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").

CIT Denies US Bid to Extend Time to Reply to Discovery Admissions in Customs Suit
June 6, 2024 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

The Court of International Trade on May 30 denied the government's out of time motion to extend its time to respond to importer Atlas Power's requests for admissions for all discovery in a customs suit. Judge Stephen Vaden said it denied the motion since relief is available under CIT Rule 36, which "includes a mechanism for a party to request that an admission be withdrawn or amended" (Atlas Power v. U.S., CIT # 23-00084).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity
CIT Dismisses Customs Suit on Children's e-Writing Tablets
June 5, 2024 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

The Court of International Trade on June 4 dismissed a customs classification suit on kids' erasable e-writing tablets from China following importer Kent Displays' notice of dismissal. The notice came after the importer lost a similar case at the trade court, which saw the government prevail in claiming that the tablets fit under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8543, which has a 2.6% duty rate (see 2405090037). In the separate case, Kent was freed from having to pay Section 301 duties on its imports since they didn't cover the tablets at the time of entry (Kent Displays v. United States, CIT # 20-03803).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity
Commerce Drops Xanthan Gum Exporter's 154.07% AD Rate to 0% on Remand
May 29, 2024 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

The Commerce Department on remand at the Court of International Trade reduced the antidumping duty rate for respondent Meihua Group International Trading (Hong Kong) from 154.07% to zero percent in the 2019-20 review of the AD order on xanthan gum from China. The agency reviewed its use of adverse facts available against the company due to the exporter's explanation that its U.S. duties and Section 301 duties are "subject to a possible recalculation" (Meihua Group International Trading (Hong Kong) v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00069).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity