NAFTA & TPP: What Happens?

Here is an interesting fact. Canada and Mexico have now joined the negotiations aimed at creating a Trans-Pacific Partnership. That makes some sense. Both countries, like the United States, have pacific coasts and both countries do a lot of business in the Asia-Pacific region. The other countries currently involved in the negotiations include Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. Many breathless commentators have described TPP as the NAFTA of the Pacific or NAFTA on Steroids.

My question is fairly basic: Assuming there is a TPP Agreement at some point in the future, what happens to NAFTA? You probably remember that when NAFTA expanded free trade in North America to include Mexico, the pre-existing U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement was put on hold and kept alive only to be resurrected in the unlikely circumstance of NAFTA collapsing. Will the same thing happen with TPP? Will it completely supersede the NAFTA? This same question can be asked about U.S. FTA's with Australia, Chile, and Peru.

I have not seen a lot of discussion about this, but I know people are thinking about it. While companies that do a lot of business in the Asia-Pacific region have been focusing on TPP as an opportunity for market access, investment protection, strengthened intellectual property enforcement, etc., companies primarily engaging in North American trade may not have focused on TPP.

With the addition of Canada and Mexico to the TPP mix, that strategy might need to change. In fact, companies that engage in a lot of NAFTA-facilitated trade in North America might want to get involved in the process to ensure that TPP does not result in any new burdens on trade within the NAFTA region.

I point to this question out of genuine interest. It also happens that one of my partners is involved in the TPP process as an industry representative. So, if anyone has specific questions or concerns, we might have a way of helping to sort them out.

As always, feel free to contact me if you have a specific need.

Comments

Sarah said…
If TPP establishes a much-more-appealing trade partnership, how will that impact the US? I’m just interested in it, knowing our economy is barely recovering as-is.
Jul 3, 2012, 6:48:00 AM
Anonymous said…
If and when a TPP that includes the US goes into effect the existing bilaterials (and in the case of NAFTA, trilateral) agreements will continue to be in force. So, say you want to export to Mexico, you could chose to claim either a NAFTA or a TPP benefit, depending on which set of rules was most favorable to you. It will not be, as was the case of the U.S.-Canada FTA which was superceded by NAFTA.
Nov 16, 2012, 1:19:00 PM
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