DOCSLIB.ORG

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION and Exported

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION and Exported Wednesday May 7, 1997 Part II Federal Trade Commission Request for Public Comment on Proposed Guides for the Use of U.S. Origin Claims; Notice federal register 25019 25020 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 1997 / Notices FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION and exported. Throughout, the proposed domestic origin.1 Recently, this standard guides address the interaction of FTC had been rearticulated to require that a Request for Public Comment on deception law with U.S. Customs product advertised as ``Made in USA'' Proposed Guides for the use of U.S. Service requirements. be ``all or virtually all'' made in the Origin Claims DATES: Written comment will be United States, i.e., that all or virtually all of the parts are made in the U.S. and AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. accepted until August 11, 1997. all or virtually all of the labor is ADDRESSES: Six paper copies of each ACTION: Request for public comment on performed in the U.S.2 In both cases, written comment should be submitted proposed Guides for the Use of U.S. however, the import has been the same: to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Origin Claims. unqualified claims of domestic origin Trade Commission, Room 159, Sixth were deemed to imply to consumers SUMMARY: The Federal Trade and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Commission (``FTC'' or ``Commission'') that the product for which the claims Washington, D.C. 20580. To encourage were made was in all but de minimis has been conducting a comprehensive prompt and efficient review and review of ``Made in USA'' and other amounts made in the United States. dissemination of the comments to the In a July 11, 1995 press release, the U.S. origin claims in product public, all comments also should be Commission announced that it would advertising and labeling. Historically, submitted, if possible, in electronic undertake a comprehensive review of the Commission has held that a product 1 1 form, on either a 5 ¤4 or a 3 ¤2 inch U.S. origin claims and examine whether must be wholly domestic to substantiate computer diskette, with a label on the the Commission's traditional standard an unqualified ``Made in USA'' claim. diskette stating the name of the for evaluating such claims remained As part of its review, the Commission, commenter and the name and version of consistent with consumer perceptions by Federal Register notice dated the word processing program used to and continued to be appropriate in October 18, 1995, requested public create the document. (If possible, today's global economy. On October 18, comment on various issues related to documents in WordPerfect 6.1 or Word 1995, the Commission published a the evaluation of such claims and, on 6.0, or earlier generations of these word notice in the Federal Register formally March 26 and 27, 1996, held a public processing programs, are preferred. Files soliciting public comment for 90 days workshop and invited representatives of from operating systems other than DOS on various issues related to this review, industry, consumer groups, unions, or Windows should be submitted in including the costs and benefits of government agencies and others to ASCII text format to be accepted.) continuing to use the ``all or virtually attend and exchange views. On April Individuals filing comments need not all'' standard, and announcing that 26, 1996, the Commission published a submit multiple copies or comments in Commission staff would conduct a Federal Register notice extending the electronic form. Submissions should be public workshop on this topic. 60 FR deadline for post-workshop public captioned: ``Made in USA Policy 53922. A follow-up notice published on comments until June 30, 1996. Comment,'' FTC File No. P894219. December 19, 1995, announced that the The Commission now announces FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beth public workshop would be held on proposed Guides for the Use of U.S. M. Grossman, Attorney, Division of March 26 and 27, 1996, and indicated Origin Claims and seeks public Advertising Practices, Bureau of that the record would be held open for comment on these guides. Under these Consumer Protection, FTC, Washington, post-workshop public comment until proposed guides, a marketer making an DC 20580, telephone 202±326±3019, or April 30, 1996. 