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").

President, USTR Had ‘Discretionary’ Power to Levy Lists 3, 4A Tariffs: DOJ
June 3, 2021 by Paul Gluckman|Top News

The Department of Justice motioned the Court of International Trade late June 1 to dismiss the HMTX-Jasco sample case in the massive Section 301 litigation for “failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” HMTX-Jasco can’t establish that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative exceeded its “statutory authority” under the 1974 Trade Act when it ratcheted up the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports, nor did its actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) “as they were not arbitrary and capricious,” the government’s 77-page filing in docket 1:21-cv-52 said.

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings, Country of origin cases, Section 301 tariffs, CBP CROSS Rulings
Month Passes Since Section 301 Cases Stayed Without Assignment
May 27, 2021 |Litigation

Importers filed a daily average of 1.25 new Section 301 cases in the 20 business days since Chief Judge Mark Barnett of the U.S. Court of International Trade signed his April 28 administrative order automatically staying any new complaints without assigning them to the three-judge panel he shares with Judges Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves (see 2104290048). Court records show that’s slightly fewer than the 1.45 daily average of cases filed in the 20 days before Barnett’s order, all of which were also stayed but assigned to the panel. There’s no evidence suggesting Barnett’s order is reducing the influx of new Section 301 challenges, nor was that his intent. His rationale, he told an April 26 status conference, was his worry that a future case would create a "conflict" forcing the recusal of one or more of the judges (see 2104280035).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity
Plaintiffs' Argument for Leave to File Reply in Section 301 Injunction Fight 'Disregards the Law,' DOJ Says
May 27, 2021 |Litigation

Plaintiffs' arguments on why they should be able to file a reply brief in discussions on a preliminary injunction in the massive Section 301 litigation disregard and misunderstand the law, as well as the Department of Justice's previous arguments, DOJ said in a May 26 response. DOJ deferred to the court's discretion whether they believe the plaintiff's proposed reply "aids the court's understanding of the disagreement between the [p]arties."

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Country of origin cases