Section 232 Update — The End of the Temporary Exemptions

Dear Friends, 

Further to the below, the President issued two new proclamations this morning regarding the imposition of additional duties on imports of steel (25%) and aluminum (10%) under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended.  Copies are attached here for your reference. 

The steel proclamation (1) exempts imports from Argentina, Austrailia, Brazil and South Korea from the additional 25% duty (based on voluntary-export restraint agreements (i.e., export quotas) Argentina, Brazil and South Korea agreed to with the United States; Australia is also exempt, but thus far, no export quota has been imposed); and (2) ends the temporary exemptions previously afforded imports from Australia, Canada, Mexico and the EU.  As a result, imports of steel from all jurisdictions except Argentina, Australia, Brazil and South Korea will be subject to an additional 25% duty as of 12:01 am tonight (i.e., June 1, 2018).

The aluminum proclamation (1) exempts imports from Argentina and Australia from the additional 10% duty (based on voluntary-export restraint agreements (i.e., export quotas) those countries have agreed to with the United States); and (2) ends the temporary exemptions previously afforded imports from Brazil, Canada, Mexico and the EU.  As a result, imports of aluminum from all jurisdictions except Argentina and Australia will be subject to an additional 10% duty as of 12:01 am tonight (i.e., June 1, 2018).

We expect that many countries will proceed with imposing retaliatory measures.  For example, the EU already announced that it is ready to impose an additional 25% duty on $3.3 billion worth of U.S. imports as of June 20, 2018.   Other countries have also announced an intent to pursue this at the WTO level (e.g., Japan, India, etc.), which could lead to the imposition of more retaliatory duties on U.S. products.

At this point, it is not clear how long the additional U.S. duties will be in place.  It is clear, however, that the duties are being used as leverage to influence on-going negotiations aimed at re-balancing our trade relationships with many countries (including many of our closest allies).  In the meantime, companies impacted by today’s announcements should be considering all of their options, including the viability of filing product exclusion petitions with the Dept. of Commerce.

We trust that this update is helpful.  If you have any questions about these issues, please let us know.

Best regards,
Ted


Dear Friends,

By now, you have probably seen that the President issued two new proclamations regarding the imposition of additional duties on imports of steel (25%) and aluminum (10%) under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended.  The proclamations do the following:  (1) extend the temporary exemption applicable to imports of covered articles from Argentina, Australia and Brazil while the details associated with permanent exemptions are finalized; (2) extend the temporary exemption applicable to imports of covered articles from Canada, Mexico and the EU through May 30, 2018; (3) address issues related to the application of the additional duties when foreign trade zones are involved; and (4) clarify that “[n]o drawback shall be available” with respect to section 232 duties.  The steel proclamation also finalizes the permanent exemption afforded imports of covered steel articles from South Korea.  Imports of aluminum covered articles from South Korea are not covered by a permanent exemption and are, therefore, subject to the additional 10% duties as of May 1, 2018.  Copies of the April 30th proclamations are attached here for your reference:  2018-09841 and 2018-09840.

Since the issuance of the proclamations, it has been reported that the permanent exemption to be afforded Brazil will only apply to steel imports (in exchange for a limit on Brazilian steel exports to the USA) and that aluminum imports will be subject to the additional 10% duty.  It is also been reported that the permanent exemption to be afforded Argentina will cover both steel and aluminum imports (again, in exchange for a limit on Argentine exports to the USA).

In terms of Canada and Mexico, the permanent exemptions appear to be tied to the on-going NAFTA negotiations.  While those negotiations have reportedly made substantial progress in recent weeks, it is not clear whether a deal will be able to be announced in the next couple of weeks.  The Administration has recently expressed concern that if a deal is not reached by May 21, 2018, then any revised agreement would need to be voted on by the next Congress, due to timing issues associated with applicable legal requirements (e.g., the Administration has to provide notice of any deal to Congress, the U.S. International Trade Commission has to do a study of any new deal, etc.).  This is problematic because the next Congress (which will be sworn in in January 2019) will not have had an opportunity to help direct the negotiations (as the current Congress has) and may have a different composition as a result of the elections in October.  As a result, expect the U.S. Administration to put on a full court press to get a deal done (or at least announced) before May 21st.  If that does not happen, then there is an increased chance that the section 232 duties will go into effect for Canada and Mexico June 1, 2018.