60 FR 65327. In unqualified claim of U.S. origin must, at Kent C. Howerton, Attorney, Division of response to these notices, the the time it makes the claim, possess and Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Commission received approximately rely upon a reasonable basis that the Protection, FTC, Washington, DC 20580, 294 written comments. product is substantially all made in the telephone 202±326±3013. Contemporaneous with the solicitation United States. To assist manufacturers of public comment, Commission staff in complying with this standard, the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: also commissioned a two-part study to proposed guides also set out two I. Introduction examine consumer understandings of alternative ``safe harbors'' under which U.S. origin claims. The results of this The Commission has been conducting an unqualified U.S. origin claim would study are discussed below. not be considered deceptive. The first a comprehensive review of its standards As noted, Commission staff safe harbor encompasses products for evaluating ``Made in USA'' claims in conducted a two-day public workshop whose U.S. manufacturing costs advertising and labeling. The on issues related to U.S. origin claims. constitute 75% of total manufacturing Commission now proposes to issue Thirty-three individuals, representing costs and were last substantially Guides for the Use of U.S. Origin corporations and trade associations from transformed in the United States. The Claims, set out at the end of this notice, a variety of industries; labor unions; second safe harbor applies to products and seeks comment on these proposed federal and state government agencies; that have undergone two levels of guides. The comment period will substantial transformation in the United remain open until August 11, 1997. 1 See, e.g., Windsor Pen Corp., 64 F.T.C. 454 States: i.e., the product's last substantial The Commission regulates claims of (1964); Vulcan Lamp Works, Inc., 32 F.T.C. 7 transformation took place in the United U.S. origin, such as ``Made in USA,'' (1940). pursuant to its statutory authority under 2 This language was first used in the cases of Hyde States, and the last substantial Athletic Industries, File No. 922±3236 (consent transformation of each of its significant Section 5 of the Federal Trade agreement accepted subject to public comment inputs took place in the United States. Commission Act, which prohibits Sept. 20, 1994) and New Balance Athletic Shoes, The proposed guides also address ``unfair or deceptive acts or practices.'' Inc., Docket No. 9268 (complaint issued Sept. 20, Cases brought by the Commission 1994). In light of the decision to review the various qualified claims, claims standard for U.S. origin claims, the Commission regarding specific processes and parts, beginning over 50 years ago established later modified the complaints in these cases to multiple-item sets, and changes in costs the principle that it was deceptive for a eliminate the allegations based on the ``all or and sourcing. They also authorize marketer to promote a product with an virtually all'' standard. Consent agreements based on these revised complaints were issued on specific origin claims for certain unqualified ``Made in USA'' claim December 2, 1996 (New Balance) and December 4, products that are both sold domestically unless that product was wholly of 1996 (Hyde). Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 1997 / Notices 25021 and consumer groups, participated in Washington, DC 20580. In addition, the in USA'' or any other indication of U.S. the workshop, and a number of other public comments, the workshop origin.5 Where a marketer chooses interested individuals attended the transcript, and previous Federal voluntarily, however, to make a U.S. workshop as observers. At the Register notices related to this review origin claim in an advertisement or on workshop, which was moderated by a are available on the Commission's Home a label, the marketer must conform with neutral, third-party facilitator, results of Page on the World Wide Web, which the FTC Act's general prohibition on the Commission's consumer perception can be reached through the internet at ``unfair or deceptive acts and practices.'' study as well as consumer studies http://www.ftc.gov. Thus, a ``Made in USA'' claim, like any conducted by several other participants other advertising claim, must be truthful were presented, and there was an II. Background: Country-of-Origin and substantiated. extended round table discussion of the Marking Requirements for Imported B. Other Relevant Information on costs and benefits of the various Goods Country-of-Origin Determinations alternative standards under A. Relationship Between the consideration for the evaluation of U.S. Requirements of the U.S. Customs In addition to the Tariff Act, two origin claims. Following the workshop, Service and the Policies of the FTC international agreements provide a the Commission, in a notice published further backdrop to the discussion of on April 26, 1996, extended the period In the course of the Commission's country-of-origin labeling. for clarifying or rebuttal comments until review, there has been much discussion of the relationship between the policies North American Free Trade Agreement June 30, 1996, and set forth additional (NAFTA) questions for comment. 61 FR 18600. of the U.S. Customs Service (``Customs'' Approximately 49 additional comments or ``the Customs Service'') and those of Goods imported from NAFTA were received in response to the April the FTC with respect to country-of- countries are not subject to the Customs 26 notice, including a proposed set of origin marking.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Country-Of-Origin Labeling for Foods
    Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods Remy Jurenas Specialist in Agricultural Policy July 15, 2010 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RS22955 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods Summary Many retail food stores are now required to inform consumers about the country of origin of fresh fruits and vegetables, seafood, peanuts, pecans, macadamia nuts, ginseng, and ground and muscle cuts of beef, pork, lamb, chicken, and goat. The rules are required by the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107- 171) as amended by the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246). Other U.S. laws have required such labeling, but only for imported food products already pre-packaged for consumers. Both the authorization and implementation of country-of-origin labeling (COOL) by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Marketing Service have not been without controversy. Much attention has focused on the labeling rules that now apply to meat and meat product imports. A number of leading agricultural and food industry groups continue to oppose COOL as costly and unnecessary. They and some major food and livestock exporters to the United States (e.g., Canada and Mexico) also view the new requirement as trade-distorting. Others, including some cattle and consumer groups, maintain that Americans want and deserve to know the origin of their foods, and that many U.S. trading partners have their own, equally restrictive import labeling requirements. Obama Administration officials announced in February 2009 that they would allow the final rule on COOL, published just before the end of the Bush Administration on January 15, 2009, to take effect as planned on March 16, 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • 879 Part 134—Country of Origin Marking
    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, DHS; Treasury Pt. 134 removal or obliteration of the name, Subpart A—General Provisions mark, or trademark by reason of which 134.1 Definitions. the articles were seized. 134.2 Additional duties. (b) Copyright violations. Articles for- 134.3 Delivery withheld until marked and feited for violation of the copyright redelivery ordered. laws shall be destroyed. 134.4 Penalties for removal, defacement, or (c) Articles bearing a counterfeit trade- alteration of marking. mark. Merchandise forfeited for viola- Subpart B—Articles Subject to Marking tion of the trademark laws shall be de- stroyed, unless it is determined that 134.11 Country of origin marking required. the merchandise is not unsafe or a haz- 134.12 Foreign articles reshipped from a U.S. possession. ard to health and the Commissioner of 134.13 Imported articles repacked or manip- Customs or his designee has the writ- ulated. ten consent of the U.S. trademark 134.14 Articles usually combined. owner, in which case the Commissioner of Customs or his designee may dispose Subpart C—Marking of Containers or of the merchandise, after obliteration Holders of the trademark, where feasible, by: 134.21 Special marking. (1) Delivery to any Federal, State, or 134.22 General rules for marking of con- local government agency that, in the tainers or holders. opinion of the Commissioner or his des- 134.23 Containers or holders designed for or capable of reuse. ignee, has established a need for the 134.24 Containers or holders not designed merchandise; or for or capable of reuse.
    [Show full text]
  • HP Color Laserjet Pro MFP M479 Series Lighten Your Workload, Focus on Your Business Winning in Business Means Working Smarter
    Data sheet HP Color LaserJet Pro MFP M479 series Lighten your workload, focus on your business Winning in business means working smarter. The HP Color LaserJet Pro MFP M479 is designed to let you focus your time where it’s most effective-growing your business and staying ahead of the competition. HP Color LaserJet Pro M479dw HP Color LaserJet Pro M479fnw Dynamic security enabled printer. Only Built to keep you – and your business – moving forward Scan files directly to Microsoft® SharePoint®, email, USB, and network folders.1 intended to be used with cartridges using an Help save time by automating all the steps in a complicated workflow and apply saved HP original chip. Cartridges using a non-HP settings.2 chip may not work, and those that work today Print wirelessly with or without the network, stay connected with dual band Wi-Fi and 3,4,5 may not work in the future. Learn more at: Wi-Fi direct. Print effortlessly from any device, virtually anywhere, to any HP printer – securely http://www.hp.com/go/learnaboutsupplies through the cloud.6 Highlights HP's best-in-class security – detect and stop attacks7 A suite of embedded security features help protect your MFP from being an entry point 2 sided printing for attacks.7 Dual-band Wi-Fi & wireless Help ensure security of confidential information with optional PIN/Pull printing to retrieve Embedded Security features print jobs.8 HP Roam enabled Optional HP JetAdvantage Security Manager lets you set configuration. Scan to Sharepoint, email, USB and network folders Thwart potential attacks and take immediate action with instant notification of security issues.9 Simply designed to uncomplicate your day Set up this MFP fast, and easily manage device settings to help increase overall printing efficiency.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Analysis of Country of Origin Labeling (COOL)
