10 Questions. Need in 1 hour. Minimum of 3 sentences each.
1. As an American cattle grower, I’m upset that the French government has passed a law that requires beef to be labeled as either domestic or foreign grown. Can I charge France with a violation of the GATT agreements before a panel or the Dispute Settlement Body? Explain. What GATT principle would I be attempting to charge the French government with violating? Explain.
2. Guador, a small country in South America, is a member of the WTO. American fruit producers recently succeeded in persuading several members of Congress to introduce a bill to remedy Guador’s alleged unfair trade practices in the citrus fruit industry. The bill provides for a unilateral threefold increase in the tariff solely applicable to citrus fruits originating in Guador. Furthermore, the bill imposes periodic testing procedures upon Guadorian citrus fruits from which American producers are exempt. Finally, the bill caps imports of Guadorian citrus fruits into the United States at $20 million in value annually. If enacted, would all of the bill’s provisions violate American obligations pursuant to the GATT? Why or why not?
3. What are the requirements for valid protective measures under the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement? As seen in Meat case on page 279, what is a nation’s best evidence that it is SPS compliant and the protection measure is reasonable?
4. Answer both A and B:
A. President Trump has been petitioned by a US company claiming that their business is being harmed by foreign imports. Assuming he agrees that the business is suffering harm, does the president have the authority to act at this point? Explain.
B. The President believes that the offender is a French Company based in France, does he have the ability to make an agreement with the company to restrict its imports? Explain.
5. Contrast the WTO dispute settlement process with the NAFTA process. What are the main differences? Which do you think is better? Explain.
6. Assume we have the following rule of origin under NAFTA and it is an automobile:
9007.11 – A change to subheading 9007.11 from any other heading or
A change to subheading 9007.11 from subheading 9007.91, whether or not there is a
Regional Value Content (RVC) of not less than 60% TVM or 50% Net Cost
a. Would the product classify for NAFTA coverage if we changed from 9008.11 to 9007.11?
b. What about if we changed from 9007.13?
c. Let’s say we transformed from 9007.11 to 9007.91, using the following figures would this product qualify for NAFTA favorable duties and on which basis?
Net Cost = $20,000 Transaction Value = $25,000 Value of non-originating materials = $10,000
d. What two other rules of origin exist under NAFTA?
7. I’m the lead salesperson in trying to sell new HP computers in China. I don’t have many contacts, so I hire a local facilitator to arrange meetings with key buyers. In order to get in contact with the minister of Education and discuss sales of computers to Chinese schools, the facilitator says it would cost $10,000 for us to be able meet next week due to the Ministers extremely busy schedule. Would a payment such as this violate the FCPA? What about if I paid the $10,000 to get to meet with the CEO of China’s largest independent manufacturing firm? Explain your answers.
8. Accuraphoto USA (AUSA) owns the “Accuraphoto” trademark in the United States. AUSA operates a manufacturing plant in Killeen, TX to make the “SureShot” camera, which is known to consumers as a moderately priced quality product, for the US market. AUSA entered into a contract with Honshu Photographic, Inc. (HPI), a Japanese corporation. Pursuant to the terms of the contract, HPI was permitted to manufacture and market “SureShot” cameras utilizing the “Accuraphoto” trademark in return for payment of royalties based upon a percentage of HPI’s sales. Later, HPI moved production to its facility in the Philippinesin order to reduce labor costs. The cameras produced at the Philippine facility utilized the “Accuraphoto” trademark but were marketed under the name “SharpShot.” Additionally, these cameras contained improved electronic features incorporated into the product by HPI engineers. Despite the inclusion of these improvements, “SharpShot” cameras proved to be of inferior quality. Furthermore, “SharpShot” cameras have begun to show up on the shelves of U.S. discount retailers such as K-Mart and Wal-Mart. Additionally, several “ SharpShot” cameras have been sent by American consumers to AUSA’s American facilities for repair. Finally, HPI has refused to share access with AUSA to the electronic improvements incorporated into the “SharpShot” on the basis that they are confidential proprietary information.
What terms could AUSA have included in its contract with HPI that could have avoided this potential legal problem?
What do we call those goods that now appear at Wal-Mart?
9. Compare and contrast the legal and philosophical difference affecting employee participation in employee decisions in the United States and other nations, particularly Germany. Which is the better approach? Explain.
10. Kuming Amusement Company (KAC) is a toy manufacturer located in Yunnan province in southern China. KAC routinely dumps industrial waste from its manufacturing operations in the nearby Mekong River. The Chinese government is aware of this practice but has failed to take any action to prevent to occurrence or inform neighboring states. Two months ago, there was an industrial accident at KAC’s manufacturing facility, which resulted in the significant discharge of numerous toxins (including lead-based paint) into the Mekong River. KAC informed the Chinese government of this accident, but the Chinese government failed to inform downstream states of the accident. As a result, people in Laos, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam unknowingly utilized tainted water for numerous domestic purposes, including drinking bathing, irrigation and watering of livestock. The accident was only discovered after numerous downstream users became ill and there were massive fish kills, which resulted in subsequent testing of the water and discovery of the contamination.
If the United States responded to these events by increasing surveillance of KAC’s toys for lead content, would such a ban be consistent with its obligations pursuant to GATT? Why or why not? If the United States responded to these events by banning importation of all Chinese toys