Despite the impressive success of trade liberalization, domestic industries continue to find ways to use the power of government to protect themselves from foreign competition. The practice of using domestic environmental or consumer safety regulation as a way to disguise protectionist policy has become a serious and growing problem in the United States. This regulatory [...]
Despite the impressive success of trade liberalization, domestic industries continue to find ways to use the power of government to protect themselves from foreign competition. The practice of using domestic environmental or consumer safety regulation as a way to disguise protectionist policy has become a serious and growing problem in the United States. This regulatory protectionism harms the U.S. economy and violates our trade obligations.
A number of factors combine to explain the rise in regulatory protectionism. Economic globalization has provided Americans with access to a wide range of imported products. This has enabled consumers to demand not only high-quality products at low cost but also products that are produced according to consumers’ philosophical or ethical preferences. Simultaneously, domestic producers seeking protection from this influx of imports must find alternative shelters now that the use of tariffs and quotas is constrained by international law and economic good sense. The consequence is a perfect storm in which social welfare activists and special commercial interests join forces to promote regulatory regimes that unfairly and unnecessarily restrict imports.
There is already a system of laws in place to prevent regulatory protectionism. The rules of the international trading system recognize that domestic laws can be just as protectionist as tariffs. Many of the disciplines of World Trade Organization (WTO) law are embedded in the rules U.S. administrative agencies follow when setting new regulations.
But the U.S. government must take its WTO obligations more seriously. Prior to implementing a new regulation, federal agencies should be required to evaluate the possibility that less trade-restrictive alternatives could meet regulatory goals as effectively as their preferred proposal. Also, the U.S. government should not dilute or bypass the multilateral rules of the WTO through bilateral or regional negotiations that accept managed protectionism.
This paper uses a number of recent examples of protectionist regulations to show that the enemies of regulatory protectionism are transparency and vigilance. Policymakers should be skeptical of regulatory proposals backed by the target domestic industry and of proposals that lack a plausible theory of market failure. These are red flags that the proposal is the product of privilege-seeking special interests disguised as altruistic consumer advocates.
Click here to download the policy analysis.
Source: K. William Watson and Sallie James | Cato Institute
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is gathering public input on the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership agreement with the European Union, including U.S. interests and priorities, to help it develop U.S. negotiating positions. Written comments are due no later than May 10 and a hearing will be held May 29-30 in Washington, [...]
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is gathering public input on the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership agreement with the European Union, including U.S. interests and priorities, to help it develop U.S. negotiating positions. Written comments are due no later than May 10 and a hearing will be held May 29-30 in Washington, D.C. USTR has also asked the International Trade Commission to evaluate the probable economic effects of the TTIP, and an announcement on the initiation of that investigation is expected soon.
Comments submitted to USTR may address the reduction or elimination of tariffs or non-tariff barriers on any articles provided for in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States that are products of the EU, any concession that should be sought by the U.S. or any other matter relevant to the proposed agreement. Continue reading »
On New Year’s Eve, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative issued a Federal Register Notice announcing 2013′s Special 301 Review. This is the annual process in which an interagency committee led by USTR conducts a review “to identify countries that deny adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) or deny fair and [...]
On New Year’s Eve, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative issued a Federal Register Notice announcing 2013′s Special 301 Review. This is the annual process in which an interagency committee led by USTR conducts a review “to identify countries that deny adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) or deny fair and equitable market access to U.S. persons who rely on intellectual property protection.”
The process ends with the publication of the Special 301 Report, which includes various countries on the “Watch List,” the “Priority Watch List,” or as “Priority Foreign Countries.” If a country is listed as a Priority Foreign Country, this can lead to formal sanctions (though the U.S.’s membership in the WTO complicates this).
As part of the process, USTR solicits written comments from all interested parties, and holds a public hearing which is open to all interested parties. This year, written comments and requests to testify at the hearing must be submitted by February 8 (with the exception of comments from foreign governments, which can be submitted until the 15th). The hearing will be on February 20. The Special 301 Report will be published “on or about” April 30.
Click here to read the complete article.
Source: infojustice.org
MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell explains why the policy of “getting tough on China” isn’t as easy as some U.S. political figures assert. “What’s absolutely true is that any tariff put on any product in this country is paid, not by the country that produces the product, it is paid by American consumers when they purchase that [...]
MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell explains why the policy of “getting tough on China” isn’t as easy as some U.S. political figures assert.
“What’s absolutely true is that any tariff put on any product in this country is paid, not by the country that produces the product, it is paid by American consumers when they purchase that product. Tariffs are simply sales taxes on American consumers and that’s why tariffs are almost always self-defeating. So, if a president wants to get tough with China and slap some heavy tariffs on Chinese products, the question for that president is very simple…”
As China continues its ascent as a global economic power, issues involving China under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, (FCPA) have emerged as major business problems for multinational companies (MNCs). In a recent Wisconsin Law Review article, “China under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act,” I discuss several major issues under the FCPA that concern MNCs doing [...]
As China continues its ascent as a global economic power, issues involving China under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, (FCPA) have emerged as major business problems for multinational companies (MNCs). In a recent Wisconsin Law Review article, “China under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act,” I discuss several major issues under the FCPA that concern MNCs doing business in China. I summarize the findings here. Those who wish a more in-depth look should consult the article, which offers many more examples than there is room to discuss here.
Yesterday, the U.S. Trade Representative posted two announcements in the Federal Register requesting input from the public and stakeholder groups on how its Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP) negotiating priorities should be updated in light of the inclusion of Canada and Mexico in the list of TPP member countries. Instructions for participation online, or in person, [...]
Yesterday, the U.S. Trade Representative posted two announcements in the Federal Register requesting input from the public and stakeholder groups on how its Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP) negotiating priorities should be updated in light of the inclusion of Canada and Mexico in the list of TPP member countries.
Instructions for participation online, or in person, are included in the links posted below.
The next negotiating round of the TPP will take place in Leesburg, Virginia from September 6-15, 2012.
A U.S.-European Union working group is due to deliver by the end of June a preliminary report on ways to increase bilateral trade and investment. The joint High Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth established in late 2011 was tasked with conducting a comprehensive review of existing trade barriers and making recommendations on policies [...]
A U.S.-European Union working group is due to deliver by the end of June a preliminary report on ways to increase bilateral trade and investment. The joint High Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth established in late 2011 was tasked with conducting a comprehensive review of existing trade barriers and making recommendations on policies to reduce or remove them, from enhanced regulatory cooperation to the negotiation of one or more bilateral trade agreements. Business groups have used the opportunity to reiterate their support for a transatlantic free trade agreement, but comments from U.S. and EU officials suggest that they may have to settle for something less ambitious.
In a May 22 speech to the London School of Economics and Political Science, U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk said that in the aftermath of the global economic downturn “a consensus has emerged on both sides of the Atlantic that we can – and we should – do even more to tap the full potential of this extraordinary relationship to boost our growth, support more and better jobs, and to help meet the competitive challenges of the coming decades.” As a result, he said, U.S. and EU negotiators “are working together to examine a wide range of possibilities, including: eliminating conventional barriers to trade in goods, such as tariffs and tariff-rate quotas; reducing barriers to trade in services and to transatlantic investment; promoting regulatory approaches that facilitate trade; reducing, eliminating or preventing in the first place behind-the-border barriers to trade in all categories; and developing rules and principles on other global issues that are of common concern.”
Kirk stated that any new transatlantic trade negotiation “would need to achieve full liberalization of market access for all categories of goods and expand transatlantic flows of services and investment” and should also “identify new approaches to non-tariff barriers” such as health- and safety-related measures. Specifically, he added, the U.S. would want any such agreement to be “at least as broad and ambitious” as existing U.S. trade agreements. He added that this approach could serve as a model for advancing the Doha Round or other multilateral trade liberalization negotiations by providing an alternative to “the negotiating dynamic that existed before.” Read the complete article here.
Source: STR Trade Report
The National Retail Federation last week urged Congress to review and revise controversial rules on the importation of wood products and plant material that retailers fear could lead to unfair government seizure of merchandise ranging from furniture to musical instruments. “Retailers recognize the need for environmental conservation but the current law leaves them guessing on [...]
