RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/L/190
6October 1997
ORGANIZATION(97-4214)
Council forTrade inGoods
RECTIFICATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS TOSCHEDULES OFTARIFF
CONCESSIONS AND THEIR CERTIFICATION
Note bytheSecretariat
Introduction
1. Since tariffschedules embody formal commitments theimportance ofkeeping themonacurrent
legalbasishasbeenrecognized under theGATT andtheWTO. Theprotocols ofvarious rounds have
provided themain opportunity foramending schedules butamechanism hashadtobedeveloped to
handle changes intheinterim. Thefrequency ofthese interim changes hasincreased significantly
inrecent years withtheestablishment oftheloose-leaf system andtheintroduction oftheHarmonized
System. GATT Contracting Parties andWTO Members haveusedanumber oflegalmechanisms
toincorporate these changes intheirschedules.
2. SectionIofthispaperoutlinesthecurrentlyapplicablelegalproceduresthathavebeenestablished
under theGATT andWTO forthepurpose ofrectifying ormodifying schedules (including anannex
giving thehistorical background). There arecurrently three Decisions, dating from1980, 1983, and
1991 respectively, thatprovide forthelegal implementation ofchanges toschedules. These three
Decisions aresimilar inthattheyprovide forthelegalchanges toschedules tobeaccomplished through
certifications ifthere arenoobjections, buttheydiffer intheirapplicability. Section IIofthispaper
provides anoverview ofhowtheexisting Decisions haveworked inpractice.
I. PRESENT LEGAL BASIS FOR RECTIFICATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS
Decision of26March 1980bytheCONTRACTING PARTIES related toProcedures forModification
andRectification ofSchedules ofTariff Concessions (BISD 27S/25)
3. ThisDecision provides thatthelegalmechanism ofCertification shallbeusedformodifications
resulting under Article II,Article XVIII, Article XXIV, Article XXVII, orArticle XXVIII; andfor
rectifications ofapurely formal character totariff schedules. Ascompared withthetwosubsequent
decisions, thisDecision isbroad inscope asitallows forrectifications andmodifications arising from
avariety ofcircumstances; itisnotlimited toimplementation oftheHarmonized System orsubsequent
amendments thereto.
4. TheDecision recalls theprocedure established on19November 1968 forthecertification of
changes toSchedules annexed totheGeneral Agreement (seeAnnex) andaddsarequirement for
contracting parties tosubmit forcertification allchanges intheircustoms tariffthataffect concessions,
including amendments ofapurely formal character tothetariffnomenclature. TheDecision provides
thatchanges willbecertified inaCertification provided thatnoobjection hasbeen raised byaG/L/190
Page2
Contracting Party. Thetime-limit toraiseobjections isthree months (compared tosixtydaysunder
the1968 procedures).
Decisionof12July1983bytheGATTCouncilrelatedtotheIntroductionoftheHarmonizedCommodity
Description andCoding System (Harmonized System) (BISD 30S/17)
5. ThisDecision adopts procedures fortherectification andrenegotiation ofGATT schedules
which become necessary inconnection withtheintroduction oftheHarmonized Commodity Description
andCoding System (Harmonized System) elaborated bytheCustoms Co-operation Council. This
Decision, therefore, hasspecific provisions withrespect toprinciples, procedures, anddocumentation,
asitdeals solely withtheimplementation oftheHarmonized System forthose countries thatdecide
toadopt it.
6. TheDecision foresees thatthechanges toschedules resulting fromtheimplementation ofthe
Harmonized System mayresult either inrectifications orinrenegotiations ofschedules, andittherefore
establishes twodifferent procedures, bothofwhich eventually culminate withaCertification through
the1980Decision. Ifanexisting concession isnotimpaired through theintroduction oftheHarmonized
System, theDecision refers toandconfirms therectification procedure setforthinthe1980Decision.
