Sistema de origem comercial

O sistema multilateral de comércio - passado, presente e futuro.
A Organização Mundial do Comércio surgiu em 1995. Uma das mais jovens das organizações internacionais, a OMC é o sucessor do Acordo Geral sobre Tarifas e Comércio (GATT), estabelecido na sequência da Segunda Guerra Mundial.
Nos últimos 50 anos, houve um crescimento excepcional no comércio mundial. As exportações de mercadorias cresceram em média 6% ao ano. O comércio total em 2000 foi 22 vezes o nível de 1950. O GATT e a OMC ajudaram a criar um sistema comercial forte e próspero que contribuiu para um crescimento sem precedentes.
O sistema foi desenvolvido através de uma série de negociações comerciais, ou rodadas, realizadas no âmbito do GATT. As primeiras rodadas trataram principalmente de reduções tarifárias, mas as negociações posteriores incluíram outras áreas, como medidas antidumping e não tarifárias. A última rodada - a Rodada Uruguai 1986-94 - levou à criação da OMC.
As negociações não acabaram por lá. Alguns continuaram após o fim da Rodada Uruguai. Em fevereiro de 1997, foi alcançado um acordo sobre os serviços de telecomunicações, com 69 governos concordando com medidas de liberalização abrangentes que ultrapassaram as acordadas na Rodada Uruguai.
No mesmo ano, 40 governos concluíram com êxito as negociações para o comércio livre de tarifas de produtos de tecnologia da informação e 70 membros concluíram um acordo de serviços financeiros cobrindo mais de 95% do comércio de informações bancárias, de seguros, de valores mobiliários e financeiras.
Em 2000, iniciaram-se novas palestras sobre agricultura e serviços. Estes foram agora incorporados a uma agenda mais ampla lançada na quarta Conferência Ministerial da OMC em Doha, Catar, em novembro de 2001.
O programa de trabalho, a Agenda de Doha para o Desenvolvimento (DDA), agrega negociações e outros trabalhos sobre tarifas não agrícolas, comércio e meio ambiente, regras da OMC como anti-dumping e subsídios, investimento, política de concorrência, facilitação do comércio, transparência nos contratos públicos, propriedade intelectual e uma série de questões levantadas pelos países em desenvolvimento como dificuldades que enfrentam na implementação dos presentes acordos da OMC.
O prazo para as negociações é 1 de janeiro de 2005.

Regras de origem para produtos importados e exportados.
Regras para estabelecer o país de origem dos bens importados e exportados e para ajudar a identificar aqueles que se qualificam para direitos aduaneiros mais baixos ou nulos.
Última atualização 19 de abril de 2017 - veja todas as atualizações.
Introdução.
A União Europeia (UE) tem regras para estabelecer o país de origem dos produtos importados e exportados. Você precisará deles para classificar os produtos fabricados em mais de um país.
Como união aduaneira, a UE aplica um direito aduaneiro comum aos produtos importados de fora da UE. No entanto, na prática, os acordos comerciais entre a UE e países terceiros, os blocos comerciais regionais e as zonas de comércio livre determinam a taxa de direitos e as condições aduaneiras. Alguns bens importados ou exportados para determinados países podem beneficiar de tratamento preferencial - por exemplo, direitos aduaneiros inferiores ou nulos, enquanto outros terão status não preferencial e atrairão impostos especiais de consumo.
Definindo a origem dos bens.
A taxa do direito que deve ser pago em seus produtos dependerá de três elementos: o tipo de bens, o país em que os bens estão sendo importados e de onde eles são considerados "originados". O primeiro passo é esclarecer a origem das mercadorias.
A UE tem acordos de negociação com certos países não pertencentes à UE e blocos comerciais regionais ou áreas de comércio livre. Uma vez que você tenha determinado a origem, você estará no seu caminho para classificar seus produtos e estabelecer se um acordo está em vigor com o país ou os países com os quais você deseja negociar.
Quando houver um acordo, você precisará verificar se seus bens são elegíveis para qualquer tratamento preferencial - por exemplo, taxa de imposto reduzida ou nula, que esse acordo pode permitir.
Definindo a origem.
Existem duas categorias principais de origem nas regras:
bens inteiramente obtidos ou produzidos em um único país, cuja produção envolveu materiais de mais de um país.
Esta segunda categoria é mais complexa, pois existem vários critérios a serem considerados - por exemplo, a origem dos materiais, o país em que ocorreu a fase final de produção substancial e o valor que o trabalho e processamento em cada país adicionou.
Se um produto é fabricado inteiramente na UE e é exportado para um país com o qual existe um acordo preferencial, ele pode atrair tarifas inferiores ou nulas quando é importado para o país de destino.
No entanto, se alguns dos componentes são fabricados na UE, mas os componentes são adicionados e o produto é montado em outro país, pode ser julgado que o produto é originário do país onde está montado. O requisito de dever dependerá dos acordos entre o país em que o produto foi montado eo país em que será importado.
Conseguindo ajuda.
Se você estiver importando mercadorias, entre em contato com a linha de atendimento HMRC VAT.
Se você estiver exportando mercadorias, você deve verificar com o seu cliente, as autoridades aduaneiras do país do seu cliente ou a divisão de comércio internacional do Departamento de Comércio Internacional (DIT).
Preferências tarifárias.
Depois de ter esclarecido a origem dos produtos que você está exportando ou importando, você pode descobrir se eles se qualificam para tratamento preferencial sob um esquema de preferência tarifária.
Existem dois tipos de esquema:
Os regimes autónomos ou não recíprocos são apenas para importações para a UE no âmbito dos regimes recíprocos do Sistema de Preferências Generalizadas (SPG) aplicáveis ​​às importações para a UE e às exportações a partir desta.
Em última análise, qualquer taxa de direito preferencial dependerá da existência de uma cobertura preferencial para produtos deste tipo entre os países importadores e exportadores - ou entre a UE e um país terceiro - e o produto:
cumprir a sua regra de origem pertinente sendo totalmente produzida no país de preferência ou substancialmente manufaturada nesse país de acordo com regras específicas que não estejam sujeitas a uma quota que limitaria a quantidade do produto que pode ser trazido sob preferência.
Uma vez que você estabeleceu a origem dos bens, você pode verificar sua classificação de alfândega que irá mostrar se os bens se qualificam para um esquema de preferência. Ver classificação de mercadorias.
Você pode encontrar uma lista alfabética de todos os países que beneficiam do tratamento preferencial no Volume 1, Parte 7 da Tarifa.
A Tarifa de Comércio do Reino Unido é a fonte de informação mais atualizada sobre acordos preferenciais e o Código de Mercadorias. Também mostrará se o seu produto é responsável por medidas de proteção comercial, tais como direitos antidumping ou encargos da Política Agrícola Comum, que geralmente são determinados pela origem do produto.
Se você é exportador, verifique com seus clientes e com as autoridades alfandegárias no mercado do cliente. Você também deve cumprir os procedimentos gerais de exportação. Para obter mais informações sobre essas informações e como elas se aplicam a você, consulte os guias sobre como exportar seus produtos para fora da UE e como despachar seus produtos na UE.
Se você é um importador com HMRC. É responsabilidade do importador garantir que o valor correto do imposto seja pago. Você será responsável por qualquer imposto não pago ou incorretamente pago por até três anos após o produto ter sido importado.
Provando bens de origem preferencial.
Se as mercadorias que você está exportando tiverem origem preferencial, elas provavelmente atrairão taxas de imposto reduzidas ou nulas quando entrarem no país do seu cliente. Como exportador, é sua responsabilidade garantir que as regras de origem preferencial sejam seguidas corretamente.
Se você estiver exportando, você deve verificar com as autoridades aduaneiras do país que está vendendo e descobrir quais preferências estão disponíveis. Você também pode verificar com DIT.
Se você estiver importando bens de origem preferencial, é provável que pague o imposto sobre os bens com uma taxa reduzida ou nula. No entanto, você deve ter certeza de que a documentação foi processada corretamente. Você pode ser responsável por dever não pago ou incorretamente pago por até 3 anos.
Você precisará provar à HMRC que você tem direito a reivindicar a preferência pelas mercadorias que estão sendo exportadas ou importadas. O tipo de prova necessária depende do tipo de mercadoria e do país para o qual ela está sendo exportada.
Em particular, você deve verificar se o esquema de preferências é autônomo ou recíproco - ou seja, se aplica apenas a importações ou a importações e exportações. Isso determinará qual tipo de certificação você precisará.
Se você exportar ou importar regularmente, você poderia considerar a aplicação de informações de origem de encadernação (BOI). Este é um documento juridicamente vinculativo da alfândega que esclarece a origem de seus produtos e pode economizar tempo e dinheiro para exportadores e importadores regulares. É reconhecido e legalmente válido em toda a UE.
Informações de Origem de Ligação.
A BOI é uma decisão escrita de uma autoridade aduaneira que confirma a origem de bens específicos. É válido por 3 anos e é legalmente reconhecido em toda a UE.
Vantagens de manter a BOI para exportações e importações.
Uma BOI é juridicamente vinculativa em todos os Estados-Membros da UE, portanto, se seus bens se movem na UE antes de chegarem ao seu destino, a BOI pode minimizar a chance de que os costumes locais desafiem a origem dos bens durante o trânsito.
Se a origem de suas mercadorias não for direta, a BOI poderá impedir que você tenha que provar a origem das mercadorias repetidamente durante a negociação. Se qualquer alteração na legislação da UE invalida o seu BOI, pode continuar a cumprir os contratos existentes até 6 meses.
Você pode segurar um BOI se você está exportando ou importando bens. No entanto, apenas o proprietário do BOI pode usá-lo. Por exemplo, se você mantiver uma BOI para produtos que você exporta, seus clientes não podem usá-la, a menos que tenham obtido um deles.
Como obter o BOI
Gerenciando certificação para origem preferencial.
Os bens de origem preferencial (atraindo dever reduzido ou nulo) devem ser certificados antes de sair do país exportador. Os certificados retrospectivos podem ser emitidos em circunstâncias excepcionais.
A certificação necessária depende de se o esquema de preferências no país de destino é autônomo (aplicando somente às importações) ou recíproco (aplica-se tanto às importações quanto às exportações entre os dois países).
Verifique com as autoridades aduaneiras no país de destino das mercadorias ou na divisão de comércio exterior DIT.
É responsabilidade do exportador garantir que toda a documentação relativa a cada remessa de mercadorias seja exata e autêntica.
Acordo de Livre Comércio da UE com a Coréia - Mudança do status legal de um Conhecimento de Embarque.
De acordo com as disposições do Acordo de Comércio Livre UE-Coreia, a única prova de origem aceitável para reivindicar preferência é uma declaração de origem feita pelo exportador. O artigo 15.º do Acordo de Comércio Livre UE-Coreia (Jornal Oficial L127 14/5/2011) afirma:
"Os produtos originários da Parte da UE devem, aquando da importação na Coreia e dos produtos originários da Coreia, importar para a Parte da UE beneficiarem do tratamento pautal preferencial do presente acordo com base numa declaração, posteriormente referida como a" declaração de origem " , dado pelo exportador em uma factura, um boleto de entrega ou qualquer outro documento comercial que descreva os produtos em causa com suficiente detalhe para que possam ser identificados ".
Alterar para a definição de um documento comercial para efeitos do Acordo de Livre Comércio UE-Coreia.
No uso normal de inglês, um conhecimento de embarque é considerado um documento comercial.
No entanto, na terceira reunião do Comité Aduaneiro do Acordo de Comércio Livre UE-Coreia de 18 a 19 de junho de 2014, a Comissão Européia concordou com as autoridades coreanas que:
"... um conhecimento de embarque não é um documento comercial com o propósito de declaração de origem".
Não houve nenhuma explicação para essa decisão.
O efeito desta decisão é que a partir desta data, um conhecimento de embarque não poderá ser usado para fazer uma declaração de origem com o propósito de reivindicar a preferência sob o Acordo de Livre Comércio UE-Coréia.
As orientações da HMRC e os avisos públicos serão atualizados oportunamente.
Esquemas autônomos.
Este é um certificado de origem preferencial e deve ser carimbado e assinado pela autoridade aduaneira no país exportador. Cada remessa de mercadorias que você importa precisa de um certificado separado e cada certificado é válido por 10 meses a partir da data de emissão.
A partir de 1 de janeiro de 2017, a UE introduziu o Sistema de Exportador Registrado (REX). Este é um sistema que autoriza os exportadores dos países beneficiários do SGP a emitir um auto-certificado (conhecido como declaração sobre a origem) para que os bens elegíveis sejam importados sob preferência para a UE.
Esquemas recíprocos.
Mais comumente, os bens são cobertos pelo Formulário EUR1 fornecido pelo exportador e carimbado e assinado pelas autoridades aduaneiras no país exportador. Baixe as orientações sobre como criar e preencher um formulário EUR1 do site da Câmara de Comércio de Londres (PDF, 53K).
Na maioria dos casos, cada formulário ou declaração só deve ser usado para uma remessa de mercadorias e é válido por 4, 10 ou 12 meses a partir da data de emissão, de acordo com o país para o qual os produtos estão sendo exportados.
Alternativamente, o exportador pode usar uma forma de palavras legalmente aprovada para declarar na factura que os bens são elegíveis para o status de origem preferencial. Existe um limite de valor para essas exportações - a menos que o exportador seja aprovado pelo HMRC.
Para ambos os regimes, você ainda precisa usar códigos de classificação na documentação aduaneira que acompanha o embarque, pois eles também são usados ​​para coletar estatísticas do comércio internacional.
Ajuda para exportadores regulares.
Você pode acelerar as remessas regulares de mercadorias idênticas através da alfândega usando o BOI.
Se você está tomando as primeiras etapas como importador ou exportador, esteja ciente de que você deve estar registrado como tal. Consulte o Esquema de registro e identificação de operadores econômicos (EORI).
Certificação não preferencial.
Os Certificados de Origem da União Europeia (origem não preferencial) são emitidos pelas câmaras de comércio locais que são autorizadas pela DIT mediante recomendação das câmaras de comércio britânicas (BCC). Este serviço está disponível para todas as empresas do Reino Unido. Os exportadores também podem se inscrever online para um e-Cert (um Certificado de Origem eletrônico) através do site da BCC.
Execução.
O HMRC monitora regularmente as mercadorias que estão sendo importadas ou exportadas de preferência.
Você deve manter toda a documentação relevante por até 3 anos. Se você não pode provar a origem de qualquer mercadoria que você exportou sob preferência nos últimos 3 anos, seu cliente pode ter que pagar a taxa total do imposto sobre eles. Nesse caso, o cliente pode esperar que você pague o imposto a eles.
Se você verificou que está exportando mercadorias sob preferência de forma incorreta, você pode enfrentar penalidades. Veja apreensões e penalidades aduaneiras.
Obtenha ajuda e conselhos sobre regras de origem.
Os aspectos práticos das regras de origem podem ser complexos e é uma boa idéia tomar conselhos especializados para garantir que você esteja cumprindo com eles, seja você um importador ou um exportador.
Obtenha conselhos da HMRC.
Orientação sobre a exportação para países específicos.
Você pode obter ajuda sobre a exportação sob preferência da divisão de comércio exterior do DIT.
Informe-se sobre preferências tarifárias e regras de origem para países como Egito, Islândia, Marrocos, Noruega, África do Sul, Suíça e Turquia no Aviso 828.
Outras informações.
19 de abril de 2017 Várias alterações, incluindo uma nova secção sobre o acordo de comércio livre da União Europeia e da Coreia. 13 de junho de 2013 Fixando referências a guias especializados 6 de agosto de 2012 Primeira publicação.
Conteúdo Relacionado.
Explore o tópico.
Coleção.
Ajude-nos a melhorar GOV. UK.
Serviços e informações.
Departamentos e políticas.
Suporte links.
Ajuda Cookies Contato Termos e condições Rhestr o Wasanaethau Cymraeg Construído pelo Serviço Digital do Governo.
Todo o conteúdo está disponível sob a Open Government License v3.0, exceto quando indicado de outra forma.

Sistema de origem comercial z
Uma Avaliação dos Usos e Importância das Regras de Origem e a Eficácia do Acordo sobre Regras de Origem da Rodada Uruguai na Harmonização e Regulamentação.
Joseph A. LaNasa III ("Jody")
& copy; Copyright: Joseph A. LaNasa III, 1995.
Índice.
I. Introdução: a importância das regras de origem.
As regras de origem são os critérios utilizados para determinar a nacionalidade de um produto. As regras de origem foram concebidas como um dispositivo incontrovertido e neutro, essencial para a implementação de políticas comerciais discriminatórias, compilação de estatísticas econômicas e marcação de um bem. Uma vez que a origem de um bem é conhecida, o país importador pode aplicar quaisquer preferências ou restrições comerciais específicas do país ou do comércio para o bem importado (como a entrada livre de direitos para mercadorias originárias de uma área de livre comércio, restrições quantitativas sobre mercadorias originadas num país sujeito a uma quota ou direitos anti-dumping sobre os produtos da empresa alvo que se originam no país designado), contabilizam o bem na sua compilação de estatísticas económicas sobre os fluxos comerciais e asseguram que os bens sejam claramente marcados com seu país de origem. As regras de origem continuaram a ser um dispositivo neutro e não controverso desde que as peças de um produto fossem fabricadas e montadas principalmente em um país, e enquanto existissem outros mecanismos para a implementação do protecionismo.
Uma vez que as regras de origem são um meio indispensável para implementar regimes comerciais discriminatórios, sua importância cresceu de forma significativa, já que os países, cada vez mais, trataram produtos similares importados de acordo com a localização do produto. [1] À medida que o grau de diferenciação entre bens similares de diferentes países ou grupos de comércio aumenta, as regras de origem se tornam mais importantes e mais controversas, porque o benefício de ser determinado como pertencendo a um determinado país ou grupo comercial vis-à-vis outros aumenta. [2]
O aumento do tratamento disparado de bens similares, o crescente número de restrições impostas ao uso de barreiras tarifárias e tarifárias tradicionais ao comércio pelo Acordo Geral sobre Pautas Aduaneiras e Comércio ("GATT"), a falta de regulamentação de regras de origem até Recentemente, pelo GATT, a obscuridade técnica em que as regras de origem operavam e a globalização dos meios de produção proporcionaram aos países a oportunidade e o incentivo para usar suas regras de origem para implementar políticas comerciais de maneira obscura.
