The National Taxpayers Union, a group that advocates for lower taxes, is urging members of the House of Representatives to vote against a resolution that would overturn the administration's decision to delay antidumping and countervailing duties on solar panels from Southeast Asia that the Commerce Department says circumvent an earlier order against Chinese panels.
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.
At a House Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee hearing, Democrats talked up their legislative proposals -- two bipartisan, two not -- as answers to confronting China's trade agenda, and expressed skepticism of witnesses' advocacy for ending permanent normal trade relations with China, while some Republicans expressed interest in that approach, and one seemed cautious.
The Court of International Trade is considering asking certain plaintiffs in the massive Section 301 litigation how they would like to proceed with claims that are distinct from the ones already decided by the trade court. Speaking at an April 11 status conference with the government and representatives of the 15-member steering committee for the plaintiffs, Judge Mark Barnett asked if the court should ask those plaintiffs whether or not they want to continue to litigate the distinct claims, and if the claims move forward, whether there is any reason to wait to resolve them (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT # 21-00052).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the weeks of March 20-26 and March 27 - April 2:
Electronic goods with Chinese components such as notebooks, laptops and modems reimported to the U.S after undergoing repairs in Mexico are still subject to Section 301 tariffs on the repairs, even though the repairs are duty free under USMCA, CBP said in a February ruling.
U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai reassured the members of the National Council of Textile Organizations that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has no interest in loosening rules of origin for clothing made in Central America and the Dominican Republic. Some have argued that the CAFTA-DR has not lived up to its potential because its rules are too restrictive (see 2112030045 and 2104140047).
In more than four hours of questioning during a hearing March 24 before the House Ways and Means Committee, no member of Congress advocated for lessening tariffs on Chinese goods under Section 301, or for reopening exclusions applications.
Almost five years after the first round of 25% tariffs were put on Chinese imports, it was trade irritants with Mexico and India, as well as concerns about tariff preference programs and the lack of a market-opening strategy, that senators dwelled on during the U.S. Trade Representative's appearance in front of the Finance Committee.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 13-19:
The Court of International Trade upheld the U.S. Trade Representative's Lists 3 and 4A tariff action under Section 301 on China in a widely-anticipated decision on March 17. After the tariffs were previously sent back over concerns of compliance with the Administrative Procedures Act, the USTR offered further explanations of its tariff decisions. Judges Mark Barnet, Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves held that these explanations were not made impermissibly post hoc and cleared APA requirements.