United States—Tariff Measures on Certain Goods from China
World Trade Organization Panel
WT/DS543/R (2020)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
China filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization (WTO) against the United States (U.S.) regarding the imposition of tariffs on certain Chinese imports pursuant to § 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. The U.S. asserted that it imposed the tariffs in response to China’s misconduct with respect to intellectual property, including state-sanctioned theft and misappropriation. The U.S. chose the specific products that were subject to the tariffs based on avoiding risk to the U.S. economy and excluded from the tariffs certain products that supposedly benefited from China’s misconduct. China claimed that the tariffs violated Article I.1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) by failing to accord most-favored-nation (MFN) status to Chinese goods because the affected Chinese imports did not receive the same advantage, favor, privilege, or immunity that the U.S. afforded to imports from other WTO members. China also claimed that the tariffs violated GATT Articles II.1(a) and (b) because they exceeded the tariff ceilings established in the U.S. Schedule of Concessions and Commitments. The U.S. did not defend the tariffs as complying with either Article I.1 or II.1(a) or (b). Instead, the U.S. argued that GATT Article XX(a) justified any inconsistency with Articles I.1 or II.1(a) or (b) because the tariffs were required to protect its public morals from China’s intellectual-property misconduct.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.