To Implement the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement With Respect to Guatemala, and For Other Purposes

This proclamation implements the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) specifically for Guatemala, effective July 1, 2006. It modifies the Harmonized Tariff Schedule to provide preferential tariff treatment, removes Guatemala from the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) and Caribbean Basin trade programs, and supersedes inconsistent prior proclamations and executive orders.

Federal Register Open PDF 71 FR 38509

Impact dates

Date TBD
HTS amendments effective per relevant dates indicated in Annex to Publication 3861
Jul 1, 2006
Proclamation effective for goods entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption

Key directives

Modify HTS per Publication 3861 Annex
Provide preferential tariff treatment to Guatemala under CAFTA-DR
Remove Guatemala from GSP beneficiary developing countries
Remove Guatemala from CBERA designated beneficiary countries
Remove Guatemala from CBTPA beneficiary countries
Implement statistical monitoring for tariff provisions
Make technical and conforming changes to HTS general notes
Supersede inconsistent prior proclamations and Executive Orders

Timeline

Immediate

HTS modifications take effect July 1, 2006 for most goods
Guatemala removed from GSP eligibility
Guatemala removed from CBERA and CBTPA beneficiary lists
Preferential tariff treatment begins under CAFTA-DR

Near term (90d)

Tariff-rate quotas take effect per specific dates in Publication 3861 Annex
Statistical monitoring systems adjust to new tariff provisions

Long term

Phased duty reductions continue per CAFTA-DR schedule
Permanent trade preference structure replaces temporary unilateral programs

Risks & tensions

Removal from GSP/CBERA/CBTPA is irreversible and eliminates fallback preference programs
Specific Annex dates for certain tariff provisions not provided in proclamation text—uncertainty about phased implementation
Supersession clause (para 3) is broad but vague—scope of 'inconsistent' provisions unclear without legal review