With respect to currency issues, the legislation would modify the Treasury Department’s reporting requirements, require Treasury to identify currencies that are misaligned and adversely affect the U.S. economy and require it to take several actions where it finds harmful currency misalignment. Included among the actions that are to be taken are: consultations and negotiations with the government responsible for the currency, request for advice of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on the issue; and encouragement of other governments to join the United States in seeking appropriate action. If the foreign government fails to enter into bilateral consultations with the United States, then no new OPIC financing will be approved, the U.S. Executive Director of each multilateral bank will be instructed to oppose any new financing and the United States will request the IMF to engage in formal discussions with the government until such time as the Secretary of the Treasury notifies Congress that the government has entered into bilateral consultations. If the Secretary of the Treasury decides within 180 days that the government has failed to adopt appropriate policies to eliminate the misalignment, then OPIC financing shall be denied, the United States will oppose new multilateral bank financing and the United States shall request the Managing Director of the IMF to enter into IMF Article IV consultations. The United States will also oppose any increase in the voting share of such country in any international financial institution. The legislation also amends the antidumping statute to add the Treasury Department's identification of a currency as misaligned as a factor to consider in determining whether to grant the relevant country market economy status. The legislation also would create a new Assistant Secretary of Treasury and establish an Advisory Committee on International Monetary and Financial Policy.

With regard to enforcement, the legislation requires the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to identify annually U.S. trade enforcement priorities, enforcement actions taken and priority foreign-country trade practices on which enforcement action will be focused. In preparing this report, USTR is required to consult with the Senate Committee on Finance and the House Committee on Ways and Means and interested persons. This legislation also seeks to strengthen the ability of USTR to enforce trade agreements and commitments by making the USTR General Counsel a Presidential-appointed and Senate-confirmed official and requiring specific reporting on a biannual basis, as well as a more defined inter-agency process to promote compliance reviews and actions on trade agreements.

The legislation also would impose bonding requirements on new shippers under the U.S. trade remedy law.

• Amend U.S. countervailing duty law to include explicitly applicability to nonmarket economy countries, providing that the application does not double count duties and is consistent with U.S. international obligations.
• Impose bonding requirements on new shippers.
• Require monitoring of China’s implementation of specific WTO commitments by USTR and the Commerce Department and biannual and, in some cases, monthly reports on these issues.
• Require a Treasury report on currency manipulation, including an analysis of China’s termination of its dollar peg.
• Issue a sense of Congress resolution that China should join the WTO Government Procurement Agreement and suspend operation of its government procurement law.
• Provide appropriations to USTR.

ECAT strongly supports the need for the vigorous enforcement of trade agreements to which the United States is a party and other actions to address market-access barriers abroad. ECAT welcomes many of the proposals in the United States Trade Enhancement Act, introduced by Finance Committee Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus, that would help the U.S. government more fully recognize and address harmful foreign currency manipulation. At the same time, ECAT is concerned that proposals to deny OPIC financing or maintain non-market economy status could have adverse collateral consequences without ensuring progress by the foreign government.

ECAT welcomes as well the provisions in the United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act that strengthen the ability of USTR and the U.S. government to review and address the failure of foreign governments to meet their commitments, while ensuring sufficient administrative flexibility to take the most appropriate actions. As recognized by this legislation, and S. 2317, not all issues can be resolved through the same process. For example, some issues may be best resolved through dispute settlement; in other cases, the legal arguments may not be as clear and other strategies, such as negotiated resolutions, may be more effective, timely and, therefore, appropriate. ECAT is also concerned by proposals that would establish an independent authority to decide what cases should be brought, when that party has no responsibility for actually handling litigation and is not required to consider the seriousness of the issue or even the views of the companies whose commercial issues are involved.

ECAT Position: ECAT strongly supports efforts to ensure vigorous and effective enforcement of other countries’ obligations in their trade and investment agreements with the United States, as well as other actions to address market-access barriers abroad. ECAT welcomes, in particular, provisions of the United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act that seek to strengthen the enforcement capacity of the United States.

Trade Preference Program Legislation

Generalized System of Preferences

The Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program was established in U.S. law by the Trade Act of 1974 for a period of 10 years to provide duty-free treatment to many imports from developing countries, in order to help them diversify their economies and reduce their dependence on foreign aid. The current GSP program expires on December 31, 2006, and will require legislation for renewal.

