Although the Court found overall that “the FAR did not accept the AAT test in the country of origin,” it would appear that the Court only decided the FAR definition for “U.S.-made finished product” and did not make a decision as to whether a product originated in a country or another country. Given that the TAA Congress expressly authorized CBP to the TAA Congress to draw “final conclusions” on whether the products come from countries eligible for purchase, it is not to be expected that contracting entities will not respect these decisions when adopted in this context. On the contrary, Acetris Health`s teaching appears to be that if the essential processing test result is not favourable, it may still be possible to qualify under the other rule applicable to finished products in the United States under the alternative “manufacturing test.” (Added highlight.) Given that domestic manufacturing, the Court of Justice held that it was not necessary to determine the separate question of whether the tablets were also substantially modified in the United States. The FAR says that both prong are sufficient to make a final product “U.S.-made” and therefore be in compliance with the trade agreements clause. Therefore, under the TAA and its RULES of application in the FAR, the VA incorrectly found that the protester`s entecavir did not comply with the TAA and its regulatory implementation in the FAR. 41 U.S.C No. 8302 (a) (1) (added). A 1954 executive order, which has just been implemented in the FAR, stipulates that BAA`s inappropriate cost exception applies when a large company`s lowest domestic supply is more than 6% higher than the lowest foreign offer and the lowest domestic offer of a small business is more than 12% higher than the lowest foreign offer. 48 C.F.R. (“FAR”) 25.105.
Congress also has commercial products (“COTS”) of the “essentially all” requirement, 41 U.S.C s. S. 1907, so that a COTS product “made” in the United States complies with the BAA, even if it is made from mainly foreign components, FAR 25.101 (a)). It will always be advantageous to obtain definitive conclusions from CBP on substantial processing when a product is assembled or manufactured in a foreign country with components and other inputs from other countries. In addition, it should be useful to obtain the provisions of the CBP that components imported into the United States have been substantially processed through a production process, which would allow for the substantial transformation of the “final test” in the United States, since the purchasing entity may find such convincing conclusions even if they are not binding in this context. The Tribunal agreed with the government that the agreement was no longer in a position to challenge the current application in light of a price prohibiting service or notification.