The National Retail Federation last week urged Congress to review and revise controversial rules on the importation of wood products and plant material that retailers fear could lead to unfair government seizure of merchandise ranging from furniture to musical instruments. “Retailers recognize the need for environmental conservation but the current law leaves them guessing on which products are legal and which aren’t,” NRF President and CEO Matthew Shay said. “Congress needs to carefully review the Lacey Act to ensure that the goal of eliminating illegal logging is its primary objective, not penalizing businesses that are doing their best to comply with an unworkable law.”
Shay commented as a subcommittee of the House Natural Resources Committee prepares to hold a hearing this afternoon on legislation that would reform portions of the law. Laurie Everill, regional customs compliance and operations manager for NRF member IKEA-North America, is scheduled to testify to the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs on the challenges facing companies seeking to comply with the law, and changes sought by NRF to address those challenges, improve enforcement and compliance with the law, and support its goal to end illegal logging.
At issue is the Lacey Act, a century-old environmental law originally directed at illicit trade in threatened and endangered animals. Congress expanded the law in 2008 to ban trade in products containing illegally harvested wood or plant material. Those changes also require importers to document the genus, species and country of harvest of any wood or plant material contained in an imported product. The Justice Department considers merchandise containing illegally harvested wood or plant products to be contraband, possession of which can result in fines, imprisonment, and seizure and forfeiture of the goods.
A group of Senate Republicans say they are taking aim at the “broad overcriminalization” of a federal law that makes it a crime to import into the United States illegally obtained plants or wildlife. U.S. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is seeking to make violations of the Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 3371–3378) civil offenses punishable [...]
A group of Senate Republicans say they are taking aim at the “broad overcriminalization” of a federal law that makes it a crime to import into the United States illegally obtained plants or wildlife.
U.S. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is seeking to make violations of the Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 3371–3378) civil offenses punishable by fines rather than criminal prosecution. His proposed Freedom from Over-Criminalization and Unjust Seizures (FOCUS) Act of 2012 — outlined in S. 2062 — would also jettison references to foreign law in the 112-year-old statute thereby blocking the government from prosecuting companies based on alleged overseas violations.
Paul, who sits on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said “victims” of the Lacey Act include Henry Juszkiewicz, chairman and CEO of Gibson Guitar Corp. In August, federal agents raided Gibson Guitar factories in Memphis and Nashville to determine whether Gibson was using illegally harvested ebony wood from protected forests in India.
Hailing the Republican proposal, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) said the FOCUS Act would “bring sanity to the criminal law,” the group’s president, Lisa Wayne, said in a statement. “The law in its current form is overly broad and vague, subject to abuse by prosecutors, and, importantly, can trigger extremely harsh criminal penalties without regard to whether someone accused under the law acted intentionally or knew they were violating a law,” Wayne said.
The U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) is also among the bill’s supporters. “The underlying goals of the Lacey Act, including protecting endangered species and promoting stewardship of environmental resources, can and should be upheld, and federal laws ought to give prosecutors the necessary criminal enforcement tools to pursue bad actors” ILR President Lisa Rickard said in a statement.
S. 2062, introduced Feb. 2, is pending before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, chaired by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). The FOCUS Act is cosponsored by Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Mike Lee (R-Utah) and James Risch (R-Idaho).
Source: Chris Rizo | Law & Industry Daily
The European Union and the United States announced today that beginning June 1, 2012, organic products certified in Europe or in the United States may be sold as organic in either region. This partnership between the two largest organic-producers in the world will establish a strong foundation from which to promote organic agriculture, benefiting the [...]
The European Union and the United States announced today that beginning June 1, 2012, organic products certified in Europe or in the United States may be sold as organic in either region. This partnership between the two largest organic-producers in the world will establish a strong foundation from which to promote organic agriculture, benefiting the growing organic industry and supporting jobs and businesses on a global scale, the EC press service announced.
The organics sector in the United States and European Union is valued at roughly €40 billion combined, and rising every year.
