RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/ACC/SAU/35/Corr.11
21 September 1998
(98-3613)
Working Party on the
Accession of Saudi Arabia
ACCESSION OF THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA
Additional Questions and Replies
Corrigendum
The Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has resubmitted additional replies
to the following questions repr oduced in document WT/ACC/SAU/35.
_______________
                                                     
1 English onlyWT/ACC/SAU/35/Corr.1
Page 2
II. ECONOMY, ECONOMIC POLICIES AND FOREIGN TRADE
2. Economic Policies(a) Main directions of ongoing economic policiesPetroleumQuestion 4Why is the rebate applied to the minimum export price reported in that quarter and not to the
average price?
Reply
This is not a rebate, it is a discount off the minimum export price and is done purely for
accounting purposes and to avoid the complaints from the customers of applying averages, since theexport price is a contract price set by the exporting entity.
Question 6
Is the "stated objective of diversifying Saudi's economic base and lessening dependence on  the
export  of raw material" (WT/ACC/SAU/3c page 4) to be taken to mean that the production
associated with this rebate is meant far export only? If not, how much of this  production will be
absorbed by the Saudi market?
Reply
This is not a rebate and the Council of Ministers’ decision No. 68 did not specify the discount
for export industries.  It is intended for local indu stries, whether Saudi or foreign owner, using it as
feedstock whether their output is for domestic or e xport markets.  The proportion to be absorbed by
the domestic market depend on economic and populati on growth, investment patterns and many other
factors.
3. Internal Policies Affecting Foreign Trade in Goods
(b) Technical barriers to tradeFood standards and shelf lifeQuestion 58In relation to questions 189 to 195 and 200 to 258 in WT/ACC/SAU/29, relating to shelf life, we
note that there is widespread acceptance of manufacturer determined shelf life, based on a bodyof recognized scientifically based literature.  Will Saudi Arabia accept manufacturer
determined shelf life where applicable?
Reply
A WTO Member has the right to engage in own shelf life determination as an SPS measure
for perishable food products and as a TBT-techni cal regulation appropriate to the Member’s climatic
and infrastructural conditions for shelf stable food products.  In its determination of appropriate shelf
life periods, Saudi Arabia relies on available scientific studies by specialized, credible andWT/ACC/SAU/35/Corr.1
Page 3
internationally recognized bodies and  on references, based on research conducted for academic or
industrial/commercial purposes.  The fact that part  of this research is conducted by manufacturers
demonstrates that Saudi Arabia takes into consideration differences in manufacturing and packaging
processes inherent in the food industry.
Question 59
Can Saudi Arabia provide an assurance that shelf life regulations applied to products destined
for areas where adequate transport, storage facilities exist are not more restrictive than
necessary?
Reply
Saudi Arabia’s shelf life for perishable food products is determined based on the assumption
of a controlled storage temperature (by refrigeration or freezing) in accordance with internationally
recognized norms.  As for shelf stable products stored under room temperature, the main
consideration for its determination is the prevailing climatic conditions of Saudi Arabia.  Theinadequacy or abuse of the transport and handling conditions are only considered minor factors and
are diminishing in relative importance as infrastructural conditions in the country improve
progressively.
Question 60.
Do the Administrative arrangements and evaluation process outlined in  WT/ACC/SAU/27
include provision for "acceptance SPS measures applied by other countries, including
manufacturer data where these may differ from Saudi Arabian standards but where the
exporter can  objectively demonstrate that the standards are appropriate to Saudi  Arabia'slevel of  SPS protection'?
Reply
Shelf life is considered partly as an SPS measure only for perishable food products.  By its
definition, SPS measures are taken by countries (governments) whenever they choose to interfere in
insuring an appropriate level of SPS protection.  Manufacturer determined shelf life determinationthat may be followed in other countries are neither uniform nor can be considered as official SPS
measures by governments.  Nevertheless, shelf life  periods of perishable food products are not applied
or imposed unilaterally by the government of Saudi Arabia, but rather adopted in accordance with the
same open process and code of good practice applicable to standards, i.e. through technical
committees entrusted with the preparation of the  relevant shelf life standard whose diversifiedmembership include representatives of the industrial and commercial sectors.  These members can
influence the decision on shelf life determination and ensure its responsiveness to the needs of the
industry, not to mention the period afforded for consultation and comment by any concerned parties.
