INTERNATIONAL TRADE REVIEW

LOEFFLER AS TUGGEY LLP

SAN ANTONIO WASHINGTON, DC AUSTIN

Volume II, Issue 10 October 2004

BILATERAL TRADE

US Currency Coalition Files Petition/USTR Rejects/Congress Files New Petition

On September 9, the China Currency Coalition (CCC) filed with USTR a Section 301 petition

against China's currency practices. Soon after CCC submitted the petition, USTR issued a press

release stating that the Bush Administration did not need to conduct a Section 301 investigation to

know that concerns exist with respect to China's currency practices. The USTR release also called

the CCC petition "reckless because the remedy it seeks of a 40 percent across the board tariff would

put up walls around America, hurting U.S. exports, destroying U.S. jobs and endangering our

economic recovery." USTR reiterated its April statement that it would not accept a Section 301

petition against China's currency practices.

In response, on September 30, a group of mostly Democratic members of the US House of

Representatives and the Senate filed their own Section 301 petition with USTR. The group, the

Congressional China Currency Action Coalition (CCCAC), led by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Michigan)

and Charles Schumer (D-New York), comprises 29 Democrats and one Republican . The CCCAC

petition alleges that China's currency practices violate WTO agreements and requests USTR to

initiate WTO dispute settlement proceedings against China . Unlike the CCC petition, the CCCAC

petition does not directly request the imposition of tariffs against China . Reportedly, CCC did not

participate in the CCCAC petition process; it issued a press release that distanced itself from the

CCCAC petition.

The CCC is led by the AFL-CIO and includes members of the former Fair Currency Alliance

(FCA). In March, the AFL-CIO filed a Section 301 petition against China's labor practices.

However, the Bush Administration rejected the petition in April and warned that it also would reject

a Section 301 petition that was being prepared by the FCA against China's currency practices. The

CCC apparently was formed after the Bush Administration warning in April because of divisions

among FCA members over whether or not to continue to pursue a petition against China's currency

practices. (Continued on next page)

NEW US TEXTILE BILL ............................................................................................................... 2

US FTA UPDATE ......................................................................................................................... 2

BRIEFLY NOTED .......................................................................................................................... 5

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 86

INTERNATIONAL TRADE EVIEW 

LOEFFLER JONAS & TUGGEY LLP 

SAN ANTONIO WASHINGTON, DC AUSTIN 

Volume II, Issue 10 October 2004 

BILATERAL TRADE 

US Currency Coalition Files Petition/USTR Rejects/Congress Files New Petition 

On September 9, the China Currency Coalition (CCC) filed with USTR a Section 301 petItIOn 

against China's currency practices. Soon after CCC submitted the petition, USTR issued a press 

release stating that the Bush Administration did not need to conduct a Section 301 investigation to 

know that concerns exist with respect to China's currency practices. The USTR release also called 

the CCC petition "reckless because the remedy it seeks of a 40 percent across the board tariff would 

put up walls around America, hurting U.S. exports, destroying U.S. jobs and endangering our 

economic recovery." USTR reiterated its April statement that it would not accept a Section 301 

petition against China's currency practices. 

In response, on September 30, a group of mostly Democratic members of the US House of 

Representatives and the Senate filed their own Section 301 petition with USTR. The group, the 

Congressional China Currency Action Coalition (CCCAC), led by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Michigan) 

and Charles Schumer (D-New York), comprises 29 Democrats and one Republican. The CCCAC 

petition alleges that China's currency practices violate WTO agreements and requests USTR to 

initiate WTO dispute settlement proceedings against China. Unlike the CCC petition, the CCCAC 

petition does not directly request the imposition of tariffs against China. Reportedly, CCC did not 

participate in the CCCAC petition process; it issued a press release that distanced itself from the 

CCCAC petition. 

The CCC is led by the AFL-CIO and includes members of the former Fair Currency Alliance 

(FCA). In March, the AFL-CIO filed a Section 301 petition against China's labor practices. 

However, the Bush Administration rejected the petition in April and warned that it also would reject 

a Section 301 petition that was being prepared by the FCA against China's currency practices. The 

CCC apparently was formed after the Bush Administration warning in April because of divisions 

among FCA members over whether or not to continue to pursue a petition against China's currency 

practices. (Continued on next page.) 

