Nature of Section 301
08/12/2022 05:30
Fundamentally, Section 301 proceedings involve political pressure and policy objectives more than law and facts. United States companies pursue Section 301 cases when they want the United States Government through the use of threatened sanctions - to help the company or industry achieve some objective in relation to foreign rivals. Not surprisingly, foreign countries have balked at this approach. Section 301 has therefore emerged as one of the most controversial and politically sensitive weapons in the arsenal of United States trade remedies.
The intensely political nature of what is commonly referred to as Section 301 emerged over time. Congress initially enacted it as part of the 1974 Trade Act. Originally intended to provide United States industries with a mechanism to enforce United States rights under international agreements, over the years Section 301 has been transformed by Congress from a narrow legal tool for raising issues under international agreements into a much broader policy weapon for United States industry to wield. Congress has expanded the reasons for invoking Section 301 and has intensified the political pressure on the Administration to act.
Some perceive Section 301 as being targeted at developed countries and areas such as the EU and Japan. Although there certainly have been Section 301 cases against developed countries, there have also been numerous cases against developing countries. These cases have involved a wide range of United States complaints against its trading partners.
As table 1 shows, a wide range of countries and a wide variety of practices have been challenged under Section 301.
Table 1. Developing country Section 301 cases since 1974, in chronological order
|
Country |
Product/issue |
Allegation |
|
Guatemala |
Cargo preference |
Discriminatory shipping practice |
|
China |
Major home appliances |
Confiscatory tariff levels |
|
Brazil, Republic of Korea and China |
Thrown silk |
Preventing entry of imports |
|
Argentina |
Marine insurance |
Requirement that marine insurance be placed with |
|
Republic of Korea |
Insurance Hides |
Argentine firm |
|
Argentina |
Non-rubber footwear |
Failure to issue a licence |
|
Brazil |
Steel wire rope |
Export controls on hides Import restrictions |
|
Republic of Korea |
Soybean oil and meal |
Subsidization of export of Korean steel wire rope |
|
Brazil |
Rice |
Export and production subsidies and quantitative restrictions |
|
Taiwan Province (China) |
Air couriers |
Subsidization of exports |
|
Argentina |
Films |
Exclusive control over the alr transportation of commercial documents |
|
Taiwan Province (China) |
Informatics |
Discrimination against foreign film distributors |
|
Brazil |
Insurance |
Investment restrictions, subsidies, and import restrictions |
|
Republic of Korea |
Intellectual property rights |
Restriction of the ability of United States insurers to provide insurance services |
|
Republic of Korea |
Soybeans and soybean |
Lack of effective protection |
|
Argentina |
products |
Differential in export taxes |
|
Taiwan Province (China) |
Customs valuation |
Duty paying system to calculate customs duties |
|
Taiwan Province (China) |
Beer, wine and tobacco |
Policies and practices regarding distribution |
|
India |
Almonds |
Licensing requirements and steep tariffs |
|
Brazil |
Pharmaceuticals |
Lack of process and patent protection |
|
Republic of Korea |
Cigarettes |
Unreasonable denial of access |
|
Republic of Korea |
Beef |
Restrictive licensing system on imports of all bovine meat |
|
Republic of Korea |
Wine |
Unreasonable denial of access |
|
Argentina |
Pharmaceuticals |
Denial of product patent protection |
|
Brazil |
Import licensing |
Certain import restrictions |
|
India |
Investment |
Trade-restricting measures on foreign investors |
|
India |
Insurance |
Barriers to foreign insurance providers |
|
Thailand |
Copyright enforcement |
Inadequate enforcement |
|
Thailand |
Pharmaceuticals |
Denial of adequate and effective patent protection |
|
India |
Intellectual property protection |
Dental of adequate and effective protection |
|
China |
Intellectual property protection |
Denial of adequate and effective protection, equitable market access |
|
Indonesia |
Pencil slats |
Enhancement of export to third-country markets |
|
Brazil |
Intellectual property rights |
Denial of adequate and effective protection |
|
Republic of Korea |
Agricultural market access restrictions |
Practices regarding importation |
|
Colombia |
Bananas |
Practices regarding exportation of bananas |
|
Pakistan |
Pharmaceutical and agricultural chemicals |
Denial of patents, and exclusive marketing rights |
|
Turkey |
Tax on box office revenues |
Discriminatory treatment of United States films |
|
India |
Pharmaceuticals and agricultural chemicals |
Denial of patents and exclusive marketing rights |
|
Argentina |
Apparel, textiles, footwear |
Specific duties, statistical tax and labelling requirement |
|
Indonesia |
Promotion of motor vehicle sector |
Grant of conditional tax and tariff benefits |
|
Brazil |
Trade and investment in auto sector |
Export performance and domestic content requirements |
|
Republic of Korea |
Auto imports |
Barriers to imports |
|
Honduras |
Intellectual property rights |
Inadequate protection |
|
Paraguay |
Intellectual property laws and practices |
Denial of adequate and effective protection |
|
Mexico |
High fructose corn syrup |
Agreement between Merican sugar growers and bottlers |
About Us