In addition, SASO administrative procedures a nd directives provide the opportunities for
manufacturers to submit the scientific basis for their own determined shelf life to SASO at any timefor evaluation.  If these manufacturers can demonstrate objectively that their shelf life periods are
appropriate to Saudi Arabia’s level of SPS protect ion as well as the required food quality criteria,
Saudi Arabia will revise its shelf life standards accordingly.
Question 61
(WT/ACC/SAU/29)  The reply to question 200 states that "... final determination of shelf-life is
made based on the studies for which " the stated storage conditions" most closely resemble
Saudi Arabian conditions ... these conditions have been thoroughly invest igated and surveyed …WT/ACC/SAU/35/Corr.1
Page 4
in a report entitled Proceedings of Symposiu m on the Transportation, Handling & Storage of
Food Products to the Kingdom, Part I and II dated 26-28 February 1989".
Please explain how the appearance of a date on a food package alone will prevent,
directly or indirectly, the risk of food contamination in the Government of SaudiArabia's regulated food products.
Please explain what specific food safety risk the Government of Saudi Arabia is
attempting to prevent by displaying the shelf-life date on a food product package and
what impact non-fulfilment, i.e. the absence of a shelf-life date, would create.
If the Government of Saudi Arabia justifies the use of its’ shelf-life measures as
necessary to protect the health and safety of its consumers, on a product by product
basis, please provide the generally accepted scientific data which supports why each
shelf-life date has been applied to each of the Government of Saudi Arabia's regulated
products?
Because quality attributes can change (sometimes rapidly) in some food products based on the
type of product, how it is handled, packaged, and stored throughout distribution, please
illustrate:
How the appearance of a date on a food package  can ensure the quality of the Government of
Saudi Arabia's regulated food products?  What other methods does the Government of Saudi
Arabia use to ensure quality?
What is the risk non-fulfilment would create, i.e. the absence of a shelf life date?
Saudi Question 203 Reply states that "Codex defi nes "use-By-Date" as "the date which signifies
the end of the estimated period under any stated storage condition after which the product
probably will not have the quality  attributes  normally expected by the consumer … the term
"unacceptable to the consumer" and "unit for human  consumption" respectively correspond to
and are self evident from the above definition…"
"Unacceptable to the consumer" relates to sensory and quality attributes while "unfit for
human consumption" relates to the products safety i.e. risk of contamination which makes the
product unsafe or harmful to the consumer.
Does the Government of Saudi Arabia use shelf life dating as the primary means by which to
control and ensure the safety and quality of both domestic and imported regulated foodproducts?
Reply
Saudi Arabian standards for food products are adopted either entirely or at large from the
Codex Code.  They cover the various factors that affect food quality and safety.  The purpose of Saudi
Arabia’s date marking is to ensure that products which meet the required criteria at time of
production, and thus were initially safe and wholesome, maintain their microbiological, sensory and
nutritional qualities during the shelf life period at the stated storage temperature.  Thus, Saudi Arabia
does not rely on date marking alone as is stated.
Saudi Arabia had previously stated in its WTO submissions that shelf life is both a TBT
(quality) issue as well as an SPS (food safety) issue.  In this course, it is necessary to make the
following distinction:WT/ACC/SAU/35/Corr.1
Page 5
(a) Perishable food products:
These products carry the inherent risk of concurrent deterioration of food safety and quality
properties, and thus date marking plays a contributing role in the maintenance of food safety; thisgives it the priority to be classifiable as an SPS measure in addition to its TBT classification as
technical regulation for quality of health.  By and large, perishable food products are stored under
controlled and uniformly specified temperature and humidity conditions (refrigeration or freezing).  In
this case, Saudi Arabia predominantly adopts the shelf life periods determined by the scientific studies
of internationally recognized specialized instit utes listed as references in the attachment to
WT/ACC/SAU/27 for each individual product, with out deviation.  In limited cases noted (Labneh,
chilled meat etc.), Saudi Arabia conducted the studies itself and provided copies to the WTO.  Thus,Saudi Arabia has totally met the scientific justification criteria required by the SPS Agreement.