NEW US TEXTILE BILL .................•........................•.................................................................... 2 

US FTA UPDATE ..•..........................................................................•...........•............................... 2 

BRIEFLY NOTED .......................................................................................................................... 5 
LOEFFLER JONAS & TUGGEY LLP

(Continuedfrom previous page)

The timing of the CCC and CCCAC petitions is intended to pressure the Bush Administration into

initiating a proceeding prior to the US presidential election. USTR 's quick rejection of the CCC

petition effectively squashed CCC's attempt to time a decision on the petition with the US election.

According to USTR, it will meet with CCCAC members before making a decision on whether to

accept or reject the petition. Meanwhile, the Senate and House approved language in the

Transportation-Treasury funding bill that would require the Treasury Department to prepare

separate reports for each House of Congress on how US law addresses foreign currency practices.

New US Textile Bill

On September 8, Democratic House members introduced legislation that would require the

President to modify the current procedures for petitions filed under the China-specific textile

safeguard. The legislation (HR 5026) explicitly would permit CITA (the inter-agency textile

committee chaired by the US Department of Commerce) to consider petitions based on a threat of

market disruption. (See "US Industry Threatens New China Textile Safeguard Cases",

International Trade Review, Volume II, Issue 9, September 2004.) The legislation also would

change the time limit of the bilateral consultations with China aimed at reaching an agreement on

quantitative limitations of imports of textile and apparel. If an agreement were not reached within

90 days after the start of the consultations, the President would be required to impose quantitative

restrictions.

It appears unlikely that the bill will be passed by both houses of the Congress and signed into law

by the President before the end of this congressional session. However , since textiles remains a

very sensitive political issue , this bill - or others seeking to impose restraints against Chinese

textiles and apparel - could be considered during the next session of Congress next year.

US FTA UPDATE

US-Australia FTA

Although President Bush has signed into law and Australia's Parliament has approved the USAustralia FTA, several amendments added by Australia's labor party to protect Australia's

Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme are now under review by the Bush Administration. (See "USAustralia FTA", International Trade Review, Volume II, Issue 9, September 2004.) According to a

memorandum released by the US Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the

amendments violate the WTO TRIPS Agreement but may not violate the FTA. USTR has indicated

that the amendments have been discussed with appropriate US congressional members. In order for

the FTA to enter into force, President Bush must exchange notes with the Government of Australia.

However, before doing so, the President must make a determination that Australia has taken

measures to comply with the FTA.

OCTOBER 2004 PAGE 2

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 86

LOEFFLER JONAS & TUGGEY LLP 

(Continued from previous page.) 

The timing of the CCC and CCCAC petitions is intended to pressure the Bush Administration into 

initiating a proceeding prior to the US presidential election. USTR's quick rejection of the CCC 

petition effectively squashed CCC's attempt to time a decision on the petition with the US election. 

According to USTR, it will meet with CCCAC members before making a decision on whether to 

accept or reject the petition. Meanwhile, the Senate and House approved language in the 

Transportation-Treasury funding bill that would require the Treasury Department to prepare 

separate reports for each House of Congress on how US law addresses foreign currency practices. 

tf1J 

New US Textile Bill 

On September 8, Democratic House members introduced legislation that would require the 

President to modify the current procedures for petitions filed under the China-specific textile 

safeguard. The legislation (HR 5026) explicitly would permit CITA (the inter-agency textile 

committee chaired by the US Department of Commerce) to consider petitions based on a threat of 

market disruption. (See "US Industry Threatens New China Textile Safeguard Cases", 

International Trade Review, Volume II, Issue 9, September 2004.) The legislation also would 

change the time limit of the bilateral consultations with China aimed at reaching an agreement on 

quantitative limitations of imports of textile and apparel. If an agreement were not reached within 

90 days after the start of the consultations, the President would be required to impose quantitative 

restrictions. 

It appears unlikely that the bill will be passed by both houses of the Congress and signed into law 

by the President before the end of this congressional session. However, since textiles remains a 

very sensitive political issue, this bill - or others seeking to impose restraints against Chinese 

textiles and apparel- could be considered during the next session of Congress next year. 