In terms of the EU, the Administration has made clear that the key to getting a permanent exemption from the section 232 duties is agreeing to an export quota, or other voluntary-export-restraint-type agreement.  The EU, however, has made it clear that it will not agree to any sort of quota or VRA.  It has, however, reportedly offered to enter into negotiations with the United States for a new ‘trade in goods’ free trade agreement.  It will be an interesting few weeks to be sure as these discussions play out.

In the meantime, we recommend that any company which imports covered articles from Canada, Mexico or the EU (or relies on covered articles from these countries imported by other U.S. parties) consider preparing product exclusion petitions now.  While exclusions are not needed currently, there is a meaningful chance that such exclusions will be needed in the near future (i.e., June 1st).  Given the delay in the processing of product exclusion petitions, it is important that companies which are impacted be proactive in protecting their interests (e.g., not languishing at the back of a very long line, etc.).

We hope that this update is helpful.  We are assisting numerous clients deal with these section 232 issues.  If you would like to discuss any of this further, please let us know.

Best regards,
Ted

Advertisements

Section 232 Update

Dear Friends,

By now, you have probably seen that the President issued two new proclamations regarding the imposition of additional duties on imports of steel (25%) and aluminum (10%) under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended.  The proclamations do the following:  (1) extend the temporary exemption applicable to imports of covered articles from Argentina, Australia and Brazil while the details associated with permanent exemptions are finalized; (2) extend the temporary exemption applicable to imports of covered articles from Canada, Mexico and the EU through May 30, 2018; (3) address issues related to the application of the additional duties when foreign trade zones are involved; and (4) clarify that “[n]o drawback shall be available” with respect to section 232 duties.  The steel proclamation also finalizes the permanent exemption afforded imports of covered steel articles from South Korea.  Imports of aluminum covered articles from South Korea are not covered by a permanent exemption and are, therefore, subject to the additional 10% duties as of May 1, 2018.  Copies of the April 30th proclamations are attached here for your reference:  2018-09841 and 2018-09840.

Since the issuance of the proclamations, it has been reported that the permanent exemption to be afforded Brazil will only apply to steel imports (in exchange for a limit on Brazilian steel exports to the USA) and that aluminum imports will be subject to the additional 10% duty.  It is also been reported that the permanent exemption to be afforded Argentina will cover both steel and aluminum imports (again, in exchange for a limit on Argentine exports to the USA).

In terms of Canada and Mexico, the permanent exemptions appear to be tied to the on-going NAFTA negotiations.  While those negotiations have reportedly made substantial progress in recent weeks, it is not clear whether a deal will be able to be announced in the next couple of weeks.  The Administration has recently expressed concern that if a deal is not reached by May 21, 2018, then any revised agreement would need to be voted on by the next Congress, due to timing issues associated with applicable legal requirements (e.g., the Administration has to provide notice of any deal to Congress, the U.S. International Trade Commission has to do a study of any new deal, etc.).  This is problematic because the next Congress (which will be sworn in in January 2019) will not have had an opportunity to help direct the negotiations (as the current Congress has) and may have a different composition as a result of the elections in October.  As a result, expect the U.S. Administration to put on a full court press to get a deal done (or at least announced) before May 21st.  If that does not happen, then there is an increased chance that the section 232 duties will go into effect for Canada and Mexico June 1, 2018.

In terms of the EU, the Administration has made clear that the key to getting a permanent exemption from the section 232 duties is agreeing to an export quota, or other voluntary-export-restraint-type agreement.  The EU, however, has made it clear that it will not agree to any sort of quota or VRA.  It has, however, reportedly offered to enter into negotiations with the United States for a new ‘trade in goods’ free trade agreement.  It will be an interesting few weeks to be sure as these discussions play out.

In the meantime, we recommend that any company which imports covered articles from Canada, Mexico or the EU (or relies on covered articles from these countries imported by other U.S. parties) consider preparing product exclusion petitions now.  While exclusions are not needed currently, there is a meaningful chance that such exclusions will be needed in the near future (i.e., June 1st).  Given the delay in the processing of product exclusion petitions, it is important that companies which are impacted be proactive in protecting their interests (e.g., not languishing at the back of a very long line, etc.).