Nevertheless, a WTO Member who believes that any shelf life period(s) are not objectively
determined in accordance with scientific justification, is always welcome to submit the relevant
technical grounds.  SASO is willing to conduct a joint technical study or research for each individual
case and make the required amendments in its shelf life determinations.
(b) Shelf stable food products:
These products generally remain safe for some time after food quality properties start to
deteriorate.  Thus, date marking of shelf stable products contributes mainly to the maintenance of foodquality, and falls under the provisions of TBT Agreement.  The Agreement grants Members the right
to prepare and adopt standards that are "appropriate" to the Member’s "fundamental climatic,
infrastructural and technological conditions".  Shelf stable products are normally stored under
room/ambient temperature conditions.  In the case of Saudi Arabia, shelf life determination of these
products has to take into account the prevailing high ambient temperatures in the country and the widefluctuations between day and night and different seasons, ranging between -10
oC to 55oC averaging
33oC on a year round basis, not to mention the extreme variations in relative humidity.  In contrast,
shelf life for shelf stable products determined by most food exporting countries are based on an
assumed ambient storage temperature not exceeding 25oC.  A study conducted by Natic Research for
the United States Army found that shelf life periods of shelf stable products under a constant storage
temperature of 32.22oC are generally half those determined under 21.1oC, thereby confirming
Arrhenius Equation and the Q 10 rule used by researchers.  Nevertheless, comparison of Saudi Arabia’s
actually determined shelf life periods with the result s of the study shows that they generally fall in the
mid-range between the periods determined by the study at these two storage temperatures.  For
several products, Saudi Arabia’s shelf life period coincided with the study’s 21.1oC condition, with
few exceptions coinciding with the 32.22oC condition (e.g. highly risky products such as baby food).
Thus, Saudi Arabia’s shelf life determinations for shelf stable products are in fact less strict thanwarranted by its climatic and infrastructural conditions.
Question 62
(WT/ACC/SAU/29)  Responding to the Government of Saudi Arabia's definition of CODEX
shelf-life guideline, CAC/VOL VI-Ed. 1 states the purpose of date marking, is to give the
consumer a date which will provide information about the expected quality of the product
provided that it has been properly stored.  Th is does not mean that date marking guarantees
either the acceptability or the safety of the product.  Unquote. Under definition of types of date
marking CODEX also defines:  "sell-by-date", "date of minimum durability ("best before"), inaddition to "use-by-date" marking.  In general shelf-life is the period during which the food
keeps its microbiological and sensory quality at the specific temperature of storage.WT/ACC/SAU/35/Corr.1
Page 6
Page 9 (b), paragraph 4 -  The compelling argument made by SASO, is that, quote ... the most
hazardous effect of temperature, which leads to rapid quality deterioration and microbiological
decay of foods, is temperature, handling and storage.
This is true, however, why is the producer of an imported product being held responsible for the
Saudi food handlers inadequate methods of storing or transporting the product once in the
Kingdom?
Page 14 (b) -  The scientific studies specified in this document are done at a constant
temperature to evaluate and estimate shelf-life.  These studies do not include testing for
temperature abuse specific to Saudi Arabia.
How does Saudi use these studies in determining its existing shelf life?
Saudi Arabia has the right to require expiration dates that meet the standards set by standard
testing methods; however,  they do not have the right to expect the rest of the world to
determine how much temperature abuse a specific product can withstand in Saudi Arabia basedon compliance to triggers beyond their control and which fall under the authority and
capability of the Government of Saudi Arabia to  take corrective enforcement action to prevent.
