Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974

Last updated

Section 301 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974 (Pub. L.   93–618, 19 U.S.C. § 2411, last amended March 23, 2018 [1] ) authorizes the President to take all appropriate action, including tariff-based and non-tariff-based retaliation, to obtain the removal of any act, policy, or practice of a foreign government that violates an international trade agreement or is unjustified, unreasonable, or discriminatory, and that burdens or restricts U.S. commerce. Section 301 cases can be self-initiated by the United States Trade Representative (USTR) or as the result of a petition filed by a firm or industry group. If USTR initiates a Section 301 investigation, it must seek to negotiate a settlement with the foreign country in the form of compensation or elimination of the trade barrier. For cases involving trade agreements, the USTR is required to request formal dispute proceedings as provided by the trade agreements. [2] The law does not require that the U.S. government wait until it receives authorization from the World Trade Organization (WTO) to take enforcement actions, and the President is increasingly focused on enforcing intellectual property (IP) rights (under Agreements that may be outside of the WTO) under the "Special" 301 amendments [3] but the U.S. has committed itself to pursuing the resolution of disputes under WTO agreements through the WTO dispute settlement mechanism, which has its own timetable. [4]

Contents

Initiated by USTR or petition

Section 301 cases can be self-initiated by the United States Trade Representative (USTR) or as the result of a petition filed by a firm or industry group.

As an amendment by section 1302 of the Omnibus Foreign Trade and Competitiveness Act, Super 301 required the USTR for 1989 and 1990 to issue a report on its trade priorities and to identify priority foreign countries that practiced unfair trade and priority practices that had the greatest effect on restricting U.S. exports. The USTR then would initiate a Section 301 investigation against the priority countries to obtain elimination of the practices that impeded U.S. exports, in the expectation that doing so would substantially expand U.S. exports.

If USTR initiates a Section 301 investigation, it must seek to negotiate a settlement with a foreign country in the form of compensation or elimination of the trade barrier. For cases involving trade agreements, the USTR is required to request formal dispute proceedings as provided by the trade agreements. [2]

Consequences

If the USTR includes a country on a Special 301 Report watchlist because it has violated a trade agreement, the U.S. government may initiate dispute settlement proceedings at the World Trade Organization (WTO) or any other trade agreement establishing dispute settlement provisions, such as a free trade agreement, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The U.S. government can also impose unilateral trade sanctions, such as the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP). [5] [6]

This has happened a number of times with regard to various countries. For example, the United States imposed unilateral trade sanctions on Ukraine under section 301 on December 20, 2001, including tariffs on metals, footwear, and other imports, because the USTR had concluded that Ukraine had failed to enforce copyright in relation to music CDs and their export. [5] [6] Similarly, the Trump administration imposed trade sanctions under section 301 on China in March 2018, setting off the 2018 China–United States trade dispute.

Super 301 timeline

The original Super 301 provisions expired in 1991. [7]

However, President Clinton issued an executive order EO 12901 reactivating Super 301 for two years (1994 and 1995) [8]

The Super 301 process was again extended through 1997 by EO 12973 (September 1995), but was not in operation in 1998. [9]

On March 31, 1999, Super 301 again was re-instated for three years and revised by EO 13116. [10] It required the USTR by April 30 to issue its Super 301 report on priority foreign trade practices and to initiate section 301 cases against such practices if agreement is not reached after 90 days. Neither the USTR's April 1999 or April 2000 Super 301 report identified any priority foreign trade practices under Super 301, but USTR did announce that it would initiate Section 301 cases against trade practices in several countries. [11]

In its April 2001 Super 301 report, [12] [13] USTR did not make any designations under Super 301, but did announce that consultations (the first stage in WTO dispute settlement) had been requested with Mexico on measures affecting live swine imports, with Belgium on rice import restrictions, and with the European Union on import surcharges on corn gluten feed.

In a January 2002 letter report to the Senate Finance Committee on activities under Section 301, the USTR did not identify any priority foreign trade practices under Super 301, although it did report on other activities undertaken under Section 301-310 of the Trade Act of 1974.[ citation needed ]

Challenged

In the 1990s, Sections 301-310 of the Trade Act were challenged by a number of Members of the World Trade Organization as contrary to the WTO Agreement, but the challenge was rejected. [14] In their report [15] the WTO has ruled (paras. 7.38-7.39 [16] ) that taking any such actions against other WTO member countries without first securing approval under the WTO Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes [17] is, itself, a violation of the WTO Agreement. [3]

A list of international investigations initiated by USTR or by US corporations or trade associations between 1974 and 1998, using the GATT and WTO Agreements, is available from the USTR site. [18]

The U.S. Trade Representative annually performs a Special 301 Report, to encourage and maintain intellectual property rights (IPR) in many nations. These countries are identified from a wide range of concerns, such as troubling "indigenous innovation" policies that may unfairly disadvantage U.S. rights holders in China, the continuing challenges of copyright piracy over the Internet in countries such as Canada, Italy, and Russia, and other ongoing, systemic IPR enforcement issues presented in many trading partners around the world. [19]

The counterpart in the European Union is Regulation (EU) No 654/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 concerning the exercise of the Union's rights for the application and enforcement of international trade rules and amending Council Regulation (EC) No 3286/94 laying down Community procedures in the field of the common commercial policy in order to ensure the exercise of the Community's rights under international trade rules, in particular those established under the auspices of the World Trade Organization.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">World Trade Organization</span> Intergovernmental trade organization

The World Trade Organization (WTO) is an intergovernmental organization headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland that regulates and facilitates international trade. Governments use the organization to establish, revise, and enforce the rules that govern international trade in cooperation with the United Nations System. The WTO is the world's largest international economic organization, with 166 members representing over 98% of global trade and global GDP.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Office of the United States Trade Representative</span> United States trade body

The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is an agency of the United States federal government responsible for developing and promoting United States foreign trade policies. Part of the Executive Office of the President, it is headed by the U.S. Trade Representative, a Cabinet-level position that serves as the United States president's primary advisor, negotiator, and spokesperson on trade matters. USTR has more than two hundred employees, with offices in Geneva, Switzerland, and Brussels, Belgium.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canada–United States softwood lumber dispute</span> Trade dispute between Canada and the United States

The Canada–U.S. softwood lumber dispute is one of the largest and most enduring trade disputes between both nations. This conflict arose in 1982 and its effects are still seen today. British Columbia, the major Canadian exporter of softwood lumber to the United States, was most affected, reporting losses of 9,494 direct and indirect jobs between 2004 and 2009.

A bilateral investment treaty (BIT) is an agreement establishing the terms and conditions for private investment by nationals and companies of one state in another state. This type of investment is called foreign direct investment (FDI). BITs are established through trade pacts. A nineteenth-century forerunner of the BIT is the "friendship, commerce and navigation treaty" (FCN). This kind of treaty came in to prominence after World Wars when the developed countries wanted to guard their investments in developing countries against expropriation.

The Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA) is a law adopted by the U.S. Government in October 2000 to delineate enhanced trade preferences and eligibility requirements for the 24 beneficiary countries of the Caribbean Basin region.

The Australia – United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) is a preferential trade agreement between Australia and the United States modelled on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The AUSFTA was signed on 18 May 2004 and came into effect on 1 January 2005.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trans-Pacific Partnership</span> 2016 proposed trade agreement

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), or Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA), was a proposed trade agreement between 12 Pacific Rim economies: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and the United States. In the United States, the proposal was signed on 4 February 2016 but not ratified as a result of significant domestic political opposition. After taking office, the newly elected President Donald Trump formally withdrew the United States from TPP in January 2017, therefore ensuring the TPP could not be ratified as required and did not enter into force. The remaining countries negotiated a new trade agreement called Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, which incorporated most of the provisions of the TPP and which entered into force on 30 December 2018.

The Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization (WTOAB) is a standing body of seven persons that hears appeals from reports issued by panels in disputes brought on by WTO members. The WTOAB can uphold, modify or reverse the legal findings and conclusions of a panel, and Appellate Body Reports, once adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), must be accepted by the parties to the dispute. The WTOAB has its seat in Geneva, Switzerland. It has been termed by at least one journalist as "effectively the supreme court of world trade".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trade Act of 1974</span> United States trade law

The Trade Act of 1974 was passed to give the President more power in matters of trade agreements and tariffs.

