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").

Importers to Appeal CIT Decision Over Need to File Protest for Section 301 Exclusions
July 23, 2021 |Litigation

Importers ARP Materials and Harrison Steel Castings will file an appeal of a Court of International Trade opinion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, according to a July 21 notice of appeal. The decision, penned by Judge Miller Baker, found importers must file protests to preserve their ability to obtain refunds under Section 301 tariff exclusions (see 2106110053). The court said it did not have the jurisdiction to hear ARP and Harrison's challenge because the importers did not timely file protests of the CBP liquidations imposing the Section 301 tariffs (The Harrison Steel Castings Co. v. United States, CIT #20-00147).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity
Court Sets Two More Status Conferences in Section 301 Litigation
July 22, 2021 by Paul Gluckman|Litigation

Justice Department lawyers “are still conferring internally” about modifications proposed by the Section 301 plaintiffs to the July 6 preliminary injunction (PI) order freezing liquidations of unliquidated customs entries from China with lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure, said a government filing late Tuesday at the U.S. Court of International Trade, made “under protest” due to defendants’ opposition to the PI. “A lack of response to any specific proposal should not be interpreted as agreeing to that proposal,” Justice said. The government supports reliquidating, if the plaintiffs win the litigation, any entries that liquidated inadvertently during the PI order’s temporary restraining order (TRO) period due to CBP limitations, it said. “CBP only has the functionality to return liquidated entries to unliquidated status one entry at a time, and very few CBP personnel are knowledgeable and trained to utilize this very limited and extraordinary functionality,” Justice said.

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