At the height of the Section 301 exclusions, 10% of imports covered by the China tariffs were excluded, according to a new Government Accountability Office report, though that fell from 10% to 7% across 2020, as exclusions expired and were not extended. Overall, about $71 billion of imports avoided the tariffs, GAO estimated.
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 July 19-25:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of July 12-18:
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, in a recent interview with The New York Times, suggested that the cost of Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports wasn't worth the concessions wrung from China in the phase one deal. “Tariffs are taxes on consumers. In some cases it seems to me what we did hurt American consumers, and the type of deal that the prior administration negotiated really didn’t address in many ways the fundamental problems we have with China,” she told the Times.
The American Apparel and Footwear Association asked the Biden administration to bring businesses, shippers and port authorities to the table to find short-term solutions to the shipping crisis.
Seventy-five trade groups, including the American Apparel and Footwear Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Foreign Trade Council and the Oudoor Industry Association, are telling U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai that Vietnamese exports should not face tariffs over either currency manipulation or environmental abuses.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of July 5-11
A PricewaterhouseCoopers trade and tax expert told an audience at the U.S. Fashion Industry Association Virtual Washington Trade Symposium that while the prospect of trade liberalization in the next few years is low, he does not think that threatened tariffs on apparel and other goods from European countries, Turkey and India will be levied in November, in retaliation for digital services taxes. Scott McCandless, who spoke July 14 at the virtual conference, said that although it will be "a complicated dance both internationally and domestically" to arrive at an agreement on the intertwined issues of minimum corporate taxes and digital services taxes, he thinks it's more likely than not that Congress will pass a tax bill this fall that would give countries the right to levy taxes on multinationals that do business in their countries. If that happens, he said, "The DSTs likely go away, and the proposed tariffs on countries that have DSTs will go away as well."
Revisions to the tariff schedule over the past six months echoed the back and forth between the U.S. and the European Union over retaliatory tariffs under both the Airbus and digital services tax disputes. Provisions for new tariffs were added then suspended, some immediately. Other changes include updates for USMCA tariff-rate quotas, a Section 301 exclusion extension and an extension to Section 201 safeguards on large residential washers.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 28 - July 4.