Us Free Trade Agreement Implementation Bill 2004

Posted on

· Both sides reaffirm their obligations as members of the International Labour Organization and strive to ensure that their national laws provide for labour standards consistent with internationally recognized labour principles. The agreement makes it clear that it is inappropriate to weaken or reduce occupational health and safety at the national level in order to promote trade or investment between the parties. Calendar 1 of the act consists of two parts. Part 1 deals with U.S. products of origin or rules of origin, the implementation of Chapter 5 of the AUSFTA, and Part 2 deals with the delegation of supervisory authority for certain trade posts (implementation of Article 4.3.2 of AUSFTA). · This is the largest immediate reduction in industrial tariffs ever achieved in the case of a U.S. free trade agreement, and will bring immediate benefits to U.S. workers and businesses in the manufacturing industry. U.S. producers estimate that the abolition of tariffs could result in $2 billion a year in increasing U.S. exports of industrial products. (b) prejudge or prejudice any decision by the Trademark Clerk under the Trademark Act 1995 regarding or infringing a trademark application. · Engages both parties to authorize the seizure, forfeiture and destruction of counterfeit goods and unauthorized products as well as equipment used in their manufacture.

In addition, there are plans to enforce goods in transit to prevent offenders from using ports or free trade areas to trade in pirated goods. In criminal and border matters, measures can be taken automatically to ensure more effective enforcement. A major problem with AUSFTA, from Australia`s long-term trade perspective, is the rules governing free trade agreements in the WTO. Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1947) provides that free trade agreements (and customs unions) essentially cover all trade. While AUSFTA excludes sugar and a number of services covered by a subset, it would be difficult to argue that it does not meet this criterion. However, the Marrakesh Agreement (1995) clarified Article XXIV (which had been increasingly ignored by GATT members) and strengthened its discipline. (49) In particular, the duration of free trade agreements (Article XXIV:5 c) was limited to ten years, except in exceptional cases.