# 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 

# INTERNATIONALTRADE EVIEW

LOEFFLERJONAS

# & TUGGEYLLP SAN ANTONIO WASHINGTON, 

### DC AUSTIN



### Volume II, Issue 10 October2004

BILATERALTRADE

US CurrencyCoalitionFilesPetition/USTRRejects/Congress Files NewPetition 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 CCCpetition "reckless because the remedy it seeks ofa 40 percent across the boardtariffwould 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 petitionagainst China's currencypractices.

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 oftariffs against China. Reportedly, CCC did not participate in the CCCAC petition process; it issued a press release that distanced itselffrom the CCCACpetition.

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 BushAdministrationrejectedthe petition inApril andwarnedthatit also wouldreject
a Section 301 petition that was being preparedbythe FCA against China's currencypractices. The CCC apparently was formed after the Bush Administration warning in April because ofdivisions among FCA members over whether ornot to continue to pursue a petition against China's currency practices. (Continuedon nextpage.)

NEWUS TEXTILE BILL.................•........................•.................................................................... 2 US FTAUPDATE..•..........................................................................•...........•............................... 2 BRIEFLYNOTED

.......................................................................................................................... 5LOEFFLER 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.

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 FTAAlthough 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 LOEFFLER JONAS & TUGGEY LLP

(Continued frompreviouspage.) The timing ofthe 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 ofthe CCC petition effectively squashed CCC's attemptto 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 ofCongress on how US law addresses foreign currency practices. 

### tf1J
New US TextileBill 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 ofCommerce) 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 ofthe bilateral consultations with China aimed at reaching an agreement on quantitative limitations ofimports oftextile and apparel. Ifan agreement were not reached within 90 days after the start ofthe consultations, the President would be required to impose quantitative restrictions.

It appears unlikely that the bill will be passed by both houses ofthe Congress and signed into law by the President before the end ofthis congressional session. However, since textiles remains a very sensitive political issue, this bill

- or others seeking to impose restraints against Chinese textiles and apparel- couldbe consideredduring the next session ofCongress nextyear.



### US 

## FTA UPDATE

US-AustraliaFTA 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 Agreementbut may notviolate the FTA. USTRhas indicated that the amendments have been discussed with appropriate US congressional members. In order for the FTA to enterinto force, President Bush must exchange notes with the Government ofAustralia. However, before doing so, the President must make a determination that Australia has taken
measures to comply withthe FTA.

OCTOBER

### 2004 PAGE 2LOEFFLER 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 Congresswill 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 LOEFFLER JONAS & TUGGEY LLP

US-DominicanRepublic-Central AmericanFree 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 ofthe 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 couldjeopardize 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 maintainthat no restriction should be placed on the level oferrors necessary for an appeal. Finally, amidst wavering support by Congress over including the Dominican Republic in the FTA ifthe 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 likelythatthe DR-CAFTAwill notbe consideredby Congressuntil nextyear.
US-BahrainFTA 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 improvetraderelations with other countries in the region and bring a step closer the US visionfor aMiddle EastFree TradeArea; the recentlyreleased US 9/11 Commission Report promotes FTAs in the Middle East as a tool to fight terrorism. Itremains unclearwhether Congress will vote on the FTA before the end ofthis 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-ANDEANFTA Although US andANDEAN (Colombia, Ecuador and Peru) negotiators have completed four rounds ofnegotiations, US efforts to complete an FTAby February 2005 have given rise to much anxiety. In addition to intellectualproperty concerns by Peru (see "US-ANDEANFTA"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-outperiods to tenyears; in some recently concluded US FTAs, phase-out periods ofup to 18



## Imtermati®mal '"Erade Review

OCTOBER

### 2004 PAGE 

### 3LOEFFLER 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 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 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 beefare subject to long tariffphase-out periods. Meanwhile, Colombia reportedly is seeking to maintain its controversial price-band system that varies the level oftariffs
on imports ofsensitive commodities according to shifts in global prices, but never below a certain benchmark. The US likely will push for elimination ofthe 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 EcuadorandPeru from an FTA ifthe disputes are notresolved.

