A study sponsored by five trade groups said that while tariffs of 7.5% to 25% on Chinese consumer goods imports have caused some trade diversion out of China, the primary result has been higher prices for customers.
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. Almost three quarters of U.S. imports from China were subject to Section 301 tariffs, which ranged from 15% to 25%. The U.S. and China engaged in negotiations resulting in the “U.S.-China Phase One Trade Agreement”, signed in January 2020.
The Biden Administration took steps in 2021 to eliminate foreign policies subject to Section 301 investigations. The administration has extended and reinstated many of the tariffs enacted during the Trump administration but is conducting a review of all Section 301 actions against China.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce CEO Suzanne Clark, in her annual "State of American Business" speech Jan. 12, said that if the Biden administration fails to strike a balance on how to respond to China's economic posture, it "could undermine our security, our economy, our competitiveness, and our future."
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 3-8:
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top 20 stories published in 2022. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference numbers.
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the weeks of Dec. 5-11 and Dec. 12-18:
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is extending tariff exclusions for 352 products from China that had been scheduled to expire on Dec. 31. Those exclusions will now last until Sept. 30 next year.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is extending tariff exclusions for 352 products from China that had been scheduled to expire Dec. 31. Those exclusions will now last until Sept. 30.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the weeks of Nov. 21-27 and Nov. 28 - Dec. 4:
DOJ briefs in the massive Section 301 litigation don't demonstrate that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative considered "major objections contemporaneously with its decisions" to impose the lists 3 and 4A tariffs, the plaintiffs argued in a Dec. 5 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. While USTR relies on presidential direction as the post hoc justification of its decisions, the court already ruled that out as a means of satisfying the Administrative Procedure Act, the brief said. To now satisfy the APA, the U.S. may take new action, but the lists 3 and 4A tariffs may not stay in place based on "conclusory and post hoc rationales," the plaintiffs said (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052).