We hope that this update is helpful.  We are assisting numerous clients deal with these section 232 issues.  If you would like to discuss any of this further, please let us know.

Best regards,
Ted

Section 232/Section 301 Update

Dear Friends,

I wanted to share with you a couple of thoughts on the Section 232/Section 301 process that I thought might be helpful.

The first is a reminder.  The temporary exclusions from the Section 232 duties on steel (an additional 25%) and aluminum (an additional 10%) granted to products of Canada, Mexico, Australia, Argentina, Brazil and the EU expire at midnight on Monday, April 30th (i.e., tomorrow).  While there has been some reports that the Administration intends to extend the temporary exclusions for some countries (i.e., those that have expressed a willingness to negotiate a voluntary export restraint-type agreement), that is not likely to extend to all countries.  Based on what the EU has said publicly about its willingness to accept a VER, it seems likely that the additional duties will go into effect on Tuesday.

The second is also a reminder.  As companies grapple with the Section 232/Section 301 duties, many are reviewing their imports and determining whether articles are correctly classified or not (e.g., if an article is on the list of products proposed to be subject to the Section 301 duties, can the article be re-classified in a different HTS provision not on the list?).  Many companies are also reviewing the publicly-available data of their competitors. . . .

 As many of you know, U.S. Customs and Border Protection makes available to the public manifest data for import and export shipments.  The manifest data includes information such as the name and address of the foreign shipper & U.S. consignee/notify party, the ports of lading and unlading, the carrier, a description of the goods, weight, etc.  This data is obtained by private companies that repackage it (and often add their best guess at classification, entered value, etc.) and then sell it to the public for a fee. 

You may also know that CBP allows companies to request confidential treatment for their manifest data.  Under the regulations, if a company requests confidential treatment, CBP will not disclose the names and addresses of the importer/consignee, foreign shipper or notify party and any other identifying marks. 

The process to obtain confidential treatment is pretty straight-forward (it involves submitting a letter to CBP HQ) and we recommend that all clients pursue confidential treatment every 2 years.

We hope that this is helpful.  If you have any questions, or if you would like any assistance with Section 232/Section 301 issues, including requesting confidential treatment for your manifest data, please let us know.

Best regards,
Ted

The Art of the Deal – Update on Section 232 Duties on Steel & Aluminum

Dear Friends,

Late last week, the President issued two proclamations amending his earlier proclamations imposing additional duties on imports of steel and aluminum.  Copies of these proclamations may be found here and here.

The proclamations made a number of important changes to the section 232 duties.  Most notably, the President extended the temporary exemption previously afforded to Canada and Mexico, to Australia, Argentina, South Korea, Brazil and the EU.  In addition, the temporary exemption will now only run through April 30, 2018.  As of May 1, 2018, covered steel and aluminum articles from all countries will be subject to the additional 25% (steel) and 10% (aluminum) duties unless a further agreement is reached.

The President also indicated that, if any long-term agreements are ultimately reached with any countries, such that the exemption is continued beyond April 30, 2018, he will consider whether to adjust the additional duty rates (the 25% and 10%) to ensure that the desired goal is achieved (limit imports sufficiently to allow for domestic production utilization of 80%).      

The proclamations also include provisions that discuss the possible implementation of a quota on imports from exempted countries, place restrictions on articles admitted into Foreign Trade Zones and provide further detail on the product exclusion petition process (e.g., additional criteria for approval and retroactive treatment for approved petitions).

Regardless of what you think of the policy, the threat of significantly increased duties has (thus far) had the desired result, as many countries have sought to negotiate with the United States.  It will be interesting to see what unfolds over the next few weeks (e.g., will the imposition of section 232 duties to Canada and Mexico be tied to concluding the NAFTA renegotiations? will countries like Japan seek its own long-term exemption? if long-term exemptions are granted, will the duty rates be increased to even higher rates? what sort of voluntary-restraint type of agreement/quota will be required in order to obtain a long-term exemption?).  All companies that utilize steel or aluminum articles (whether imported or domestically-produced) should be taking steps now to review the economic impact the section 232 duties will have on their business.  Consideration should be given to the impact on long-term supply agreements (whether upstream or downstream – who bears the cost of increased duties?), the impact on market competition (e.g., are you making a product here with imported steel or aluminum, but competing against finished products produced abroad and imported into the United States without being subject to the section 232 duties?), etc.

