G/RO/W/212  
 
27 September 2022  
(22-7223) Page: 1/23 
Committee on Rules of Origin    
 
 
CERTIFICATION  OF ORIGIN  AND THE UTILIZATION OF TRADE PREFERENCES  
BY LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES  
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
1  INTRODUCTION  
1.1 Previous notes by the Secretariat have shown that a significant proportion of imports 
originating in Least Developed Countries (LDCs) do not receive preferential tariff treatment despite 
being eligible for preferences under at least one preferential trade arrangement (PTA). While the 
overall proportion of non -utilization varies across LDCs and across arrangements, under utilization 
also affects goods subject to a simple origin criterion (i.e., "wholly obtained" goods). As a result, it 
is plausible that, in a ddition to the origin criterion, utilization is also influenced by the ability of LDC 
producers to comply with other factors, such as direct consignment requirements and origin 
certification obligations.  
1.2 After a first study on consignment requirements2, this note focuses on Members' requirements 
related to the certificat ion of origin  (proof of origin ) and ex plores the possible effects that such 
requirements have on the utilization of non -reciprocal trade preferences by LDCs.  
2  BACKGROUND: TYPES OF PROOFS OF ORIGIN (THIRD PARTY CERTIFICATION AND 
SELF -CERTIFICATION)  
2.1.  Customs authorities in preference -granting Members will only grant tariff preferences  qualify ing 
goods . In practice, goods will deem to have qualified or "originated" in a beneficiary LDC if they 
simultaneo usly satisfy three distinct  origin requirements:  
(i) Origin criteria : a good shall either be "wholly obtained" in a beneficiary country or, must be 
the result of a "substantial" or "sufficient transformation" if parts and components from other 
sources are used;  
(ii) Proof of origin : goods must carry documentary evidence that they meet the prescribed origin 
criteria (either a certificate or a statement /declaration  of origin); and  
(iii) Transportation  requirements : a good must not be altered during its transit or consignment to 
the preference -granting country and should, as a result, either be consigned directly 
(no transit) or must demonstrate that it has not been manipulated during its transportation 
(in case of transit).  
2.2.  Proofs of origin are, as a res ult, an essential pillar of rules of origin enforcement. Proofs of 
origin can be of two types:  
(i) Third-party certification : the origin of the goods and their compliance with specific origin 
criteria is attested by a designated or mutually recognized authorit y by means of a "certificate 
of origin";  
(ii) Self-certification : the origin of the goods and compliance with specific origin criteria is attested 
by the producer or exporter of the goods (or, in some cases, the importer) by means of a 
statement, declaration, i nvoice or some other commercial document . 
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  
2 Secretariat note G/RO/W/187/Rev.1 . G/RO/W/212  
 
- 2 - 
 
  2.3.  As can be seen, the main differentiating factor between both types lies with who carries the 
responsibility for attesting origin (either an external third party or the trade operator).  
2.4.  In the case of third-party c ertification , the operator must apply for a certificate with a local 
certifying  authority. Most often, that authority is the Ministry of Trade, Customs or, sometimes, the 
local chamber of commerce. There might be more or less cumbersome procedures and docu mentary 
requirements which need to be satisfied for the application and processing of the certificates 
(requirements of the local certifying authority in the exporting  country).  After receiving the 
prescribed documentation, the competent authority verifies whether the goods under consideration 
meet the applicable origin criteria. If so, the authority issues a certificate of origin according to the 
prescriptions of  the importing  country  (how such a certificate should look and the minimum 
information it needs to contain ).  
2.5.  In the case of self-certification , it is the economic operator who carries the responsibility for 
attesting the origin of goods. Different operators may be designa ted to carry that responsibility: the 
producer, the  exporter,  or the  importer. Here too, t here might be different requirements concerning 
the format of the declaration itself and the minimum information it must contain (requirements of 
the importing  countr y). Sometimes, operators may need to be regist ered before being allowed to 
self-certify. In that case , additional registration procedures would also apply ( according to the  
requirements of the local authority responsible for registration in the exporting  country).  
2.6.  As described above, the two systems differ in the way they operate and, thus, both have 
advantages  and disadvantages. There is a clear difference in the way the legal responsibility is 
attributed. Self-certification requires economic operator s to internalize knowledge and build their 
capacity to identify, interpret and apply rules of origin. The operator must keep proofs and records 
and be prepared for a verification. The complexities involved with building this capacity or the fear 
of verification and penalties may cause businesses to prefer not claiming (that is, not using) a 
preference.  
2.7.  Third-party certification, on the contrary, relies on the knowledge and capacity of an external 
competent authority. However, third -party certificatio n requires the application, treatment, 
approval, and issuance of a document. As a result, it requires businesses to deal with  paperwork 
(commercial invoices, contracts with manufacturers, packing lists, bill of lading, etc) . Oftentimes, 
that paperwork come s with  costs (fees, prior registration or inspections and factory visits as a 
prerequisite). Sometimes the certifying agency may not be present throughout the territory of the 
exporting country, so travel time and additional costs  may be incurred . Sometime s, the names, 
signature or stamps of the certifying authority might need to be communicated before to the 
importing country. As for self -certification, the operator must keep proofs and records and be 
prepared for a verification. The delays and costs assoc iated with the application procedure , may 
cause businesses to prefer not claiming (that is, not using) a trade preference.   
2.8.  In addition to the complexities, delays and costs associated with each type of proof of origin, 
it is worth recalling that operator s are likely to face with a multiplicity of different requirements 
because each preferential arrangement  and each importing country will have it s own specificity and 
requirements . 
3  ESTIMATING THE COSTS OF CERTIFICATION OBLIGATIONS  
3.1.  Generally, it is accepted t hat origin-related  compliance costs consist of : 
a) distortionary costs (costs associated with possible modifications of production structure or 
supply chains to be able to comply with product -specific origin criteria); and  
b) administrative costs (associated wi th the paperwork and procedures needed to prove origin 
or non -manipulation during transportation)3.  
3.2.  While distortionary costs relate to changes in production processes induced by preferential 
origin criteria, administrative costs relate more directly to the costs related to satisfying procedural 
 
3 Cadot, O., and De Melo, J., 2007, "Why OECD countries should reform rules of origin".  G/RO/W/212  
 
- 3 - 
 
  and documentary obligations. Certification of origin can re present a significant component of such 
costs.  
3.3.  Different research papers attempted to estimate the costs associated with the utilization of 
trade preferences . Table 1 summarises4 some of the more recent estimates.  
Table 1: Estimating the costs of complying with rules of origin (recent studies)  
 