    REPORT TO CONGRESS Economic Analysis of Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) April 2015 U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Chief Economist Washington, D.C. Economic Analysis of Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) Contents Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Modeling Approaches ..................................................................................................................... 3 Equilibrium Displacement Model Approach .............................................................................. 3 Other Approaches ........................................................................................................................ 4 Assumed Regulatory Costs ......................................................................................................... 5 Results ............................................................................................................................................. 8 Estimated Impacts on Consumers ............................................................................................... 8 Estimated Impacts on Producers, Processors, and Retailers ....................................................... 9 Estimated Impacts of the 2009 Rule ........................................................................................ 9 Estimated Impacts of the 2013 Rule ...................................................................................... 12 Conclusions
    [Show full text]
  • Marking of Country of Origin on U.S. Imports
    Marking of Country of Origin on U.S. Imports Informed Compliance Publication Publication No. 1150-0620 Every article of foreign origin entering the United States must be legibly marked with the English name of the country of origin unless an exception from marking is provided for in the law. SPECIAL NOTE: This webpage is strictly about marking of country of origin on U.S. imports and is for general information purposes only. Reliance solely on this general information may not be considered reasonable care. Recognizing that many complicated factors may be involved in origin issues (raw materials are from one country while the product is assembled in another), an importer may wish to obtain a binding ruling from U.S. Customs and Border Protection. For more information please see determining the correct Country of Origin to use under the Customs Regulations, 19 CFR Part 177. Please be aware that in addition to this information, certain products are subject to additional labeling requirements. For example, clothing must have labels indicating fabric content and washing instructions. Other products with special labeling requirements include tobacco (the Surgeon General’s Warning Statement), food and pharmaceuticals, and automobiles. General Information What is the purpose of marking? To inform the ultimate purchaser in the United States of the country in which the imported article was made. Who is the ultimate purchaser? The ultimate purchaser is generally the last person in the United States who will receive the article in the form in which it was imported. If the article will be used in manufacture, the manufacturer or processor in the United States is the ultimate purchaser if the processing of the imported article results in a substantial transformation of the imported article, becomes a good of the United States under the NAFTA Marking Rules (19 CFR Part 102), or becomes a good of the United States under the textile rules of origin (19 CFR 102.21), as applicable.
    [Show full text]
  • United States – Certain Country of Origin Labelling (Cool) Requirements
    WT/DS384/AB/RW WT/DS386/AB/RW 18 May 2015 (15-2569) Page: 1/191 Original: English UNITED STATES – CERTAIN COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELLING (COOL) REQUIREMENTS RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF THE DSU BY CANADA AND MEXICO AB-2014-10 Reports of the Appellate Body Note: The Appellate Body is issuing these Reports in the form of a single document constituting two separate Appellate Body Reports: WT/DS384/AB/RW; and WT/DS386/AB/RW. The cover page, preliminary pages, sections 1 through 5, and the annexes are common to both Reports. The page header throughout the document bears the two document symbols WT/DS384/AB/RW and WT/DS386/AB/RW, with the following exceptions: section 6 on pages CDA-169 to CDA-172, which bears the document symbol for and contains the Appellate Body's conclusions and recommendation in the Appellate Body Report WT/DS384/AB/RW; and section 6 on pages MEX-173 to MEX-176, which bears the document symbol for and contains the Appellate Body's conclusions and recommendation in the Appellate Body Report WT/DS386/AB/RW. WT/DS384/AB/RW • WT/DS386/AB/RW - 2 - Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 11 2 ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTICIPANTS AND THIRD PARTICIPANTS ..................... 16 2.1 Claims of error by the United States – Appellant .............................................. 16 2.1.1 Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement ........................................................................... 16 2.1.1.1 The increased recordkeeping burden entailed by the amended COOL measure ............. 17 2.1.1.2 The accuracy of labels prescribed by the amended COOL measure ............................