We are assisting numerous companies navigate these issues (as well as the product exclusion process) and would be happy to discuss your situation with you further.  If you would like to do so, just let us know. 

Best regards, 

Ted

 

Challenge to How the Substantial Test is Applied to Pharmaceutical Products

Dear Friends,

We wanted to bring to your attention a recent development regarding an issue that has been a thorn in the sides of pharmaceutical companies for many years.  The development involves how the substantial transformation test is applied to pharmaceuticals for purposes of determining country of origin.

As you know, will generally be found to have occurred if the manufacturing or processing operation results in a change in (1) commercial designation or identity, (2) fundamental character, or (3) commercial use.  In the pharmaceutical context, U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) long-standing position has been that, for single API products, formulation (i.e., mixing a bulk active with excipients and putting it up in dosage form) is generally not enough to work a substantial transformation.  As a result, if an active is produced in one country and shipped to another country for formulation, the formulating operations performed in the second country will not be sufficient to change the origin of the active ingredient.  In short, the origin of the API controls (of course, CBP in its wisdom gets a different result under the NAFTA Marking Rules, which is maddening). 

A pharmaceutical company is now challenging CBP’s long-standing position at the Court of International Trade (CIT).  The case stems from an adverse final determination issued in the government procurement context.  CBP determined that the pharmaceutical at issue is not substantially transformed in the United States because the API, sourced from India, retains its chemical and physical properties upon processing in the United States.  The determination is adverse because, as a result of not being considered to be substantially transformed in the United States, the company’s product is not eligible for procurement by the U.S. government (India is not a TAA country).   In response to this determination, the company filed suit at the CIT.  The company argues that the API is substantially transformed into a new and different product with a different use as a result of the processes performed in the United States.  A copy of the compliant is attached for your reference. 

The case is significant because it means that CBP’s long-standing position of what constitutes a substantially transformation will be reviewed by an independent, third party — the CIT.  A positive outcome for the company could impact how country of origin is determined for pharmaceutical products across the board.

If this issue has caused you heartburn (or if your company sources API from non-TAA countries like India, China, etc. but formulates the finished products in TAA countries, like the U.S., Canada, Ireland, etc.), then you may want to consider weighing in at the CIT.  We would be happy to discuss how best to do that with you further.  If such a discussion would be helpful, just let us know. 

Best regards,

Ted

3/8/17 Update: Section 232 Duties on Steel & Aluminum – Part IV

Dear Friends,

Further to the below, President Trump signed two Presidential Proclamations today – one on steel imports and one on aluminum imports (available here and here).  As expected, the President is imposing an additional 25% duty on steel, and an additional 10% duty on aluminum, imported from all countries except Canada and Mexico beginning on March 23, 2018.  The details are as follows:

Steel Duties

* the 25% additional duty will apply to “steel articles” imported from all countries except Canada and Mexico as of March 23, 2018; 

* “steel articles” are defined by reference to Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) 6-digit subheading, as follows:  “7206.10 through 7216.50, 7216.99 through 7301.10, 7302.10, 7302.40 through 7302.90, and 7304.10 through 7306.90, including any subsequent revisions to these HTS classifications”;

* the 25% additional duty will apply to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, as of March 23, 2018;

* imports from Canada and Mexico are exempted from the additional duty for now; the proclamation describes the special relationship the United States has with these countries and concludes that steel imports from these countries should be exempted, but qualifies it by saying “at least at this time”; this exemption is likely tied progress with the on-going NAFTA renegotiations and could be taken away by the President with little notice; also, it seems clear that the President means to exempt articles produced in Canada or Mexico, not just articles imported from Canada or Mexico (you cannot ship steel produced in China through Canada and avoid the additional U.S. duty);

