Japan has started up a version of a Cash for Clunkers program, but the requirement that cars be fuel-efficiency-tested in Japan excluded most US cars from the program. Japan has now relented, and allowed US EPA MPG figures to be used for US cars. That change will allow US car makers to be moving cars to meet the modest demand for imports in Japan, but the bigger effect might be on the used car market in Japan.

If the Cash for Clunkers program has the effect it did in the US, there will be a shortage of older cars, leading the Japanese to import some used cars to make up the difference in the used car market. Interestingly, those cars being imported might be Toyotas, if their reputation hit from their current woes creates an excess of used Toyotas on the US market; if the Japanese buyers aren’t as ticked off at Toyota, they might be more than happy to buy the US-built Toyotas off of the US used car market.

Regardless of the current peddle-powered fiasco, there will likely be some used cars heading across the Pacific to Japan, and US used car auctions and US car haulers will get some extra business of it. Japan has few restrictions on used car imports, so there aren’t any major blockages to the importation of US used cars. Savvy car exporters may want to cultivate Japanese contacts in the weeks and months to come, for there should be a demand for cars from the US market.

Source: http://www.freep.com/article/20100120/BUSI...-more-U.S.-cars

Columbia and Venezuela are not the best of friends in geopolitics, but they both share a common policy on car imports; they and Ecuador are part of an Andean Automotive Policy group that bars the importation of used cars, both from outside of the group and between countries within the grouping. That cuts off a large market for US used cars, shutting them out of the international used car market that is a boon to car transport firms. Thus, the car hauling industry is mostly a local affair with few cars coming in from the outside.

They also have a 35% tariff on new cars coming into the region and a 15% tariff on new trucks and buses. This is part of an “infant industry” approach to international trade, where you put up tariffs in order to encourage national industries; a fledgling South American auto maker would be hard-pressed to compete with mature companies elsewhere. The Andean Community is striving for the “development of a competitive and efficient automotive industry capable of penetrating other markets outside the region.” That way, they might be able to export manufactured goods rather than raw commodities like oil, coffee and other less licit exports the region is noted for.

Columbia has signed a free trade deal with the United States that has yet to be approved by the US Congress. US used cars would still be blocked, but auto parts would be part of the trade deal. Columbia will thus be outside of the international used car market unless they opt to leave the Andean Community, which might happen if frictions between them and Venezuela and Ecuador continue to grow.

Sources:http://www.trade.gov/wcm/groups/internet/@...adebarriers.pdf
http://www.comunidadandina.org/ingles/automotive_policy.htm

Car haulers have a new way to move cars into Europe as freight carrier Hupac has announced they have broken the seal on a new freight terminal located conveniently at the Belgian Port of Antwerp. Called the HTA Hupac Terminal Antwerp, this new terminal gives firms another option for shipping cars to Europe that's available to all firms transporting by rail that handles freight equal to about 600 truck loads per day. At the present moment the number of trains coming through the terminal is being restricted as they go through the opening phases of getting it up to capacity. It should only be a matter of time before the number of trains moving through the area is up to expectations and car freight begins moving through the region at a feverish rate. The Port of Antwerp is a central transport hub for Europe and trucks and trains have ready access to all of the cities of Europe using this port.

This new rail freight terminal falls in line with recent decisions by European agencies that seems destined to take the European freight industry down the road to putting as much long-distance freight on trains as possible. In Europe the idea that rail is a more environmentally friendly alternative for freight movements seems to be entrenched, unlike here where the debate still rages over this idea. Whatever the truth, this terminal is definitely one street down the road to putting as much freight onto European rails as possible, and is probably one of many more similar projects that will be undertaken in the years ahead, in an effort to move as much freight by rail in Europe as possible.

Any moves Europe makes down this road are going to be expensive to make and they'll have to make major investments in infrastructure, despite rail having a major presence in European life. Still, considering the geographical structure of Europe and Asia, it makes a lot of sense to move freight by rail.

http://www.pressreleasepoint.com/hupac-ope...erminal-antwerp
http://www.transportjournal.com/index.php?...7a2e2ebecd385e9

Shipping cars into American ports will be a little more complicated in 2010 as the new rules concerning the paperwork that firms need to submit come into law. Called the 10+2 Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations, the new rules require importers and freight carriers to provide the government with additional information in written form, at least 24 hours before the freight leaves its port of origin.

The new information required is pretty basic stuff that surprised me at first, like the name and address of both the seller and manufacturer. Surprised that they didn't already know this information, especially considering the capacity of computer systems and data collection programs implemented in business today.

Car shipping companies will need to make sure they have all the paperwork in order as they come into port because American customs officials are serious people who understand the value of the job they do. Companies that haven't filled out all of the required paperwork will find they could be fined up to $5,000 American, ordered not to move the freight, or the good could be taken by the United States government.

The date for international automobile shippers to begin making sure they have the necessary paperwork submitted to the United States government has fortunately been put back by one year. This will give firms more time to comply and get set up to handle the new requirements in their company infrastructure, so if you haven't done the paperwork, you still have time.

Companies have seen the opportunity for new business in the new regulations and partnerships have been formed between groups interested in providing services designed to help firms take care of meeting the requirements of the 10+2 regulations. This service is going to come in handy for many firms who haven't had the time to begin the change over to the new reality for the industry. How many firms don't have the necessary infrastructure in place to deal with the changes? This is going to be an interesting question because were bound to see a few cases of non-compliance and disputes at the border.


http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/cargo_sec...ecurity_filing/
http://www.uslaw.com/library/Legal_Comment...php?item=501860

A Minnesota auto transport firm is fighting a state ruling that contractors used to deliver trucks and busses from the manufacturer to the customer have to be treated as employees and are subject to the worker’s comp, unemployment tax and benefits rules for employees. Owner-operators are treated as contractors, but they own what they are driving, and that fact is what exempts them from being treated as employees.

However, these “driveaway” drivers don’t own the vehicles they are driving, so Minnesota has a case to treat them as employees. One test for employee status under federal law is whether the employer provides the tools for the job; if the worker is providing his own tools (a tractor, in the case of owner-operator trucking), the employer has a better case of being able to treat them as contractors.

In this case, the employer is providing the driver with the truck, so he will look more like an employee to officials. It may be customary in some quarters to treat such workers as contractors, but there are a lot of industries where businesses will try and fudge the contractor rules even if the workers should by law be treated as employees.

The aggrieved firm is appealing on constitutional grounds that the regulation is getting in the way of interstate commerce in an “unreasonable and significant” way. The extra cost of treating the drivers as employees is significant, but the finding by Minnesota will probably seen as reasonable to a federal court.

Truck deliverers in other states might well be classified as employees, so car haulers who also deliver trucks and buses might want to rethink their worker’s status. Treating workers as employees means more money for state governments, so they often err on the side of wanting to rule in that direction.

Source: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/01/22/23933.htm