Mexican tariffs Archives - Shopfloor

Cross-Border Trucking, the Opportunities, the Lawsuits

By | Briefly Legal, General, Trade, Transportation | One Comment

The 30-day comment period ended Friday for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s proposed rules to put into effect the long-delayed cross-border Mexican trucking program required under the North American Free Trade Agreement. (Docket: FMCSA-2011-0097).

The Riverside (Calif.) Press-Enterprise offered a thorough report on the issue, albeit with a headline one can argue over, “Cross-border trucking and tariffs — hard to balance.” To exporters of agricultural and manufactured goods, it doesn’t seem that hard at all. The tariffs tilted the scales heavily in a bad direction, and enacting the cross-border trucking program restores the balance.

Much of the effect in California has been on agricultural products, including dates, table grapes, lettuce and other crops grown in eastern Riverside County. Dave Kranz, a spokesman for the California Farm Bureau, said the tariff on table grapes, as high as 45 percent initially, cost growers 70 percent of their Mexican market.

Doug Goudie, director of international trade policy for the National Association of Manufacturers, said adding on that kind of tariff drives away customers and damages American producers. Goudie said he knows of one Mexican firm that is buying potato products grown in Canada, which he said was absurd because the products had to move through the U.S. to get to the destination.

“If you have to add 25 cents to every dollar for everything you’re trying to sell, pretty soon a Chinese or a Canadian product looks a lot better,” Goudie said.

Once the program is place, there will be more economic activity on both sides of the border. Increased opportunity, investment and wealth means trial lawyers will follow with bogus, hyped, shakedown lawsuits. (Where have we seen that before?) The American Association for Justice, the trial lawyer lobby, is setting the stage for litigation with its comments to the FMCSA, described in a news release, “Mexican-Based Trucks Should Carry Adequate Insurance: NAFTA Trucking Provisions Lack Protections for Motorists Injured in Accidents.

The important thing for the U.S. plaintiffs’ lawyers is to get their assertion on record that the insurance requirements are inadequate. Personal injury attorneys can then point to their regulatory submission to broaden the targets of their litigation from Mexican operators/insurers to more deep-pocket U.S. companies.

Cross-Border Trucking Plan Boosts Manufacturing Exports to Mexico

By | Infrastructure, Regulations, Trade | One Comment

We can’t say the Mexican trucking dispute is over, but we can now say that, at last, the end appears to be in sight. Almost two years after Mexico imposed retaliatory tariffs on billions of dollars of American manufactured goods exports, the Obama Administration has released a long-awaited “Concept Document” that provides a foundation that, if it can be successfully turned into a mutually acceptable proposal, will lead to compliance with our NAFTA commitments and the removal of Mexico’s retaliatory tariffs on billions of dollars of U.S. exports.

While release of the interagency document is an excellent development and very good news, we are not out of the woods just yet. It will take substantial effort on the part of the Obama Administration and Congress to work through the concepts in this proposal and create a final agreement acceptable to all parties. Public comments will be solicited. And, of course, the Mexican government will need to be an integral part of any agreement. A solution will need to ensure that Mexican and American cross-border trucking takes place in a manner similar to the existing cross-border trucking that has existed between the United States and Canada. The good news is that a successful solution will speed commerce and increase productivity and efficiency in supply chains.

But only after a final agreement is reached and we are compliant with our NAFTA commitments will the tariffs be removed. And Mexico’s retaliatory tariffs have had an significant impact on a wide variety of industrial sectors across the entire country. For two years, manufacturers around the United States have faced these retaliatory tariffs on their exports to Mexico. As a result, our competitors from Canada, Latin America, China and elsewhere have had an opportunity to increase their market share in Mexico at our expense. We need to move swiftly toward a solution so the tariffs can be eliminated.

Still, we appreciate the efforts put forth by the Administration in its interagency process to develop and release this concept document. The proposal released today will form the basis on which discussions between the United States and Mexico (with input from Congress and a public comment period) will take place. We strongly encourage all parties involved to buckle up, buckle down and get moving. Every day that passes means unnecessary barriers to American exports remain in place.

Department of Transportation release, “U.S. Cross-Border Trucking Effort Emphasizes Safety and Efficiency

The Impact of Mexican Tariffs on U.S. Manufacturing, Agriculture

By | General, Infrastructure, Trade | 2 Comments

Following up Monday’s announcement that the Mexican government would be “carousel-ing” some of the products targeted for retaliation under the cross-border trucking case, the official revised list was published this morning – and the new tariffs will take effect later this week.

The total value of the exports targeted by these tariffs is more than $2 billion in 2009 – which, you will note, was one of the worst years for American exports in a long time, given the impact of the recession. Based on 2008 figures, the value would be more than $2.5 billion.

In this spreadsheet we have highlighted the new products, the associated dollar value of Mexico’s imports from the U.S. for 2009, and listed the tariff percentage.

The biggest impact comes in new agricultural and processed food products. Manufacturing in America embraces many different sectors of production, and one of the largest and most important is the food processing industry. Here, we have seen the Mexican government impose tariffs of 10-20 percent on products like chocolate, ketchup, chewing gum and cheese — all products of the manufacturing sector, made in American factories by American workers.

At the same time, we see new tariffs imposed on other manufactured goods, including industrial polishes, adhesives, trench diggers, rubber gloves, floor coverings, stainless steel containers, and gas masks.

While the NAM is pleased to see a number of industrial products removed from the revised list – including carpets, telephones, metal furniture, and various paper products – the list of manufactured goods facing tariffs as a result of the Obama Administration’s lack of progress on resolving the cross-border trucking dispute remains long. Mexican school children will be paying more for their education this fall, given that printed exercise books, paints, ballpoint pens and pencils are on the list, facing 15 percent duties. Also still on the list are key home products like refrigerators, coffeemakers and dishwashers; consumer goods like toothpaste, deodorants, aftershave, and suntan lotion (and toilet paper); home furnishing goods including curtain rods and desks, and industrial goods including gas filtering machines.

All in all, it’s a cornucopia of American-made products facing punitive tariffs in Mexico this week. Not just manufacturing but farmers will feel the pain as well – the significant addition of pork, apples, oranges, sweet corn and grapefruits total well over $700 million in U.S. exports. But manufactured goods are hit, and hit hard. And hit just as hard are the American factory workers who make these products – most of which have a significant export market in Mexico, our second largest trading partner.

It’s past time to fix this problem and get our goods moving back over the border that we made duty-free in 1994 with NAFTA.

U.S. Manufacturing Affected by Mexico’s Retaliatory Tariffs

By | Infrastructure, Trade | One Comment

From Bloomberg, “Mexico Puts Tariffs on Some U.S. Pork Cuts in Truck Program Retaliation“:

Mexico will impose import tariffs on some U.S. pork cuts, ketchup, cheeses, sweetcorn and some fruits because of the U.S. government’s failure to restore a program allowing Mexican trucks to operate north of the border, the nation’s official gazette said.

The list includes a tariff of 5 percent on some cuts of pork and as much as 25 percent on fresh white cheese, according to the notice. Onions, apples, pears, oranges, cherries, soy sauce, mineral water and sunglasses are also on the list.

Mexico’s official gazette lists all the products in Spanish. Media reports focus on the agricultural and retail products because consumers/readers can easily grasp the impact. The economic on manufactured goods could be as great or greater, however. Here’s Google’s translation of part of the list, including the percentage tariffs applied. Most of it reflects the original list of products announced in March 2009.

 We note the addition of heavy machinery, such as trenchers (8429.59.01), hit with a 15 percent tariff.  That’s a big ticket item which other countries such as Canada are more than eager to supply.


In Seattle, a Topic Not Addressed: Cross-Border Trucking

By | Infrastructure, Trade | No Comments

Surprisingly, this week’s hot issue of retaliatory tariffs imposed by Mexico against U.S. farmers and manufacturers appears not to have been mentioned during the President’s trip to Seattle on Tuesday. At least the issue does not appear in any of the public comments.

Washington State agricultural producers have lost millions of dollars worth of sales because of Mexico’s tariffs against U.S. products imposed in retaliation for U.S. refusal to establish the cross-border trucking program required by NAFTA. Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), for whom President Obama raised campaign funds on Tuesday, is leading the Congressional call for resolving the dispute.

Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, the former Governor of Washington, was also on hand.

But nothing in any of the public comments we see.

Well, maybe the issue arose in private conversations.

Earlier Shopfloor.org posts.

Cross-Border Trucking: Mexico Retaliates with Tariffs on Pork

By | Infrastructure, Trade | 3 Comments

The President is expected to highlight export issues in Seattle today when he speaks with small business owners at 11:40 a.m. and then makes a statement to the press. (White House schedule.)

We’d be very surprised if he does not comment on Mexico’s announcement Monday of retaliatory tariffs being imposed on additional U.S. products because the United States is violating NAFTA provisions requiring regulated cross-border trucking.

The issue is especially timely because the President follows his meeting with business owners by attending a campaign fundraiser with Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), one of the most vocal critics of U.S. inaction on the issue. Murray has demanded a solution to the problem by Oct. 1.

The Mexican government has imposed its tariffs with a keen political sense, hitting U.S. farm products in states like Washington, Idaho and California, and many manufactured goods — obviously the major concern of the National Association of Manufacturers. News accounts today highlight the additional tariffs on pork and pork products. From The Des Moines Register, Irritated Mexico increases tariffs on U.S. pork“:

Mexico added pork to a list of 99 U.S. products on which it is raising tariffs under the North American Free Trade Agreement, the National Pork Producers Council said Monday.

“Mexico’s retaliation against U.S. pork will have negative economic consequences for America’s pork producers,” said Sam Carney, a producer from Adair who is president of the pork council. “We are extremely disappointed that our top volume export market has taken this action, but we’re more disappointed that the United States is not living up to its trade obligations.”

The actual list of affected products won’t be known until its published in the government’s Official Gazette, but Bloomberg reports: “Fifty-four of the products that will be subject to tariffs will be agricultural and the rest will be manufactured goods, said the Mexican official who can’t be identified.

U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk expressed disappointment in a statement. The gist: We’re working on it.

Read More

Cross-Border Trucking: Manufacturers Face Additional Mexican Tariffs

By | Infrastructure, Trade | 6 Comments

Mexico’s minister for the economy, Bruno Ferrari, has just announced the Mexican government will be adding to its list of U.S. products subject to retaliatory tariffs resulting from the United States’ failure to address the cross-border trucking dispute. While the exact products and changes aren’t official and won’t be for several days, the basic issue here is unchanged: The United States has violated the terms of a trade agreement, NAFTA, and thousands of U.S. manufacturing jobs are at risk because the Administration and Congress won’t take the necessary steps to put us in compliance.

President Obama and President Calderon met back in May and discussed this issue. I am certain at that time that President Calderon told Mr. Obama that, if this issue were not resolved in a timely fashion, additional tariff retaliation would be forthcoming. Now, almost two months later, we see that the retaliation is here. More manufacturing and farm products will be added to the list, which already impacts billions in dollars in U.S. exports. Some products will come also off the list — but the very fact that we are facing retaliation on American manufacturing firms and their exports is unacceptable. This issue can be resolved through careful cooperation between the Administration and Congress, and between the United States and Mexico. Transportation Secretary LaHood told Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) more than two months ago that a solution was “closer than soon.” The only thing “closer than soon” now is additional tariff retaliation on more U.S. manufacturing.

Some of those manufacturers have already shut down U.S. assembly lines and moved their production to Canada, Mexico or other countries – exporting jobs instead of products. Others are still paying the tariffs to maintain their market share in Mexico – money that could be far better spent on creating new jobs, increasing investment in their business, or expanding to other markets. Many of those manufacturers have indicated that, 15 months after the tariffs were first imposed, they will now begin to shut down U.S. production rather than continue to pay the tariffs –- so we can expect the pain to spread from their bottom line to the unemployment line.

It doesn’t have to be like this. There is no reason under the sun why we continue to face the tariff retaliation we’ve faced since 2009 — and certainly no reason for facing additional products being targeted. This new action should spur to Congress and the Administration to turn to negotiations and a solution as soon as the August recess ends. Manufacturing wants to double exports, increase jobs, and lead the economic recovery. Pursuing policies that do the opposite by leaving trade disputes unsettled are the wrong road to travel.

In Seattle, Address the Cross-Border Trucking Dispute

By | Infrastructure, Trade | One Comment

When President Obama speaks in Seattle on exports Tuesday, we hope he’ll shed some light on the continued delays in resolving the Mexican cross-border trucking issue.  After all, he’s raising campaign money that same day for Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), who has worked to resolve the trade dispute that is notably costing Washington State farmers — and manufacturers across the country — millions of dollars in lost sales.

In March 2009, the Mexican government imposed retaliatory tariffs on selected U.S. agricultural and manufactured goods because the United States (in this case, Congress) had violated NAFTA by blocking enactment of a cross-border trucking program.

Potato and frozen potato products are among those hit hard by the tariffs. As the Northwest-based ag newspaper, The Capital Press, reported last week, “Senate seeks solutions to dispute“:

Tariffs of 20 percent on U.S. frozen potato products have been in effect since March 19, 2009. The tariffs cost the industry more than $33 million in revenue during the 12 months ending in March, officials estimate.

“It’s just phenomenal the amount of revenue that’s been lost,” Matt Harris, director of trade for the Washington State Potato Commission, said in an interview.

Washington is the nation’s largest producer of frozen potato products, historically providing about half of all shipments to Mexico. Nearly 90 percent of the state’s spud crop is used to make products such as frozen french fries and hash browns.

Because of the tariffs, major potato processors have begun sourcing Mexican shipments from Canada rather than U.S. plants, industry officials said.

Sen. Murray had language inserted into the committee report for the FY2011 Transportation and HUD appropriation bill (S. 3644) requiring the Administration to put forward a plan by Oct. 1 to end the dispute and retaliatory tariffs. As she said in a release:

“I am extremely frustrated that the Administration has not yet acted while farmers across my home state of Washington continue to suffer under Mexico’s retaliatory tariffs,” said Senator Patty Murray. “I am urging both the Obama Administration and the Mexican government to solve this issue and allow Washington state farmers to compete on a level playing field. Since there has been inaction for too long, I included specific language in the transportation spending bill giving the Administration a clear deadline of October 1, 2010 to solve this problem.”

Good. Unfortunately, Congress is likely to pass few if any appropriations bills in September, but perhaps Murray’s language will be included in a continuing resolution. In any case, we look forward to hearing the President’s remarks on the issue.

More …

Stuck in Neutral on Mexican Trucking

By | Infrastructure, Trade | No Comments

Mexican President Felipe Calderon is in town today on a state visit. He’ll bring a full slate of issues to discuss with President Obama. One expects he’ll raise the issue of Mexican trucking yet again, with hopes that someone senior in the Administration will provide more details on how we’re going to find resolution on it and remove the pernicious retaliatory tariffs that Mexico has (entirely within their rights under NAFTA, mind you) put on $2.4 billion worth of U.S. exports, the overwhelming majority on manufactured goods.

However, as noted earlier this week in this blog, despite repeated assurances by Transportation Secretary LaHood and other senior officials that some kind of proposed solution that will make everyone happy is imminent, we don’t expect to see any major breakthrough during President Calderon’s visit.

An earlier blog post charted Transportation Secretary LaHood’s exchanges with Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) earlier this month and in March, where he told her that a proposal was “closer than soon” to being shared with Congress. We’ve heard that before.

According to Inside U.S. Trade [subscription], U.S. Trade Representative Kirk yesterday “expressed doubt that there would be a concrete U.S. proposal on solving the trucking dispute this week. He told reporters after a speech that he did not know if there would be a “deal” on trucking this week. “But I do know that [Transportation] Secretary Ray LaHood continues with work with Congress and others to see if we can find a way forward, ” he said.

And then, yesterday at a White House press briefing, we had this less-than-reassuring exchange:

Q: You mentioned the four meetings that the two Presidents have had. At each of those President Obama has pledged to resolve the trucking issue in accordance with the NAFTA treaty. Can you update us on what progress has been made, and just talk more generally about the trade issues that will be at the summit?

SENIOR ADMINSTRATION OFFICIAL: Certainly. And as I noted, kind of the economic competitiveness and mutual economic growth are things that we very much expect to discuss — the President discuss with President Calderón and the two teams to have an opportunity to exchange views and see how we can work together to reach a goal that both Presidents have very clearly laid out in their own countries to revitalize economic vitality and job creation in both countries. Read More

A Year Later, Mexico’s Retaliatory Tariffs Harm U.S. Manufacturers

By | Economy, Trade | No Comments

Today we mark the anniversary of the imposition of retaliatory tariffs on a wide range of U.S. manufactured exports to Mexico. As a result of Congress yanking funding for a pilot program to demonstrate the safety of Mexican trucks operating in the United States –- and the program’s interim report showed they’re just as safe as U.S. trucks — $2.4 billion worth of U.S. exports to Mexico, ranging from grapes to dog food to refrigerators, have spent the last year facing high tariffs that have priced them far above similar products sold in Mexico by our competitors around the world.

This may not seem like an enormous issue, in the grand scheme of things, but it is real jobs that have been lost, real communities that in some cases have lost the major employer, and it is small and medium manufacturers (SMMs) who have been hit hard in particular. Over 95 percent of the firms that export to NAFTA are SMMs, and for many of them, loss of Mexico as an export market could be the difference between viability and closing up shop.

The National Association of Manufacturers has studied the impact of these tariffs, and found that about 16,000 U.S. manufacturing jobs have either been lost or are at risk of being lost as a result of their levy. Sixty-five percent of the targeted items are manufactured goods, including chemicals, paper and printed materials, household and personal care products, machinery, and processed food products.

There are three ways you can deal with these tariffs, and we’ve seen manufacturing in America try all three. You can shut down your U.S. production and move it to Mexico, Canada, or another country. That has happened. You can try and stick your Mexican distributors with the cost of the tariff. You can try to do that, but in many cases they’re just finding new suppliers from other countries, and the U.S. market share is dropping. Or, you can eat the tariffs as part of your cost of business. Adding a 20 percent tariff to your costs to try and preserve market share is, at best, a short-term solution that leads to loss of profits. Do it long enough, and you’ll be searching for alternate production lines in countries where they don’t face tariff retaliation. This takes the pain from the bottom line to the unemployment line, and it’s something many U.S. companies – after an entire year of facing such tariffs – are beginning to do. The situation is only going to grow worse in the coming months. Read More