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 Grants Default Judgment Against Importer, Owner Carrying Nearly $3.4M Penalty
July 18, 2025 |Bulletin

The Court of International Trade on July 18 granted the government's motion for default judgment against importer Rayson Global and its owner Doris Cheng, ordering the defendants to pay a civil penalty totaling nearly $3.4 million along with all duties, taxes and fees that remain unpaid on the unliquidated entries of mattress innersprings at issue in the case. Judge Timothy Stanceu granted the motion for default judgment after previously rejecting the government's valuation of the merchandise due to its lack of factual support. This time around, Stanceu found that the U.S. properly pleaded that Rayson and Cheng negligently declared their Chinese-origin innerspring as being from Thailand, avoiding ordinary 6% duties, Section 301 duties and 234.51% antidumping duties.

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Country of origin cases
CAFC Receives 5 Amicus Briefs in Support of Suit Against IEEPA Tariffs
July 9, 2025 by Jacob Kopnick|Top News

Five different groups of amici on July 8 filed briefs in the case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the legality of President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. All five briefs argued against the tariffs, though they differed in their specific approach or legal arguments (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity, Country of origin cases
Importer Says Frozen Eel Entries Aren't Transformed in China, Remain US Products
June 30, 2025 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

Importer American Eel Depot filed a pair of complaints at the Court of International Trade on June 27 to contest CBP's classification of its frozen roasted eel under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 1604.17.10 and secondary subheading 9903.88.03, subjecting the goods to Section 301 duties. The company argued that its goods aren't products of China but, in fact, have a country of origin of the U.S. (American Eel Depot v. United States, CIT # 21-00278, -00279).

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