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").

US Files 2nd Bid for Default Judgment in Customs Penalty Case on Innersprings
May 15, 2025 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

The U.S. filed a second motion for default judgment against importer Rayson Global and its owner, Doris Cheng, in a customs penalty case after the Court of International Trade rejected the first bid for default judgment for failing to support its claim for a nearly $3.4 million penalty. In its second attempt to secure default judgment, the U.S. defended its claim that the merchandise at issue is valued at nearly $3.4 million (United States v. Rayson Global, CIT # 23-00201).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Country of origin cases
CIT Judges Sharply Question Legality of Reciprocal Tariffs During Hearing
May 14, 2025 by Jacob Kopnick|Top News

The Court of International Trade on May 13 heard arguments in the lead case on the president's ability to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Judges Jane Restani, Gary Katzmann and Timothy Reif pressed counsel for the plaintiffs, the Liberty Justice Center's Jeffrey Schwab, and DOJ attorney Eric Hamilton on whether the court can review whether a declared emergency is "unusual and extraordinary," as well as the applicability of Yoshida International v. U.S., a key precedential decision on the issue, and whether the major questions doctrine applies and controls the case (V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, CIT # 25-00066).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity
Clamshell Food Container Importer Says CBP Verbally Assured It of Section 301 Exclusion
May 13, 2025 by Kathryn Nucci|Litigation

Food storage importer Huhtamaki brought a May 8 complaint to the Court of International Trade saying CBP wrongly applied Section 301 duties to its clamshell container imports. Prior to entry, the importer said, it had undertaken “a months-long wild-goose chase” with CBP that ended with verbal confirmation the imports were excluded (Huhtamaki, Inc. v. United States, CIT # 24-00050).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings
12 States File for PI Against IEEPA Tariffs, Claim Tariffs Can't 'Deal With' Stated Emergencies
May 9, 2025 |Top News

President Donald Trump's reciprocal tariffs fail to satisfy the International Emergency Economic Powers Act's requirements by failing to identify an "unusual and extraordinary" threat in relying on "longstanding trade policy problems," 12 states, led by Oregon and Arizona, argued. Submitting a motion for a preliminary injunction against all tariffs imposed under IEEPA, the states also said the reciprocal tariffs, and the tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico, don't "deal with" the threats they identify (The State of Oregon v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00077).

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