3.4.  Certain  studies estimate d the absolute value of utilization costs. Albert and Nilsson (2016) 
quantify the fix ed costs of using preferences based on transaction level data of EU exports. 
By employing a regression kink model, they find that the potential fixed costs thresholds are q uite 
heterogeneous and vary significantly (from €20 to €260)5. The authors consider that  between those  
two thresholds, it is more likely that the value  of the duty savings is higher than the fixed costs of 
using the preferences  and therefore, that it is more likely that the preferences  will be used . 
Cherkashin et al. (2015) apply data on the woven apparel sector in Bangladesh  to estimate various  
fixed costs  (costs of entering the industry, costs of production as well as the docu mentation costs)  
and find that the documentation costs of meeting rules of origin are relatively low and correspond 
to $4,240  while the  costs of entering the industry are around  $77,0006. 
3.5.  These studies, h owever, have not tried to isolate the costs associated with certification of origin  
only. Moreover, as can be seen in Table 1 , compliance costs differ from one context to another  
depending on the stringency of national requirements but also on the capacity of businesses to 
conform with such requirements . 
3.6.  In addition to these studies, the International Trade Centre conducted a survey on non-tariff 
measures7. Business es in different countries were asked to name the most frequent trade barriers  
they faced. R ules of origin were reporte d to be the top barrier  for businesses trading in manufactured 
goods (35% of participating businesses reported problems in this area, whereas sanitary and 
phytosanitary regulations came first for businesses trading agricultural products). Interestingly, th e 
regulations of the exporting  country were frequently reported to be more problematic than those of 
the importing country. This is further confirmation that there is a link between the ease of proving 
origin and the decision by businesses to utilize  or not trade preferences.  
4  E-CERTIFICATES OF ORIGIN AND THE USE OF BLOCKCHAIN  
4.1.  Conscious about that link , several governments have been taking measures to reduce delays 
and costs associated with trade  documents . One avenue has consisted  in the wider use of 
automation, the Internet and digitalization  (paperless  trade ). Such reforms are often part of wider 
national or regional trade facilitation strategies . Such efforts have often been initiated  or accelerated 
during the COVID -19 pandemic to cater for  restrictions on the movement of people or physical 
 
4 Adapted from Crivelli , Pramila A. , 2022, "Assessing Practices of Proof of Origin and Digitalization" . 
5 Albert, C., and Nilsson, L., 2016, "To use, or not to use (trade preferences) that is the question, 
Estimating the fixed cost thresholds ".  
6 Cherkashin, I., Demidova, S., Kee, H., and Krishna, K ., 2015, "Firm Heterogeneity and Costly Trade: A 
New Estimation Strategy and Policy Experiments ".  
7 ITC 2015, The Invisible Barriers to Trade how businesses experience non -tariff measures . Author  Main Findings  
Carrère & De Melo (2004)  A ≈10% preference margin is required to compensate for compliance costs 
incurred by Mexican exporters  
Cadot, et al. (2005)  The border price of Mexican products has risen 12% in order to compensate 
the compliance costs of rules of origin under NAFTA  
Anson, et al. (2005)  Average compliance costs were estimated at around 6% under NAFTA  
Carrère & De Melo (2006)  NAFTA compliance costs of rules of origin wer e estimated to be 5.6% for textile 
and apparel and 3.2% for all final products on average  
Manchin (2006)  Compliance costs in African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) are between 4% to 
4.5%  
Hayakawa (2011)  Average tariff equivalent of fixed costs for the use of a free trade agreement 
among all existing FTAs equals to 3.2%  
Cherkashin et al. (2015)  Fixed costs estimated at 4,240$  
Albert and Nilsson (2016)  Potential fixed costs range from €20 to €260.  G/RO/W/212  
 
- 4 - 
 
  documents. In the area of origin, such efforts have  translated into the introduction of "e -certificates 
of origin"  and, sometimes, projects involving blockchains . 
4.2.  For instance , the Southern Afric an Development Community (SADC) approved an "e -Certificate 
of Origin Framework" in 2019 to reduce the time needed for the manual processing of certificates of 
origin and increase intra -regional trade flows8. Similarly, the Council of Ministers of COMESA 
introduced the COMESA eCO system to start replacing paper documents and piloting e -certificates 
of origin9.  
4.3.  E-certificates  of origin provide various advantages over their paper versions. They may speed 
up the processing of applications by eliminating trav el and queueing time  and they may eliminate 
the need for paperwork during the application process . Such systems can significantly reduce the 
paperwork involved in the manual processing of applications. In  addition, e -certificates are equipped 
with specific  security features such as optical watermarking technology to distinguish originals from 
copies, digital rubber stamps, 2 -D barcodes, QR codes, etc.10 Such features make the e -certification 
systems secure and trustworthy and can therefore help reduce origin related fraud.  
4.4.  Having said this, t here is no international standard or definition of "e -certificates of origin". In 
reality, "e-certificates of orig in" may cover very different practices. For instance, should the 
application for an e -certificate be fully digitalized and online? Should businesses applying for an 
e-certificate be registered before applying? What format and  minimum -security  features shou ld 
e-certificates contain? Would the introduction of digital certificates require amendments to existing 
regional trade agreements in which paper certificates had been prescribed? Finally, how can 
certifying entities ensure the widest possible acceptance t heir own e -certificates?  Such questions 
and the underlying technical difficulties mean that governments must be able to create a wider, 
enabling environment for e -certificates to operate optimally.11 
4.5.  An additional , more recent trend during the last few years has been the use of distributed -
ledger technology (DLT) (commonly known as blockchains) in the certification process. The real 
revolution is to move from  documents to data . A few examples include:  
a) In 2018, the world's first blockchain -based platform for electronic certificates of origin was 
introduced by the Singapore International Chamber of Commerce and cross -border trade 
facilitation solutions provider vCargo Cloud12; 
b) In 2018, a blockchain pilot project "Trad e Logistics Pipeline" covered four trade related 
documents, including certificates of origin, to ship flowers from Kenya to the Netherlands13; 
c) In 2021, the Australian Border Force, the Infocomm Media Development Authority of 
Singapore (IMDA), and Singapore  Customs, concluded a blockchain trial to issue and verify 
digital trade documents across two independent systems. QR -codes were inserted into digital 
Certificates of Origin, enabling immediate verification for authenticity. The trial proved that 
the certi ficates of origin could be issued and verified digitally across two independent 
systems14. 
4.6.  In summary, e -certificates, if implemented successfully, could be an avenue to reduce  the 
delays and  costs associated with the certification of origin . By doing so, e -certificates could lower 
compliance costs for businesses, including the increased utilization of trade preferences.  
 
