WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/W/153 
4 October 2004 
 
 (04-4137) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures Original:   English 
  
 
TRANSITIONAL REVIEW MECHANISM UNDER PARAGRAPH 18  
OF THE PROTOCOL OF ACCESSION OF THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA 
 
Questions to China from the United States concerning SPS obligations
 
  Transparency and oversight of regulatory bodies 
 
1. The United States recognizes that China has made  great strides to participate in the SPS 
Committee work, including submitting Committee pape rs, comments, and well over 50 notifications 
of SPS measures in the past 12 months.  China should  be applauded for these efforts.  We believe, at 
the same time, the greater openn ess has revealed large gaps between  commitment and follow-through.  
China’s SPS National Notification Authority is ho used in the Ministry of Commerce but its SPS 
Enquiry Point is located under General Administ ration for Quality Supervision, Inspection and 
Quarantine’s (AQSIQ) authority.  China’s SPS regulations may be drafted and promulgated at the 
level of the National People’s Congress, the State Council, or with any of eight other individual 
ministries.  The absence of one official journal fo r all of China’s draft, amended, and final rules 
creates confusion regarding the status of China’ s SPS domestic and entry requirements.  The United 
States, however, would like to acknowledge China’s recent efforts to identify and discuss options to 
effectively reform its SPS management system a nd develop a process whereby all regulatory leaders 
have more effective tools for ope n and consistent communication. 
2. A recent review by the United States has iden tified approximately 100 SPS-related measures 
that have not been notified to the WTO SPS Secretariat since China’s WTO accession on 
11 December 2001.  Currently, China has ten differe nt bodies in its legislative and executive branches 
that have the power to draft, implement or enfo rce SPS measures, making m onitoring both within and 
outside of China difficult for all concerned st akeholders.  The United States is aware of SPS 
regulations drafted by each one of these ministri es that have not been notified to the WTO. 
3. In many cases, China promulgated and implemen ted laws without any notification to the 
WTO.  One example of this problem is AQSIQ Decree 73, Items on Handling the Review and 
Approval for Entry Animal and Plant Quarantine .  It became effective 1 July 2004, but at the time of 
this review remains unnotified.  This decree’ s many provisions increase commercial risk for 
exporters, but fail to identify the phytosanitary risk that necessitates such a measure.  Although the 
intent of the decree was apparently to simplify a nd make more transparent SPS entry requirements for 
agricultural commodities, the vague wording of the measure, in fact, resulted in disrupting trade and 
reducing market access. 
4. On several occasions notifications have been ma de after measures had gone into effect.  One 
recent example is AQSIQ Decree 62, the  Administrative Measures for the Quarantine and Inspection 
Requirements for the Entry and Exit of Genetically Modified Organisms.  This measure was 
implemented on 23 May 2004, but not notified to the WTO Secretariat until two months later on 
13 July 2004, as G/SPS/N/CHN/15/Add.1. G/SPS/W/153 
Page 2  
 
 5. Under current circumstances, WTO Members and private businesses must monitor various 
food safety agency independent websites for oc casional reports of regulatory developments.  
However, regulations are sometimes drafted a nd implemented by multiple agencies, and these 
documents cannot be systemically found.  Becau se many ministries may have regulatory oversight, 
especially in the area of agricultural biotechnolog y, the absence of detailed published requirements 
and clear timelines for the safety assessment process unfairly constrains market access and increases 
exporters’ burden. 
(a) With these observations in mind, please indicate when China will notify the 
approximately 100 outstanding measures, including Decrees 62 and 73? 
(b) Is China taking any steps to create one official journal to make it easier for all SPS 
regulatory authorities to monitor draft, amended, and final SPS measures? 
(c) What interaction is taking place between China’s National Notification Authority and 
the relevant SPS regulatory organs to promote timely notification of measures to the WTO? 
Absence of sound scientific evidence 
6. China is obligated under the WTO SPS Agre ement to base its SPS measures on sound science 
and risk assessments.  If it follows existing sta ndards of the three WTO-recognized international 
standard-setting bodies (Codex Alim entarius (Codex), the International Plant Protection Convention 
(IPPC) and the World Organization for Animal Health  (OIE)), it is automatically assumed to be in 
compliance with this requirement; otherwise, risk assessments should be completed and made 
available.  However, in dozens of notified and unnot ified regulations, standards more restrictive than 
those of Codex, IPPC and OIE have been adopt ed without providing access to risk assessments 
identifying the necessity for such restrictive measures.  We recognize that China is not a member of 
international standard-setting or ganizations like the OIE and IPPC.  Nevertheless, the WTO SPS 
Agreement obligates members to base their measures on relevant international standards.  If a member 
introduces a measure that provides a higher level of pr otection than that achieved by the international 
standard, it must present a scientific justification or  a risk assessment to support its measure.  What 
steps is China taking to make these scientific justifi cations and risk assessments available to interested 
parties or to bring these measures into line with th e standards of OIE, IPPC, and Codex Alimentarius? 
7. China’s SPS requirements for a number of comm odities, such as G/SPS/N/CHN/52, hygienic 
standards for grain, and the unnotified AQSIQ Decree 73, which modifies the requirements for 
applicants of quarantine inspection permits, mix product quality requirements with SPS measures.  
These two measures in particular introduce water, h eat, and foreign material requirements that have 
no bearing on the safety of the product and which a foreign supplying government should not be expected to guarantee.   Quality issues are primar ily matters for resolution between buyer and seller 
on commercial sales.  Please indicate when China will rescind these requirements, not only for the 
two identified regulations, but also as general practice.  
Assessment of risk and appropriate level of phytosanitary protection 
 