Instituted on January 1, 1976, the GSP program provides duty-free access for the entry for more than 4,650 non-import sensitive products from 144 designated beneficiary countries and territories that meet certain eligibility requirements.

GSP has been renewed multiple times. In 2000, the Trade and Development Act renewed and made several significant modifications to the GSP program. Most substantially, it added provisions authorizing duty-free treatment for imports from eligible sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries through the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) for articles (except textiles and some apparel goods) that are currently ineligible for such treatment under GSP generally, including certain footwear, luggage, and other import-sensitive items. It also extended GSP benefits for the eligible SSA countries through September 30, 2008, and eliminated for these countries the so-called "competitive need" restrictions under the GSP program that limit the quantity of imports that can receive GSP benefits. That program was then extended through 2015. A full description of the benefits under this program is provided in Section IV.5. As well, the Trade and Development Act added new eligibility requirements for all GSP beneficiaries, requiring USTR to consider whether a country has "implemented its commitments to eliminate the worst forms of child labor."

GSP was last renewed as part of the Trade Act of 2002 for a period of five years, through December 31, 2006. Legislation has not yet been introduced to renew GSP this year. The Administration’s FY 2007 budget proposal contains a request for a five-year extension of GSP.

In October 2005, USTR began its review of the GSP program and consideration of ways to improve its effectiveness in helping more countries benefit from the program. GSP has substantial support among the business community, the Administration and Members of Congress. It provides incentives to promote trade and investment opportunities in numerous developing and least developed countries, helping promote economic growth and opportunity.

Least-Developed Preference Legislation

In early 2005, S. 191 was introduced in the Senate by Senators Smith (R-OR), Santorum (R-PA), Baucus (D-MT) and Feinstein (D-CA) and H.R. 886 was introduced in the House by Representatives Kolbe (R-AZ) and Crowley (D-NY) to provide trade preferences to 14 least developed countries (LDCs) and also to Sri Lanka. The LDCs are Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, Kiribati, Laos, Maldives, Nepal, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Timore-Leste, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, and Yemen. The legislation would provide duty-free benefits for textile and apparel products from these countries, similar to the AGOA preferences, discussed in section IV.5.

Legislation Expanding Trade Preferences for Haiti

In order to promote stability in Haiti and to counterbalance the negative economic effects that political upheaval is having on Haiti, several proposals have been made to provide greater commercial opportunities to Haiti.

In October 2005, Senator DeWine (R-OH) and 19 other Senators introduced S. 1937, the Haiti Economic Recovery Opportunity (HERO) Act. Congressman Meek (D-FL) introduced an identical bill in the House (H.R. 2411). Both bills would expand trade benefits to Haiti and accord duty-free treatment for seven years to certain products of Haiti if the President certifies that Haiti has met the eligibility criteria. Apparel that would receive such treatment includes articles that are wholly assembled or knit-to-shape in Haiti from any combination of fabrics, fabric components, components knit-to-shape and yarns without regard to the country of origin of the fabrics, components, or yarns.

Other proposals are being considering, including the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement (“HOPE”) Act supported by Ways and Means Chairman Thomas (R-CA), Ways and Means Ranking Member Rangel (D-NY), and Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee Chairman Shaw (R-FL) that aims to secure the current trade basis, recognize regional integration on knit apparel and build upon the potential integration of woven apparel. The HOPE legislation was introduced in the 108th Congress.

From a commercial perspective, it is extremely important to improve security so that employees, managers and visitors can resume the ability to travel and live safely in Haiti. The recent violence and kidnappings have severely curtailed most investment in Haiti. Additionally, the benefits provided to Haiti at this critical time need to be a part of a broader Haiti stabilization effort and the commercial benefits and do not unduly restrict commercial activities from resuming fully in Haiti. It is also important that provisions are included to ensure greater predictability of benefits for those producers that have a long-term and productive relationship in Haiti.

ECAT Position: ECAT supports the multi-year renewal of the GSP program that will expand trade and investment opportunities for U.S. farmers, manufacturers, service providers and their workers and that will help promote economic development in the developing world. ECAT also supports preferences for least developed countries that provide for effective and more sustainable economic growth and opportunities. ECAT also supports trade preferences for Haiti that build upon and advance regional integration and security, such as the Haiti Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement Act.

