Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
IV. Various Costs of Trade and Trade Arrangements Direct and indirect costs of trade [Head, 59-90; R/H, 159-168] The costs associated with international trade (exporting, importing) include: (i)costs of transportation, insurance, finance and spoilage,
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Direct and indirect costs of trade [Head, 59-90; R/H, 159-168]
The costs associated with international trade (exporting, importing) include:
(i)costs of transportation, insurance, finance and spoilage,
(ii)costs of crossing borders (clearing customs, tariffs, antidumping duties, countervailing duties,..),
(iii)costs of arranging for trade contracts (financing, letter of credit,..)
Here we continue to focus on (i)costs of transportation and (ii)costs of crossing borders.
We will discuss (iii) later.
The following figure shows the breakdown of typical trade costs.
Transportation-related costs can be very large.
(See posted slide. Also: www.jus.uio.no/lm//icc.incoterms.1990/doc.html )
EXW (... named place): “Ex works” means that the seller fulfils his obligation to deliver when he has made the goods available at his premises (i.e. works, factory, warehouse, etc.) to the buyer...The buyer bears all costs and risksinvolved in taking the goods from the seller’s premises to the desired destination.
FAS (... named port of shipment): “Free Alongside Ship” means that the seller fulfils his obligation to deliver when the goods have been placed alongside the vessel on the quay or in lighters at the named port of shipment. This means that the buyer has to bear all costs and risks of loss of or damage to the goods from that moment. The FAS term requires the buyer to clear the goods for export. It should not be used when the buyer cannot carryout directly or indirectly the export formalities. This term (and FOB) can only be used for sea or inland waterway transport.
FOB (... named port of shipment): “Free on Board” means that the seller fulfils his obligation to deliver when the goods have passed over the ship’s rail at the named port of shipment. This means that the buyer has to bear all costs and risks of loss of or damage to the goods from that point.
CFR (... named port of destination): “Cost and Freight” Seller has responsibility to deliver the goods to the buyer’s port and to turn over two documents: the invoice (cost) and the bill of lading (freight).
CIF (... named port of destination): “Cost, Insurance and Freight” means that the seller has the same obligations as under CFR but with the addition that he has to procure marine insurance against the buyer’s risk of loss of or damage to the goods during the carriage. The seller contracts for insuranceand pays the insurance premium. This term can only be used for sea and inland waterway transport. When the ship’s rail serves no practical purposes such as in the case of roll-on/roll-off or container traffic, the CIP (Cost and Insurance Paid to...named place) term is more appropriate to use.
DEQ (... named port of destination): “Delivered Ex Quay (duty paid)” means that the seller fulfils his obligation to deliver when he has made the goods available to the buyer on the quay (pronounced “kee”, it is a synonym of wharf) at the named port of destination, cleared for importation. The sellerhas to bear all risks and costs including duties, taxes and other charges of delivering the goods thereto (unless otherwise specified).
DDP (... named place of destination): “Delivered duty paid” means that the seller fulfils his obligation to deliver when the goods have been made available t the named place in the country of importation. The seller has to bear the risks and costs, including duties, taxes and other charges of delivering the goods thereto, cleared for importation. This term may be used irrespective of the mode of transport.
Where below the seller’s responsibility ends and the buyer’s responsibility begins depends on the contract.
1. EXW is the sum of production costs and the markup.
2. FAS adds the cost of transporting the good from the manufacturer’s premises
to the port of export to the EXW price.
3. FOB adds the cost of loading the goods on board to the FAS price.
4. CIF adds the cost of shipping over water, including insurance of goods to
the FOB price.
5. DEQ (duty paid) adds the cost of the duties to the CIF price.
6. DDP adds the cost of inland transport to the buyer’s premises to the DEQ.
In some situations it makes difference which term is used in quoting a price for trade transactions.
We will discuss more on this in detail later in trade finance.
Examples of transportation costs: freight carrier costs, marine insurance costs
Newton’s “Law of Universal Gravitation (1687)”: the attractive force between two objects i and j is given by the product of the two masses divided by the square of the distance between them.
Dutch economist Jan Tinbergen (1962) proposed that the same functional form could hold for international trade flows.
(*) Fij = G [(MiMj) / Dij]
• Fij is the“flow” from origin i to destination j, or, in some cases, it represents the sum of the flows in both directions. [Note: i and j = countries, provinces, states, etc.]