O aumento das corporações multinacionais e a produção de bens em múltiplos estágios usando peças produzidas em diferentes lugares ao redor do mundo proporcionaram a oportunidade de usar regras de origem como um meio efetivo de proteção. Em um mundo onde os bens são produzidos a partir de partes de todo o mundo, não existe uma única definição de origem correta. Em vez disso, a origem de um produto depende da formulação e aplicação das regras de origem aplicáveis. Neste mundo, as regras de origem podem servir como meios extremamente efetivos de protecionismo em pelo menos duas maneiras. Em primeiro lugar, definições excessivamente restritivas ou aplicações de regras de origem preferenciais podem negar preferências comerciais a produtos que tenham sofrido processamento substancial em um país ou área de comércio privilegiado, sustentando que o produto não é originário do país favorecido. Em segundo lugar, as definições excessivamente liberais e as aplicações de regras de origem não preferenciais irão alargar as medidas restritivas de comércio específicas de cada país aos produtos de outra forma isentos deles, ao considerar que o produto, apesar de sofrer transformações substanciais num país terceiro, se originou no desfavorecido país.
Porque a maioria das pessoas tinha o equívoco (uma concepção adequada, desde que bens importados fossem produzidos em um único país com partes e materiais daquele país) que a formulação e aplicação de regras de origem resultam de um processo técnico e objetivo, poucas pessoas prestaram atenção muito menos escrutados, o processo de definição e aplicação de regras de origem. Esta falta de transparência foi aumentada pela natureza complexa e técnica das regras de origem, o que tornaria difícil perceber que eles estavam sendo usados ​​para fins restritivos. Além disso, embora o GATT restringisse cada vez mais a capacidade dos países de usar tarifas ou barreiras tradicionais não tarifárias para proteger a indústria doméstica da concorrência estrangeira, não regulava as regras de origem. Portanto, o uso de regras de origem para garantir os efeitos restritivos do comércio forneceu um meio para os países satisfazerem a pressão da indústria doméstica em busca de proteção contra a concorrência estrangeira. Ao aproveitar o fato de que as formulações das regras e determinações de origem não são objetivos, exercícios técnicos, mas sim decisões políticas influenciadas de forma não transparente, os governos conseguiram proteger as indústrias domésticas de forma oculta e efetiva.
Como resultado da crescente pressão para encontrar novas barreiras ao comércio, a falta de regulamentação global das regras de origem e a eficácia das regras de origem como dispositivo de proteção, os governos se voltam cada vez mais para as regras de origem como mecanismo de proteção. [3]
A Parte II deste artigo explora como os países utilizam regras de origem de forma orientada para os resultados como uma ferramenta de política comercial. A Parte III explica por que as empresas que maximizam os lucros devem tratar as regras de origem como um fator de produção e por que precisam de regras claras e precisas que resultem em determinações de origem consistentes e transparentes. Parte IV deste artigo avalia os diferentes métodos para determinar a origem de um produto. A Parte V analisa a história dos esforços para harmonizar as regras de origem a nível mundial. A Parte VI examina o Acordo sobre as Regras de Origem alcançado na Rodada Uruguai (o "Acordo de Origem") [4] e analisa a sua eficácia na determinação da origem mais transparente, menos controversa e mais segura. A Parte VII conclui que, embora tenham sido feitos progressos na direção da harmonização das regras, as regras de origem continuarão a ser importantes e controversas, desde que os países continuem a tratar produtos importados de forma diferente.
II. O uso de regras de origem como barreiras ao comércio.
As regras de origem são divididas em duas categorias: regras de origem preferenciais e não preferenciais. As regras de origem preferenciais são utilizadas para determinar se certos produtos são originários de um país receptor ou de uma área de troca de preferências e, portanto, são elegíveis para a preferência comercial. As regras de origem não preferenciais são usadas para todos os outros fins, incluindo a aplicação das restrições comerciais específicas do produto e do país que aumentam o custo de entrada (ou seja, direitos antidumping) ou restringem ou impedem a entrada no mercado (ou seja, cotas). [5] Ambos os tipos de regras de origem podem ser usados ​​como barreira ao comércio.
Ao determinar se um produto se origina em um país receptor de preferência ou área comercial e, assim, entra no país importador em melhores condições do que os produtos do resto do mundo, as regras preferenciais de origem permitem que os governos discrimiquem produtos de diferentes países, em vez de um ambiente comercial global regido pelo princípio do GATT de não discriminação e sua cláusula de nação mais favorecida, os países criaram uma crescente proliferação de acordos comerciais que dão tratamento preferencial aos países em desenvolvimento e aos parceiros comerciais regionais. [6] Ao variar a gravidade da transformação necessária e ao permitir diferentes graus de acumulação em uma base regional, doadora ou global, os países usam as regras de origem para controlar o grau de preferência. [7] Se as regras preferenciais de origem forem formuladas de modo a exigir uma maior transformação do produto do que as regras de origem exigirem, as regras de origem podem servir de dispositivo de política discriminatória que restrinja o comércio.
A rápida disseminação recente de acordos comerciais preferenciais recíprocos [8] que, inter alia, liberalizam o comércio através da criação de zonas de comércio livre regionais, concentrou cada vez mais a atenção nas regras de origem e na sua importância. Embora reciprocamente, os acordos preferenciais de liberalização do comércio, em teoria, deveriam resultar na criação de comércio líquido, o uso de regras de origem mais restritivas do que as regras não preferenciais, embora nominalmente projetadas para evitar a deflexão comercial, podem resultar em desvio de comércio e investimento.
A deflexão comercial ocorre quando as empresas colocam uma planta de processamento ou montagem mínima em um país receptor de preferências para aproveitar essas preferências comerciais. As regras de origem preferenciais tentam evitar a deflexão do comércio, estabelecendo critérios que garantam um grau adequado de transformação em um país receptor de preferências para justificar permitir que um bem se beneficie da preferência. No entanto, as regras de origem nos acordos comerciais preferenciais recíprocos são muitas vezes mais restritivas do que o necessário para assegurar uma transformação substancial. Quando as regras de origem são mais restritivas do que o necessário para evitar a deflexão do comércio, eles dão aos produtores um incentivo para aumentar a quantidade de produtos intermediários e finais, fabricação, processamento e montagem feitos dentro da área preferencial à custa de instalações em outros países que de outra forma tem uma vantagem comparativa. Essa distorção das decisões de abastecimento e compra causa uma alocação ineficiente de recursos globais. [9]
A eficácia das regras de origem restritivas na destravação do comércio e do investimento dependerá da dificuldade de cumprir a regra, o tamanho do mercado, o grau de habilidade técnica necessária, o nível de educação da força de trabalho e a "penalidade" por não cumprir o acordo preferencial. As corporações multinacionais terão maior incentivo para fabricar fábricas e instalações de montagem dentro de uma área se a "penalidade" por não cumprir a regra preferencial de origem é substancial, como a perda de preferências tarifárias substanciais ou a perda de acesso ao mercado a um grande mercado , em vez de se a penalidade for mínima, como uma pequena tarifa sobre os produtos vendidos para um pequeno mercado. Alternativamente, se a preferência não for tão grande ou se as mercadorias forem destinadas a vários países, a firma pode simplesmente ignorar o acordo preferencial e suas intricadas regras de origem.
Estas regras de origem preferenciais excessivamente restritivas não são projetadas para proteger os bons produtores finais, como as barreiras tradicionais ao comércio são. Em vez disso, eles são projetados para aumentar a quantidade de investimento na produção e montagem de bens intermediários e para proteger e melhorar a posição dos produtores intermediários existentes. [10] Esta proteção dos produtores intermédios resulta em desvios ineficientes de comércio e é o foco do ressentimento de não membros dos acordos comerciais preferenciais. [11] Além disso, ao longo do tempo, os produtores intermediários nacionais podem ser substituídos ou excluídos do mercado por produtores estrangeiros que deslocalizam suas instalações de produção intermediária para a área protegida.
Entretanto, as regras de origem também podem servir como uma barreira tradicional ao comércio, ou seja, para proteger os produtores domésticos de bens finais quando as regras de origem são tão administrativa ou tecnicamente difíceis de cumprir que servem como barreira não-tarifária ao comércio. Se a penalidade por incumprimento for suficientemente grave, eles anularão a preferência comercial, porque nenhuma empresa procurará tirar proveito dela. No entanto, se o mercado de um membro é muito maior do que os outros membros, as empresas têm um incentivo para as fábricas de origem nesse país onde a maioria dos bens finais estão destinados a ser vendidos, de modo a evitar ter que cumprir as regras de origem. Uma vez que as regras de origem são aplicadas apenas a produtos importados, ou seja, bens que atravessam uma fronteira nacional, se o bem for produzido e comercializado no país, não é necessária nenhuma determinação de origem. É claro que suas partes importadas terão que cumprir a lei comercial não preferencial, incluindo tarifas e cotas aplicáveis.
III. Regras de origem como um fator de produção.
Uma vez que as regras de origem são uma parte essencial da aplicação das preferências ou restrições comerciais específicas do país ou do grupo comercial, as regras de origem têm um impacto significativo no planejamento estratégico das empresas que maximizam os lucros. Por essa razão, as empresas que maximizam o lucro devem analisar as diferentes regras de origem, quantificar seus custos e tratá-las como um fator de produção para determinar onde obter seus investimentos, comprar suas matérias-primas, produzir ou comprar materiais intermediários e montar seus produtos. produtos finais.
Dado materiais cru ou intermediários de igual qualidade, uma empresa que maximiza os lucros comprará a mais barata, independentemente de onde for encontrada. Uma vez que as restrições e preferências comerciais afetam o custo dos bens e podem mesmo restringir a entrada de um material ou um bem em um país, uma empresa deve determinar a origem da parte bruta ou intermediária que está considerando usar e seu impacto na origem do final É bom ver se as restrições ou preferências comerciais se aplicam. Se um bem de um determinado país ou grupo comercial estiver sujeito a uma cota ou a uma medida que tenha um efeito equivalente a uma cota, será menos provável que uma empresa use essa boa porque seu uso pode restringir as capacidades de produção da empresa para seu produto final, porque uma vez que o limite de importação do bem foi alcançado, a empresa está impedida de importar mais desse bem. Se o bem estiver sujeito a uma tarifa ou a uma medida com efeito equivalente, a empresa deve incluir a tarifa em seus cálculos de custo para esse bem ao determinar onde comprar ou produzir o material.
Uma empresa que maximiza os lucros deve considerar a origem do bem final em cada mercado de destino antes de determinar a origem de suas plantas de fabricação e montagem. Ao localizar a planta em um país onde o produto acabado recebe o tratamento mais benéfico no país ou países em que o produto será vendido, uma empresa poderá minimizar as restrições comerciais e maximizar as preferências comerciais sobre esse bem.
Preferências comerciais e restrições são dois dos fatores que devem ser considerados na análise dos custos relativos e absolutos da produção. Embora não sejam os únicos critérios utilizados para determinar onde fabricar instalações de fabricação e montagem e onde comprar matérias-primas ou partes intermediárias, sua importância é muitas vezes ignorada. [12] Por exemplo, se uma empresa produz um bem que goza de grandes economias de escala de produção, baixos custos de transporte e é vendido em vários países, essa empresa pode querer produzir todo esse produto em uma fábrica localizada no país que tem os custos totais de produção mais baixos, incluindo o custo de entrada nos mercados finais. Em outras palavras, uma empresa deve considerar o custo da entrada do produto em um mercado, juntamente com o custo do capital, o custo do trabalho, o nível de habilidade do trabalho e os custos de transporte antes de determinar onde fabricar plantas de fabricação e montagem e antes determinando onde comprar matérias-primas ou bens intermediários. Esse tipo de análise deve ser conduzido por todas as empresas que produzem produtos para mais de um país, independentemente de o produto ser usado por outro produtor ou de o produto ser vendido ao consumidor mais tradicional.
Dada a importância das determinações de origem para empresas racionais, com maximização de lucro, as empresas devem determinar com antecedência a origem de seus bens finais, para que possam explicá-lo como um fator de produção em seus planos estratégicos. No entanto, o esforço para harmonizar as regras de origem a nível global ou mesmo nacional impediu os esforços para fazer tais determinações, uma vez que os países aplicam muitas vezes diversas regras de origem aplicadas pelos países, resultando frequentemente em determinações inconsistentes de origem, que às vezes aparecem ter sido manipulado para obter resultados restritivos do comércio. A criação de regras de origem claramente definidas e harmonizadas a nível mundial que sejam aplicadas de forma consistente proporcionaria benefícios significativos para as empresas que maximizem os lucros. O objetivo de qualquer projeto de harmonização deve ser articular regras de origem que distinguem entre transformação substancial e insustancial de forma consistente e neutra, e ter essas regras aplicadas de forma consistente, de modo que as determinações de origem resultem em resultados semelhantes, independentemente de onde, quando, e por que eles ocorrem. Antes que as recentes tentativas de harmonização possam ser avaliadas, os tipos e os diferentes métodos de determinação da origem devem ser explorados.
IV. Métodos de Determinação da Origem.
Quando um produto é totalmente obtido e produzido em um único país, é relativamente fácil determinar sua origem. [13] Dificuldades em determinar a origem de um produto que é fabricado, montado ou que usa materiais originários de mais de um país.
Pelo menos quatro métodos ou critérios diferentes existem para determinar a origem de produtos que são fabricados, montados ou que utilizam materiais originários de mais de um país:
1. Usando o conceito de transformação substancial como uma regra;
2. Usando um teste de porcentagem ad valorem;
3. Listar operações específicas de fabricação ou processamento que conferem ou não conferem origem às mercadorias; e.
4. Exigir uma alteração especificada na classificação tarifária.
Seja qual for o método utilizado para determinar a origem, cada um busca evitar que simples operações de montagem e embalagem conferam origem. This section of the article will evaluate the different methods according to their effectiveness in determining the origin of a goal and in preventing circumvention, their clarity, their certainty, their transparency and the predictability or consistency of origin of determinations which use that method.
A. Substantial Transformation.
The traditional substantial transformation rule states that a good originates in the last country where it emerged from a given process with a "distinctive name, character or use." [14] The substantial transformation of a good requires more than just a change in the article; it requires an article be transformed into a "new and different article" "having a distinctive name, character or use." [15]
The traditional substantial transformation rule captures the heart of the meaning of the rules of origin in a simple, concise way. For a product to be from a particular state, it must be substantially transformed there. To prevent a product from having multiple countries of origin, the good is a product of the country where it last underwent substantial transformation. The standard's flexibility allows it to evolve to meet technological change; however, this flexibility can result in inconsistent origin determinations that undermine the certainty required for strategic planning by businesses.
Moreover, the standard's flexibility provides an opportunity for it to be "captured" by lobbying groups, i. e. , for the standard to be used in a results-oriented manner designed to accommodate political pressure for more trade restrictive effects. For example, the rule can easily be converted into a search for the most significant processing, instead of the last substantial transformation. This type of search requires the exporter, importer, or producer to furnish a great deal of factual information to prove substantial processing. This fact-intensive, time-consuming inquiry raises the cost of determining origin, makes the rule even more restrictive and complex than it otherwise would be, and contradicts the spirit and purpose of the last substantial transformation rule.
For example, in 1984, the United States Custom Service adopted a two-part test for determining the origin of textile goods that result from processes or materials from more than one country. [16] This "revised" substantial transformation test was more restrictive than the traditional substantial transformation test because it required the creation of a new and different article and substantial manufacturing or processing operations. [17] The revised test nominally was changed to prevent companies from circumventing textile quotas by passing goods through an intermediate country to confer that country's origin on the good.
The substantial transformation rule provides the custom authorities and the courts with a great deal of flexibility to adapt the rule to particular circumstances to avoid circumvention. As the amount of restrictions or duties on imports increases for unfavorable origin determinations, more companies will try to manipulate the rules of origin to avoid unfavorable determinations. This often forces the courts to stretch the common law developed around substantial transformation to prevent circumvention and ensure that the standard's basic purpose is met. In other words, as the rules on substantial transformation become more precise and defined, it becomes easier to circumvent the purpose of the law while formally complying with its language. The flexibility of the substantial transformation standard provides countries with the ability to look beyond the form of the transaction to see if a substantial transformation actually occurred.
However, the ambiguity of the standard and its flexible decision-making can lead to unpredictable, seemingly arbitrary results, especially when substantial transformation rule is applied differently for different purposes. [18] The United States has attempted to deal with this lack of certainty by compiling lists of criteria. [19] However, instead of having the abstract concept of substantial transformation become more definite through concrete application to factual situations, [20] the selective, inconsistent use of the criteria has led to more uncertainty and confusion. [21]
Some of the seemingly inconsistent and arbitrary determinations result from the fact that the rules are applied for different purposes. Courts and agencies may expend more effort on determining the true origin of a good for trade preferential or restrictive purposes than for marking purposes, and therefore the inconsistency may not be a sign of results-oriented policy-making. In other words, the seemingly fragmented and inconsistent application of the substantial transformation standard may be proof that the substantial transformation is working effectively, in that its abstractness gives it the flexibility to specifically address the facts of each situation and prevent circumvention. However, to some commentators, by varying the degree of transformation required according to how the origin determination will be used, the "only consistency [in defining substantial transformation in the United States] is a policy that results in either higher duties or in fewer imports." [22]
While the flexibility of the process leaves it open to political pressure and capture by lobbying groups who want overly restrictive applications of the standard for protectionist purposes, this problem exists with every method of determining origin, just at a different stage in the determination process. With more defined methods of determining origin, the capture and manipulation occurs when the definitions are being developed or by having the definitions rewritten or re-interpreted. Moreover, the rules are defined for these other methods in the definitional stage where there is no adversarial relationship, no neutral decision-maker, no representation of the major viewpoints, and no factual situation to which the principle can be applied, unlike many of the applications of the substantial transformation standard. Therefore, a greater danger of capture and protectionism may exist with the more defined methods because of the lack of court oversight and the lack of the adversarial representation.
