central level of government has for each Party the meaning set out at Annex 1-A (Party-Specific Definitions).
Annex 1-A is further down page in this section.
Commission
means the Trans-Pacific Partnership Commission established under
Article 27.1 (Establishment of the Trans-Pacific Partnership
Commission);
covered investment
means, with respect to a Party, an investment in its territory of an
investor of another Party in existence as of the date of entry into
force of this Agreement or established, acquired, or expanded
thereafter;
Covered investment is a permanent agreement that leverages favor to the agreement in any litigation.
Covered investment is a permanent agreement that leverages favor to the agreement in any litigation.
customs administration means the competent authority that is responsible under the laws of a Party for the administration of customs laws, regulations and, where applicable, policies, and has for each Party the meaning set out at Annex 1-A (Party-Specific Definitions)
Custom enforcement. What about enforcement of national defense and sovereignty?
customs duty
includes any duty or charge of any kind imposed on or in connection
with the importation of a good, and any surtax or surcharge imposed in
connection with such importation, but does not include any:
(a) charge equivalent to an internal tax imposed consistently with Article III:2 of GATT 1994 (click here);
What a mess. Tax, tariff exemption. Call it the Wall Street Exemption.
2. The products of the territory of any contracting party imported into the territory of any other contracting party shall not be subject, directly or indirectly, to internal taxes or other internal charges of any kind in excess of those applied, directly or indirectly, to like domestic products. Moreover, no contracting party shall otherwise apply internal taxes or other internal charges to imported or domestic products in a manner contrary to the principles set forth in paragraph 1.*
Paragraph 1 is called into this document. The exemption of all that is considered an economic interest.
1. The contracting parties recognize that internal taxes and other internal charges, and laws, regulations and requirements affecting the internal sale, offering for sale, purchase, transportation, distribution or use of products, and internal quantitative regulations requiring the mixture, processing or use of products in specified amounts or proportions, should not be applied to imported or domestic products so as to afford protection to domestic production.*
These are additions from the WTO modifying the above paragraphs.
Oops, there it is. Where does anyone get the idea a agreement can undo local taxes and fees. New York City has local taxes. There is not a county, city or town in the USA without city fees.
This agreement dismantles local economies so they can be customized to profits for Wall Street.
Paragraph 1
What a mess. Tax, tariff exemption. Call it the Wall Street Exemption.
2. The products of the territory of any contracting party imported into the territory of any other contracting party shall not be subject, directly or indirectly, to internal taxes or other internal charges of any kind in excess of those applied, directly or indirectly, to like domestic products. Moreover, no contracting party shall otherwise apply internal taxes or other internal charges to imported or domestic products in a manner contrary to the principles set forth in paragraph 1.*
Paragraph 1 is called into this document. The exemption of all that is considered an economic interest.
1. The contracting parties recognize that internal taxes and other internal charges, and laws, regulations and requirements affecting the internal sale, offering for sale, purchase, transportation, distribution or use of products, and internal quantitative regulations requiring the mixture, processing or use of products in specified amounts or proportions, should not be applied to imported or domestic products so as to afford protection to domestic production.*
These are additions from the WTO modifying the above paragraphs.
Oops, there it is. Where does anyone get the idea a agreement can undo local taxes and fees. New York City has local taxes. There is not a county, city or town in the USA without city fees.
This agreement dismantles local economies so they can be customized to profits for Wall Street.
Paragraph 1
The application of paragraph
1 to internal taxes imposed by local
governments and authorities within the territory of a contracting party
is subject to the provisions of the final paragraph of Article XXIV. The
term “reasonable measures” in the last-mentioned paragraph would not
require, for example, the repeal of existing national legislation
authorizing local governments to impose internal taxes which, although
technically inconsistent with the letter of Article
III, are not in fact
inconsistent with its spirit, if such repeal would result in a serious
financial hardship for the local governments or authorities concerned.
With regard to taxation by local governments or authorities which is
inconsistent with both the letter and spirit of Article
III, the term
“reasonable measures” would permit a contracting party to eliminate
the inconsistent taxation gradually over a transition period, if abrupt
action would create serious administrative and financial difficulties.
At least the WTO recognizes local economies as vital to trade relations. The TPP dismantles the authority of governance. It dissolves the mandates within the WTO to protect local economies.
A tax conforming to the requirements of the first sentence of
paragraph 2 would be considered to be inconsistent with the provisions
of the second sentence only in cases where competition was involved
between, on the one hand, the taxed product and, on the other hand, a
directly competitive or substitutable product which was not similarly
taxed.
(b) fee or other charge in connection with the importation commensurate with the cost of services rendered; and
(c) antidumping or countervailing duty.
