Custom «International Business Law » Essay Paper Sample

The case will depend on the economic relationship between the two countries. The national treatment contained in Article XVII of the GATS recognizes specific commitments made in a particular service by one country with another. In sectors which commitments have been made the national treatment in GATS stipulates that a member cannot impress on another a regulation, law, practice or a policy that is biased against foreign services and compared to domestic services or supplies (Edwin, 2005). To determine whether the products are alike or not, the components of the products would be determined in a laboratory. It is not necessary to prove that the tax has negative effect on trade between the countries in conflict provided the commitments are adhered to. However, for the purposes of putting more emphasis on the damage done by the tax, the impacts can be outlined.

Provided the Malaysian Government was able to prove that indeed the imported cigarettes had chemicals that were harmful to human beings, then they were legally protected by WTO to employ sanctions on the imported products (Fabio, 2006). There could not have been a better way that would not have singled out the imported cigarettes for discriminatory treatment.

Tottering will be able to make importation of doll wigs from Argentina at a suitable level of duty. This is because after analyzing united states issues dealing with classification, valuation and origin. The importation of the doll wigs from Argentina is possible because the total cost of importing the wigs will be less than six US dollars per wig price which is a very important ceiling. A higher price than six US dollars would push the retail price of the initial package which is a complete doll and three wigs over $100. If the price of the new product is more than ninety nine US dollars it will not gain market acceptance.

Using the information given the country of origin is non GSP. Hence the doll wigs would be classified in column 1 under general. The tax stipulated for this classification is 2.8%. Therefore the import duty on the doll wigs of human hair from Argentina will be $ 0.161 per wig this is less than $ 0.25. The total valuation per wig will be $5.911 for each wig imported from Argentina including royalties. Since $ 5.911 is less than $ 6, tottering will be able to import dolls from Argentina.

WashWear will be able to prevail under the antidumping law. The antidumping law was instituted to protect American industries against discrimination. This law allows imposition of extra duty on products from given countries if they are selling products in America at dumping prices or threatening domestic products (Edwin, 2005). The two conditions are met by products from Japan since they are selling their products at lower prices than in their home country. In addition, the Japanese products are threatening United States like products.

Wash Wear should reliably identify price discrimination or below-cost sales.

If the Japanese chooses to take its manufacturing to Mexico or China would lead to WashWear enjoying monopoly in West coast. These would help Washwear to experience more sales because their greatest competitors the Japanese manufacturing company has moved away. However, the Mexican and Chinese washing machine manufacturing companies will experience stiff competition from Japanese.

There is insufficient evidence for the U.S. carbon black companies to bring a countervailing duty case against BC Corporation and the other Mexican export firms. Despite BC Corporation and other Mexican firms selling their products at cheaper prices than market prices they never did that intentionally. They were mere beneficiaries of the government’s economic development program (Yonk-Shik, 2005). For the United States antidumping law to take effect two conditions have to be fulfilled. First of all the exporters to United States have to be selling their products below cost. Secondly, the imported goods to America have to be causing injury to domestic manufacturers of same products. The first condition has not been met by BC Corporation and other black carbon Mexican exporting firm.

Basing on the facts the panel will rule in favor of European Union and United states. This is because Brazil never fulfilled the demands of the Safeguard policy available in Article XIX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Edwin, 2005). Brazilian authority never evaluated productivity and capacity utilization. The later factors amongst others help to determine the level of injury on domestic producers. Therefore the result of their analysis on injury of the domestic producers is not conclusive and may be biased.

In addition they went against the policies of WTO which stipulates that incase a country applying safeguard to restrict imports should do so to all other countries (Fabio, 2006). However, Brazil went against the later stipulation of world Trade Organization by restricting imports of foot wear from other countries except MERCOSUR countries.

Before Ford receives the tariff allowance, we have to determine whether or not the painting on vehicles done in Mexico was an incidental to the assembly process. It is therefore prudent to ascertain whether capital investment in equipment and machinery in the paint shop five times more than that in the body shop. The time taken for painting the vehicles should be determined relation to time taken for the whole assembly process. However, it is obvious that the painting on the vehicles is necessary in the vehicle assembly process. Furthermore, the painting of the vehicles was one of the logical processes of the vehicle assembly. Therefore it is without doubt that the tariff allowance to Ford Company be withdrawn.

Before an individual or a company export goods, they have get a go ahead from the government. This is mostly done through the issuance of a license. Some products have restrictions and conditions on exports. John and Marissa have no authority whatsoever to export their goods to Honk Kong. Regulations on export prohibit the unlicensed export of particular information or commodities for protection of trade and national security. John and Marissa have not been cleared by the licensing department to export their goods (Fabio, 2006).

Furthermore, computers fall under “license controlled goods” under the Export Administration Regulations. This is because computers have military applications. The computers are not in the same grouping as refrigerators (Edwin, 2005). Therefore it is not legitimate for John and Merissa to use the export license of refrigerators for computers. They also have no legitimate permission of manufacturing computers. United states are the legitimate manufacturers of computers.