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 Settles With Plywood Importer in 2021 Case
January 21, 2025 |Litigation

The United States and plywood importer Richmond International Forest Products settled their 2021 case in the Court of International Trade Jan. 16. The parties agreed in a motion for stipulated judgment that the exporter’s entries of Chinese-origin plywood were subject to antidumping, countervailing and Section 301 duties. Its Cambodia-origin plywood, however, was not subject to any of the three (Richmond International Forest Products v. United States, CIT #s 21-00063, -00318, -00319).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Country of origin cases, Section 301 tariffs
US Pushes Back Against Vehicle Side Bar Importer's Request for Reconsideration
January 21, 2025 by Kathryn Nucci|Litigation

Vehicle side bar importer Keystone Automotive Operations’ classification dispute shouldn’t be granted reconsideration after a Court of International Trade ruling went against it (see 2410070030), the U.S. said Jan. 15 (Keystone Automotive Operations v. United States, CIT # 21-00215).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Harmonized Tariff Schedule, Section 301 tariffs, Statutory Interpretation
SDNY Says Amazon Didn't Knowingly Violate FCA on Fur Clothing Imports
January 13, 2025 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Jan. 3 dismissed a False Claims Act suit against Amazon, which alleged that the online retail giant conspired with Chinese manufacturers to avoid paying fees and tariffs on fur products. Judge Edgardo Ramos held that importer Henig Furs, the company that brought the suit on behalf of the U.S., failed to adequately allege that Amazon knowingly violated the FCA or was engaged in a conspiracy to violate the statute (United States, ex rel. Mike Henig v. Amazon.com, S.D.N.Y. # 19-05673).

Topics:Section 301 tariffs