Section 337 Of The U.s. Tariff Act Profiling

Section 337 initially refers to the section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930; it is a unique provision in U.S. trade law empowering the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) to determine whether imported articles should be barred from entering the United States because of unfair practices in import trade. Over the years, Section 337 has developed into one of the primary means for U.S. companies to protect their intellectual property rights. Section 1337 of the Omnibus Trade Act of 1988, as amended by 1994 URAA, declare unlawful of "[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair acts in the importation of articles…into the United States, or in the sale of such articles by the owner, importer or consignees, the threat or effect of which is (i) to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the United States; (ii) to prevent the establishment of such an industry; or (iii) to restrain or monopolize trade and commerce in the United States."According to the above-mentioned regulation, the substantiality of Section 337 is: first, unfair methods of competition and unfair acts in the importation of articles; second, the importation caused substantial injure; third, there must be an industry in the United States.Section 337 investigations are conducted by the U.S. International Trade Commission ("ITC"). The ITC is a U.S. federal administrative agency charged with administering U.S. trade laws that is based in Washington, D.C. and functions as a quasi-judicial forum. The ITC has a number of judges, known as administrative law judges ("ALJ"), who specialize in handling Section 337 cases. Each case is assigned to a particular judge, after the ITC accepts a complaint and initiates a Section 337 investigation. The ALJ presides over discovery and all matters related to the Section 337 violation. Upon completion of the trial, the ALJ issues an initial determination on the Section 337 violation which is forwarded to the ITC for review. Upon adoption of the initial determination, the ITC issues a recommendation on the type of remedy that should be imposed. Such recommendation is forwarded to the President of the United States for his approval and implementation, based on policy reasons. Section 337 relief is rarely denied on public interest and policy reasons.Section 337 has been a source of contention between the United States and its trading partners for the last twenty years. The analysis in this essay discusses the level of consistency between Section 337 and the GATT 1947 on the one hand, and the TRIPs Agreement on the other. With respect to GATT 1947, it appears that even if Section 337 is consistent with the Article 3 national treatment provision, it may not meet the stringent standards of Article 20, as developed through WTO Dispute Settlement Body practice. With respect to the TRIPs Agreement, it appears that Section 337 is consistent with the Agreement's requirements. The difference between Section 337's relationship with GATT 1947 and the TRIPs Agreement is attributable to the fact that the TRIPs Agreement contains a national treatment principle with a focus different from GATT 1947, and an overall structure comprising specific minimum standards on the one hand, and general language that articulates the interests of various competing interests, on the other.This essay discusses the legal application, execution procedures of Section 337 and its newly development on statute law and case law, and concluded feasible countermeasures on the detailed research from the cases of mainland China and Taiwan.