However when renegotiation ofschedules isrequired asaresult oftheintroduction oftheHarmonized
System, paragraph 3.2ofthisDecision states thatthe1980 guidelines relating totheprocedures for
negotiations under Article XXVIII (BISD 27S/26), aretheprocedures tobefollowed.1
7. Compared tothe1980 Decision, the1983 Decision includes more detailed procedures that
mustbefollowed. Itestablishes thebasicprinciple thatbindings should remain unchanged, andrequires
thatspecific documentation should benotified, asfollows:
- existing schedule;
- proposed schedule;
- concordance tableofexisting toproposed schedule;
- concordance tableofproposed toexisting schedule;
Inaddition, itprovides thatbothconcordance tables should contain thefollowing information:
- itemnumber withabbreviated description;
- corresponding itemnumber;
- existing andproposed ratesofduty;
- status ofinitial negotiating rights (INRs);
- trade statistics, including percentages andallocations among proposed items.
Thelastitem, trade statistics, isnotcompulsory ifthere isnochange intherateorINRstatus.
Decision of8October 1991 bytheGATT Council related totheProcedures toImplement Changes
intheHarmonized System (BISD 39S/300)
8. InMay1991, members oftheCommittee onTariff Concessions, whoconsidered theprocedures
established in1983 toocomplicated, requested theSecretariat todraw upsimplified procedures with
aviewtoincorporating intheGATT schedules notonlythechanges totheHarmonized System which
came intoforce on1January 1992 but"anychanges which maybeintroduced inthefuture", having
1Theguidelines statethatthechanges toSchedules resulting from suchnegotiations willbemade through Certifications
inaccordance withthe1980 Decision.G/L/190
Page3
inmind themore important changes totheHarmonized System which were duetobeimplemented
on1January 1996.
9. Under these procedures, countries areexpected tosubmit 230copies ofthefollowing
documentation:
"(a) Items inrelation towhich theproposed changes donot,intheviewofthecontracting
party inquestion, alterthescope ofaconcession (e.g.changes orother rectifications
ofapurely formal character), should beindicated byunderlining orshading theitem;
(b) Items inrelation towhich theproposed changes will,intheviewofthecontracting
party inquestion, alterthescope ofaconcession (e.g.through anincrease inthebound
rateofdutyorachange intheproduct description oftheitem), should beindicated
byanasterisk. Forsuchitems, thefollowing information shallalsobesubmitted (in
separate annexes):
(i) aconcordance tablebetween theexisting andtheproposed schedule;
(ii) aconcordance tablebetween theproposed andtheexisting schedules;
(iii) anindication ofcontracting party orparties withwhich theexisting concession
wasinitially negotiated;
(iv) import statistics bycountry oforigin, forthemost recent three-year period
forwhich statistics areavailable (import figures foreachseparate yearand
average figures forthethree-year period). Ifspecific ormixed duties are
affected, bothvalues andvolumes should beindicated, ifpossible."
10. Regarding certification, theDecision provides thatchanges thatdonotalterthescope of
concession (asnotified under (a)above), willbecertified provided noobjection hasbeenraised within
90days.Furthermore, ifanobjection israised ontheground thattherectification isnotpurely formal
incharacter, thefulldocumentation (e.g., concordances, INRs, andimport statistics under (b)above)
should thenbenotified. Additionally, changes notified asaltering thescope ofaconcession (under
(b)above) shallbecertified provided norequests fornegotiations under Article XXVIII havebeen
made within 90days following thecirculation ofthedocumentation outlined inparagraph (b).If
there isanobjection raised orwhere requests fornegotiations havebeenmade, theDecision provides
thatthe1980 guidelines relating totheprocedures fornegotiations under Article XXVIII willthen
befollowed. After thecompletion ofthese procedures, acomprehensive listofallchanges andthe
corresponding amended pages oftheschedule shallbesenttotheSecretariat forcertification.
II. PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION OFTHELEGALLY ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES
11. Atpresent, theprocedures adopted intheDecisions of1980, 1983, and1991areinforce and
areutilized forthepurposes outlined above. However, thelegal procedures setforth therein have
notalways beenfollowed inpractice. Thissection outlines thecommon practices thathaveevolved
under thevarious Decisions.
Decision of26March 1980bytheCONTRACTING PARTIES related toProcedures forModification
andRectification ofSchedules ofTariff Concessions (BISD 27S/25)
12. ThisDecision hasbeenutilized inmany venues inrecent years asitprovides themainvehicle
toamend schedules inbetween rounds ofnegotiations. Forexample, theprocedures havenotonly
beenusedforrectifications ofUruguay Round schedules, modifications arising fromanumber ofGATT
Articles (e.g.XXIV andXXVIII) andimplementation oftheHarmonized System, butalsoforcases
thatwere notenvisaged originally, likefurther binding market access liberalization initiativesG/L/190
Page4
(e.g.additional concessions related toinformation technology products, pharmaceuticals, autonomous
liberalization measures). While theprocedures seemed tohaveworked wellinsome cases, therehave
beenmanyinstanceswherebyproposedrectificationsormodificationshavebeenblockedforlongperiods
oftimebecause objections havebeenraised, thereby preventing thecertification.
Decisionof12July1983bytheGATTCouncilrelatedtotheIntroductionoftheHarmonizedCommodity
Description andCoding System (Harmonized System) (BISD 30S/17)
13. TheHarmonizedSystementeredintoforceon1January1988formanycountries.Theprocedures
contained intheDecision of12July1983provided thatcontracting parties would submit among others
twolists,oneofitems proposed forcertification (items which werenotaffected bythetransposition)
andoneofitems forrenegotiation (items subject toArticle XXVIII negotiations). Several countries
followed these procedures andcarried outthenecessary Article XXVIII negotiations inthecourse of
1986 and1987 before theformal entry intoforce oftheHarmonized System. Indeviation from the
procedures setforthintheDecision, theirschedules werecertified bymeans ofHSProtocols, rather
thanbymeansofCertifications.CertaincountriessubmittedtheirHSschedulesatalaterdate,sometimes
afterhaving beengranted waivers forthetransposition oftheirschedules. These schedules were
alsocertified through Protocols.
Decision of8October 1991 bytheCouncil related totheProcedures toImplement Changes inthe
Harmonized System (BISD 39S/300)
14. ThisDecision simplified theprocedures compared totheprevious Decision of1983, especially
withrespect tosubmission ofdocumentation. InthisDecision, thesubmission ofconcordance tables,
INRs, andimport statistics isrequired onlyforthose items where thechange would result inthealtering
ofaconcession. Inpractice, however, mostMembers 'submissions donotindicate thataconcession
hasbeenaltered. Some submissions contain concordance tables regardless ofthisfact,butrarely contain
information withrespect toINRs orimport statistics. Theissue oflackofconcordance tables forall
submissions hasbeenraised onnumerous occasions intheMarket Access Committee andtheCommittee
onTrade inGoods asbeing animpediment totheoperation ofthisDecision. Asthere isnotechnical
requirement tosupply concordance tables under these procedures forthose items notundergoing a
change inconcession, some Members havenotsupplied concordance tables withtheirnotifications.
Also itshould benoted, thattheprovision forproviding 230copies ofthedocumentation tothe
Secretariat hasrarely beenfollowed.