Dispute settlement or dispute settlement system (DSS) is regarded by the World Trade Organization (WTO) as the central pillar of the multilateral trading system, and as the organization's "unique contribution to the stability of the global economy". A dispute arises when one member country adopts a trade policy measure or takes some action that one or more fellow members consider to be a breach of WTO agreements or to be a failure to live up to obligations. By joining the WTO, member countries have agreed that if they believe fellow members are in violation of trade rules, they will use the multilateral system of settling disputes instead of taking action unilaterally — this entails abiding by agreed procedures—Dispute Settlement Understanding—and respecting judgments, primarily of the Dispute Settlement Board (DSB), the WTO organ responsible for adjudication of disputes.

The beef hormone controversy or beef hormone dispute is a disagreement over the use of growth hormones in beef production.

Rufus Hawkins Yerxa is a retired American lawyer and former U.S. government and international official. He served as Deputy United States Trade Representative during the George H.W. Bush and Clinton Administrations, and served for 11 years as Deputy Director General of the World Trade Organization (WTO). From 2016 to 2021 he was President of the National Foreign Trade Council.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act</span> Law voted in 2002 by the American Congress

The Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA) is a trade preference system by which the United States grants duty-free access to a wide range of exports from four Andean countries: Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. It was enacted on October 31, 2002 as a replacement for the similar Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA). The purpose of this preference system is to foster economic development in the Andean countries to provide alternatives to coca production. Bolivia has installed capacity to industrialize coca production and its derivatives, since coca has no narcotic effects, but the United States does not make any difference between coca and cocaine. Thus, the U.S. government eliminated this "preference".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">TRIPS Agreement</span> International treaty on intellectual property protections

The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) is an international legal agreement between all the member nations of the World Trade Organization (WTO). It establishes minimum standards for the regulation by national governments of different forms of intellectual property (IP) as applied to nationals of other WTO member nations. TRIPS was negotiated at the end of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) between 1989 and 1990 and is administered by the WTO.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Special 301 Report</span> Annual US report on trade barriers

The Special 301 Report is prepared annually by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) that identifies trade barriers to United States companies and products due to the intellectual property laws, such as copyright, patents and trademarks, in other countries. By April 30 of each year, the USTR must identify countries which do not provide "adequate and effective" protection of intellectual property rights or "fair and equitable market access to United States persons that rely upon intellectual property rights".

Since 1970s, there has been on going trade disputes between Mexico against the United States. The complaints were taken to General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) committee and its 1995 successor; the World Trade Organization (WTO). The case became known as Tuna-Dolphin I, Tuna-Dolphin II and US-Tuna II (Mexico). Complaints concerned the USA embargo on yellowfin tuna and yellowfin tuna product imports that used purse-seine fishing methods and the labeling there of. Purse-seine fishing has resulted in a high number of dolphin kills.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stewart and Stewart</span> Law firm

Stewart and Stewart is a former international law firm based in Washington D.C., recognized for representing mainly U.S. clients in International Trade law actions. The firm had 17 attorneys and represented notable clients in a wide range of industries and agriculture. The firm's practice focused on trade remedies such as antidumping and countervailing duties as well as customs issues, WTO negotiations and disputes, export and import compliance programs, China economic and trade relations, regional trade agreements, and government relations. They are considered one of the nation's leading law firms on securing antidumping and countervailing duties in international trade. The firm's managing partner was widely published trade expert Terence Stewart, son of firm founder Eugene Stewart. In 2019 Stewart retired; the remaining partners merged with Schagrin Associates.

The US-Mexico Trade Dispute - Stainless Steel Sheets and Coils dumping is a trade dispute between the governments of The United States and Mexico. On May 26, 2006 Mexico requested consultations with the United States about a number of final anti-dumping judgments made by the US Department of Commerce. The judgments concerned the imports of stainless steel sheets and strips from Mexico, which were supposedly illegal dumping through the use of a "Zeroing" technique by the US Department of Commerce. Mexico believed that some of the laws, regulations, administrative practices and methodologies implemented by the US impaired and nullified the benefits added to Mexico, directly or indirectly, under the World Trade Organization Agreement on Customs Valuation, and that the anti-dumping laws were unwarranted. The consultations were held to discuss activities carried on between January 1999 and June 2004. This led to a panel being established in December 2006, the proceedings of which continued until May 2013, with a mutually agreeable solution being reached. Japan asked to join the consultation in June 2006.