    [Show full text]
  • Made in Usa Standard
    Complying with the MADE IN USA STANDARD Federal Trade Commission | business.ftc.gov Table of Contents Introduction 1 Basic Information About Made In USA Claims 2 The Standard For Unqualified Made In USA Claims 4 Qualified Claims 9 The FTC and The Customs Service 13 Other Statutes 15 What To Do About Violations 17 For More Information 18 Your Opportunity to Comment 18 Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S. Origin Claims 19 Endnotes 33 Introduction The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is charged with preventing deception and unfairness in the marketplace. The FTC Act gives the Commission the power to bring law enforcement actions against false or misleading claims that a product is of U.S. origin. Traditionally, the Commission has required that a product advertised as Made in USA be “all or virtually all” made in the U.S. After a comprehensive review of Made in USA and other U.S. origin claims in product advertising and labeling, the Commission announced in December 1997 that it would retain the “all or virtually all” standard. The Commission also issued an Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S. Origin Claims to provide guidance to marketers who want to make an unqualified Made in USA claim under the “all or virtually all” standard and those who want to make a qualified Made in USA claim. This publication provides additional guidance about how to comply with the “all or virtually all” standard. It also offers some general information about the U.S. Customs Service’s requirement that all products of foreign origin imported into the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Country of Origin Impact on Consumer Perception of Value in Fast Fashion
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Textiles, Merchandising and Fashion Design: Textiles, Merchandising and Fashion Design, Dissertations, Theses, & Student Research Department of 12-2019 Country of Origin Impact on Consumer Perception of Value in Fast Fashion Katherine Walter University of Nebraska - Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/textilesdiss Part of the Fashion Business Commons, and the Industrial and Product Design Commons Walter, Katherine, "Country of Origin Impact on Consumer Perception of Value in Fast Fashion" (2019). Textiles, Merchandising and Fashion Design: Dissertations, Theses, & Student Research. 15. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/textilesdiss/15 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Textiles, Merchandising and Fashion Design, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Textiles, Merchandising and Fashion Design: Dissertations, Theses, & Student Research by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IMPACT ON CONSUMER PERCEPTION OF VALUE IN FAST FASHION by Katherine Walter A THESIS Presented to the Faculty of The Graduate College at the University of Nebraska In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements For the Degree of Master of Science Major: Textiles, Merchandising and Fashion Design Under the Supervision of Professor Jennifer Jorgensen Lincoln, Nebraska December, 2019 COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IMPACT ON CONSUMER PERCEPTION OF VALUE IN FAST FASHION Katherine Elizabeth Walter, M.S. University of Nebraska, 2019 Advisor: Jennifer Jorgensen With fast fashion growing rapidly, insight onto consumers perception of the value for the country of origin in this sector of the retail industry is a topic that needs to be delved into deeper.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Labeling Requirements for Herbal Dietary Supplements
    GUIDANCE: Federal Labeling Requirements for Herbal Dietary Supplements September 2019 (Revised) Prepared by the American Herbal Products Association This document was originally published in August 1999 under the title “Labeling of dietary supplements: Saying it right the first time.” It has been updated to reflect interim changes in law, including those from the May 2016 Final Rule revising FDA’s nutrition labeling regulations. This document is the property of the American Herbal Products Association (AHPA) and is for AHPA purposes only. Unless given prior approval from AHPA, it shall not be reproduced, circulated, or quoted, in whole or in part, outside of AHPA, its Committees, and its members. Cite as: American Herbal Products Association. September 2019. GUIDANCE: Federal Labeling Requirements for Herbal Dietary Supplements. AHPA: Silver Spring, MD. GUIDANCE: Federal Labeling Requirements for Herbal Dietary Supplements Disclaimer The information contained herein is not and should not be considered legal advice. This AHPA publication is not a substitute for the actual statutes, regulations, and agency guidance that apply to the products and activities that are discussed herein. The information contained herein is not intended to replace or supersede federal or any state statutes, regulations or guidance. This document is specifically relevant to federal labeling requirements for dietary supplement products. No other issues related to the manufacture, marketing, or sale of food, dietary ingredients, dietary supplements, cosmetics, or any other class of consumer goods are addressed herein. While AHPA believes the information herein is accurate, AHPA advises all individuals and entities using this information to discuss all aspects of their application of this information with an attorney or qualified consultant, or with personnel at relevant regulatory agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • Country of Origin Compliance: Challenges for International Supply Chain Managers