15. Under thepresent circumstances, several WTO Members arefaced withtheproblem thattheir
schedules, orchanges totheirschedules, havenotbeenlegally certified. Outofthe37Members which
areunder waivers, 34ofthemhavesubmitted thedocumentation concerning theintroduction ofHS96
changes intotheirschedules, sometimes more thanayearago. Some Members havesubmitted a
consolidated schedule including HS96 changes inloose-leaf format. Only twoschedules havesofar
beenapproved asfarastheHS96 changes areconcerned (butnotthewhole schedule) andhavebeen
issued asadhoccertifications in"WT/Let" documents. Because ofthereservations -andinparticular
general reservations -made byother Members, thedocumentation ofmostsubmissions hasnotbeen
certified under theprovisions ofthisDecision. Thisisnotanewproblem which arose inthecontext
ofHS1996 changes butdates backtotheestablishment ofloose-leaf schedules andthetransposition
ofschedules intotheHarmonized System. Inthecaseofgeneral reservations Members reserve their
position ontheacceptance oftheproposed changes without giving detailed specific reasons for
maintaining suchanobjection andpreventing thustheircertification. Furthermore, theDecision calls
fortheapplication ofthe1980 guidelines onprocedures fornegotiation under Article XXVIII when
objections areraised, butthisiswhere theprocess hasstalled asthere havenotbeenanynotifications
under Article XXVIII fortherenegotiation ofHS96 items.G/L/190
Page5
ANNEX
Historical Background
1. IntheearlydaysoftheGATT (from 1948to1959), changes toschedules oftariffconcessions
were incorporated inProtocols ofRectifications andModifications which hadtobeaccepted byall
contracting parties. Thisrequirement caused longdelays toobtain alegalstatus totherectifications
andmodifications ofschedules andsome protocols never came intoforce. TheProtocol amending
PartIandArticlesXXIXandXXXoftheGeneralAgreementdated10March1955wouldhavepermitted
rectifications andmodifications ofschedules resulting from action taken under Articles II:6,XVIII,
XXIV, XXVII, orXXVIII tocome intoeffect through certification ifnoobjection hadbeenreceived
inthe30daysfollowing notification ofthechanges. Thisprotocol never came intoforce since the
required unanimous acceptance wasnotobtained. Nonetheless, itwasagreed thatprocedural rules
relating totherectifications andmodification ofschedules should beputintoforce andthiswasdone
through aDecision bytheCONTRACTING PARTIES on17April 1959 (BISD 8S/25), although
theultimateeffectivenessoftheprocedureswasmadeconditionalupontheratificationoftheamendment,
which never occurred. Nonetheless, between 1960 and1967, schedules were certified through
Certifications Relating toRectifications andModifications.
2. On19November1968,theCONTRACTINGPARTIESadoptedaDecisionrelatedtoProcedures
forModifyingSchedulesofTariffConcessions(BISD16S/16).TheDecisionstipulatedinitsparagraph3
that"AdraftofeachCertification containing changes ...shallbecome aCertification provided that
noobjection hasbeenraised bycontracting party within sixty days...". TheCertifications, which
constituted legal instruments related toschedules, contained alsonewschedules established under
Article XXVI:5(c) andconsolidated schedules. After having beenapproved inaccordance withthe
thenestablished procedures (BISD, 16S/16), theCertifications werecertified bytheCONTRACTING
PARTIES anddeposited withtheDirector-General oftheGATT, whofurnished acertified truecopy
thereof toeachcontracting party. There weresixCertifications ofchanges toSchedules between 1969
and1983.
3. During theconsultations thatpreceded theadoption oftheProposal bytheDirector-General
related totheestablishment ofaloose-leaf schedules, thequestion ofcertification ofthose schedules
wasconsidered anditwasagreed thattheprocedures described intheDirector General 'sproposal
should beformalized byanewdecision ontheprocedures forthemodification andrectification of
schedules (BISD 27S/22). The1980Decision wasintended toaccomplish this.Inthiscontext, itwas
agreed that"Ifthere were noobjections within theninety days'period, theSecretariat would issue
thecertification intheformofdated andcertified loose-leaf pages onanadhocbasiswithanexplanatory
note". Between 1980and1989, about 30outof62schedules weresubmitted inloose-leaf format under
these procedures; veryfewofthem werecertified because ofobjections raised byother delegations.