Export Compliance 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. "foreign direct product rule").

Acronyms: Use all capital letters to ensure the search is not looking for that letter sequence instead. (e.g., BIS).

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

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

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").

Shipping and Maritime Interests Pan USTR's Section 301 Determination on Ship Building
April 22, 2025 by Joanna Marsh|Transport

Several trade groups representing shippers, the maritime industry and U.S. ports criticized the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's Section 301 determination last week calling for a phased-in approach to levy fees on foreign-built vessels and car-carrying vessels docking at U.S. ports as part of a broader push to build and bolster an American shipbuilding industry (see 2504180018).

Topics:U.S. Trade Representative (USTR)
Exporters Pan Section 301 Proposal to Require Use of US-Flagged, US-Built Ships
March 27, 2025 by Mara Lee|Other U.S.

Exporters who send their goods in ocean freight testified to an interagency panel that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's proposal to require a segment of exports to travel on U.S.-flagged, and eventually, U.S.-built ships (see 2502240058) will harm their business, or even make transport so expensive that they will be priced out of sales altogether.

Topics:U.S. Trade Representative (USTR)
Senate Confirms Jamieson Greer as New USTR
February 27, 2025 |Congress

Jamieson Greer, the former chief of staff to the U.S. trade representative during the first Trump administration, was confirmed by the Senate on Feb. 26, with a 56-43 vote. Five Democrats supported him, including both Michigan senators and Sens. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and John Hickenlooper of Colorado. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., voted no.