    May 2002 Bulletin 02-19 Country of Origin Compliance: Challenges for International Supply Chain Managers If you have questions or would Your company imports components from countries in Asia, North America, and like additional information on Europe, and then combines them with various U.S. components in a facility in the the material covered in this United States to create a finished product. Bulletin, please contact the author: ? What is the country of origin and how must the finished product be Jason P. Matechak marked for purposes of Customs regulations? (Washington) ? Can you mark the finished product “Made in USA?” 202.414.9224 [email protected] ? Can you sell the finished product to both civilian and defense agencies of …or the Reed Smith attorney the U.S. government? with whom you regularly work, There are no easy answers to these questions, and the correct answers may seem or the head of Reed Smith’s Government Contracts/Export inconsistent. For example, the finished product may not need to be marked for Controls Practice Group: Customs purposes because it is not deemed to be a foreign product, while at the same time it could be sold to the U.S. government because it meets the James K. Kearney requirements of the Buy American Act, but could not be labeled “Made in USA” (Washington) because it does not satisfy the relevant Federal Trade Commission rules. 202.414.9228 Alternatively, the finished product might have to be marked with a foreign country [email protected] of origin for Customs purposes, and thus could not be marked “Made in USA,” but may or may not be eligible for sale to the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines on Certification of Origin
    GUIDELINES ON CERTIFICATION OF ORIGIN July 2014 (updated in June 2018) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1. What is certification of origin? .......................................................................................... 4 2. Who are the key players involved? .................................................................................. 5 2.1. Who needs a proof of origin? .................................................................................. 5 2.2. Who issues a proof of origin? ................................................................................... 6 II. PREFERENTIAL ORIGIN 3. When is a proof of origin needed for preferential purposes? ............................................ 6 4. Issuer of proof of origin for preferential ........................................................................... 7 5. Characteristics of different systems for certification of origin .......................................... 7 5.1. Certification of origin involving the competent authority of the exporting country ..... 7 5.2. Self-certification of origin .......................................................................................... 8 5.2.1. Approved exporter system ............................................................................... 9 5.2.2. Registered exporter system ............................................................................. 9 5.2.3. Fully exporter-based system ............................................................................ 9 5.2.4. Importer-based system
    [Show full text]
  • Textiles and Apparel: Made in USA . . . Again? Kimberlie Freund, Mary Roop, Heidi Colby-Oizumi
    Office of Industries Working Paper ID-055 September 2018 Textiles and Apparel: Made In USA . Again? Kimberlie Freund, Mary Roop, Heidi Colby-Oizumi Abstract Is the U.S. textile and apparel industry on the road to recovery? This paper examines recent trends to determine whether data on trade, production, employment, and investment reflect the narrative surrounding revitalization of the industry. For the textiles sector, such data show mixed evidence of an industry in recovery. Nevertheless, numerous accounts indicate that U.S. or foreign-owned textile firms may be investing in the United States either to increase existing domestic capacity or to add new manufacturing operations. In the apparel sector, evidence suggests that in recent years reshoring has taken place, albeit on a modest scale. This information comes from accounts from U.S. apparel brands and retailers and, to some extent, from data on capital expenditures and shipments. The paper discusses the driving forces behind investment in the domestic industry, as well as strategies that industry players are prioritizing in order to stimulate the industry and remain competitive. Disclaimer: Office of Industries working papers are the result of the ongoing professional research of USITC staff and solely represent the opinions and professional research of individual authors. These papers do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. International Trade Commission or any of its individual Commissioners. Textiles and Apparel: Made In USA . Again? Kimberlie Freund, Mary Roop, Heidi Colby-Oizumi Office of Industries U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) September 2018 The authors are staff with the Office of Industries and Office of Economics of the U.S.
    [Show full text]