Us Japan Trade Agreement Negotiations

6. EY Global Tax Alert, USTR grants new exclusions for lists 1, 2 and 3 for products originating in China; The United States and Japan agree on merchandise trade and digital trade from September 27, 2019. Most of the U.S. products covered by the agreement are industrial products. Tariff positions selected in 30 different chapters or categories of U.S. Harmonized Schedule (SH) are included. However, about half of the products covered, both in terms of customs positions and import value in the United States, come from three chapters: machinery ($3.3 billion in U.S. imports in 2018), electrical machinery ($771 million) and tools ($683 million). Other product categories include optical and medical devices (US$534 million), iron and steel items (305 million euros). USD), rubber ($302 million), organic chemicals ($182 million), inorganic chemicals ($182 million), musical instruments ($133 million), copper and articles ($125 million), photographic and film items ($118 million), railway ($105 million) and toys ($79 million). In 2018, the top ten tariff positions covered by the agreement accounted for $3 billion of U.S. imports, or 42% of total imports (Table 1).

U.S. tariffs on these 10 products must be eliminated, either as soon as the agreement comes into force or at the beginning of the second year. In general, the first-phase agreements were welcomed by several members of Congress and U.S. stakeholders for the expected benefits for agriculture and cross-border digital trade. At the same time, many observers also argue that the agreements should not replace a comprehensive agreement and consider that the second phase of the talks is crucial to the interests of the United States. The U.S. Trade Advisory Committee`s report to the USTR and Congress reflects a number of views from the various committees represented.65 The Advisory Committee on Trade Policy and Private Sector Negotiations (ACTPN) expressed support for the first agreements and the “considerable boost for the United States.” However, the Government Policy Advisory Committee (IGPAC), made up of representatives of local authorities, argued that the agreement did not meet most of the TPA negotiating objectives because of its “limited nature”. 67 According to the Labour Advisory Committee, this is a “twisted agreement with short-term political objectives.” 68 Various industry committees have published reports outlining priorities for future discussions. Some raised concerns about what they saw as a lack of consultation with the USTR and the lack of dispute resolution rules in the agreements. In addition, the President is not authorized to lower the tariff on “import-sensitive agricultural products” below the rate in force in the Uruguay Round Agreement or a successor agreement.

Categories: Ikke-kategoriseret