Trade Cases
USMCA Implementation Not Likely Before July
Written by Sandy Williams
April 9, 2020
Implementation of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, the replacement for NAFTA, is now likely to occur July 1, possibly with portions of the agreement subject to a transition period.
Canada and Mexico have completed their entry-into-force notifications and the U.S. is expected to submit its notice soon. Procedure rules dictate that the agreement will go into effect three months after the last country submits its notification. The July 1 date is a month later than the Trump administration had hoped, but attempts at moving the date to June 1 were met with pushback from concerned parties.
Auto industry groups have requested more time to comply with the new rules-of-origin measures in the USMCA. The COVID-19 crisis has complicated the issue by causing the shutdown of automotive plants in North America as well as refocusing government attention from the agreement to fighting the pandemic.
The president of the Mexican auto industry says that it will take more than 90 days to make supply chain adaptations to meet the new origin requirements. Director Fausto Cuevas has asked for rules-of-origin implementation to be delayed until January 2021.
Mexican Undersecretary for Foreign Trade Luz María de la Mora said he could see a scenario where the agreement enters into force with a transition period allowed for the automotive sector.
“We have put this issue on the table many times, but unfortunately this is not a Mexican decision. This is a trilateral decision,” said de la Mora. “If there were to be flexibility on the part of the U.S. and Canada, we’re more than happy to do that.”
Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI) and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley have urged the U.S. Trade Representative to delay the entry-into-force.
“We, a lot of people on my committee, see that [early date] as being a major problem, particularly for the supply chain for automobiles, and we’re asking for a later starting date,” Grassley told reporters on a conference call. “And I think that Lighthizer believes he doesn’t have leverage if he delays it, particularly on agriculture…. [But] we haven’t heard those sorts of concerns from agriculture.”
During a webinar on Monday focusing on trade during the COVID-19 emergency, Dingell said a delay of USMCA is necessary.
“We are — and I can’t believe that I myself am saying this — probably going to have to postpone some of the implementation of the NAFTA 2.0 because we have devastated the supplier base, but we can’t do it for a long period of time,” she said.
Sandy Williams
Read more from Sandy WilliamsLatest in Trade Cases
Leibowitz: With ‘reciprocal’ tariffs struck down again in court, what happens next?
President Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Policy Act (IEEPA) were struck down again, this time on Aug. 29 by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). The legal and policy mess continues, with the next stop being the US Supreme Court.
Market unfazed by US circuit court’s IEEPA decision
Repealing any reciprocal tariffs placed by President Donald Trump on US imports of direct reduced iron (DRI), iron ore, hot-briquetted iron (HBI), and pig iron would have only a nominal impact on the US steel market, market participants said.
ITC votes to keep HR duties after sunset review
The US government determined this week that hot-rolled steel imports from a handful of countries continue to threaten the domestic steel industry.
Steel Summit: Zekelman advocates for ‘Fortress North America’
Barry Zekelman has a unique vantage point from which to view today’s trade landscape. A Canadian national who owns operations in both the US and Canada, he has also had dialogue with both Canadian and American administrations.
Steel Summit: Execs urge clarity on trade/tariff policy, want stronger USMCA
Tariff policy dominated the discussion of the SMU Steel Summit trade panel on Tuesday afternoon. The message was clear: uncertainty is rattling the steel supply chain.