WT/REG2 86/5 
 
11 November  2020 
(20-8087) Page: 1/7 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements  Original: English /Spanish  
 
 
COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT (CEPA)  
BETWEEN INDIA AND THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA  
(GOODS ) 
QUESTIONS AND REPLIES  
 The following communication, dated 10 November 2020, is being circulated at the request of 
the delegations of  India and the Republic of Korea . 
 
_______________  
 
 
Question s from the delegation of  Brazil  
 
Characteristic Elements of the Agreement  
 
Background information  
 
1.1.  Regarding paragraph 2.4, have the Parties made amendments to the Agreement 
since its entry into force? If they have, what amendments have been implemented?  
Response from the delegation of India  
 
 No amendments have been made so far.  
 
Response from the del egation of the Republic of Korea  
 
 No amendment  has been made  to the Agreement since the I-K CEPA entered into force on 
1 January 2010 . 
 
1.2.  After all tariff liberalization stages were completed in 1 January 2019, 3459 lines 
remained dutiable for imports to India and 1360 lines remain dutiable for imports to 
Korea.  
 Could the Parties please clarify what percentage these lines represent of the total 
bilateral imports for each country and whether they plan on expanding the concessions to 
include some of these lines?  
 
Response from the delegation of India  
 
 As per HS 2017 3797 lines remain dutiable for imports to India.  
 
Total import from Korea (U S$ mln)  15659.00  
Total imports from Korea on lines that remain dutiable (US$ mln)  5120.86  
% of lines that remain dutiable of the total bilateral imports  ~32%  
 
 Negotiations to amend the I -K CEPA are going on.  
 
Response from the delegation of the Republic of Korea  
 
 The share of imports of dutiable items in Korea 's total imports from India 2019 stands at 
4.9%.  WT/REG 286/5 
 
- 2 - 
 
  Rules of origin  
 
1.3.  Concerning paragraph 3.21, could you please clarify if both India and Korea allow 
both the exporter and the authorized repr esentative to submit an application for the 
certificate of origin? If not, which system does each Party adopt?  
Response from the delegation of India  
 
Both exporters and the authorized representatives are allowed to  apply for Certificate of 
Origin.  
 
Response from the delegation of the Republic of Korea  
 
 Article 4.3 of the Korea -India CEPA stipulates that persons who apply for a Certificate of Origin 
are the producer of the goods,  exporter or his or her authorized re presentative . In Korea, licensed 
customs brokers or customs service corporations are designated  as authorized  representative s.  
 
Technical barriers to trade  
 
1.4.  Regarding paragraph 3.29, could the Parties explain the reasons for excluding TBT 
and SPS issues f rom the scope of the dispute settlement mechanism of the Agreement?  
Joint r esponse from the Parties  
 
TBT 
 
This is due to the outcomes of negotiations between the Parties that were reached in the 
Agreement in consideration of the circumstances of each Party at the time.  
 
SPS 
 
As SPS measures not only aim to protect human, animal or plant life and health but also have 
a scientific basis, it is deemed more rational and appropriate to use the objective WTO dispute 
settlement mechanism rather than the RTA D S mechanism.  
 
Customs -related procedures  
 
1.5.  Regarding section 3.4.5, could the Parties specify which provisions of the Agreement 
are TFA plus?  
Response from the delegation of India  
 
 In TFA it 's an endeavour clause, subject to domestic laws : 
 
 "Each Member shall, to the extent practicable and in a manner consistent with its domestic 
law and legal system, provide opportunities and an appropriate time period to traders and other 
interested parties to comment on the proposed introduction or amendment of laws and regulations 
of general application related to the movement, release, and clearance of goods, including goods in 
transit ". 
 
 We can consider the text of articles 5.2.3, 5.2.6, 5.3, 5.10, 5.11, and part of 5.5, 5.7, and 5.9 
of the I -K CEPA Agreement  as TFA Plus.  
 
Response from the delegation of the Republic of Korea  
 
 We can consider  the text of  article s 5.2.3, 5.2.6, 5.3, 5.10, 5.11,  and part of 5.5, 5.7,  and 5.9 
of the I-K CEPA Agreement as TFA Plus.  
 
