Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
Trump, a Republican, imposed tariffs in 2018 and 2019 on thousands of imports from China valued at some $370 billion at the time, after a "Section 301" investigation found that China was ...
Trump may be able to act within months to impose tariffs, relying on the same "Section 232" national security law used to impose global steel and aluminum tariffs and the "Section 301" unfair ...
There will likely be tariffs, but some policies might be an improvement over Biden. ... “Section 301” tariffs on an escalating amount of Chinese goods. By 2019, approximately 15 percent of all ...
Investigations must be completed within 6 months. If such injury is found, restrictive measures may be implemented. Action under Section 201 is allowed under the GATT escape clause, GATT Article XIX. Section 301 was designed to eliminate unfair foreign trade practices that adversely affect U.S. trade and investment in both goods and services ...
The legal basis cited in Trump's tariff order is Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 which under certain circumstances allows the president to impose tariffs based on the recommendation from the U.S. Secretary of Commerce if "an article is being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to ...
The business community has repeatedly documented how Section 301 tariffs disproportionately harm U.S. businesses, manufacturers, workers, and consumers, and have failed to motivate China's leaders ...
Unilateral trade sanctions under section 301 were imposed on December 20, 2001, on Ukraine, which was not yet a WTO member, by imposing a prohibitive tariff on metals, footwear, and other imports because the USTR concluded that the country had failed to enact legislation to enforce copyright in relation to music CDs and their export.