In summary, the substantial transformation standard has many advantages, including its flexibility, evolution over time, and development through application to specific facts in an adversarial situation where interested parties are represented. However, these advantages are also the root of its disadvantages: its inconsistent applications, its discretionary nature, and the costs of making an origin determination under it. The adoption or rejection of substantial transformation as a method of determining origin depends on which principle one values more: flexibility or certainty. While profit-maximizing firms need more objective, predictable and easier to use rules, the substantial transformation standard should be used as the motivating principle behind the development and continued refinement of more precise, defined rules of origin, because it captures the purpose of origin determinations in a simple, concise manner.
B. Value-Added Percentage Test.
The value-added test defines the degree of transformation required to confer origin on the good in terms of a minimum percentage of value that must come from the originating country or of maximum amount of value that can come from the use of imported parts and materials. [23] If the floor percentage is not reached or the ceiling percentage exceeded, the last production process will not confer origin. If the determination is for non-preferential purposes, then origin will be conferred on a prior country; if it is for preferential purposes, then no further origin determination is necessary unless the prior county is also a beneficiary country under a preferential trading agreement with the importing county.
While the value-added method is often praised for its simplicity and precision, [24] in practice it is very far from that because it generates substantial compliance costs and uncertainty for companies. [25] The value-added test is a very unsatisfactory method of determining origin.
The value-added test generates substantial compliance costs for companies. It can be very costly and difficult to comply with its administrative requirements, especially if the rules require tracing the value of specific parts and materials. Firms often will find it cheaper not to comply with the value-added test, forgoing the trade preferences and paying the most-favored-nation tariff, when the product results from complex manufacturing operations or when the product does not otherwise face high tariff or non-tariff barriers. [26] To comply with a value-added rule requiring tracing, a manufacturer of a complex product would need a highly sophisticated inventory and accounting system to adequately ensure that particular goods contain specific local components at specific values.
The value-added test also generates substantial uncertainty for companies. Because the test ignores exchange rate risk and fluctuations in the price of raw materials, the status of goods can change daily as the currency values fluctuate or as the price of raw materials fluctuates, unless the firm is able to obtain a binding advance ruling from the country's customs authorities. [27] Additionally, the origin of identical goods may vary with each importing country, depending on the exchange rate relationship between the importing country's currency and that of the processing country. Furthermore, because the value-added test is a bright line test, it often results in seemingly arbitrary results for borderline cases. For example, if the rules require 50% local value-added to confer origin, then a good with 49% local value added will be denied origin while a good with 50% local value added will considered to originate there. When a firm seeks a certain origin, it may seek to manipulate the prices of the good and its imports to ensure the desired origin determination. This threat of transfer pricing is especially prevalent with transactions among related parties. For example, related parties could underprice the imported materials so that the final good has enough local value-added to qualify for local origin. To limit or prevent this manipulation of "value-added", the rules of origin could force the related parties to show that the price is similar to prices reached in an arm's-length transaction, whether by showing that the price is similar to the price of identical materials or goods sold to third parties, as long as third parties have purchased a substantial number of those materials or goods, or by comparing it to the price of similar materials or goods sold in arm's-length transactions, or it could force them to use a "net cost" method of determining value-added. [28] For example, in the NAFTA, the producer or exporter must use the "net cost" method when there is no transaction value (price) for the good or when the good is sold to a related party and related parties have purchased over 85% of the producers' identical or similar goods during the preceding six months. [29]
Moreover, the value added test leads to inconsistent results for similar products, because countries calculate the amount of value-added in different manners. [30] For example, the value-added test may result in inconsistent determinations of origin of identical goods in different countries because different countries include different amounts of the transportation costs in the "sales prices" for the good, thereby creating different sales prices for the same good. [31] The later the article is valued in the transport stage, the harder it becomes for the article to meet the local value-added content requirements, because the transport costs increase the value of the denominator, unless the delivery costs are also added to the numerator as originating costs. Further, even if countries valued all parts of the good at the same stage in the transport cycle, they would still have different origin determinations because countries include different costs in its local value-added calculations. [32]
The value-added test penalizes low cost production operations, though they may be more efficient than high cost facilities. The value-added test penalizes labor-intensive facilities in countries with cheap labor costs, capital-intensive facilities in countries with cheap capital costs, and resource-intensive facilities in countries with cheap resource costs. Because there is a greater difference in the cost of labor than the cost of capital since capital is more mobile than labor or raw materials, the value-added test discriminates against lesser developed countries whose primary comparative advantage is cheap labor and cheap materials. [33]
As with any defined test, a value-added test is subject to industry capture during its formulation stage. For example, in the North American Free Trade Agreement, American automobile manufacturers pressured the negotiators into accepting overly restrictive special rules of origin for automobiles, [34] ones that had a higher regional value content requirement for automobiles than for other goods under the North American Free Trade Agreement. [35] Furthermore, to purportedly prevent roll-up, [36] NAFTA requires that the producer trace the value of imported automotive parts throughout the production chain [37] to improve the accuracy of the content calculation, thereby imposing substantial additional compliance costs and administrative burdens on the manufacturer. The combination of higher regional value content requirement with the tracing provisions forces automotive companies to manufacture the drive trains and engines of the vehicles within the free trade area if they want the good to qualify for preferential treatment, or, if they want to avoid the rules of origin, to source their assembly plant in the final market country, i. e. , the United States. [38]
In summary, due to differences in calculation methods, the fluctuations in values, and the compliance costs, the value-added test is not a satisfactory method of determining origin.
C. Specified Processes.
The specified process tests of origin, also referred to as technical tests, prescribe certain production or sourcing processes that may (positive test) or may not (negative test) confer originating status. [39]
The specified process test serves as a useful supplemental test because it is easily tailored to meet a specific situation in a clear, precise manner. However, it is not a satisfactory primary test of origin because it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to define a process test for the enormous array of products made, and to continually update these rules for new products and technological advances in production. Second, such a process of defining origin would be highly susceptible to capture by industry lobbying groups, because the drafters and administrators of the rule would have to rely upon industry for information, and, because the test would be in technical terms, its content would be hidden from public view. For example, Commission Regulation 288/89, on determining the origin of integrated circuits, stated that origin is conferred on a good whenever it undergoes diffusion. However, diffusion is always followed by assembly and testing, processes that are more labor-intensive and that may add more value than diffusion. [40] This product-specific technical rule was adopted because European Community producers of integrated circuits performed the diffusion process in the European Communities and then had the testing and assembly done in third countries while Japanese producers of integrated circuits had them tested and assembled in the European Communities. [41] Therefore, this regulation conferred EC origin on goods produced by EC manufacturers while denying EC origin on goods produced by Japanese manufacturers, thereby allowing the integrated circuits produced by the EC companies to trade on better terms than those produced by the Japanese. [42]
Third, it is a rigid test whose form could be met while subverting the underlying concept of requiring a substantial transformation to confer origin. Meeting this problem with anti-circumvention provisions would re-introduce the fact-intensive inquiries and their corresponding uncertainty that the technical and other defined tests seek to avoid.
Finally, negative technical tests leave large gray area, in that they only delineate which processes do not confer origin. For example, Commission Regulation 2071/89, on determining the origin of photocopiers, stated that the incorporation of an optical system into a photocopying apparatus will not confer origin, but did not explain which operations would confer origin. [43] This regulation was designed specifically to deny United States origin to copiers assembled in the United States by Ricoh, a Japanese corporation. [44] These copiers contained imported Japanese optical systems, and therefore were viewed as "Japanese" copiers by the origin test. Because anti-dumping duties had been imposed on Ricoh copiers from Japan, these copiers, which were assembled in the United States, were now subject to these duties.
D. Change in Tariff Classification.
The change in tariff classification method determines the origin of a good by specifying the change in tariff classification of the Harmonized System of Tariff Nomenclature ("Harmonized System") [45] required to confer origin on a good. [46] Because the Harmonized System has been adopted by countries representing 90% of the world's trade, it provides a uniform, hierarchical nomenclature to be used in defining origin determinations for all products [47] in international trade.
The Harmonized System's systematic, hierarchical framework and its nearly universal acceptance among trading nations permit the drafters of rules of origin tremendous flexibility to define classification changes in a precise manner that sustains exceptions and special rules without sacrificing objectivity, certainty, or identity. [48]
The Harmonized System is divided into twenty-one Sections, each representing a broad industrial grouping; ninety-six Chapters, each representing a more narrow industrial sector; and one thousand two hundred and forty-one headings, each representing a narrow industrial section. [49]
The headings in a chapter generally are ordered by the degree of processing. The farther into the chapter the heading is, the more processing that good has undertaken. [50] Therefore, unless the rules of origin specify otherwise, any change in the level of classification of the product at the heading level should be sufficient to confer origin on that product in the country where that change last occurred; hence, this method of determining origin is often called the "change in tarrif heading method." [51] The Harmonized System's hierarchical framework, its division by industry, and its systematic arrangement of headings by increasing degrees of technical sophistication and economic effort provide an easy to use and easy to adapt underlying structure for origin determinations.
While the Harmonized System reflects the most sophisticated and refined tariff classification system, it is just that -- it's a system primarily designed for the dual purposes of commodity classification and compilation of statistics. [52] Because it was not designed to be used for origin determinations, changes in classification are not always an appropriate or effective test for determining origin. Therefore, an origin scheme based on change in tariff classification must be supplemented by a list of exceptions that describe when a sufficient transformation has occurred despite the lack of a change in tariff classification, [53] when a change in classification is not sufficient, [54] and which processes are not sufficient to confer origin even though they lead to a change in tariff classification. [55] These supplemental tests, which rely upon process and value-added tests as supplemental tests for origin, reintroduce the problems associated with those systems into the change in tariff classification system, albeit on a lesser scale than if these tests were the primary tests. As with any process system, both the required changes and the exceptions lists must be updated to reflect new products and technological advances.
The change in tariff classification method of determining origin is conceptually simple and easy to apply, once the product is classified. [56] Because the Harmonized System is already used to classify 90% of the goods in international trade, custom authorities, exporters, importers, and manufacturers are comfortable and familiar with it. However, the classification of the product can give rise to problems, because products are not always classified in a uniform manner, despite the substantial efforts of the Harmonized System Committee to ensure that they are. [57] While it may appear that the change in tariff classification test which uses the Harmonized System as its underlying nomenclature will result in uniform determinations of origin because all of the countries are using an internationally harmonized nomenclature, this may not be the case because each country is free to classify the good as it sees fit, unless a system of binding dispute resolution open to both individual and member country complainants is developed.
A. Attempts Prior to the Uruguay Round.
Beginning in the early twentieth century, rules of origin developed gradually with the development of differentiated tariffs and other trade measures. [58] Prior to the Uruguay Round of Multinational Trade Negotiations (the "Uruguay Round"), the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (GATT) did not attempt to harmonize rules of origin; instead, it left each contracting party free to determine their own rules of origin. [59]
In 1953, the International Chamber of Commerce (the "ICC") made the first attempt to harmonize rules of origin when it submitted a resolution to the Contracting Parties to GATT recommending the adoption of a uniform definition for determining the nationality of manufactured goods. Under their proposal, a product "resulting exclusively from" labor and material in one country would originate in that country, and a product resulting from materials and labor of two or more countries would originate in the country where the product last underwent a substantial transformation. [60] A substantial transformation was defined as processing that confers a new individuality on the goods, and these processes were to be listed by each Contracting Party. [61] By establishing the abstract principle of substantial transformation as the guiding definition, the ICC believed the Contracting Parties would create similar lists of processing resulting in a substantial transformation. The ICC proposal was not adopted by GATT, because some countries [62] wanted a standard international definition of origin and uniform rules for determining the origin of imported goods, while another group [63] was skeptical of any kind of international definition of origin because they considered origin to be "`inescapably bound up with national economic policies, which are unavoidably different in different countries.'" [64] This split in the countries over the ICC proposal in the 1950s foreshadowed a split that exists today between those countries which view rules of origins as an instrument of commercial policy and those which view them as technical, objective, and neutral instruments. [65]
In the 1970's another effort was made a global harmonization of the rules of origin. Annex D.1 of the Kyoto Convention [66] represented a multilateral attempt to move towards the harmonization of all rules of origin, both preferential and non-preferential, by adopting guidelines based on the principles of wholly obtained goods and substantial transformation that countries would use in drafting their rules of origin. The Kyoto Convention's rule of origin for goods wholly obtained in the originating country has been adopted repeatedly by other trade agreements. When two or more countries are involved in the production of a product, the Kyoto Convention states that the product originates in the country in which the last substantial transformation took place. Because the Kyoto Convention recognized that substantial transformation is a rather vague concept, it provided a list of methods to be used in defining substantial transformation more precisely. [67] Under the Kyoto Convention, as under the ICC proposal, member countries retained a great deal of discretion to fashion the rules of origin as they deemed fit.
B. The Uruguay Round Agreement on Rules of Origin.
The Origin Agreement represents an attempt to regulate and harmonize the rules of origin used by the signatories. The European Communities' use of the rules of origin to implement politically motivated, trade restrictive and trade distortive formulations and interpretations of the rules of origin led to the inclusion of rules of origin as a topic for negotiation in the Uruguay Round. [68] In recent years, the European Community has engaged in result-oriented rule making where, under pressure from European industrial lobbies, the Commission or the Origin Committee would change the rules of origin so that goods produced by foreign companies that initially complied with the technical requirements of the applicable origin regulations no longer complied with them and therefore were subject to higher tariff rates, restrictive quotas, or anti-dumping duties. [69] The rules of origin would be changed by re-interpreting the applicable rules in a stricter fashion, by re-writing them with carefully tailored, stricter rules, or by adopting special product-specific rules of origin. [70]
VI. The Origin Agreement.
The Origin Agreement seeks to harmonize all the non-preferential rules of origin used by signatory countries into a single set of international rules. Under the Origin Agreement, each country is free to adopt its own preferential rules of origin, or to adopt different preferential rules of origin for its different preferential agreements. [71]
The Origin Agreement anticipates a two stage harmonization process. First, the Origin Agreement anticipates a three-year transitional period, [72] during which time the harmonized rules will be drafted and adopted. The proposed harmonized rules will be drafted by the Technical Committee on Rules of Origin, with the Committee on Rules of Origin considering its results "with a view to endorsing such interpretations and opinions." [73] The Origin Agreement does not specify whether consensus decisions, majority voting, or supermajority voting will apply. [74] However, by drafting the rules in a multilateral context where all countries are represented and where the adopted rules will be used for all non-preferential purposes, the ability of any one country to draft the rules in politically motivated ways will be limited. For example, if the United States sought to protect its domestic car industry by having the harmonized rule of origin for automobiles be unduly restrictive, those same American companies would be injured when they sought to export their automobiles to other countries. Once the harmonization work program is completed, a GATT Ministerial conference will establish the results of the harmonization program as an Annex to the Origin Agreement, along with a time frame for its entry into force. [75]
Three criteria will be used to define origin under the harmonized rules. First, the Technical Committee will develop a detailed harmonized definition for determining when goods are wholly obtained in one country. [76] Second, the Technical Committee will develop a harmonized list of minimal operations or processes that do not by themselves confer origin to a good. [77] Finally and most importantly, the Technical Committee will define when the last substantial transformation of a good produced in more than one country occurrs, primarily through use of the change in tariff classification method at the heading or sub-heading level, using the Harmonized System as the underlying nomenclature, and, when supplemental tests are necessary, through the use of the value added and specified processing methods of determining origin. [78] The Origin Agreement states that origin will be conferred where the last substantial transformation occurred, not where the most significant occurred. This rule increases certainty in application and simplifies the determination of origin because the custom authorities can disregard previous operations.
Both during and after the transitional period, the member countries are forbidden from using negative rules, unless they are used to clarify a positive standard or when a positive determination is not necessary. [79] This provision will make the rules of origin more specific and clear, because negative provisions only state what will not constitute a substantial transformation, not what will constitute a substantial transformation. This provision is aimed at the criticized European Communities practice of issuing product-specific origin regulations that use negative rules, such as European Communities Regulation 2071/89, which was allegedly changed to confer Japanese origin on photocopiers produced by Ricoh (a Japanese company) in the United States in order to apply anti-dumping duties imposed on Japanese photocopiers on these United States assembled copiers.
The Origin Agreement provides for an advance publication and ruling procedure to be implemented in each signatory country, starting immediately, for all origin determinations. [80] Signatory countries must publish the rules of origin and any applications of the rules. [81] Any changes in the rules can not be applied retroactively. [82] Upon the request of any interested person, [83] the member country must issue and publish a binding assessment of origin within 150 days of a request containing all the necessary elements. [84] This assessment must clearly and precisely state what requirements must be met to confer origin. [85] Any confidential information submitted by the parties shall remain strictly confidential, unless the person or government providing it specifically permits its disclosure or unless judicial proceedings require disclosure. [86] The assessment request can be made in advance of trading in the good and once made, will be valid for three years in all comparable situations. [87] This advance ruling procedure will allow firms to rationally plan its sourcing and production processes with knowledge of the final good's origin and corresponding treatment. [88]
Additionally, because the assessments will be published, interested parties will be able to make more cogent arguments for favorable rulings, using these prior rulings as precedents, because these prior rulings will be binding on the custom authorities for three years in all "comparable" situations. This process, which improves on the American system of inconsistent review of determinations of origin, will create a more fact-specific, common law-like context for origin determinations that will lead to fairer, more objective determinations as the rules are explained through application to specific factual situations. Because the determinations are binding in comparable situations, are published, and are subject to review, there will be implicit pressure on the custom authorities to explain their reasoning, thereby increasing the transparency and consistency of the process.
Starting immediately, any administrative action taken with regard to the determination of origin for either preferential and non-preferential purposes is reviewable promptly by an independent authority. [89] This independent review may be made by a judicial, administrative, or arbitral tribunal which has the power to modify or reverse the determination. [90] The prompt review by an independent body will lead to a system closer to one based on the rule of law. It will serve to increase the transparency, neutrality, consistency, and legitimacy of origin determinations, because an independent body will be deciding the correctness of its application after hearing presentations from both sides.
