International Trade Today 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

Multi-word term: Place inside quotes to ensure an exact match together (e.g. "forced labor").

Term list: Separate terms with spaces, not commas or semicolons to find either word (e.g. AD/CVD CBP).

Acronyms: Use all capital letters (e.g., ACE).

Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., tariffs +Canada).

Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., FDA -alert).

Simplest form: Use the simplest form of a term (e.g. "metal" instead of "metals" or "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").

De Minimis Bill Introduced in House
January 10, 2025 |Congress

Reps. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., and Neal Dunn, R-Fla., introduced a bill to change the scope of packages eligible for de minimis. No bill text was available Jan. 10 from Suozzi's office, but former Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., said before he retired that Suozzi would be taking over his push to curtail de minimis.

SDNY Says Amazon Didn't Knowingly Violate FCA on Fur Clothing Imports
January 10, 2025 by Jacob Kopnick|Penalties and Courts

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Jan. 3 dismissed a False Claims Act suit against Amazon, which alleged that the online retail giant conspired with Chinese manufacturers to avoid paying fees and tariffs on fur products. Judge Edgardo Ramos held that importer Henig Furs, the company that brought the suit on behalf of the U.S., failed to adequately allege that Amazon knowingly violated the FCA or was engaged in a conspiracy to violate the statute (United States, ex rel. Mike Henig v. Amazon.com, S.D.N.Y. # 19-05673).

Topics:Customs duty
CIT Rejects US Bid for Default Judgment in Customs Penalty Suit on Innersprings
January 9, 2025 by Jacob Kopnick|Penalties and Courts

The Court of International Trade on Jan. 8 denied the government's bid for default judgment against importer Rayson Global and its owner and CEO Doris Cheng in a customs penalty case, with Judge Timothy Stanceu taking issue with the U.S. claim for a monetary penalty totaling nearly $3.4 million.

Topics:Section 301 tariff exclusions, Customs duty, Court of International Trade, Generalized System of Preferences (GSP)
Textile Interests Question Section 301's Suitability in USTR's Nicaragua Investigation
January 9, 2025 by Mara Lee|Top News

Textile industry representatives questioned the logic of the Section 301 investigation on Nicaragua's human rights and labor rights violations, arguing that while they deplore the despotism of Nicaragua's leaders, none of the actions burden or restrict U.S. commerce. Rather, if the government were to decide that Nicaragua's violations merited the withdrawal of tariff benefits for its apparel exports, that action is what would burden U.S. commerce.

Topics:U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), Customs duty
CAFC Hears Oral Argument in Massive Section 301 Case
January 8, 2025 by Jacob Kopnick|Top News

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 8 heard oral argument in the massive Section 301 litigation, primarily probing the litigants' positions regarding how to interpret the term "modify" in the statute and whether the statute allows the U.S. trade representative to impose duties in response to retaliatory measures from China (HMTX Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).

Topics:Section 301 tariffs, Customs duty