The Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program will expire in less than three months, and though industry observers are lobbying for its extension -- and say there is wide, bipartisan support for the decades-old program -- a lack of Capitol Hill urgency could put its timely renewal in jeopardy. A House Ways and Means source said the Committee is working on GSP renewal, though timing of when a potential bill will become public is still unknown.
The Generalized Systems of Preferences (GSP) and Andean trade preference programs (ATPA/ATPDEA) are set to expire July 31, CBP said in messages posted on the website. "CBP has no information as to whether or not these preference programs will be renewed, and if they are renewed, whether there will be a lapse period, or whether there will be a retroactive clause providing for a refund of claims made during such a period," it said. "To receive the most timely information, you should consult the trade press, your business contacts and the Federal Register preview site."
The unprecedented opportunities for U.S. businesses in Sub-Saharan Africa will only be realized if the federal government crafts a more coordinated export strategy, increases investment in the region and agrees to take on the risks associated in working in such a frontier economy, a group of experts told the House Foreign Affairs Africa Subcommittee May 7.
CBP is seeking comments by July 8, on the extension of an existing information collection, the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) Certificate of Origin. There are no changes to the information collected.
Two House Democratic leaders want President Obama to issue trade sanctions against Bangladesh, including possible suspension of Generalized System of Preferences benefits, in the wake of the country’s devastating garment factory collapse.
The International Trade Commission released April 29 the public version of its confidential report on the economic effects of designating five new products eligible for duty-free treatment under the Generalized System of Preferences, as well as providing a competitive need limitation waiver for calcium-silicon from Brazil. Because the report is confidential, the advice ITC is providing the U.S. Trade Representative is redacted. The confidential version of the report was submitted to the USTR April 8, the ITC said. Products being considered for addition to GSP duty-free eligibility in this 2012 review are classified in the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings:
Recent trade-related legislation introduced in the House and Senate:
Trade associations spent relatively little on lobbying in the first quarter of 2013, according to public records. Groups like the National Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association, the American Association of Exporters and Importers and the U.S. Association of Textiles and Apparels Importers spent less than $5,000 each. Customs reauthorization, the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill and potential trade agreements were some of the biggest issues trade groups lobbied on in Q1, the records show.
The U.S. Trade Representative is beginning reviews to consider designating Myanmar (Burma) and Laos as Generalized System of Preferences beneficiary developing countries. Myanmar had its GSP eligibility withdrawn in 1989 because of worker rights violations, while Laos has never been considered for eligibility for GSP benefits. USTR’s review will also address whether the countries should be designated as least-developed beneficiary developing countries under GSP.
The D.C. United States District Court dismissed a whistleblower's action against Staples, OfficeMax, Target, and Industries for the Blind for alleged false country of origin statements on entry documentation to avoid payment of antidumping duties on pencils from China. The anonymous whistleblower pursued the action under the False Claims Act, which allows private citizens to bring suit on behalf of the government over false or fraudulent claims for payment to the federal government. In return, the whistleblower receives a portion of the recovered funds. But to bring suit, the whistleblower must have inside information, unless he or she is the original source of public information. In this case, the whistleblower was neither.