Trade Remedy Law Legislation and Issues

Attention will also continue to be focused in 2006 on a variety of trade remedy law issues, including WTO negotiations and dispute settlement cases involving these rules, and potentially reforms to U.S. trade remedy law.

Congressional Trade Remedy Proposals

With the strong support of ECAT, the House and Senate in December 2005 repealed the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA), which had been found to violate WTO rules as discussed below. The repeal was included in S. 1932, the Budget Reconciliation bill and provides that CDSOA is repealed for entries "made and filed after October 1, 2007."

Several bills have been introduced in the 109th Congress to amend U.S. trade remedy laws, including the following:

• S. 695/H.R. 1039, New Shipper Review Amendment: Introduced by Senator Cochran (R-MS) and Senator Byrd (D-WV) in the Senate and by Representative Pickering (R-MS) and others, S. 695 and H.R. 1039 suspend new-shipper bonding privileges for three years to prevent effective circumvention of duty payments. Legislation requires a report in two years to provide recommendations on whether to extend the suspension and to assess the effectiveness of current law on addressing circumvention and other issues. This legislation was also included in H.R. 3283, the United States Trade Enforcement Act, discussed above.
• S. 1050, the Expedited Remedy for Persistent Dumping Act of 2005: Introduced by Senator Lincoln (D-LA), S. 1050 provides that an expedited antidumping investigation shall be initiated with respect to goods already subject to an antidumping order against an additional supplier country where imports have increased by 15 or more percent during a 90-day period. Modifies the calculation of U.S. price.
• H.R. 1216, Application of Countervailing Duty Law to Non-market Economy Countries: Introduced by Congressman English (R-PA) and others, H.R. 1216 would amend U.S. countervailing duty law to include explicitly applicability to nonmarket economy countries. This legislation was included in H.R. 3283, the United States Trade Enforcement Act, discussed above. The provision was amended in H.R. 3283 to provide that the application of the countervailing duty law to non-market economy countries not double count duties and is consistent with U.S. international obligations.
• H.R. 2473, All Others Rate Change: Introduced by Congressman Shaw (R-FL), H.R. 2473 modifies the method used in determining the all-others rate by deleting the word “entirely,” to bring the United States into conformity with the WTO Japan hot-rolled determination.
• H.R. 4217, American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act: Introduced by Representative Knollenberg (R-MI) and others, H.R. 4217 would allow U.S. manufacturers that use products subject to countervailing or antidumping duty proceedings or use domestic like products to participate in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations. It would also require the International Trade Commission (ITC) to weigh whether the imposition or continuation of antidumping or countervailing duty orders would benefit domestic producers more than it would harm industrial users of the products.

As Congress considers modifying U.S. trade remedy laws, ECAT urges that any modification:

• be consistent with U.S. obligations, including the WTO, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other trade agreements
• not undermine the U.S. negotiating position in the WTO or other international negotiations;
• balance the interests of the industry seeking relief and other U.S. stakeholders that are affected by the application of these laws;
• establish a fair and proper comparison of prices and is based on commercially relevant considerations.

As described below, U.S. trade remedy provisions and decisions have already been the subject of numerous challenges in the WTO. The enactment of WTO-inconsistent provisions, as has been proposed in the past two years, undermines U.S. leadership in the world trading system and our ability to convince other countries to honor their commitments. It also undermines U.S. competitiveness and subjects U.S. exporters to the risk of retaliation.

WTO Dispute Settlement Cases Involving U.S. Trade Remedy Laws

U.S. trading partners have sought several reviews of U.S. trade remedy provisions since binding dispute settlement provisions were adopted with the establishment of the WTO in 1995, as have some other countries, particularly the EU. Several WTO decisions warrant consideration and legislative action in 2006.

Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (“Byrd Amendment”)

Senator Byrd (D-WV) successfully attached an amendment, the “Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act” (CDSOA), to the FY 2002 agriculture appropriations bill approved in October 2000. This provision requires that antidumping and countervailing duties be distributed to affected domestic producers who supported the antidumping and countervailing duty actions in the first place, rather than deposited in the general treasury. Eleven parties -- the EU, Mexico, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Canada India, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, and Thailand -- sought WTO dispute settlement consultations with the United States, arguing that the legislation violates several WTO provisions.