* imports from countries with which the United States has “a security relationship” (e.g., allies, like the EU, Australia, Japan, Korea, etc.) are encouraged to discuss with the Administration “alternative ways to address the threatened impairment of the national security” presented by imports from their country; this could possibly lead to a series a ‘voluntary-restraint-type’ arrangements being negotiated where exporting countries agree to limit exports to certain levels; 

* there will be a petition-based, product exclusion process run by the Department of Commerce (with input from other agencies); the standard for exclusion will be whether the article is (i) produced in the United States “in a sufficient and reasonably available amount or of a satisfactory quality” or (ii) subject to specific national security considerations; petitions need to be filed by “a directly affected party located in the United States” (i.e., foreign suppliers need not apply); Commerce will issue formal procedures for this process by March 18th;

* the duties will remain in effect until “expressly reduced, modified, or terminated”;

* Commerce will continue to monitor the situation with regard to imports and their impact on the national security and recommend further actions to the President, as needed.

Aluminum Duties

* the 10% additional duty will apply to “aluminum articles” imported from all countries except Canada and Mexico as of March 23, 2018;

* “aluminum articles” are defined by reference to Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) classification, as follows:  “(a) unwrought aluminum (HTS 7601); (b) aluminum bars, rods, and profiles (HTS 7604); (c) aluminum wire (HTS 7605); (d) aluminum plate, sheet, strip, and foil (flat rolled products) (HTS 7606 and 7607); (e) aluminum tubes and pipes and tube and pipe fitting (HTS 7608 and 7609); and (f) aluminum castings and forgings (HTS 7616.99.51.60 and 7616.99.51.70), including any subsequent revisions to these HTS classifications”;

* the 10% additional duty will apply to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, as of March 23, 2018;

* imports from Canada and Mexico are exempted from the additional duty for now; the proclamation describes the special relationship the United States has with these countries and concludes that aluminum imports from these countries should be exempted, but qualifies it by saying “at least at this time”; this exemption is likely tied to progress with the on-going NAFTA renegotiations and could be taken away by the President with little notice; also, it seems clear that the President means to exempt articles produced in Canada or Mexico, not just articles imported from Canada or Mexico (you cannot ship aluminum produced in China through Canada and avoid the additional U.S. duty);

* imports from countries with which the United States has “a security relationship” (e.g., allies, like the EU, Australia, Japan, Korea, etc.) are encouraged to discuss with the Administration “alternative ways to address the threatened impairment of the national security” presented by imports from their country; this could possibly lead to a series a ‘voluntary-restraint-type’ arrangements being negotiated where exporting countries agree to limit exports to certain levels;

* there will be a petition-based, product exclusion process run by the Department of Commerce (with input from other agencies); the standard for exclusion will be whether the article is (i) produced in the United States “in a sufficient and reasonably available amount or of a satisfactory quality” or (ii) subject to specific national security considerations; petitions need to be filed by “a directly affected party located in the United States” (i.e., foreign suppliers need not apply); Commerce will issue formal procedures for this process by March 18th; 

* the duties will remain in effect until “expressly reduced, modified, or terminated”;

* Commerce will continue to monitor the situation with regard to imports and their impact on the national security and recommend further actions to the President, as needed. 

*     *     *

These additional duties will have a meaningful impact on the market that will go well beyond just producers or importers.  All companies that utilize steel or aluminum in their products are expected to be impacted.  As a result, there are a number of steps all companies should be taking to assess the impact.  For example, supply contracts should be reviewed (even for downstream – e.g., finished products) to determine whether cost increases due to increased customs duties can be passed on or not.  Companies should also be considering whether to apply for a product exclusion.  While the procedures will not come out for several more days, companies should be preparing now (this exclusion process is expected to be similar to that being used in the Section 201 cases, procedurally).  It is not clear whether exclusion will be granted with retroactive effect or not, so it would be best to get your petitions in as early in the process as possible.  We are helping a number of clients with the exclusion process and would be happy to discuss this or other issues related to these duties with you further.

We hope this is helpful.

Best regards,
Ted


It is being reported that the formal announcement regarding the section 232 duties will come as early as Thursday this week.  The reports also contain unclear/conflicting information on whether imports from certain countries could be exempted (the President had previously said that there would be no country-based exceptions, but that now seems to be in flux).  More to follow . . . .