Formal letters creating this partnership were signed on 15 February 2012 in Nuremberg, Germany, by Dacian Cioloş, European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development; Kathleen Merrigan, U.S. Agriculture Deputy Secretary; and Ambassador Isi Siddiqui, U.S. Trade Representative Chief Agricultural Negotiator. The signing took place at the BioFach World Organic Fair, the largest trade show for organic products in the world.
“This agreement comes with a double added value. On the one hand, organic farmers and food producers will benefit from easier access, with less bureaucracy and less costs, to both the U.S. and the EU markets, strengthening the competitiveness of this sector. In addition, it improves transparency on organic standards, and enhances consumers’ confidence and recognition of our organic food and products,” stated the EU Commissioner responsible for Agriculture and Rural Development, Dacian Cioloş. “This partnership marks an important step, taking EU-U.S. agricultural trade relations to a new level of cooperation”
Administrative reform is needed but may result in troubling consequences for free traders Last week, President Obama announced plans to consolidate six federal agencies related to business and trade into a single agency in order to improve efficiency and the international competitiveness of American companies. Writing in the New York Times “Economix” blog, former Reagan [...]
Administrative reform is needed but may result in troubling consequences for free traders
Last week, President Obama announced plans to consolidate six federal agencies related to business and trade into a single agency in order to improve efficiency and the international competitiveness of American companies.
Writing in the New York Times “Economix” blog, former Reagan and Bush economic policy advisor Bruce Bartlett outlined The Pros and Cons of Obama’s Reorganization Plan – a dubious title given the only “pro” in the article appears to be that it would necessitate elimination of the Small Business Administration, something that conservative groups such as the Heritage Foundation have long called for.
Aside from suggesting the proposal may be nothing more than an election ploy (a not unreasonable assumption, although the same could be said of just about any policy advanced by the administration between now and next November), Bartlett also wonders if it may be indicative of a commitment by President Obama to “discredited industrial policies” (i.e., a heavy-handed command and control model that was ultimately rejected by the Japanese more than a decade ago) and “a subordination of trade policy to political interests.” With regard to the latter concern, Bartlett contends that folding the Office of the Trade Representative into the Commerce Department is a “dreadful idea” that should be troubling to free traders.
I know from personal experience at the Treasury Department that in internal administration discussions of trade policy the various agencies are expected to play certain roles. Commerce always defends whatever business wants because that’s its job. The Council of Economic Advisers always takes the principled free trade position, and so on.
At the end, the Office of the Trade Representative is the “honest broker,” a role that would be impossible for it to play as part of the parochial Commerce Department. The Office of the Trade Representative’s ability to fulfill this function is now assured by its position as part of the executive office of the president. This allows it to take the broad view of what is in the best interest of the country as a whole and bargain with our trading partners in good faith.
To effectively abolish the Office of the Trade Representative is a dreadful idea. It is a small agency; there are no efficiency gains to be realized by making it another bureau within Commerce. And no matter what promises are made to guarantee its independence, placing the Office of the Trade Representative within Commerce will inevitably politicize the office.
Considering the infamous partisan political gridlock that presently exists in Washington, it seems highly improbable Obama’s reorganization proposal will amount to anything in the immediate future. Even despite that, swift action on something this complex would be quite astounding. As Bartlett notes, President Reagan asked Congress for a similar federal trade agency shake-up almost 20 years ago!
Of course, times have changed radically since then. In the face of challenging economic circumstances and fierce global competition, where the creaking apparatus of government is widely regarded as a hindrance to growth and badly in need of significant overhaul, efforts to modernize and efficiently streamline its workings for the benefit of traders are unavoidable. Whether that comes in the form proposed by the current administration or that of another, it should be hoped the role of those agencies and various aspects of the government that do actually work effectively at present (the Office of the Trade Representative in Bartlett’s example) aren’t unintentionally diminished in the process of reform.
A new EU-US agreement that aims to simplify and speed up customs procedures for shipments of goods crossing the Atlantic was finalized at the Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC) in Washington DC, on November 29th. The agreement, several years in the making, requires both sides to mutually recognize each other’s ‘trusted trader’ programs that cover some [...]
