Considering the differences in the interpretation of the rules of appearance for cars between governments D-MEC, Mexico implemented the “consultation” mechanism of the treaty against the United States.
Therefore, a dispute may arise under the agreement between a dialogue initiated to solve the problem and to define the interpretation of the rules of origin, if there is no agreement Mexico United States And Canada (D-MEC).
In the letter sent by the Economic Secretary, Tatiana Club outh Dear, Catherine Toyke, U.S. Trade Representative, explained to the Mexican that Americans want to put “certain requirements on motor vehicle manufacturers that do not comply with the D-MEC and uniform regulations.” Contains LL Universal.
Faced with such a difference between governments, Cluthier is asking for talks to begin with “appropriate authorities” in the United States on a date agreed upon by mutual agreement.
It enforces Article 31.4 of the T-MEC relating to consultations or conversation before initiating a business dispute.
In the letter, if the essential parts fill the percentage Regional content value Required in Section 3 of Appendix 3B of Appendix 4B to the contract, then the essential parts are original, so their use in the production of the car should be considered original.
The regional content value requested for a passenger vehicle and light trucks is 75%, in addition 75% of the regional content value is required for essential parts, thus the car is considered to have appeared.
This letter was dated and sent to Tai, August 20, and contains a copy of the US Secretary of State for Trade, Export Promotion and International Trade of Canada, U.S. Secretary of State for D-MEC, and the Canadian Secretary of the Canadian Division of the T-MEC Secretariat.
“Music ninja. Analyst. Typical coffee lover. Travel evangelist. Proud explorer.”