8 Southern African  Development Community (SADC) Webpage . 
9 Africa Business Communities Webpage . 
10 International Chamber of Commerce, "The ICC Guide to Authentic  
Certificates of Origin for Chambers of Commerce ". 
11 WTO and WEF, " The promise of TradeTech: Policy approaches to harness trade digitalization " 
12 Singapore  International Chamber of Commerce . 
13 World Customs Organization, 2020, Comparative Study on Certification of Origin   
14 Infocomm Media Development Authority of Singapore . G/RO/W/212  
 
- 5 - 
 
  5  PROOFS OF ORIGIN IN THE BALI AND NAIROBI MINISTERIAL DECISIONS  
5.1.  The Bali (2013) Ministerial Decision on preferential rules of origin for LDCs15 build on this trade 
facilitation spirit and  states that : 
"1.8 With regard to certification of rules of origin, whenever possible, 
self‑certification may be recognized. Mutual customs cooperation and monitoring 
could complement complian ce and risk -management measures. "  
5.2.  The subsequent  Nairobi (2015) Ministerial Decision16 builds on the same spirit and stipulates 
that:  
"3.1. With a view to reducing the administrative burden related to documentary 
and procedural requirements related to or igin, Preference -granting Members 
shall:  
[…] 
b) Consider other measures to further streamline customs procedures, such as 
minimizing documentation requirements for small consignments or allowing for 
self‑certification. " 
5.3.  The premise of both Ministerial Deci sions is that the reduction of the administrative burden 
associated with origin -related documentary and procedural obligations would help the LDCs  to better 
use trade preferences that are available to them. This is further confirmed by the April 2022 Decis ion 
by the Committee on Rules of Origin in which:  
"Members underscore the importance of identifying and addressing as appropriate 
specific challenges that least -developed countries (LDCs) face, as Members may agree, 
in complying with preferential rules of origin and origin requirements to effectively use 
trade preferences.  
Towards that end, […] The work of the CRO could include identifying and agreeing 
upon best practices by all Members on preferential rules of origin and related 
administrative requirements  and further analysing existing origin requirements and the 
utilization of trade preferences…"  
5.4.  Against that context, there could be three distinct commit ments contemplated in the Decisions, 
that is: (i) to conside r possible measures to simplify customs procedures ; (ii) to consider allowing 
for self -certification whenever possible and (i ii) to consider using facilitated procedures for low value 
consignments.  
6  PREFERENCE GRANTI NG MEMBERS' PR ACTICES REGARDING PROOFS OF ORIGIN  
6.1.  This section describes the practices  of preference -granting Members related to proofs of origin. 
The information is sourced from the notifications submitted to the CRO (G/RO/LDC/N/ series) and 
complemented with national legislation and other officia l publications. Annex I summarises the 
requirements for each preference -granting Member  according to specific features:  
a) Whether self -certification or third -party certification is used and whether there is one or more 
entities designated to issue proof s of origin ; 
b) Whether there is a p rescribed format for the document;  
c) Whether there are specifications about the language  to be used;  
d) Whether the proof of origin should be paper -based or digital; and  
e) Whether there are exemptions from certification  obligations in certain cases (such as low value 
consignments) . 
 
15 WT/L/917  
16 WT/L/917/Add.1  G/RO/W/212  
 
- 6 - 
 
  6.2.  This is, by no means, an exhaustive list of all features which have a bearing on the stringency 
or leniency of a certification  system. It would indeed be useful to gather more detailed  information 
about these  requirements . On the basis of the practices  reviewed17, two groups of PTAs were 
established : 
i. Group 1 – PTAs allowing  self-certification  (in all or most cases) : Australia; Canada ; European 
Union; Switzerland; Norway; US (LDC); US (AGOA) ; and  
ii. Group 2 – PTAs requiring a certificat e of origin: Chile; China; India; Japan; Republic of Korea ; 
Chinese Taipei .  
6.3.  The purpose of establishing these groups is to examine whether certain  practices are associated 
with higher levels of preference utilization.  
7  ASSESSING THE ROLE  OF CERTIFICATION ON PREFERENCE UTILIZATION  
7.1.   Import statistics for six years (2015 -2020) were considered for preference -granting Members 
who have submitted complete statis tical n otifications to the WTO17. This m ulti-year analysis shows 
that the average under utilization rate for Members allowing self -certification (Group 1) is  22%, while 
the average under utilization for Members requiring certificates of origin (Group  2) is much higher at 
49% (Graph 1). This seems to i ndicat e that LDC exporters find it easier to utilize preferences when 
proofs of origin are based on self -certification. However, these figures and this conclu sion need to 
be interpreted with caution since it is not possible to conclude that an overall rate of utilization is 
exclusively or mainly attributable to the type of certification used. As discussed in previous notes by 
the Secretariat, a number of additi onal factors could simultaneously influenc e businesses ' decision  
to use or not preferences (origin criteria, conditions of consignment and also preference margins, 
awareness about preferences, value of the consignments, etc.).  
7.2.  An additional  observation abo ut these calculations is that both groups are not entirely 
homogeneous: Japan and Korea (Group 2) have, in general, low levels of under utilization unlike 
other Members in that group and Switzerland (Group 1) has much higher under utilization than other 
Memb ers of that group.  
 
17 The practices of the following preference -granting Members  were reviewed: Australia; Canada; Chile; 
China; European Union; India; Japan; Korea; Norway; Switzerland; Chinese Taipei and US (LDC -GSP and 
AGOA. The LDC -PTAs of the following preference -granting Members could not be considered since preferential 
import statistics have either not been notified or are n ot yet fully integrated yet in the WTO databases : 
Eurasian Economic Union (Armenia; Kazakhstan; Kyrgyz Republic; and the Russian Federation); Iceland; 
Montenegro; New Zealand; Tajikistan and Türkiye . G/RO/W/212  
 
- 7 - 
 
  Graph 1: Average preference under utilization (201 5-2020) for preference -granting 
Members requiring a certificate of origin vs preference -granting Members allowing self -
certification  
 
Note: The trade weighted under utilization  rate for each  preference -granting Member is calculated, 
the horizontal line is then the simple average within each group.  
Source : WTO Integrated Database, 2022.  
7.3.  To further test the hypothesis that self -certification improves the ability of LDC exporters to 
utilize trade preferences, three additional calculations were made . The first focused on the EU , the 
second on the US and Canada  and the third one concerned agricultural goods . 
7.4.  First, the Secretariat analysed the evolution  of utilization  rates for the EU before and after the 
introduction of self -certification (EU REX System). In fact, the EU moved away from a third -party 
certification system (only "Form A" certificates  of origin  were accepted) and gradually introduced 
self-certification (only statements on origin by registered exporters are accepted since 
1 January  2020). Since all other parameters were kept constant (i.e., the origin criteria and 
consignment obligations have not changed  during that period), one could have attributed any 
improvement in utilization to the new self-certification system .  
7.5.  As can be seen  in Graph 2 , however, the staged shift to self -certification does not  seem to have 
had any significant impact on the overall EU GSP under utilization rates. This could be a confirmation 
that other factors play a larger role in ex plaining utilization.  
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Members Allowing Self -Certification Members Requiring Certificate of Origin
22%49%G/RO/W/212  
 
- 8 - 
 
  Graph 2: Preference under utilization in the EU (2010 -2020)  
 
Source : WTO Integrated Database, 2022.  
7.6.  The second analysis on self-certification and third -party certification involve d an examination 
of the USA AGOA and Canada GSP schemes . Under both PTAs , export ers of textile and apparel goods  
must submit a certificate of origin to benefit from preferences whereas exporters of other goods 
qualify for preferences with self-certification.  One could therefore expect to observe better utilization 
rates for goods for which self -certification is allowed and, on the  contrary, higher under utilization 
for textile goods with a third -party certification requirement.  
7.7.  Calculations revealed the opposite , nonetheless : even though the importation of  textile and 
apparel goods require third -party certification , those products have a better record of preference 
utilization when compared to other goods . In fact, the under utilization rate for textiles and garments 
is lower than for other goods under almost all PTAs, irrespective of the type of proof of origin used  
(Graph 3 ). Ten o ut of 13 PTAs show better utilization for textiles and garments than for other goods , 
even though certification procedures are identical for both product groups most of the time. 
This could confirm , as noted above,  that other factors play a more significan t role in utilization. 
In the case of textiles and garments this could be relatively high er MFN tariff rates , small profit 
margins or better business capacity, for instance . 
0%2%4%6%8%10%12%14%16%18%20%
Only Form A certificates 
acceptedTransitional 
Period: 
certificates and 
statements
acceptedOnly 
Statement 
ofOriginG/RO/W/212  
 
- 9 - 
 
  Graph 3: Under utilization: textile products vs non-textile products  (2015 -2020 a verage ) 
 
Note:  In this Graph, the term textiles refers to all goods in HS Chapters 50 to 63.  
Source : WTO Integrated Database, 2022.  
7.8.  Finally, in an effort to isolate the effect of certification over other factors, Graph 4 below 
presents under utilization rates for agricultural goods. Focusing  exclusively  on this group of goods 
offers the advantage of removing or reducing the influence th at other factors, such as different origin 
criteria, could have on the calculations (goods compared are in most cases subject to the same 
"wholly obtained criterion"). This multi -year analysis shows a similar pattern as Graph 1 above : 
under utilization rate s for Members allowing self -certification (Group 1) is lower ( 17%) than for 
Members requiring third-party certification (Group 2 , at 50%).  
7.9.  Interestingly , however , the results for agricultural products in certain cases indicate reverse 
patterns to those ob served above . Specifically, even though China requires third -party certificates 
of origin for agricultural goods, under utilization rates for agricultural goods are quite low. In practice, 
the under utilization rates for almost all PTAs in both Group 1 and Group 2  are very similar with the 
exception of Chile, India and Chinese Taipei . Also, Switzerland's under utilization rate for agricultur al 
goods ( 29%) is also relatively low compared to its overall under utilisation rate for all products 
(67%).  
7.10.   While these r esults confirm that self -certification is associated with lower under utilization 
rates, they could also be influenced by the composition of the groups  or data vulnerabilities. 
In addition, they  could be an indication t hat different sectors respond differently to the same 
documentary requirements . Hence, it is not clear that  self-certification necessarily or always lead to 
higher levels of preference  utilization.  
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Non-textiles
Textiles
Non-textiles
Textiles
Non-textiles
Textiles
Non-textiles
Textiles
Non-textiles
Textiles
Non-textiles
Textiles
Non-textiles
Textiles
Non-textiles
Textiles
Non-textiles
Textiles
Non-textiles
Textiles
Non-textiles
Textiles
Non-textiles
Textiles
Non-textiles
Textiles
Australia Canada EU Norway Switzerland USA-LDC USA-AGOA Chile China India Japan Korea Chinese
TaipeiG/RO/W/212  
 
- 10 - 
 
  Graph 4: Preference under utilization for a gricultur al goods  (2015 -2020)  
 
Source : WTO Integrated Database, 2022.  
8  BENEFICIARY COUNTRIES' PRACTICES RELATED TO PROOFS OF ORIGIN  
8.1.  As mentioned above, compliance with certification requirements  entail s obligations and 
procedures imposed both by the importing  and by the exporting  country. As a result, it would be 
useful to complement this analysis with an examination of the requirements in LDC exporting 
countries and an assessment of how such requirement s affect the ability of local businesses to utilize 
or not utilize preferences.  
8.2.  Reviewing such practices, however, requires compiling and examining information which is not 
readily available. Members are currently not required to  submit standardized notifications to the 
WTO describing their practices related to certification  of origin.  Data available from public sources is 
summarized in Table 3 below ( Annex II ). The information shown was corrected and validated by 
some LDCs  (Afghanistan, Benin , Cambod ia, Myanmar , Malawi, Mozambique,  Nepal,  Togo). The Table 
reviews elements that could have a bearing on the leniency or stringency of certification practices . 
It compares the requirements based  on the following criteria:  
a. Name(s) of the authority(ies) respon sible for the issuance of certificates of origin;  
b. Documents needed to complete an application for a certificate of origin;  
c. Method of application ( whether applications are paper -based or can be completed 
electronically);  
d. Application fees;  
e. Processing times f or the issuance of certificates; and  
f. Additional relevant information.  
8.3.  In addition to the challenges related to gathering the necessary detailed information, an 
additional hurdle to carry out that analysis is that there are no internationally agreed standards of 
what constitutes best practices related  to applying, processing or issuing preferential certificates of 
origin. As a result, categorizing national requirements in groups from more strict to more lenient 
would constitute a complex exercise.  
8.4.  One alternative could be to use a standardized indicator as a proxy for the leniency or 
stringency of national requirements. For instance, t he OECD Trade Facilitation Indicators18 cover the 
full spectrum of border procedures  such as information availability, involvement of the trade 
community, advance rulings, appeal procedures, fees and charges, documents, automation, 
procedures, internal border agency co -operation, external border agency co -operation, governance,  
and impartiality. While the indicators do not focus specifically on certificates of origin , they cover 
 
18 OECD Trade Facilitation Indicators  
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Members Allowing Self -Certification Members Requiring Certificate of Origin
17%50%G/RO/W/212  
 
- 11 - 
 
  several aspects that are directly relevant and influence the ability of businesses to interac t with local 
administration to obtain trade documents. The indicator ranges from 0 to 2, where 2 designates the 
best possible performance.  
8.5.  Graph 5 below  correlates the OECD Trade Facilitation Indicator19 with average under utilization 
rates for selected LDCs. As can be seen, the  LDCs with best trade facilitation scores tend to have 
lower under utilization rates (Senegal, Cambodia, Madagascar , Bangladesh , Uganda).  
8.6.  However, t his is not a clear or a universal  pattern. Some LDCs illustrate the opposite 
correl ation: Myanmar displays one of the best trade facilitation performances, but its under utilization 
rate is on the higher end (more than 40%). The same pattern can be observed for Tanzania  and 
Zambia .  
8.7.  Possible explanations for these counterintuitive results  could be that trade facilitation reforms 
have not yet been fully translated in better trade opportunities , or that local businesses have limited 
knowledge about preferential opportunities . Another possibility is that  a narrow composition of 
exports for so me countries could influence the results.  
Graph 5: The relation between trade facilitation and preference utilization rates ( 2015 -
2020 average ) 
 
 
Source : WTO Integrated Database, 2022.  
9  CONCLUSION/RECCOMEN DATIONS  
9.1.  This note explained the relevance of proofs of origin for preference utilization, reviewed 
examples of trade -facilitating practices related to proofs of origin and recalled the relevant language 
contained in the Bali and Nairobi Ministerial Decisions . It then described the practices of preference -
granting Members  and assessed preference utilization rates in light of those practices.  
9.2.  It showed that self -certification is associated, in general, with better  preference  utilization. 
Under utilization rates for Members allowing self -certification (22%) was less than half the 
under utilization for Members applying third -party certification (49%) . As explained, nevertheless, 
these findings need to be interpreted with caution because of certain limitations of the metho dolog y 
 
19 The OECD Trade Facilitation Indicators are composed of a set of variables measuring the actual extent 
to which countries have introduced and implemented tr ade facilitation measures in absolute terms, but also their 
performance relative to others. The TFIs take values from 0 to 2, where 2 designates the best performance that 
can be achieved. In Graph 5 of this note, the scale has been normalized from 0% (best  score) to 100% (worst 
score) so that it can be compared more easily with under utilization rates.  
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Average Underutilization Rates (2015-2020) Average Trade Facilitation PerformanceG/RO/W/212  
 
- 12 - 
 
  and data used as well as the difficulties in isolating the impact of  origin  certification from other 
factors. Moreover, the possible positive impact of self -certification was not confirmed by additional 
and more detailed calculations (focusing on th e EU, the US, and Canada ). However, the calculations 
focusing exclusively on  agricultural goods  did associate self -certification with better preference 
utilization . In sum, self-certification seems to have a  trade -facilitating impact although this is not 
clearly or universally observed in the case of non -reciprocal preferences for LDCs . Self-certification 
remains, in any event , a recommended  benchmark of the Bali and the Nairobi Ministerial Decisions.  
9.3.  Finally, t his note recalled the im portance of simple procedures in beneficiary exporting 
countries too. E xporting businesses are primarily confronted with local authorities and local 
requirements when applying for a certificate of origin. In this sense, there is a clear but not universal 
correlation between trade facilitation reforms and better preference utilization.  
9.4.  Going forward , it would be useful to gather more detailed information about local requirements 
for the application for and issuance of certificates of origin  in LDCs . It would  be useful to compare 
costs, processing times, and the paperwork involved in different LDCs to assess whether differences 
in such requirements also translate  in differences in preference utilization . For that, additional  
standardized and updated informatio n would be needed . 
_______________  
 
 
  
  G/RO/W/212  
 
- 13 - ANNEX I 
1.1 TABLE 2  
Preference 
granting member  Proof of origin  Designated entity to 
issue proof of origin  Prescribed 
template/free  Language  Acceptable format of 
proof of origin: paper 
version/electronic 
version  Exemption from 
certification/self -
certification  
1. AUSTRALIA  → Certificate Of Origin or  
→ Declaration of origin 
made by the overseas 
manufacturer  No designated authorities 
in LDCs  → No prescribed form 
of certificate of 
origin or 
declaration of 
origin  
→ Form A of GSP may 
be used to claim 
preferences  Possible 
templates 
are in 
English  Paper?  
(The declaration could 
be done on the 
commercial documents 
or form a separate 
document)  N/A 
2. CANADA  → Exporter's Statement of 
Origin or Certificate of 
Origin "Form A"  
→ Certificate of Origin for 
textile and apparel good  Exporter  Prescribed Template 
(Form A, Exporter's 
Statement, B255 for 
textile)  English or 
French  Paper?  
→ (No requirement the 
Form A to be stamped 
and signed.)  
→ (The statement may be 
written out on a Canada 
Customs Invoice, or a 
commercial invoice or 
provided as a separate 
document)  N/A 
3. CHILE  Certificate Of Origin  Competent Authority, 
producer or exporter of the 
goods or importer of the 
goods  Prescribed template  Spanish, 
English, 
French, or 
Portuguese  Paper?  N/A 
4. CHINA  → Certificate Of Origin  → Bodies Authorized by the 
Beneficiary Country   
 English  Paper or Electronic (?)  
 Goods with a dutiable value 
below RMB 6,000 are  
  G/RO/W/212  
 
- 14 - Preference 
granting member  Proof of origin  Designated entity to 
issue proof of origin  Prescribed 
template/free  Language  Acceptable format of 
proof of origin: paper 
version/electronic 
version  Exemption from 
certification/self -
certification  
→ Declaration Of Origin 
(For advance ruling 
goods, importers may 
submit a Declaration of 
Origin rather than a 
Certificate of Origin)  → Importer  
  
Prescribed Template  
 Chinese  (If Customs has received 
the electronic data 
information of a 
Certificate of Origin of a 
beneficiary  country via 
electronic data exchange 
system, it is not 
compulsory for 
importers to submit a 
Certificate of Origin for 
goods of that beneficiary 
country).  exempted from the 
obligation to present a 
certificate of origin or self -
declaration1 
5. EUROPEAN UNION/  
NORWAY/ TÜRKIYE/  
SWITZERLAND  → Statement of origin  Registered Exporter  
 
(Unregistered exporters 
make out statements on 
origin for consignments of 
originating goods having a 
value which is below 
€6,000)  Prescribed text for 
Statement  English, 
French, 
Spanish  REX system  The following items are 
exempt from the obligations 
to deliver a statement on 
origin:  
→ small packages with the 
value less than €500,  
→ products of which the total 
value does not  exceed 
€1,200 or  
→ those items that are part of 
travellers' personal luggage  
6. INDIA  → Certificate Of Origin  Government 
authority/Agency  
 Prescribed Template  English  Paper?  N/A 
 
1 Committee on Rules of Origin Minutes G/RO/M/78   
  G/RO/W/212  
 
- 15 - Preference 
granting member  Proof of origin  Designated entity to 
issue proof of origin  Prescribed 
template/free  Language  Acceptable format of 
proof of origin: paper 
version/electronic 
version  Exemption from 
certification/self -
certification  
7. JAPAN  → Certificate Of Origin  Customs, other 
government entities, 
Chamber of Commerce, or 
similar organization  Prescribed template  English or 
French  Paper?  (1) Products for which the 
origin is regarded by the 
Director General of Customs 
as being clearly 
ascertainable from their 
nature and form  
(2) Products for which the 
total amount of the customs 
value is not more than 
200,000 yen  
(3) Products which are 
designated  
ones relating to a special 
declaration  
8. KOREA, REP . OF → Certificate Of Origin  The authority designated 
by the government of the 
exporting country  Prescribed template  Korean or 
English  Paper?  
 
 (210mm ´ 297mm)  (1) The products for which 
customs is able to confirm 
the country of origin by 
their kind, nature, form, 
trademark, producing 
country name, 
manufacturer, etc  
(2) Importation of 
non-commercial 
consignments having a low 
value, on condition that the 
products are general postal 
materials, the dutiable 
value of such consignments 
is not more than 150,000 
won or consignments and 
unaccompanied goods sent 
to individuals without 
compensation or personal 
effects of travellers 2. 
9. NEW ZEALAND  → Exporter declaration or 
other evidence 
supporting the claim 
for preference  Exporter/Manufacture  No prescribed form  
 ? Paper?  
 N/A 
 
2 UNCTAD, 2020, H andbook on the Preferential Tariff Scheme of Republic of Korea .  
  G/RO/W/212  
 
- 16 - Preference 
granting member  Proof of origin  Designated entity to 
issue proof of origin  Prescribed 
template/free  Language  Acceptable format of 
proof of origin: paper 
version/electronic 
version  Exemption from 
certification/self -
certification  
10. RUSSIAN 
FEDERATION  → Certificate of origin  Authorised body  Prescribed template   Paper or Electronic?   
→ Declaration of Origin 
(in case the value of 
the goods is less than 
€5,000)  Declaration of Origin 
should be approved by the 
authorized representative 
of producer, seller, or 
consignor   English or 
French  Paper (hard copy)  
If there is an 
arrangement between a 
customs authority and 
the authorized body on 
the use of an electronic 
verification system 
allowing to verify the 
issuance of Certificates 
of origin, the original 
certificate of origin may 
be not submitted  If the value of goods is less 
than €5,000, declaration of 
origin could be submitted 
instead of a certificate of 
origin  
11. CHINESE TAIPEI  → Certificate Of Origin  The government of the 
exporting country or the 
agency/institute authorized 
by the government of the 
exporting country  Format of the 
certificate shall be 
established and 
announced by the 
Ministry of Finance  ? Paper?  
 N/A 
12. THAILAND  → Certificate Of Origin  Government authority or 
other entity authorized to 
issue a Certificate of Origin  Prescribed template  English  Paper?  
(ISO A4 size white 
paper; one original and 
two copies)  N/A 
13. UNITED KINGDOM  → Certificate Of Origin or  
→ Statement of Origin  Exporter  Prescribed template  Prescribed 
template is 
in English  Paper?  Personal goods and those 
imported by way of trade 
shall be exempted from the 
obligation to produce an 
origin declaration if:   
→ their total value does not 
exceed £1,000  
→ they have been declared as 
meeting the conditions for 
benefiting from the Origin 
Regula tions 
→ there is no doubt as to the 
veracity of that declaration   
  G/RO/W/212  
 
- 17 - Preference 
granting member  Proof of origin  Designated entity to 
issue proof of origin  Prescribed 
template/free  Language  Acceptable format of 
proof of origin: paper 
version/electronic 
version  Exemption from 
certification/self -
certification  
14. USA (GSP)  → The importer is 
responsible for claiming 
the preference by 
placing the symbol "A" 
as a prefix.      
→ Declaration of origin 
(when the article is not 
wholly the growth, 
product, or 
manufacture of a single 
beneficiary country)  Exporter of the 
merchandise or ot her 
appropriate party  Prescribed text for 
declaration  Prescribed 
template is 
given in 
English  Paper?  N/A 
15. USA (NEPAL)  → The importer is 
responsible for claiming 
the preference by 
placing the symbol "A" 
as a prefix.      
→ Declaration of origin 
(when the article is not 
wholly the growth, 
product, or 
manufacture of a single 
beneficiary country)  Exporter of the 
merchandise or ot her 
appropriate party  
 Prescribed text for 
declaration  Prescribed 
template is 
given in 
English  Paper?  N/A 
16. USA (AGOA)  → The importer is 
responsible for claiming 
the preference by 
placing the symbol "A" 
as a prefix.      
→ Declaration of origin 
(when the article is not 
wholly the growth, 
product, or 
manufacture of a single 
beneficiary country)  
→ Certificate of Origin for 
textile  and apparel 
goods  Exporter of the 
merchandise or other 
appropriate party  
The Certificate of Origin for 
textile and apparel goods 
must be prepared in the 
beneficiary country by the 
exporter or producer or by 
the exporter's or 
producer's authorized 
agent  Prescribed template  Prescribed 
template is 
in English  Paper?  N/A  
  G/RO/W/212  
 
- 18 - ANNEX II  
1.2 TABLE 3  
 
LDC Member  Responsible 
authority to 
issue 
certificate of 
origin  Mandatory 
documents to 
get certificate of 
origin  Additional 
documents to get 
certificate of origin  
 Method of 
application to get 
certificate of origin  
(Paper  application/  
electronic 
application)   
Fees to get 
certificate of 
origin  
 Waiting 
time to get 
certificate 
of origin  Additional relevant 
information  
1. AFGHANISTAN  Afghanistan 
Chamber of 
Commerce and 
Investment 
(ACCI)  
 1. Copy of 
business license  
2. Commercial 
Invoice  
3. Afghan custom 
documents 
(ACD)  
 1. A written request to 
Afghan chamber of 
commerce and 
investments, as well 
as the Packing List 
is required for 
agribusiness 
products, animal 
products, carpet 
and handicraft.  
2. A permission from 
National Museum is 
required for antique 
commodities.  
3. A permission from 
Ministry of Mines is 
required for stones 
and gemstones.  
4. Saffron Quality Test 
from Herat 
Directorate of 
Agriculture, 
Irrigation & 
Livestock is 
required for 
Saffron.  Paper Application  GSP certificate of 
Origin: 600 Afs  
 Max. 15 
minutes  
 For verification of 
certificates, the 
Afghanistan Chamber of 
Commerce and 
Investment uses an 
online system  
2. BANGLADESH1  Export 
Promotion 
Bureau  1. Application Form  
2. Original bank 
slip for the 
payment of the 
fee  1. Copy of Short 
Shipment Certificate  
2. Phytosanita ry 
certificate/Cost 
Sheet/Bill of Paper Application  1) Textile Unit:  
 
1. Urgent 
procedures 
(within 12 12-48 
Hours  Mandatory prior 
registration with Export 
Promotion Bureau  
 
 
1 Standard Operating Procedure for Issuing Preferential Certificate of Country of Origin .  
  G/RO/W/212  
 
- 19 - LDC Member  Responsible 
authority to 
issue 
certificate of 
origin  Mandatory 
documents to 
get certificate of 
origin  Additional 
documents to get 
certificate of origin  
 Method of 
application to get 
certificate of origin  
(Paper  application/  
electronic 
application)   
Fees to get 
certificate of 
origin  
 Waiting 
time to get 
certificate 
of origin  Additional relevant 
information  
3. Copy of filled 
EXP form of 
Bangladesh 
Bank  
4. Copy of Bill of 
Lading/Airway 
Bill/ Truck 
Invoice  
5. Copy of Bill of 
Export/ Bill of 
Entry  
6. Copy of 
Commercial 
Invoice  Entry/Import 
Invoice  hours): BDT 
400/500  
2. Normal 
procedure:  
▪ Option 1 (within 
24 hours): 
BDT300/400  
▪ Option 2: 
(within 48 
hours): 
BDT200/300  
 
2) Non -Textile 
Unit: BDT700  (Required Processing 
Time 7 working days 
(maximum)  
 
1) Textile Unit:  
Registration: BDT 5,000; 
Renewal: BDT3,000; L ate 
Submission: BDT2,000 as 
fine 
 
2) Non -Textile Unit: 
Registration: BDT 2,000; 
Renewal: BDT1,000; Late 
Submission: BDT500 as 
fine 
3. BENIN  Foreign Trade 
Department  
 1. Invoice  
2. The valid card of 
an importer  
3. Bill of lading  
4. L'engagement 
de change si la 
facture d épasse 
10,000,00 FCFA - Paper Application  1. Certificate of 
origin for 
China: 1 ,000 
FCFA 
2. Certificate of 
origin for India:  
2000 FCFA 
3. Tax stamp of 
500 FCFA on 
the certificate 
of origin for 
India 72 working 
hours 1. Certificate of origin for 
China and India are 
issued in paper format 
(72 working hours).  
 
2. The Certificate of Origin 
form A is 
dematerialized through 
the REX system  
4. BURUNDI2 1. Ministry of 
Trade, 
Transport, 
Industry and 
Tourism  
2. Revenue Office                         
3. For goods with 
a value 
between [1; 
2,000$] 1. Payment receipt  
2. Customs 
clearance 
declaration  
3. Export 
Declaration  
4. Commercial 
Invoice  
 - Paper application  10 $  20-40 min  An applicants has to get a 
status of an exporter and 
be registered at the 
Ministry of Trade  
 
 
2 Trade Information Portal of Burundi ; Portail d'Informations Commerciales .  
  G/RO/W/212  
 
- 20 - LDC Member  Responsible 
authority to 
issue 
certificate of 
origin  Mandatory 
documents to 
get certificate of 
origin  Additional 
documents to get 
certificate of origin  
 Method of 
application to get 
certificate of origin  
(Paper  application/  
electronic 
application)   
Fees to get 
certificate of 
origin  
 Waiting 
time to get 
certificate 
of origin  Additional relevant 
information  
certificates are 
issued on 
border posts3 
5. CAMBODIA  Export -Import 
Department, 
Ministry of 
Commerce  
 Online Application 
attachments:  
1. Invoice  
2. Packing list  
3. Breakdown cost 
(If required)  
4. Inspection 
report (If 
require)  
 
Documents to be 
submitted after 
the export:  
 
1. Bill of lading  
2. Customs 
Declaration  1. Company's relevant 
documents that can 
prove origin of 
goods  
2. Export 
license/Permission 
Letter is required if 
the goods are under 
the list of domestic 
regulation  
3. Other documents if 
required by 
importing country or 
Rules of Origin 
under FTAs  
 Online application  
(But hard copy of the 
certificate could be 
printed out)  Public Service Fee  
(Online payment)  
 Maximum  
16 Hours  1. Exporter is required to 
sign up for the 
Certification of Origin 
Automation system  
 
2. Different procedures 
and fees for General 
Goods and Agricultural 
Products  
 
6. LAO45 Department of 
Import and 
Export, Ministry 
of Industry and 
Commerce  1. E-Certificate 
system Form  
2. Copy of invoice  
3. Copy of packing 
list 
4. Detailed 
customs 
declaration  
5. Transport bill  
 
 - Electronic Certificate 
of Origin Issuing 
System  
 
(After receiving an 
electronic 
confirmation letter 
from the system, the 
applicant shall print 
out the e -Certificate 
form to sign and 
stamp on the form)  
 
(Applicant can select 
the method of issuing ? After 
receiving a 
set of 
original 
documents 
with the 
signature 
and a seal 
of a 
company, 
the e-
Certificate 
issuing 
body shall 
issue an e -To register for a right to 
apply for e -Certificate, 
the business shall 
electronically submit the 
following documents to 
the e-Certificate 
management office: Duly 
filled registration form, 
Copy of business license, 
Certificate of annual 
custom payment, 
notification letter on 
sample of signature and 
stamps; and a 
notification letter on the 
 
3 Revenue Service of Burundi . 
4 LAO trade portal; E-Certificate of Origin Issuing Management System . 
5 Decision on the issuance of Electronic Certifi cate of Origin, Ministry of Industry and Commerce .  
  G/RO/W/212  
 
