"It's a Section 301 tariff" and "it's a Section 232 tariff" get used almost interchangeably by importers describing the same thing: an extra duty line that showed up on top of the normal rate. They're not the same action, they don't come from the same law, and treating them as interchangeable is how a broker misses the one difference that actually changes what a client should do next.
Section 301 vs. Section 232
Same word — 'tariff' — two different laws, two different agencies, two different rulebooks.
Legal authority
Trade Act of 1974 — administered by USTR
Trade Expansion Act of 1962 — administered by Commerce/BIS
What it targets
A named country's unfair trade practices — goods, services, investment
Specific commodities and their derivatives judged a national security risk, often regardless of origin
How it's triggered
USTR investigation into a foreign government's acts or policies
Commerce Dept. national-security investigation, then a presidential decision
Exclusion process
USTR product-exclusion requests, notice-and-comment
Commerce/BIS exclusion requests, plus possible country-specific quota deals
Duration
Must be reviewed and re-justified every 4 years or it lapses
No sunset provision — stays in force indefinitely once imposed
Duty drawback
Generally eligible on export, under CBP scrutiny
Not eligible — regardless of export, destruction, or incorporation
#Section301 #Section232 #TariffCompliance
The Difference That Costs the Most Money
Of everything in that table, the drawback row is the one worth stopping on. Section 301 duties are generally eligible for duty drawback when the goods are later exported — CBP scrutinizes the data alignment closely, but the door is open. Section 232 duties are not eligible for drawback, full stop, regardless of whether the merchandise is exported, destroyed, or incorporated into something else.
A client re-exporting goods that carry both a Section 301 line and a Section 232 line can recover one and not the other. Modeling a drawback claim as if both duty types behave the same way overstates the recovery before the claim is even filed.
Why Section 232 Doesn't Expire and Section 301 Does
Section 301 actions carry a built-in four-year clock — the tariffs on a given product list have to be reviewed and re-justified or they lapse automatically. Section 232 has no such provision. The steel and aluminum tariffs imposed under Section 232 in 2018 are still active in 2026, with no statutory mechanism forcing a review. That asymmetry matters for anyone trying to forecast landed cost more than a year out: a Section 301 line is a standing question mark on a known timer, a Section 232 line is closer to a permanent fixture of the rate.
Same Product, Different Reasoning, Sometimes Both
Because the two authorities target different things — 301 targets a country's conduct, 232 targets a commodity's national-security exposure — the same product can carry both at once, applied for entirely unrelated reasons and stacked on the same entry. Combined with an active antidumping or countervailing duty order on top of the standard MFN rate, that's exactly the kind of stacking that turns a schedule's 5% rate into something far higher — the mechanics of how that math actually compounds are covered in Your 5% Duty Rate Might Actually Be 125%.
How Declaro Reads This
Declaro's classification engine flags which Chapter 99 secondary provisions attach to a given HTS code — including whether a Section 301 list, a Section 232 action, or an active AD/CVD order applies, and which of those a broker needs to disclose separately on the entry. Knowing the code is only half the answer; knowing which of these three different rulebooks is layered on top of it is the other half.
Declaro is AI-powered HTS classification and duty recovery for licensed customs broker firms. Built on 220,000+ CBP CROSS rulings. Learn more →