In September 2002, the panel reviewing the case found that CDSOA is an impermissible action against dumping and subsidies under the WTO Antidumping and Subsidies Agreements, respectively, because it is a remedy in addition to what is already authorized under those agreements. The Appellate Body agreed with the panel in January 2003. Several countries developed retaliation lists and the European Union imposed retaliatory measures.

With the strong support of ECAT, the House and Senate in December 2005 repealed the CDSOA, which had been found to violate WTO rules. The repeal was included in S. 1932, the Budget Reconciliation bill and provides that CDSOA is repealed for entries "made and filed after October 1, 2007."

ECAT strongly opposed enactment of CDSOA because it undercuts U.S. leadership in the global trading system and is inconsistent with U.S. trade obligations. As well, it sets a precedent that we do not want other countries to follow by increasing the incentives for filing antidumping and countervailing duty cases. Through this provision, domestic companies that are successful in having antidumping and/or countervailing duties imposed on foreign competitors, receive a cash reward for their success. This is not in the interest of U.S. exporters who may face similar laws abroad.

Zeroing Methodology

Zeroing is a practice by which the United States (and some other countries) treats certain price comparisons as zero values in calculating the overall dumping margin when such price comparisons do not show dumping. This methodology has been ruled as contrary to the United States’ WTO obligations in several cases, including softwood lumber imports from Canada and numerous products from the European Union. The Commerce Department has requested public consultations on modifying the zeroing methodology in light of these decisions.

ECAT strongly urges the United States to eliminate its zeroing methodology, which unfairly tilts the calculation of margins to the favor of the domestic industry bringing the case. Moreover, the United States’ continued lack of compliance with key WTO decisions sends precisely the wrong message to U.S. trading partners.

Given commercial realities and international obligations, the United States should eliminate all zeroing in its calculation of antidumping duties.

Hot-Rolled Steel from Japan

On July 24, 2001, the WTO Appellate Body issued its report finding that the United States’ application of antidumping duties on imports of hot-rolled steel from Japan violated the WTO agreement on antidumping measures. In particular, the Appellate Body (and lower panel) found that the U.S. methodology for calculating the so-called “all-others rate” did not rely fully on actual company information, but included some calculations based on “facts available.” The Appellate Body also found fault with the ITC’s injury analysis. An arbitrator determined that the United States would have until November 23, 2002, to comply with this ruling.

While the United States complied with the ruling on the investigation, there remains at issue its lack of implementation of the all-others rate. Japan has agreed to several extensions for the United States to come into compliance with this part of the decision. H.R. 2473, discussed above, would bring the United States into compliance with this decision. ECAT strongly supports the approval and implementation of this legislation as soon as possible.

Privatization Methodology under the U.S. Countervailing Duty Law

U.S. trading partners have also brought several cases against the methodology used by the Commerce Department in determining whether government subsidies to a government-owned company continue after the company has changed ownership or been privatized (so-called privatization methodology). In May 2000, the WTO Appellate Body found that the U.S. privatization methodology used in the case of hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel products (Leaded Bar decision) was inconsistent with the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. The United States terminated the duties, but did not propose any legislative modifications as the EU had sought.

On November 13, 2000, the EU requested consultations in 14 separate U.S. countervailing duty proceedings (involving imports of steel and other products) with respect to the Commerce Department’s privatization methodology, arguing that this methodology was found to be inconsistent in the earlier Leaded Bar decision. Consultations were held in December 2000, and a panel was formed in September 2001. The panel ruled in July 2002 that the statutory provision on privatization (section 771(5) (F) of the Tariff Act of 1930) and the Commerce Department’s privatization methodology were inconsistent with the WTO Subsidies Agreement. In December 2002, the Appellate Body upheld the panel's finding that the Commerce Department’s methodology was inconsistent with the Subsidies Agreement. It rejected, however, the panel’s reasoning that an arm's length sale of a government-owned firm for fair market value always extinguishes prior subsidies; rather it creates a rebuttable presumption that prior subsidies are extinguished. The Appellate Body found that the statutory provision was not, therefore, inconsistent with WTO rules.

