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 Drops Section 301 Duties on Yeti's Lids for Vacuum-Sealed Drinkware
December 30, 2024 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

The U.S. agreed to liquidate plastic lids for vacuum-sealed drinkware imported by Yeti Coolers without Section 301 duties, the parties said in a stipulated judgment at the Court of International Trade on Dec. 26. The goods were imported under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 3923.50.0000, dutiable at 5.3%, and secondary subheading 9903.88.03, which was subject to either a 10% or 25% Section 301 duty. After Yeti brought suit to challenge this classification, the government agreed to classify the goods under subheading 9617.00.6000, which covers parts of vacuum flasks and is dutiable at 7.2% but without Section 301 duties (Yeti Coolers v. U.S., CIT # 21-00526).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Harmonized Tariff Schedule, Section 301 tariffs
CBP Inconsistent in Decision to Not Exclude Certain Entries From Section 301 Tariffs, Importer Says
December 26, 2024 by Kathryn Nucci|Litigation

Importer Generac Power Systems brought on Dec. 20 two complaints to the Court of International Trade alleging CBP, in 2020, applied Section 301 tariffs to multiple of its entries despite excluding “substantially identical” merchandise (Generac Power Systems v. U.S., CIT # 20-03882, -03920).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Section 301 tariffs
US Solar Cell Maker, Designer Ask CIT for More Words for Reply in Solar Cell Duty Pause Suit
December 20, 2024 |Litigation

U.S. solar cell maker Auxin Solar and solar module designer Concept Clean Energy asked the Court of International Trade for another 3,500 words to reply to arguments from the government and solar cell exporters and importers in the pair's suit on the Commerce Department's duty pause on solar cells and modules from four Southeast Asian countries. Auxin and Concept Clean Energy said opposing counsel either consented or took no position to the motion (Auxin Solar v. U.S., CIT # 23-00274).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Section 301 tariffs
Importer Mitsubishi's SCR Catalyst Blocks Filters, Not 'Other' Catalytic Reactors, US Says
December 20, 2024 by Kathryn Nucci|Litigation

In response to importer Mitsubishi Power Americas’ motion for judgment, the U.S. filed a cross-motion for judgment saying the importers’ products are filters and don’t fall under the “basket provision” for other catalytic reactors (Mitsubishi Power Americas v. U.S., CIT #21-00573).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Harmonized Tariff Schedule, Section 301 tariffs
CIT Upholds Use of Neutral FA, AFA in 33rd and 34th AD Reviews on Roller Bearings
December 19, 2024 |Top News

The Court of International Trade in a pair of decisions sustained the Commerce Department's use of neutral facts available against respondent Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. in the 33rd review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China and the agency's use of adverse facts available against the respondent in the AD order's 34th review. Judge Stephen Vaden said Commerce reasonably found in the 34th review that Tainai was aware of its unaffiliated suppliers' past non-cooperation but failed to work to the best of its ability to secure their cooperation.

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Country of origin cases, Section 301 tariffs, Differential Pricing Analysis, Antidumping Surrogate Values