Antidumping is already covered in the WTO. The above law written in 1930 will remain.
SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA
- See more at:
http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/english/news/politics/13077-anti-dumping-dump-wto-rules-favor-korea-anti-dumping-suit-against-us#sthash.XqtVDjCE.dpuf
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Laws (click here) Under the Tariff Act of 1930
Under the Tariff Act of 1930, U.S. industries may
petition the government for relief from imports that are sold in the
United States at less than fair value ("dumped") or which benefit from
subsidies provided through foreign government programs. Under the law,
the U.S. Department of Commerce determines whether the dumping or
subsidizing exists and, if so, the margin of dumping or amount of the
subsidy; the USITC determines whether there is material injury or threat
of material injury to the domestic industry by reason of the dumped or
subsidized imports. For industries not yet established, the USITC may
also be asked to determine whether the establishment of an industry is
being materially retarded by reason of the dumped or subsidized imports.Antidumping is already covered in the WTO. The above law written in 1930 will remain.
SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA
19 November 2015 - 4:15pm
Cho Jin-young
The WTO determined (click here) that the dumping margin calculation method that the
United States recently employed in its anti-dumping investigation
regarding Korean washing machines constituted a violation of the WTO’s
rules.
The
determination means that the U.S. cannot take advantage of zeroing any
longer as a non-tariff barrier. Until recently, the U.S. adopted zeroing
in its margin calculation, claiming that target dumping occurred with
regard to specific Korean washing machines sold during a certain period
of time.
Since the KORUS FTA took effect three years ago, the U.S. government has created various non-tariff barriers so as to cope with a rapid increase in the export of electronics products from Korea to the United States. The Department of Commerce applied a determination of dumping to Korean washing machines in late 2012 and imposed an anti-dumping tariff of 9.29 percent on the products of Samsung Electronics, 13.02 percent on those of LG Electronics and 82.41 percent on those of Daewoo Electronics. The measure led to a sharp decline in the companies’ exports of the item to the U.S....
Ya got to love this mess to know the definitions in the WTO doesn't necessarily have the same meaning in the TPP. Below is the defintion of 'zeroing' in the WTO language.
Since the KORUS FTA took effect three years ago, the U.S. government has created various non-tariff barriers so as to cope with a rapid increase in the export of electronics products from Korea to the United States. The Department of Commerce applied a determination of dumping to Korean washing machines in late 2012 and imposed an anti-dumping tariff of 9.29 percent on the products of Samsung Electronics, 13.02 percent on those of LG Electronics and 82.41 percent on those of Daewoo Electronics. The measure led to a sharp decline in the companies’ exports of the item to the U.S....
Ya got to love this mess to know the definitions in the WTO doesn't necessarily have the same meaning in the TPP. Below is the defintion of 'zeroing' in the WTO language.
GLOSSARY TERM
Zeroing
An investigating authority usually
calculates the dumping margin by getting the average of the differences between
the export prices and the home market prices of the product in question. When it
chooses to disregard or put a value of zero on instances when the export price
is higher than the home market price, the practice is called “zeroing”. Critics
claim this practice artificially inflates dumping margins.
This official table of contents is below of the United States Trade Representative shows the existing tariffs and when they will be eliminated. This is a window of time. During that time parties adversely effected by the TPP need to pursue injunctions against the implementation.
I think the crux of preventing disaster lies in interrupting implementation. The unfairness and outcomes remain elusive from the TPP agreement itself. I think injuctions can be obtained when FACTS and FIGURES of how this will adversely effect real human beings and their families are presented to USA courts. The way this agreement seems to be structured it is far better to begin the litigation process BEFORE the provisions take effect. Once implemented there will be a dynamic that is unmanageable resulting in all sorts manipulations designed to undercut any lawsuit against a country within the agreement. Get it into the judicial record BEFORE the implementation of the agreement begins. Manage the implementation rather than fight it afterward.
Bring down provisions in the agreement to levels that are benevolent to the USA local economy (which is a sovereignty issue) and American labor.
It is questionable whether the Democrats have enough votes to prevent passage of the TPP. If this goes in effect then manage it through the window of time allowed in the agreement. The agreement is unconstitutional. It assaults the taxes and tariffs (another form of tax) provided for by the USA Constitution. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional. It assaults sovereignty. Those adversely effected which is everyone but the Longshoremen have a responsibility to prevent this document from becoming undisputed law.
Lawsuits filed before the implementation will have the advantage of all existing law before it gets muddied up by this mess. I have no doubt Congress will carry out a lot of mischief regarding this, but, early lawsuits can handle the mischief making and will bring in the respect Congress has for the US Constitution. Take it to the Supreme Court. The Commerce Claus does not provide for sovereign destruction. At least it is not suppose to.