Saudi Arabia seems to impose on the foreign manufacturer the added obligation of being
responsible for the irresponsible handling and tr ansportation of their product once it has
entered the Kingdom, hence the half life/shelf life date requirement on imports.
Reply
The same shelf life periods are applied on domestic and imported food products alike.  In the
case of shelf stable products, the TBT Agreement gran ts Saudi Arabia the right to take into account
the effect of the country’s specific climatic and infrastructural conditions.  Climatic conditions is
considered as the major essential factor by SASO  in determining shelf life. Transportation, storage
and handling conditions and abuses are only considered as minor factors and are diminishing in
relative importance as infrastructural conditions in the country improve progressively.
Question 63
(WT/ACC/SAU/29)  Question 204 Reply states that the Government of Saudi Arabia has
identical shelf-life periods and marking requirements applied for domestic and imported food
products... on an non-discriminatory basis... and that the half the shelf life  requirement for
imported foods is not an SPS issue, but rather a requirement for the marketing of the food, i.e.
to allow enough time for the exporter to ship and the importer time to facilitate the distribution
and marketing to all regions of the Kingdom.
How does the Government of Saudi Arabia compensate for the geographic advantage of
domestically produced regulated food products  mandatory shelf-life measures when these same
measures impose an unfair burden on imported foods?
If half-life/shelf-life is not an SPS issue and it does not support the quality attributes of the
product, how does the Government of Saudi Arabia justify the punitive nature  of this
requirement on imported foods i.e., if half the shelf life does not remain on the product theimported product is denied entry into the Kingdom?WT/ACC/SAU/35/Corr.1
Page 7
Saudi Arabia asserts that it accepts the CODEX definition of shelf life, then why does the
Government of Saudi Arabia impose a half-life/shelf life date requirement (i.e. half the shelf-life
must remain on the product before it wi ll be allowed entry) on imported foods.
Reply
Regarding the requirement of half shelf life validity at time of entry of food products, Saudi
Arabia has previously explained that this has nothing to do with the Codex definition of shelf life, but
is purely a requirement for the marketing of food products in accordance with GATT Article XI; it
ensures that at least 50 per cent of shelf life validity remains on food products to allow for reasonable
and adequate time for the distribution and marketing of these products throughout Saudi Arabia.  The
first 50 per cent of shelf life allowed to be lost  before entry exceeds the time required for shipping
from the most distant country from Saudi Arabia, thereby accounting for the geographical
disadvantage inherent in imported products, and thus is not a punitive requirement as stated.  Even
with the half shelf life requirement imposed, the local distribution system and Saudi consumer are still
at a disadvantage when buying imported food products versus domestically manufactured products
whereby the latter can provide full shelf life and freshness utility.  Needless to mention, food products
arriving in Saudi Arabia with inadequate or near expiry remaining shelf life will put an unreasonable
strain on the distribution and marketing system and may wind up having to be wasted, thereby
inflicting unnecessary losses on the national economy.
Question 65
Why does SASO use standards experiments of other countries which do not the Government of
Saudi Arabia's special climate conditions (i.e. Annex 4 list, "References used for Evaluation of
Shelf-Life ...," Netherlands for Food Group:  Milk and Milk Products)?
Reply
As stated above, only shelf stable foods are subject to Saudi Arabia’s special climatic
conditions.  Most milk and milk products food group are stored under controlled temperature (by
refrigeration or freezing), and excluding any transportation, handling, or storage abuse, are not
affected by climatic conditions.  Thus, shelf life studies for these products conducted in other
countries are applicable to any other country including Saudi Arabia and can serve as scientificreferences.
ICCP
Question 68We seek further details on the charging regime under the ICCP and any changes that may be
necessary to bring it into confor mity with GATT 1994 Article VIII?
