Trade Agreements Act China

The Trade Agreements Act (TAA) was created to promote fair international trade with certain designated countries. Companies that work with foreign-made products or services need to know which companies are limited to comply with the TAA and GSA. The U.S. government was required to procure only products and services manufactured in the United States or finished products from TAA-dependent countries. The tribunal found that, under the ABA, domestic finished goods were subsumed into the categories of products that could be purchased under the TA clause and that products “made in the United States” could be purchased under the clause, regardless of the source of the underlying components and ingredients, even if they were not significantly converted to the United States or a privileged foreign country. According to the TAA, “substantial transformation” is the test intended to determine the country of origin of a product and its right to waive the BAA preference for domestic products. As a result, the decision eliminates the anomaly of favouring domestic products over ineligible foreign products when other trade agreement clauses are used and prohibiting the purchase of these same products in contracts above the threshold of the TA clause. However, the TAA does not limit foreign trade outside the scope of federal procurement. This means that you cannot freely sell TAA-compliant products in the commercial market. The Trade Agreements Act 1979 (TAA), Pub.L.

96-39, 93 Stat. 144, promulgated July 26, 1979, codified as 19 U.S.C ch. 13 (19 U.S.C§ 2501-2581), is an Act of Congress that governs trade agreements negotiated between the United States and other countries pursuant to the Trade Act of 1974. It provided modalities for the implementation of the Tokyo Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The three arguments focused on the fundamental question of whether the TA clause pre-takes account of domestic finished products. In this regard, the applicant stated that the FAR Council, beginning with the first iterations of the FAR in 1983, expressly intended to implement both baa and taa, and not just the TAA, and to require equitable consideration of domestic finished products and designated domestic products. The Claimant found that the former General Services Board of Contract Appeals (GSBCA) issued a decision in International Business Machines, GSBCA No. 10532-P, 90-2 BCA ¶ 22.824, which stated that the TAA prohibited the United States from totally excluding a third category of products beyond domestic finished products and from designating domestic (foreign) products permitted by the TA clause in force at the time – those that were not domestic finished products, but were nevertheless widely converted in the United States.

. . .