Advertisement

May 24, 2013

Mutual Recognition Agreement Should Benefit Companies Involved in U.S-EU Trade

A recent agreement between the United States and the European Union will facilitate customs and security clearance procedures in trans-Atlantic trade involving "trusted" U.S. and EU importers and traders.  On May 4, 2012, the two formally agreed to a Mutual Recognition Decision on their respective "trusted traders" programs.  Under the agreement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the respective customs and taxation authorities of European Union Member States will recognize participants in each other's supply chain pre-clearance programs, the U.S. Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) and the EU Authorised Economic Operator (AEO) program, respectively. 

These programs allow trusted traders to enjoy lower costs, streamlined import procedures and greater predictability when entering products, but until now have been administered wholly separately from one another, without any official recognition of one by the other.  With this new agreement, C-TPAT's 26,000 members will receive the same beneficial treatment in the EU as the 5,000 AEO members, who will in turn receive the same prioritized treatment in the United States.  Moreover, the Mutual Recognition Decision establishes a single format for compliance, meaning importers will not have to doubly certify their supply chains to receive benefits; clearance in one system will effectively confer the benefits of both.

© 2013 McDermott Will & Emery

About the Author

Partner

David J. Levine is a partner in the International Trade Practice of the law firm McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in the Firm’s Washington, D.C., office.  David practices before international trade organizations, federal agencies and courts regarding international trade and related regulatory matters. 

202-756-8153

About the Author

Partner

Philip Bentley is a partner in the international law firm of McDermott Will & Emery/Stanbrook LLP based in its Brussels office.  He is a member of the Firm’s EU regulatory practice and European Competition and Trade Groups.  His practice focuses on EU anti-dumping, trade defense and customs, EU competition (including State aid and public procurement), EU regulatory matters, notably GMOs, and EU litigation.

32 2 282 35 27

Contributors

Partner

Raymond Paretzky is a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in the Firm's Washington, D.C., office. He focuses his practice on counseling clients on import relief measures, customs and export controls.

202 756 8619

About the Author

Partner

Jay L. Eizenstat is a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in the Firm’s Washington, D.C. office.  His practice focuses on U.S. and World Trade Organization (WTO) trade law and policy, market access and trade initiatives disputes involving U.S. trade obligations and the WTO, and domestic and international customs matters. 

202 756 8383

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.