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").

Section 301 Plaintiffs Say Loper Bright Crucial for Resolution of Case
August 1, 2024 by Jacob Kopnick|Top News

Plaintiffs in the massive Section 301 litigation said the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, which overturned the Chevron principle of deferring to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes (see 2406280051), is relevant to the consequential litigation concerning the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 duties (HMTX Industries v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Country of origin cases, Statutory Interpretation
CBP: China Is Fertilizer's Country of Origin for Marking, but It Qualifies for USMCA Treatment
July 22, 2024 by Joanna Marsh|Customs Rulings

The Hyshield brand plant fertilizer produced by British Columbia-based Sipco Innovations ultimately should have China as its country of origin for marking purposes. However, the country of origin for the Hyshield product is Canada for Section 301 purposes, and it qualifies for preferential tariff treatment under USMCA, according to a May 8 ruling addressed to CBP’s Pharmaceuticals, Health and Chemicals Center of Excellence and Expertise in Newark, New Jersey, and recently released by CBP.

Topics:Tariff classification rulings, Country of origin cases, CBP CROSS Rulings
US Challenges Importer's Alleged Improper Use of Request for Admission in Customs Suit
July 16, 2024 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

Importer Atlas Power is attempting to use a U.S. request to withdraw an admission of fact in a customs case to root out the government's "alternative classification" of the graphics processing units at issue, the U.S. said following Atlas' opposition to the U.S. motion (Atlas Power v. United States, CIT # 23-00084).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings, Country of origin cases