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").

DOJ Proposes Strict Terms if It Loses Section 301 Injunction Fight
May 18, 2021 by Paul Gluckman|Top News

The preliminary injunction that the Section 301 plaintiffs seek to freeze liquidations of unliquidated customs entries from China with lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure (see 2104260010) is “unwarranted,” falls short of the high legal "bar" required and “would impose an enormous administrative burden” on CBP when the agency’s resources already are stretched thin, DOJ’s May 14 opposition argued at the Court of International Trade. Importers filed for the injunction April 23 after DOJ wouldn't stipulate it would support refunds of liquidated entries if the plaintiffs won the litigation and the tariffs were ruled unlawful.

Topics:Court of International Trade activity
Importers Ask White House to Settle Massive Section 301 Litigation
May 13, 2021 by Jacob Kopnick|Top News

A group of importers involved in the litigation over the Section 301 tariffs sent a letter on May 7 to the White House urging a settlement in the case to "alleviate the economic and social harms these tariffs have caused to U.S. companies, U.S. workers and the overall U.S. economy." Led by the importers selected to serve as the test case for the litigation, HMTX Industries and Jasco Products Company, the companies told the White House they are seeking an end to the tariffs and a full refund of the "unlawfully" collected lists 3 and 4A duties collected from the companies. The case is currently making its way through the Court of International Trade.

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Country of origin cases
Flooring Importer Launches Case in CIT Over Section 301 Refunds Denied
May 12, 2021 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

Flooring importer FD Sales Company, LLC launched a challenge in the Court of International Trade claiming that CBP improperly denied some of its imports exclusions from Section 301 tariffs (FD Sales Company v. U.S., CIT # 21-00244). In a May 7 complaint, FD Sales said it brought in 49 entries of vinyl flooring, engineered wood flooring, “Aquaguard” wood flooring, tile saws and tile nippers on which it was granted exclusions from the Section 301 tariffs. The importer sought a refund of $671,442.81 in duties paid on the goods, of which $238,025.44 was granted by CBP. FD Sales claims that its imports were properly excluded from the additional duties “pursuant to exclusions to Section 301 granted by the Office of the United States Trade Representative.”

Topics:Court of International Trade activity