Lots to Blog

I'll get to Eurodif today.

Reminder that I'll be speaking at the Georgetown CLE International Trade Update March 5-6.

Substantively, the USTR is asking for comments on U.S. participation in a Trans-Pacific Free Trade Agreement.  Are we suffering free-trade agreement fatigue yet?  Is American industry clamoring for a new compliance regime to access trade with our neighbors around the pacific?  This proposed agreement would include:
  • Singapore
  • Chile
  • New Zealand
  • Burei Darussalam
  • Australia
  • Vietnam
  • Peru
Note that we currently have agreements with Singapore, Chile, Australia, and Peru.  So basically, this seems to me to say: "Doha is dead.  We are going it alone."  That is not really news.  

I do wonder whether the WTO can survive being continually undercut by the rapidly growing number of bilateral and regional trade agreements.  As of January 2005, there were 310 regional trade agreements notified to the WTO pursuant to GATT 1947 Article XXIV.  There have been a number since that time.  According to my colleague Prof. Ralph Folsom of the University of San Diego, the lone country on the planet without a regional or bilateral trade agreement is Mongolia.  See the handy WTO list here.

What is the value of WTO membership and most favored nation status, if Article XXIV lets regional agreements provide better market access and enhanced benefits to members?  Is a country better off with a bilateral agreement with its actual trading partners than a global agreement?  Tough question that I cannot start to answer.  It is something for the new administration and the USTR to think about.

For companies, a new agreement might provide valuable market access, protections for intellectual property rights, assurances to investors, and cheaper access for production materials.  For my part, it means another set of rules of origin, another certification process, and more enforcement by Customs and Border Protection.  At the detail level, this might be a great thing.  It's the big picture where things are troubling me.

Comments

Anonymous said…
If you would like more information about the program, you can visit the Georgetown Law site at www.georgetowncle.org.
Feb 9, 2009, 2:59:00 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CAFC Decision in Double Invoicing Case

The Federal Circuit has issued a decision on the merits in United States v. Inn Foods, Inc.  There had been a previous decision on jurisdiction, which was followed by a trial at the Court of International Trade and then this appeal on the substance. The initial issue is whether Inn Foods' invoicing practice amounts to fraud.  Inn Foods had been receiving an invoice from growers in Mexico that had a relatively low sales prices on it.  Subsequent to entry, Inn Foods created a second invoice at something more similar to market value, retaining the original invoice number, and paid at that higher amount.   Superficially, this looks like a standard-issue double-invoicing scheme.  But, in the age of reconciliation, is it really more like a provisional pricing mechanism?  It might have been possible to make that argument had Inn Foods adjusted its entries accordingly.  It didn't and the loss of revenue was approximately $624,000.  Based on testimony and evidence indicating both knowl
Read more

Target on Finality

Image
In the last post , about the Federal Circuit’s very important decision on due process and allegations of evasion of antidumping duties, I made a snarky, offhand comment that the government believes “liquidation is magic.” That was in the context of the government arguing that Customs’ liquidation of entries mooted an appeal, thereby taking away the importer’s right to further judicial review. I said that knowing full well that I still needed to write this post summarizing Target Corp. v. United States in which Target made what I want to be a valid and righteous argument that Customs’ improper liquidation of entries at a favorable rate of antidumping duty prevents the Court of International Trade from ordering Customs to collect the legally applicable duties. But it turns out that while liquidation is an important legal step, in at least one unusual circumstance it is not sufficiently powerful to overcome the full force of an Article III court. Understanding this case requires a lot
Read more

CAFC: EAPA Process Really Does Violate Due Process

Image
Hot on the heels of my complaining about how the EAPA law and process is stacked against importers, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued an important decision that will have a major impact on how those cases work. If you are unfamiliar with evasion cases under the Enforce and Protect Act and how Customs and Border Protection handles them, go back and look at these two posts: Part 1 , Part 2. Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States , is the decision in an evasion case against Royal Brush involving pencils allegedly transshipped from China through the Philippines. Customs determined that there was evasion of an antidumping duty order based in part on evidence that was not disclosed to Royal. Specifically, Customs sent a representative to the facility in the Philippines to photograph the interior and provide a report. Customs refused to disclose all the photographs to Royal. Moreover, CBP's report concluded that the facility did not have sufficient capacit
Read more