Articles Posted in Trade Agreements

Published on:

By and

On March 8, 2018, President Trump signed proclamations authorizing the imposition of a 25 percent customs duty on certain steel products and a 10 percent customs duty on certain aluminum products. The duties were imposed pursuant to Section 232 (“Section 232”) of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, a rarely-used national security provision that authorizes the Department of Commerce (DOC) to investigate the effect of imports on national security.  The new customs duties are scheduled to enter into effect on March 23, 2018.  Below we discuss the Presidential Proclamations and reactions from Capitol Hill and other countries.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

Further to our alert published on November 13, 2017 regarding whether acts, policies, and practices (APPs) of China related to transfer of technology, intellectual property, and innovation are actionable under Section 301(b)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974 (Section 301), it is anticipated that the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) will make affirmative findings and remedy recommendations well ahead of the August 2018 statutory deadline, potentially as early as January 2018. USTR is authorized to take specified actions (noted below), “subject to the specific direction, if any, of the President regarding such action[s]” and is authorized to take “all other appropriate and feasible action within the power of the President that the President may direct USTR to take.”

According to USTR officials, if the United States makes an affirmative determination, the next steps will likely proceed in two tracks: (1) the United States may elect to initiate a World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute regarding the APPs, if they are considered to be in violation of WTO commitments, and/or (2) the United States may take unilateral retaliatory action.  Below, we comment briefly on both tracks.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

During his visit to China, President Trump raised concerns about the trade deficit between the United States and China as well as China’s trade practices. One longstanding concern in this regard has been technology/intellectual property (IP) transfer requirements in China—an issue the U.S. Trade Representative is currently investigating through a rarely used tool under U.S. law. In their recent alert on the topic, colleagues Nancy A. Fischer, Stephan E. Becker and Sahar J. Hafeez examine the issue and its potential trade implications.

Published on:

By , , and

On April 18, 2017, President Trump signed the “Presidential Executive Order on Buy American and Hire American.” While there is no immediate impact, the Executive Order (“EO”) sets the stage for executive agencies to perform reviews of compliance with Buy American laws and could potentially lead to changes in how these laws are implemented.  Note that although there is a “Buy American Act” the term “Buy American” is also used as a generic term to describe a variety of laws and regulations that impose domestic content requirements.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By , and

“We will follow two simple rules: buy American and hire American.” While world leaders are pondering what these words from President Trump’s Inaugural Address mean for international trade, a different question looms for U.S. Government contractors—what is on the horizon as far as the Buy American Act and similar protectionist regulations?

  • Any new infrastructure spending bill that provides funding for state and local public works projects likely will incorporate domestic preference requirements similar to those incorporated in 2009’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
  • The process for issuing new waivers when a particular item is not available in commercial quantities from U.S. producers may be further restricted, and some existing waivers could be cancelled.
  • Even if no new rules are implemented, contractors should be prepared for increased enforcement.

The Buy American Act, Balance of Payments Program, Cargo Preference Act, Berry Amendment and similar regulations all require U.S. Government contractors to exclusively use, or give a preference to, U.S. suppliers. Further, the Trade Agreements Act prohibits U.S. Government purchases of products from many foreign countries. Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

In a development that may have important implications for companies selling products to the U.S. government, on December 7, 2016, the Court of International Trade (CIT) issued a decision holding that the assembly in the United States of a flashlight using imported components did not qualify as “U.S. origin” under the Trade Agreements Act. The court’s decision potentially may alter the manner in which government agencies determine whether a product with foreign content is eligible to be purchased.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By , , and

Donald Trump’s victory in the 2016 Presidential election put the Republican Party in charge of the White House and Congress for the first time in a decade. President-elect Trump ran as an anti-establishment candidate who departed from many traditional Republican positions and promised bold and in some respects controversial reforms. How his administration will govern and the extent to which its policies will be supported in Congress are key questions facing companies and investors.

This report comments on aspects of international trade, sanctions and export control policies that are currently at the forefront of discussion.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

On October 5, the trade ministers of the 12 nations participating in the negotiations announced that they had successfully concluded the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade agreement. Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, United States, and Vietnam are the member countries. There is a long way to go before the TPP is ratified and implemented (and the prospects for ratification in certain countries are not certain), but the agreement represents a major accomplishment for negotiations that began in 2009.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

On June 24, after weeks of legislative wrangling and extensive lobbying by influential interest groups, the U.S. Senate passed the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015, better known as the Trade Promotion Authority (“TPA”) legislation. The House approved identical legislation last week, so the President now can sign TPA into law.

Although enactment of TPA is technically not a prerequisite for Congress to consider pending free trade agreements (“FTAs”), the “fast track” procedures contained within the TPA legislation offer the President critical leverage to finalize negotiations for several key FTAs and provide assurances to trading partners that Congress will not reopen the negotiations after the agreement has been finalized. In particular, the TPA bill mandates the use of several procedures to accelerate Congressional consideration of legislation to implement a trade agreement. These expedited procedures include:

Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

This afternoon the House of Representatives approved a rule that extends time for a second vote on Trade Adjustment Assistance legislation which the House failed to pass on Friday.  By a vote of 236-189, the House voted to allow for reconsideration of the trade legislation before July 30th.  The next six weeks promise to be full of interesting legislative twists and turns as supporters of the trade agenda seek a path forward.