A new EU-US agreement that aims to simplify and speed up customs procedures for shipments of goods crossing the Atlantic was finalized at the Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC) in Washington DC, on November 29th.
The agreement, several years in the making, requires both sides to mutually recognize each other’s ‘trusted trader’ programs that cover some 4,600 EU businesses and 10,000 US firms. The mutual recognition arrangement will essentially treat the United States’ Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism and the EU’s Authorized Economic Operator program as equivalent.
The final sticking point to be resolved concerned data protection rules. The accord becomes operational once the information technology systems are in place and “no later than June 2012,” said the EU’s Taxation and Customs Union Commissioner Algirdas Semeta at the conclusion of the TEC, which the U.S. State Department hosted.
The TEC was set up in 2007 to guide and stimulate transatlantic economic convergence. The regulatory work of the TEC focuses on economically relevant issues of mutual interest, in order to identify issues where EU-U.S. cooperation could produce results in a reasonable time horizon and to engage in a strategic discussion on selected global economic issues.
The International Trade Commission released Aug. 15 Shifts in U.S. Merchandise Trade 2010, its annual compendium of data and analysis examining changes in merchandise trade with key U.S. partners and in crucial U.S. industries. An ITC press release states that this report provides a comprehensive review of U.S. trade performance in 2010, focusing on changes [...]
The International Trade Commission released Aug. 15 Shifts in U.S. Merchandise Trade 2010, its annual compendium of data and analysis examining changes in merchandise trade with key U.S. partners and in crucial U.S. industries. An ITC press release states that this report provides a comprehensive review of U.S. trade performance in 2010, focusing on changes in exports, imports and trade balances of key natural resources, agricultural and manufacturing industries as well as changes in U.S. trade with major partners and groups. Also included are profiles of the U.S. industry and market for over 250 industry groups and subgroups, featuring data for the years 2006 through 2010 on consumption, production, employment and trade.
The report’s findings include the following:
Overall Performance
From 2009 to 2010, the value of U.S. merchandise exports increased by 20% to $1.12 trillion and U.S. imports for consumption increased by 23% to $1.90 trillion. The associated trade deficit increased as well, rising by $164.1 billion (27%) to $776.5 billion. All U.S. industries and sectors except agricultural and forest products registered a trade deficit. The most significant deficits occurred in energy-related products, electronic products and transportation equipment.
Export Growth
U.S. exports increased in all merchandise sectors. The greatest absolute increase ($31.1. billion, or 19%) occurred in the chemicals and related products sector, 25% of which was driven by gains in certain organic chemicals and miscellaneous plastic products. Exports grew due to greater foreign demand for these products as a result of government policies in key foreign markets encouraging the adoption of renewable fuels and increased joint venture projects in key Asian economies. Transportation equipment exports grew by $28.3 billion (15%) and much of this growth was influenced by increased sales of motor vehicles. The third-largest reported absolute increase ($25.6 billion) and the greatest percentage shift (43%) occurred in the energy-related products sector, where price increases and refinery shutdowns in Brazil and Mexico contributed to increases in both the value and the quantity of U.S. exports of natural gas, petroleum, and coal, coke and other energy-related products.
An important factor contributing to the growth in U.S. merchandise exports was increased foreign demand due to rising incomes in many U.S. major trading partners. Real income growth for many of the United States’ major export partners, including Canada, the European Union, Mexico and Japan, was positive in 2010, ranging from 1.8% in the EU to 5.2% in Mexico, compared to negative real GDP growth rates in 2009. GDP growth was even higher in developing countries in Asia (9.3% on average) and Brazil (7.5%). Reflecting these increases in real GDP and foreign demand, Taiwan, Brazil, Korea and China accounted for the largest percentage growth rates for U.S. exports, by country.
Import Growth
The largest absolute increases in imports (by value) occurred in energy-related products ($77.3 billion), transportation equipment ($67.1 billion) and electronic products ($66.2 billion). Canada remained the leading source of U.S. imports of energy-related products, representing 28% of the total U.S. trade deficit in these products. Greater domestic consumption of motor vehicles accounted for 57% of the import growth in transportation equipment, and Canada, Japan and Mexico remained the largest suppliers to the U.S. market (a combined 64%). Within the electronic products sector, imports of three product groupings increased significantly, collectively growing by $45.2 billion: computers, peripherals and parts (up 25%); telecommunications equipment (up 23%); and semiconductors and integrated circuits (up 38%). Increased U.S. imports of these goods reflect the growing importance of Chinese production and assembly, as most electronic products are made or assembled in China through either contract manufacturing or indigenous companies.
Bilateral Trade
There was an increase in the trade deficits between the U.S. and its five leading trading partners in 2010, including the European Union (up $21.8 billion), Canada (up $16.7 billion), China (up $47.9 billion), Mexico (up $26.6 billion) and Japan (up $15.3 billion). Together, these economies accounted for 78% of the total U.S. trade deficit, maintaining their relative positions from 2009 to 2010.
China remained the United States’ single largest source of imports by value, and the $278.3 billion deficit with China was the largest with any U.S. trading partner. The EU is the United States’ largest two-way trading partner, accounting for almost 20% of total U.S. merchandise trade in 2010, while Canada remained the largest single-country trading partner. The trade deficit with the EU was principally driven by increased U.S. imports of transportation equipment (motor vehicles) and chemicals and related products (petroleum products), though imports increased across virtually all sectors. The trade deficit with Canada was likewise heavily influenced by increased imports of energy-related products and transportation equipment. Price increases for petroleum products and favorable credit conditions associated with the improving U.S. economy were the likely causes for increased imports in these sectors.
(World Trade Interactive) House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., and Trade Subcommittee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Texas, have called on the Obama administration to submit “without further delay” legislation to implement free trade agreements with Korea, Colombia and Panama. The two lawmakers highlighted the Aug. 15 entry into force of an FTA between [...]
(World Trade Interactive)
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., and Trade Subcommittee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Texas, have called on the Obama administration to submit “without further delay” legislation to implement free trade agreements with Korea, Colombia and Panama.
The two lawmakers highlighted the Aug. 15 entry into force of an FTA between Colombia and Canada to illustrate the disadvantages to U.S. businesses and workers of further postponing these agreements. However, the FTA bills are not likely to be sent to Congress until at least early September and the agreements themselves would probably not take effect until at least Jan. 1, 2012. Read more here.
(Washington Post – Felicia Sonmez and Zachary A. Goldfarb) Three long-delayed trade deals with South Korea, Panama and Colombia are moving closer to a vote after the Senate’s leaders announced that they had reached an agreement to bring the pacts up for consideration when Congress returns from recess in September. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. [...]
(Washington Post – Felicia Sonmez and Zachary A. Goldfarb)
Three long-delayed trade deals with South Korea, Panama and Colombia are moving closer to a vote after the Senate’s leaders announced that they had reached an agreement to bring the pacts up for consideration when Congress returns from recess in September.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) also agreed to hold a vote on a program favored by Democrats, called Trade Adjustment Assistance, which provides aid and retraining to workers who have lost their jobs because work was sent overseas.
The White House and its Democratic allies had demanded that Congress renew the trade assistance program in order to move forward on the trade deals. Congressional approval is by no means guaranteed, but passage of the deals would fulfill a plank of President Obama’s economic policy. Obama, who expressed skepticism as a candidate about free trade, has hailed the agreements as crucial to increasing U.S. sales overseas. Obama has called for a doubling of U.S. exports by 2015. “These agreements will support tens of thousands of jobs here at home,” U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk said after news of the Senate agreement. Read more here.
(World Trade Interactive) The International Trade Commission released July 28 The Year in Trade 2010, its annual review of U.S. trade-related activities. This publication reviews the administration of U.S. trade laws and regulations, the operation of the World Trade Organization, U.S. free trade agreements and negotiations, and relations with major trading partners. As it does [...]
