All About CAFTA-DR. What About Bolivia?

Customs has revised the instructions to the field for dealing with CAFTA-DR claims. The one issue it does not cover is whether we have to continue to call this agreement "CAFTA-DR." It seems like we should declare the Dominican Republic to be part of Central America and call it a day at "CAFTA." Also, has anyone figured out how to pronounce USAFTA, the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Is it "us afta" or "oo safta?"

Anyway, from a substantive point of view, this memo pretty much lays out what you need to know about making a CAFTA claim, CAFTA verifications, and retroactive textile claims. If you are interested in that stuff, read it.

A more interesting drama is playing out in Bolivia where the President Evo Morales is threatening to nationalize natural gas production facilities. According to this NY Times article, he plans to start with an audit of foreign companies while negotiating new contracts. If the negotiations don't go well (for Bolivia, that is), he may seize the companies. The Energy honcho in La Paz even used "the X word." Expropriation is such a nasty concept in international law that there are hundreds of treaties designed to protect direct foreign investment. These are generally known as "bilateral investment treaties." Similarly, NAFTA and other trade agreements tend to include provisions giving investors of member countries certain protections and rights. In NAFTA, this is all in Chapter 11 and has spawned a mini industry of Chapter 11 lawyers. It is interesting and complicated work.

Apparently, the U.S. has had a bilateral investment treaty with Bolivia in effect since 2001. I don't know who owns the natural gas production facilities in Bolivia. But, I can guarantee that if they are American companies, they are dusting off copies of that treaty right now.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I think that people will learn to pronounce the Australian agreement after they actually start using it...
May 4, 2006, 7:16:00 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ruling of the Week 2015.8: Old Jersey and Pitcairn Island

Image
For today's ROTW, I set out looking for a ruling dealing with some far off and preferably warm location. Turns out that, with the exception of coastwise transit issues, there are no Customs and Border Protection rulings involving Pitcairn Island or any of several Pacific Ocean microstates including Tuvalu , Niue , and Kiribati . Pitcairn Island What I did find is an interesting question about the country of origin marking for products of the Bailiwick of Jersey Island, Channel Islands. The ruling is HQ 561938 (Mar. 18, 2002). For those of you who may not know, Jersey is an island off the coast of Normandy, France. It is an independent international actor and not part of the U.K. although the U.K. is responsible for its defense and external relations. Also, the Queen is the Head of State in her capacity as "the Crown in Right of Jersey." It is, according to the U.S. Department of State, a " Crown Dependency " along with the Isle of Man and the Bailiwick o...
Read more

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

Ninestar and UFLPA Exhaustion

Image
Exhaustion is a key doctrine in administrative law. When applicable, it requires that a party unhappy with an agency’s determination complete the administrative appeal process before turning to the courts for judicial review. Requiring exhaustion typically promotes judicial efficiency by ensuring that disputes are resolved at the agency and, if they are not, that there is a complete record of the agency process. Exhaustion also ensures that the judiciary respects the executive agencies and their expertise.  There are, on the other hand, times when the courts will find that exhaustion is not necessary or appropriate. Such is the case in  Ninestar Corporation et al. v. United States  et al., a decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade.  Ninestar is also interesting because it is one of the first cases in the CIT involving the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, known as UFLPA. In my hiatus from active blogging, I missed the rise of UFLPA as a major compliance t...
Read more