The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (TAA), Pub.L. 96-39, 93 Stat. 144, adopted on July 26, 1979, codified on July 19. C ch. 13 (19 U.S.C. It outlined the modalities for the implementation of the Tokyo round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The second of these statutes is the TAA. The TAA should encourage foreign countries to enter into reciprocal trade agreements on public procurement. These agreements prohibit foreign products from discriminating against U.S.-made products and prohibit the United States from discriminating against foreign products.
Under the statute, countries that have such agreements and do not discriminate against U.S. educational products may, on non-discriminatory terms, be competing with the U.S. government. At the same time, products from countries that do not have such trade agreements are excluded from public procurement. Countries that have concluded such agreements are designated as parties to the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreement. … A product does not need to be manufactured entirely in the United States or, for the most part, processed into a “finished product from the United States.” Instead, these products – like Acetris products – can be “made” in the United States from components made from abroad. The Federal Claims Court accepted the protester and the government appealed. The federal circuit accepted the result of the first instance`s decision, while adapting the analysis and correcting it. The Court also rejected the government`s argument (which reiterated CBP`s finding) that the protester`s entecavir tablets were products of India, as they were the country of origin of the tablets` pharmaceutical active ingredient.
The Court said that the product in question – and the only thing regulated by the TAA – was “the pill itself” and not the various components of the pill. The tablet itself was not a “product of India” because the tablet is not “quite the . . . Manufacturing” From India, it has not been “substantially transformed” in India, as provided for by the TAA test in the country of origin. 19 U.S.C No. 2518 (4) (B). Since the legal examination of the country of origin applies only in negative – that is.dem prohibition on buying products from a non-designated country – but also does not require that the product be identified as the product of the United States or another designated country – the Court ruled that the law did not prohibit the protester`s product: “Since the TAA excludes only products from public procurement if they are “products” from a foreign country such as India , the law is therefore not excluded. , the TAA does not prohibit the VA from purchasing Acetris products.
The list below was extracted from the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and was last updated in November 2016 with the inclusion of Moldova and Ukraine and is up to date from June 2020. To access this FAR clause directly, please click here: Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.225-5, Trade Agreements. The TAA is much younger and, if it applies, is an exception to the BAA. The Federal Circuit explained the TAA as follows: the court concluded its merit debate by stating that “if the government is not satisfied with the definition of the American finished product by the FAR, it must change its definition and not advocate an unsustainable construction of the existing definition.” PwC government Contracts experts are well offshoring with all aspects of FSS allocation, including compliance with the Trade Agreements Act.