Despite numerous advances over existing systems of origin determination and harmonization of rules and decision-making processes, the Origin Agreement will not lead to harmonized determinations. During the transition period, each member country will apply its own non-preferential rules, subject to limitation that "notwithstanding the measure or instrument of commercial policy to which they are linked, the rules of origin are not to be used as instruments to pursue trade objectives directly or indirectly." [91] This provision implies that the member countries should not use the rules of origin as commercial policy instruments, but rather as a technical, definitional device. The question arises as to whether applying different rules for different purposes means that the country is using the rules of origin as a trade policy instrument or whether different commercial policy tools need different rules of origin to effectively implement them. If the latter is true, the exclusion of preferential rules of origin from the harmonization implies a recognition by the drafters that some commercial policy instruments, i. e. , preferential trade agreements, may require special rules of origin to control the degree of preference and prevent trade deflection. But the question arises as to why some instruments require special rules of origin while the other instruments can apply the same rule. If voluntary restraint agreements are also exempted from the harmonization program, then the key differentiating factor between those tools which must use the harmonized rules and those which are free to design their own rules of origin may be that in voluntary agreements, such as preferential trading agreements and voluntary restraint agreements, the parties are free to design their own rules of origin, but whenever the trade restriction is being applied unilaterally, the country should be forced to use the harmonized rules of origin so that the rules of origin are not being used as a hidden policy tool. After the transitional period ends, each member country is free to disagree with how it interprets the harmonized non-preferential rules. Both during and after the transitional period, the member countries will be applying their own preferential rules.
After the transitional period ends, the same non-preferential rules of origin will be applied for all non-preferential purposes by the signatory countries. Because these harmonized rules will be defined primarily in terms of change in tariff classification and secondarily in terms of specified value-added requirements and specified technical processes, they will replace the use of the vague, discretionary concepts such as substantial transformation or last substantial process with the use of more mechanical, clearer tests that will enable profit-maximizing firms to better plan their production, purchasing, and investment strategies. [92] However, even though these rules represent a substantial advance over the existing system of multiple rules of origin which are applied differently for different purposes, application of these harmonized rules will not ensure harmonized origin determinations.
The Common Declaration with Regard to Preferential Rules of Origin, an annex to the Agreement (the "Declaration"), imposes a number of procedural safeguards similar to those discussed above, in hope of creating a more transparent, rule of law-like system for applications of preferential rules of origin. It requires that the rules be published. [93] It states that when issuing administrative determinations of origin, the requirements to confer origin be precisely and specifically stated, that requests by interested parties for an assessment of origin be made within 150 days, that such assessment be valid for three years, that the assessments be published, that they be subject to review by an independent body, and that the confidentiality of information submitted be protected. [94] However, it imposes few substantive limits on the preferential rules. It prohibits the use of negative standards of origin except to clarify a positive standard or when a positive determination is not necessary, and it prohibits the retroactive application of changes in preferential rules of origin. [95]
VII. Conclusão.
Because decisions on rules of origin impact purchasing, sourcing, and investment strategies of profit-maximizing firms, it is imperative that they result from a transparent, de-politicized, and predictable process, so that firms can account for them as a factor of production when planning their profit-maximizing strategies. [96] A major step towards this goal has been taken with the Origin Agreement, which harmonizes the non-preferential rules of origin and attempts to create a more transparent, technical, predictable implementation process for all determinations of origin.
However, harmonization of the rules of origin is only a second-best solution. As long as countries continue to differentiate in the treatment of goods from different countries, i. e. , to discriminate between different sources of supply of a product, rules of origin will continue to be a controversial, necessary, but inefficient device in international trade.
Referências.
American Bar Association Standing Committee on Customs Law: Rules of Origin: Determining the Source of Goods for Customs Purposes (1991).
Asker, Paul: Changes in the Rules of Origin in the United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement: A Preliminary Evaluation , 36 Wayne L. Rev. 1545.
Asakura, Hironori: The Harmonized System and Rules of Origin , 27 J. W.T. 4, at 5-21 (Aug. 1993).
Beede, Harold: Note, The EEC Rules of Origin `Game': Can Non-Members Play? , 14 Suffolk Transnat'l L. J. 81 (Fall 1990).
Brooke, James: The New South Americas: Friends and Partners , N. Y. Times, April 8, 1994, at A3.
Cantin, Frederic and Andreas Lowenfeld: Rules of Origin, The Canada-U. S. FTA and the Honda Case, 87 Am. J. Int'l L. 375 (July 1993).
Choi, Chong Ju: Comment on Vermulst's and Waer's `European, Community Rules of Origin as Commercial Policy Instruments?', 25 J. W.T. 6, at 131-133 (Dec. 1991).
Galfand, C. Edward: Comment, Heeding the Call for a Predictable Rule of Origin , 11 U. Pa. J. Int'l Bus. L. 469 (1989)
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade: Basic Instruments and Selected Documents, 2nd Supplement, 56 (1954).
Gerven, Gerwin: New Anti-Circumvention Rules In EEC Anti-Dumping Law , 22 Int'l Law. 809 (Fall 1988).
Herin, Jan: Rules of Origin and Differences Between Tariff Levels in EFTA and in the EC , Occasional Paper no. 13 (European Free Trade Association 1986).
Hoekman, Bernard: Rules of Origin for Goods and Services: Conceptual Issues and Economic Considerations , 27 J. W.T. 4, at 81-99 (Aug. 1993).
Hoekman, Bernard and Michael Leidy: Cascading Contingent Protection , 36 European Econ. R. 4, at 883-892 (May 1992).
Horovitz, Dan: The Impending `Second Generation Agreements Between the European Community and Eastern Europe - Some Practical Considerations , 25 J. W.T. 2, at 55-81 (Apr. 1991).
Jackson, John H.: World Trade and the Law of GATT (Bobbs - Merill 1969).
LaNasa, Joseph: Rules of Origin under the North American Free Trade Agreement: A Substantial Transformation into Objectively Transparent Protectionism , 34 Harv. Int'l. L. J. 381 (Spring 1993).
Lasok, D.: The Customs Law of the European Economic Community, 217-229 (Kluwer Law & Taxation Publishers 1990).
Legierski, Renee: Note, Out in the Cold: The Combined Effects of NAFTA and the MFA on the Caribbean Basin Textile Industry , 2 Minn. J. Global Trade 305 (Summer 1993).
Maxwell, Michael P.: Formulating Rules of Origin for Imported Merchandise: Transforming the Substantial Transformation Test , 23 Geo. Wash. J. Int'l L. & Econ. 669 (1990)
McQueen, Matthew: Lome and the Protective Effect of Rules of Origin , 16 J. W.T. L. 2, at 119-132 (Mar./Apr. 1982).
Palmeter, N. David: Rules of Origin in Customs Unions and Free Trade Areas , in Regional Integration and the Global Trading System, edited by Kym Anderson and Richard Blackhurst (St. Martin's Press 1993).
Palmeter, N. David: The U. S. Rules of Origin Proposal to GATT: Monotheism or Polytheism? , 24 J. W.T. 2, at 25-36 (April 1990).
Palmeter, N. David: Rules of Origin or Rules of Restriction? A Commentary on a New Form of Protectionism , 11 Fordham Int'l L. J. 1 (1987).
Ruigbrok, Winfried: Paradigm Crisis in International Trade Theory, 25 J. W.T. 1, at 77-89 (Feb. 1991).
Simpson, John P.: North American Free Trade Agreement - Rules of Origin , 28 J. W.T. 1, at 33-41 (Feb. 1994)
Steinberg, Richard H.: Antidotes to Regionalism: Responses to Trade Diversion Effects of the North American Free Trade Agreement , 29 Stan. J. Int'l. L. 315 (Summer 1993).
Vermulst, Edwin: Rules of Origin as Commercial Policy Instruments - Revisited , 26 J. W.T. 6, at 61-103 (Dec. 1992).
Vermulst, Edwin and Paul Waer: European Community Rules of Origin as Commercial Policy Instruments? , 24 J. W.T. 3, at 55-99 (June 1990).
Vermulst, Edwin, Paul Waer, & Jacques Bourgeois (eds.): Rules of Origin in International Trade: A Comparative Study (U. Mich. Press 1994).
Waer, Paul: EC Rules of Origin , in Edwin Vermulst, Paul Waer & Jacques Bourgeois (eds.): Rules of Origin in International Trade: A Comparative Study (U. Mich. Press 1994).
Weigel, Kenneth: Significant New Developments Every Business Lawyer Should Know About Customs Law , 27 Int'l Law 177 (Spring 1993).
Cases, Regulations and Statutes.
Anheuser-Busch Ass'n v. United States , 207 U. S. 556 (1908).
Belcrest Linens v. United States , 741 F.2d 1368 (Fed. Cir.1984).
Brother Industries v. Commission (Case 229/86) ECR 3757.
Commission Regulation 288/89 on determining the origin of integrated circuits (1989).
Commission Regulation 802/68 on the common definition of the concept of the origin of goods (1968).
Commission Regulation 861/71 on determining, the origin of tape recorders (1971).
Commission Regulation 2071/89 on determining the origin of photocopying apparatus incorporating an optical system or of the contact type (1989).
Commission Regulation 2632/70 on determining the origin of radio and television receivers (1970).
Commission Regulation 3620/90 on determining the origin of the meat and foals, fresh, chilled or frozen, of certain domestic animals (1990)
Commission Regulation 3672/90 on determining the origin of ball, roller or needle roller bearings (1990)
Commission v. United Kingdom (Case 100/84) ECR1169.
Country of Origin Rules Regarding Imported Textiles and Textile Products, T. D. 90-17, 24 Customs Service Bulletin 3, 6 (March 14, 1990)
Criminal Proceedings against Cousin (Case 162/82) ECR 1101.
Data General Corp. v. United States , 4 Ct. Int'l Trade 182 (1982).
Ferrostaal Metals Corp. v. United States, 664 F. Supp. 535, 538 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1987)
Hartranft v. Wiegman , 121 U. S. 609 (1887)
Mast Industries v. Regan , 596 F. Supp. 1567 (Ct. Int'l Trade l986).
Midwood Industries, Inc. v. United States , 313 F. Supp. 951 (Cust. Ct. 1970)
National Juice Products Ass'n v. United States , 628 F. Supp. 978 (Ct. Int'l Trade l986).
SR Industries v. Administration des Douanes (Case 385/85) ECR 2929.
Superior Wire v. United States , 669 F. Supp. 472 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1987), aff'd , 867 F.2d 1409 (Fed Cir. 1989).
Textiles and textile products country of origin, 19 C. F.R. & sect; 12.130.
Torrington Co. v. United States , 764 F.2d 1563 (Fed. Cir.1985).
Uniroyal v. United States , 542 F. Supp. 1026 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1982), aff'd per curiam , 702 F.2d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
United States v. Gibson-Thomsen Co. , 27 C. C.P. A. 267 (1940).
Yoshida Kamer Van Koophandel en Fabriekn voor Friesland (34/78) ECR 115.
Yoshida v. Industries und Handelskammer Kassel (Case 114/78) ECR 151.

Origin Calculation.
There are already more than 400 ratified free trade agreements (FTAs) around the world to enhance trade among the participants and offer potential duty savings to companies, yielding a competitive advantage. However, companies can only leverage such savings potential and competitive advantage by compliantly following a number of complex rules of origin and maintaining detailed documentation. This requires them to establish a process for the calculation of the origin of goods which conforms to the law and auditing requirements in order to avoid possible fines and future unplanned costs.
This is where MIC's Origin Calculation System (MIC OCS) supports you! It provides the necessary tools to manage the entire process for a multitude of FTAs. Starting with automated solicitation of supplier declarations using an innovative supplier web portal followed by an optimized calculation of the origin of goods based on multi-level bill of materials resulting in the creation of the appropriate certificate of origin documentation. Each process step is traceable via a complete audit trail. Changes in the originating status of the goods are reliably detected, affected goods are recalculated and thus compliance is maintained on an ongoing basis.
MIC OCS helps to ensure that you enjoy the benefits offered by FTAs and improve your competitive position.
Workflow-based allocation of suppliers to selected persons in charge Global standardization of the process for the management of supplier’s declarations Automatic collection of key information for supplier’s declarations through interfaces to the company’s ERP system(s) Manual or automated request for supplier’s declarations - via web, e-mail or paper Web portal for direct data entry and/or file upload by the supplier, including the option for the supplier to expire or modify specific part origin information as well as to enter additional information (e. g. export control classification, tariff number) Automated intelligent follow-up process incl. reminder mechanism Prioritization of supplier requests based on the part value as well as the frequency of use in different bill of materials.
User accessible configuration of the specific rules of origin for individual FTAs Automatic application of the tolerance (“de minimis”) for tariff shift rules Option for use of accumulation rules, as allowed by the individual agreements More than 90 FTAs (NAFTA, EU, Asia-Pacific region, South America, etc.) already in productive usage for the origin calculation process Support of the American Automobile Labelling Act (AALA) Bundling of FTAs in the form of a master FTA (e. g. one EU master FTA for many similar EU FTAs) allowing one calculation to cover multiple agreements Flexible and customized adjustment of rules of origin (e. g. increase of the percentage of the regional value rule for risk reduction)
Top-down, bottom-up as well as advantage calculation Determination of the preferential origin of goods as well as the origin under commercial law (for individual products or product ranges) Automated calculations for the origin of goods both for flat and comprehensive multi-level bill of materials Configurable defaults and tolerance thresholds are possible Calculation of the threshold value (minimum sales price) Support of min/max price logic Cross-factory and cross-system calculation for the origin of goods.
Automatic re-calculation in the event of changes to supplier declarations, including reissuing documents when a change to originating status occurs Transaction-based calculation also for configurable bill of materials Consideration of different validity periods for documents under different agreements.
Direct transfer of multi-level bill of materials from ERP systems as well as from engineering or production systems Upload of supplier information, part data and prices directly from purchasing, ERP and/or warehouse management systems (e. g. SAP-MM) Integration with other MIC modules for full process functionality Return interfaces of the calculation results to ERP systems for subsequent processes.
Detailed reports for each origin calculation Search and analysis of non-certified products Complete archive for audit purposes Data & predictive analytics to identify cost saving opportunities Manufacturing site and sourcing simulations to support cost optimization and competitive advantage.
already in productive usage for origin calculation to benefit from saving potentials and competitive advantage.
with respect to cost optimization and competitive advantages using simulations.
processes that avoid possible fines and unplanned costs in advance.
due to Integration in MIC's central classification system, global customs management and global trade content service modules.
for automated obtaining of supplier declarations with direct data entry by the suppliers themselves.
due to an efficient management of supplier declarations and correct use of FTAs.
European Offices.
Americas Offices.
Find the country specific solution by choosing the corresponding country.
Files contain detailed information about our company and products in PDF-format.

Trade system of origin z

An Evaluation of the Uses and Importance of Rules of Origin, and the Effectiveness of the Uruguay Round's Agreement on Rules of Origin in Harmonizing and Regulating Them.
Joseph A. LaNasa III ("Jody")
©Copyright: Joseph A. LaNasa III, 1995.
Índice.
I. Introduction: The Importance of Rules of Origin.
Rules of origin are the criteria used to determine the nationality of a product. Rules of origin were designed as an uncontroversial, neutral device essential to implementing discriminatory trade policies, compiling economic statistics, and marking a good. Once the origin of a good is known, the importing country can apply any country-specific or trade area-specific trade preferences or restrictions to the imported good (such as dutyfree entry for goods originating in a free trade area, quantitative restrictions on goods originating in a country subject to a quota, or anti-dumping duties on goods from the targeted company that originate in the targeted country), account for the good in its compilation of economic statistics on trade flows, and ensure that the good is conspicuously marked with its country of origin. Rules of origin remained an uncontroversial, neutral device as long as the parts of a product were manufactured and assembled primarily in one country, and as long as other mechanisms for implementing protectionism existed.
Because rules of origin are an indispensable means of implementing discriminatory trade regimes, their importance has grown significantly as countries increasingly have treated similar imported goods differently according to where the product was made. [1] As the degree of differentiation among similar goods from different countries or trading groups increases, rules of origin become more important and more controversial, because the benefit of being determined to be from a certain country or trading group vis-B-vis others increases. [2]
The increased disparate treatment of similar goods, the growing number of restrictions placed on the use of traditional tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade ("GATT"), the lack of regulation of rules of origin until recently by the GATT, the technical obscurity in which rules of origin operated, and the globalization of means of production provided countries with the opportunity and incentive to use their rules of origin to implement trade policies in an obscure manner.
The rise of multinational corporations and the production of goods in multiple stages using parts produced in different places around the world provided an opportunity to use rules of origin as an effective means of protection. In a world where goods are produced from parts from around the world, there is no single, correct definition of origin. Instead, the origin of a product depends on the formulation and application of the applicable rules of origin. In this world, rules of origin can serve as an extremely effective means of protectionism in at least two ways. First, overly restrictive definitions or applications of preferential rules of origin may deny trade preferences to products that last underwent substantial processing in a favored country or trading area by holding that the product did not originate in the favored country. Second, overly liberal definitions and applications of non-preferential rules of origin will extend country-specific trade restrictive measures to products otherwise exempt from them by holding that the product, even though it last underwent substantial processing in a third country, originated in the disfavored country.
Because most people had the misconception (a proper conception as long as imported goods where produced in a single country with parts and materials from that country) that the formulation and application of rules of origin result from a technical, objective process, few people paid attention to, much less scrutinized, the process of defining and applying rules of origin. This lack of transparency was heightened by the complex, technical nature of rules of origin, which would have made it difficult to realize that they were being used for restrictive purposes. Furthermore, while the GATT increasingly restricted the ability of countries to use tariffs or traditional non-tariff barriers to protect domestic industry from foreign competition, it did not regulate rules of origin. Therefore, the use of rules of origin to insure trade restrictive effects provided a means for countries to satisfy pressure from domestic industry for protection from foreign competition. By taking advantage of the fact that formulations of the rules and determinations of origin are not objective, technical exercises but rather policy-influenced decisions made in a non-transparent manner, governments were able to protect domestic industries in a hidden, effective manner.
