Two laws are the source of most of the restrictions on the government`s ability to procure supplies of foreign origin: the BAA and the TAA. The protester, a contractor for the VA and other agencies, was a distributor of generic drugs. As is the case here, the protester provided entecavir tablets (for the treatment of hepatitis B) made in New Jersey using an active pharmaceutical ingredient made in India. India is not a „designated country“ subject to preferential treatment under the TAA and its terms of application. As a general rule, the TAA prohibits the acquisition of „products from a foreign country or another“ that is not a party to the WTO Agreement or that has otherwise been „designated“ by the President for the purposes of the TAA. 19 U.S.C§ 2512 (a) (1). The TAA Country of Origin Test defines „a product of a country“ as: FAR 52.225-5 (a) (added reference). Note that, unlike the BAA, the TAA and its execution clause do not require an analysis of the country of origin of the components of a manufactured item. Also note that, contrary to the definition of country of origin in the TAA law, the FAR does not „completely“ use the adverb when discussing where an item is extracted, manufactured or manufactured. Before we get into the case, a bit of background on the Trade Agreements Act (TAA).
In general, where the TAA applies to a U.S. government contract, the contractor may supply a product from another country if that country has a free trade agreement with the United States. In other words, the US administration is not going to discriminate against the products of its free trade partners when it buys supplies in certain circumstances (e.g. B the contract is above the threshold for application of the TAA). The court then found that the tablets – the final product obtained by the United States. Government – were not products of India because they do (1) „quite. Manufacturing“ from India again they (2) have been widely converted into tablets in India. As the tablets did not meet either provision of the TAA test in the country of origin, it was not an Indian product. Here`s the Federal Circuit`s most recent case: Acetris Health, LLC vs. USA, #2018-2399 (February 10, 2020).
Va bought entecavir tablets (to treat hepatitis B) from acetris, which produces these tablets in New Jersey with an active ingredient made in India. In 2017, the VA asked Acetris to certify its compliance with the TAA and asked Acretis to obtain a provision from the country of origin of the customs and border patrol; Acretis duly committed. . . . .