Second Front on Mexico Trucks

A Mexican truckers association has filed a claim under Chapter 11 of the NAFTA seeking damages for the U.S. failure to open its market to Mexico-domiciled truckers.  

The original notice of a demand for arbitration was filed April 2, 2009.  [Tip to Todd at www.naftaclaims.com for the document.]  Under the NAFTA rules, the notice creates an obligation for the parties to consult on the issue.  This article provides some background.

The claim here is that the moratorium violates key provisions of Chapter 11 including national treatment, most-favored-nation treatment, and the minimum standard of treatment under customary international law (sometimes summarized as "fair and equitable treatment.").  National treatment seems clear:  Mexican carriers are barred from the U.S. market by virtue of their status as Mexican.  Most-favored-nation treatment is equally clear: Canadian carriers are permitted to operate in the U.S.  The minimum standard issue is more amorphous and harder to get a quick read on.  But, the claimant only needs to prove one violation, not all three.

The notice asserts that Mexico is harmed to the tune of approximately $2 billion per year and states it is working on quantifying the damages to the carriers.

This is an interesting case in that it applies the Chapter 11 protections provided to investors to what had previously been handled as a state-to-state dispute under Chapter 20.  The prior Chapter 20 process resulted in a decision favoring Mexico under which Mexico has no imposed retaliatory (really "offsetting") duties on certain U.S. products entering Mexico.  In the Chapter 11 case, it seems liability is all but assured.  The Chapter 20 decision went against the U.S.  Moreover, in the list of reservations in the NAFTA itself, the U.S. all but admits that the moratorium on Mexican trucks in the U.S. interferes with Mexican investment in a way that is inconsistent with the Agreement.


Comments

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