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. "surrogate value").

Acronyms: Use all capital letters to ensure the search is not looking for that letter sequence instead. (e.g., CIT).

Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., CBP +ruling).

Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., ruling -NY).

Simplest form: Use the simplest form of a term (e.g. "russian export control" instead of "russian export controls") or "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").

CIT Drops 2 Customs Cases for Lack of Prosecution
April 3, 2025 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

The Court of International Trade dismissed two customs cases, one brought by Meijer Distribution and one by Printing Textiles, for failure to prosecute. Both were put on the customs case management calendar but were not removed before the expiration of the "applicable period of time of removal." Meijer's case concerned whether its hand soap entries of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 3401.30.50 were properly hit with Section 301 tariffs (see 2303130060). Meanwhile, the case from Printing Textiles, doing business as Berger Textiles, was on whether its coated fabric imports were properly subject to antidumping duties (see 2303150073). Neither attorney for either company responded to our requests for comment (Meijer Distribution v. United States, CIT # 23-00061) (Printing Textiles v. United States, CIT # 23-00062).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity
Importer Says Cables Used in Telecommunications Systems Are 'Telecommunications Cables'
April 2, 2025 by Kathryn Nucci|Litigation

Cable importer Cyber Power Systems said in a March 28 motion for judgment that CBP misclassified its products, resulting in imposition of Section 301 duties. It claimed its cables fall under the tariff-free Harmonized Tariff Schedule provision for “telecommunications cables” because they serve as parts of larger telecommunications systems (Cyber Power Systems (USA) v. United States, CIT # 21-00200).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings, Country of origin cases
Importer Tells CIT Its DC Motors Made in Vietnam, Not China
April 1, 2025 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

Importer Southern Motion told the Court of International Trade that its electric DC motors were made in Vietnam and thus should have received a country of origin determination of Vietnam and not China. Filing a complaint at the trade court on March 31, Southern Motion said its products were improperly assessed Section 301 duties as a result of the COO decision (Southern Motion v. United States, CIT # 25-00033).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Country of origin cases
Wood Flooring Importer to Pay Over $8.1M to Settle False Claims Act Duty Evasion Charges
March 27, 2025 by Jacob Kopnick|Penalties

California-based importer Evolutions Flooring and its owners, Mengya Lin and Jin Qian, agreed to settle claims they violated the False Claims Act by "knowingly and improperly evading customs duties" on multilayered wood flooring from China, DOJ announced. DOJ said the company and its owners will pay $8.1 million to settle the case, noting that whistleblower Urban Global will receive around $1.2 million of the proceeds.

Topics:Country of origin cases