NLRB can be asked to review these laws that will adversely effect Americans and their families. But, the NLRB is not the only venue American labor should be applying.
When litigating, don't forget the national debt and how this agreement is UNFUNDED to the losses the USA will suffer in eliminating tariffs and taxes. The loss of US Treasury income by this agreement should be removed from the Defense Department funding.
TPP Final Table of Contents (click here)
This official table of contents is below of the United States Trade Representative shows the existing tariffs and when they will be eliminated. This is a window of time. During that time parties adversely effected by the TPP need to pursue injunctions against the implementation.
I think the crux of preventing disaster lies in interrupting implementation. The unfairness and outcomes remain elusive from the TPP agreement itself. I think injuctions can be obtained when FACTS and FIGURES of how this will adversely effect real human beings and their families are presented to USA courts. The way this agreement seems to be structured it is far better to begin the litigation process BEFORE the provisions take effect. Once implemented there will be a dynamic that is unmanageable resulting in all sorts manipulations designed to undercut any lawsuit against a country within the agreement. Get it into the judicial record BEFORE the implementation of the agreement begins. Manage the implementation rather than fight it afterward.
Bring down provisions in the agreement to levels that are benevolent to the USA local economy (which is a sovereignty issue) and American labor.
It is questionable whether the Democrats have enough votes to prevent passage of the TPP. If this goes in effect then manage it through the window of time allowed in the agreement. The agreement is unconstitutional. It assaults the taxes and tariffs (another form of tax) provided for by the USA Constitution. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional. It assaults sovereignty. Those adversely effected which is everyone but the Longshoremen have a responsibility to prevent this document from becoming undisputed law.
Lawsuits filed before the implementation will have the advantage of all existing law before it gets muddied up by this mess. I have no doubt Congress will carry out a lot of mischief regarding this, but, early lawsuits can handle the mischief making and will bring in the respect Congress has for the US Constitution. Take it to the Supreme Court. The Commerce Claus does not provide for sovereign destruction. At least it is not suppose to.
NLRB can be asked to review these laws that will adversely effect Americans and their families. But, the NLRB is not the only venue American labor should be applying.
When litigating, don't forget the national debt and how this agreement is UNFUNDED to the losses the USA will suffer in eliminating tariffs and taxes. The loss of US Treasury income by this agreement should be removed from the Defense Department funding.
TPP Final Table of Contents (click here)
SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA
19 November 2015 - 4:15pm
Cho Jin-young
he
WTO determined that the dumping margin calculation method that the
United States recently employed in its anti-dumping investigation
regarding Korean washing machines constituted a violation of the WTO’s
rules.
The determination means that the U.S. cannot take advantage of zeroing any longer as a non-tariff barrier. Until recently, the U.S. adopted zeroing in its margin calculation, claiming that target dumping occurred with regard to specific Korean washing machines sold during a certain period of time.
Since the KORUS FTA took effect three years ago, the U.S. government has created various non-tariff barriers so as to cope with a rapid increase in the export of electronics products from Korea to the United States. The Department of Commerce applied a determination of dumping to Korean washing machines in late 2012 and imposed an anti-dumping tariff of 9.29 percent on the products of Samsung Electronics, 13.02 percent on those of LG Electronics and 82.41 percent on those of Daewoo Electronics. The measure led to a sharp decline in the companies’ exports of the item to the U.S.
- See more at: http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/english/news/politics/13077-anti-dumping-dump-wto-rules-favor-korea-anti-dumping-suit-against-us#sthash.XqtVDjCE.dpuf
The determination means that the U.S. cannot take advantage of zeroing any longer as a non-tariff barrier. Until recently, the U.S. adopted zeroing in its margin calculation, claiming that target dumping occurred with regard to specific Korean washing machines sold during a certain period of time.
Since the KORUS FTA took effect three years ago, the U.S. government has created various non-tariff barriers so as to cope with a rapid increase in the export of electronics products from Korea to the United States. The Department of Commerce applied a determination of dumping to Korean washing machines in late 2012 and imposed an anti-dumping tariff of 9.29 percent on the products of Samsung Electronics, 13.02 percent on those of LG Electronics and 82.41 percent on those of Daewoo Electronics. The measure led to a sharp decline in the companies’ exports of the item to the U.S.
- See more at: http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/english/news/politics/13077-anti-dumping-dump-wto-rules-favor-korea-anti-dumping-suit-against-us#sthash.XqtVDjCE.dpuf
Customs Valuation Agreement means the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, contained in Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement;
