Trade Groups Upset over USTR’s Opposition to Certain Bills for Next MTB
On November 5, 2010, 12 trade associations1 sent a letter to the U.S. Trade Representative expressing their concern with the USTR’s opposition to a number of pending duty suspensions proposed for inclusion in the next Miscellaneous Tariff Bill.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
The trade groups question the USTR’s opposition to a number of the proposed duty suspensions2 on the basis that they may either undermine trade negotiations, or U.S. trade preference programs by noting that they do not see any basis through which the MTB process could seriously undermine those objectives.
The associations argue that concerns that tariff suspensions might create potential conflicts with trade negotiations and preference programs are already addressed by the design of the MTB process as they are very limited in their duration and revenue impact.
The letter notes that the provisions individually and as a whole represent a very small portion of trade and have been accepted on that basis by every Democratic and Republican Administration over the past decades. To suddenly reject that rationale would undermine the entire MTB process and its benefits to U.S. companies, U.S. competitiveness and U.S. employment - benefits which the President recognized in signing the last MTB package in August 2010.
(Congressional sources had previously stated that individual bills under consideration for a MTB that were not included in H.R. 4380 would be considered at a later date in the next MTB package. At an October 2010 press conference, the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee stated that while he hoped that the Committee would be able to work on the next MTB before the end of the 111th Congress, he did not know if there would be enough time or if there would be Republican opposition.)
1American Apparel & Footwear Association, American Chemistry Council, Emergency Committee for American Trade, Footwear Distributors & Retailers of America, Association of the Nonwoven Fabrics Industry, National Association of Manufacturers, National Retail Federation, Outdoor Industry Association, Retail Industry Leaders Association, Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association, U.S. Association of Importers of Textiles & Apparel, and U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
2According to one of the signatories, the U.S. Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel, it was reported that the USTR asked Congress not to consider certain proposals for duty-free treatment of textiles, apparel, and footwear products.
(See ITT’s Online Archives or 08/12/10 news, 10081218, for BP summary of the enactment of the previous MTB (H.R. 4380) in August 2010.)
Copy of associations’ letter available by emailing documents@brokerpower.com.