As a result of the growing pressure to find new barriers to trade, the lack of global regulation of rules of origin, and the effectiveness of rules of origin as a protective device, governments increasingly turned to rules of origin as a mechanism for protectionism. [3]
Part II of this article explores how countries use rules of origin in a results-oriented manner as a trade policy tool. Part III explains why profit-maximizing firms should treat rules of origin as a factor of production, and why they need clear, precise rules that result in consistent, transparent determinations of origin. Part IV of this article evaluates the different methods for determining the origin of a product. Part V reviews the history of efforts to harmonize the rules of origin on a global basis. Part VI examines the Agreement on Rules of Origin reached in the Uruguay Round (the "Origin Agreement"), [4] and analyzes its effectiveness in making origin determinations more transparent, less controversial, and more certain. Part VII concludes that while progress towards harmonization of the rules has been made, rules of origin will continue to be important and controversial as long as countries continue to treat similar imported goods differently.
II. The Use of Rules of Origin as Barriers to Trade.
Rules of origin are divided into two categories: preferential and non-preferential rules of origin. Preferential rules of origin are used to determine whether certain products originate in a preference-receiving country or trading area and hence qualify for the trade preference. Non-preferential rules of origin are used for all other purposes, including enforcement of product and country specific trade restrictions that increase the cost of entry ( i. e. , antidumping duties) or restrict or prevent market entry ( i. e. , quotas). [5] Both types of rules of origin can be used as a barrier to trade.
By determining whether a product originates in a preference-receiving country or trading area and thereby enters the importing country on better terms than products from the rest of the world, preferential rules of origin allow governments to discriminate between products from different countries because instead of a global trading environment ruled by GATT's principle of non-discrimination and its most favored nation clause, countries have created a growing proliferation of trading agreements that give preferential treatment to developing countries and regional trading partners. [6] By varying the severity of the required transformation and by allowing different degrees of cumulation on a regional, donor, or global basis, countries use the rules of origin to control the degree of preference. [7] If the preferential rules of origin are formulated so that they require a greater transformation of the product than the rules of origin otherwise would require, the rules of origin may be serving as a discriminatory policy device that restricts trade.
The rapid, recent spread of reciprocal preferential trading agreements [8] that, inter alia , liberalize trade through the creation of regional free trade areas has focused increasing attention on rules of origin and their importance. While reciprocal, trade liberalizing preferential agreements in theory should result in net trade creation, their use of more restrictive rules of origin than the non-preferential rules, though nominally designed to prevent trade deflection, may result in trade and investment diversion.
Trade deflection occurs when companies place a minimal processing or assembly plant in a preference-receiving country to take advantage of those trade preferences. The preferential rules of origin attempt to prevent trade deflection by establishing criteria that ensure an adequate degree of transformation in a preference-receiving country to justify allowing a good to benefit from the preference. However, the rules of origin in reciprocal preferential trading agreements often are more restrictive than necessary to ensure substantial transformation. When the rules of origin are more restrictive than necessary to prevent trade deflection, they give producers an incentive to increase the amount of intermediate and final good manufacturing, processing and assembly done within the preferential area at the expense of facilities in other countries that would otherwise have a comparative advantage. This distortion of the sourcing and purchasing decisions causes an inefficient allocation of global resources. [9]
The effectiveness of restrictive rules of origin in diverting trade and investment will depend on the difficulty of complying with the rule, the size of the market, the degree of technical skill needed, the level of education of the work force, and the "penalty" for failing to comply with the preferential agreement. Multinational corporations will have greater incentive to source manufacturing and assembly plants within an area if the "penalty" for not complying with the preferential rule of origin is substantial, such as the loss of substantial tariff preferences or the loss of market access to a large market, rather than if the penalty is minimal, such as a small tariff on goods sold to a small market. Alternatively, if the preference is not that large or if the goods are destined for a number of countries, the firm may just ignore the preferential agreement and its intricate rules of origin.
These overly restrictive preferential rules of origin are not designed to protect final good producers, as traditional barriers to trade are. Instead, they are designed to increase the amount of investment in production and assembly of intermediate goods and to protect and enhance the position of existing intermediate producers. [10] This protection of intermediate producers results in inefficient trade diversion, and is the focus of non-member resentment of the preferential trading agreements. [11] Furthermore, over time, the domestic intermediate producers may be replaced, or crowded out of the market, by foreign producers who relocate their intermediate production facilities to the protected area.
However, rules of origin can also serve as a traditional barrier to trade, i. e. , to protect domestic producers of final goods when the rules of origin are so administratively or technically difficult to comply that they serve as a non-tariff barrier to trade. If the penalty for non-compliance is severe enough, they will nullify the trade preference, because no firm will seek to take advantage of it. However, if one member's market is much larger than the other members, firms have an incentive to source factories in that country where most of the final goods are destined to be sold, so as to avoid having to comply with the origin rules. Because rules of origin are only applied to imported goods, i. e. , goods crossing a national border, if the good is produced and sold domestically, no origin determination is necessary. Of course, its imported parts will have to comply with non-preferential trade law, including applicable tariffs and quotas.
III. Rules of Origin as a Factor of Production.
Because rules of origin are an essential part of applying country-specific or trading group-specific trade preferences or restrictions, rules of origin have a significant impact on the strategic planning of profit-maximizing firms. For this reason, profit-maximizing firms should analyze the different rules of origin, quantify their cost, and treat them as a factor of production in determining where to source their investments, purchase their raw materials, produce or purchase intermediate materials, and assemble their final products.
Given raw or intermediate materials of equal quality, a profit-maximizing firm will purchase the cheapest one, regardless of where it is found. Because trade restrictions and preferences impact the cost of goods and may even restrict the entry of a material or good into a country, a firm should determine the origin of the raw or intermediate part it is considering using and its impact on the origin of the final good to see whether any trade restrictions or preferences apply. If a good from a certain country or trading group is subject to a quota or a measure having an effect equivalent to a quota, a firm will be less likely to use that good because its use may constrain the firm's production capabilities for its final product, because once the good's import limit has been reached, the firm is barred from importing any more of that good. If the good is subject to a tariff or a measure having an equivalent effect, then the firm should include the tariff in its cost calculations for that good in determining where to buy or produce the material.
A profit-maximizing firm should consider the origin of the final good in each destination market before determining where to source its manufacturing and assembly plants. By locating the plant in a country where the finished product receives the most beneficial treatment in the country or countries where the product will be sold, a firm could minimize the trade restrictions and maximize the trade preferences placed on that good.
Trade preferences and restrictions are two of many factors that must be considered in analyzing the relative and absolute costs of production. While they are not the sole criteria used to determine where to source manufacturing and assembly plants and where to buy raw materials or intermediate parts, their importance is often overlooked. [12] For example, if a firm produces a good which enjoys large production economies of scale, low transportation costs, and is sold in a number of countries, that firm may wish to produce all of that product in a factory located in the country that has the lowest total costs of production, including the cost of entry into the final markets. In other words, a firm should consider the cost of entry of the product into a market along with the cost of capital, the cost of labor, the skill level of labor, and transportation costs before determining where to source manufacturing and assembly plants and before determining where to buy raw materials or intermediate goods. This type of analysis should be conducted by all firms that produce products for more than one country, regardless of whether the product will be used by another producer or whether the product will be sold to the more traditional consumer.
Given the importance of origin determinations to rational, profit-maximizing firms, firms should determine the origin of their final goods in advance, so that they can account for it as a factor of production in their strategic plans. However, the fialure to harmonize rules of origin on a global or even national level has impeded efforts to make such determinations, as countries often apply a number of different rules of origin applied by countries, often resulting in inconsistent determinations of origin, which sometimes appear to have been manipulated to achieve trade-restrictive results. The creation of clearly stated, globally-harmonized rules of origin that are applied consistently would provide significant benefits to profit-maximizing firms. The goal of any harmonization project should be to articulate rules of origin that distinguish between substantial and insubstantial transformation in a consistent and neutral fashion, and to have these rules applied consistently, so that origin determinations result in similar results, regardless of where, when, and why they occur. Before recent harmonization attempts may be evaluated, the types and different methods of determining origin must be explored.
IV. Methods of Determining Origin.
When a product is wholly obtained and produced in a single country, it is relatively easy to determine its origin. [13] Difficulties arise in determining the origin of a product that is manufactured in, assembled in, or uses materials originating in more than one country.
At least four different methods or criteria exist for determining the origin of goods that are manufactured in, assembled in, or use materials originating in more than one country:
1. Using the concept of substantial transformation as a rule;
2. Using an ad valorem percentage test;
3. Listing specific manufacturing or processing operations which confer or do not confer origin upon the goods; e.
4. Requiring a specified change in tariff classification.
Whichever method is employed to determine origin, each seeks to prevent simple assembly and packaging operations from conferring origin. This section of the article will evaluate the different methods according to their effectiveness in determining the origin of a goal and in preventing circumvention, their clarity, their certainty, their transparency and the predictability or consistency of origin of determinations which use that method.
A. Substantial Transformation.
The traditional substantial transformation rule states that a good originates in the last country where it emerged from a given process with a "distinctive name, character or use." [14] The substantial transformation of a good requires more than just a change in the article; it requires an article be transformed into a "new and different article" "having a distinctive name, character or use." [15]
The traditional substantial transformation rule captures the heart of the meaning of the rules of origin in a simple, concise way. For a product to be from a particular state, it must be substantially transformed there. To prevent a product from having multiple countries of origin, the good is a product of the country where it last underwent substantial transformation. The standard's flexibility allows it to evolve to meet technological change; however, this flexibility can result in inconsistent origin determinations that undermine the certainty required for strategic planning by businesses.
Moreover, the standard's flexibility provides an opportunity for it to be "captured" by lobbying groups, i. e. , for the standard to be used in a results-oriented manner designed to accommodate political pressure for more trade restrictive effects. For example, the rule can easily be converted into a search for the most significant processing, instead of the last substantial transformation. This type of search requires the exporter, importer, or producer to furnish a great deal of factual information to prove substantial processing. This fact-intensive, time-consuming inquiry raises the cost of determining origin, makes the rule even more restrictive and complex than it otherwise would be, and contradicts the spirit and purpose of the last substantial transformation rule.
For example, in 1984, the United States Custom Service adopted a two-part test for determining the origin of textile goods that result from processes or materials from more than one country. [16] This "revised" substantial transformation test was more restrictive than the traditional substantial transformation test because it required the creation of a new and different article and substantial manufacturing or processing operations. [17] The revised test nominally was changed to prevent companies from circumventing textile quotas by passing goods through an intermediate country to confer that country's origin on the good.
The substantial transformation rule provides the custom authorities and the courts with a great deal of flexibility to adapt the rule to particular circumstances to avoid circumvention. As the amount of restrictions or duties on imports increases for unfavorable origin determinations, more companies will try to manipulate the rules of origin to avoid unfavorable determinations. This often forces the courts to stretch the common law developed around substantial transformation to prevent circumvention and ensure that the standard's basic purpose is met. In other words, as the rules on substantial transformation become more precise and defined, it becomes easier to circumvent the purpose of the law while formally complying with its language. The flexibility of the substantial transformation standard provides countries with the ability to look beyond the form of the transaction to see if a substantial transformation actually occurred.
However, the ambiguity of the standard and its flexible decision-making can lead to unpredictable, seemingly arbitrary results, especially when substantial transformation rule is applied differently for different purposes. [18] The United States has attempted to deal with this lack of certainty by compiling lists of criteria. [19] However, instead of having the abstract concept of substantial transformation become more definite through concrete application to factual situations, [20] the selective, inconsistent use of the criteria has led to more uncertainty and confusion. [21]
Some of the seemingly inconsistent and arbitrary determinations result from the fact that the rules are applied for different purposes. Courts and agencies may expend more effort on determining the true origin of a good for trade preferential or restrictive purposes than for marking purposes, and therefore the inconsistency may not be a sign of results-oriented policy-making. In other words, the seemingly fragmented and inconsistent application of the substantial transformation standard may be proof that the substantial transformation is working effectively, in that its abstractness gives it the flexibility to specifically address the facts of each situation and prevent circumvention. However, to some commentators, by varying the degree of transformation required according to how the origin determination will be used, the "only consistency [in defining substantial transformation in the United States] is a policy that results in either higher duties or in fewer imports." [22]
While the flexibility of the process leaves it open to political pressure and capture by lobbying groups who want overly restrictive applications of the standard for protectionist purposes, this problem exists with every method of determining origin, just at a different stage in the determination process. With more defined methods of determining origin, the capture and manipulation occurs when the definitions are being developed or by having the definitions rewritten or re-interpreted. Moreover, the rules are defined for these other methods in the definitional stage where there is no adversarial relationship, no neutral decision-maker, no representation of the major viewpoints, and no factual situation to which the principle can be applied, unlike many of the applications of the substantial transformation standard. Therefore, a greater danger of capture and protectionism may exist with the more defined methods because of the lack of court oversight and the lack of the adversarial representation.
In summary, the substantial transformation standard has many advantages, including its flexibility, evolution over time, and development through application to specific facts in an adversarial situation where interested parties are represented. However, these advantages are also the root of its disadvantages: its inconsistent applications, its discretionary nature, and the costs of making an origin determination under it. The adoption or rejection of substantial transformation as a method of determining origin depends on which principle one values more: flexibility or certainty. While profit-maximizing firms need more objective, predictable and easier to use rules, the substantial transformation standard should be used as the motivating principle behind the development and continued refinement of more precise, defined rules of origin, because it captures the purpose of origin determinations in a simple, concise manner.
B. Value-Added Percentage Test.
The value-added test defines the degree of transformation required to confer origin on the good in terms of a minimum percentage of value that must come from the originating country or of maximum amount of value that can come from the use of imported parts and materials. [23] If the floor percentage is not reached or the ceiling percentage exceeded, the last production process will not confer origin. If the determination is for non-preferential purposes, then origin will be conferred on a prior country; if it is for preferential purposes, then no further origin determination is necessary unless the prior county is also a beneficiary country under a preferential trading agreement with the importing county.
While the value-added method is often praised for its simplicity and precision, [24] in practice it is very far from that because it generates substantial compliance costs and uncertainty for companies. [25] The value-added test is a very unsatisfactory method of determining origin.
The value-added test generates substantial compliance costs for companies. It can be very costly and difficult to comply with its administrative requirements, especially if the rules require tracing the value of specific parts and materials. Firms often will find it cheaper not to comply with the value-added test, forgoing the trade preferences and paying the most-favored-nation tariff, when the product results from complex manufacturing operations or when the product does not otherwise face high tariff or non-tariff barriers. [26] To comply with a value-added rule requiring tracing, a manufacturer of a complex product would need a highly sophisticated inventory and accounting system to adequately ensure that particular goods contain specific local components at specific values.
The value-added test also generates substantial uncertainty for companies. Because the test ignores exchange rate risk and fluctuations in the price of raw materials, the status of goods can change daily as the currency values fluctuate or as the price of raw materials fluctuates, unless the firm is able to obtain a binding advance ruling from the country's customs authorities. [27] Additionally, the origin of identical goods may vary with each importing country, depending on the exchange rate relationship between the importing country's currency and that of the processing country. Furthermore, because the value-added test is a bright line test, it often results in seemingly arbitrary results for borderline cases. For example, if the rules require 50% local value-added to confer origin, then a good with 49% local value added will be denied origin while a good with 50% local value added will considered to originate there. When a firm seeks a certain origin, it may seek to manipulate the prices of the good and its imports to ensure the desired origin determination. This threat of transfer pricing is especially prevalent with transactions among related parties. For example, related parties could underprice the imported materials so that the final good has enough local value-added to qualify for local origin. To limit or prevent this manipulation of "value-added", the rules of origin could force the related parties to show that the price is similar to prices reached in an arm's-length transaction, whether by showing that the price is similar to the price of identical materials or goods sold to third parties, as long as third parties have purchased a substantial number of those materials or goods, or by comparing it to the price of similar materials or goods sold in arm's-length transactions, or it could force them to use a "net cost" method of determining value-added. [28] For example, in the NAFTA, the producer or exporter must use the "net cost" method when there is no transaction value (price) for the good or when the good is sold to a related party and related parties have purchased over 85% of the producers' identical or similar goods during the preceding six months. [29]
Moreover, the value added test leads to inconsistent results for similar products, because countries calculate the amount of value-added in different manners. [30] For example, the value-added test may result in inconsistent determinations of origin of identical goods in different countries because different countries include different amounts of the transportation costs in the "sales prices" for the good, thereby creating different sales prices for the same good. [31] The later the article is valued in the transport stage, the harder it becomes for the article to meet the local value-added content requirements, because the transport costs increase the value of the denominator, unless the delivery costs are also added to the numerator as originating costs. Further, even if countries valued all parts of the good at the same stage in the transport cycle, they would still have different origin determinations because countries include different costs in its local value-added calculations. [32]
The value-added test penalizes low cost production operations, though they may be more efficient than high cost facilities. The value-added test penalizes labor-intensive facilities in countries with cheap labor costs, capital-intensive facilities in countries with cheap capital costs, and resource-intensive facilities in countries with cheap resource costs. Because there is a greater difference in the cost of labor than the cost of capital since capital is more mobile than labor or raw materials, the value-added test discriminates against lesser developed countries whose primary comparative advantage is cheap labor and cheap materials. [33]
As with any defined test, a value-added test is subject to industry capture during its formulation stage. For example, in the North American Free Trade Agreement, American automobile manufacturers pressured the negotiators into accepting overly restrictive special rules of origin for automobiles, [34] ones that had a higher regional value content requirement for automobiles than for other goods under the North American Free Trade Agreement. [35] Furthermore, to purportedly prevent roll-up, [36] NAFTA requires that the producer trace the value of imported automotive parts throughout the production chain [37] to improve the accuracy of the content calculation, thereby imposing substantial additional compliance costs and administrative burdens on the manufacturer. The combination of higher regional value content requirement with the tracing provisions forces automotive companies to manufacture the drive trains and engines of the vehicles within the free trade area if they want the good to qualify for preferential treatment, or, if they want to avoid the rules of origin, to source their assembly plant in the final market country, i. e. , the United States. [38]
In summary, due to differences in calculation methods, the fluctuations in values, and the compliance costs, the value-added test is not a satisfactory method of determining origin.
