The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of July 25-31:
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.
Although President Joe Biden criticized President Donald Trump's China tariffs on the campaign trail, Peterson Institute for International Economics Senior Fellow Chad Bown said he always thought it was unlikely Biden would roll any of them back, because there are "huge political costs" to doing so, because opponents could label you as "weak on China."
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., speaking on the floor of the Senate just before the CHIPS bill passed, said he wants the conference committee for the House and Senate China packages to continue negotiating.
Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo acknowledged that lifting Section 301 tariffs is one of the few levers the White House has to lower inflation right now, but implied that President Joe Biden is hesitating because unions are arguing it would hurt workers.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of July 18-24:
Importers of finished goods and manufacturing inputs told the International Trade Commission across three days of testimony that the Section 301 tariffs are damaging profit margins, and in some cases lead to layoffs. But some unions and manufacturers said the Section 301 tariffs are deserved for Chinese abuses, and with the tariffs in place, the goods they make are more competitive. The International Trade Commission is studying the efficacy of Section 301 and Section 232 tariffs, and their economic impact.
Any chances that the Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods would stimulate U.S. importers to shift their supply chains to alternative countries of origin were obliterated when the COVID-19 pandemic struck in early 2020, Jonathan Gold, National Retail Federation vice president-supply chain and customs policy, told the International Trade Commission in a virtual hearing July 21. The ITC completed three days of public hearings July 22 as part of its Tariff Act Section 332 investigation into the tariffs’ economic impact on U.S. industries.
Across three days of testimony July 20-22, the International Trade Commission heard from dozens of companies, trade groups and advocacy groups about the economic impact of Section 301 tariffs and Section 232 tariffs and quotas. The tariffs and quotas on metals inspired fewer witnesses than the China tariffs, but they were no less emphatic.The United Steelworkers said they strongly supported the tariffs and asked that they remain strong. Pete Trinidad, president of a USW local that represents 3,500 steel workers in Indiana, argued that the tariffs had either a small or no measurable effect on prices, according to a think tank study.
The Court of International Trade in a July 20 opinion redenominated the U.S.'s counterclaim in a customs case brought by importer Cyber Power Systems as a defense, ruling that the U.S. does not have the statutory authority to make the counterclaim. With the ruling, Judge Claire Kelly denied Cyber Power's motion to dismiss the counterclaim as moot. Kelly ruled that none of the sections in the U.S. code cited by the U.S. give a basis for the counterclaim, which sought to reclassify imported cables.
Consumer tech products imported from China bore more than $32 billion in Section 301 tariff exposure between July 2018, when the first of the tariffs took effect, and December 2021, without dissuading most U.S. importers to abandon Chinese sourcing, according to a newly released Consumer Technology Association report produced with Trade Partnership Worldwide. A CTA spokesperson said July 20 that the association released the report to coincide with this week's public hearing at the International Trade Commission as part of its investigation on the economic impact of the Section 301 and Section 232 tariffs on U.S. industries.