Dear Friends,

Further to the below, it is being widely reported that the President has decided to impose a 25% duty on imported steel and a 10% duty on imported aluminum next week in response to the reports from Commerce.  It is not yet clear whether those additional duties will apply on imports from all countries, or just to imports from a subset of countries.

More to follow on this.  In the meantime, if you have any questions, please let us know.

Best regards,
Ted


Dear Friends,

As you may recall, early last year, President Trump issued two presidential memoranda instructing the U.S. Commerce Department to initiate an investigation into the national security implications of steel imports and aluminum imports into the United States.  If these so-called “section 232” (section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended) investigations determine that steel import and/or aluminum imports “threaten to impair the national security[,]” then the President can impose additional customs duties (among other things) on covered products.

Last Friday, the Secretary of Commerce issued his reports to the President in both matters (available here).   In each case, the Department of Commerce concluded that the quantities and circumstances surrounding steel and aluminum imports “threaten to impair the national security,” thereby opening the door to the imposition of import restraints.  Specifically, Commerce’s recommendations are as follows:

Steel – Alternative Remedies

1.  A global tariff of at least 24% on all steel imports from all countries, or

2.  A tariff of at least 53% on all steel imports from 12 countries (Brazil, China, Costa Rica, Egypt, India, Malaysia, Republic of Korea, Russia, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey and Vietnam) with a quota by product on steel imports from all other countries equal to 100% of their 2017 exports to the United States, or

3.  A quota on all steel products from all countries equal to 63% of each country’s 2017 exports to the United States.

The measures would apply to steel mill products classified in subheadings 7206.10 through 7216.50, 7216.99 through 7301.10, 7302.10, 7302.40 through 7302.90, and 7304.10 through 7306.90.

The goal of such measures is to ensure that U.S. steel producers utilize 80% of production of capacity.

The recommendation also includes a process to allow Commerce to grant requests from U.S. companies for specific product exclusions if there was insufficient domestic production, or for national security considerations.

Aluminum – Alternative Remedies

1.  A tariff of at least 7.7% on all aluminum exports from all countries, or

2.  A tariff of 23.6% on all products from China, Hong Kong, Russia, Venezuela and Vietnam. All the other countries would be subject to quotas equal to 100% of their 2017 exports to the United States, or

3.  A quota on all imports from all countries equal to a maximum of 86.7% of their 2017 exports to the United States.

These measures would apply to unwrought aluminum (heading 7601), aluminum castings and forgings (subheadings 7616.99.51.60 and 7616.99.51.70), aluminum plat, sheet, strip and foil (flat rolled products) (headings 7606 and 7607); aluminum wire (heading 7605); aluminum bars, rods and profiles (heading 7604); aluminum tubes and pipes (heading 7608); and aluminum tube and pipe fittings (heading 7609).

The goal of such measures is to ensure that U.S. aluminum producers utilize 80% of production of capacity.

The recommendation also includes a process to allow Commerce to grant requests from U.S. companies for specific product exclusions if there was insufficient domestic production, or for national security considerations.

The reports and recommendations are now under consideration by the President.  The President is required to make a decision on the recommendations by April 11th (for steel) and by April 19th (for aluminum).

*           *           *

We believe that it is likely that the President will take some action to “adjust imports” based on these reports.  Accordingly, all companies that rely on steel and/or aluminum articles need to evaluate the impact such action may have on their production.  This would apply not only to companies that import covered articles (which will be the articles hit with additional duties and/or quota limitations), but companies that import downstream articles (e.g., parts made of steel or aluminum) as well.  The actions being contemplated are significant enough to have a ripple effect that impacts far more than just the covered products.

If you have any questions about these reports, or what sort of evaluation you should be doing as a result, please let us know.

Best regards,

Ted

Trump on Trade/NAFTA’s Future – Part III

Dear Friends,

On the NAFTA front, there were two further developments this past week of which we wanted to be sure you were aware.

