Hey Mexico: What's With The Trucks?

I know, renegotiating NAFTA is the talk of the moment. It was a campaign promise and apparently came up during President Obama's first foreign trip, which was to Ottawa. One issue that has never been satisfactorily worked out, at least from a legal perspective, is the trucking dispute. The agreement clearly lets Mexican domiciled trucks have full access to the U.S. market (and, therefore, to Canada). But, this has never been implemented. There have been pilot programs in fits and starts, but it has never become the law.

And, it still won't. H.R. 1105, the recently introduced omnibus appropriations bill effectively tries to prevent it again by prohibiting the use of funds in furtherance of the program. It's hard to find in the bill. Look at page 983, in section 136.

Here's my question: Does anyone in Mexico care about this? I understand that people on the U.S. side might have concerns as varied as job loss, safety, and environmental protection relating to more trucks on the road. Based on what I have read, I suspect many of these concerns are rationalizations aimed at protecting jobs, which is not an insubstantial concern. But in Mexico is there a constituency to push this? My guess is that there is not, otherwise they would be trying to enforce the dispute decision they already won (nod to Todd Weiler for the document). And yet, they thought enough about it at the time to want it in the agreement. So, there was some interest at some point.

Much like every episode of MonsterQuest, I don't have a conclusion here. Just some theories and a limited amount of time and money to spend contemplating them. I would like a cool computer generated graphic of a Mexican truck driver to spice up this post, though. Maybe Loren Coleman (of whom I am a big fan) can help me on that one. In the mean time, the rarely sighted Truckerisis Dieselamo Mexicanis remains a cryptid north of the Rio Grande.

Side note: I propose to start using "MonsterQuest" as a synonym for "inconclusive," "unfinished," or "impossible." For example, "Mrs. Jones, the results of your pregnancy test were a MonsterQuest." Or, "Don't bother looking for that golf ball, its a MonsterQuest." I hope they take that up on The Skeptics Guide (of which I am also a big fan, go figure).

Comments

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