 
 
 
 WT/REG286/5  
 
- 3 - 
 
  Questions from the delegation of Canada  
 
Sanitary and phytosanitary measures  
 
1.6.  Paragraph 3.27 states: "The Parties shall establish a Joint Working Group to address 
specific TBT and SPS issues including as identified above. The Joint Working Group shall 
endeavour to resolve the issues befor e it within a reasonable period of time based on 
science and risk -based assessment. According to the Parties the Joint Working Group met 
twice in February and May 2017 to discuss certification of organic products. The 
discussions as well as discussions on sector specific mutual recognition agreements are 
ongoing. Except for Article 14.3.1 (choice of Forum), any disputes involving SPS 
provisions under Article 2.28 are not subject to the dispute settlement mechanism of the 
Agreement, unless the Parties agree otherwise."  
a. Canada would appreciate clarification as to how Parties would agree to invoke 
the dispute settlement mechanism.  
Response from the delegation of India  
 
 Article 2.28, paragraph 4 of the India -Korea CEPA  states "Notwithstanding Article 14.3.1 
(Choice of Forum), any dispute regarding TBT or SPS matters arising under this Article shall not be 
brought to dispute settlement under this Agreement unless the Parties otherwise agree."  
 
Response from the delegatio n of the Republic of Korea  
 
 Since SPS measures not only aim to protect human, animal or plan life or health but also are  
based on science, it is deemed more rational and appropriate to use the objective WTO dispute 
settlement mechanism rather than RTA DS mechanisms. Thus, any dispute regarding SPS matters 
arising under I -K CEPA Article 2.28 shall not be brought to DS under I-K CEPA Agreement unless 
the Parties (Korea, India) otherwise agree.  
 
b. If Parties agree to use the dispute settlement mechanism, would Parties 
consequently be bound by the findings of the dispute settlement mechanism?  
Response from the delegation of India  
 
 As per Article 14.13 of the India -Korea CEPA, the final report of an arbitral panel constituted 
under the Agreement shall be binding on the Parties and shall not be subject to appeal. Article 14.14 
also provides a mechanism for compensation/suspension of  benefits in case of non -implementation 
of the final report.  
 
Response from the delegation of the Republic of Korea  
 
 They would be likely to be bound by them depending on the forum selected by the complaining 
Party based on I -K CEPA Article 14.3.1.  
 
c. Canad a would also be interested in knowing whether any issues have been 
referred to dispute settlement.  
Response from the delegation of India  
 
 No such issue has been brought to notice.  
 
Response from the delegation of the Republic of Korea  
 
 No SPS issues have been referred to DS so far.  
 
 
 
 
 
 WT/REG 286/5 
 
- 4 - 
 
  Question s from the delegation of  Ecuador  
 
Liberalization of trade and tariff lines  
1.7.  Section  3.1.2: Are there plans to widen the scope for liberalization of tariff lines that 
remain dutiable (with regard to the 30.5% of the total Indian tariff lines that remain 
dutiable), given that amendments or additions could be made in accordance with the 
Agreement? If so, on what would that possibility depend? Would it be linked to the trade 
relationship with regard to the imports of each Party?  
Response from the delegation of India  
 
 The negotiations to amend the I -K CEPA are going on to achieve qualitative and quantitative 
increase of trade.  
 
Global safeguards  
 
1.8.  Article 2.27 of the Agreement provides that: "This Agreement does not confer any 
additional rights or impose any additional obligations on the Parties with regard to 
measures taken pursuant to Article XIX of GATT 1994 and the Safeguards Agreement, 
except that a Party taking a safeguard measure under Article XIX of GATT 1994 and the 
Safeguards Agreement may, to the extent consistent with the obligations under the WTO  
Agreement, exclude imports of an originating good of the other Party if such imports are 
not a substantial cause of serious injury or threat thereof" . (Emphasis added by Ministry)  
 It would be useful to know which provisions of Article XIX of GATT 1994 a nd the 
Agreement on Safeguards would justify such a measure, which would allow the exclusion 
of imports originating in the other Party, for the application of a safeguard measure. How 
is it determined, quantitatively and qualitatively, that imports from th e other Party are 
not a substantial cause of injury or threat thereof in order to make this exception? How is 
such a measure brought into line with the Parties' obligations under WTO provisions?  
 
Response from the delegation of India  
 
 A determination of i mports not amounting to a substantial cause of serious injury or threat 
thereof may vary in different factual circumstances. In any event, any exclusion cannot be done 
unless it is consistent with the obligations under the WTO Agreement.  
 