The first was a notice from the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office published in the Federal Register on Tuesday requesting public comment and input on what the U.S. position should be in negotiations with Canada and Mexico to modernize NAFTA.  Specifically, the USTR is interested in comments addressing the following topics:

(a) General and product-specific negotiating objectives for Canada and Mexico in the context of a NAFTA modernization.
(b) Economic costs and benefits to U.S. producers and consumers of removal of any remaining tariffs and removal or reduction of non-tariff barriers on articles traded with Canada and Mexico.
(c) Treatment of specific goods (described by HTSUS numbers), including comments on (1) Product-specific import or export interests or barriers, (2) Experience with particular measures that should be addressed in negotiations, and (3) Addressing any remaining tariffs on articles traded with Canada, including ways to address export priorities and import sensitivities related to Canada and Mexico in the context of the NAFTA.
(d) Customs and trade facilitation issues that should be addressed in the negotiations.
(e) Appropriate modifications to rules of origin or origin procedures for NAFTA qualifying goods.
(f) Any unwarranted sanitary and phytosanitary measures and technical barriers to trade imposed by Canada and Mexico that should be addressed in the negotiations.
(g) Relevant barriers to trade in services between the United States and Canada and Mexico that should be addressed in the negotiations.
(h) Relevant digital trade issues that should be addressed in the negotiations.
(i) Relevant trade-related intellectual property rights issues that should be addressed in the negotiations.
(j) Relevant investment issues that should be addressed in the negotiations.
(k) Relevant competition-related matters that should be addressed in the negotiations.
(l) Relevant government procurement issues that should be addressed in the negotiations.
(m) Relevant environmental issues that should be addressed in the negotiations.
(n) Relevant labor issues that should be addressed in the negotiations.
(o) Issues of particular relevance to small and medium-sized businesses that should be addressed in the negotiations.
(p) Relevant trade remedy issues that should be addressed in the negotiations.
(q) Relevant state-owned enterprise issues that should be addressed in the negotiations.

Comments on these issues (or any others) must be submitted to USTR by June 12, 2017.  In formulating any comments, it is important to keep in mind that this Administration has a different perspective than previous ones when it comes to modernizing or liberalizing NAFTA.  We believe that this effort (at least from a US perspective) will be aimed more squarely at benefitting the United States than previous efforts (which may have looked more at benefitting the NAFTA region as a whole, or US companies with operations in Mexico or Canada).  The following quote from the summary is clear (and consistent with the Administration’s messaging on trade to date): 

“The United States intends to commence negotiations with Canada and Mexico regarding modernization of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The NAFTA was negotiated more than 25 years ago, and, while our economy and U.S. businesses have changed considerably over that period, NAFTA has not. The United States seeks to support higher-paying jobs in the United States and to grow the U.S. economy by improving U.S. opportunities under NAFTA.”

Emphasis added.  A copy of the notice is available here.

The second development relates to a study the USTR requested the U.S. International Trade Commission undertake related to NAFTA imports.  The study, entitled “Probable Economic Effect of Providing Duty-Free Treatment for Currently Dutiable Imports,” will examine the impact of providing duty-free treatment to imports of currently dutiable imports from Canada and Mexico.  Specifically, the ITC will provide a report containing its advice as to the probable economic effect of providing such treatment on (i) industries in the United States producing like or directly competitive products, and (ii) consumers.  The ITC has been asked to look at every dutiable article in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule.  The ITC has also been asked to specifically address the probable economic effects of eliminating tariffs on any dutiable agricultural imports from Canada or Mexico.   

The report is due by August 16, 2017.  A copy of the ITC notice of initiation can be found here and the USTR’s letter to the ITC can be found here.

*     *     *

These efforts to modernize NAFTA/trade with Canada and Mexico represent a ‘once in a generation’ opportunity.  Every company that produces articles in the NAFTA territory, sources articles in the NAFTA territory or competes with articles produced or sourced in the NAFTA territory has a strong incentive to participate in this process.  Given how quickly it is moving, companies need to assess their opportunities/challenges and decide how best to engage now.  Those who do not do so will likely find themselves at a competitive disadvantage once this process is over. 

We are helping numerous clients perform this assessment, as well as develop and implement strategies (offensive or defensive) to maximize the potential benefits.  If you have any questions about how to go about this, please let us know.

Best regards,
Ted