• Mi and Mj are the relevant economic sizes (GDP) of the two locations i and j.
• Dij is the distance between the locations.
• G is the “gravitational constant” which depends on such things as national borders, free trade agreements, and common languages. (G>0.)
(*) means that: (1)given G and D, there’s more trade between bigger economies; (2)given G, Mi and Mj, there’s more trade between economies which are closer; and (3)doubling of distance will decrease trade by one half.
For appropriately measured Mi,Mj and Dij, the above law predicts trade flows very well.
See the following figure.
There are different types of barriers for crossing borders.
Example. Exchange rates with volatility risks discussed earlier.
Another source of barrier:
trade policy barriers (customs duties, etc.) to be discussed here.
HS6 CCRA# Description MFN GPT LDCT+FTAs
95.06.11 1000 Downhill skis 0% 0% 0%
9010 Cross-country skis 7.5% 5% 0%
9020 Snowboards 7.5% 5% 0%
95.06.12 0000 Ski bindings 7% 5% 0%
95.06.19 0010 Ski poles 6.5% 3% 0%
95.06.21 0000 Sailboards 9.5% 6% 0%
95.06.29 0010 Water skis 7.5% 5% 0%
95.06.29 0090 Other (inc. surfboards) 7.5% 5% 0%
95.06.70 1100 Ice skates w/ boots 18% 18% 0%
95.06.70 2010 Ice skates w/o boots 5.5% 3% 0%
95.06.99 9089 Other (inc. skateboards) 7.5% 5% 0%
HS6: 6-digit Harmonized System codes.
CCRA#: 4-digit Canada specific codes.
MFN: Most Favoured Nation status; offered to all WTO members and most other countries, with rare exceptions such as North Korea and Libya.
GPT: General Preferential Tariff; offered to poorer countries including most of South America and Asia.
LDCT: Least Developed Countries tariff; covers a smaller group of the world’s poorest nations, including Haiti and most of Sub-Saharan Africa.
Example.Sailboards (9506.21.0000) originating from:
WTO member or other MFN list country: 9.5%
General Preferential Tariff country (e.g. Algeria, Brazil): 6%
Least Developed Country (e.g. Mali): 0%
FTA (U.S., Mexico, Costa Rica, Chile): 0%
General rate (Libya?): 35%
----> tariffs raise the import price relative to the domestic price
Who gains and who loses?
-domestic vs. foreign producers?
B. Subsidies to domestic producers in various forms:
grants, low interest loans, tax exemptions, …
to which industries?
Canadian softwood lumber industry case (more on this later).
C. quantity restrictions of imports
C1. import quotas ---> import quantity limited, the right to import licensed; sugar, textile products, cheese often subject to import quotas
C2. voluntary export restraint (VER)
VER on Japanese auto exports to the U.S. and Canada in the 1980s;
similar VER on Japanese car exports to the European Community (now EU)
- per cent of local content measured in physical or $value terms;
- used by developing and developed countries (e.g. the U.S.);
- also required by the Canada-U.S. auto pact and NAFTA
II) INVISIBLE BARRIERS
No commonly accepted international rules on these exist.
E. administrative policies: careful inspection, etc. to limit imports
F. foreign business practices
The U.S. criticism of Japanese business practices -- more on this later
- can be a barrier for selling your products (e.g......)
- but protection of foreign culture can be a problem too
-A French limit on imported U.S. movies
-Canadian content law on Canadian TV networks
Protection of Canadian culture industry against the imports of U.S. culture industry products is currently in effect,
but Canadian demand for such U.S. products continues to be strong!
“trade can stimulate economic activity”
This lesson lead to promotion of freer trade after World War II
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE (GATT) ESTABLISHED IN 1947
To liberalize trade by eliminating tariffs, subsidies, import quotas, etc. Uruguay round lasted for 1986-1993
Multilateral tariff reduction rounds (from post-war 40% to current 4%).
Kennedy (60s), Tokyo (70s), Uruguay (86-94), …
Tariff reductions phased in after each round concludes.
Establishes rules that member countries must obey.
Settles disputes over implementation of rules.
- many rounds of GATT have resulted in substantial reduction in tariffs between 1947 and 1994, resulting in good world economic growth during this period
software, recorded music: disputes related to intellectual property
II) Another WTO issue: environment
WTO is responsible for the cost of environmental protection when
international trade is involved
Should Canada pay for the pollution control equipment in China
if some pollution results from production of Canada-bound goods in China?
the amount of international trade increases as the amount of tariff protection decreases
GATT, WTO, FTA between Canada and the U.S., NAFTA, and EU, among others, have contributed to the significant reduction in the trade barriers globally or in specific regions.
