The United States’ latest move to launch Section 301 trade investigations targeting India and 15 other economies signals Washington’s intent to maintain leverage in global trade negotiations following the Supreme Court’s striking down of the reciprocal-tariff mechanism, experts say.
“We have to wait and watch and go through the due process. The Section 301 investigation is expected to take around four to five months,” said Pankaj Chadha, Chairman of EEPC India, adding that the latest move by the United States Trade Representative may be aimed at maintaining leverage in trade negotiations with India after their Supreme Court nullified the President Donald Trump administration’s reciprocal-tariff approach.
“The Section 301 is based on a formal investigation, whereas the Section 122 is an ad hoc measure with a defined ceiling. So, basically some way or another, the US appears hell-bent to maintain a certain level of tariff on most countries.,” Chadha added.
India and the United States are negotiating an interim bilateral trade agreement to ease tariff tensions. But talks slowed last month and a planned round of negotiations in Washington late in February was puts off after the US Supreme Court struck down the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) for slapping tariffs.
Tax expert Amit Maheshwari explains, “The Section 301 investigations allow the US to examine structural excess capacity and export-driven surpluses in key sectors. Even if retaliatory measures are moderate, the process signals Washington’s intent to safeguard its industrial base and critical supply chains while keeping trade partners engaged.”
Section 301 empowers the USTR to examine whether foreign industrial policies, such as subsidies, state-owned enterprise activity, or overcapacity are unreasonable or discriminatory.
The investigation launched on March 12 cover 16 economies, including India, China, Japan, South Korea, and the European Union, across sectors such as steel, aluminium, automobiles, batteries, electronics, chemicals, machinery, semiconductors, and solar modules.
In India, the US has flagged solar-module manufacturing, petrochemicals, steel, textiles, health-related goods, construction materials, and automotive products, citing concerns over domestic overcapacity and potential export surpluses.
Global Trade Research Initiative’s Ajay Srivastava noted that the revival of Section 301 investigations signals that American trade policy is entering a new phase following the court ruling that curtailed Washington’s tariff powers.
“With its earlier tariff strategy dismantled, the United States is turning to trade investigations and targeted measures to maintain leverage in negotiations with trading partners,” he said.
The US’s pivot to Section 301 comes because Section 122 tariffs, while currently applied at a uniform 10 percent, are temporary and legally constrained.
Section 122 allows the president to impose ad hoc tariffs for a limited period with defined ceilings, but any increase, such as plans to raise the rate to around 15 percent for certain trading partners, could require congressional approval or face legal challenges.
After the Supreme Court last month struck down the Trump administration’s reciprocal-tariff regime, Washington relied on Section 122 as an interim measure to maintain trade pressure.
Given its temporary nature and legal limits, the US is now turning to the more formal Section 301 framework, which requires evidence of harm, follows a defined investigative process, and typically takes around 150 days from launch to final recommendations.
Pankaj Chadha noted that the aim is likely for Section 301 to take over once the temporary Section 122 tariffs expire or if Washington fails to extend them, effectively allowing the US to maintain trade leverage.
But given the formal, evidence-driven nature of Section 301, the process is slower and less flexible than ad hoc tariffs, meaning that immediate leverage may be limited.
GTRI’s Srivastava adds that while Section 301 remains an important US trade tool, it is slower and more legally constrained than the reciprocal tariff system invalidated by the Supreme Court.
Section 301 investigations require evidence of harm and must be tied to specific trade practices, he said.
Please click here to view the full story on Money Control.