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").

Syringe Importer Says 100% Tariff Hike Not Related to Section 301 Action, Violated Trade Act
September 30, 2024 by Jacob Kopnick|Top News

Texas-based syringe importer Retractable Technologies took to the Court of International Trade to contest the 100% increase of Section 301 tariffs recently imposed on needles and syringes from China. The complaint is seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction against the duties, claiming that the tariffs could send the company out of business (Retractable Technologies v. United States, CIT # 24-00185).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity
Importer Drops Suit Seeking Section 301 Exclusions on Hand Sanitizers
September 26, 2024 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

Importer Omni Distributors on Sept. 24 voluntarily dismissed its customs case at the Court of International Trade on the classification of its hand sanitizer imports. Omni Distributors said the goods, classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 3824.99.9297, should qualify for Section 301 exclusions under secondary subheading 9903.88.45. Counsel for the importer declined to comment (Omni Distributors v. United States, CIT # 22-00250).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity
US Agrees Trade Court Committed Reversible Error, Planner Importer Tells CAFC
September 20, 2024 by Kathryn Nucci|Top News

An importer of weekly/monthly planners told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Sept. 18 that it and the government were in agreement that the Court of International Trade had committed a reversible error by classifying its planners as diaries (Blue Sky The Color of Imagination v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1710).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity
Importer Ditches Customs Case on Automobile Seat Covers Classification
September 12, 2024 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

Importer Plasticolor Molded Products on Sept. 10 dismissed its customs case on the classification of its automobile seat covers. CBP classified the goods under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8708.99.8180, dutiable at 2.5%, with Section 301 tariffs assessed under subheading 9903.88.03. Plasticolor said the goods fit under subheading 8708.99.8180, dutiable at 2.5%, but were excluded from Section 301 duties under subheading 9903.88.43. Counsel for Plasticolor declined to comment on the reason for the dismissal (Plasticolor Molded Products v. United States, CIT # 20-03822).