US FTA UPDATE 

US-Australia FTA 

Although President Bush has signed into law and Australia's Parliament has approved the USAustralia FTA, several amendments added by Australia's labor party to protect Australia's 

Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme are now under review by the Bush Administration. (See "USAustralia FTA", International Trade Review, Volume II, Issue 9, September 2004.) According to a 

memorandum released by the US Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the 

amendments violate the WTO TRIPs Agreement but may not violate the FT A. USTR has indicated 

that the amendments have been discussed with appropriate US congressional members. In order for 

the FTA to enter into force, President Bush must exchange notes with the Government of Australia. 

However, before doing so, the President must make a determination that Australia has taken 

measures to comply with the FT A. 

OCTOBER 2004 PAGE 2 
LOEFFLER JONAS & TUGGEY LLP

US-Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA)

On September 24, Dominican Republic lawmakers approved a controversial 25 percent tax on

beverages containing high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). The President of the Dominican Republic

signed the HFCS tax into law early October as part of a crucial tax reform bill. However, the

Dominican Republic President also sent new legislation to the parliament that would eliminate the

HFCS tax. USTR has warned the Dominican Republic that such a tax could jeopardize the FTA

with the Dominican Republic (the Dominican Republic officially became part of CAFTA on

August 5). HFCS is used by US companies to produce soft drinks and competes with sugar

produced in the Dominican Republic. Under the DR-CAFTA, the Dominican Republic was

scheduled to phase out existing 14-20 percent tariffs on HFCS over 15 years. The tax effectively

would nullify the Dominican Republic's phase-out commitment under the FTA and may violate

WTO obligations. The United States previously initiated WTO dispute settlement proceedings

against Mexico for a similar tax on HFCS. Separately, the Bush Administration is finalizing

procedures for an appellate body mechanism under the DR-CAFTA for investor-state disputes.

Reportedly, some controversy exists over the procedures . Some argue that parties seeking an

appeal must demonstrate that the lower decision contains serious errors of law, while others

maintain that no restriction should be placed on the level of errors necessary for an appeal. Finally,

amidst wavering support by Congress over including the Dominican Republic in the FTA if the

HFCS tax is imposed, the upcoming presidential election, a possible shift in the congressional

leadership and no indication that USTR will submit implementing legislation to Congress soon, it

appears increasingly likely that the DR -CAFTA will not be considered by Congress until next year.

US-Bahrain FTA

On September 14, the United States and Bahrain signed the FTA concluded in May. (See "USBahrain FTA", International Trade Review, Volume II, Issue 6, June 2004.) After the signing of

the FTA, USTR Robert B. Zoellick highlighted that the FTA was concluded in approximately four

months due in no small part to "Bahrain's decisive embrace of open trade and free markets."

Zoellick also noted that the FTA enhances "commercial relations with an economic leader in the

Gulf' and will help improve trade relations with other countries in the region and bring a step closer

the US vision for a Middle East Free Trade Area; the recently released US 9/11 Commission Report

promotes FTAs in the Middle East as a tool to fight terrorism. It remains unclear whether Congress

will vote on the FTA before the end of this year. Senate Finance Chairman Charles E. Grassley (RIowa) stated that he is prepared to consider implementing legislation "as soon as possible."

However, ranking Senate Finance Member Senator Max S. Baucus (D-Montana) suggested that he

would consider implementing legislation only after Congress has completed all procedures for

consideration (e.g., hearings, mock and formal mark-ups and debate).

US-ANDEAN FTA

Although US and ANDEAN (Colombia, Ecuador and Peru) negotiators have completed four rounds

of negotiations, US efforts to complete an FTA by February 2005 have given rise to much anxiety.

In addition to intellectual property concerns by Peru (see "US-ANDEAN FTA" International Trade

Review, Volume II, Issue 8, August 2004), Peruvian agricultural interests are concerned over tariff

phase-out periods for sensitive products. Reportedly, negotiators are looking to limit maximum

phase-out periods to ten years; in some recently concluded US FTAs, phase-out periods of up to 18

OCTOBER 2004 PAGE 3

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 86

LOEFFLER JONAS & TUGGEY LLP 

US-Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA) 

On September 24, Dominican Republic lawmakers approved a controversial 25 percent tax on 

beverages containing high-fructose com syrup (HFCS). The President of the Dominican Republic 

signed the HFCS tax into law early October as part of a crucial tax reform bill. However, the 

Dominican Republic President also sent new legislation to the parliament that would eliminate the 

HFCS tax. USTR has warned the Dominican Republic that such a tax could jeopardize the FTA 

with the Dominican Republic (the Dominican Republic officially became part of CAFTA on 

August 5). HFCS is used by US companies to produce soft drinks and competes with sugar 

produced in the Dominican Republic. Under the DR-CAFTA, the Dominican Republic was 

scheduled to phase out existing 14-20 percent tariffs on HFCS over 15 years. The tax effectively 

would nullify the Dominican Republic'S phase-out commitment under the FTA and may violate 

WTO obligations. The United States previously initiated WTO dispute settlement proceedings 

against Mexico for a similar tax on HFCS. Separately, the Bush Administration is finalizing 

procedures for an appellate body mechanism under the DR-CAFTA for investor-state disputes. 

