A spokesperson for the Ministry of Commerce stated that a WTO panel has long ruled that tariff measures implemented based on Section 301 investigations violate WTO regulations.
On the 19th local time, the World Trade Organization (WTO) stated in its latest Global Trade Outlook and Statistics report that recent tariff dynamics in 2026 primarily reflect strategic adjustments rather than fundamental policy shifts.
Specifically, when addressing the potential impact of the ongoing U.S. "Section 301 investigation" on global trade, WTO Chief Economist Robert Staiger told a reporter that the general expectation is that the final tariff levels likely to be formally implemented would be roughly comparable to the previous tariff levels authorized under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
"This expectation aligns with our baseline assumption that tariff changes in 2026 are unlikely to cause drastic shocks to the overall tariff environment faced by countries, or even globally," Staiger said. He added, however, that the effects would vary significantly across different countries, regions, and product categories.
Regarding the impact of the Section 301 investigation, Staiger explained that following the U.S. Supreme Court's February 20th ruling prohibiting the U.S. government from imposing tariffs on imported goods by citing IEEPA, the U.S. subsequently invoked the relevant Section 122 to implement tariff measures, applying a uniform rate of 10%. "Although the previous Trump administration announced a potential increase to 15%, the rate has so far remained at 10%," he noted.
Subsequently, "the U.S. initiated the 'Section 301 investigation'. Under U.S. law, tariffs imposed under Section 122 are temporary measures, valid for only 150 days. Therefore, if the Section 301 investigation ultimately yields a definitive affirmative conclusion—namely, identifying 'unfair trade practices' against the U.S., which is the core purpose of Section 301 in U.S. law—then tariffs implemented under Section 301 are expected to replace the previous temporary tariffs under Section 122," he explained. He added that whether these replacement tariff rates will be higher or lower than those under Section 122 remains undetermined.
On the question of the Trump administration's use of Section 122 tariffs to replace those previously covered under IEEPA, Staiger stated that 2026 has not seen a large-scale, broad-based global tariff shock. "Admittedly, there have been some relatively sharp tariff changes before, such as the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on IEEPA tariffs, but this change was quickly superseded by new tariffs implemented by the U.S. under Section 122. According to our economists' analysis, these tariff replacement actions have not had a significant overall macroeconomic impact," he said.
According to WTO research, after the volatility caused by unprecedented policy changes prior to 2025, the share of global trade conducted under the "Most-Favored-Nation" (MFN) principle had recovered to 72% by the end of February 2026. This analysis confirms that MFN remains the dominant framework governing international trade in most sectors of the global economy.
Staiger noted that the substantial reduction in the share of trade subject to MFN tariffs reflects the erosion of a core principle of the rules-based trading system. Nevertheless, nearly three-quarters of global merchandise trade still crosses borders under the MFN tariff framework.
According to information on the Ministry of Commerce website, a ministry spokesperson stated that China has noted the U.S. initiated Section 301 investigations against 16 economies, including China, citing "overcapacity" as the reason. The spokesperson described Section 301 investigations as typical unilateral actions that severely undermine the international economic and trade order, adding that a WTO panel had long ago ruled that tariff measures based on such investigations violate WTO rules.
The spokesperson also mentioned that on March 12th U.S. Eastern Time, the U.S. launched another Section 301 investigation against 60 economies, including China, citing "failure to prohibit imports of forced labor products." This followed the "overcapacity" Section 301 investigation initiated on March 11th.
The spokesperson urged the U.S. to immediately correct its wrong practices, work with China in the same direction, adhere to the principles of mutual respect and equal consultation, and find solutions through dialogue and negotiation. "We will closely monitor the progress of the U.S. investigations and reserve the right to take all necessary measures to resolutely defend our legitimate rights and interests," the spokesperson said.
Staiger also emphasized to the reporter that, based on the current view for 2026, tariff changes are not having a significant impact on the trade landscape. Instead, the real main drivers are investment in the artificial intelligence (AI) sector and the phenomenon of "front-loading" of trade that occurred in 2025.
WTO data shows that the growth rate of global merchandise and services trade reached 4.7% in 2025, significantly exceeding the 2.9% growth rate of global Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
Staiger identified two major factors contributing to the exceptionally strong trade growth in 2025: First, advance imports by North America early in 2025 in anticipation of tariffs to be implemented by the U.S. in the second half of the year. This led to a surge in imports in North America at the beginning of the year, thereby supporting the global trade volume level for 2025. Second, the investment boom in AI-related goods and services.
He explained that investment is typically the second-largest component of GDP after consumption, and investment generally tends to be more import-intensive than consumption. However, changes in the composition of investment can alter its import content, thereby affecting global trade flows and their relationship with GDP.
"As we state in the report, even within investment, spending on AI-related goods and services is exceptionally import-intensive. For example, the import intensity of construction is typically very low, below 2%. This means for every dollar invested in construction, only 2 cents are spent on imports. In contrast, analysis of the import intensity for computer equipment and recent AI investments suggests an import intensity as high as 70% to 90%. This means for every dollar invested in AI-related products, 70 to 90 cents will be spent on imports," he explained. Therefore, a shift in the composition of investment—away from construction and other non-AI related forms of investment towards AI-related goods and services—would elevate the level of imports for a given total investment.
"This is precisely the mechanism through which the AI investment boom in 2025 helped import growth outpace GDP growth and contributed to nearly half of the growth in merchandise trade that year," Staiger said. He noted that many AI-related products originate from just a handful of countries, including: the United States (excelling in chip design, cloud infrastructure, and software), South Korea (manufacturing memory chips and semiconductors), the Netherlands (producing chip manufacturing equipment), Japan (making precision manufacturing tools), and China (specializing in hardware assembly, server, and component manufacturing). Consequently, North America, Europe, and Asia are the regions most directly affected by this AI investment wave.
He added that therefore, when looking at the trade outlook, aside from the duration of the Middle East conflict as one variable, another uncertainty is whether the investment boom in AI-related goods and services can maintain its current growth rate into 2026.
"In our baseline forecast, we assume that while such investment momentum will remain strong, its growth rate will slow compared to 2025. If reality turns out differently—meaning if the AI investment boom continues at its 2025 growth rate into 2026—then our baseline forecast for global trade volume growth could be revised upwards by an additional 0.5 percentage points," he stated.
The WTO report indicates that under a scenario where the Middle East conflict is short-lived and AI-related spending remains strong through 2026 and into 2027, global merchandise trade growth could reach 2.4% this year and 2.7% next year.
Comments