The Commerce Department modified its methodology on privatization and issued revised determinations, revoking two orders entirely and one order in part. In five additional cases, the Commerce Department recalculated the countervailing duty rates. On November 7, 2003, the United States informed the WTO that it had complied with the WTO rulings. On March 17, 2004, the EU informed the WTO that it found these actions insufficient and requested further consultations with the United States. The WTO panel formed to hear this case ruled in August 2005 that the United States had complied with WTO rules, except with respect to its failure to examine the privatization of British Steel and Aceralia and in the treatment of new evidence in the British Steel case.

Other Trade Remedy Cases

In addition to the cases discussed above, U.S. trading partners have challenged U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty decisions and safeguard measures on several occasions, including

• the United States’ application of section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (safeguard actions) with respect to wheat gluten, lamb meat, circular welded carbon line pipe, line pipe and wire rod, and steel products. In each of these cases, the WTO Appellate Body ruled against the United States, finding in particular flaws in the determination of whether dumped or subsidized imports caused injury or the threat thereof to the domestic industry.
• Other specific cases, including steel plate from India, corrosion-resistant steel from Germany, oil country tubular goods from Argentina and Mexico, steel pipe from Italy; and cement from Mexico.

The Canadian complaints against U.S. antidumping and countervailing duties imposed on softwood lumber decisions are discussed in section IV.3.

ECAT Position: It is vitally important that both U.S. unfair trade laws and Section 201 maintain – in both the legal provisions and their application – a careful balance between the interests of the petitioning industry and the interests of other U.S. industries and consumers. It is critical that the Congress and the Administration oppose any efforts to impose import restraints or amend U.S. antidumping, countervailing duty, or safeguards laws in ways that would invite foreign retaliation, encourage restrictive foreign mirror legislation, and/or violate the United States’ international trade commitments.

Restructuring and Modernization of U.S. Customs

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, a unit of the Department of Homeland Security, represents a key element in the United States’ trade competitiveness. Its role has changed dramatically since it was first authorized to collect customs duties on goods in 1789. While duty collection remains important, Customs and Border Protection plays an integral role in facilitating legitimate trade and protecting the nation’s borders, a role that was reemphasized with its transfer to the Department of Homeland Security in 2002. In order for U.S. farmers, manufacturers, service providers, and retailers to remain competitive, efforts must be made to help the U.S. Customs Service keep pace with technological developments and the changing international economic environment.

Transfer to Department of Homeland Security

In November 2002, Congress approved H.R. 5005, the Homeland Security Act of 2002. This legislation established the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States and reduce the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism. As part of the consolidation of numerous U.S. Government functions, the U.S. Customs Service was moved from the Department of the Treasury to the DHS and renamed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Customs). Customs was placed within the Directorate of Border and Transportation Security, along with the Transportation Administration of the Transportation Department, the Federal Protective Service of the General Services Administration, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center of the Department of the Treasury, and the Office of Domestic Preparedness of the Office of Justice Programs. The Commissioner of Customs remains as head of Customs within DHS.

The Homeland Security Act provides that the customs revenue functions are not transferred to the DHS and that the Secretary of DHS may not consolidate, discontinue or diminish the customs revenue functions of the Customs Service or reduce staffing levels or resources attributable to these functions. Further, the Treasury Secretary is authorized to appoint up to 20 persons to work with the DHS in performing customs revenue functions. No funds available to Customs or customs user fees collected by Customs as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act may be transferred to any other agency or office of the DHS. The President is required to include a separate budget request for the Customs.

As part of the DHS, Customs has expanded its security initiatives, including the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) initiative to enhance security throughout the entire import-export process and the Container Security Initiative, pursuant to which Customs has negotiated agreements with 42 of the world’s largest ports to put into place tougher international security standards. By the end of 2006, Customs expects that 50 foreign ports will be covered, covering 90 percent of trans-Pacific containerized cargo shipped to the United States. The Administration’s FY 2007 budget contains $55 million for C-TPAT and $139 million for the CSI program.

Automation Modernization

Customs has sought to develop and implement the so-called Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) to enable Customs to process more efficiently and cost-effectively imports and exports and to better protect U.S. borders from threats from abroad.