8. China is obligated to base its SPS measur es on sound science and risk assessments.  
Regrettably, when the United States experienced is olated findings of low-pathogenic avian influenza 
(AI) in 2003, China immediately implemented a natio nwide ban (again unnotified to the WTO) on all 
US-origin poultry, even though the appropriate standard-setting body recognized by the WTO, the 
OIE, does not consider low-pathogenic AI to be a reportable disease.  Likewise, it has been over six 
months since the United States eradicated highly pathogenic AI, which had been found only in the state of Texas.  The OIE's recommendations applicab le to highly pathogenic AI state that a country  G/SPS/W/153 
 Page 3 
 
 
 shall be considered free of highly pathogenic AI si x months after the slaughter of the last affected 
animal where an eradication policy is practiced .  Although China is not an OIE member, it is 
obligated under the WTO SPS Agreement to base its  measures on relevant international standards, 
guidelines, and recommendations.  
(a) What steps will China take to ensure that its  measures are consistent with the relevant 
standards developed by the OIE, IPPC, and Codex?   
(b) When will China align its import requireme nts for those products recognized by the 
OIE as safe for trade no matter the AI status of the exporting region? 
9. China’s fresh and frozen poultry regulation (GB16869-2002), notified on 9 August 2002 as 
G/TBT/N/CHN/6, establishes a zero tolerance limit fo r the presence of Salmonella bacteria in raw, 
uncooked products.  The regulation was published wit hout any accompanying public health risk data 
to support the establishment of such a restrictive me asure.  Current science indicates that the complete 
elimination of enteropathogenic bacteria on raw meat and poultry products is unachievable without 
first subjecting such products to a process of irradiation. 
(a) When will China provide the risk data to support the standard? 
(b) What evidence can China provi de to document that, in accordance with its WTO/SPS 
obligations, the same standard is bei ng applied to domestic as well as imported 
poultry products? 
Control, inspection and approval procedures 
 
10. In documents G/AG/W/64 and G/AG/W/64/A dd.1, the United States submitted written 
questions for China in connection with the trans itional review before the Committee on Agriculture 
on 23 September 2004.  Some of the US questions  addressed import control, inspection and approval 
procedures under AQSIQ Ordinance 7, Administrative Measures for the Entry-Exit Inspection and 
Quarantine for Grains and Feed Stuff  (effective 1 March 2002), AQSIQ Decree 25, Administrative 
Measures for Entry Animal and Plant Quarantine  (effective 1 September 2002), AQSIQ Decree 73 
and AQSIQ Announcement 111.    At the 23 September 2004 Comm ittee on Agriculture transitional 
review, the Chinese delegation declined to respond to those questions, insisting that they addressed 
SPS matters.  In order to receive responses to its questions, the United States is therefore submitting 
them in this Committee as well.  They follow in paragraphs 11 to 13. 
11. The United States remains concerned about the quarantine import inspection permit 
procedures provided for in AQSIQ Ordinance 7 and AQSIQ Decree 25.  Specifically, pursuant to 
Ordinance 7, AQSIQ requires that importers obtain an import inspection permit prior to signing an 
import contract for grain or feed.  Port quaran tine authorities may return or destroy any cargoes 
without a prior import inspection permit.  This impor t inspection permit is in addition to other import 
licenses, including a tariff-rate quota (TRQ) import certificate (in the case of TRQ commodities like 
wheat) and a safety certificate (in the case of certa in commodities), and it does not replace inspection 
at the port.  Similar procedures apply under Decree 25, pursuant to which importers are required to 
obtain a quarantine permit for a wide range of animal and plant products before an import contract can 
be signed.  The United States continues to receive  reports from traders regarding both the burdensome 
nature of the procedures and selective enforcem ent by AQSIQ under Ordinance 7 and Decree 25. 
 G/SPS/W/153 
Page 4  
 
