Course Code Course Name Section Code

BU2103 International Trade Law BU2103 - IBM G2:

Percentage Weight of
Semester Type of Evaluation
Total Evaluation
Summer 2020 Assignment #2
15%

Course Instructor Due Date

Tony Bejjani Week 10 (Tues., July 21, 2020) at 5:00 pm Total Marks: / 15

Student Name Student ID # Team #

Non-tariff Barriers to International Trade

Bear on the move

Located in Guangdong, China’s richest province, Xianda Co. is a toy company that has been
manufacturing toys since the onset of Guangdong’s economic boom in the early 1990s. While Xianda
Co. is now a major manufacturer for a number of multinational toy companies, it began by designing
and manufacturing its own line of dolls, teddy bears, puppets and building blocks based on its
trademark character “Xia the Panda Bear”.

Xia’s popularity was initially limited mostly to China’s mainland until late 2002; a year after China
joined the WTO. In 2002, Xianda Co. saw a surge in demands for Xia products start in France, spread
throughout Europe and North America, and move into South America. Today, Brazil is Xianda Co.’s
biggest export market for Xia goods, and Xia’s popularity in Brazil alone accounts for 19 percent of
worldwide Xia sales and 2 percent of Xianda Co.’s manufacturing output. Since 2003, Xia the Panda
Bear has become the most popular toy in Brazilian history.

A bear market

A media frenzy of confirmed cases and unconfirmed speculation pertaining to China’s use of
hazardous materials (for example, lead paint and potentially carcinogenic plastic and rubbers) to
manufacture toys cheaply, sparked consumer panic around the globe. In response, the Brazilian
government ordered all Xia goods pulled from store shelves and banned further toy imports from
China until toxicology tests had been performed to guarantee they were free of potential hazards.
Almost overnight, Xia product sales fell by almost 20 percent, and Xianda Co. production decreased
by 2 percent.

The Chinese government, fearing other countries would act in a similar manner to Brazil, brought the
case before the WTO for resolution.

© 2017 FITT All Rights Reserved Page 1 of 3

Not bearing the burden

While waiting for the WTO to make a ruling on the validity of Brazil’s Xia ban, the Chinese government
restricted all imports on soybeans; coincidentally, the majority of soybeans imported to China come
from Brazil. Until the Xia dispute, low-grade Brazilian soybean exports had increased dramatically to
China, where they were being used to create an animal feed for domestic cattle and poultry stocks.

As justification, China declared the lower cost and surge of all imported soybeans were jeopardizing
the livelihood of coastal soybean farmers who were being forced to raise soybeans prices domestically
to offset harvest losses from flooding. China stated the quota restriction would only last for eighteen
months, long enough for their farmers to recover economically. Brazil, declaring the quotas were
retaliation for the Xia ban, brought the case before the WTO for resolution.

Case Study Questions

1. In the Xia case, if the WTO were to rule in favor of Brazil, which of the WTO trade agreements
would contain the justification and why? (3 Marks)

2. If the details of the Xia case were indeed presented to the WTO, explain what the WTO ruling
would most likely be and why. (3 Marks)

3. In the soybean case, what was the measure adopted by the Chinese government to protect
soybean farmers from import surges, and what are the WTO parameters for instituting such
measures? (3 Marks)

4. If the details of the soybean case were indeed presented to the WTO, explain what the WTO
ruling would most likely be and why. (3 Marks)

5. What is your recommendation for Xianda Co. for their International Trade Law practices?
(3 Marks)

Although based on the research of actual events, organizations, and/or individuals, this case study
is fictional and is intended to support learning. Cases are not intended to serve as endorsements,
sources of primary data, or illustrations of effective or ineffective management.

Instructions:
a) Print this page with your student name and ID #, using font 11.
b) One and a half-space typed.
c) Each team member should fill the “Peer Evaluation Form”, and submit it with the assignment.
No email submission is accepted whatsoever!
d) Provide references on the last page of the assignment using the APA style.
e) Plagiarism: ZERO MARKS.

© 2017 FITT All Rights Reserved Page 2 of 3

 GROUP PEER EVALUATION FORM
Group Peer Evaluation Rubric
(to be completed by the team
captain/leader for each
assignment/project)
Criteria:
Mark Team Role fulfillment
Participated in all group
meetings, assumed leadership
4 roles as necessary. Did the
work that was assigned by the
group.
Participated In most group
meetings. Provided leadership
3
when asked. Did most of the
work assigned by the group
Participated in some group
meetings.
2 Provided some leadership. Did
some of the work assigned by
the group.
Participate in few or no group
meetings. Provided no
1 Provided no feedback to others.
leadership. Did little or no work
assigned by the group
Little to no Participation. Did
0 little or no work assigned by the
group
Evaluate group members (including yourself):
Name
General Comments:
© 2017 FITT All Rights Reserved
Team Captain/Leader:
Communication
Always listens to, shares with,
and supports the efforts of
others. Provided effective
feedback to other members.
Relays a great deal of
information - all relate to the
topic.
Usually listens to, shares with,
and supports the efforts of
others. Provided some effective
feedback to others.
Relays some basic information
- most relates to the topic.
Often listens to, shares with,
and supports the efforts of
others. Provided little feedback
to others. Relays very little
information - some relate to the
topic.
Rarely listens to, shares with, or
supports the efforts of others.
Does not relay any information
to teammates
Did not listen, share with others,
or support the group. Provided
no feedback to others.
Team Role Communicatio
Fulfillment n Proficiency
(Out of 4) (Out of 4)
Page 3 of 3
Job proficiency
Did more than others - highly
productive. Work is complete,
well organized, with no errors,
and is done on time or early.
Did their part of the work -
cooperative. Work is generally
complete, meets the
requirements of the task, and is
mostly done on time. Works well
with others, rarely argues.
Could have done more of the
work - has difficulty, requires
structure, directions, and
leadership. Work tends to be
disorderly, incomplete, and not
accurate and is usually late.
Minimal work - Minimum
contribution, does not work well
with others. Work is sloppy and
incomplete, excessive errors,
and is mostly late or not at all.
Did not do any work - does not
contribute, does not work well
with others. Work is sloppy and
incomplete, excessive errors,
and is mostly late or not at all.
Job Total
(Out of
(Out of 4) 12)
0
0
0
0
0