Section 301 Hearing Results 2026: What Importers Need to Know Before July 24

The hearings are over. Both of them. The Section 301 Committee heard four days of testimony on forced labor enforcement failures (April 28-29) and four days on structural excess capacity (May 5-8) at the US International Trade Commission in Washington. 151 associations and companies testified out of 811 written comments received.

Now USTR has 77 days to turn that testimony into country-specific tariff determinations before Section 122's 10% flat rate expires on July 24. This isn't theoretical planning — it's the most consequential tariff transition since IEEPA was struck down in February.

If you import from any of the 60+ economies under investigation, this article breaks down what happened at the hearings, what the testimony signals, and the specific steps you should take before determinations are published.

Need to check your current tariff exposure? Use our calculator — it reflects the Section 122 10% surcharge that's still in effect.

By VatCheck Research Team. Sources: USTR Federal Register notices (2026-05214, 2026-05151), hearing panel schedules, ACC testimony, NAMM testimony, Crowell & Moring deadline analysis, Holland & Knight investigation brief, White & Case alert, Mayer Brown analysis.

What Actually Happened at the Hearings

Forced Labor Track (April 28-29)

The forced labor hearings covered all 60 economies under investigation — representing 99% of US imports by value. USTR is examining whether each trading partner adequately prohibits and enforces bans on importing goods made with forced labor, using US enforcement under the Tariff Act of 1930 (Section 307) and the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) as the benchmark.

Key details from the proceeding:

Scope: Sector-agnostic. Unlike the excess capacity track, this applies to all goods — not just manufacturing. Agriculture, mining, textiles, and services are all in scope.
Standard: Whether each economy has "imposed and effectively enforced a prohibition" on forced labor goods imports. Most countries don't have anything close to UFLPA. That's the point.
Countries with highest exposure: China (UFLPA already targets Xinjiang), Malaysia (electronics, palm oil), Thailand (seafood, agriculture), Vietnam (manufacturing), Bangladesh (garments), Mexico (agriculture), India (textiles, mining).
No livestream, no video. The hearings were on the record. Full transcripts will be published on ustr.gov, but as of publication, they haven't been posted yet.

Excess Capacity Track (May 5-8)

This is the investigation that will most directly determine tariff rates. USTR heard testimony on whether 16 economies sustain manufacturing capacity that "persistently exceeds domestic and global demand," using 80% capacity utilization as the threshold.

151 witnesses selected from 811 written comments. That's a massive response. For context, the original Section 301 China investigation in 2018 received roughly 1,100 comments over a longer period.

Notable testimony included:

American Chemistry Council (ACC) — Jason Bernstein (May 5) argued excess capacity driven by non-market policies is undermining US chemical and plastics production. ACC pushed for a value-chain approach that targets root causes while preserving access to raw materials. Translation: "tax the dumped finished products, not the inputs we need."
NAMM (National Association of Music Merchants) — John Mlynczak (May 8) testified that tariffs disproportionately hit entry-level instruments critical to music education. Wind instrument imports fell 27% and piano imports fell 20% in 2025. NAMM's argument: blanket manufacturing tariffs on all 21 sectors would destroy the pipeline for US-made professional instruments.
Consumer Technology Association and United Auto Workers also testified, representing opposite ends of the tariff debate — one arguing for precision, the other for protection.

The 21 Sectors Under Investigation

| Sector Group | Sectors | Why It Matters | |---|---|---| | Metals & Materials | Steel, aluminum, non-ferrous metals, cement, glass | Already face 50% Section 232. Additional 301 could stack. | | Electronics & Tech | Semiconductors, electronics, batteries, satellites, solar modules | China produces 80%+ of global solar. 70%+ of batteries. | | Machinery & Transport | Machine tools, machinery, automobiles, ships, transportation equipment, robotics | EU, Japan, South Korea, Mexico all under investigation. | | Chemical & Industrial | Chemicals, plastics, paper | ACC's "value chain" concern — raw inputs vs. finished goods. | | Consumer & Food | Processed food & beverages, energy goods | Mexico, Thailand, Vietnam all major food exporters to US. |

What the Testimony Signals About Likely Tariff Rates

Nobody announced rates at the hearing. That's not how Section 301 works — USTR gathers evidence, makes a determination, then publishes proposed remedies for comment. But the testimony and investigation structure telegraph several things:

Country-Specific Rates Are Coming

The investigation structure itself confirms this. USTR requested consultations with each of the 16 excess capacity economies individually. The forced labor track covers 60 countries but will likely result in tiered penalties based on enforcement quality.