 (a) Please clarify who is eligible to apply for an import inspection permit under 
Ordinance 7.  What standards does AQS IQ employ in accepting or rejecting 
applications? 
(b) Please clarify who is eligible to apply fo r a quarantine permit under Decree 25. What 
standards does AQSIQ employ in accepting or rejecting applications? 
(c) Under Article 6 of Ordinance 7, in applying for an import inspection permit, the 
owner of the goods to be imported, or its  agent, must provide information that 
includes details about plant location, stor age capacity, transportation, processing and 
whether prior shipments have been fu lly utilized.  Please explain why this 
information is necessary. 
(d) Please explain why AQSIQ requires an inspec tion of the facilities of an enterprise 
that processes agricultural commodities, sin ce the State Administration of Industry 
and Commerce also requires an inspecti on of those same facilities.  Will one 
inspection satisfy both requirements?  
(e) Please explain why an importer must re-apply for a new import inspection permit 
(rather than have the term of the original  one extended) if it has not entered into a 
commercial contact and imported the commodities covered by the import inspection permit by the expiry date. 
(f) Please explain why an importer must specify the commodity weight, country of origin 
and port of entry before it has even entered into an import contract.  Please also explain why an importer must reapply for a license if the commodity weight changes 
by more than ten per cent or if the country of origin or the port of entry changes. 
12. AQSIQ Decree 73, which became effective 1 July 2004, adds provisions that may create 
unfavorable commercial terms for imports.  While  it is unclear how this new decree will be 
implemented and enforced, the vague wording of the decree leaves open the possibility for future 
enforcement actions and places liability on the foreign exporter. 
(a) Decree 73, in paragraph 4, requires impor ters to incorporate the inspection and 
quarantine requirements specified in the quarantine permit into contracts and to 
stipulate that the goods should comply with relevant Chinese laws and food safety regulations.  This requirement appears to  be unnecessary, because China’s inspection 
and quarantine requirements are fully enfo rceable by Chinese authorities.  Please 
explain the necessity of requiring inspec tion and quarantine requirements to be 
incorporated into commercial contracts. 
(b) b. The requirement of paragraph 4 of Decree 73 appears to oblige the seller of 
imported goods to bear the full commerci al risk of non-compliance with China’s 
inspection and quarantine requirements.  Customarily in international sales contracts for bulk commodities, parties generally agree that upon inspection of goods by the 
exporting country and issuance of a certificate of approval by the exporting country, 
risk pertaining to the quality of goods p asses to the buyers.  Please explain the basis 
for changing existing commercial practice. 
(c) Decree.73, paragraph 6, requires the name of the exporter and the supplier to be 
indicated in the application form for the entry animal and plant quarantine permit 
when applying for agricultural product imports.  It is often difficult to identify the 
name of the supplier (or the origin of th e commodity) at the time an importer applies  G/SPS/W/153 
 Page 5 
 
 
 for the inspection permit.  Often, the supplie r is changed after the quarantine permit is 
issued.  While the United States understands the need to provide the name of the 
exporter in a transaction, please explain why Ch ina needs the name of  the supplier to 
be indicated in the application form for the quarantine permit for soybeans. 
13. On 30 August 2004, China issued a measure ex empting certain animal and plant products 
from entry quarantine review and approval, e ffective 1 September 2004.  The measure, AQSIQ 
Announcement 111, appears to exempt certain animal and plant products from the requirement to obtain a quarantine import inspection permit in a dvance of entry and prior to signing an import 
contract.  The United States welcomes China’s m odification of its quarantine permit policies in 
Announcement 111 which removed some products fro m the list of products requiring quarantine 
permits, as traders have expressed continued con cern regarding the burdensome nature of the 
quarantine permit procedures.  
(a) Announcement 111 lists the generic names of certain products in the animal products 
and plant products categories that ar e exempted from the quarantine permit 
requirement, but does not provide sufficient detail for the trade or a description of 
these products based on Harmonized Schedule (HS) Number.  Please provide a 
description of exempted products by HS Number. 
(b) Announcement 111 indicates that China’s d ecision to exempt certain products is 
based on risk assessments.  Please provide  those risk assessments, along with any 
other analysis or criteria used as a basis for the exemptions. 
(c) Were risk assessments performed on other pr oducts, i.e., products that are still on the 
list of products requiring quarantine perm its?  If so, please provide those risk 
assessments, along with any other analysis or criteria used. 
________________