The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 29 - April 4:
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.
As the U.S. Fashion Industry Association's representatives in Washington try to find out timing for a renewal of the Generalized System of Preferences benefits program, Senate Finance Committee staff members are telling them “there’s a lack of urgency with respect to this” among senators. David Spooner, Washington counsel for USFIA, told an online audience March 30 that Congress seems to think that since importers will get refunds for goods that should have qualified for GSP during this period once it's renewed, it's no big deal. “But we know what a pain in the rear the retroactive renewals are,” he said.
Trade policy in regard to China should prioritize technology issues and establish “benchmarks for a phased rollback of Section 301 tariffs,” the Information Technology Industry Council wrote In a 17-page March 30 letter to U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai. “Simultaneously, we encourage you to move swiftly on your hearing commitment to ensure a transparent, predictable, and rapid process for tariff exclusions to alleviate the harm to American workers and consumers.”
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 22-28:
On the same day that 37 trade associations worked to draw attention to a renewed push to eliminate Section 232 tariffs, a left of center think tank published a paper disagreeing with the arguments that the Tariff Reform Coalition is making, that steel and aluminum sanctions cost more jobs in manufacturing than they saved at primary steel producers.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 15-21:
When members of Congress had the opportunity to publicly tout their priorities for legislation this year at the House Ways and Means Committee, most of the Democrats emphasized social spending and ending the cap on state and local tax deductions on personal income taxes more than traditional infrastructure projects. Only one Republican, Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, spoke at the March 23 hearing, to say that Republicans would boycott the hearing because holding a hearing without any expert witnesses was just a cover for “another multi-trillion, one-sided spending bill.”
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 8-14:
Litigants challenging lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs have a “difficult hill to climb” in making a compelling case for why the tariffs should be lifted, a lawyer said. Speaking March 11 on a panel at Georgetown Law's 2021 International Trade Update on the courts' role in tariffs, Bradford Ward of King & Spalding called out the central claim used by one of the litigants: that the law does not permit the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to increase tariffs, only to “delay, taper or terminate such actions.” In the same provision of that law, modification of tariffs is authorized when the burden on U.S. commerce has increased or decreased, meaning the agency can increase or decrease tariffs, said Ward, who used to work at USTR and now represents domestic industry. “It would be illogical, from my perspective, for the statute to prohibit an increase in tariffs while recognizing the ability of USTR to modify via an increase in the burden. It doesn't seem coherent,” Ward said.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 1-7: