RESTRICTED  
  
G/RO/M/77  
 
18 November  2021 
(21-8692) Page: 1/7 
Committee on Rules of Origin    
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 14  OCTOBER  2021  
VICE-CHAIR PERSON:  MS LAURA GAUER (SWITZERLAND)  
Subjects Discussed  
 
1   PREFERENTIAL RULES OF ORIGIN FOR LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES 
(WT/L/917  AND WT/L/917/ADD.1)  ................................ ................................ ................  2 
 Review of Recent Developments in Relation to Preferential Rules of Origin for LDCs: 
Report  by Preference -Granting Members Wishing to Share Any Developments  ............................  2 
1.1.2    Update on the Implementation of the REX  System of Self -Certification by the 
European  Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  2 
1.1.3    Update on the Review of Preferential Rules of Origin by the United Kingdom  ....................  2 
1.1.4    Update by Any Other Preference -Granting Member  ................................ .......................  3 
 Status of Notifications of Preferential Rules of Origin for LDCs and Preferential Import 
Data (G/RO/W/163/Rev.9) – Report by the Secretariat  ................................ ............................  3 
 Further Submission on Rules of Origin Based on a Change of Tariff Classification: the 
Case of Rules of Origin used by Japan (G/RO/W/209) – Submission by the LDC  Group  ................  4 
 Stocktaking of Implementation of the Bali and Nairobi Decisions on Preferential Rules of 
Origin  for Least Developed Countries – Statement by the LDC  Group (G/RO/W/210)  ....................  4 
 Draft Report (2021) of the CRO to the General Council on Preferential Rules of Origin for 
LDCs (G/RO/W/207)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  5 
2   NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE  5 AND UNDER PARAGRAPH  4 OF ANNEX  II OF 
THE AGREEMENT ON RULES OF ORIGIN (G/RO/N/226 AND G/RO/N/227)  .....................  6 
3   DRAFT TRANSPARENCY DECISION ON NON -PREFERENTIAL RULES OF ORIGIN 
(G/RO/W/182/REV.4) – REPORT BY THE CO -SPONSORS AND OTHER DELEGATIONS  ..... 6 
4   TWENTY -SEVENTH ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION 
OF THE AGREEMENT ON RULES OF ORIGIN (G/RO/W/206)  ................................ ............  7 
5   DRAFT REPORT (2021) OF THE CRO TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
(G/RO/W/208)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  7 
6   ROUND TABLE ON RULES OF ORIGIN AT THE EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE – 
ANNOUNCEMENT BY UNCTAD  ................................ ................................ ...........................  7 
7   DATES OF THE COMMITTEE'S NEXT MEETINGS  ................................ ............................  7 
8   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  7 
_______________  
 
Election of Vice-Chairperson  
 
At the start of the meeting, t he Vice-Chairperson  informed Members that Mr  Sulaiman Satari, the 
incoming Chair person  of the Committee on Rules of Origin (CRO , or the Committee ), was not 
available and that she would be chairing  the meeting at his request. She reminded delegations that G/RO/M/77  
 
- 2 - 
 
  the election of a Vice -Chair person  was consistent with Rule 12 of the Rules of Procedure  for Meetings  
of the Committee on Rules of Origin  (G/L/149)  and thanked all  delegations for having elected her . 
 
The representative of China  welcomed Ms  Laura Gauer  as Vice-Chairperson of the Committee. 
He stated that the conditions for the election of Vice-Chair person s were the subject of consultations 
being led by the Chair person  of the  General Council. While these consultations were ongoing, he 
clarified that his delegation had no objection to Ms  Laura Gauer chairing this meeting , on an 
exceptional basis,  due to the elected Chair person being unavailable . Nevertheless, his delegation did 
not wish this election and practice to be taken as a precedent.  
 
The Committee then proceeded to adopt  the agenda (WTO/AIR/RO/14 ). Delegations attended the  
meeting either in  person or remotely via the "Interprefy" platform.  
 
1  PREFERENTIAL RULES OF ORIGIN FOR LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (WT/L/917 AND 
WT/L/917/ADD.1)  
Review of Recent Developments in Relation  to Preferential Rules of Origin for LDCs : 
Report by Preference -Granting  Members  Wishing to Share Any Developments  
The Chairperson  reminded delegations that the Bali and the Nairobi Ministerial Decisions had 
instructed the CRO to monitor preference -granting Members' efforts to implement both Decis ions. 
In this regard, she invited preference -granting Members to take the floor to inform the Committee 
of any recent developments in this area.  
1.1.2   Update on the Implementation of the REX  System of Self -Certification by the 
European Union  
A representative of the European Union  (Mr Christophe Fontaine) presented an update on the 
implementation of the REX  (Registered Exporter System).1 He recalled  that the REX  System was a 
system of self -certification for registered firms  that had been  in force since 1 January  2017. 
The transition period for implementation of the system had ended on 31  December  2020. 
In consequence,  Certificates of Origin (Form  A) were no longer admissible under the 
EU GSP schemes.  Instead, e xporters were required to register  in the system and to self-declare the 
origin of their goods , and to do so without need of any other types of Certificates of Origin from their 
authorities.  To ensure continuity, the EU had financed and delivered 17  three -day face -to-face 
training sessions to GSP  beneficiary countries , in addition to a number of training events via video 
conference. Around 70,000 exporters were registered in the system , across 67 GSP beneficiary 
countries , while only seven  countries had not yet introduced it . 
The representative of Tanzania  thanked the European Union for its update and asked for more 
details concerning the difficulties being faced by the seve n countries that had not transitioned into 
the system . 
1.1.3   Update on the Review of Preferential Rules of Orig in by the United Kingdom  
The representative of the United Kingdom  reported that stakeholder consultations  regarding 
the revision of the UK's GSP scheme  had been completed . The UK remain ed committed to simplify ing 
trade with LDCs , and the proposed modifications on rules of origin had been  fully guided by the 
recommendations set out in the Nairobi Decision. The intention was to implement the new 
Developing Countries Trading Scheme ( DCTS) in 2022.  
The representative of Tanzania , on behalf of the LDC  Group, welcomed the United Kingdom's 
decision to simplify its preferential rules of origin in light of the provisions and sprit of the Bali and 
Nairobi Ministerial Decisions. In developing the new rules and other administrative requirements, he  
invited the UK to build on some of the best practices already in place in the European Union.  
 
1 The presentation was circulated in document  RD/RO/96.  G/RO/M/77  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.1.4   Update by Any Other Preference -Granting Member  
The representative of China  gave an update on the implementation of the "Issuing and Printing 
System of Preferential Tariff Tre atment Certificate s of Origin". The system had been  launched on 
10 September  2020 to simplify preferential treatment for LDCs. The system  had tested the online 
issuance of Certificates of Origin for five  beneficiary countries. Once the visa agencies in beneficiary 
countries had logged into the system to issue the Certificate of Origin, the system automatically 
generated the relevant e lectronic data and sent it to China's  Customs Authorities. Thanks to the 
system, around 360 Certificates had been  issued by visa agencies in Ethiopia. As a transitional 
measure, the system had introduced a function for printing blank Certificates of Origin (CEPA). 
The tool was available in  the Economic and Commercial Counsellor Offices of Chinese Embassies and 
Consulates in the benefic iary countries , and almost 19 ,370 blank Certificates of Origin had thus far 
been issued . 
The representative of Tanzania , on behalf of the LDC  Group, thanked China for exploring 
alternatives to simplify certification procedures and asked for  additional information  on how the new 
system operated.  
The Committee took note  of the report and statement made.  
Status of Notifications  of Preferential Rules of Origin for LDCs and Preferential Import 
Data (G/RO/W/163/ Rev.9) – Report by the Secretariat  
The Secretariat  (Mr Darlan F. Martí) reported that most preference -granting  Members had 
already notified the ir preferential rules of origi n used for LDCs , except ing Armenia, Iceland,  and 
Morocco . In addition, some Members had also revised or updated their initial notifications. All the 
product -specific rules of origin contained in those notifications had been made  available , at tariff -line 
level, through the Rules of Origin Facilitator  (https://findrulesoforigin.org/ )  
He underlined the importance of having complete data on preferential imports from LDCs 
given that the Secretariat calculate d and monitored preference utilization rates. Recently , 
comprehensive notifications had been submitted by Iceland and Turkey. The Secretariat had also 
received notifications from India and the Russian Federation covering several years.  These recent 
notific ations were still being verified with a view to their integrat ion into the WTO Integrated 
Database (IDB) . Some Members , such as Armenia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Montenegro, 
Morocco, New Zealand, and Tajikistan, had not yet provided any information  regarding the ir 
preferential imports from LDCs. China had made available its data covering 2016 and 2018.  
The representative of China  clarified that the IDB data and Preferential Import Data came 
from different agencies using different d ata systems , which  had resulted in  some inconsistencies  
and had therefore hindered the integration of previous notifications in the databases . China  hoped 
to submit data for 20 19-2020 as well as data on preferential imports from LDCs for 2010 -2015 and 
2017.  In addition, he requested that document  G/RO/W/163/Rev.9  be corrected to reflect  that China 
had submitted data for the years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 , and 2017  even if that data 
could not be integrated to the databases . China 's status would be changed from " no submission 
received ", to "Yes* (submission received but not yet disseminated )". 
The representative of India confirmed  that his  delegation had submitted to the IDB its 
Preferential Import Data under the duty-free scheme for LDCs for five  financial years , from 2017 to 
2021, and its preferential tariffs for LDCs for 2020 and 2021.  
The representative of Tanzania  highlighted that  more comprehensive i nformation would allow 
the CRO to monitor  how preferences were utilized. He encouraged China to submit the necessary 
updates and data. 
The Chairperson  requested those delegations that had not yet submitted all the necessary 
information to prepare their notifications as soon as possible and, if necessary, to seek the assistance 
of the Secretariat in order to do so.  
The Committee took note  of the report a nd statements made.  G/RO/M/77  
 
- 4 - 
 
  
Further Submission on Rules of Origin Based on a Change of Tariff Classification: the 
Case of Rules of Origin used by Japan (G/RO/W/209) – Submission by the  LDC Group  
The representative of Tanzania , on behalf of the LDC Group, made  a presentation2 on the 
implementation of  the Nairobi Ministerial Decision  provisions related to the change -of-tariff 
classification (CTC) criterion. According to the Decision , rules of origin should be simple, and based 
on the change -of-tariff heading (CTH)  criterion, or the change of tariff sub -heading (CTSH)  criterion ; 
they should not contain exceptions or restrictions, unless such restrictions were justified ; and they 
should include a tolerance allowance for the use of materials from the same heading or sub-heading.  
In addition to th ese three  components , the Nairobi Ministerial Decision asked preference -granting 
Members to avoid requirements that impose d combination s of two or more criteria for the same 
products. Focusing on these aspects , he explained th at Japan used CTH as the standard general 
rule. However, he noted that Japan applied complex rules in some cases ( with up to 26 pages  of 
exceptions  for a single rule) . Even though utilization rates were relatively high  under the Japanese 
preferential schem e, the complexity of such rules seemed unjustified , particularly in light of the fact 
that several free trade agreements signed by Japan contained a more lenient practice . In addition, 
he underlined that Japan applied a stringent direct consignment rule  and provide d additional 
examples of complex rules used for products classified under  chapters  3, 42, 61, 62, 63 , and 64. 
In conclusion, he said that the Group had provided several illustrations of where an origin criterion 
went beyond the requirements of the  Nairobi Decision ; therefore, he  invited Japan to carry out an 
assessment of its rules and the necessary reforms to simplify its rules of origin and promote 
preferential trade from LDCs . 
The representative of Japan  indicated that  Japanese customs data seem ed not to confirm  the 
empirical  examples  found in document  G/RO/W/209 . In this regard, he asked the LDC Group to 
provide additional written details of Japan's rules of origin for LDC s, including clarification as to the 
relevant s ources of their statistical data.  
The representative of Tanzania  took note of possible  differences in the statistical data. 
He noted that a request would be submitted to Japan in this regard, and that the methodologies 
regarding the calculation of the util ization rates could be studied in greater detail.  
The Committee took note  of the presentation  and statements made.  
Stocktaking of Implementation of the Bali and Nairobi Decisions on Preferential Rules 
of Origin for Least Developed Countries – Statement by the LDC  Group ( G/RO/W/210 ) 
The Chairperson  reminded Members that , at the CRO 's previous meeting, the LDC  Group had 
proposed to work towards drafting a text to be included in the Declaration of the 12th Ministerial 
Conference  concerning the imp lementation of the Bali and Nairobi Ministerial Decisions. He noted 
that the LDC  Group had now circulated a draft for discussion ( G/RO/W/210 ). 
The representative of Cambodia  presented the text for discussion  and the  representative of 
Tanzania  noted that  the LDC Group had been active in monitoring the implementation of the 
Ministerial Decisions. He regretted to note that not all preference -granting Members had shown the 
same level of engagement, either in assessing and reviewing their own rules , or else in bringing 
evidence to the Committee of their efforts to promote fuller preference utilization . He recalled that 
the Ministerial Decisions reflected shared objectives ; therefore , their implementation also required 
shared efforts in the CRO. The repre sentative of Nepal  supported the proposal because it contribute d 
to reinvigorating the work of the CRO on the implementation of the Ministerial Decisions.  
The representative of the United States  said that the proposed  language seemed to go  beyond 
the Nairo bi Decision and to create new obligations. However, Members could not commit to new 
obligations because the implementation of the Nairobi Decision was still ongoing . He recalled that 
the work of the Committee during the previous two years had shown that preferential rules of origin 
were not the only determinant of trade preference utilization. Certain other factors, such as 
production capability  or sourcing preferences , also influenced the ability of LDC  firms to utilize 
preferences. He tho ught that additional work was required in the Committee to help LD Cs more fully 
understand the origin requirements of preference -granting Members. By way of  example , he cited 
 
2 The presentation was circulated in document  RD/RO/9 7. G/RO/M/77  
 
- 5 - 
 
  direct shipping requirements , and explained that there was a misconception of thi s requirement 
among  the LDC Group . Finally, he clarified that , after the Nairobi Decision , the US had taken certain 
steps  to further simplify its rules , such as by increasing the de minimis  value from USD 200 to 
USD 800. 
The representative of Canada  sought to clarify the meaning of "adopting best practices on 
preferential rules of origin and related administrative requirements".  She said that it was unclear 
how the Committee could adopt best practices , and which practices were considered to be the best. 
She asked for additional discussions regarding the proposed language.  
The representative of Switzerland  said that Switzerland  had fully implemented both the Bali 
and the Nairobi Decision s. Hence , Switzerland could not subscr ibe to the text indicating that the 
implementation of the Nairobi Decision was incomplete . He also said that the language of the 
proposal went beyond the Nairobi Decision and underlined that  the Committee was already 
substantially engag ed in its work.  He thought that adoption of best practices would be difficult as 
Members were still in the process of identifying such practices.  
The representative of the European Union  stated that the EU was open to discussing a possible 
paragraph and that it would submit written comments on the proposal.  She also asked the 
Secretariat for additional clarification regarding the procedure for comment s and discus sion of the 
draft text. 
The representative of Australia  acknowledged the importance of the Bali and Nairobi Decisions 
in providing transparent and simple rules of origin. He noted that any proposed work plan should be 
consistent with the provisions of both Decisions.  
 The representative of Bangladesh  said that the LDC Group did not seek to create additional 
commitments ; rather, the proposal reaffirmed the commitment of all Members to simple, 
transparent , and LDC -favourable rules of origin. The representative of Tanzania  added  that best 
practices already existed among Members. For example , the LDC  Group had often referred to the 
"non-alteration requirement " as a method preferrable to the direct consignment obligation. 
He underlined that certain preference -granting Members required LD Cs to submit a non -alteration 
certificate , while the same Members did not ask such certificates under certain FTAs. He said that 
the language could be modified in case the text went beyond the Nairobi Decision . He also invited 
preference -grant ing Members to further  engage  on the text . Finally, he agreed that other factors, 
such as production capacity , might also influence the utilization of preferences. Similarly, the 
representative of Cambodia  explained that some Members applied more lenient rules than oth ers, 
and that there was scope for mutual learning . He hoped that the text could be adopted at MC12.  
The Chairperson  asked  the LDC Group and preference -granting Members to work together to 
revise the draft paragraph as necessary , and to report back to her. If a revised draft could be agreed, 
she would circulate it to all Members for adoption through written procedures. It would then be 
forwarded to the General Council and the Ministerial Conference.  
The Committee agreed  to proceed accordingly . 
Draft Rep ort (2021) of the CRO to the General Council on Preferential Rules of Origin 
for LDCs (G/RO/W/207)  
The Chairperson  recalled that the CRO was required to report every year to the General 
Council on recent developments regarding preferential rules of origin for LDCs and the 
implementation of the Ministerial Decisions. The Secretariat had prepared a draft for Members' 
consideration (G/RO/W/207). She asked if Members wished to comment on the draft report and if it 
could be adopted and forwarded to the General C ouncil . 
The representative of India requested that  the fact that his delegation had submitted 
preferential tariffs and import statistics  be reflected in the report . 
The report of the CRO to the General Council was revised  accordingly and adopted as 
document  G/RO/94 . G/RO/M/77  
 
- 6 - 
 
  2  NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE  5 AND UNDER PARAGRAPH  4 OF ANNEX  II OF THE 
AGREEMENT ON RULES OF ORIGIN (G/RO/N/226 AND G/RO/N/227)  
 The Chairperson  drew Memb ers' attention to the latest notifications received by the 
Secretariat , under the following document symbols: G/RO/N/226 and G/RO/N/227. In addition, she 
reported that the Secretariat had also recently received additional notifications from the United 
Kingdom covering its preferential rules of origin (G/RO/N/228).  In light  of such notifications , she 
noted the following: 22  Members had not yet submitted a notification under Article  5 of the 
Agreement ; 53 Members had notified  the Secretariat that they applied non -preferential rules of 
origin ; and 6 2 Members had informed the Secretariat that they did not apply such rules.  
The Committee took note  of this report . 
3  DRAFT TRANSPARENCY DECISION ON NON -PREFERENTIAL RULES OF ORIGIN 
(G/RO/W/182/REV. 4) – REPORT BY THE CO -SPONSORS AND OTHER DELEGATIONS  
The Chairperson  referred to the draft notification template (G/RO/W/182/Rev. 4) and noted  
that consultations between its proponents, Ecuador, India,  and Indonesia,  had been successful. 
Following those consultations, the proponents had agreed to discuss among themselves, and with 
colleagues in Capital, the issues raised , and certain textual suggestions. She invited delegations t o 
report on any progress made  in this regard . 
The representative  of Switzerland  welcomed the United Kingdom as a new co -sponsor of the 
draft decision on enhancing transparency in non -preferential rules of origin. He reported that 
delegations had been very busy preparing for MC12 , and that, as a result, informal consultations 
had not take n place since the Committee's previous meeting . In addition, he suggested that a 
process led by a fa cilitator appointed by the Chair person  could be a better option for continuing such 
consultations and adjust ing the current proposal. This could be an initiative to be taken up after 
MC12 . 
The representative of the United Kingdom  confirmed that his delegat ion had decided to 
co-sponsor the notification  template . He underlined the importance of transparency in 
non-preferential rules of origin, in particular to help MSMEs to trade. He then drew delegations' 
attention to the UK's notification on non -preferential rules of origin (G/RO/N/214) and the fact that  
his delegation had used the draft template to prepare it. He said that his colleagues had found the 
template to be a very helpful  tool. In the case of Members that did not apply non -preferential o rigin 
requirements, the process leading up to notifications under the template would be even simpler as 
the template only required  those Members to tick a  single  box. 
The representative of Chinese Taipei  reiterated his delegation's support for the proposal  and 
highlighted that the notification  template  would be  helpful in promoting transparency and 
predictability in non-preferential rule s of origin. He therefore encouraged Members to continue their 
dialogue in order to find common ground on the proposal as soon as possible.  
The representative of Brazil  reiterated his delegation's support for the proposal and expressed 
Brazil's readiness  to engage in discussions after MC12.  
The representative of Indonesia  said that discussions were ongoing mainly between his 
delegation and the proponents. He reiterated his delegation's  willingness to further discuss the 
propos al after MC12.  
The representative of Ecuador  agreed that it would be appropriate to continue these  discussions 
after MC12.  
The representative of India recalled  that his delegation had previously expressed its concerns 
over the proposal ; in particular, the fact that the proposal  should not introduce new notification 
obligation s, and the fact that it lac ked an explicit recognition of special and differential treatment for 
developing Members . In addition, his delegation also felt that the level of ambition regarding  
transparency in this proposal did not match a similar level of ambition in other areas. His delegation 
had suggested textual changes to the draft and was awaiting the proponents ' responses to those 
suggestions . G/RO/M/77  
 
- 7 - 
 
  
The Chairperson  noted that t his proposal had been on the  Committee's agenda for almost 
three  years , despite a shared sense among  all delegations that the Committee needed to enhance 
transparency on non -preferential origin requirements. In this sense, the adoption of the proposal 
would mark the beginning of the CRO 's work  in this area , and not its end. For this reason, she 
requested  delegations to give priority to the proposal immediately following  MC12.  
The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed  to proceed accordingly . 
4  TWENTY -SEVENTH ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION OF 
THE AGREEMENT ON RULES OF ORIGIN  (G/RO/W/206)  
The Chairperson recalled that Article  6.1 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin stated that "the 
Committee shall review annually the implementation and operation" of this Agreement and "annually 
inform the Council for Trade in Goods of developm ents". To help the Committee conduct this review, 
the Secretariat had prepared a background note describing the activities of the Committee under 
Parts II and III of the Agreement (G/RO/W/ 206). 
The Committee adopted  the report . 
5  DRAFT REPORT (2021) OF THE CRO TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
(G/RO/W/208)  
The Chairperson  explained that the Committee was required to report on its activities to the 
Council for Trade in Goods. To this end, the Secretariat had prepared document  G/RO/W /208 for 
Members' consideration.  
The Committee  adopted  the report . 
6  ROUND TABLE ON RULES OF ORIGIN AT THE EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INS TITUTE – 
ANNOUNCEMENT BY UNCTAD  
The representative of UNCTAD  (Mr Stefano Inam a) informed Members  that, on 
15-17 November  2021, UNCTAD, in collaboration with the European University Institute, would 
organize another round  table on rule s of origin. The round table was an annual event to discuss the 
different emerging issues regarding rules of origin and their administration. P articipant s were experts 
from international organi zations , such as the WCO, the ITC, the ADB, and the ICC. Representatives 
of certain businesses had also participated in past round tables. The event brought  together  different 
actors , in an informal setting , to discuss  challeng es regarding rules of origin . It also presented an 
opportunity to share research findings . The upcoming edition would focus on the topic , "Towards 
convergence of rules of origin ". He invited all delegates to participate.  
The Committee took note  of the update  by UNCTAD.  
7  DATES OF THE COMMITTEE 'S NEXT MEETINGS  
The Chairperson  reported that two  dates had been identified for the following year's formal 
meetings of the CRO, namely , 7 April and 13  October  2022.  
The Committee took note of these dates . 
8  OTHER BUSINESS  
No items were raised under "Other Business".  
__________