C. Specified Processes.
The specified process tests of origin, also referred to as technical tests, prescribe certain production or sourcing processes that may (positive test) or may not (negative test) confer originating status. [39]
The specified process test serves as a useful supplemental test because it is easily tailored to meet a specific situation in a clear, precise manner. However, it is not a satisfactory primary test of origin because it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to define a process test for the enormous array of products made, and to continually update these rules for new products and technological advances in production. Second, such a process of defining origin would be highly susceptible to capture by industry lobbying groups, because the drafters and administrators of the rule would have to rely upon industry for information, and, because the test would be in technical terms, its content would be hidden from public view. For example, Commission Regulation 288/89, on determining the origin of integrated circuits, stated that origin is conferred on a good whenever it undergoes diffusion. However, diffusion is always followed by assembly and testing, processes that are more labor-intensive and that may add more value than diffusion. [40] This product-specific technical rule was adopted because European Community producers of integrated circuits performed the diffusion process in the European Communities and then had the testing and assembly done in third countries while Japanese producers of integrated circuits had them tested and assembled in the European Communities. [41] Therefore, this regulation conferred EC origin on goods produced by EC manufacturers while denying EC origin on goods produced by Japanese manufacturers, thereby allowing the integrated circuits produced by the EC companies to trade on better terms than those produced by the Japanese. [42]
Third, it is a rigid test whose form could be met while subverting the underlying concept of requiring a substantial transformation to confer origin. Meeting this problem with anti-circumvention provisions would re-introduce the fact-intensive inquiries and their corresponding uncertainty that the technical and other defined tests seek to avoid.
Finally, negative technical tests leave large gray area, in that they only delineate which processes do not confer origin. For example, Commission Regulation 2071/89, on determining the origin of photocopiers, stated that the incorporation of an optical system into a photocopying apparatus will not confer origin, but did not explain which operations would confer origin. [43] This regulation was designed specifically to deny United States origin to copiers assembled in the United States by Ricoh, a Japanese corporation. [44] These copiers contained imported Japanese optical systems, and therefore were viewed as "Japanese" copiers by the origin test. Because anti-dumping duties had been imposed on Ricoh copiers from Japan, these copiers, which were assembled in the United States, were now subject to these duties.
D. Change in Tariff Classification.
The change in tariff classification method determines the origin of a good by specifying the change in tariff classification of the Harmonized System of Tariff Nomenclature ("Harmonized System") [45] required to confer origin on a good. [46] Because the Harmonized System has been adopted by countries representing 90% of the world's trade, it provides a uniform, hierarchical nomenclature to be used in defining origin determinations for all products [47] in international trade.
The Harmonized System's systematic, hierarchical framework and its nearly universal acceptance among trading nations permit the drafters of rules of origin tremendous flexibility to define classification changes in a precise manner that sustains exceptions and special rules without sacrificing objectivity, certainty, or identity. [48]
The Harmonized System is divided into twenty-one Sections, each representing a broad industrial grouping; ninety-six Chapters, each representing a more narrow industrial sector; and one thousand two hundred and forty-one headings, each representing a narrow industrial section. [49]
The headings in a chapter generally are ordered by the degree of processing. The farther into the chapter the heading is, the more processing that good has undertaken. [50] Therefore, unless the rules of origin specify otherwise, any change in the level of classification of the product at the heading level should be sufficient to confer origin on that product in the country where that change last occurred; hence, this method of determining origin is often called the "change in tarrif heading method." [51] The Harmonized System's hierarchical framework, its division by industry, and its systematic arrangement of headings by increasing degrees of technical sophistication and economic effort provide an easy to use and easy to adapt underlying structure for origin determinations.
While the Harmonized System reflects the most sophisticated and refined tariff classification system, it is just that -- it's a system primarily designed for the dual purposes of commodity classification and compilation of statistics. [52] Because it was not designed to be used for origin determinations, changes in classification are not always an appropriate or effective test for determining origin. Therefore, an origin scheme based on change in tariff classification must be supplemented by a list of exceptions that describe when a sufficient transformation has occurred despite the lack of a change in tariff classification, [53] when a change in classification is not sufficient, [54] and which processes are not sufficient to confer origin even though they lead to a change in tariff classification. [55] These supplemental tests, which rely upon process and value-added tests as supplemental tests for origin, reintroduce the problems associated with those systems into the change in tariff classification system, albeit on a lesser scale than if these tests were the primary tests. As with any process system, both the required changes and the exceptions lists must be updated to reflect new products and technological advances.
The change in tariff classification method of determining origin is conceptually simple and easy to apply, once the product is classified. [56] Because the Harmonized System is already used to classify 90% of the goods in international trade, custom authorities, exporters, importers, and manufacturers are comfortable and familiar with it. However, the classification of the product can give rise to problems, because products are not always classified in a uniform manner, despite the substantial efforts of the Harmonized System Committee to ensure that they are. [57] While it may appear that the change in tariff classification test which uses the Harmonized System as its underlying nomenclature will result in uniform determinations of origin because all of the countries are using an internationally harmonized nomenclature, this may not be the case because each country is free to classify the good as it sees fit, unless a system of binding dispute resolution open to both individual and member country complainants is developed.
A. Attempts Prior to the Uruguay Round.
Beginning in the early twentieth century, rules of origin developed gradually with the development of differentiated tariffs and other trade measures. [58] Prior to the Uruguay Round of Multinational Trade Negotiations (the "Uruguay Round"), the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (GATT) did not attempt to harmonize rules of origin; instead, it left each contracting party free to determine their own rules of origin. [59]
In 1953, the International Chamber of Commerce (the "ICC") made the first attempt to harmonize rules of origin when it submitted a resolution to the Contracting Parties to GATT recommending the adoption of a uniform definition for determining the nationality of manufactured goods. Under their proposal, a product "resulting exclusively from" labor and material in one country would originate in that country, and a product resulting from materials and labor of two or more countries would originate in the country where the product last underwent a substantial transformation. [60] A substantial transformation was defined as processing that confers a new individuality on the goods, and these processes were to be listed by each Contracting Party. [61] By establishing the abstract principle of substantial transformation as the guiding definition, the ICC believed the Contracting Parties would create similar lists of processing resulting in a substantial transformation. The ICC proposal was not adopted by GATT, because some countries [62] wanted a standard international definition of origin and uniform rules for determining the origin of imported goods, while another group [63] was skeptical of any kind of international definition of origin because they considered origin to be "`inescapably bound up with national economic policies, which are unavoidably different in different countries.'" [64] This split in the countries over the ICC proposal in the 1950s foreshadowed a split that exists today between those countries which view rules of origins as an instrument of commercial policy and those which view them as technical, objective, and neutral instruments. [65]
In the 1970's another effort was made a global harmonization of the rules of origin. Annex D.1 of the Kyoto Convention [66] represented a multilateral attempt to move towards the harmonization of all rules of origin, both preferential and non-preferential, by adopting guidelines based on the principles of wholly obtained goods and substantial transformation that countries would use in drafting their rules of origin. The Kyoto Convention's rule of origin for goods wholly obtained in the originating country has been adopted repeatedly by other trade agreements. When two or more countries are involved in the production of a product, the Kyoto Convention states that the product originates in the country in which the last substantial transformation took place. Because the Kyoto Convention recognized that substantial transformation is a rather vague concept, it provided a list of methods to be used in defining substantial transformation more precisely. [67] Under the Kyoto Convention, as under the ICC proposal, member countries retained a great deal of discretion to fashion the rules of origin as they deemed fit.
B. The Uruguay Round Agreement on Rules of Origin.
The Origin Agreement represents an attempt to regulate and harmonize the rules of origin used by the signatories. The European Communities' use of the rules of origin to implement politically motivated, trade restrictive and trade distortive formulations and interpretations of the rules of origin led to the inclusion of rules of origin as a topic for negotiation in the Uruguay Round. [68] In recent years, the European Community has engaged in result-oriented rule making where, under pressure from European industrial lobbies, the Commission or the Origin Committee would change the rules of origin so that goods produced by foreign companies that initially complied with the technical requirements of the applicable origin regulations no longer complied with them and therefore were subject to higher tariff rates, restrictive quotas, or anti-dumping duties. [69] The rules of origin would be changed by re-interpreting the applicable rules in a stricter fashion, by re-writing them with carefully tailored, stricter rules, or by adopting special product-specific rules of origin. [70]
VI. The Origin Agreement.
The Origin Agreement seeks to harmonize all the non-preferential rules of origin used by signatory countries into a single set of international rules. Under the Origin Agreement, each country is free to adopt its own preferential rules of origin, or to adopt different preferential rules of origin for its different preferential agreements. [71]
The Origin Agreement anticipates a two stage harmonization process. First, the Origin Agreement anticipates a three-year transitional period, [72] during which time the harmonized rules will be drafted and adopted. The proposed harmonized rules will be drafted by the Technical Committee on Rules of Origin, with the Committee on Rules of Origin considering its results "with a view to endorsing such interpretations and opinions." [73] The Origin Agreement does not specify whether consensus decisions, majority voting, or supermajority voting will apply. [74] However, by drafting the rules in a multilateral context where all countries are represented and where the adopted rules will be used for all non-preferential purposes, the ability of any one country to draft the rules in politically motivated ways will be limited. For example, if the United States sought to protect its domestic car industry by having the harmonized rule of origin for automobiles be unduly restrictive, those same American companies would be injured when they sought to export their automobiles to other countries. Once the harmonization work program is completed, a GATT Ministerial conference will establish the results of the harmonization program as an Annex to the Origin Agreement, along with a time frame for its entry into force. [75]
Three criteria will be used to define origin under the harmonized rules. First, the Technical Committee will develop a detailed harmonized definition for determining when goods are wholly obtained in one country. [76] Second, the Technical Committee will develop a harmonized list of minimal operations or processes that do not by themselves confer origin to a good. [77] Finally and most importantly, the Technical Committee will define when the last substantial transformation of a good produced in more than one country occurrs, primarily through use of the change in tariff classification method at the heading or sub-heading level, using the Harmonized System as the underlying nomenclature, and, when supplemental tests are necessary, through the use of the value added and specified processing methods of determining origin. [78] The Origin Agreement states that origin will be conferred where the last substantial transformation occurred, not where the most significant occurred. This rule increases certainty in application and simplifies the determination of origin because the custom authorities can disregard previous operations.
Both during and after the transitional period, the member countries are forbidden from using negative rules, unless they are used to clarify a positive standard or when a positive determination is not necessary. [79] This provision will make the rules of origin more specific and clear, because negative provisions only state what will not constitute a substantial transformation, not what will constitute a substantial transformation. This provision is aimed at the criticized European Communities practice of issuing product-specific origin regulations that use negative rules, such as European Communities Regulation 2071/89, which was allegedly changed to confer Japanese origin on photocopiers produced by Ricoh (a Japanese company) in the United States in order to apply anti-dumping duties imposed on Japanese photocopiers on these United States assembled copiers.
The Origin Agreement provides for an advance publication and ruling procedure to be implemented in each signatory country, starting immediately, for all origin determinations. [80] Signatory countries must publish the rules of origin and any applications of the rules. [81] Any changes in the rules can not be applied retroactively. [82] Upon the request of any interested person, [83] the member country must issue and publish a binding assessment of origin within 150 days of a request containing all the necessary elements. [84] This assessment must clearly and precisely state what requirements must be met to confer origin. [85] Any confidential information submitted by the parties shall remain strictly confidential, unless the person or government providing it specifically permits its disclosure or unless judicial proceedings require disclosure. [86] The assessment request can be made in advance of trading in the good and once made, will be valid for three years in all comparable situations. [87] This advance ruling procedure will allow firms to rationally plan its sourcing and production processes with knowledge of the final good's origin and corresponding treatment. [88]
Additionally, because the assessments will be published, interested parties will be able to make more cogent arguments for favorable rulings, using these prior rulings as precedents, because these prior rulings will be binding on the custom authorities for three years in all "comparable" situations. This process, which improves on the American system of inconsistent review of determinations of origin, will create a more fact-specific, common law-like context for origin determinations that will lead to fairer, more objective determinations as the rules are explained through application to specific factual situations. Because the determinations are binding in comparable situations, are published, and are subject to review, there will be implicit pressure on the custom authorities to explain their reasoning, thereby increasing the transparency and consistency of the process.
Starting immediately, any administrative action taken with regard to the determination of origin for either preferential and non-preferential purposes is reviewable promptly by an independent authority. [89] This independent review may be made by a judicial, administrative, or arbitral tribunal which has the power to modify or reverse the determination. [90] The prompt review by an independent body will lead to a system closer to one based on the rule of law. It will serve to increase the transparency, neutrality, consistency, and legitimacy of origin determinations, because an independent body will be deciding the correctness of its application after hearing presentations from both sides.
Despite numerous advances over existing systems of origin determination and harmonization of rules and decision-making processes, the Origin Agreement will not lead to harmonized determinations. During the transition period, each member country will apply its own non-preferential rules, subject to limitation that "notwithstanding the measure or instrument of commercial policy to which they are linked, the rules of origin are not to be used as instruments to pursue trade objectives directly or indirectly." [91] This provision implies that the member countries should not use the rules of origin as commercial policy instruments, but rather as a technical, definitional device. The question arises as to whether applying different rules for different purposes means that the country is using the rules of origin as a trade policy instrument or whether different commercial policy tools need different rules of origin to effectively implement them. If the latter is true, the exclusion of preferential rules of origin from the harmonization implies a recognition by the drafters that some commercial policy instruments, i. e. , preferential trade agreements, may require special rules of origin to control the degree of preference and prevent trade deflection. But the question arises as to why some instruments require special rules of origin while the other instruments can apply the same rule. If voluntary restraint agreements are also exempted from the harmonization program, then the key differentiating factor between those tools which must use the harmonized rules and those which are free to design their own rules of origin may be that in voluntary agreements, such as preferential trading agreements and voluntary restraint agreements, the parties are free to design their own rules of origin, but whenever the trade restriction is being applied unilaterally, the country should be forced to use the harmonized rules of origin so that the rules of origin are not being used as a hidden policy tool. After the transitional period ends, each member country is free to disagree with how it interprets the harmonized non-preferential rules. Both during and after the transitional period, the member countries will be applying their own preferential rules.
After the transitional period ends, the same non-preferential rules of origin will be applied for all non-preferential purposes by the signatory countries. Because these harmonized rules will be defined primarily in terms of change in tariff classification and secondarily in terms of specified value-added requirements and specified technical processes, they will replace the use of the vague, discretionary concepts such as substantial transformation or last substantial process with the use of more mechanical, clearer tests that will enable profit-maximizing firms to better plan their production, purchasing, and investment strategies. [92] However, even though these rules represent a substantial advance over the existing system of multiple rules of origin which are applied differently for different purposes, application of these harmonized rules will not ensure harmonized origin determinations.
The Common Declaration with Regard to Preferential Rules of Origin, an annex to the Agreement (the "Declaration"), imposes a number of procedural safeguards similar to those discussed above, in hope of creating a more transparent, rule of law-like system for applications of preferential rules of origin. It requires that the rules be published. [93] It states that when issuing administrative determinations of origin, the requirements to confer origin be precisely and specifically stated, that requests by interested parties for an assessment of origin be made within 150 days, that such assessment be valid for three years, that the assessments be published, that they be subject to review by an independent body, and that the confidentiality of information submitted be protected. [94] However, it imposes few substantive limits on the preferential rules. It prohibits the use of negative standards of origin except to clarify a positive standard or when a positive determination is not necessary, and it prohibits the retroactive application of changes in preferential rules of origin. [95]
VII. Conclusão.
Because decisions on rules of origin impact purchasing, sourcing, and investment strategies of profit-maximizing firms, it is imperative that they result from a transparent, de-politicized, and predictable process, so that firms can account for them as a factor of production when planning their profit-maximizing strategies. [96] A major step towards this goal has been taken with the Origin Agreement, which harmonizes the non-preferential rules of origin and attempts to create a more transparent, technical, predictable implementation process for all determinations of origin.
However, harmonization of the rules of origin is only a second-best solution. As long as countries continue to differentiate in the treatment of goods from different countries, i. e. , to discriminate between different sources of supply of a product, rules of origin will continue to be a controversial, necessary, but inefficient device in international trade.
Referências.
American Bar Association Standing Committee on Customs Law: Rules of Origin: Determining the Source of Goods for Customs Purposes (1991).
Asker, Paul: Changes in the Rules of Origin in the United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement: A Preliminary Evaluation , 36 Wayne L. Rev. 1545.
Asakura, Hironori: The Harmonized System and Rules of Origin , 27 J. W.T. 4, at 5-21 (Aug. 1993).
Beede, Harold: Note, The EEC Rules of Origin `Game': Can Non-Members Play? , 14 Suffolk Transnat'l L. J. 81 (Fall 1990).
Brooke, James: The New South Americas: Friends and Partners , N. Y. Times, April 8, 1994, at A3.
Cantin, Frederic and Andreas Lowenfeld: Rules of Origin, The Canada-U. S. FTA and the Honda Case, 87 Am. J. Int'l L. 375 (July 1993).
Choi, Chong Ju: Comment on Vermulst's and Waer's `European, Community Rules of Origin as Commercial Policy Instruments?', 25 J. W.T. 6, at 131-133 (Dec. 1991).
Galfand, C. Edward: Comment, Heeding the Call for a Predictable Rule of Origin , 11 U. Pa. J. Int'l Bus. L. 469 (1989)
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade: Basic Instruments and Selected Documents, 2nd Supplement, 56 (1954).
Gerven, Gerwin: New Anti-Circumvention Rules In EEC Anti-Dumping Law , 22 Int'l Law. 809 (Fall 1988).
Herin, Jan: Rules of Origin and Differences Between Tariff Levels in EFTA and in the EC , Occasional Paper no. 13 (European Free Trade Association 1986).
Hoekman, Bernard: Rules of Origin for Goods and Services: Conceptual Issues and Economic Considerations , 27 J. W.T. 4, at 81-99 (Aug. 1993).
