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").

Importer Mitsubishi's SCR Catalyst Blocks Filters, Not 'Other' Catalytic Reactors, US Says
December 20, 2024 by Kathryn Nucci|Litigation

In response to importer Mitsubishi Power Americas’ motion for judgment, the U.S. filed a cross-motion for judgment saying the importers’ products are filters and don’t fall under the “basket provision” for other catalytic reactors (Mitsubishi Power Americas v. U.S., CIT #21-00573).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings, Harmonized Tariff Schedule, CBP CROSS Rulings
CIT Upholds Use of Neutral FA, AFA in 33rd and 34th AD Reviews on Roller Bearings
December 19, 2024 |Top News

The Court of International Trade in a pair of decisions sustained the Commerce Department's use of neutral facts available against respondent Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. in the 33rd review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China and the agency's use of adverse facts available against the respondent in the AD order's 34th review. Judge Stephen Vaden said Commerce reasonably found in the 34th review that Tainai was aware of its unaffiliated suppliers' past non-cooperation but failed to work to the best of its ability to secure their cooperation.

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Country of origin cases, Antidumping Surrogate Values, Section 232 Exclusions
CIT Remands Xanthan Gum AD Review for Reconsideration of Coal Classification, Direct Energy Valuation
December 17, 2024 by Kathryn Nucci|Top News

Court of International Trade Judge Gary Katzmann again remanded parts of the Commerce Department remand results on the eighth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on xanthan gum from China. He also granted in part a U.S. motion to dismiss in his Dec. 16 decision.

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings, Country of origin cases, Harmonized Tariff Schedule, Antidumping Surrogate Values, Section 232 Exclusions
CIT Remands Xanthan Gum Administrative Review for Coal Classification, Energy Valuation
December 16, 2024 by Kathryn Nucci|Bulletin

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 16 remanded the Commerce Department’s classification of xanthan gum exporter Fufeng’s coal and its direct calculation of the exporter’s energy costs. Judge Gary Katzmann dismissed the exporter’s challenge to the Cohen’s d test and to the department’s decision to subtract Section 301 tariffs from the Fufeng’s value calculation (Neimenggu Fufeng Biotechnologies Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00068).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings, Country of origin cases, Harmonized Tariff Schedule, Antidumping Surrogate Values, Section 232 Exclusions