From Ben Muse:
The Progressive Policy Institute points out that: The United States Collects More Tariff Money from Cambodia than from Britain (Trade Fact of the Week, February 20):
Some of our highest tariff rates are imposed on goods from some of the poorer countries. "...countries which make cheap and simple clothes, shoes, and luggage face a far more restrictive American trade regime than the rest of the world." So we end up taxing goods from less developed Cambodia an average 17% of their value, while goods from the affluent U.K. are only taxed 0.7% of their value.
The Progressive Policy Institute has talked about this issue many times in the past. When I heard about it originally, I wondered, isn't there some WTO claim that Cambodia and others could make based on this situation?
A pure MFN claim would likely fail, of course. The products facing the different tariff treatment are not "like," and that would probably be the end of it.
But what about a non-violation nullification or impairment claim, perhaps arguing that the benefits of MFN are being undermined by structuring tariffs in a way that, on the whole, even if not for specific products, certain countries are favored over others? Non-violation claims are always difficult, even where it is a tariff concession being undermined. Where it is a substantive obligation, such as MFN, that is being undermined, it's an even harder cae. Nevertheless, it might be worth a try.
Alternatively, maybe the focus could be on whether the objectives of Part IV of the GATT (e.g., those in Article XXXVI:1) are being impeded? There is even less jurisprudence here than with the non-violation nullification or impairment claim, though.
Clearly, such a complaint would require some novel legal theories. But whenever I come across these statistics, it strikes me that there could be something here. Even if the legal claim failed, it might help draw attention to a situation that many people consider to be unfair.
