. /.  
 WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/VAL/W/143 
1 November 2004 
 
 (04-4635) 
Committee on Customs Valuation Original:   English 
  
NOTIFICATION UNDER ARTICLE 22 OF THE CUSTOMS  
VALUATION AGREEMENT 
 
US questions regarding Thailand's responses
1 
  
 The following communication, dated 25 October 2004, is being circulated at the request of 
the Delegation of the United States.  
_______________ 
  
Regarding Sufficient Guarantee 
 
 We continue to have concerns about Thaila nd's implementation of Article 13 of the WTO 
Valuation Agreement.  Article 13 requires that if, in the course of determining the customs value of imported goods, it becomes necessary to delay the fi nal determination of such customs value, the 
importer of the good shall
 nevertheless be able to withdraw th em from custom if, where so required, 
the importer provide sufficient guarantee in the form of a surety, a deposit or some other appropriate 
instrument, covering the ultimate payment of custom s duties for which the good may be liable.  The 
legislation of each Member shall make provisions for such circumstances.  Although Thailand states 
that the obligation of Article 13 is covered under Section 40 and Section 112 of the Customs Act B.E. 
2469, neither of these Sections provides an importer shall  be able to withdraw the goods from customs 
custody upon payment of sufficient guarantee as requi red by Article 13.  Section 40 simply provides 
that before the release of the goods, cash security sh all be provided. It does not mandate the release of 
the goods upon sufficient guarantee.  Similarly, S ection 112 (cited on page 2 as section 122) does not 
mandate the release of the goods upon sufficient gua rantee in all cases.  This section appears to 
authorize the goods to be removed to the Cust oms House. Please confirm our understanding of 
Section 40 and Section 112, or otherwise conf irm that goods shall be released upon sufficient 
guarantee in accordance with Article 13 of the Agreement.  
Regarding the Interpretative Notes 
  We continue to have concerns about Thaila nd's implementation of Article 14 of the WTO 
Valuation Agreement.  As provided in Article 14, the Interpretative Notes are an integral part of the 
WTO Valuation Agreement and the Articles are to be read and applied in conjunction with their 
respective notes. Many important principles of th e WTO Valuation Agreement are included in the 
Interpretative Notes. It is our view that at a minimum, Article 14 of the WTO Valuation Agreement 
requires that the most important provisions of the In terpretative Notes, such as the definition of price 
actually paid or payable, the explanations regarding the circumstances of sale test set forth in the Note 
to Article 1, paragraph 2.3; and the methods of determining the profit and general expenses set forth 
in the Notes to Articles 5 and 6 should be directly in corporated in the legislation and/or regulations.  
Otherwise, a correct and transparent application of  the WTO Valuation Agreement is difficult, if not 
impossible, to achieve.  
                                                     
 
1 G/VAL/W/130 G/VAL/W/143 
Page 2  
 
 Does Thailand intend to incorporate these provisi ons into its legislation, regulations, or 
similar official promulgation?   Regarding Section 3. Section 11 bis of the Customs Act B.E. 2469, What is the status of the proposed legislation to repeal Section 11 bis of the Customs Act B.E. 2469? 
 
 We also appreciate Thailand’s submission of its WTO Checklist of Issues, G/VAL/N/2/THA/1.  We believe that not including th is document on the agenda was an oversight.  
We have two questions regarding the checklist.  
 Please provide translations of the sections of the Customs Code that are referenced in the 
checklist.   The Decision on the Treatment of Interest Char ges referenced in the checklist pertains to 
Decision 3.1 of the Committee on Customs Valuation.  Decision 3.1 addresses when interest charges 
under a financing arrangement entered into by the buye r should not be regarded as part of the customs 
value.  Thailand's response does not cover this issu e.  Therefore, we still request information on how 
Thailand implements Decision 3.1.   
Regarding the Valuatio n of Software   
  Could the representative from Thailand provid e an explanation of Thailand’s customs 
valuation practices with respect to carrier media bearing software for data processing equipment. According to Article 1 of the Agreement on Im plementation of Article VII of the GATT 1994, the 
customs value of imported goods should be the tr ansaction value.  Does Thailand’s practice comply 
with Article 1?  Alternatively, software may be valued according to the method prescribed in Decision 
4.1 on the Valuation of Carrier Media Bearing So ftware for Data Processing Equipment.  Does 
Thailand apply Decision 4.1 in its valuation practices?   Does Thailand intend to adopt the Decision?   
 
__________