The subject of the ICCP’s fees has been fully clarified and exhausted in several previous
documentation submitted to the WTO.  For a comprehensive coverage of this issue please refer to
Section 5 of Chapter IV of WT/ACC/SAU/26, and to  R1 of "Saudi Arabia’s Response to Questions
from Canada following the May 29-30 Working Party" submitted to the WTO as supplementary
document dated 26 November, 1997 (circulated informally).  Furthermore, footnote 1 of Article 1.4 of
the PSI Agreement states that exporting WTO Members are under no obligation to allow governmententities of importing Members to conduct preshipment inspection activities on the exporting
Member’s territory.  This constitutes an implicit acknowledgement by the Agreement of the vital and
indispensable role of PSI companies in implementation of the Agreement, and that the only course
open to importing Members is to contract with those companies for carrying out inspection on theirWT/ACC/SAU/35/Corr.1
Page 8
behalf.  With such ultimatum prescribed by the Agreement, it is the collective responsibility of the
WTO, and not the importing Member alone, to ensure that the general practices and code of conduct
prevailing within the PSI industry are in accordance with WTO rules, regulations and principles,
including appropriateness of the fees structure.  In fact, the WTO WP is currently investigating the
practices of PSI companies, and in case the WTO determines an alternative fee structure for the
industry, Saudi Arabia will be in a position to impose such structure on the PSI companies contracted
with.
Reply
Question 78
Exports from the manufacturer/from an independent exporter.  The ICCP type approval
regime foresees slightly different type approval procedures depending on whether  the product
was exported directly by a manufacturer or via a separate trader, There are no grounds in the
TBTA to differentiate in this way between like products.  We therefore urge Saudi Arabia to
merge the two procedures into one by applying to all products the procedure applied tomanufacturers who exported.  This would involve as a consequence the deletion of those
paragraphs in the ICCP guidelines referring to products coming being presented by an
importer/exporter who is not the manufacturer.  Our understanding has been that since there
are no significant differences in treatment such a modification would be considered positively.
We would welcome Saudi Arabia's views on whether this change can be made.
Reply
In accordance with clause 5.1.1 of Article 5 of the TBT Agreement, equal conditions of
access for suppliers of like products need only be applicable in comparable situations.  A Type
approval license is only granted to manufacturers with approved quality system such as ISO 9000.
Exporters normally deal with several manufacturers and markets with varying requirements, and may
be involved in assembly, conversion or repacking outside the control of the type approved
manufacturer which may change the original characteristics of the product and render it
non-compliant.  Moreover, exporters to do not necessarily have quality management systems with
proper controls to ensure that only the Saudi version of the product is the one being shipped.  Typeapproved products are not necessarily marked with  SASO quality mark and thus may not be directly
traceable to the original manufacturer or readily differentiable from other markets’ versions.  The
lower level of confidence justifies different corresponding proportionate measures.  The exporter is
still entitled to get the benefit of waiver of routine PSI, by obtaining the authorization of the
manufacturer who owns the license.  The CoC can then be issued by either the manufacturer or theSCO.
Question 79
Transparency:  We suggest that the ICCP shou ld explicitly state that a single uniform
concordance of Saudi and other equivalent standards exists, is regularly updated by SASO
which is solely responsible for setting standards, and is available from any SASO Country
Office.  We would also like a clear statement in the ICCP that the Saudi Arabian government is
the body determining technical regulations, sta ndards, conformity assessment procedures and
their application, and that companies applying such rules on products prior to export are actingin conformity with those rules established by th e government.  This is to ensure that different
test houses, inspection services cannot deviate from the centrally established rules, standards,
and assessment procedures.WT/ACC/SAU/35/Corr.1
Page 9
The concordance of standards should also identi fy for which standards a third party conformity
assessment procedure is or is not required, our understanding being that there are products
which must meet certain standards but for which there is no ICCP procedure.
Finally. the ICCP should identify describe  in more detail the nature of the conformity
assessment procedures applicable and identify the relevant ISO guides or other standards
governing these procedures.