- 21 - LDC Member  Responsible 
authority to 
issue 
certificate of 
origin  Mandatory 
documents to 
get certificate of 
origin  Additional 
documents to get 
certificate of origin  
 Method of 
application to get 
certificate of origin  
(Paper  application/  
electronic 
application)   
Fees to get 
certificate of 
origin  
 Waiting 
time to get 
certificate 
of origin  Additional relevant 
information  
Certificate of Origin, 
electronically or 
manually)  Certificate 
immediately 
or not later 
than 1 
working 
day. annual export ca pacity of 
the company  
7. MALAWI  1. Malawi 
Revenue 
Authority                        
2. Malawi 
Confederation 
of Chambers 
of Commerce 
and Industry  Invoice  
Declaration  
 Licence  Paper Application  
 
 
 SADC MK1461  Once 
exporters 
pay, they 
get a 
certificate  To benefit from 
Preferential Agreements, 
exporters must register 
with Malawi Revenue 
Authority                        
or any other competent 
Authority  
 
8. MOZAMBIQUE  Customs 
Authority  1. Copy of Export 
License  
2. Commercial 
invoice                                          
3. Letter 
indicating the 
product and the 
destination for 
export  
4. Proof of 
Registration of 
Exporters and 
Producers and 
their products 
with the 
Ministry of 
Industry and 
Commerce.  - Paper Application  
 
(Exporters submit a  
paper  application, 
other required 
documents in a 
PAPER format and get 
a PAPER/PRINTED 
certificate of origin)  
 
Electronic Issuance 
System on Certificate 
of Origin for Special 
Preferential 
Treatment Duty-free 
treatment for LDCs - 
China  
  
no fees  ? 1. National Fisheries 
Administration, issues 
the Simplified Catch 
Certificate of the 
Republic of 
Mozambique for fishery 
products  
2. The certificate of origin 
may be issued on the 
invoice, delivery note 
or any other 
commercial document  
3. REX System for 
certificat ion of origin of 
goods applied 
exclusively to the EU 
GSP 
9. MYANMAR   
 Department of 
Trade,  
Ministry of 
Commerce  
 1. Letter of Credit 
or Sales contract  
2. Commercial 
invoice  
3. Bill of Lading 
/Airway Bill  1. Export licence 
(copy) or export 
declaration form 
(original/copy)  
2. Complete Certificate 
of origin application  1.Online Application                         
2.Paper Application  1. 300 MMK - to 
obtain the blank 
form of 
preferential 
certificate             
2. 3,000 MMK - for 
processing  One day    
  G/RO/W/212  
 
- 22 - LDC Member  Responsible 
authority to 
issue 
certificate of 
origin  Mandatory 
documents to 
get certificate of 
origin  Additional 
documents to get 
certificate of origin  
 Method of 
application to get 
certificate of origin  
(Paper  application/  
electronic 
application)   
Fees to get 
certificate of 
origin  
 Waiting 
time to get 
certificate 
of origin  Additional relevant 
information  
10. NEPAL   
 
 
 
 
 
 1. Trade and 
Export 
Promotion 
Centre  
2. Federation of 
Nepalese 
Chambers of 
Commerce 
and Industry  
3. Nepal 
Chamber of 
Commerce  
4. Confederation 
Nepalese 
Industries  Third 
country/India:   
 
1. Company/Firm 
registration 
Certificate  
2. EXIM Code  
3. Tax Registration 
Certificate           
4. VAT/PAN 
Registration 
Certificate  
5. Mode of 
Payment  
6. Commercial 
Invoice  License if required for 
export of specific 
goods  Paper Application  9 Paisa per 100 
Nepalese Rupees 
of the 
Commercial 
Invoice  Within the 
same day 
or next day  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 In case of new or 
enhanced capacity 
industry, 
recommendation of 
Technical Committee of 
Department of Industry is 
required.  For traders, 
every time it requires to 
submit the conformity 
documents that the 
products meet Rules of 
Origin of the exporting 
destination  
11. RWANDA6 e-Single 
Window (And 
Customs 
Service 
Department 
Office in case of 
AGOA)  Invoice and 
Packing list  In case of Coffee and 
Tea, National 
Agriculture Export 
Development Board 
Issues Certificate of 
Origin ( based on  
export contract and 
Certificate fees 
payment receipt)7 Online Application  Free of charge  10 min. – 
4 h 30 min.  Certificate  of origin can 
be obtained online  
12. SENEGAL8 1. Agency of 
Senegalese 
Export 
Promotion 
(ASEPEX)  
2. Directorate of 
Industry  1. Duly completed 
certificate of 
origin form                
2. Commercial 
invoice 
(proforma or 
final)                
3. Packing list                                                                 
4. Customs 
declaration duly 1. Phytosanitary 
certificat e for food 
products         
2. Certificate of origin 
and healthiness for 
fishery products                                                                    
3. Certificates of 
conformity and 
packaging for 
peanuts                                                                             ? Free of charge  ? - 
 
6 Rwanda Trade Portal . 
7 Rwanda Trade Portal Information . 
8 Guide sur les Procédures  d'exportation au S énégal .  
  G/RO/W/212  
 
- 23 - LDC Member  Responsible 
authority to 
issue 
certificate of 
origin  Mandatory 
documents to 
get certificate of 
origin  Additional 
documents to get 
certificate of origin  
 Method of 
application to get 
certificate of origin  
(Paper  application/  
electronic 
application)   
Fees to get 
certificate of 
origin  
 Waiting 
time to get 
certificate 
of origin  Additional relevant 
information  
signed by 
customs   4. CITES permit for 
protected species  
13. TANZANIA9 Tanzania 
Chamber of 
Commerce, 
Industry and 
Agriculture 
(TCCIA)  1. Verification form  
2. Consignment  
3. Packing list  
4. Commercial 
invoice  
5. TCCIA account 
numbers  
6. Bank deposit slip  
7. Stamped bank 
deposit slip  1. Raw cashew nuts 
export permit for 
cashew nuts  
2. Tea export 
permit  for tea or 
Phytosanitary 
certificate  for Plant 
and plants products  
 Online Application  Various fees 
depending on the 
products  
(Average: 25 000 
TZS for CoO plus 
2000 TZS for 
printing)  1h. 25mn -
1d 1/2  
 - 
14. TOGO   
 Industry 
Development 
Department 
(DDI)/ OTR 
(CDDI)  1. Filled Certificate 
of Origin  
2. Invoice  
3. Export declaration  - Online Application  Free of charge  Less than 2 
hours  - 
15. UGANDA10 e-Single 
Window Online  
 Uganda 
Revenue 
Authority  
 1. ASYCUDA world 
user registration 
application  
2. Commercial 
invoice  
3. Packing list  - 
 Online Application  Free of charge  25 minutes 
– 1d 1/2  
 Certificate of origin is 
sent online by the single 
window system - 
 
__________  
 
9 Tanzania Trade Portal . 
10 Uganda Trade Portal .