(World Trade Interactive)
The International Trade Commission released July 28 The Year in Trade 2010, its annual review of U.S. trade-related activities. This publication reviews the administration of U.S. trade laws and regulations, the operation of the World Trade Organization, U.S. free trade agreements and negotiations, and relations with major trading partners.
As it does virtually every year, the ITC report includes information on (a) antidumping, countervailing, safeguard, intellectual property rights infringement and section 301 investigations; (b) the operation of trade preference programs; (c) significant activities in the WTO, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum; (d) developments in bilateral and regional FTAs; (f) trade relations with major trading partners such as the European Union, Canada, China, Mexico, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Brazil, India and Russia; and (g) U.S. trade in goods and services. Read more here.
The State Department has issued a document providing guidance to commercial entities concerning the conflict mineral requirements included in the financial reform legislation enacted last summer. While this guidance may be revised once final regulations from the Securities and Exchange Commission are issued later this year, State believes is it “critical” for companies to “begin [...]
The State Department has issued a document providing guidance to commercial entities concerning the conflict mineral requirements included in the financial reform legislation enacted last summer. While this guidance may be revised once final regulations from the Securities and Exchange Commission are issued later this year, State believes is it “critical” for companies to “begin now to perform meaningful due diligence.”
Conflict minerals include columbite-tantalite (coltan), cassiterite, gold, wolframite and their derivatives, which are used in the manufacture of a wide range of goods such as cell phones, computers and video game systems, medical equipment, high-speed tools, machine parts, glass and lamps.
Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, certain persons who use these minerals must disclose to the SEC whether those minerals originated in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or an adjoining country, where their mining and sale has helped finance an ongoing civil war and related human rights violations. Proposed SEC regulations intended to implement this requirement were issued in December 2010 and include provisions on those required to report, determining and disclosing the origin of conflict minerals, the content of conflict minerals reports, and the use of recycled or scrap sources. Read more here.
(Myles S. Getlan — Arent Fox LLP) Last week, the U.S. Senate Finance Committee and the U.S. House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee approved draft legislation that would significantly increase costs on U.S. importers. The legislation, which would implement free trade agreements (FTAs) that the United States has negotiated with South Korea, Panama, and [...]
(Myles S. Getlan — Arent Fox LLP)
Last week, the U.S. Senate Finance Committee and the U.S. House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee approved draft legislation that would significantly increase costs on U.S. importers. The legislation, which would implement free trade agreements (FTAs) that the United States has negotiated with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia, would increase Merchandise Processing Fees (MPF) assessed on imports entering the United States.
Barring unexpected developments, we expect a sizeable increase in the MPF rate to be included in the final legislation. For some importers, these costs could be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Facing these future increased costs, companies should carefully consider whether they are eligible for an MPF exemption under one or more trade preference programs. However, with greater revenue at stake, the government is likely to further ratchet up enforcement efforts in relation to trade preference claims, including the MPF exemption, thereby presenting greater compliance challenges for importers. Read more here.
(World Trade Interactive) The departments of Homeland Security and the Treasury recently issued their semiannual regulatory agendas, which include the following actions affecting international trade. • Treasury has pushed back again but is hoping to publish in the near future a final rule providing for the use of sampling methods by CBP auditors and for [...]
(World Trade Interactive)
The departments of Homeland Security and the Treasury recently issued their semiannual regulatory agendas, which include the following actions affecting international trade.
• Treasury has pushed back again but is hoping to publish in the near future a final rule providing for the use of sampling methods by CBP auditors and for offsetting of overpayments and over-declarations when an audit involves a calculation of lost revenue or monetary penalty under 19 USC 1592.
• A final rule regarding the customs broker recordkeeping requirements as they pertain to the location and method of record retention has again been postponed, this time until July. These changes include (a) permitting licensed customs brokers to store records relating to their customs transactions at any location within the customs territory of the U.S. so long as the designated recordkeeping contact, identified in the broker’s permit application, makes all records available to CBP within a reasonable period of time from request at the broker district that covers the CBP port to which the records relate, and (b) removing the requirement, as it currently applies to brokers, that certain entry records be retained in their original format for the 120-day period after the release or conditional release of imported merchandise.
Read more here.
