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").

Section 301 Plaintiffs Seek Injunction to Bar Liquidation of Lists 3, 4A Goods
April 26, 2021 by Paul Gluckman|Top News

Plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products in the massive Section 301 litigation’s sample case moved April 23 in the U.S. Court of International Trade for a “protective preliminary injunction” to suspend liquidation of all unliquidated customs entries imported from China with Lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure. The Akin Gump motion on behalf of HMTX-Jasco came days before the court’s three-judge panel convenes a status conference in which plaintiffs are expected to air their demands for stipulated refunds of all liquidated entries if they prevail in the litigation.

Topics:Court of International Trade activity
Wood Importer Says Its Hardwood Plywood Made in Cambodia, Wrongly Assessed Duties
April 23, 2021 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

Wood importer Richmond International Forest Products launched a challenge in the Court of International Trade claiming its imports of hardwood plywood from Cambodia were erroneously deemed to be of Chinese origin by CBP. In an April 21 complaint, RIFP said its imports were improperly hit with antidumping and countervailing duties, Section 301 tariffs, Merchandise Processing Fees and additional Harbor Maintenance Fee. In addition, RIFP claims that CBP's failure to consider what it sees as key evidence violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the importer's Fifth Amendment rights of due process.

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Country of origin cases
Applicability of 301 Tariffs on Electric Vehicle Motors Depends on Origin of 'Most Essential Components'
April 22, 2021 by Tim Warren|Customs Rulings

The origin of electric vehicle motors and the applicability of Section 301 tariffs depends on where the two most important components of the engine are made, said CBP in a recently released ruling. In response to a country of origin ruling request from LG Electronics, CBP considered multiple manufacturing scenarios for the motors.

Topics:Country of origin cases