top of page

WTO Panel Issues Report on U.S. Section 301 Tariffs on $250 Billion of Imports from China

Writer's picture: Neil EllisNeil Ellis

Updated: Jul 25, 2021

In United States – Tariff Measures on Certain Goods from China, WT/DS543/R (15 Sept 2020), a WTO panel grappled with issues raised by China’s challenge to the United States’ highly-contentious decision to impose tariffs on approximately $250 billion of imports from China, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. A link to the panel’s report is here.

The panel first addressed an important preliminary issue, by rejecting the United States’ argument that there was no need for the panel to resolve the issues raised by China because the United States and China had entered into bilateral negotiations to address the underlying trade issues and hence had reached a “mutually satisfactory solution” under Article 12.7 of the DSU.

On the merits of the dispute, the panel noted that the United States did not attempt to directly refute China’s arguments that the Section 301 tariffs violated the MFN provision of Article I:1 of the GATT and the prohibition against excessive duties under Article II:1(a) and (b). Rather, the United States claimed that the tariffs were necessary to protect “public morals” and thus were excepted under GATT Article XX(a). The panel agreed with the United States (and several third parties) that economic concerns can have a “public morals” dimension, which would permit an exception under Article XX. But the panel concluded that the United States had failed to explain the necessity of the specific measures at issue. That is, the United States had failed to articulate a “genuine relationship” between the challenged measures (tariffs imposed on a broad range of imports from China) and the public morals objective.

The report includes unusual closing comments in which the panel recognized the larger context of this dispute and the existence of “a range of unprecedented global trade tensions”. Meanwhile, response to this report has been remarkably muted – perhaps signifying either that the outcome was not a surprise or, more ominously, that the credibility of the WTO as a dispute settlement body has been eroded. And given that there is currently no method by which a panel report in a dispute involving the United States may be appealed, this panel decision will remain on uncertain ground for the foreseeable future.

23 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Trade Law and the End of Chevron

TRADE NEWS Trade Law and the End of Chevron July 2024 ________________ A few weeks ago the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Chevron, its...

Customs and the Constitution

Do the U.S. Constitution’s procedural protections governing the deprivation of life, liberty and property apply in the context of import...

Comments


© 2021 Law Office of Neil Ellis PLLC

5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW

Suite 440

Washington, DC 20015

Email: neil@neilellislaw.com

Telephone: 202.258.5421

Your use of this web site is subject to the following terms and conditions. By accessing this web site, you acknowledge that you have read and accept these terms and conditions.

 

Attorney Advertising  

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. 

 

Disclaimers

No Legal Advice or Attorney-Client Relationship: These materials have been prepared by the Law Office of Neil Ellis PLLC (the Firm) for informational purposes and are not legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. You should not act upon this information without seeking advice from a lawyer licensed in your own state or country. Do not send us confidential information until you speak with a member of the Firm and receive  authorization to send that information to us. Providing information to the Firm (via e-mail links on this Web site or otherwise) will not create an attorney-client relationship in the absence of an express agreement by the Firm to create such a relationship, and will not prevent the Firm from representing someone else in connection with the matter in question or a related matter.

 

Links to Third-Party Resources: Third-party resources that can be accessed with hypertext links from this web site are not under the control of the Firm, and the Firm is not responsible for the contents of any of these third-party resources. The third-party hypertext links presented on this site are provided for your convenience only. The inclusion of any link on this site does not imply any recommendation, approval or endorsement of that site by the Firm.

 

Limitation of Liability: Your use of this web site is at your own risk. The materials presented on this site may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. These materials may be changed, improved, or updated without notice. The Firm is not responsible for any errors or omissions in the content of this site or for damages arising from the use or performance of this site under any circumstances.

bottom of page