Legal analysts at multiple firms (Crowell & Moring, Holland & Knight, White & Case) expect the resulting tariffs to mirror the invalidated IEEPA country-specific rates. That means:

| Country Tier | Expected Rate Range | Basis | |---|---|---| | China | 25-100%+ (sector-specific) | Already at 25-100% via existing 301. Unlikely to decrease. | | Vietnam, Cambodia, Bangladesh | 20-45% | Highest IEEPA rates were 46-49%. Forced labor exposure adds risk. | | Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia | 15-35% | Manufacturing + forced labor dual track exposure. | | EU, Japan, South Korea | 10-20% | Excess capacity track only. Trade agreement relationships moderate risk. | | Mexico, Canada | 10-15% | USMCA protections. But USMCA-qualifying goods likely remain exempt. | | India | 20-30% | Both tracks. Large manufacturing base + forced labor concerns in textiles. |

These are estimates based on IEEPA precedent and hearing testimony, not confirmed rates. USTR could go higher or lower. The point is to plan for a range, not a specific number.

Sector Exclusions Will Be Limited

The ACC and NAMM testimonies were essentially requests for product-level exclusions. But the hearing structure — 21 broad sectors, not specific HTS codes — suggests USTR is targeting categories, not individual products.

Companies that submitted comments and testified have the strongest position to seek exclusions. If your company didn't participate, your ability to challenge the outcome is significantly weaker. That ship has sailed.

The Timeline Is Real

USTR stated it intends to conduct these investigations "on an expedited basis." The target: determinations ready to impose by July 24, when Section 122 expires.

Post-hearing rebuttal comments are due within 7 calendar days of each hearing's conclusion:

Forced labor rebuttal deadline: ~May 8 (7 days after April 28-29 hearings)
Excess capacity rebuttal deadline: ~May 15 (7 days after May 5-8 hearings)

After rebuttals, USTR can publish proposed actions at any time.

The Transition: What Changes on July 24

Right now, most imports face a flat 10% surcharge under Section 122 (plus any existing 301/232 tariffs on top). On July 24, that 10% disappears. Section 301 country-specific rates replace it.

Here's what the transition looks like for a typical import:

Example: Furniture from Vietnam

| Tariff Layer | Today (May 2026) | After July 24 | |---|---|---| | MFN base rate | 0-4.9% | 0-4.9% (unchanged) | | Section 122 | 10% | 0% (expired) | | Section 301 (new) | — | 20-45% (estimated) | | Section 232 | n/a | n/a | | Total effective rate | 10-14.9% | 20-49.9% |

Example: Auto Parts from EU

| Tariff Layer | Today (May 2026) | After July 24 | |---|---|---| | MFN base rate | 2.5% | 2.5% (unchanged) | | Section 122 | 10% | 0% (expired) | | Section 301 (new) | — | 10-20% (estimated) | | Section 232 (if steel/aluminum) | 50% | 50% (unchanged) | | Total effective rate (non-232) | 12.5% | 12.5-22.5% |

Key insight: For low-rate countries (EU, Japan, South Korea), the new 301 rates may actually be close to the current 10% Section 122 rate. The pain comes for countries that previously faced high IEEPA rates — they're going back to high rates, just under different legal authority.

Calculate your product-specific rates →

The 7 Things Importers Must Do Before July 24

1. Map Your Country Exposure

List every country you import from. Check which investigation track(s) each falls under:

Both tracks (highest risk): China, EU, Japan, South Korea, India, Vietnam, Mexico, Taiwan, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, Bangladesh, Singapore, Switzerland, Norway
Forced labor only: All 60 countries including Canada, UK, Australia, Brazil, Philippines, and others
No investigation: Countries not in either list (very few major trading partners)

Use our country tariff rate pages to see current rates by origin.

2. Identify Your Worst-Case Rate Increase

For each country, estimate the range. Take your current total rate (MFN + Section 122 + any existing 301/232), subtract the 10% Section 122, and add the estimated new 301 rate from the table above. If the math shows more than a 15% increase for any major SKU, that needs immediate attention.

3. Check Section 122 Exempt Products

Some products exempt from Section 122 may not be exempt under Section 301. The exemption lists are different legal authorities with different carve-outs. Currently exempt categories (critical minerals, energy, pharmaceuticals, USMCA-qualifying goods) may or may not carry over. Don't assume your exemption survives the transition.