Reportedly, some controversy exists over the procedures. Some argue that parties seeking an 

appeal must demonstrate that the lower decision contains serious errors of law, while others 

maintain that no restriction should be placed on the level of errors necessary for an appeal. Finally, 

amidst wavering support by Congress over including the Dominican Republic in the FTA if the 

HFCS tax is imposed, the upcoming presidential election, a possible shift in the congressional 

leadership and no indication that USTR will submit implementing legislation to Congress soon, it 

appears increasingly likely that the DR-CAFTA will not be considered by Congress until next year. 

US-Bahrain FTA 

On September 14, the United States and Bahrain signed the FTA concluded in May. (See "USBahrain FTA", International Trade Review, Volume II, Issue 6, June 2004.) After the signing of 

the FTA, USTR Robert B. Zoellick highlighted that the FTA was concluded in approximately four 

months due in no small part to "Bahrain's decisive embrace of open trade and :free markets." 

Zoellick also noted that the FTA enhances "commercial relations with an economic leader in the 

Gulf' and will help improve trade relations with other countries in the region and bring a step closer 

the US vision for a Middle East Free Trade Area; the recently released US 9/11 Commission Report 

promotes FTAs in the Middle East as a tool to fight terrorism. It remains unclear whether Congress 

will vote on the FTA before the end of this year. Senate Finance Chairman Charles E. Grassley (RIowa) stated that he is prepared to consider implementing legislation "as soon as possible." 

However, ranking Senate Finance Member Senator Max S. Baucus (D-Montana) suggested that he 

would consider implementing legislation only after Congress has completed all procedures for 

consideration (e.g., hearings, mock and formal mark-ups and debate). 

US-ANDEAN FTA 

Although US and ANDEAN (Colombia, Ecuador and Peru) negotiators have completed four rounds 

of negotiations, US efforts to complete an FTA by February 2005 have given rise to much anxiety. 

In addition to intellectual property concerns by Peru (see "US-ANDEAN FTA" International Trade 

Review, Volume II, Issue 8, August 2004), Peruvian agricultural interests are concerned over tariff 

phase-out periods for sensitive products. Reportedly, negotiators are looking to limit maximum 

phase-out periods to ten years; in some recently concluded US FTAs, phase-out periods of up to 18 

Imtermati®mal '"Erade Review 

OCTOBER 2004 PAGE 3 
LOEFFLER JONAS & TUGGEY LLP

years have been granted for sensitive products. Peru also is seeking to reduce to zero US tariffs on

certain agricultural products such as asparagus, cotton, corn, wheat and sugar in order to gain

additional access to the US market. However, US asparagus and sugar interests have asked the

Bush Administration to exclude these products from the FTA. A precedent to exclude certain

sensitive items from FTA negotiations already exists in the US-Australia FTA, where sugar was

excluded and US tariffs on beef are subject to long tariff phase-out periods. Meanwhile, Colombia

reportedly is seeking to maintain its controversial price-band system that varies the level of tariffs

on imports of sensitive commodities according to shifts in global prices, but never below a certain

benchmark. The US likely will push for elimination of the system, as it did in FTA negotiations

with Chile; the WTO previously ruled that Chile's price-band system violated Chile's WTO

obligations. On investment, the United States insists that investment disputes between US

companies and Ecuador and Peru must be settled before an FTA can be reached; US negotiators

have threatened to exclude Ecuador and Peru from an FTA if the disputes are not resolved.