See the following figures.
[the distance between Ontario and BC] = [the distance between Ontario and Washington state] = [the distance between BC and Michigan]
Importing country can bring forward complaints which may lead to the following.
1. Antidumping (AD) duties: triggered by pricing to an export market at less than the normal or “fair” value of the good.
2. Countervailing (CV) duties: triggered by government subsidies to the exporter.
3. “Escape Clause” safeguards permitted under GATT: temporary import restrictions (usually, but not necessarily, tariffs) designed to give the import-competing firms “breathing room” to adjust to a sudden surge in imports.
4. Voluntary Restraint Agreements (VRA), also known as VERs (voluntary
export restrictions) and OMAs (orderly marketing agreements): these are
quotas on exports that are administered by the exporting nation’s government.
Exporters may face (3) and (4) above even if they have not engaged in any unfair practices.
What is it?
"The dispute is centered on stumpage fees - set amounts charged to companies that harvest timber on public land. Many in the U.S. see Canadian stumpage fees as being too low, making them de facto subsidies.
A U.S. coalition of lumber producers wants the provincial governments to follow the American system and auction off timber rights at market prices.
The U.S. responded by levying tariffs on incoming Canadian lumber in May 2002.
Not all U.S. forestry firms support the U.S. position on soft lumber trade.
E.g. Weyerhaeuser. Why?
With tariffs and other import restrictions imposed on their exports to the U.S., should Chinese manufacturer continue exporting to the U.S.?
Or, perhaps, should the Chinese manufacturer move their production facility for exporting from China to the U.S.? Or to Mexico, or to Canada?
charging an export price that is below the normal value (called the “fair value” I the US)
The normal value: equal to the price charged for comparable sales in the exporter’s home market during the ordinary course of trade.
Implementation of ADD:
Import-competing firms complain to their government that imports are being “dumped”
Customs-related agency determines the normal price, compares with export price.
If “ordinary” & “comparable” home sales are not available, the normal price is calculated as
price charged to other (3rd country) markets; “cost of production + normal profit”
Reasons for antidumping duties:
pricing exports “unfairly” low; causing injury to suppliers in importing country
Reasons for countervailing duties:
producers receiving “unfair” assistance from government contingent on exporting, or, specific to an industry AND injury-causing.
Measures of safeguards:
temporary relief; injury, compensation requirements
Dumping margin is (Pn – Px)/Px, where Pn=normal price, Px=firm price.
Dumping margin is usually firm-specific:
In softwood lumber, Weyerhauser pays 12.39% but Canfor pays 5.96%
“All other firms” rate of 8.43%.
Why does Weyerhauser (a U.S. firm) pay the fine at all?
After “dumping” (or LTFV= “less than fair value” ) determination, import government agency determines whether its domestic industry has been or is threatened by material injury caused by the dumped imports.
Injury can be measured by loss of market share, falling profits, laid off workers, etc.
Injury determination often negative, then duties refunded with interest.
Options for accused firms:
exit (abandon the market); settle; litigate; circumvent, for example, by FDI
VER is aften agreed by the exporting countries to avoid very damaging punitive tariffs
VER sidesteps world trade rules (WTO, also GATT) since neither side files a complaint
The U.S. imposed VER on Japanese auto producers to limit their auto exports to the U.S., and Canada did the same.
Intended beneficiaries of this policy: ???
Intended victims of this policy: ???
Reality: ? ? ? (So what has happened?)
China averts clash with EU on textiles: An agreement is reached just hours before threatened export restrictions
SHANGHAI: Hoping to ease growing trade tensions with the European Union, China agreed early Saturday to place voluntary limits on the growth of its textile and apparel exports to Europe.
The decision came just hours before the European Union was set to impose its own trade restrictions on China as a way to stem the flood of Chinese textile and apparel goods that have flowed into Europe this year.
According to the agreement, China is expected to work with EU officials to manage and limit the growth of certain textile and apparel exports to Europe to about 10 percent a year through the end of 2008, in effect tempering the rise of some of its largest and fastest-growing exports.