In related news, a US coalition comprising dozens ofUS 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 afterthe US presidential election.
US-Southern African Customs Union (SACU) FTA Negotiators continue to discuss when a nextround ofFTAnegotiations shouldtake 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, USTRhas 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 ofthe Americas (FTAA) On September23, US Secretary ofAgriculture 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 newnegotiations, the Miami Declaration calls onBrazil to hold a ministerial before the end ofthis year. A decision may not come until after the US presidential election, which could pushthe date for a nextministerial to earlynext year.



## Imtermati®mal +ra€fe**Revi~w**

OCTOBER 

### 2004 PAGE

### 4LOEFFLER JONAS & TUGGEY LLP



### BRIEFL 

### Y NOTE

### D

® 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 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 procurementunderthe World Trade Organization Agreement onGovernment 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 orexclusions." Comments are due November 1.

" On September7, 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 September28 that it would begin BIT negotiations withPakistan.

" The Clerk ofthe US House ofRepresentatives has advised Members to "planfor a lame duck session in November." The Congressional Republican leadership indicated that the session would occurthe weekofNovember 15 whennewmember orientationis scheduled.

EI In a continuing push to create a Middle East Free Trade Area by 2013, USTR Zoellick indicatedthatFTA negotiations withthe United ArabEmirates are likely to be the next step. According to Zoellick, Omanalso is on the list as apossible candidate, but still needs to make additional progress in its domestic laws and regulations before FTA negotiations can begin. USTRmust notify Congress atleast 90 days priorto engaging inFTA 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 increasedpressure from the US Emergency Steel Scrap Coalition to end export taxes. The Coalition also is considering filing a Section 301 petitionwith USTRagainst Russian andUkrainian exporttaxes.

• 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" ofcustoms rules among EU countries that results in differences in classification and valuation from country to country. According to USTR, since the EUincreased to 25 member countries inMay, the burdenhas "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 submitbyNovember 1. After the data has been collected, USTR is expected to 

## Inter;nati0nal "Fr;aae Qeview

OCTOBER2004 PAGE 5LOEFFLER JONAS & TUGGEY LLP

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

OCTOBER 2004 PAGE 6 LOEFFLER JONAS & TUGGEY LLP

issue a formal notice in the Federal Register requesting comments for a so-called Special 301 out-of-cycle review ofChina'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 TradeReviewis preparedbythe International Trade Group ofLoefflerJonas & Tuggey LLP. Forfurther informationorto beremoved from ourmailing list, please contactthe InternationalTrade Group at202-775-4430 (telephone) or202-775-0836 (fax), orvia e-mail at TradeGroup({vLJTLA w.com. Individualmembers ofthe InternationalTrade Group canbe contactedas follows:

MichaelP. Daniels Partner l11daniels(Zi),ljtlaw.com C. ChristopherParlin Partner cparlin(mljtlaw.col11 David StewartChristy, Jr. Partner dchristy(Zi),ljtlaw.col11

MarcusA. Kraker TimothyN. Tuggey Partner ttuggey@litlaw.com Hans C. Rickhoff Partner hrickhoff(aJ,ljtlaw.com DirectorofServices, International Trade l11kraker(cDJjtlaw.com

SarahK. Wilmoth AdministrativeAssistant

swilmoth(cv,ljtlaw.col11

Previous issues ofInternational Trade Reviewmaybe found on LoefflerJonas & Tuggey's website at: www.ljtlaw.col11 © 2004 LoefflerJonas & Tuggey LLP
TheInternational Trade Reviewis intended as ageneral guide only. Itis not a legal analysis and does not constitute legal advice from or a legal opinion ofLoeffierJonas & Tuggey LLP or any member ofthe Firm on the legal issues described.



## imtermatiemal ;:r;lraEte Review

OCTOBER 

### 2004 PAGE 6