DOC Notes Foreign Regulatory Changes That Could Affect US Exports
18 Jan 2005, ST&R

According to the Department of Commerce’s (DOC) National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the WTO has been notified by the following countries of proposed or final regulatory changes that may affect US exports of the products indicated:

• Central African Republic – Cigarettes
• Central African Republic – Locally produced sugar
• Central African Republic – Condensed milk, salt, wheat flour, medicine, school supplies, oil other than unrefined palm oil, sugar, rice, bread, fishery products other than preserved, building materials, cement, concrete-reinforcing bars, sheet metal, tacks, household soap, hoes, machetes, and spades
• Central African Republic – Domestic and imported sugar
• Chile – Pesticides for domestic and sanitary use
• Colombia – Wood packaging material
• Colombia – Petroleum-based liquid fuels
• Colombia – Preserved sardines
• Costa Rica – Petroleum products, aviation gasoline
• Guatemala – Aviation gasoline
• Honduras – Liquefied petroleum gas stations with fixed storage installations
• Korea – Herbal medicines
• Panama – Other animal products, hens’ eggs for consumption
• Thailand – Protection against harmful goods
• Brazil – Wheat flour
• EU – Pre-packaged products: still wine; yellow wine; sparkling wine; liqueur wine; aromatized wine; spirits; soluble coffee; and white sugar

Customs' Jan. 14 Textile Quota Critical List for 2004 Quotas, 2004 Year-End Absolute Quota Reports

The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection issued its latest "Textile Critical List," which provides quota fill levels for textiles that have reached 85 percent or more of the 2004 annual allowed quota by category. Customs also posted its "Archived Year-end Textile Status Reports for Absolute Quotas Status" for imported textile merchandise subject to absolute quota in 2004. 

The list and reports can be accessed on-line at: http://www.cbp.gov/, under Import > Textiles and Quota > "Textile Critical List" or "Archived Year-end Textile Status Reports for Absolute Quotas."

Customs has also published QBT-04-034/TBT-04-036: Entry of Goods Shipped in Excess of 2004 Quota Limits, which can be accessed on-line at: http://www.customs.ustreas.gov/xp/cgov/import/textiles_and_quotas/tbts/TBT2004/ and QBT-04-035/TBT-04-037:  Entry of Goods Shipped in Excess of China Safeguards (Categories 222, 349/649, 350/650), which can be accessed on-line at: http://www.customs.ustreas.gov/xp/cgov/import/textiles_and_quotas/tbts/TBT2004/

Return to Newsletter Front Page

CBP Holds the 5th Annual Trade Symposium 2004

On January 13-14, 2005, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Commissioner Robert C. Bonner hosted CBP’s Trade Symposium 2004 to a sell out crowd of 800 participants from the international trade community. The annual Trade Symposium was held at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center. The theme for this year is “Security and Facilitation of Trade: The Way Forward.”

The symposium focused on enhancing CBP’s strategy to secure and facilitate the movement of legitimate trade and traffic with greater efficiency and predictability; and, to strengthen security against global terrorism.

“The terrorist attacks on 9/11 changed the world forever; and, they changed how America does business. It became abundantly clear that the safety and security of global trade has an impact that transcends borders and is vital to the well being of every one of us,” said Commissioner Bonner.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection uses multiple strategies and employs the latest in technology to accomplish the dual goals of anti-terrorism and facilitating legitimate trade and travel. CBP’s initiatives are designed to protect the homeland from acts of terrorism, and reduce the vulnerability to the threat of terrorists through a multi-level inspection process.

“Securing global trade and the movement of goods—the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism or C-TPAT program—is, and must continue to be, a partnership between government and the private sector. What began as a program designed for trade coming to our shores has been recognized by its success and is now being considered around the world as an effective tool in the war against terror,” Commissioner Bonner stated.

The symposium panel discussions included: U.S. Cargo Security Strategy, Global Supply Chain Security, Internationalizing the Security Strategy, Contingency Plans for Incident Response, and Automated Commercial Environment / International Trade Data System (ACE/ITDS). The keynote speaker for the luncheon was Admiral J.M. Loy, Deputy Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security.

APHIS has published the Final Rule for new requirements concerning the importation of wood packaging material. The implementation date for regulatory enforcement shall be September 16, 2005. The delay between publication and implementation shall allow an appropriate amount of time for countries to establish programs to become compliant with ISPM 15 and the Final Rule.

APHIS has set standards for Wood Packaging Material imported into the USA through 7 CFR 319.40 - Importation of Wood Packaging Material, as published on September 16, 2004. This rule states that all regulated wood packaging material shall be appropriately treated and marked under an official program developed and overseen by the National Plant Protection Organization (NPPO) in the country of export.

Until September 16, 2005, as the designated enforcement date, APHIS will follow its current requirements for imported wood packaging material. Please note that PPQ is in the process of updating all references to SOLID WOOD PACKAGING to reflect the September 16, 2004 rule for REGULATED WOOD PACKING MATERIAL.