Chinese and EU officials did not disclose the precise details of the curbs or limits that are expected to be put into place. But according to a statement released by the European Commission, the two sides agreed that Chinese textile exports would be managed to allow for "reasonable growth" between 2005 and 2007.
The agreement - which covers about 10 categories of textiles - comes at a time of growing trade friction that has erupted in the first months after the global system of country-by-country textile quotas were lifted Jan. 1. (International Herald Tribune, June 11, 2005)
The U.S. imposed VER on Japanese auto producers to limit the auto imports from Japan into the U.S. and Canada
Intended beneficiaries of this policy: ???
The Big Three (GM, FORD, CHRYSLER)
Intended victims of this policy: ???
U.S. and Canadian consumers, Japanese car makers
Reality: ? ? ? (So what has happened?)
The Big 3 and J-car makers gained; the consumers lost ----->
Stock price/returns movements before and after the VER indicates that Japanese auto makers including large parts suppliers benefited enormously; estimated loss to the U.S. consumer: MANY $BILLIONS
Nevertheless, this VER contributed in part to Japanese automakers' decisions to go ahead with FDI in the U.S. Why?
The 1991 U.S. tariff on liquid crystal display(LCD) screens imported from Japan
Intended beneficiary: ??? Solving the U.S. trade deficit problem?
Intended victims: ??? Japanese producers of LCDs; U.S. consumers
Realities, unintended victims who were?
U.S. users of Japanese LCD screens --> IBM, Apple, other U.S. manufacturers, who asked the U.S. government to delete the tariff
- Despite the multilateral GATT agreement on trade, bilateral agreements or unilateral trade sanctions are NOT uncommon
- U.S. Super 301 = a clause in U.S.Tariff legislation permitting U.S.Trade negotiators to threaten more restrictive import regulations to get other countries to lower their restrictions against U.S.- Made products or services
Text: Super 301, Special 301, Title VII Reports from USTR
The Bush administration has identified a number of unfair trade barriers in foreign countries and reissued a pledge to enforce trade agreements vigorously but has not initiated any new investigations that might lead to actions against governments responsible for the barriers. The occasion for the administration's announcements was the April 30 release by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) of the annual Super 301, Special 301 and Title VII reports.
First authorized by the 1988 Trade Act, Special 301 remains in force under that law while Super 301 and Title VII remain in force under a 1999 executive order, which expires this year.
Title VII aims to identify unfair trade barriers in government procurement. Super 301 aims to identify other unfair trade barriers. USTR could decide at any time to initiate investigations into any of these trade barriers under Section 301 of U.S. trade law. If a Section 301 dispute is not resolved bilaterally or in the World Trade Organization (WTO), then ultimately USTR could impose retaliatory trade sanctions.
The Super 301 report identified some unfair agricultural trade barriers, including non-transparent risk-assessment procedures for imports in Australia and safeguard actions in Japan on a wide range of products. It also listed agricultural export subsidies in Canada.
In the auto sector, the report identified barriers to U.S. exports in Japan and South Korea and barriers to investment in India, the Philippines and Malaysia. It also listed discriminatory retail store laws in the Philippines that require foreign retailers to source their inventory domestically.
The Title VII report identified discriminatory government procurement practices in the European Union (EU), Japan, Taiwan, Canada and Germany. On intellectual property, the Special 301 report identified significant concerns with the level of protection in 51 trading partners.
USTR placed the EU and 15 other trading partners on its Special 301 priority watch list, which entails a higher level of scrutiny. The 15 trading partners are: Argentina, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Israel, South Korea, Lebanon, Malaysia, Philippines, Russia, Taiwan and Uruguay. New to the priority list in 2001 are Hungary, Indonesia, Lebanon, Philippines and Taiwan.
Dropped from the list this year are Greece, Guatemala, Italy, Peru, Poland and Turkey. In March USTR began a Section 301 investigation into the adequacy of Ukraine's intellectual property protection regime. "Together these reports underscore the Administration's strong commitment to ensuring that Americans reap the benefits of the trade agreements that we negotiate," U.S. Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick said. Following is the text of a USTR press statement on the release of the reports and an executive summary of them:
THE U.S. THREATENED TO USE S-301 TO
(1) increase the tariff by 100% on Japanese luxury car imports;
(2) impose trade sanctions against countries that do not adequately protect intellectual property;
(3) impose trade sanctions against India which had (has?) strict FDI regulations
(4)countries on the U.S. Super-301 list: many