Answering the Top Seven Questions About Pending Section 301 Deadlines
Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.07.26
In March 2026, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) launched two parallel Section 301 investigations: one targeting manufacturing overcapacity across 16 countries (including China, the EU, Japan, India, Mexico, Vietnam, and other major manufactures), and one targeting forced labor enforcement failures across 60 countries. Here are the top seven questions Crowell & Moring’s International Trade team is getting regarding pending Section 301 comment deadlines from our clients and how to address them:
1. What is happening, and how does it differ from the IEEPA work?
Section 301 tariffs are trade remedies imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, designed to address "unfair" foreign trade practices that burden U.S. commerce. Unlike the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Section 301 requires USTR to conduct a formal investigation and justification before tariffs may be imposed, and that process gives affected companies a meaningful opportunity to participate and shape the outcome.
2. What is the worst-case scenario?
New Section 301 tariffs imposed on imports in potentially all manufacturing sectors up to 60 countries, on a timeline that could produce determinations by mid-to-late 2026. Once USTR determines that unfair trade practices exist, it may impose tariffs or other trade restrictions on imports from the targeted country to incentivize policy changes. Companies that have not participated in the administrative record will have limited ability to seek exclusions or challenge the outcome.
3. What is the value of filing comments, and can I rely on comments filed by others?
Participating in the administrative investigation process may allow companies to obtain specific product exclusions from any potential tariffs and preserves rights to challenge any tariffs that are ultimately imposed. You should not rely solely on trade association or coalition comments, as these cannot capture your company's specific facts, supply chain structure, or cost exposure. USTR looks for concrete, company-specific evidence that only you can provide, and companies without their own record are in a significantly weaker position to seek relief later.
4. What is my deadline?
April 15, 2026: Both written comments and requests to appear at the public hearing must be submitted by this date for both investigations. Public hearings run April 28–May 1 (Forced Labor) and May 5–8 (Industrial Excess Capacity), with post-hearing rebuttal comments due within seven calendar days of each hearing's conclusion.
5. What is required to file comments?
Comments must identify the submitting company and its interest in proceedings and provide substantive written commentary addressing the relevant investigation. A separate request to appear at the public hearing must also be submitted by April 15 if oral testimony is desired, and companies should plan for post-hearing rebuttal comments as well. No prior filing or registration is required. Any affected importer, manufacturer, or industry group may participate.
6. Who should consider filing?
High-volume importers, downstream manufacturers reliant on imported inputs, companies with limited alternative sourcing options, SMEs facing disproportionate cost impacts, and industry associations seeking broader policy influence should all strongly consider participating. This is especially important for companies sourcing from any of the 16 (Industrial Excess Capacity) or 60 (Forced Labor) targeted countries across the covered sectors. Participation is particularly critical for companies that cannot quickly or feasibly shift their supply chains away from targeted countries.
7. What are the next steps?
- Immediately: Assess your exposure by identifying which products and sourcing countries are implicated by each investigation.
- By April 15: File tailored written comments and, if warranted, a request to appear at the public hearing. Crowell has extensive experience preparing and submitting both.
- After hearings: File post-hearing rebuttal comments within the seven-day window following each hearing's conclusion.
- Ongoing: Consider whether to pursue administrative or judicial challenges, including at the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT). Participation in the administrative record is a prerequisite for preserving those rights.
Crowell has extensive experience preparing and submitting written comments and requests to appear at public hearings. Contact the International Trade Group for immediate assistance
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 7 min read | 10.29.26
On 8 October 2026, Crowell & Moring, King's College London, and the Competition Law Center at George Washington University co-hosted the 7th EU Competition Law Conference at De Warande in Brussels. Mark Meador, Commissioner at the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC), delivered the opening keynote address, followed by four panels bringing together practitioners, regulators, academics, and in-house counsel to discuss the latest developments in EU, UK, and US competition law enforcement. Among other things, the panels examined algorithmic pricing; the European Commission's (Commission) new guidelines on exclusionary abuses under Article 102 TFEU (Article 102 Guidelines); the impact of dominant positions in merger reviews; and lessons from the enforcement of the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the UK’s Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 10.29.26
What University Licensors Should Learn From TexasLDPC v. Broadcom
Client Alert | 2 min read | 10.28.26
Debriefing to Dead Briefing: How to Avoid Dismissal by Identifying “Required” Debriefings
Client Alert | 7 min read | 10.27.26