Reply
Transparency:  In accordance with Chapter 2 - Definition of Terms of the ICCP CPG, it is
clear from the definitions of Certificate of Conformity, International Conformity Certification
Program, Regional Licensing Centre (RLC), SASO,  and SASO Country Office (SCO)  that the RLCs
and SCOs are carrying out their duties on behalf of SASO/MOC under the rules of the ICCP.  The
adherence of these bodies to these rules, and their accountability to SASO/MOC is further reflected in
the second paragraph under the heading of SASO Program Management on page 14 of the CPG, as
well as the full recourse to the Saudi Arabian authorities provided for in the grievance proceduresincluded as attachment to Appendix C.  As for equivalency of standards, the second paragraph of
Chapter 1 - Introduction states:  "Compliance with  the relevant SASO standards, or approved
equivalent alternatives, results in the issue of a CoC".  The same thing is reiterated in the first
paragraph of Chapter 3 - Procedures for Product Compliance.  The term "approved" is intended to
signify approval by SASO.  All these measures are in place to ensure that bodies designated andentrusted with the implementation of the Program do not deviate from the centrally established rules,
standards and assessment procedures.
Question 81
Proportionality:  We find it difficult to acce pt that ICCP products have to undergo not only
product type approval but also factory quality system certification.  This double barrelled
certification is in virtually all parts of the globe reserved only for very high risk products such
as pharmaceuticals and medical devices and applied to lower risk goods is a disproportionately
heavy means of regulation.  Where it can be demonstrated that some form of third party
certification Is necessary, manufacturers should be given a choice between product or quality
system certification  but not have to run the gauntlet of both.
We have already explained that international st andards related to quality system certification
already contain sufficient checks on the product related aspects to provide the guarantees of
product conformity necessary.
Secondly, we question the justification for annual licensing of approved manufacturing sites.
This again is a disproportionate measure and is  more trade restrictive than necessary.  Even if
Saudi Arabia were to amend the ICCP to provide that manufacturing quality system
certification is an alternative to product certification a requirement for annual licensing is over-
regulation.  Standard international practice for re-inspection of quality systems in high riskareas such as pharmaceuticals production is two to four years, It is also unclear as to whether
"licensing" equates to quality system inspection or not. If it does not then as a procedure it does
not seem necessary.  We would appreciate clarification on this point.
Thirdly, we question the justification for pre-market certification of consumer
electronics/electrical appliances and processe d foodstuffs- this runs against international
practice and (in the case of foodstuffs) the principles established by FAO and WHO, and in the
HACCP system with which Saudi Arabia is familiar.  Border control of processed foodstuffs
does not in itself offer guarantees of health a nd safety since this is to ignore the whole chain ofWT/ACC/SAU/35/Corr.1
Page 10
production conditions, storage, distribution, retai l conditions etc.  We suggest that Saudi Arabia
consider removing pre-market certification for these products.
Fourth, concerning inspection and certification of new tyres, the cost of the procedures for this
have been a source of concern for tyre manufactu rers.  A detailed explanation of the concrete
procedures and costs of approval for this product would be appreciated.
Fifth, concerning certification of perfumes.  We have been told of new requirements that
display, not-for-sale samples of perfumes are subject to the full certification requirement.  Saudi
Arabia has however said that this was not the case. examples of perfumes were exempt.  Such
exemptions should, we submit, be specified in the ICCP guidelines.
A second issue relates to requirements for soaps containing perfumes which are subject to the
full ICCP requirements for cosmetic products (3307 of the Harmonized system), and are not
treated like other soaps (HS 3401 ), This is a costly and heavy procedure for exporters.  We
would appreciate Saudi Arabia's considering an adjustment of its procedures - namely to treat
perfumed soaps as soap falling under 3401 and therefore exempt it from ICCP – to remove thisproblem.
Reply
The PSI Agreement facilitates the conducting of inspection procedures on a preshipment basis
rather than on a post-market sampling basis, particularly for developing countries.  By providing "the
possibility to have conformity assessment activities undertaken at the site of facilities ...", the PSI
process totally satisfies the "access" requirements of TBT Article 5.1.1, whereas post market sampling
does not (refer to WT/ACC/SAU/26 Chapter III paragraph 2).  Moreover, the core of the Registration
process under ICCP is substantiated suppliers’ declaration.  Thus, the ICCP’s compliance verificationoption of Registration plus Preshipment Inspection, available for exporters of any regulated products,
is equivalent to supplier’s declaration plus random sampling applied in other developed countries.  As
such, it is in accordance with international practice and totally respects the TBT Agreement
requirement to adopt the least trade restrictive procedure.
