But not all countries have a free trade agreement with the United States, including, very importantly, countries like China and India. Therefore, if a contractor offers the U.S. government a good manufactured in India, for example, that good would not comply with the TAA and the contractor would not be able to deliver that good for public procurement. The Trade Agreements Act 1979 (TAA), Pub.L. 96-39, 93 Stat. 144, promulgated July 26, 1979, codified as 19 U.S.C ch. 13 (19 U.S.C§ 2501-2581), is an act of Congress that regulates trade agreements negotiated between the United States and other countries under the Trade Act of 1974. It provided modalities for the implementation of the Tokyo Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Before we get into the case, a bit of background on the Trade Agreements Act (TAA). As a general rule, if the TAA for a U.S. government contract, the contractor may supply a product from a foreign country if that country has a free trade agreement with the United States.
In other words, the US administration is not going to discriminate against the products of its free trade partners when it buys supplies in certain circumstances (e.g. B the contract is above the threshold for application of the TAA). The second of these statutes is the TAA. The TAA was designed to encourage foreign countries to enter into reciprocal trade agreements on government procurement. These agreements prohibit foreign countries from discriminating against products made in America and prohibit the United States from discriminating against products of foreign origin. By law, countries that have such agreements and do not discriminate against products made in the United States can compete with non-discriminatory conditions to obtain a U.S. government. At the same time, products from countries that have not concluded such trade agreements are excluded from government procurement. Countries that have concluded such agreements are designated as parties to the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) agreement.
. During the performance of a previous contract, the AA “asked” protesters to ask CBP for country of origin provisions for some of its products, including entecavir, given that the VA had been informed that the protester could supply drugs that were not TAA compliant, as provided for in its contract. CBP found, according to its own long-standing practice, that entecavir was a product of India, given that the active substance of the drug was produced in India and no substantial transformation would have taken place in the United States. . . .