Start-up on ACE began in earnest in the summer of 2003 with the establishment of an ACE secure data portal and an initial 41 account participants. Activities have been expanded. In December 2004, Customs debuted in Blaine, Washington, its first port for “e-Manifest: Trucks” through which truck manifests are automated. Customs has expanded its work to additional ports and, as well, an electronic manifest (e-Manifest) for trucks was introduced. Ports are being moved to ACE in geographic clusters. As of December 2005, ACE has been deployed at 31 ports in Washington, Arizona, North Dakota, Michigan, and Minnesota, with additional ports in Texas being added in early 2006. Full ACE deployment is expected by the end of 2010.

ECAT continues to support full funding of the ACE program from general revenues and the modernization of Customs’ operations in order to promote more cost-efficient and effective commercial and enforcement programs.

Customs Modernization

U.S. Customs also continues to be engaged in implementing the provisions of the Customs Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978 (1978 Procedural Reform Act) and the Customs Modernization Act (the so-called Mod Act), which was enacted as title VI of the NAFTA Implementation Act of 1993. The 1993 Mod Act eliminated statutory requirements for paper documentation and provided authority for full electronic processing of customs-related transactions. In return for waiving paperwork requirements, the Mod Act imposed certain recordkeeping requirements on importers and required the production of some information after the fact. The Mod Act also authorized several automation initiatives based on the 1978 Procedural Reform Act, including remote-entry filing, periodic entry and duty payment. As well, the Mod Act required modifications in duty-drawback provisions and procedural safeguards.

Under Mod Act authority and prior authority provided by the 1978 Procedural Reform Act, U.S. Customs has engaged in a significant reorganization of its activities and functions. While Customs’ reorganization has resulted in some greater efficiency, the importing and exporting communities remain very concerned that implementation and interpretation of authorized reforms are not yet complete, nor fully consistent with the goals and requirements of the 1978 Procedural Reform Act and the Mod Act. In particular, concerns have been raised regarding:

• Customs’ Compliance Assessment and its Trade Compliance Risk Management processes, including Customs’ reliance on audit-based evidentiary standards (relying on the Generally Accepted Government Audit Standards (GAGAS) rather than the reasonable care standard of the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)).
• Customs’ Compliance Measurement and its associated penalty processes (increased cargo inspections, etc.), which penalize otherwise compliant and unsuspecting importers for errors or omissions caused by licensed brokers and express couriers.

ECAT supports efforts to further modernize U.S. Customs to promote greater trade facilitation and efficiency in a manner consistent with its mandate. In particular, ECAT believes that Customs could substantially improve its operations to better achieve border and economic security through adoption of the following proposals:

• Eliminate reconciliation for all entries that provide statistical updates only and have no impact on revenue;
• Simplify and reduce the Harmonized Tariff Schedule;
• Provide a total electronic interface for all required data to eliminate paper documents;
• Eliminate the release of confidential and trade-sensitive data to non-governmental agencies;
• Operate ports 24 hours/7 days a week; and
• Reduce the required data for exports and imports to a single set of data to satisfy both transactions, as conceived under the ITDS model.

ECAT remains very concerned with Customs’ adoption of the “24-hour manifest rule,” which became effective in December 2002. Pursuant to Customs’ regulations, all carriers and non-vessel operating common carriers (NVOCCs) are required to file their cargo declarations 24 hours before their cargo is laden aboard a vessel at a foreign port. While ECAT recognizes and supports the U.S. Government’s interest in evaluating the contents of shipments for national security and other reasons, this rule does not substantially advance that goal. Rather, it will impede commercial shipments, for which fully complete manifest information is oftentimes not ready that far in advance. This regulation is overly restrictive and will impede the legitimate commercial flow of goods into the United States to the detriment of U.S. companies, workers and their families. At the same time, it will do little to deter those who seek to evade U.S. laws who can continue to file fraudulent manifests.

ECAT Position: ECAT is committed to working with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of the Treasury to help ensure that Customs’ restructuring progresses in a manner that fulfills our national security and enforcement goals, while also facilitating the flow of legitimate commercial trade that provides enormous economic benefits to the United States. ECAT strongly supports full funding of the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) from general revenues. ECAT also strongly supports improvements in the operation of U.S. Customs, including through full and improved implementation of the Customs Modernization Act and the Customs Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978 in a manner that facilitates trade.

Copyright 1999-2002, the Emergency Committee for American Trade