Implementation of the Wood Packaging Material (WPM) Regulation

Wood Packing Material from China

Wood Packing Material Final Rule, Docket No. 02-032-03

Proposed Rule Public Hearing Transcripts

USDA Proposed Rule for Imported Wood Packing Material

Regulatory Impact Analysis for USDA's Proposed Rule for Imported Wood Packing Material.

 

Return to Newsletter Front Page

EU Considers Trade Relief for Countries Hurt by Tsunamis.

A January 11 European Commission press release reports that the EU is “actively considering” the use of trade measures to help South Asian countries affected by the recent tsunamis. Among the options being considered are suspension of antidumping (AD) duties, helping businesses comply with sanitary and food safety standards, accelerating the implementation of the EU’s new Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) scheme (which will cover products such as seafood and textiles and apparel that often account for the majority of the affected countries’ exports), and simplifying and relaxing rules of origin to “help regions such as ASEAN [the Association of Southeast Asian Nations] benefit from cumulated preferential access to the EU market.” The press release noted that while the EU cannot lower or eliminate import duties for specific countries under WTO rules, it is “ready to support WTO-wide initiatives to agree on tariff concessions for the affected countries.”

The Office of the United States Trade Representative

U.S. Requests WTO Panel Against EU Over European Customs System
01/13/2005

WASHINGTON – The office of the U.S. Trade Representative asked the World Trade Organization (WTO) to form a dispute settlement panel in the case against the European Union regarding EU customs laws and regulations. This step follows the September 21, 2004 filing of a request for consultations with the EU. Consultations between the U.S. and the EU were held in mid-November, but were unable to resolve the dispute.

Many important aspects of customs administration in the EU are handled differently by different member State customs authorities, resulting in inconsistencies from country to country. Although the EU is a customs union, there is no single EU customs administration. Lack of uniformity, coupled with lack of procedures for prompt EU-wide review, can hinder U.S. exports, particularly for small to mid-size businesses.

WTO rules require WTO Members to administer their customs laws in a uniform, impartial and reasonable manner. They also require Members to provide tribunals for prompt review and correction of administrative action relating to customs matters. The United States considers that the EU fails to meet either of these requirements.

EU institutions -- including the Commission, the Court of Justice, and the Parliament -- have routinely noted the lack of uniformity in the administration of EU customs law. For example, in its comments on a March 2001 report by the EU Court of Auditors, the Commission stated, "The objective that for all trade in goods the Community should operate as a real customs union with uniform treatment of imported goods can be fully obtained only if the customs union is operating on the basis of a single customs administration, which is not the case." The United States fully agrees.

Variations in the way that goods are treated by the different EU member States can cause problems that burden all traders. These problems are compounded by an inability to obtain prompt EU-wide review of national administrative decisions. An importer or other interested party has to wend its way through national administrative and/or judicial appeals before obtaining an authoritative determination from an EU-level tribunal.

Background:

The lack of uniform customs administration by the EU affects U.S. producers, farmers, and exporters in a number of important ways. For example, goods may be classified differently and thus be subject to different tariffs depending on the EU member State through which they are imported. Similarly, a U.S. exporter may be able to obtain binding guidance in one member State on how its goods will be valued for tariff calculation purposes. But the exporter may not be able to rely on that guidance in another member State; indeed in some member States the exporter may not be able to obtain binding valuation guidance at all.

These problems fall particularly hard on small and mid-size businesses, which often lack the resources to work their way through member State and EU bureaucracies in order to reconcile inconsistencies in classification or valuation in different States.

There are four reasons to move this dispute to a WTO panel now. First, the EU has just recently expanded from 15 member States to 25 member States. The trade barrier inherent in lack of uniform customs administration expanded when the new member States joined last May. As an indicator of the level of trade potentially affected by this barrier, it should be noted that U.S. goods exports to the EU-25 totaled $155.2 billion in 2003. By pressing this issue now, we hope to address this problem early in the EU’s process of dealing with the challenges of enlargement.

Second, enhancing trade facilitation is a key part of the Doha Development Agenda. The United States expects that pressing a major player in world trade to administer its customs laws and regulations in a uniform manner will help to advance that part of the agenda.

Third, over the past year, we have tried to work with the Commission to address the concerns of U.S. exporters. Indeed, this was the culmination of efforts over the past seven years to address such concerns in various WTO fora. Although the Commission has tried to help with individual problems, it has become clear that the allocation of authorities within the EU and even the Commission has precluded achieving the necessary systemic solutions.

Fourth, the United States and the EU held consultations on this matter in Geneva in mid-November. Six other WTO Members – Argentina, Australia, Brazil, India, Japan, and Taiwan – asked to join the consultations as third parties, demonstrating the level of concern about the EU system. Regrettably, the EU rejected these requests to join the consultations by major exporters to the EU. Ultimately, the consultations confirmed U.S. concerns and failed to resolve the dispute.