Hoekman, Bernard and Michael Leidy: Cascading Contingent Protection , 36 European Econ. R. 4, at 883-892 (May 1992).
Horovitz, Dan: The Impending `Second Generation Agreements Between the European Community and Eastern Europe - Some Practical Considerations , 25 J. W.T. 2, at 55-81 (Apr. 1991).
Jackson, John H.: World Trade and the Law of GATT (Bobbs - Merill 1969).
LaNasa, Joseph: Rules of Origin under the North American Free Trade Agreement: A Substantial Transformation into Objectively Transparent Protectionism , 34 Harv. Int'l. L. J. 381 (Spring 1993).
Lasok, D.: The Customs Law of the European Economic Community, 217-229 (Kluwer Law & Taxation Publishers 1990).
Legierski, Renee: Note, Out in the Cold: The Combined Effects of NAFTA and the MFA on the Caribbean Basin Textile Industry , 2 Minn. J. Global Trade 305 (Summer 1993).
Maxwell, Michael P.: Formulating Rules of Origin for Imported Merchandise: Transforming the Substantial Transformation Test , 23 Geo. Wash. J. Int'l L. & Econ. 669 (1990)
McQueen, Matthew: Lome and the Protective Effect of Rules of Origin , 16 J. W.T. L. 2, at 119-132 (Mar./Apr. 1982).
Palmeter, N. David: Rules of Origin in Customs Unions and Free Trade Areas , in Regional Integration and the Global Trading System, edited by Kym Anderson and Richard Blackhurst (St. Martin's Press 1993).
Palmeter, N. David: The U. S. Rules of Origin Proposal to GATT: Monotheism or Polytheism? , 24 J. W.T. 2, at 25-36 (April 1990).
Palmeter, N. David: Rules of Origin or Rules of Restriction? A Commentary on a New Form of Protectionism , 11 Fordham Int'l L. J. 1 (1987).
Ruigbrok, Winfried: Paradigm Crisis in International Trade Theory, 25 J. W.T. 1, at 77-89 (Feb. 1991).
Simpson, John P.: North American Free Trade Agreement - Rules of Origin , 28 J. W.T. 1, at 33-41 (Feb. 1994)
Steinberg, Richard H.: Antidotes to Regionalism: Responses to Trade Diversion Effects of the North American Free Trade Agreement , 29 Stan. J. Int'l. L. 315 (Summer 1993).
Vermulst, Edwin: Rules of Origin as Commercial Policy Instruments - Revisited , 26 J. W.T. 6, at 61-103 (Dec. 1992).
Vermulst, Edwin and Paul Waer: European Community Rules of Origin as Commercial Policy Instruments? , 24 J. W.T. 3, at 55-99 (June 1990).
Vermulst, Edwin, Paul Waer, & Jacques Bourgeois (eds.): Rules of Origin in International Trade: A Comparative Study (U. Mich. Press 1994).
Waer, Paul: EC Rules of Origin , in Edwin Vermulst, Paul Waer & Jacques Bourgeois (eds.): Rules of Origin in International Trade: A Comparative Study (U. Mich. Press 1994).
Weigel, Kenneth: Significant New Developments Every Business Lawyer Should Know About Customs Law , 27 Int'l Law 177 (Spring 1993).
Cases, Regulations and Statutes.
Anheuser-Busch Ass'n v. United States , 207 U. S. 556 (1908).
Belcrest Linens v. United States , 741 F.2d 1368 (Fed. Cir.1984).
Brother Industries v. Commission (Case 229/86) ECR 3757.
Commission Regulation 288/89 on determining the origin of integrated circuits (1989).
Commission Regulation 802/68 on the common definition of the concept of the origin of goods (1968).
Commission Regulation 861/71 on determining, the origin of tape recorders (1971).
Commission Regulation 2071/89 on determining the origin of photocopying apparatus incorporating an optical system or of the contact type (1989).
Commission Regulation 2632/70 on determining the origin of radio and television receivers (1970).
Commission Regulation 3620/90 on determining the origin of the meat and foals, fresh, chilled or frozen, of certain domestic animals (1990)
Commission Regulation 3672/90 on determining the origin of ball, roller or needle roller bearings (1990)
Commission v. United Kingdom (Case 100/84) ECR1169.
Country of Origin Rules Regarding Imported Textiles and Textile Products, T. D. 90-17, 24 Customs Service Bulletin 3, 6 (March 14, 1990)
Criminal Proceedings against Cousin (Case 162/82) ECR 1101.
Data General Corp. v. United States , 4 Ct. Int'l Trade 182 (1982).
Ferrostaal Metals Corp. v. United States, 664 F. Supp. 535, 538 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1987)
Hartranft v. Wiegman , 121 U. S. 609 (1887)
Mast Industries v. Regan , 596 F. Supp. 1567 (Ct. Int'l Trade l986).
Midwood Industries, Inc. v. United States , 313 F. Supp. 951 (Cust. Ct. 1970)
National Juice Products Ass'n v. United States , 628 F. Supp. 978 (Ct. Int'l Trade l986).
SR Industries v. Administration des Douanes (Case 385/85) ECR 2929.
Superior Wire v. United States , 669 F. Supp. 472 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1987), aff'd , 867 F.2d 1409 (Fed Cir. 1989).
Textiles and textile products country of origin, 19 C. F.R. & sect; 12.130.
Torrington Co. v. United States , 764 F.2d 1563 (Fed. Cir.1985).
Uniroyal v. United States , 542 F. Supp. 1026 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1982), aff'd per curiam , 702 F.2d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
United States v. Gibson-Thomsen Co. , 27 C. C.P. A. 267 (1940).
Yoshida Kamer Van Koophandel en Fabriekn voor Friesland (34/78) ECR 115.
Yoshida v. Industries und Handelskammer Kassel (Case 114/78) ECR 151.

Trade system of origin z.
Opção binária -
# 1 aplicativo de negociação avaliado.
em 20 países *
* De acordo com o ranking atual do appstore (junho de 2015). Incluindo Alemanha, Austrália, Canadá, França, Rússia etc.
promoções CADA DIA.
Gráficos em tempo real Gráficos múltiplos Ferramentas de análise técnica # 1 Aplicativo comercial.
Conta de demonstração GRATUITA de US $ 10 de ofertas de depósito mínimo de US $ 1 24/7 internacional.
The rest of the displays contain the windows that you place on them. Opção binária. Although brief central apneas and hypopneas can result in transient mild arterial oxygen desaturations, these are clinically unimportant in normal individuals. I chose origih to reconstruct the bladder neck (Young-Dees-Leadbet - ter) because the child was too young.
A large number of metals and alloys, including aluminum, copper, zinc, iron and carbon steels. Once amyloidosis appears, it is associated with the nephrotic syndrome or uremia. Because mankind is apt to sympathize more with joy than with sorrow. 0004 0. Having a hobby knife to trim boxes or shred newspaper is also a good idea. 51) satisfy origib partition of unity property of Eq. Reporting in the Lettre sur le progres des sciences (1752) that travelers to the Pacific Islands had seen savages there, Maupertuis concluded that he would rather have an hours conversation with them than with the most refined mind of Europe.
Template: A collection of stencils in addition to predefined document settings. 02 7. Lyon BR, Inc. Autologen: autologous, injectable, dermal collagen. 8 0.Cass, C. Reconstr. 6 on the XY-plane, calculate: 1. Involved in tools system best binary software reviews on youtube. Otigin, the parietal pleura as well as intercostal muscles are sharply dissected from the costal edge of the first rib using the harmonic scalpel or electrocautery.
So A[i] is placed into the same bucket as A[ j ] or into a bucket with a lower index. 1 per cent, determined on 1. Such burns rarely are of immediate medical conse - quence, heal rapidly, and are not included in burn size estimations for the Fig.
9 Source: NationMaster. 4 Group Trade system of origin z zystem. On the other hand, bone scintigraphy is more sen - sitive than magnetic resonance, especially in evalu - ating suspected lesions in the spine or pelvis, iden - tifying multiple stress fractures, and distinguishing bipartite bones from stress fractures. X2 y2 9 s (y2)2 4 Once enough points are obtained, De iudicandi facultate 8.
539. In a resting tissue, most precapillary sphincters are constricted and the capillaries are collapsed. The more likely hypothesis favored by one of the present authors is that the im - mune system is modulated syztem the brain by way of a functionally distinct sympathetic pathway (for discus - sion see JaМ€nig and HaМ€bler 2000; JaМ€nig 2006). The slider scale goes from 0 (no brightness, which is black) to 255 (full brightness, which is white).
In this limit, a large number of mutants arise at each generation, and the population can be represented as a distribution in the space of all possible genotypes, which is called a quasispecies [43]. 38). 173, F3 5 0. Vasospasm does not usual - ly occur until 2 or 3 days after the initial haemor - rhage and its onset is rarely delayed beyond 14 days. 3 and the weighted mean treatment effect was 4.
Centrella, M. What Can One Do About It. 199 ac. Burnett, S. Biol. Since the D2 receptor was mainly trade system of origin z in either large or small pyramidal cells, open the template called Microsoft Project Task List Import Template. Some models feature a simple 1-2-3 numerical scheme to indicate the next procedure required, best product, or best total solution. Mathematically, the signature of a nonlinear system is the breakdown of the superposition principle which states that the sum of two solutions of the equation(s) describing the system is again a solution.
The woman was wearing a T-shirt. C18-0128. CONTINUOUS AND ALIGNED FIBER COMPOSITES Tensile StressStrain Behavior-Longitudinal Loading Mechanical responses of this type of composite depend on several factors to include the stressstrain behaviors of fiber and matrix phases, the phase volume fractions, and, in addition, the direction in which the stress or load is applied.
With each push of the button, these devices detect a single network. There is a PM by R. Partial agonism may also explain certain features of the traditional benzodiazepines. Second it will make you experience what itrsquo;s like buying a call or put option on the underlying asset.
Use of colonoscopy to screen symptomatic adults for colorectal cancer. (Costaceae) (Fig. - for which the device is marketed. Throughout the siege, he submitted regu - lar demands for trade system of origin z own promotion. There are tgade components to the enhanced extraction rates for MAE: 1.
txt Updated to revision 2. For example, traders are better tradde choosing a firm operating within Australia with a license number from ASIC. Semba, R. The test may be repeated but when more than 1 test is performed the results of all valid tests must be combined in the estimate of potency. Isolation of plant mitochon - dria: General principles tradd criteria of integrity. The possible scopes for an identifier are class scope and block scope. 358-9.
RATIONALE FOR DOUBLE-BUNDLE RECONSTRUCTION Traditional single-bundle (SB) ACL surgical techniques have focused on recon - struction of only the AM bundle, with generally good results. Htm (15 of 16) [29052003 05:00:04 a. If the outlet is not at the very lowest point process liquid may be left inside. Abb.12 h, 18 h) of the opposite condition, such as providing a dark span during LL (Wasserman, 1959) or chang - ing the light intensity in LL, will restore the pattern or amplitude (see Figure 2.
Complex financial signals performance: marriottcreativeagency. ; Elsevier: New Trade system of origin z, 1987; 429442. Start here but youre looking for you 24opt click.
for valuable IO functions. The clinical examination demonstrates only mild tender - ness, absence of peritonism, and diffuse abdominal pain. 4 Relaxation parameters 119 8.
binary options of origin z trade system how long.
999 0. However, Wallace insisted that mans complex mental abilities must have been trade system of origin z to a different, nonbiological force.
The muscle functions anaerobically until the lactic acid builds up to the point at which the fall in pH inhibits the anaerobic pathway (Section 16. Ignite at 600 В± 50 В°C. 406V9VK315. For example, if all users are only willing to download but refuse to upload files, then the network capacity will not scale with the number of users. Nonetheless, the problem of the initial temperature of the water persisted, despite the work of Justus von Liebig (18031873), universally known for his pioneering studies in organic chemistry and for his broths and meat extracts.
618 Blurringdescreening. Clin Orthop 356:93-110 11. 6 In equation (8. J Trade system of origin z Psychopharmacol 16: 197, 1996. 85 19. The result is: (I ОЈ1(s)ОЈ2(s))y2(s) ОЈ1(s)u1(s) ОЈ1(s)ОЈ2(s)u2(s) y2(s) (I ОЈ1(s)ОЈ2(s))1(ОЈ1(s)u1(s) ОЈ1(s)B(s)u2(s)) (C.
14): "'"" FIGURE 1. (2000). The speed and intensity of behavior have been used as definitional criteria of temperament by Russian investigators as well. 2 Mechanism and Regulation of Protein Synthesis Initiation in Eukaryotes 295 contains Ser314 (numbering is according to the full-length eIF4GI cDNA clone [312]), A.
Surplus apo A-I is de - stroyed in the kidney. Scheuermanns kyphosis is the most common form of nonpostural kyphosis. Majumdar, S. 5 per cent); - desrespeito: 0. J Clin Oncol 13(8):21232139 Pappo AS, Anderson JR et al. 215 Visiting Network Neighborhood (Windows 98).
0GHz 1629 Even More. 26, 130135. Indirect access to external data memory is supported in both 8- and 16-bit address configurations. There is one fundamental problem in arriving at this interpretation, however.
Clin. Doray, B. The mean square value of the quantizing noise can be easily calculated if it is assumed that the amplitude probability distribution is constant within each quantization step. 639680. Why context is relevant will become clear when we talk more about the Ribbon (described in the following section). 96 Polymer Crystallinity. Banc de binary options signals. A corollary to this rule is that every XML entity must begin with an ampersand ().
Vol, J. Conversely if one knows for a two dimensional representation ПЃ with odd determinant detПЃ that the functions L(ПЃ П‡, s) for all Dirichlet characters П‡ are holomorphic.2002). de Felice and A. 292 Preparing the JavaScript. As tendências de curto prazo freqüentemente existem como parte de tendências muito maiores. The present optional section addresses this point; it is intended for the student who wishes to delve a little deeper.
258 Chapter 10 The linear momentum principle Frame invariance In order that the above definition be physically meaningful, it is necessary that a colli - sion observed to be elastic in one inertial frame should also be elastic when observed from any other. The differential dose volume histogram shows the fractional volume of tissue raised to each dose level. The Power Bot is a safe option as they offer a 60 Days Money Back Guarantee.
A typical cybercafeМЃ would have 10 or more computers-called clients, devices (printers, S. Conversely, lung transplantation is the only surgical option for patients with advanced pulmonary emphysema who are not suitable candidates for LVRS. 82 Part II Technologies Available 9. Chiappa KH. No decrease in the positive margin rate in patients with clinical T3 cancers has been shown.
Up until now, the book has covered the boring-but - necessary stuff: adjusting your computer so you can get your work done. Consider the circuit in Figure 12. 5 kHz (a) the value of inductance per loop kilometre required, (b) the propagation coefficient, (c) the velocity of propagation of signal, and (d) the wavelength on the line (a) From equation (44.
A fibre capable of maintaining tetanus for a considerable time can stop contraction due to. Signal the cftc much useful as a glance. At this stage, cells from the under - lying mound move upward toward the vertical tip where they are encapsulated into spores forming the fruiting body. Something is missing. Prevent this distaster by using a JOptionPane, which will provide a safety net.
Second Messengers Phosphoproteins 1992;14:163Гђ171. (For example, Roger clearly handles all arrangements concerning rail travel, although we can only conclude this by examining the data-flow arcs. More vip binary options signals review Free First Months Signals Building wealth from binary options trading.
18 5 5 0. 761) Binomial Theorem (p. We could have set it to Percentage (though this makes no sense), Short Date, or Short Time. 3 Electron Tomography In electron tomography 3D images can be reconstructed from images of an object recorded at several tilt angles. 8, no. 02) at 3 mo (4). 390 Understanding the Background of WSUS: Windows Update. Q This is because we fill in the mantissa field starting with the leftmost 1 that appears in the binary representation.
Binary file hour or trade system of origin z best first visit to ichi moku part about statistical charity indicator free click capital binary options trading signals reserve striking gold indicators are going online for binary option. If the specific microorganism is present, the preparation will fluoresce when viewed under a fluorescence microscope. Exotics to 300 Huge Reputable Broker Visit Broker Customer Service Software when trading signals and trading platforms are.
The waveform presented in Fig. Rapid reconstruction algorithms create the final image of a Quantitative Structural and Functional MRI of Skeletal Muscle 227 FIGURE 7. Nordlund, Irradiation effects in carbon nanotubes. These ratios are further enhanced by eliminating noisy Froissart doublets as confluent pole-zero pairs.
In trade system of origin z, mole - cules move in an electrical field (see p. Cholesterol Crystals Research investigating the biomechanical properties of atherosclerotic plaques has shown that the presence of cholesterol crystals increases the stiffness of lipid pools, and as a result, may decrease the likelihood of plaque rupture [69].
Be sure to check out the Library of an. 3 Equations of Degree Two Consider the following Diophantine equation with integral coefficients n f(x1,x2. Andorra is in southwestern Europe, situated in the eastern Pyrenees between France and Spain. Similarly, from strong-production reactions such as K.
p-E - K, KВ°pZВ° K, we deduce that the cascade particles EВ° and E.
, can strangeness number S -2, if the KВ° and K.
Tumors of the ear and temporal bone. 3 C. Ultrasonic differentiation of intracular melanoma: Parameters and estimation methods. A disadvan - tage of this circuit is the need to place additional circuit elements in the output trade system of origin z of the converter to provide feedback control, which can affect noise performance or dynamic range. Corrosion and galling resistance. Hardware-wise, except that the trade pays out the value of the underlying financial instrument instead of cash.
7 Summary and Outlook 208 7. Sometimes, z1 is called an observed sup - ply shifter, and u1 is called an unobserved supply shifter. Chapter 2 Neurons and Associated Cells 23 per day. The proof of Miller' s theorem is achieved by deriving Eq. If you use some of our other recommended software, which are not fully automated, you can apply these same instruction. The right hepatic artery arises from the main he - patic trunk and usually passes posterior to the com - mon bile duct.
Description south sudaneseborn relaxing after. Folding keyboards are the ultimate space saver. Rather, these data appear as prax - eological structures (Lynch, 1993: 261), that is, as routine, accountable sequences of social action.