In related news, a US coalition comprising dozens of US industry, labor, environmental, religious

and other groups has sent a letter to USTR Zoellick urging the Bush Administration to suspend

FTA negotiations with ANDEAN countries until after the US presidential election. "

US-Southern African Customs Union (SACU) FTA

Negotiators continue to discuss when a next round of FTA negotiations should take place. Much of

the difficulty in continuing negotiations lies in differences between the United States and SACU

member countries over what sectors and areas the FTA should include. US negotiators generally

are seeking a "negative list" approach under which SACU member countries would liberalize all

markets except those specified. SACU members, however, seek a "positive list" approach where

only those sectors identified in the FTA are liberalized. Under the positive-list approach, SACU

member countries seek to exclude investment and limit discussions on labor. SACU member

countries proposed October 11 as a possible date to meet with US negotiators, USTR has indicated

that it is unable to meet in October and suggested early November instead. SACU member

countries also are negotiating an FTA with EFTA countries (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and

Switzerland).

Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA)

On September 23, US Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman stated that deadlines for concluding

FTAA negotiations could be extended. However, Veneman proposed no new deadlines and stated

that it still remained to be seen whether the recently concluded WTO Framework would positively

influence FTAA negotiations. (The deadline for concluding market access negotiations expired

September 30 and the deadline for concluding the FTAA is January 1, 2005.) While no date has

been set for new negotiations, the Miami Declaration calls on Brazil to hold a ministerial before the

end of this year. A decision may not come until after the US presidential election, which could

push the date for a next ministerial to early next year.

90M.U.q.0701

OCTOBER 2004 PAGE 4

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 86

LOEFFLER JONAS & TUGGEY LLP 

years have been granted for sensitive products. Peru also is seeking to reduce to zero US tariffs on 

certain agricultural products such as asparagus, cotton, com, wheat and sugar in order to gain 

additional access to the US market. However, US asparagus and sugar interests have asked the 

Bush Administration to exclude these products from the FT A. A precedent to exclude certain 

sensitive items from FTA negotiations already exists in the US-Australia FTA, where sugar was 

excluded and US tariffs on beef are subject to long tariff phase-out periods. Meanwhile, Colombia 

reportedly is seeking to maintain its controversial price-band system that varies the level of tariffs 

on imports of sensitive commodities according to shifts in global prices, but never below a certain 

benchmark. The US likely will push for elimination of the system, as it did in FT A negotiations 

with Chile; the WTO previously ruled that Chile's price-band system violated Chile's WTO 

obligations. On investment, the United States insists that investment disputes between US 

companies and Ecuador and Peru must be settled before an FT A can be reached; US negotiators 

have threatened to exclude Ecuador and Peru from an FT A if the disputes are not resolved. 

In related news, a US coalition comprising dozens of US industry, labor, environmental, religious 

and other groups has sent a letter to USTR Zoellick urging the Bush Administration to suspend 

FTA negotiations with ANDEAN countries until after the US presidential election. 

US-Southern African Customs Union (SACU) FTA 

Negotiators continue to discuss when a next round of FTA negotiations should take place. Much of 

the difficulty in continuing negotiations lies in differences between the United States and SACU 

member countries over what sectors and areas the FTA should include. US negotiators generally 

are seeking a "negative list" approach under which SACU member countries would liberalize all 

markets except those specified. SACU members, however, seek a "positive list" approach where 

only those sectors identified in the FTA are liberalized. Under the positive-list approach, SACU 

member countries seek to exclude investment and limit discussions on labor. SACU member 

countries proposed October 11 as a possible date to meet with US negotiators, USTR has indicated 

that it is unable to meet in October and suggested early November instead. SACU member 

countries also are negotiating an FTA with EFTA countries (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and 

Switzerland). 

Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) 

On September 23, US Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman stated that deadlines for concluding 

FTAA negotiations could be extended. However, Veneman proposed no new deadlines and stated 

that it still remained to be seen whether the recently concluded WTO Framework would positively 

influence FTAA negotiations. (The deadline for concluding market access negotiations expired 

September 30 and the deadline for concluding the FTAA is January 1, 2005.) While no date has 

been set for new negotiations, the Miami Declaration calls on Brazil to hold a ministerial before the 

end of this year. A decision may not come until after the US presidential election, which could 

push the date for a next ministerial to early next year. 

Imtermati®mal +ra€fe Revi~w 

OCTOBER 2004 PAGE 4 
LOEFFLER JONAS & TUGGEY LLP

BRIEFLY N OTED

® On October 7, USTR issued a Federal Register notice requesting comments from US industry

and other interested parties on expanding "market access opportunities in government

procurement under the World Trade Organization Agreement on Government Procurement."