Response from the  delegation of the Republic of Korea  
 
 Article 2.2 of the WTO Safeguard Agreement states that safeguard measures apply to imported 
goods regardless of their source. However, Article XXIV.8 of the GATT states that, in the case of a 
customs union, tariffs and other restrictive commercial transaction regulations will be abolished for 
virtually all trade. Article XXIV.8 of the GATT allows many countries to eliminate restrictive 
regulations of  commerce between  countries that have signed  FTAs. 
 
 Given that much time has passed  since Korea launched SG, there is no quantitative standard 
to determine the actual damage caused by imports from other countries in the multilateral measure. 
Qualitative s tandards will need to be accumulated on a case -by-case basis when a safeguard 
investigation is launched.  
 
 With respect to quantitative indicators, if the exporter is not the main exporter, or if the 
market share is smaller than a certain standard, it may be thought that there is no real damage.  
 
 If necessary, we can refer to the three overseas cases below. 1. For non -TOP3 (EL Salvador -
Chinese Taipei FTA), 2.  for non -TOP5 (NAFTA) by market share  and, 3. for the NIC-CTP FTA, im port 
does not exceed 7% . 
 
 Some foreign countries have determined  that the se three conditions are not the real cause of 
the damage.  
 
 WT/REG286/5  
 
- 5 - 
 
  Current payments and capital movements  
 
1.9.  It is stated that in trade in services, restrictions cannot be applied to international 
payments and transfers f or current transactions, or to any capital transactions 
inconsistently with specific commitments regarding such transactions (document 
WT/REG286/1), with the exception of restrictions to safeguard the balance of payments.  
 Given that the provisions of Article XII of the GATS on balance of payments are 
included for the adoption of measures to safeguard the balance of payments, it would be 
useful to know whether such measures to safeguard the balance of payments would apply 
in a similar way to the specific commitments regarding to such transactions (international 
payments and transfers and capital transactions) in relation to sectors in which there are 
no specific commitments. Are other types of measures envisaged for those sectors in 
which t here are no specific commitments and, if so, what might those measures be?  
 
Response from the delegation of India 
 
 With respect to transactions in sectors where specific commitments have been undertaken, 
I-K CEPA recognizes the right of the Parties to imp ose restrictions on trade in services, including on 
payments or transfers for transactions relating to such obligations, to safeguard their external 
financial positions and balance of payments or a threat thereof.  
  
The I-K CEPA does not address the sector s where specific commitments have not been taken.  
 
Response from the delegation of the Republic of Korea  
 
 In the event of serious balance of payments and external financial difficulties or a threat 
thereof, Article 6.13 of the I -K CEPA  agreement stipulates that as an exceptional right a Party may 
adopt or maintain restrictions on trade in services on which it has undertaken specific commitments, 
including on payments or transfers for transactions relating to such obligations, and is thu s in 
accordance with Articles XI and XII of GATS.  
 
Question s from the delegation of Japan  
 
Rules of origin  
 
1.10.   Article 3.23: Five years after the entry into force of the Agreement, the Parties shall 
examine and revise, if deemed necessary, the system of issuing of certificates of origin 
under the Chapter. According to the Parties no review has taken place. India indicates 
that it has started issuing electronic certificates of origin under the Agreement through a 
Common Digital Platform introduced for issu e of Preferential certificates of origin.  
 We would like to request Korea to share the details of the countermeasures it has 
decided to introduce in response to India 's move to start issuing electronic certificates 
through a Common Digital Platform. Please  include details on how Korea is planning to 
issue electronic certificates that are acceptable to customs agencies in India.  
 
Response from the delegation of the Republic of Korea  
 
 The Korea Customs Service (KCS) was notified by the India Customs Authorit y last March that 
Certificate of Origins are now being issued through an electronic  platform in India. To offer proper 
preferences to those Certificates of Origins issued through  the platform, the KCS conveyed it to the 
pertinent departments of the Korean Customs.  
 
 In addition, Korea adopted the Electronic Certificate Issuing System in 2006. Since then, 
applying for certificates, printing and stamping are all done electronically  under this system.   
 
 
 
 
 
 WT/REG 286/5 
 
- 6 - 
 
  Questions from the delegation of Mexico  
 
Competition  
 
1.11.   Paragraph 4.17: They recognize the importance of cooperation between them and 
consultations between their respective competition authorities for effective competition 
law enforcement. After the entry into force of the Competition Act of India in its entirety, 
consultations between the Parties and their respective competition authorities may be 
undertaken as appropriate on various matters relating to competition, including capacity 
building, exchange of information, notification procedures and p rinciples of comity.  
 Are there any cooperation activities between the Parties regarding merger control, 
cooperation on capacity building or advocacy that have been implemented between the 
competition authorities of the Parties under the agreement?  
 
