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").

US Wrong to Claim Automobile Accessories Exporter Seeking Relitigation of Ruling, Exporter Says
February 3, 2025 by Kathryn Nucci|Litigation

In its opposition to a reconsideration request in a vehicle sidebar classification case, the U.S. “misleads” the court by claiming that exporter Keystone Automotives was attempting to relitigate its position. Actually, the exporter said, its request is “based on the standard of review of the tariff exclusion” Keystone had relied on in its initial arguments (Keystone Automotive Operations v. U.S., CIT # 21-00215).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Country of origin cases, Section 301 tariffs, Differential Pricing Analysis
Tapered Roller Bearing Exporter to Appeal CIT Case on Use of Neutral FA
January 27, 2025 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

Exporter Shanghai Tainai Bearings Co. and importer C&U Americas will appeal a Court of International Trade decision sustaining the Commerce Department's use of neutral facts available against Tainai in the 33rd review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China. The court said Tainai's cooperation in the reviews raised questions about how "aggressively" it sought to gain the cooperation of its unaffiliated suppliers, though these questions didn't translate into the use of adverse facts available (see 2412180036). The court also upheld Commerce's practice of excluding additional revenue Tainai collected in connection with its payment of Section 301 duties from the company's U.S. price (Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00038).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Section 301 tariffs
Importer Drops Suit on Tariff Classification of Agricultural Sprayers
January 27, 2025 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

Importer Northern Tool & Equipment Co. dropped its customs suit at the Court of International Trade, which contested the classification of its agricultural sprayers. CBP liquidated the goods under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 8424.49.0000 and 8424.41.1000, dutiable at 2.4% and free of duty, respectively, and secondary subheading 9903.88.03, which carries a 25% Section 301 duty. The importer claimed that the goods should fall under subheading 9817.00.5000, free of duty. Counsel for Northern Tool didn't immediately respond to request for comment (Northern Tool & Equipment v. United States, CIT # 22-00197).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Harmonized Tariff Schedule, Section 301 tariffs