USTR seeks comments that relate to adding "government entities, state-owned enterprises or

other government-related entities" or amending services covered by the Government

Procurement Agreement; parties also are invited to comment on "the removal of existing

discriminatory measures or exclusions." Comments are due November 1.

® On September 7, US and Uruguayan negotiators completed a US-Uruguay bilateral

investment treaty (BIT). According to USTR, the BIT will strengthen the US-Uruguay

economic relationship and afford US investors in Uruguay greater protection. Separately,

USTR announced on September 21 that the United States signed a Trade and Investment

Agreement with Afghanistan and on September 28 that it would begin BIT negotiations

with Pakistan.

® The Clerk of the US House of Representatives has advised Members to "plan for a lame duck

session in November." The Congressional Republican leadership indicated that the session

would occur the week of November 15 when new member orientation is scheduled.

® In a continuing push to create a Middle East Free Trade Area by 2013, USTR Zoellick

indicated that FTA negotiations with the United Arab Emirates are likely to be the next step.

According to Zoellick, Oman also is on the list as a possible candidate, but still needs to make

additional progress in its domestic laws and regulations before FTA negotiations can begin.

USTR must notify Congress at least 90 days prior to engaging in FTA negotiations with either

country.

® US Department of Commerce and USTR officials recently urged Russian and Ukrainian

officials to eliminate export taxes on steel scrap . According to the US officials, the export

taxes burden US steel producers and users. The US push follows increased pressure from the

US Emergency Steel Scrap Coalition to end export taxes. The Coalition also is considering

filing a Section 301 petition with USTR against Russian and Ukrainian export taxes.

® On September 21, the United States requested WTO consultations with the European

Union over EU customs procedures. Specifically, the United States claims that US

companies are burdened by "disparate administration" of customs rules among EU countries

that results in differences in classification and valuation from country to country. According

to USTR, since the EU increased to 25 member countries in May, the burden has "expanded."

® On September 16, USTR announced that it would begin collecting data from US industry on

China's compliance and implementation of intellectual property rights (IPR)

commitments under the WTO. USTR has posted on its website a questionnaire for US

companies to submit by November 1. After the data has been collected, USTR is expected to

International Trade Review

OCTOBER 2004 PAGE 5

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 86

LOEFFLER JONAS & TUGGEY LLP 

BRIEFLY NOTED 

EI On October 7, USTR issued a Federal Register notice requesting comments from US industry 

and other interested parties on expanding "market access opportunities in government 

procurement under the World Trade Organization Agreement on Government Procurement." 

USTR seeks comments that relate to adding "government entities, state-owned enterprises or 

other government-related entities" or amending services covered by the Government 

Procurement Agreement; parties also are invited to comment on "the removal of existing 

discriminatory measures or exclusions." Comments are due November 1. 

" On September 7, US and Uruguayan negotiators completed a US-Uruguay bilateral 

investment treaty (BIT). According to USTR, the BIT will strengthen the US-Uruguay 

economic relationship and afford US investors in Uruguay greater protection. Separately, 

USTR announced on September 21 that the United States signed a Trade and Investment 

Agreement with Afghanistan and on September 28 that it would begin BIT negotiations 

with Pakistan. 

" The Clerk of the US House of Representatives has advised Members to "plan for a lame duck 

session in November." The Congressional Republican leadership indicated that the session 

would occur the week of November 15 when new member orientation is scheduled. 

EI In a continuing push to create a Middle East Free Trade Area by 2013, USTR Zoellick 

indicated that FTA negotiations with the United Arab Emirates are likely to be the next step. 

According to Zoellick, Oman also is on the list as a possible candidate, but still needs to make 

additional progress in its domestic laws and regulations before FTA negotiations can begin. 

USTR must notify Congress at least 90 days prior to engaging in FTA negotiations with either 

country. 

• US Department of Commerce and USTR officials recently urged Russian and Ukrainian 

officials to eliminate export taxes on steel scrap. According to the US officials, the export 

taxes burden US steel producers and users. The US push follows increased pressure from the 

US Emergency Steel Scrap Coalition to end export taxes. The Coalition also is considering 

filing a Section 301 petition with USTR against Russian and Ukrainian export taxes. 

