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").

Weekly/Monthly Planners Are Diaries, Not Calendars, US Tells CAFC
September 5, 2024 by Kathryn Nucci|Top News

On appeal, the U.S. supported Court of International Trade Judge Jane Restani’s decision that imported weekly/monthly planners were properly classified as “diaries” under heading 4820 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (see 2404100052). The decision subjected the importer to Section 301 tariffs (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
Section 301 Case Won't Be Heard at CAFC Until at Least November
August 29, 2024 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit didn't select the Section 301 litigation for its October schedule, setting up early November as the earliest time the case could be heard. Matt Nicely, counsel for the lead plaintiffs in the case involving over 4,000 companies, said in an email that he's "optimistic" oral argument in the action "will still happen before the end of the year." All arguing attorneys finished submitting their notices of conflicts with oral argument in April (HMTX Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).

Importer Says Its Products Are the Basis for Section 301 Exclusion That CBP Denied It
August 26, 2024 by Kathryn Nucci|Litigation

An importer filed Aug. 21 its long-delayed motion for judgment in its test case alleging its Chinese-origin selective catalytic reduction catalysts had wrongly been assessed Section 301 duties. The catalysts were misclassified by CBP as centrifuges instead of “reaction initiators, reaction accelerators and catalytic preparations, not elsewhere specified or included,” it said (Mitsubishi Power Americas v. U.S., CIT #21-00573).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Country of origin cases