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 3 Customs Cases for Lack of Prosecution
May 6, 2025 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

The Court of International Trade on May 2 dismissed three customs cases for lack of prosecution. All three were added to the customs case management calendar and not removed before the expiration of the "applicable period of time of removal" (Flow Control v. U.S., CIT # 21-00201; Safran Electronics and Defense v. U.S., CIT # 23-00086; Spector & Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00087).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Harmonized Tariff Schedule
US to Refund Importer's Paid Section 301 Duties on Aluminum Wheels in CIT Case
May 2, 2025 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

CBP will pay refunds of Section 301 duties paid on importer CITIC Dicastal Wheel Manufacturing's aluminum road wheels, the importer and the U.S. said in a stipulated judgment submitted to the Court of International Trade on April 30. The judgment said CITIC Dicastal's wheels were subject to an exclusion from a 10% Section 301 duty the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative granted for wheels imported under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8708.70.4545, which provides for aluminum wheels for motor vehicles of heading 8701 to 8705 (CITIC Dicastal Wheel Manufacturing Co. v. United States, CIT # 21-00159).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity
Importer Drops 2 Customs Cases on Classification of Network Management Controllers
May 1, 2025 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

Importer Snap One, doing business as SnapAV or Control 4, voluntarily dismissed two customs suits at the Court of International Trade on April 28. The company brought the cases to contest CBP's classification of its network management controllers of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8537.10.9170, dutiable at 2.7%, arguing that instead the goods fit under subheading 8517.62.0090, free of general and Section 301 duties. Counsel for Snap One didn't immediately respond to request for comment (Snap One v. United States, CIT #s 23-00078, -00079).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity