208:
171:
313:", and that NAFTA contained no definition of "like product" to contradict this understanding. The US further argued that even if the tribunal were to accept the WTO understanding of "like product", WTO had been inconsistent in its interpretation of the term, and had itself conceded that the interpretation of "like product" was "to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and always involve 'an unavoidable element of individual discretionary judgment
336:
include products that "though not 'like' the imported product, are nonetheless commercially interchangeable or substitutable for it". In this case, that would have meant "US-made plastic brooms were 'like' the imported broomcorn brooms under investigation", and therefore the impact of US imports of
Mexican broomcorn brooms had a negligible effect on the overall US broom market.
216:
the new duty-free provisions. In July 1996 the ITC ruled that there was material harm to the cornbrooms manufacturers and they were entitled to relief in both petitions. In August 1996 the ITC sent its report to the US President. On 28 November 1996, following the recommendations laid out in the ITC report, President
327:
Mexico argued that the NAFTA tribunal did have jurisdiction in this case, largely because
Articles 802, 803.3, and 805 adopted much of the WTO and GATT language regarding "like products", even if they weren't phrased identically. They also noted that Article 2005(1) "generally gives parties the right
242:
NAFTA arbitration tribunals under
Chapter 20 were convened when negotiations failed to resolve an ongoing dispute. Such a tribunal consisted of five members drawn from a list of "30 individuals who are willing and able to serve as panelists" maintained by each member nation. Potential panelists were
194:
From 1 January 1994, following the signing of NAFTA, US tariffs on broomcorn brooms were set at the following rate: all brooms worth less than 96 cents were duty-free, the first 100,000 dozen worth 96 cents or more were duty-free, and imports in excess of this figure were to be subject to a duty of
215:
In March 1996 the US Cornbrooms Task Force, an industry interest group, submitted two petitions to the US International Trade Court (ITC) – one under the Trade Act of 1974 and one under NAFTA – to allege serious injury as a result of rapidly increasing imports of broomcorn brooms from Mexico under
335:
Mexico also argued that, because the GATT principles were already present at least in intent in
Articles 802, 803.3, and 805, the definition of "like product" should be interpreted as it had been interpreted by WTO and GATT. Mexico cited several cases wherein "like product" was defined broadly to
358:
the preponderance of existing GATT and WTO cases adhered to the definition of "like products" put forward by Mexico, and the market the US should have considered when deciding the appropriateness of tariffs was the overall broom market, not solely the broomcorn brooms produced by US farmers. The
304:
The US argued that the NAFTA tribunal did not have jurisdiction in the dispute, as the term "like product" did not appear word for word in NAFTA, and that while both the US and Mexico were signatories to GATT and members of WTO, the tribunal was not empowered by WTO and therefore did not have
233:
On 11 December 1996, at the request of Mexico and in keeping with
Article 2006(4) of NAFTA, the NAFTA Free Trade Commission (FTC) convened to negotiate an agreement between Mexico and the US. On 12 December 1996, Mexico complicated negotiations by imposing retaliatory tariffs amounting to an
332:". Finally, Mexico noted that Article 2005(6) required that once either a NAFTA or GATT dispute settlement method was chosen, another could not be engaged to resolve the dispute, so agreement by the US to FTC negotiation had precluded Mexico's ability to arbitrate the case under WTO.
354:
it ultimately had jurisdiction both because of the similarity between
Article 4.1 of GATT and Article 803.3 of NAFTA and because the US had engaged in Article 2005 negotiations with Mexico in the FTC, thus recognizing NAFTA as an appropriate structure within which to arbitrate this
247:
have expertise or experience in law, international trade, other matters covered by this
Agreement or the resolution of disputes arising under international trade agreements, and shall be chosen strictly on the basis of objectivity, reliability and sound
234:
estimated $ 1.4 million cost to the US economy. After the requisite 30 days of negotiation had elapsed and no agreement had been reached, Mexico asked on 14 January 1997, that an arbitration tribunal be organized under the rules set out in
Article 2008.
368:
The US, hoping for favorable solutions to other, concurrent, NAFTA cases it faced against Mexico, complied quickly with the ruling of the tribunal and withdrew the tariffs. Mexico followed with the withdrawal of its retaliatory tariffs.
308:
Following this same line of argument, the US argued that the "word 'like', while not synonymous with the word 'identical', did call for a greater degree of similarity than is commonly associated with the
English word
278:
Rather than sending litigants to argue their cases before the tribunal, parties to a NAFTA arbitration submitted written arguments for review. For both parties the arguments hinged on two significant points:
39:"IN THE MATTER OF THE U.S. SAFEGUARD ACTION TAKEN ON BROOM CORN BROOMS FROM MEXICO" was a case brought before the NAFTA Free Trade Commission by the Mexican government, citing the US as respondent.
350:
The tribunal ultimately sided with Mexico on both substantive points and required the US to take immediate steps to right the tariff imbalance. Specifically the NAFTA tribunal ruled that:
328:
to initiate dispute settlement either in GATT or in NAFTA whenever a dispute involves a matter 'arising under both this
Agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
515:
458:
359:
industry in question was therefore not at risk of serious harm from imports of Mexican broomcorn brooms and the new tariffs were not justified.
178:
In 1965 the US charged the following tariffs on broomcorn brooms to countries with most-favored-nation (MFN) status: 121,478 dozen at 8%
378:
31:, which eventually decided in Mexico's favor. It was one of only three cases to be decided under the provisions of Chapter 20 of NAFTA.
383:
305:
jurisdiction in disputes originating from WTO. Therefore, Mexico ought to have taken the case directly to WTO rather than NAFTA.
520:
243:"appointed by consensus for terms of three years, and may be reappointed." Article 2009 provided that these panelists:
496:
207:
459:
https://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/Home/Dispute-Settlement/Overview-of-the-Dispute-Settlement-Provisions#chap20
170:
220:
issued Proclamation 6961, imposing a three-year tariff increase on certain broomcorn imports.
473:"NAFTA - Chapter 20 Part 1." Foreign Trade Information System. Accessed October 27, 2018.
457:"Overview of the Dispute Settlement Provisions." NAFTA. 2014. Accessed October 27, 2018.
419:
O’Connor, Paul, Raymundo Enriquez, Dionisio Kaye, John H. Barton, and Robert E. Hudec.
251:
be independent of, and not be affiliated with or take instructions from, any Party; and
509:
182:, and additional brooms at 32 cents each (for brooms under 96 cents in value) or 32%
474:
217:
421:
IN THE MATTER OF THE U.S. SAFEGUARD ACTION TAKEN ON BROOM CORN BROOMS FROM MEXICO
199:
from 1994 to 1999, a duty of 16% from 2000 to 2004, and duty-free after 2004.
497:
https://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/Home/Dispute-Settlement/Decisions-and-Reports
211:
A table describing broomcorn production in several states from 1932 to 1933.
24:
27:
brooms Mexico requested dispute settlement from an arbitration tribunal of
433:
20:
486:
Japan — Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, WT/DS8/AB/R (1996) at page 21.
270:: Raymundo Enriquez, Dionisio Kaye, John H. Barton, Robert E. Hudec
286:
The legal definition of the term "like product" as established in
258:
In accordance with these guidelines, five arbiters were selected:
206:
28:
495:"Decisions and Reports." NAFTA. 2014. Accessed October 27, 2018.
254:
comply with a code of conduct to be established by the Commission
287:
291:
283:
Did the tribunal have legitimate jurisdiction in this case?
23:
in 1996. In response to the US action, chief exporter of
294:
provisions and incorporated in Article 308.3 of NAFTA.
52:
NAFTA Arbitration Tribunal convened under Chapter 20
434:"So Where is the Broomcorn Capital of the World?"
19:became specifically subject to an increase in US
475:http://www.sice.oas.org/Trade/NAFTA/chap-201.asp
108:the US imposed tariffs in violation of NAFTA
8:
169:
41:
395:
153:Article 3.1 of the WTO Safeguards Code
106:By improperly defining "Like Product"
186:(for those worth 96 cents and over).
7:
469:
467:
415:
413:
411:
409:
407:
405:
403:
401:
399:
229:Meeting of the Free Trade Commission
93:NAFTA Free Trade Commission meeting
516:North American Free Trade Agreement
379:North American Free Trade Agreement
66:IN THE MATTER OF THE U.S. SAFEGUARD
17:Brooms manufactured from broomcorn
14:
70:ACTION TAKEN ON BROOM CORN BROOMS
423:. PDF. NAFTA Secretariat, 2014.
