Fourteen Republican senators, led by Florida's Sen. Marco Rubio, wrote to the treasury secretary and secretary of state as the Cabinet officials traveled to China to meet with President Xi Jinping.
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.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 23-29:
While CBP rulings on country of origin show there are ways to keep China in the supply chain and still avoid Section 301 tariffs, Thompson Hine attorneys, during a webinar on what to expect in trade in 2023, said that if your product is auto parts, electric vehicle battery components, chemicals, pharmaceuticals or critical minerals, your chance of avoiding tariffs or other regulatory restrictions is not great.
A lawyer, a lobbyist and a think tank scholar all agreed -- the Section 301 tariff review is unlikely to result in significant changes to the punitive tariffs on most Chinese goods.
House Select Committee on China Chairman Mike Gallagher, R-Wis., said that the committee will definitely want to look into how the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act is being enforced, and he expects there to be joint committee hearings on the topic.
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.
A U.S. manufacturer and a labor union seek the imposition of new antidumping duties on tin mill products from Canada, China, Germany, the Netherlands, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey and the U.K., as well as new countervailing duties on tin mill products from China, they said in petitions filed with the Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission Jan. 18. Commerce will now decide whether to begin AD/CVD investigations, which could result in the imposition of permanent AD/CVD orders and the assessment of AD and CVD on importers. Cleveland-Cliffs and the United Steelworkers Union filed the petitions.
Dozens of firms, large and small -- along with trade groups from agriculture and manufacturing -- asked the U.S. Trade Representative to retain or even increase Section 301 tariffs on their competitors' exports. The companies that said the Section 301 tariffs are providing leverage and leveling the playing field included a number of politically important and large steel industry players, such as Nucor, U.S. Steel and Cleveland-Cliffs. Opponents argued in the same docket that the tariffs had not met their aim, were driving inflation, or having unintended consequences on manufacturers (see 2301180029).
Hundreds of companies, as well as trade groups from agriculture, retailers and manufacturing, have told the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative that the Section 301 tariffs on $350 million in Chinese goods have not achieved their aim, have hurt U.S. businesses and, often, have not even moved production to other countries in Asia or to Mexico.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 9-15: