Skip to content

The United States Loses Dispute with Canada and Mexico on the Interpretation of the Automotive Rules of Origin Under the USMCA

January 17, 2023

Ver en español

A five-member arbitral panel (“Panel”) issued its Final Report on the dispute over the interpretation of the automotive rules of origin under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (“USMCA”), marking a win for Canada and Mexico against the United States. The report found that the United States’ interpretation of the rules was “inconsistent” with the USMCA.

The dispute between the three countries, Mexico and Canada as the Complainants, and the United States as the Respondent (collectively, the “Parties”), centered around the methodologies for determining whether a passenger vehicle or a light truck qualifies for preferential trade treatment under the USMCA. The Parties disagreed on the interpretation of the rules concerning how an automotive producer may determine the Regional Value Content (“RVC”) for a passenger vehicle or a light truck. Specifically, Canada and Mexico argued that a producer can determine the RVC of the finished vehicle or truck by relying on any of the several RVC calculations outlined under Article 4.5 of the Agreement and Article 3 of the Appendix on Provisions Related to the Product-Specific Rules of Origin for Automotive Goods (“Appendix”). The United States disagreed and argued for a “bifurcated” approach instead.

The dispute started in August of 2021 when Mexico requested consultations with the United States on the interpretation of the automotive rules of origin and the calculations of RVC under the USMCA. Later, Canada joined Mexico. In November 2022, the Panel issued its Initial Report on the dispute and allowed the Parties to provide their comments pending issuance of the Final Report.

After reading the Parties’ comments on the Initial Report, the Panel was still not persuaded by the United States’ reading of the rules of origin under Chapter 4. Thus, in its Final Report, the Panel ruled that the United States’ existing requirements for passenger vehicle and truck manufacturers seeking preferential treatment are inconsistent with the agreement. This ruling deemed the United States in breach of the trade deal.

USMCA’s Chapter 4 sets out the rules of origin that guide producers of many types of goods in determining whether their goods qualify as “originating” under the Agreement and are thus eligible for preferential tariff treatment. However, these rules of origin are highly complex and require many layers of calculations.

Chapter 4 also has several annexes that address specific rules of origin. Specifically, relevant to automotive goods is the Appendix. Canada and Mexico’s reading of the Appendix advocated for a “rolled up” calculation of RVC components to satisfy the requirements of the agreement. Meaning, if a car engine was made with 80% RVC parts, then it would be “rolled up”, indicating that 100% of the engine’s value of the finished car is regionally sourced for purposes of RVC calculations. The United States, on the other hand, advocated against the “rolled up” approach and argued that the RVC of core parts and that of the finished car should be calculated “separately and independently of one another.” Under the United States’ approach, it would be harder for the auto industry in North America to qualify for preferential treatment than it would under the approach taken by Mexico and Canada. The Panel disagreed with the United States, endorsing Mexico and Canada’s approach as the correct one for RVC calculation and consistent with the USMCA.

What’s next?

Under the USMCA, the Parties must “endeavor to agree on the resolution of the dispute” within 45 days. This means that the United States, Mexico, and Canada must meet to discuss and agree on the timeline and steps that the United States will take to comply with the Panel’s report.

If the USMCA Parties are unable to agree within 45 days, Canada and Mexico may suspend benefits of “equivalent effect to the non-conformity” to the United States until the dispute is fully resolved. Since the time the USMCA entered into force on July 1, 2020, there have been two other disputes but any suspension of benefits has yet to be imposed.

Subscribe for the latest

Subscribe

Related

Event

Clark Hill's Commercial Real Estate Symposium – Dallas, Texas

Join Clark Hill’s Commercial Real Estate attorneys and industry professionals for a timely and dynamic program in Dallas, focusing on the latest challenges and top trends in the CRE industry.

Explore more
Legal Updates

What Is Likely the Weakest Provision in Your Multi-State Lease?

Using one eminent domain lease clause across states risks lost value. Learn how state laws should reflect notice and just compensation for better protection.

Explore more
Legal Updates

Critical Risk Mitigation Provisions for Design Contracts — Part 1: Waiver of Consequential Damages

An essential element of architect and engineer contracts with their clients is the treatment of risk sharing between the parties. Design professionals who are typically simply providing services for a fee, and who are not investors who will share in the profits of a successful project, can ill-afford to expose themselves to unlimited liability for negligent errors and omissions in the performance of their services. Architects and engineers would argue that it is fundamentally unfair to expose them to unlimited downside risk when they do not directly participate in the upside profit potential of the projects they design. Owners and developers would counter that this is why design professionals carry professional liability insurance. But even simple design errors can lead to liability that is many times greater than the amount of such insurance.

Explore more