See our Section 122 exemption analysis →

4. Accelerate Pre-July 24 Shipments

If you're importing from high-risk countries (Vietnam, Cambodia, Bangladesh, Thailand, Indonesia), consider pulling forward orders to arrive and enter customs before July 24. The tariff rate that applies is the rate on the date of entry, not the date of order or shipping.

This was a winning strategy during IEEPA — importers who front-loaded ahead of the April 2025 rate increases saved 15-35% on goods that entered before the higher rates took effect.

5. File Your CAPE Refund Now

If you paid IEEPA tariffs between April 2 and September 12, 2025, you're eligible for refunds through the CAPE portal. The refund program and the new Section 301 tariffs are completely separate — getting your IEEPA money back doesn't affect your future rates.

But there's a time pressure: some IEEPA entries are approaching the liquidation window. Check your eligibility →

6. Review Your Contracts

If your purchase agreements are FOB or CIF, confirm whether tariff cost escalation clauses exist. Many contracts written during the IEEPA era assumed a flat rate structure. Country-specific 301 rates will create differential pricing — importing the same product from Vietnam vs. Thailand could have a 10-20% tariff spread.

Understand FOB vs CIF implications →

7. Monitor the Federal Register

USTR must publish proposed actions in the Federal Register before they take effect. When that notice drops — likely in June 2026 — it will specify exact rates by country and product category. Subscribe to Federal Register alerts for USTR notices.

Critical Dates

| Date | What Happens | |---|---| | ~May 8 | Forced labor rebuttal comments due | | ~May 15 | Excess capacity rebuttal comments due | | June 2026 (est.) | USTR publishes proposed Section 301 remedies | | July 24, 2026 | Section 122 tariffs expire — 10% flat rate disappears | | July 24+ (est.) | New Section 301 country-specific tariffs take effect | | July 31, 2026 | Pharmaceutical 100% tariff takes effect (named companies) | | September 29, 2026 | Pharmaceutical tariff applies to all other importers | | November 10, 2026 | US-China tariff truce expires |

How This Connects to Other Tariff Actions

The Section 301 investigations don't exist in isolation. They're one piece of a multi-layer tariff restructuring:

Section 232 restructuring: Steel, aluminum, and copper already at 50%. This preceded the Section 301 investigations.
Section 122 expiration: The 10% bridge tariff. Its expiration is the forcing function for the 301 timeline.
Pharmaceutical tariffs: Separate Section 232 action. 100% on patented drugs, effective July 31.
CAPE portal refunds: Getting back IEEPA money. Separate from any new tariff obligations.
How tariffs are calculated: The full stacking formula: MFN + Section 122 + 301 + 232.

The pattern is clear: the administration is using every tariff authority available — each under a different statute, each with different legal constraints, each targeting a different policy goal. Section 301 is the widest net. It's also the most durable, because Section 301 tariffs have no rate cap and no expiration date.

FAQ

When will USTR announce Section 301 tariff rates?

No exact date has been published. USTR stated it will proceed "on an expedited basis" with a target of having determinations ready by July 24, 2026. Proposed actions must be published in the Federal Register. Realistically, expect a notice in June 2026 with a 30-day implementation window.

Will Section 301 tariffs replace Section 122 at the same 10% rate?

Almost certainly not at the same flat rate. Section 301 determinations are country-specific, based on the evidence gathered during the investigation. Countries with more severe forced labor or excess capacity findings will face higher rates. Expect a range of 10-45%+ depending on country and sector.

Can I still get a Section 301 product exclusion?

The comment period and testimony window for the new investigations have closed. Companies that submitted written comments (by April 15) and/or testified at the hearings are in the strongest position. If you didn't participate, your options are limited to challenging the tariffs through litigation after they're imposed, or lobbying through industry associations.

Do Section 301 tariffs stack with Section 232?

Yes. Section 301 and Section 232 tariffs are imposed under different legal authorities and stack on top of each other. A steel product from China could face: MFN rate + Section 232 (50%) + Section 301 (existing China 301 + new investigation). Use our tariff calculator to model stacking scenarios.

What happens if USTR doesn't finish by July 24?

If Section 122 expires before Section 301 determinations are ready, there would be a gap period where only MFN rates and existing 232/301 tariffs apply. This is a real risk — the forced function is political, not statutory. However, USTR has strong political motivation to avoid a "tariff holiday" that would undermine the administration's trade agenda.

Last updated: May 8, 2026. Section 301 hearing testimony has concluded but transcripts haven't been published yet. We'll update this guide when USTR publishes proposed remedies in the Federal Register. For current tariff rates by country and HTS code, use our calculator.