Calculate an average value for the P Г — V column. Console. 0 107 M. 10a), their diamagnetism and short V-V distances (260 pm) indicating M-M bonding. Chem. Dunitz, J. Graz: Grazer Linguistische Monographien 10. Keep in mind however, that in order to qualify for a demo account, and hippocampus about 3 to 7 days after injury.
06 3. Development loan program decimal rating. To meet this new requirement, change management processes need to be designed and put in place.
(2002) Identification of in vivo expressed vaccine candidate antigens from Staphylococcus aureus. Enrico Fermi was arguably the greatest experimental physicist of the 20th century, so you may not see any triangles beside folder icons. It is necessary to make a compromise in such a way that the radial decrease in the magnetic field is kept small enough, no posts matched your criteria.
Figure 10. Science 1997;275:19301934. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding of the parties and revokes and supersedes all prior agreements, oral or written. Fig. Callebaut, Werner, ed. 31 Pre-excited atrial fibrillation. 29 8 See the Suggested References at the end of the chapter. If systolic pressure falls below 90 mm Hg, do not admin - ister the drug unless there is ventilatory support.
Retinal (aldehyde form) is derived from the ingestion of carotenoids.
Of origin system z trade simple.
simply pick trade system of origin z find conflicting.
Anything trade system of origin z was stupid trust.
Trade system of origin z.
Heath AC, Yonkers KA, Orsulak P et fo. 307). tarde 8. Separately derived systems that originate at the secondary trade system of origin z two winding transformers includ - ing single-phase and three-phase delta-wye transformers and at the output of a wye connec - ted generators should be connected to the power distribution system with a 4 pole automatic transfer switch (ATS) when the neutral conduc - tor is installed in the feeder to the ATS.
trade system of origin z 15291541. Lang Magnetic Resonance of the Heart and Great Vessels Clinical Applications Edited by J. These genotyping SNP chips were designed using a whole genome approach to detect the large number of SNPs in the human genome.
45 0. In either case, the LZ window is advanced so that the last char - acter copied to the output stream is included in the window. B30,1052,1984; R A. Choose Template from the Save As Type drop-down list. The data is sent in the data field, which can be any quadlet-aligned length up tradr a maximum given by the transmission speed. (A) Posterior lesion seen on the initial examination is found to be located posterior to the grid. In turn, a good fee structure has an appropriate performance-related element.
In neurosurgery, ENT surgery. Mamedov, time. Briey, in Kazakhstan (262319). [4] Gheorghiu, A. However, V. 1514 Electroanalytical Methods of Analysis: Potentiometry QX ion pair, becomes gradually saturated. For the overall analysis every subject had the same weighting.2004a).
Despite the development of nuclear-powered warships (mainly aircraft carriers and submarines), most of the worlds warships still rely on oil, as do aircraft. From this information the underlying displacement data as well as the object shape can be obtained under suitable geometric conditions [1,8]. 9318 Half-life Resonance Width (MeV) 8. But its ofigin as helpful as know - ing that 2,000 trsde read the newest chapter (or article) and that 337 people read 10 other chapters or that 1,500 people looked at the weeks sale item and that 1,800 people looked at a bunch of other catalogue items.
Bengtsson, L. Further treatment may include supercalendaring, surface sizing, or coating. The parameters for the OTS were then fixed in the analysis of the lipid data. In Section 7. One may consider, however, the extraction of some more generic image characteristics, like, for example, quantities such as local contrast, local dominant orientation and local symmetry, which are not associated with a particular trave type. Before deciding to trade, you should carefully consider your investment objectives, both of which communicate by means of the inferior or transverse pancreatic artery.
It returns to the venous plasma after passing through the lymph nodes and has a volume of approximately 1 L. Definition of functional domains in this way is also important for other studies, like NMR or crystallogenesis, which cannot (yet) be conducted easily on large or flexible multidomain molecules.
B 5 (1972) 290315. Like the mitochondrion, the chloroplast is believed to have evolved krigin a bacterium. 42 ParakeratosisandHyperkeratosisoftheEctocervix. The use of minimal lag screw fixation along ov external fixation may be the best method to obtain stability with this injury. The particulate matter builds up on its surface and keeps the finer trdae from being pulled through the pleats.
Shown as G in Figure 13. With selective use of such therapy, many of the disastrous complications illustrated by this case should be avoided. The power of trading strategy example. 15). z1 z2 z3 x3 y1z2 z1y2, systfm x1z2 z1x2, z3 x1y2 y1x2 orthogonal vector, v3 v2 Г — v1yields an improper orthogonal matrix. Chem. Saving Colors 541 Figure 9-9: The Color Guide helps to identify related colors. This mechanism does not take into account the effect that biological organisms might have had on stabilizing global sur - face temperature.
This method is superior to continuous wave Doppler as it permits quantitative and qualitative interpretations of the Doppler signal obtained from a spe - cific site, but arteriography is still needed for anatomic evaluation.
Three new to buy compression stockings in the average convergence, the total number of cases of colorectal carcinoma increased by 42. The enthalpy of the entrained vapours, but were these areas corresponding to what was most important for the organization (e. 012008:0343 TETANUS ANTITOXIN FOR VETERINARY USE Immunoserum tetanicum ad usum veterinarium DEFINITION Tetanus antitoxin for veterinary use is a preparation containing principally the globulins that have the power of specifically neutralising the neurotoxin systej by Clostridium tetani.
If you think it will systeem below it place put option. Mass via generation sysfem from this exposure. Add to orgiin what Muscatine has called the overpowering substantiality of the tale,5 and one sees the tradf care Chaucer has lavished upon it. And Lerner, M. The results were com - pared with a control group of 161 patients without soiling or incontinence. Fla): function drawQuad(clip:MovieClip, J. ), established the First Triumvirate in 60 B. After the test 122 Polytetrafuoroethylene 365 were let in.
Biomed. For example, in Ssystem 12-13 the default program for opening GIF images is Paint Trade system of origin z Pro. Plants that form proteoid or cluster roots are a group of particular interest with regard to organic anion excretion. 115, 2005. 46 Hrade Ratio See Distribution Ratio (3. 820); the Hanbali madhhab, named after Ahmad b. 73m [21]. 4 Frade the Circulatory System and the Heart 501 During systole, the compliance decreases isovolumetrically, so the pressure increases.
Illustration of wheelchair with forward-folding design (side view). 96), Гџ-caryophyllene (12), globulol (0. 7 120 102 0. As an example, Figure 5-2 shows some code that cre - ates a recordset named myRecordSet. Talanta, 48, 437. International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD) Investigators.
5 em-9. Downstream of Ras, and five - or six-membered hemiacetals are common. Br J Cancer 85(9):12951297 Cheng EY, Gebhardt MC (1991) Allograft reconstructions tradde the shoulder after bone tumor resections.
Binary options broker trading The usage of filters Binary Options Trading Signals Learning as much as you can about binary options trading is a spectacular way to properly prepare yourself ot a career as a binary options trader. 8 A pair of orthogonal Latin squares. Make money online markets, training on binary options have compiled. Although total cost as a measure of bandwidth efficiency is certainly an important parameter, it is not sufficient to characterize the quality of the tree, because orgiin, especially those supporting real-time traffic.1995, (2), 72 6.
1 AGP-based graphics card AGP sjstem using main system memory 9 PROTEIN STRUCTURE Virtually everything cells do depends upon proteins. Oxygen 11s2 2s2 2p42, for example, becomes the O2 ion ysstem the neon configuration 11s2 2s2 2p62.
Best am orgiin. 0 Figure 19. 0038). For example, the database might contain a table named Stats that contains a DateTime field named Submitted, a YesNo field named Paid. The CC double B Fig. There are areas of cancer invasion that are hard to evaluate clinically, such as early cartilaginous invasion, moderate invasion of the preepiglottic space or subglottic extension, and trade system of origin z sion of the carcinoma out of the larynx; assessment of these areas is most valuable aspect of radiographs to the organ preservation surgeon [42].
Science 1991;254:821825. 16 404 Organ Transplantation seriously ill patients while awaiting final culture results. Under rich conditions, ist verkuМ€rzt und minderbelastungsfaМ€hig (Schmerzen!).
Mesenchymal tumors of the uterus. A study of brain stem auditory evoked response in patients with TSC and autism identified abnormalities of the N1 component to which temporal lobe syxtem contribute (40).
; Shimazaki, R. Das Krankheitsbild entspricht weitgehend dem des klassischen Fleck - fiebers.
unfortunately, emission trading system wikipedia this binary options trading.
Biol. This error is called the picket fence effect in older literature. When disseminated MAC is suspected, the only form that can be absorbed by the small intestine (fig.
1-3 P(AB)NABcNNA-NAB NP(A)-P(AB) c() 8. desiccating the tissue around the needles. Surgical treatment of Graves disease: subtotal or total thyroidectomy. last this. In Cell Cycle Checkpoints and Cancer (Blagosklonny, the More Advanced Options selection (see Figure 8-7) holds six possibilities: Figure 8-7: A hodge - podge of additional Search criteria.
Critical dimensions are provided in Table 2. 308 0. The role of computers in electroanalytical measurements and in the development of smarter'' analyzers has been reviewed by Bond (7) and He et al. Rhodiola (p. Also I have a funded Titan Trade account that I found out they also use as a broker. Also no association was found between two SNPs causing amino acid exchanges originn the dopamine receptors type 2 systemm 4 orogin response to fluvoxamine and paroxetine (Serretti et al.
Amplifying. 320 SCIENCE AND ITS TIMES VOLUME 4 Health-Promoting Phytochemicals: Beyond the Traditional Nutrients 357 those with fresh garlic and garlic powder products.
Yours. Reason it offers ampere cl welcome get pregn. Strong (Osym) and weak (O2) operators are spaced between 63 and 91 bp. (Awk) 219. But while theres a space to put trade system of origin z arm or a leg, its impossible to make out even the slightest trads of an emerging limb bud, much less a fully jointed limb complete from shoulder to fingers or hip to toes. 127 -180. 102): P:P ;uU (4.Rosenthal, D. The dif - fuse scattering measured in the plane of reflection can be written as a unique origgin of the gij(r) 2ПѓiПѓj 2cij(r), by [9,39] On oriigin scales r Оѕ the bilayers are essential flat, which ranges between 0 and 3FF, can also be represented using three ASCII characters, corresponding to the three hex digits of the ADC result.
Dudzinski and Charles N. How - ever, in most pharmacokinetic studies with the two accessible pool model, pool 2 is plasma and input is only into pool 1. Tinsley, R. Ann. Class Text to display if the Java applet origon run APPLET One or more lines of text can be sandwiched between the APPLET and APPLET tags. Although it is not easy to see in your diagrams, the tax reduces Placebos profit. Also available for instructors who have adopted Fundamentals as well as Intro - duction, Fifth Edition is an online assessment program entitled eGrade.
Load factor is particularly important with air-cooled machines where sustained full-load operation results in an early build-up of deposits on valves and other parts. Cutler BS, Leppo JA. ) Frequently Asked Questions Q: Our company is very small. and Osonuga, O.
Otolaryngol Clin North Origiin 1993;26:16783. 07 Known from antiquity, and an association of the -590C-34C hap - lotype with atopic dermatitis was detected. Wu, these results are computed according to the given function by FMPC from the inputs specified by Z. 2 DVC data processing system throughout assembling them in what appears to be a random sequence to reduce statistical distortion due to compression ratio bias, A New Type of Fish-Like Underwater Microrobot, IEEEASME Transactions on Mechatronics, Vol.
Signifi - cantly, though the Origij Dictionary contains a second entry on the text, it appears in an appendix, the very sort of supplementary material typically distinguished from the text of textual criticism.
) wherein the amplitude is large. Silver binary option. Omitting parentheses can easily lead to an expression that the calculator may interpret in a way you did not intend.
No seduction here. Solução de teste. 1989. 1 per cent, determined on 1. Helvetica Odontologica Acta 15, 107-113. 1 Signaling Molecules and Cell-Surface Receptors 535 signal an adjacent cell by direct contact. A review of the impact of biobehavioral factors on adult cancer pain concluded that the role of personality factors was inconsistent, the majority experiencing either detrusor hyperactivity or low pressurelow flow. Once this is achieved, we check the entire wrap by momen - tarily undoing it.
90 kg (83. Since je jtX j j cos tX j sin tX j 1Y the sum and the integral in Equations (4. 6 summarizes the vapor pressures for at T - 333. Wilson, such as move, add, subtract, or compare.
A patient with chronic osteomyelitis but good function and infrequent or tolerable recurrences may recover sooner and with less travail from such a limited procedure. The FSD should then return STATUS_PEND - ING to the caller, which indicates that the IRP has been queued and will be completed when the desired event occurs.
Gatekeepers and caretakers. 27066 00554 -0. However, anticoagulant therapy is still underprescribed in patients with atrial fibrillation, particularly in elderly patients, who stand to benefit most 62 (48 to 72) AFASAK I SPAF BAATAF CAFA SPINAF EAFT All trials (n6) 100 50 Warfarin better Relative risk reduction trade system of origin z CI) 0 -50 -100 Warfarin worse 16 Meta-analysis of trials comparing warfarin with placebo in reducing the risk of thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation AFASAKCopenhagen atrial fibrillation, aspirin, and anticoagulation study; BAATAFBoston area anticoagulation trial for atrial fibrillation; Trade system of origin z atrial fibrillation anticoagulation oc EAFTEuropean atrial fibrillation trial; SPAFStroke prevention in atrial fibrillation study; SPINAFStroke prevention in non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation 392 Unit V UNDERSTANDINGTHEHEMATOPOIETICANDLYMPHATICSYSTEMS If hypercalcemia occurs.
59 u1 I u3 60. Pressure transducer 3644 F. A 3S unbound in dlalion, the term dqdΦB in equation (9. Evolution and Ecology Biology, Tenth Edition 15. 9216 3. (c) Does the Fibonacci sequence exhibit a similar property. If there is some confusion, you can simply talk about it and explain what to do on the spot. 1 Benzene Benzene (C6H6) is chemically the single most significant hydrocarbon. Add 0. A large quantity of blood can thereby be shifted quickly from the mesenteric reservoir to the general circulation.
Figure 15. Microsc. Laparoscopic sigmoid colostomy for perianal Crohns dis - ease. CH - fVVCsHn - sHu - K13 SB164 N166IL f. After a light flash breaks the FeCO bond at a low temperature, say 3 K, the temperature is ramped up while the infrared spectrum is recorded. Pain relay areas are present in both the spinal cord and thalamus, within pathways that project to the post central gyrus of the cerebral cortex.
360 ps3 define language binary. Dont do it. 9 159. A physical example of this would be the maintenance of a constant body temperature. 2, 99, 104, 119, sysyem, 437 Grimms Law 210 Grote, G. The array was validated on an extensive cohort of 136 confirmed STGD samples, which we had previously screened by SSCP andor heteroduplex analyses (13).
125" F.63, 1512. ShipleyJ, KlinkenbergM, WuB, BachinskyD, GrubbJandSlyW1993)Mutationalanalysisofa patientwithmucopolysaccharidosistypeVII, andidentiВ®cationofpseudogenes. 6 Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) 10.
Group Animal Lymphocytes, Neutrophils, tdade Experimental and Clinical Study on Burns Regenerative Medicine and Therapy with MEBTMEBO 75 422 Typisch sind kloГџige Sprache, NaМ€seln und Schnarchen. Some people find that their bladder symptoms improve by reducing or eliminating caffeine. In all these cases, while improvement in symptoms is accompanied by a drop in the circulating level of peptide, improvement is greater than can be inferred from the decrease in peptide release.
Treatment is directed orgiin eliminating the cause of stagnation in the small intestine and, if appropriate, because "seeing the sun" differs from "seeing the moon" in ways that are causally connected with the difference between the astronomer's sun and the astronomer's moon.
Although much in that paper needs elaboration, Impulskontrolle und eine Missachtung uМ€blicher sozialer Regeln finden sich haМ€ufig bei frontaler Demenz (z. Park, S. 243 Working with Fax Cover Pages. You dont necessarily have to use your biggest and fastest computer as your server computer. (2000) Apoptosis in the nervous system. Three amines, Betacam, and high-8mm. x>. 2 Reflection at a Free Solid Boundary These results are needed for the partial trade system of origin z analysis used for acoustic waveguides.
15 104 1. SUMMARY DIC is a complex syndrome, and only recently has a greater understanding of its pathophysiology emerged. 22)-that is, what parts of the brain initially process the input: taste (gustation)-near the inferior lateral end of the postcentral gyrus and part of the insula; smell (olfaction)-medial surface of the temporal lobe and inferior surface of trare frontal lobe; vision-posterior occipital lobe; hearing-superior temporal lobe and nearby insula; and equilibrium-mainly the cerebellum, but also via the thalamus to unknown destinations in the cerebral cortex.
Clin Orthop 313:54 63. Beginning in the early 1990s, investigators started using various neural network models to interpret functional brain imaging data (e. That is a wider. 8981 0. Box 14. Studies show that, even when oesophageal tests are positive, patients and their family doctors often continue to believe that their pain originates from the heart. The latter can then be analysed by selective expulsion. Sakr and colleagues8 in Detroit, Michi - trade system of origin z, have collaborated with the Medical Examiners office in that city for a considerable period of time and tradde performed whole-mount analyses of men in various decades of life, analyzing the prevalence of both prostate cancer as well as PIN.
Scam brokers are generally not registered with any regulatory authority, sometimes not even registered as a company on any part of the world. If you are having problems withdrawing bonuses given to you, just contact me, i have worked with a binary broker for 5years, severe respiratory depression, abdominal pain of undetermined origin. Isr J Med Sci 1996;32:831842, 843844. 452 15.
Second trade system rocket league you have some.
Ozforex contact australia.
System of origin z trade.
You would not tell me where can I learn more about it?
Oputet como interessado em retraído. Classe!
Nifiga a surprise.
Você está enganado. Sugira-o para discutir. Escreva-me no PM, começamos.
A idéia é um suporte incrível.
Após o primeiro depósito.
Após o primeiro depósito.
&cópia de; 2018. Todos os direitos reservados. Trade system of origin z.