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").

CAFC Issues Mandate After Order Requiring Protest for Retroactive Section 301 Duty Exclusions
January 23, 2024 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 22 issued its mandate in a pair of cases seeking to retroactively apply Section 301 tariff exclusions. In the suits, the appellate court sustained the dismissal of the cases for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that a protest must have been filed with CBP to properly effectuate relief. The Court of International Trade initially said jurisdiction was not to be had under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, since the court would have had jurisdiction under Section 1581(a) had a protest been filed (see 2209060035). The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that the true nature of the suits contests CBP's assessment of the duties and not the U.S. Trade Representative's decision to grant an exclusion, even though the exclusions were granted after the deadline for filing a protest had lapsed (ARP Materials v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 21-2176) (The Harrison Steel Castings Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 21-2177).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity
Target Tells CAFC US Failed to Distinguish 'Cemex' in Case Against CIT Order
January 22, 2024 by Jacob Kopnick|Top News

Target Corp. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the U.S. failed to distinguish the court's opinion in Cemex v. U.S. from Target's case, in which the retail giant is contesting a court-ordered reliquidation of its entries that erroneously received a favorable antidumping duty rate. Target said that no "amount of legal legerdemain and reference to" distinguishable case law can "mask the vacuity of" the "attempted distinctions" (Target Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2274).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity, Country of origin cases
Commerce Drops Partial AFA for Partial Neutral FA, Slashes Roller Bearing Exporter's AD Rate
January 16, 2024 by Jacob Kopnick|Top News

The Commerce Department swapped its use of partial adverse facts available for partial neutral facts available for antidumping duty respondent Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. after admitting that it isn't able to determine whether Tainai has "sufficient control over its suppliers to induce their cooperation" (Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00038).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Country of origin cases, Antidumping Surrogate Values