• On September 21, the United States requested WTO consultations with the European 

Union over EU customs procedures. Specifically, the United States claims that US 

companies are burdened by "disparate administration" of customs rules among EU countries 

that results in differences in classification and valuation from country to country. According 

to USTR, since the EU increased to 25 member countries in May, the burden has "expanded." 

• On September 16, USTR announced that it would begin collecting data from US industry on 

China's compliance and implementation of intellectual property rights (IPR) 

commitments under the WTO. USTR has posted on its website a questionnaire for US 

companies to submit by November 1. After the data has been collected, USTR is expected to 

Inter;nati0nal "Fr;aae Qeview 

OCTOBER 2004 PAGE 5 
LOEFFLER JONAS & TUGGEY LLP

issue a formal notice in the Federal Register requesting comments for a so-called Special 301

out-of-cycle review of China's IPR enforcement efforts. Separately, Rep. Adam Schiff (DCalifornia) introduced legislation on September 21 that would require USTR to create a

position for an assistant USTR for IPR. (At present, an assistant USTR is responsible for

investment and services issues as well as IPR.)

International Trade Review is prepared by the International Trade Group

of Loeffler Jonas & Tuggey LLP.

For further information or to be removed from our mailing list, please contact the International Trade Group

at 202-775-4430 (telephone) or 202-775-0836 (fax), or via e-mail at TradeGroup@^LJTLAW.com.

Individual members of the International Trade Group can be contacted as follows:

Michael P. Daniels C. Christopher Parlin David Stewart Christy, Jr.

Partner Partner Partner

mdaniel.s@ljtlaw.com cparlin(&ljtlaw.com dchristy@ljttaw.com

Timothy N. Tuggey Hans C. Rickhoff Marcus A. Kraker

Partner Partner Director of Services, International Trade

ttuggey[w_lltlaw.com . hric khoff(c.iljtlaw. corn lnkraker(c ljtlaw.com

Sarah K. Wilmoth

Administrative Assistant

swilmoth(cr^lj tlaw.com

Previous issues ofInternational Trade Review may be found on

Loeffler Jonas & Tuggey's website at:

www.ljtlaw.com

© 2004 Loeffler Jonas & Tuggey LLP

The International Trade Review is intended as a general guide only. It is not a legal analysis and does not constitute legal advice

from or a legal opinion of Loeffler Jonas & Tuggey LLP or any member of the Firm on the legal issues described.

itn#r h tinnal _ F-eptj

OCTOBER 2004 PAGE 6

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 86

LOEFFLER JONAS & TUGGEY LLP 

issue a formal notice in the Federal Register requesting comments for a so-called Special 301 

out-of-cycle review of China's IPR enforcement efforts. Separately, Rep. Adam Schiff (DCalifornia) introduced legislation on September 21 that would require USTR to create a 

position for an assistant USTR for IPR. (At present, an assistant USTR is responsible for 

investment and services issues as well as IPR.) 

International Trade Review is prepared by the International Trade Group 

of Loeffler Jonas & Tuggey LLP. 

For further information or to be removed from our mailing list, please contact the International Trade Group 

at 202-775-4430 (telephone) or 202-775-0836 (fax), or via e-mail at TradeGroup({vLJTLA w.com. 

Individual members of the International Trade Group can be contacted as follows: 

Michael P. Daniels 

Partner 

l11daniels(Zi),ljtlaw.com 

C. Christopher Parlin 

Partner 

cparlin(mljtlaw.col11 

David Stewart Christy, Jr. 

Partner 

dchristy(Zi),ljtlaw.col11 

Timothy N. Tuggey Marcus A. Kraker 

Partner 

ttuggey@litlaw.com 

Hans C. Rickhoff 

Partner 

hrickhoff(aJ,l jtlaw .com 

Director of Services, International Trade 

l11kraker(cDJjtlaw.com 

Sarah K. Wilmoth 

Administrative Assistant 

swilmoth(cv,ljtlaw.col11 

Previous issues of International Trade Review may be found on 

Loeffler Jonas & Tuggey's website at: 

www.ljtlaw.col11 

© 2004 Loeffler Jonas & Tuggey LLP 

The International Trade Review is intended as a general guide only. It is not a legal analysis and does not constitute legal advice 

from or a legal opinion ofLoeffier Jonas & Tuggey LLP or any member of the Firm on the legal issues described. 

imtermatiemal ;:r;lraEte Review 

OCTOBER 2004 PAGE 6