The objective behind the ICCP’s Type Approval Licensing is to provide exporters with an
option "allowing the import of their products with the minimum of intervention", mostly throughexemption from Preshipment Inspection.  In accordance with the principle of proportionality, this
maximum laxing of compliance verification should be associated with the highest level of confidence
that the product can convey as to its conformity to Saudi requirements.  Accordingly, Model Third
Party Certification (ISO Guide 28) was adopted, as it is "the most comprehensive" conformity
assessment procedure that can provide such a confidence.  The ICCP Comprehensive Procedures &Guidelines clearly stipulate "Exporters may choose the route most appropriate to their product range
and frequency of exports".  Thus, Type Approval Licensing is not mandatory for any regulated
product regardless of its risk classification.  Exporters who do not see worthwhile benefits in Type
Approval Licensing for their products are always welcome to adhere to the Registration/PSI option.
As for providing a choice between product and QS approval, please refer to details in our reply to theEuropean Community’s question 5 submitted to the WTO as supplementary document dated
26 November, 1997 (circulated informally), which demonstrates the shortcomings in such a choice,
and the doubtful success of the EC system.  In f act, many individual EC countries’ marking systems,
such as BSI’s Kite Mark, as well as other developed countries such as Japan’s JIS Mark are based on
evaluation and approval of both the product and the QS.
Concerning certification of perfumes, please refer to Saudi Arabia’s reply to Q9 of "Response
to EC comments on draft ICCP Procedures & Guidelines submitted to the WTO as supplementary
document dated 26 November, 1997 (circulated informally).WT/ACC/SAU/35/Corr.1
Page 11
Regarding the regulation of soaps under the ICCP, Saudi Arabia has adopted the definition of
cosmetics prescribed by the EC Cosmetics Directive 76/768/EEC, which classifies toilet soaps and
deodorant soaps as cosmetics, regulated by the ICCP.  The HS Codes are only indicative and not the
basis for whether the product is regulated or not. Even though perfumes and cosmetics are listed underone product category, only standards pertaining to the particular product are applicable.  For cosmetic
soaps, the applicable standards are SSA 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 492 and 493.
Question 87
We are particularly concerned about the Saudi practice to differentiate between manufacturers
who export directly to Saudi Arabia and those who are not themselves manufactures.
Reply
In accordance with clause 5.1.1 of Article 5 of the TBT Agreement, equal conditions of
access for suppliers of like products need only be applicable in comparable situations. A Typeapproval licence is only granted to manufacturers with approved quality system such as ISO 9000.
Exporters normally deal with several manufacturers and markets with varying requirements, and may
be involved in assembly, conversion or repacking outside the control of the type approved
manufacturer, which may change the original characteristics of the product and render it
non-compliant. Moreover, exporters do not necessarily have quality management systems with propercontrols to ensure that only the Saudi version of the product is the one being shipped. Type approved
products are not necessarily marked  with SASO quality mark, and thus  may not be directly traceable
to the original manufacturer or readily  differentiable from other markets’ versions. The lower level of
confidence justifies different corresponding proportionate measures. In order for the exporter to get
the benefit of waiver of routine PSI, he must obtain the authorization of the manufacturer who ownsthe licence. The CoC can then be issued by either the manufacturer or the SCO. This does not
preclude the case whereby exporters totally devoted to a licensed manufacturer can be treated the
same as manufacturers.
VII. INSTITUTIONAL BASE FOR TRADE AND ECONOMIC RELATIONS WITH 
THIRD COUNTRIES
Preferential Trading Arrangements
Question 135Have the texts of these agreements been notified to the CRTA?Reply
Saudi Arabia is not yet a member.  It will notify these arrangements upon becoming a WTO
member.
__________