arties."

Topics:Country of origin cases
Steel Importers File Opening Brief at CAFC in Section 232 Tariff Challenge
May 26, 2021 by Jacob Kopnick|Top News

A group of steel importers, after suffering a defeat in the Court of International Trade, brought their broad challenge to the Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, arguing that the statute includes procedural requirements that were ignored in President Donald Trump's expansion of the tariffs. Filing its opening brief on May 24, the importers say that plain use of the mandatory word "shall" throughout Section 232 means the procedural requirements, such as an underlying report from the Commerce Department precipitating tariff action, are required. The steel importers also again argued that the commerce secretary's report is considered final agency action, ready for judicial review (Universal Steel Products, Inc. et al., v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1726).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity
DOJ Claims Against Section 301 Injunction ‘All Fail,’ Proposed Reply Says
May 24, 2021 by Paul Gluckman|Top News

“Good cause exists” for the Court of International Trade to grant Section 301 sample-case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products leave to reply to DOJ’s opposition to the preliminary injunction plaintiffs seek to freeze liquidation of unliquidated customs entries from China with lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure, said Akin Gump’s motion filed late May 20 in docket 1:21-cv-52.

Topics:Court of International Trade activity