In 1996, the European Community and United States filed complaints with the WTO against Japan concerning their distribution and protection of sound recordings that originated in their respective states. Both disputes accused Japan of violating numerous articles of the TRIPS Agreement. Both disputes were settled in December 1997, with the involved parties finding mutually agreeable solutions. DS28 was the first case ever brought to the WTO's dispute settlement body based on the TRIPS Agreement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Robert Lighthizer</span> American attorney and government official (born 1947)

Robert Emmet Lighthizer is an American attorney and government official who was the U.S. Trade Representative in the Trump administration from 2017 to 2021.

References

  1. ↑ "TRADE ACT OF 1974 [Public Law 93–618, as amended][As Amended Through P.L. 115–141, Enacted March 23, 2018] TITLE III—RELIEF FROM UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES, SEC. 301. ACTIONS BY UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE" (PDF). Office of the Legislative Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives. March 23, 2018. Retrieved July 15, 2018.
  2. 1 2 "Agriculture: A Glossary of Terms, Programs, and Laws, 2005 Edition" (PDF). CRS Report for Congress. June 16, 2005. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 23, 2013. Retrieved October 19, 2013.
  3. 1 2 Dunn, Alan; Bill Fennell (April 23, 2004). "Brief Comparison of Section 301 and Special 301 Trade Laws" (PDF). Stewart and Stewart. Retrieved October 19, 2013.
  4. ↑ "The process — Stages in a typical WTO dispute settlement case". Dispute Settlement System Training Module. World Trade Organization. Retrieved October 19, 2013.
  5. 1 2 Masterson (2004), p. 20
  6. 1 2 Masterson (2004), p. 21
  7. ↑ "Super 301". Glossary of Customs Terms. ASYCUDA, United Nations Conference Trade and Development. Retrieved August 8, 2018.
  8. ↑ "Identification of Trade Expansion Priorities". Federal Register. Government Publishing Office. March 8, 1994. Retrieved August 8, 2018.
  9. ↑ "Executive Order 12973--Amendment to Executive Order No. 12901". Office of the Press Secretary. Government Publishing Office. September 27, 1995. Retrieved August 8, 2018.
  10. ↑ "64 FR 16333 - Identification of Trade Expansion Priorities and Discriminatory Procurement Practices". U.S. Government Publishing Office. Retrieved August 7, 2018.
  11. ↑ Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (April 30, 1999). "USTR Sets Priorities for Global Trade Expansion and Enforcement". Tech Law Journal. Retrieved October 19, 2013.
  12. ↑ "USTR Releases Reports Emphasizing Enforcement Priorities: Executive Summary". Office of the United States Trade Representative. April 30, 2001. Retrieved October 19, 2013.
  13. ↑ "Identification of Trade Expansion Priorities Pursuant to Executive Order 13116" (PDF). April 30, 2001. Retrieved October 19, 2013.
  14. ↑ "Conclusions". United States - Sections 301-310 of the Trade Act of 1974. Foreign Trade Information System. Retrieved October 19, 2013.
  15. ↑ "Report of the Panel". United States - Sections 301-310 of the Trade Act of 1974. Foreign Trade Information System. Retrieved October 19, 2013.
  16. ↑ "Report of the Panel (continued)". United States - Sections 301-310 of the Trade Act of 1974. Foreign Trade Information System. Retrieved October 19, 2013.
  17. ↑ "Understanding on rules and procedures governing the settlement of disputes". DISPUTE SETTLEMENT: LEGAL TEXT. World Trade Organization. Retrieved July 24, 2018.
  18. ↑ "Trade Agreements" (PDF). Office of the United States Trade Representative. Retrieved October 19, 2013.
  19. ↑ "2012 Special 301 Report". Office of the United States Trade Representative. Retrieved October 19, 2013.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.