According to the World Trade Organization, all nations are equal relating to business operations (Mo, 2003). Every nation has a right to import and export its products without any restrictions. The Shuzeiho law taxes all liquor depending on its type. The country has ten groups of liquors. The tax law in Japan has less strict regulation regarding some kinds of liquor while putting more pressure on other groups through tax regulation. In this regard, the law requires Shochu and its liquor group to pay smaller tax as compared to vodka and other imported liquors. In fact, vodka and its group is taxed seven to eight percent more than the other groups. This contributes to unfair conditions for the liquor to sell at the same prices. More importantly, it discourages importation of liquor that is manufactured outside the country while promoting the internally manufactured liquor. Being a member of the WTO Japan should be ready to comply with the existing laws to remove all trade barriers so that other nations can get access to the market and sell their goods at a relatively lower price. The WTO should give Japan a date to comply or place some sanctions on its business operations. This will trigger reactions from the country’s top governing institutions. The Tobacco act of 1986 prohibited imports of all types of tobacco except those from the Director-general of the Exercise Department. Several government monopolies tried to import cigarettes but then failed to fulfill the importation target. This has left a gap in cigarette importation to Malaysia causing great concerns about the import of cigarettes to the nation. Although the government does not allow importation of cigarettes, it is important to note that there are different means for dealing with the situation rather than providing licenses to people or groups who are unable to achieve importation targets. If the country fails to import cigarettes from other nations it will make the rest of the nations fail to import goods from Malaysia due to the unfairness of importing cigarettes from the developed nations
Import Duties: Classification, Valuation and Country of Origin
Tottering would be able to import doll wigs from Argentina at an acceptable level of duty. First of all this is because no firm in the US is able to produce a wig manufactured from real hair. The management of Tottering will probably purchase from Argentina because purchasing the wigs from the local markets will imply that the company sells the dolls at prices above $99. This price is high and might scare away customers. The complete package from the domestic markets would cost over $100 considering the price of the doll and wigs. Importing wigs will also bring advantages to the company because it will be able to sell wigs separately from the dolls. The supplying firm in Argentina that Tottering has found produces high quality products. In addition, the inventor of wigs, who is US resident and an ex-employee of Tottering, has allowed Tottering to pay royalties to him instead of the firm in Argentina. This will ultimately lower the price of the imported wigs thus increasing profit margins.
Based on the information above, analyze whether WasherWear could prevail in a proceeding under the U.S. antidumping law, addressing the questions of both dumping and injury.
WasherWear will not prevail against the Japanese manufactures under the US antidumping law because the Japanese manufacturers are not producing and marketing low standard goods to the US market. In fact, WasherWear has noted that the reason why the Japanese manufacturers are selling the products at lower prices in US compared to their domestic market is the lack of competitors in their country (Ziegel & Lerner, 2009).
What additional information, if any, should WasherWear seek out before initiating a proceeding?
WasherWear should consider information such as whether Japanese manufacturers are getting subsidy for exporting the washing machines to other countries. This can be a cause for selling at lowered prices.
What would be the implications if the Japanese were to move their manufacturing to Mexico or China?
If Japanese manufacturers shifted their production facilities to Mexico or China, the prices of their products would decrease because the transportation costs including the shipping costs and inland transportation would become lower. WasherWear would probably drop their antidumping proceedings against the company.
Subsidies and Countervailing Duties
Yes, there is a sufficient basis for the US carbon black firms to raise the countervailing duty case against the two companies BC Corporation and the other Mexican exporter. This is because although the Mexican authorities allowed PEMEX to sell the feedstock at a subsidized price, it had not considered its effects to other producers of carbon black. Mexican authorities should have considered the injuries caused to other carbon black producers and the consequences that would follow should the US authorities enforce the safeguard agreement act (Griswold, 2008). This would be punitive to the carbon black producers in Mexico. Additional aspect that can be considered in the analysis of the issue is discrimination. There was some form of discrimination because although there were several other carbon black producers in Mexico, only two of the companies benefited from the subsidy.
WTO should determine whether imports were causing injury to the domestic producers before ruling the EU/US challenge to Brazil’s decision. The claim by the Brazilian authorities that foreign imports of footwear from EU was causing serious harm to the domestic producers is valid and permissible under the safeguard rules and stipulations. This is because imported footwear had saturated the Brazilian market forcing the domestic producers to incur losses in terms of lost revenue (Griswold, 2008). WTO, however, should verify whether the increased imports were specifically causing harm to the domestic producers or this harm was a result of other factors. If Brazilian authorities provided justification that the damage to the domestic market was a consequence of the imports, the WTO would enforce the Safeguards Agreement and hike the import duty to control the imports (Ziegel & Lerner, 2009).
Assembly Plant Tariff Treatment: NAFTA and SECTION 9802
Ford in this case should not receive the tariff allowance as it requested because the painting process in their assembly was not just a minor operation incidental to the assembly process but a major one. The painting process was a major process in the assembly that involved cleaning and spraying with protection chemicals composed of zinc phosphate compounds. They further submerged the metal sheet into an electrodeposition primer tank baked, sanded, treated with a sealant, and then baked again. This shows that the procedure is intensive and is valid under the Regulations Section 9802 (Griswold, 2008). The process for which Ford claims to receive an allowance is thus not valid because it fails to meet any of the requirements stipulated by the statute. Although the cost of the painting process is high, this does not warrant an allowance because it is a part of their assembly process.
Under the export control rules a firm should acquire the appropriate export for the intended product (Ziegel & Lerner, 2009). John and Marissa would probably lose the trading opportunity should they proceed to acquire the appropriate export license to ship computers to HK Engineering in Hong Kong. However, they should proceed and acquire the license. Exporting the computers under the name of refrigerator parts for which they have a license would be a breach of the export control rules. In this case, it is not relevant for John and Marissa that HK Engineering would acquire the intended computers from a non-US producer. The previous trade deals between HK Engineering and John and Marissa are of no relevance in this case. This is because the deals did not involve computers. Moreover, John and Marissa were not licensed to export computers but refrigerator parts.