Given Korean FDI in India, what has been the experience of the Parties regarding 
cooperation and notifications on economic concentrations?  
 
Response from the delegation of India  
 
 1. Competition Commission of India (CCI) has proposed an MoU with Korea Fair Trade  
Commission (KFTC),  and have shared a draft MOU with them.  
 
 There is no cooperation with KFTC so far, regarding merger control, or advocacy.  
 
 2. OECD -Korea Policy Centre provides a hub for competition officials from Asia -Pacific 
countries to meet regularly to exchange experiences and deepen their capacities in competition law 
and policy through workshops, seminars and other events and CCI has participated  in 37 such events 
since 2009.  
 
 CCI and KFTC  have participated in events organized by both the  agencies.  
 
 All provisions of "The Competition Act, 2002"  are fully enforced in India since 1  June 2011.  
 
Response from the delegation of the Republic of Korea  
 
 As regard s the I-K CEPA, the competition authorities  of both sides  have not cooperated or 
notified  any details of enforcement activities regarding competition under this Agreement . 
 
Question s from the delegation of  the United States  
 
Annex 1  
 
Tariff liberalization  
 
1.12.   When examining the composition of each country 's top exports to the world, the 
United States note that much of the trade between Korea and India is complementary, 
and not directly competitive.  
 When looking at India 's and Korea 's top 25 exports to the world, and the final 
disposition of duty free or dutiable  lines among those products, it is noted that some of 
the most sizable exports for each country remain subject to duty. For example:  
 
• As a result of the Agreement, 37 lines in India's tariff schedule remained subject 
to duties for imports from Korea in 2017, including for autos and parts (see 
Table  A1.3 "India: Market Access opportunities under the agreement for Korea's 
top 25 exports to the world").  
• As a result of the Agreement, 12 lines in Korea's tariff schedule remained subject 
to duties for imports from India, including for rice; frozen shrimps; and frozen 
boneless bovine meat (see Table A1.4 "Korea: Market Access opportunities under 
the agreement for India's top 25 exports to the world").  WT/REG286/5  
 
- 7 - 
 
   What consideration went into the decision of retaining dutie s on these sizable 
exports?  
 
Response from the delegation of India  
 
 Decisions to retain /exempt duty on an item/product depend on domestic market sensitivity 
including various factors like domestic demand/manufacturing of the item in the country, size of 
domestic market, views of industry associations,  etc. 
 
 However, to improve the existing situation, negotiations to amend the I -K CEPA are going on 
since 2016.  
 
Response from the delegation of the Republic of Korea  
 
 In the I-K CEPA negotiations, both countries considered a mutually beneficial balance  and 
goods sensitivit ies so that duties remained on a certain  amount of tariff  lines regarding the top 25 
export items of both countries to the world .  
 
 To improve this, I -K CEPA Upgrad e negotiations have been underway  since 2016 . 
 
1.13.   With reference to India, paragraph 2 of Annex 1 says "…The total share of duty -
free lines rose to 4.4% overall and 4.5% for industrial products, while it was unchanged 
for agricultural products." Table A1.1 in the factual presentation shows that the share of 
duty-free tariff lines remained fixed at 3.3% for agricultural products throughout the 
liberalization process.  
• Because the % of tariff lines that are duty free in India's MFN tariff schedule is 
also 3.3%, it appears that India did not grant any additio nal duty -free access for 
agricultural products in this agreement.  
 With reference to India, can the Parties explain why the total share of duty -free lines 
for agricultural products remained unchanged during the liberalization process?  
 
Response from the d elegation of India  
  
 The number of duty -free lines is decided after consultations with domestic stakeholders and 
keeping the domestic sensitivity of the sector in mind.  
 
 A mutually agreed  configuration, taking into account  the sensitivities of both the parties, has 
been endeavoured  under  the liberalization process under I -K CEPA.  
 
Response from the delegation of the Republic of Korea  
 
 In the I-K CEPA negotiations, both countries considered a mutually beneficial balance  and 
goods sensitivit ies so that duties remained on a certain  amount of tariff  lines regarding the top 
25 export items of both countries to the world .  
 
 To improve this, I -K CEPA Upgrade negotiations have been underway  since 2016 . 
 
__________