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").

Tesla Joins Section 301 Tariff Fight
May 4, 2021 |Litigation

Tesla filed a lawsuit challenging the imposition of lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on China, becoming the latest company to join the litigation involving more than 3,700 other cases. In an April 30 complaint filed with the Court of International Trade, Tesla, as an importer of goods subject to the Section 301 tariffs, launched its lawsuit, which will be subject to an automatic stay pursuant to a recent administrative order from the court (see 2104290048). The order pauses all filings challenging the tariffs that are not placed under the HMTX and Jasco Products test case.

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Section 301 tariffs
Few New Materials Populate USTR’s Section 301 Administrative Record
May 4, 2021 by Paul Gluckman|Top News

Nearly 600 pages comprise two administrative record indexes, one “non-confidential,” the other “confidential,” filed April 30 with the Court of International Trade by government defendants in the massive Section 301 litigation challenging the lawfulness of the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports. The roughly 3,600+ complaints seek to get the tariffs vacated and the duties refunded, alleging they run afoul of the 1974 Trade Act and violate 1946 Administrative Procedure Act protections against sloppy rulemakings.

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Section 301 tariffs
CBP Further Clarifies Origin of Electric Motors, Finds Stator Gives Essential Character
April 30, 2021 by Brian Feito|Customs Rulings

A newly issued CBP ruling further clarifies how the agency determines country of origin for electric motors. After having recently found that the stator and the rotor are the “most essential components” of an electric motor and, under a substantial transformation analysis, determine the country of origin (see 2104210041), the agency on April 22 issued another ruling that considered motors where the rotor and stator were made in different countries, and found the stator assembly controlling.

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings, Country of origin cases
CIT Chief Judge Orders Stay of New Section 301 Cases
April 30, 2021 by Paul Gluckman|Top News

Chief Judge Mark Barnett of the Court of International Trade signed an administrative order April 28 that will automatically stay any new complaints filed in the massive Section 301 litigation before they are assigned to the three-judge panel he shares with Judges Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves. Any lawyer seeking to lift the stay of a new Section 301 case must first consult with the plaintiffs' steering committee at least three days before filing a motion and must show “good cause” for the exemption, the order said.

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Section 301 tariffs
CIT Signals Path Forward for Unassigned Section 301 Cases, Preliminary Injunction
April 29, 2021 by Jacob Kopnick|Top News

Court of International Trade Chief Judge Mark Barnett suggested during an April 26 status conference that an automatic stay could be in order for all cases challenging Lists 3 and 4A of the Section 301 tariffs that are unassigned to the three-judge panel. The government defense and the 15-member steering committee representing the plaintiffs did not object. Under Barnett's suggested order, all new cases without assignment to the panel would automatically be stayed and would follow comparable procedures to other cases under the HMTX Industries and Jasco Products test case to lift the stay.

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Section 301 tariffs