384:Mexico–United States relations
1:
364:Responses of the party states
346:The NAFTA tribunal's decision
35:The Broom Corn Brooms Dispute
174:A Broomcorn harvest in 1907.
203:U.S. Safeguards proceedings
537:
238:Convening of the tribunal
150:
145:
118:
113:
105:
100:
57:Decided January 30, 1998
56:
51:
46:
345:
190:NAFTA tariff obligations
274:Submission of arguments
521:International disputes
212:
175:
151:NAFTA Annex 803.3(12)
210:
173:
322:The Mexican argument
438:Baca County History
224:The dispute process
43:
213:
176:
161:Factual background
95:December 11, 1996
47:BROOM CORN BROOMS
42:
166:Pre-NAFTA tariffs
158:
157:
130:Raymundo Enriquez
114:Court membership
528:
500:
493:
487:
484:
478:
471:
462:
455:
449:
448:
446:
445:
430:
424:
417:
331:
316:
312:
264:: Paul O'Connor
44:
536:
535:
531:
530:
529:
527:
526:
525:
506:
505:
504:
503:
494:
490:
485:
481:
472:
465:
456:
452:
443:
441:
432:
431:
427:
418:
397:
392:
375:
366:
348:
343:
329:
324:
314:
310:
301:
299:The US argument
276:
240:
231:
226:
205:
192:
168:
163:
139:Robert E. Hudec
85:USA-97-2008-01
62:Full case name
37:
12:
11:
5:
534:
532:
524:
523:
518:
508:
507:
502:
501:
488:
479:
463:
450:
425:
394:
393:
391:
388:
387:
386:
381:
374:
371:
365:
362:
361:
360:
356:
347:
344:
342:
339:
338:
337:
333:
323:
320:
319:
318:
306:
300:
297:
296:
295:
284:
275:
272:
256:
255:
252:
249:
239:
236:
230:
227:
225:
222:
204:
201:
191:
188:
167:
164:
162:
159:
156:
155:
148:
147:
143:
142:
141:
140:
137:
136:John H. Barton
134:
131:
128:
125:
122:
116:
115:
111:
110:
103:
102:
98:
97:
91:
90:Prior history
87:
86:
83:
79:
78:
63:
59:
58:
54:
53:
49:
48:
36:
33:
21:import tariffs
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
533:
522:
519:
517:
514:
513:
511:
498:
492:
489:
483:
480:
476:
470:
468:
464:
460:
454:
451:
439:
435:
429:
426:
422:
416:
414:
412:
410:
408:
406:
404:
402:
400:
396:
389:
385:
382:
380:
377:
376:
372:
370:
363:
357:
353:
352:
351:
341:Final outcome
340:
334:
326:
325:
321:
307:
303:
302:
298:
293:
289:
285:
282:
281:
280:
273:
271:
269:
265:
263:
259:
253:
250:
246:
245:
244:
237:
235:
228:
223:
221:
219:
209:
202:
200:
198:
189:
187:
185:
181:
172:
165:
160:
154:
149:
146:Laws applied
144:
138:
135:
133:Dionisio Kaye
132:
129:
126:
124:Paul O’Connor
123:
120:
119:
117:
112:
109:
104:
99:
96:
92:
89:
88:
84:
81:
80:
77:
76:
72:
71:
67:
64:
61:
60:
55:
50:
45:
40:
34:
32:
30:
26:
22:
18:
491:
482:
453:
442:. Retrieved
440:. 2014-12-31
437:
428:
420:
367:
349:
277:
267:
266:
261:
260:
257:
241:
232:
214:
196:
193:
183:
179:
177:
152:
107:
94:
82:Docket nos.
74:
73:
69:
68:
65:
38:
16:
15:
75:FROM MEXICO
510:Categories
444:2018-10-27
390:References
197:ad valorem
184:ad valorem
180:ad valorem
248:judgment;
25:broomcorn
373:See also
309:'similar
268:Arbiters
127:Arbiters
101:Holding
218:Clinton
355:issue.
195:22.4%
262:Chief
121:Chief
29:NAFTA
290:and
288:GATT
292:WTO
512::
466:^
436:.
398:^
317:".
499:.
477:.
461:.
447:.
330:'
315:'
311:'
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
