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").

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
CIT Enters Nearly $3.4M Default Judgment Against Importer for Evading AD, Section 301 Duties
May 29, 2024 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

The Court of International Trade on May 23 entered a default judgment against importer Rayson Global and its owner Doris Cheng due to their failure to file an answer to the government's complaint accusing them of avoiding antidumping and Section 301 duties on uncovered mattress innersprings from China (United States v. Rayson Global, CIT # 23-00201).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity
On Appeal, Importer Pushes Back Against CIT Reasoning That Planners Were Diaries
May 29, 2024 by Kathryn Nucci|Top News

The Court of International Trade was wrong to rule that imported calendar planners should be classified by CBP as diaries instead of calendars, the importer said in its opening brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 24 (Blue Sky The Color of Imagination v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1710).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings, Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity, Country of origin cases, Harmonized Tariff Schedule, CBP CROSS Rulings
Drug Company Files Second Amended Complaint in Case From 2022
May 24, 2024 by Kathryn Nucci|Litigation

In a 2022 case brought against both CBP and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, plaintiff Curia Global Inc., a drug development company, once again amended its complaint to remove one of its family companies, Curia Wisconsin, because “the entity is in the process of changing ownership and no longer wishes to join in this action" (Curia Global Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00247).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Country of origin cases
US Says No CIT Jurisdiction in Case on Excluded Tires Since DOT Called the Shots
May 15, 2024 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

The U.S. on May 13 moved to dismiss a lawsuit challenging CBP's exclusion of two rubber tire entries, claiming that CIT has no jurisdiction because the entries were excluded at the behest of the Transportation Department's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). As a result, the exclusions were not protestable decisions made by CBP, so the Court of International Trade had no subject matter jurisdiction under Section 1581(a) (Inspired Ventures v. United States, CIT # 24-00062).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings