RESTRICTED  
  
G/VAL/M/57  
 
28 July 2014  
(14-4333)  Page: 1/26  
Committee on Customs Valuation    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 12 MAY 2014 
CHAIRPERSON:  MR. PIERRE E. BRUSSELMANS 
 The agenda proposed for the meeting, circulated in WTO/AIR/4296, was adopted as follows: 
 
1   REPORT OF THE WORK OF TH E TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON CUSTOMS 
VALUATION ...................................................................................................................... 2  
2   INFORMATION ON IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE 
AGREEMENT .....................................................................................................................  2 
-  Notification of nati onal legislation ............................................................................... 2  
A. Kingdom of Bahrain .................................................................................................. 3  
B. Belize ..................................................................................................................... 3  
C. Cabo Verde ............................................................................................................. 4  
D. China ..................................................................................................................... 4  
E. Chile ...................................................................................................................... 4  
F. Costa Rica ............................................................................................................... 5  
G. Ecuador .................................................................................................................. 5  
H. The Gambia ............................................................................................................. 6  
I. Japan ..................................................................................................................... 6  
J. Lao People’s Democr atic Republic ............................................................................... 6  
K.  Lesotho .................................................................................................................. 6  
L. Macao, China ........................................................................................................... 7  
M. Mali ........................................................................................................................ 7  
N. Moldova .................................................................................................................. 7  
O. Nicaragu a ............................................................................................................... 8  
P. Nigeria ................................................................................................................... 8  
Q. Russian Fede ration ................................................................................................... 8  
R. Rwanda .................................................................................................................. 9  
S. Saint Vincent and th e Grenadines ............................................................................... 9  
T. Tunisia .................................................................................................................. 10 
U. Uruguay ................................................................................................................. 10 
V.  Ukraine .................................................................................................................. 10 
Other ......................................................................................................................... .... 10 
3   INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATIO N OF DECISIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON 
CUSTOMS VALUATION .................................................................................................... 11  
4   TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ........................................................................................... 13  G/VAL/M/57 
 
- 2 - 
 
  -  Information on Technical Assistance ........................................................................... 13 
-  Article 20.3 Technical Assistance and Trade-Related Technical Assistance ........................ 13 
5   UNITED STATES - ARMENIA'S RE FERENCE PRICE SYSTEM IN CONNECTION 
WITH THE VALUATIO N OF GOODS.................................................................................. 14  
6   PARAGRAPH 12 OF THE DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION:  
IMPLEMENTATION-REL ATED ISSU ES ............................................................................. 14  
-  Paragraph 8.3 of document WT/MIN/(01)/17 ............................................................... 14 
7   PRESHIPMENT INSPECTI ON ...................................................................................... 15  
-  Status of notifications by Members and information provided by IFIA .............................. 15 
-  Question from the United States to Indonesia .............................................................. 15 
-  Triennial review of the Agreement on Preshipment Inspection ........................................ 16 
8   PROPOSAL BY URUGUAY TO RECTIFY THE ENGLISH AND SPANISH VERSIONS 
OF ARTICLE 8:(1)(B)(IV) OF THE AG REEMENT ON CUSTOMS VALUATION ..................... 16  
9   PROPOSAL TO HOLD A SEMINAR ON THE POSSIBLE USE OF DATABASES TO 
SET REFERENCE PRICES ................................................................................................. 18  
10   ELECTION OF  OFFICERS .......................................................................................... 23  
 
_______________ 
 1  REPORT OF THE WORK OF THE TECH NICAL COMMITTEE ON CUSTOMS VALUATION 
1.1.  The representative of the World Customs Organization (WCO), Mr Luximan Babajee, reported 
on the activities of the Technical Committee at its 38th session, which was held on 5-9 May 2014.  
His report is contained in Annex 1 
1.2.  The Chairperson thanked Mr Babajee for his report and noted that a communication had been 
received from the Chairperson of the Technical Committee on Customs Valuation, which included 
as an annex the "Guidelines on the Development and Use of a National Valuation Database as A Risk Assessment Tool", and had been circulated in document 
G/VAL/W/242. 
1.3.  The representative of Canada drew Memb ers' attention to the WCO guidelines, which he 
considered to be particularly timely given the ag enda item on the informal workshop.  He thanked 
the TCCV for submitting the document an d urged Members to read it carefully. 
1.4.  The representative of the European Union observed that the Technical Committee had been 
industriously working for many years, making sure of the uniform interpretation of the Agreement.  
In this regard, he noted that a new so-called "c ompendium" had been recently released, so he 
invited the WCO Secretariat to make sure that this new instrument, which was a compilation of all 
outstanding work done by Members, was made av ailable and publicised to the widest extent 
possible.  He encouraged the WCO to make sure th at it happened so that customs administrations, 
Members as a whole, traders, and the business community had access to this good work.  He 
asked the WCO to take note of this request, and to report back to the Committee in a future meeting, with a view to making sure that steps had been taken to make it available to the widest extent possible. 
1.5.  The Committee took note of the report and statements made. 
2  INFORMATION ON IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE AGREEMENT 
- Notification of national legislation  
2.1.  The Chairperson recalled that Article 22 of  the Agreement on Customs Valuation (hereafter, 
the Agreement) and the Decision on "Notification and circulation of national legislation in 
accordance with Article 22 of the Agreement", requ ired each Member to notify:  1) the complete G/VAL/M/57 
 
- 3 - 
 
  text of their national legislation on customs valuation in one of the three official WTO languages; 
2) any changes in its laws and regulations which were relevant to the Agreement; and 3) any change in the administration of such laws and re gulations.  He also reminded Members that the 
notification procedures had been adopted by the Committee at its meeting of 12 May 1995 
(G/VAL/5, section B.2).  As agreed at the Committee meeting of 25 October 2012 (paragraph 8.3 
of G/VAL/M/54), the Secretariat had produced a new document (G/VAL/W/232/Rev.1), which summarized the status of these notifications. 
2.2.  The Chairperson recalled that the examinat ion of the notification of legislation by the 
Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu remained suspended since the 
Committee's meeting on 4-5 November 2002 pending resolution of the difference of views between the parties involved in notifications across the WTO. 
2.3.  In the absence of statements by Member s, the Chairperson proposed to take up the 
legislations in the order set out in the agenda.   
A. Kingdom of Bahrain 
2.4.  The Chairperson recalled that it was agreed at the last meeting to revert to the examination 
of national legislation and responses to the checklist of issues which had been circulated in 
G/VAL/N/1/BHR/1 and G/VAL/N/1/B HR/2, respectively.  The United States had submitted 
questions through document G/VAL/W/181 in June 2009, to which Bahrain had replied in 
G/VAL/W/191.  The United States had submitted follow-up questions in February 2011 in G/VAL/W/201, which had been replied by Bahrain in G/VAL/W/217 in October 2012.  In addition, Bahrain had notified a copy of the "Common Customs Law of the Gulf Co-operation Council", which 
had been circulated in G/VAL/N/1/BHR/2.  A new set of follow-up questions had been submitted by 
the United States in G/VAL/W/223.  
2.5.  The representative of the United States confirmed that his delegation had submitted new 
questions in G/VAL/W/223, prior to the May 2013 meeting of the Committee. His delegation looked 
forward to receiving written answers to these ne w questions and thanked Bahrain for its previous 
written responses.   
2.6.  The Committee took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its 
next meeting. 
B. Belize 2.7.  The Chairperson recalled that it was agreed at the last meeting to revert to the examination 
of national legislation and responses to the checklist of issues, which had been circulated in 
G/VAL/N/1/BLZ/1 and G/VAL/N/2/BLZ/1, respecti vely.  Canada and the United States had 
submitted questions in G/VAL/W/176 and G/VAL/W/175, to which Belize had replied in 
G/VAL/W/183. The United States had submitted follow-up questions in G/VAL/W/188.   
2.8.  The representative of the United States recalled that his delegation had sought further 
clarifications on two points which had been highlighted in document G/VAL/W/188 of 
November 2009.  Specifically, his delegation had requested information on whether Belize had fully 
incorporated aspects of the WTO Customs Valuation Agreement into its national legislation, including Article 16, which provided importers with the right to a written explanation, as well as the interpretative notes of the Agreement.  His delegation remained interested in receiving a 
written response to those questions. 
2.9.  The representative of Canada supported the statement by the United States, and recalled 
that one of the questions concerned the inclusion of the interpretative notes.  It was Canada's 
position that the interpretative notes were extens ions of the obligations included in the Agreement 
and should, therefore, be reflected in each Me mber's legal framework.  For this reason, his 
delegation also looked forward to reviewing the responses to the questions by the United States.   
2.10.  The Committee took note of statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. G/VAL/M/57 
 
- 4 - 
 
  C. Cabo Verde 
2.11.  The Chairperson recalled that it was agreed at the last meeting to revert to the examination 
of national legislation which had been circulated in G/VAL/N/1/CPV/1.  The United States had 
submitted questions in G/VAL/W/224, to which Cabo Verde had replied in G/VAL/W/239. The 
United States submitted follow-up questions in G/VAL/W/244. 
2.12.  The representative of the United States thanked Cabo Verde for its written replies. As 
mentioned by the Chairman, his delegation had submitted a few additional questions in document 
G/VAL/W/244, and they looked forward to  receiving Cabo Verde's responses. 
2.13.  The representative of Canada noted that, besides the issue raised by the United States 
concerning the interpretative notes, one of the questions dealt with the possible use of reference 
prices.  Because this was an issue of importance to his delegation, his delegation was interested in 
receiving replies to the questions raised. 
2.14.  The representative of Cabo Verde thanked the United States and Canada. His delegation 
had taken note of the questions and forwarded th em to capital, where they would be further 
examined.  With regards to question number 4 from  the delegation of the United States, he noted 
that it had already been transmitted in docu ment G/VAL/N/1/CPV/1, where the first ten pages 
related to the Legislation.  His delegation would come back to this issue in the written answers 
that would be provided to the Committee. 
2.15.  The Committee took note of statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. D. China 
2.16.  The Chairperson recalled that it was agreed at the last meeting to revert to the examination 
of national legislation which had been circulated in G/VAL/N/1/CHN/5.  This notification contained 
the "Decree of the Customs General Administration  of the People’s Republic of China No. 148 of 
2006: Rules regarding Determination on Customs Value of Imported and exported Goods."  
The United States had submitted questions in G/VAL/W/168 and G/VAL/W/168/Corr.1, to which China had replied in document G/VAL/W/184.  The United States had submitted follow-up 
questions in G/VAL/W/192, to which China had replied in G/VAL/W/198.  The United States had 
subsequently submitted follow-up questions in G/ VAL/W/205, which had been replied to by China 
in document G/VAL/W/243. 
2.17.  The representative of the United Stat es thanked China for providing answers to the 
questions that had been posed by the United Stat es over the past six years, and noted that his 
delegation had no further questions. 
2.18.  The Committee took note of statements made and agreed to conclude the review of China's 
legislation. E. Chile 2.19.  The Chairperson drew Members' attention to Chile's new notification of changes in its 
national legislation and responses to the checklist of issues, which had been circulated in 
G/VAL/N/1/CHL/2 and G/VAL/N /2/CHL/1, respectively. 
2.20.  The representative of the United States thanked Chile for its notifications.  His delegation 
intended to undertake a meaningful review of th ese documents and, to this end, requested the 
Secretariat to translate them into the three official languages.  
2.21.  The representative of the European Union thanked Chile for its new notifications. On the 
responses to the checklist of issues, his delegation was still trying to fully understand them.  One 
of the standard questions was how had Article 1.2(b) been implemented, to which Chile had 
replied that in those cases where the customs ad ministration did not accept the so-called "test 
values", and therefore modifies the declared value resulting in the collection of unpaid duties, the 
courts would settle the matter.  His delegation was not sure that the responses tallied perfectly G/VAL/M/57 
 
- 5 - 
 
  with what the European Union believed was the normal reading of that provision and, for this 
reason, wanted to keep the issue open.  His dele gation also noted that Chile had provided for 
"advance pricing agreements" for transfer pricing would be taken into account for customs valuation purposes, in-line with the joint approval of the internal revenue service.  Although they 
did not necessarily have a question, his delegation considered that this was an issue of general 
interest.  If his delegation did not submit concrete questions, and notably with respect to Article 1.2(b), it should be interpreted that they were happy with the explanations that had already been 
provided by Chile.   
2.22.  The representative of Chile thanked the United States and the European Union for their 
interest in Chile's notifications.  
2.23.  The Committee took note of statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. F. Costa Rica 2.24.  The Chairperson recalled that it was agreed at the last meeting to revert to the examination 
of changes of legislation which had been circulated in G/VAL/N/1/CRI/2 in July 2011.  The United 
States had submitted questions in G/VAL/W/211.  Costa Rica had subsequently submitted a new notification in G/VAL/N/1/CRI/3. 
2.25.  The representative of the United States th anked Costa Rica for the notification of the new 
Decree, which the Secretariat had circulated in November 2013.  His delegation was still in the 
process of reviewing it and would foll ow-up in writing with any question. 
2.26.  The representative of Canada also thanked Costa Rica for notifying the new Decree, which 
repealed the implementation of customs reference values.  According to this document, the WCO 
had suggested that certain elements of the previous regulation, which appeared to be inconsistent with the wording and intent of the Agreement, should be repealed.  To address this, the new 
Decree clearly stated that the reference priced databases should be used as a risk management 
tool and not as a substitute value for imported goods or as means for establishing minimum values. Canada welcomed the clarity provided by the new Decree and suggested that all Members 
should consider whether their domestic frameworks also required an update, particularly in light of 
the WCO Guidelines. 
2.27.  The representative of Costa Rica thanked the United States and Canada for their comments. 
He stressed that the new Decree had repealed th e previous one on which questions had been 
raised.  His delegation was ready to answer any question concerning the new notification.   
2.28.  The Committee took note of statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. 
G. Ecuador 
2.29.  The Chairperson recalled that it was agreed at the last meeting to revert to the examination 
of responses to the checklist of issues which had been circulated in G/VAL/N/2/ECU/1.  
The United States had submitted questions in G/VAL/W/220 in October 2012, to which Ecuador 
had replied in G/VAL/W/226.   In addition, Ecuado r had notified a compilation of changes to its 
national legislation in G/VAL/N/1/ECU/3. 
2.30.  The representative of the United States noted that his delegation wanted to undertake a 
meaningful review of the legislation which had been notified in G/VAL/N/1/ECU/3, especially in 
light of the questions that had been posed in G/VAL /W/220.  In order to do so, his delegation had 
requested the Secretariat to translate the document into the three official languages, but was still 
waiting to receive them. 
2.31.  The Committee took note of statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. G/VAL/M/57 
 
- 6 - 
 
  H. The Gambia 
2.32.  The Chairperson drew Members' attention to The Gambia's new notifications contained in 
documents G/VAL/N/1/GMB/1 and G/VAL/N/4/GMB/1.  The United States had submitted questions 
in G/VAL/W/245. 
2.33.  The representative of the United States expressed its appreciation to The Gambia for its 
notification in G/VAL/N/1/GMB/1.  His delegation was looking forward to receiving written answers 
to the questions which had been submitted.  
2.34.  The representative of the European Union thanked The Gambia for its notification.  After 
reviewing it, his delegation had two comments that would not necessarily translate into questions.  
The first one was that the notification cited "The Customs and Excise Act of 2010", which basically said that the value of imported goods shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of the 
WTO Agreement on Customs Valuation, read together with this Act.  The legislation seemed to 
stop there and the rest of the notification seemed to be about excise duties.  His delegation wanted to make sure that the interested parties had access and were fully aware of, the contents 
of the relevant text, as the Agreement did not seem to be reproduced in national law.  The second 
comment was with respect to the same Article, which said that the commissioner of customs may base decisions relating to the determination of customs value on the output of the WCO Technical 
Committee on Customs Valuation.  In other words, the suggestions, opinions, comments and 
explanatory notes from the Technical Committee on Customs Valuation may provide a basis for decisions for the determination of the customs valu e.  On this point, the European Union wanted 
The Gambia to confirm whether this information was available to its domestic traders.  This point 
was linked to the general comment he made at the beginning of the meeting.   
2.35.  The representative of Canada observed th at one of the questions by the United States 
touched on the inclusion of the interpretative notes in the Members legislation.  Canada wanted to 
reiterate that they should be fully replicated in the Member's legislation.  His delegation was 
looking forward to reviewing the replies to the questions by the United States. 
2.36.  The Committee took note of statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. I. Japan  2.37.  The Chairperson recalled that it was agreed at the last meeting to revert to the examination 
of Japan's notification of changes in its national legislation and responses to the checklist of 
questions, which had been circulated in G/VAL /N/1/JAP/2 and G/VAL/N/2 /JAP/2, respectively. 
2.38.  The Committee agreed to conclude  the review of Japan's legislation. 
J. Lao People’s Democratic Republic 
2.39.  The Chairperson drew Members' attention to the People’s Democratic Republic of Lao's 
notification of national legislation, which had been circulated in G/VAL/N/1/LAO/1 and 
G/VAL/N/1/LAO/1/Add.1. 
2.40.  The Committee agreed to conclude the review of Lao People’s Democratic Republic's 
legislation.  
K.  Lesotho 2.41.  The Chairperson drew Members' attention to  Lesotho's notification of amendments to its 
national legislation, which had been circulated in G/VAL/N/1/LSO/1. 
2.42.  The representative of the United States th anked Lesotho for its notification, which had been 
circulated by the Secretariat in October 2013.  His delegation was still reviewing the documents 
and would submit questions at a later stage, if any. G/VAL/M/57 
 
- 7 - 
 
  2.43.  The Committee took note of statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. 
L. Macao, China 2.44.  The Chairperson recalled that it was agreed at the last meeting to revert to the examination 
of the changes of legislation and responses to the checklist of issues, which had been circulated in 
G/VAL/N/1/MAC/2 and G/VAL/N /2/MAC/1, respectively. 
2.45.  The Committee agreed to conclude th e review of Macao, China's legislation. 
M. Mali 
2.46.  The Chairperson recalled that it was agreed at the last meeting to revert to the examination 
of the national legislation which had been circulated in G/VAL/N/1/MLI/1. Canada had submitted 
questions in G/VAL/W/238.  
2.47.  The representative of Canada observed that questions had been submitted in September 
2013 concerning a document referenced in Mali's notification which clearly indicated that reference 
prices were minimal values used for establishing customs values of specific goods. Canada 
believed that the use of reference prices to set minimum values was an important issue and looked 
forward to receiving replies from  Mali as soon as possible.  
2.48.  The representative of the United States noted his delegation's interest on the replies to 
Canada's questions.  His delegation was interested in undertaking a meaningful review of Mali's 
legislation, but the original was in French, so a translation into English was required. 
2.49.  The Committee took note of statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. 
N. Moldova 
2.50.  The Chairperson drew Members' attention to  Moldova's notification of amendments to its 
national legislation, which had been circulated in documents G/VAL/N/1/MDA/2 and 
G/VAL/N/1/MDA/3. 
2.51.  The representative of the United States thanked Moldova for its notifications, which were 
currently being reviewed in his capital.  Questions would be submitted prior to the next meeting of 
the Committee, if any.   
2.52.  The representative of the European Union also thanked the delegation of Moldova for its 
notifications, which were being reviewed.  His delegation wanted to refer briefly to Article 8:3 of 
document G/VAL/N/1/MDA/2, which stated that "In the absence of the data proving the accuracy 
of the customs value of goods as stated by the declarant or where there were grounds for 
considering the data presented by the declarant (imp orter) as inaccurate (or lower than production 
costs) and/or insufficient, the customs authority shall have the right to determine independently 
the customs value of goods and apply in sequence on e of the six methods laid down by this Law."  
Article 10 made a fundamental statement by saying "the customs value is determined in accordance with the following method:  based on th e transaction value of the goods in question or 
based on the price actually paid or payable".  His delegation considered this was the same entity 
and not two alternatives. In another example, Article 11 dealt with the usual provisions on 
royalties and licence fees and stated that "excep tion being royalties and licence fees paid to 
replicate and distribute cinematographic production".  His delegation was not sure what was 
covered by this provision. His delegation was still considering possible questions and, if so decided, 
would submit them in the near future. 
2.53.  The Committee took note of statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. G/VAL/M/57 
 
- 8 - 
 
  O. Nicaragua 
2.54.  The Chairperson recalled that it was agreed at the last meeting to revert to the examination 
of national legislation and responses to the checklist of issues which had been circulated in 
documents G/VAL/N/1/NIC/1 and G/VAL/N/2/NIC/1, respectively. 
2.55.  The representative of the United States noted this was another piece of legislation which 
had to be translated by the Secretariat.  Although  the checklist of issues had been translated, the 
legislation was not yet ready.  The United States woul d follow-up in writing with  questions, if any.   
2.56.  The Committee took note of statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. 
P. Nigeria 2.57.  The Chairperson recalled that it was agreed at the last meeting to revert to the examination 
of national legislation and responses to the checklist of issues which had been circulated in 
G/VAL/N/1/NGA/1 and G/VAL/N/2/NGA/1, respecti vely.  The United States and Canada had 
submitted questions in documents G/VAL/W/175 and G/VAL/W/176, respectively.   
2.58.  The representative of the United States indicated that his delegation continued to be 
interested in receiving answers to the questi ons that had been put forward to Nigeria in 
G/VAL/W/175 and requested that the Committee retained this agenda item. 
2.59.  The representative of Canada noted that his delegation also remained interested in the 
replies to the questions that had been raised, an d supported the retention of this item in the 
agenda until answers had been provided.   
2.60.  The representative of the European Union expr essed his delegation's interest on this point.  
He also noted that five years was a long time and that substantial changes had taken place.  The 
Committee had been informed of these changes, bu t not by Nigeria, and included the fact that 
Nigeria had moved on from the use of a PSI comp any.  He understood that Nigeria's Customs had 
taken charge of the responsibilities under the Ag reement.  His delegation was interested on the 
current state of Nigeria's legislation. 
2.61.  The Committee took note of statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. Q. Russian Federation 2.62.  The Chairperson recalled that it was agreed at the last meeting to revert to the examination 
of the national legislation and responses to the checklist of issues, which had been distributed in 
October 2012 in documents G/VAL/N/1/RUS/1 and G/VAL/N/2/RUS/1, respectively.  A new 
notification had been recently circulated in do cument G/VAL/N/1/RUS/2, which made available the 
Customs Code of the Eurasian Customs Union, as well as the Federal Law of Customs Tariffs of the 
Russian Federation.   
2.63.  The representative of the United States thanked the Russian Federation for making available 
the Customs Code of the Eurasian Council Customs Union available to Members in 
G/VAL/N/1/RUS/2.  The documents were being examined by his capital's experts and his 
delegation would submit questions in writing, if any.  His capital-based experts had noted that a 
number of other documents referenced in the Russian notification and checklist of issues had not been made available for Members' review.  His de legation urged the Russian Federation to make 
all relevant documents and in particular:  1. The Federal Law on Commercial Secrets No. 98-FZ, of 
24 April 2004; 2.  The State Customs Committee Letter No. 01-06/22236, of 18 June 2004, on the Determination of the Customs Value of Goods Imported in Accordance with Foreign Trade 
Agreements of Different Types; and 3.  The FCC Letter No. 15-14/8524, of 17 March 2006, on the 
Customs Clearance of the Information Transmitted through the Internet. 
2.64.   The representative of Canada thanked the Russian Federation for submitting the new 
documents.  Despite the fact that his delegation was still in the process of reviewing them, he G/VAL/M/57 
 
- 9 - 
 
  wanted to make some preliminary comments.  He noted that the translation of the "Agreement on 
Customs Valuation of Goods Transferred through the Customs Border of the Customs Union" appeared to have many imprecise terms.  This comment was perhaps similar to an intervention that had been made earlier by the European Union.  His delegation was not sure whether the use 
of such terms was due to translation problems or whether this reflected actual terms used in the 
original version.  In either case, Canada would encourage the Russian Federation, other Members and/or the translators to use, to the greatest  extent possible, the terms contained in the 
Agreement on Customs Valuation.  He mentioned as examples the references to "liable to be paid 
and liable to payment" in Articles 4 and 8, which should be changed to "price actually paid or 
payable".  Similarly, the reference in Article 5 "t o enlarging the price in the context of identifying 
additions to the price paid or payable" implied that the price of the goods was being amended.  
Given the translation, Canada was unsure whether the intent was to amend the price of the goods, 
or to combine the price with an identified addition, to arrive at the sum of customs valuation of important goods. Canada would appreciate if the Russian Federation could confirm which of these 
interpretations was correct.  In the same vein, Canada wanted to confirm that, under Article 361.2 
entitled Customs Value of Good for Personal Use of the EEC Customs Code of the Customs Union, 
"the customs authority must determine the customs value of the good on the basis of data 
contained in catalogues of foreign firms dealing with retail sales of similar goods".  His delegation 
wanted to know whether the value of such goods would be determined based on an inference of prices prevailing in the market from where th e goods were exported, i.e. rather the prices 
prevailing in the EEC.  He acknowledged that the comments were rather specific, so he would 
submit them in writing, together with any additional questions that would arise from their review. 
2.65.  The representative of the European Unio n observed that these notifications were quite 
substantial and that his delegation was still in the process of reviewing them. 
2.66.  The representative of the Russian Federa tion thanked the United States, Canada, and the 
European Union for their interest.  He took note  of the documents that appeared to be missing 
from the notification and requested Canada to submit its questions in writing.  
2.67.  The Committee took note of statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. 
R. Rwanda 2.68.  The Chairperson recalled that it was agreed at the last meeting to revert to the examination 
of the national legislation and responses to the ch ecklist of issues which had been circulated in 
G/VAL/N/1/RWA/1 and G/VAL/N/2/RWA/1, respec tively. The United States had submitted 
questions in G/VAL/W/215 in June 2012.  
2.69.  The representative of the United States no ted that his delegation remained interested in 
receiving answers to the questions submitted in G/VAL/W/215. 
2.70.  The Committee took note of statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. S. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 2.71.  The Chairperson recalled that it was agreed at the last meeting to revert to the examination 
of the national legislation and responses to the ch ecklist of issues which had been circulated in 
April 2009 in documents G/VAL/N/1/VCT/1 and G/VAL/N/2/VCT/1, respectively.  The United States 
had submitted questions in May 2009 in document G/VAL/W/181. 
2.72.  The representative of the United States no ted that his delegation remained interested in 
receiving written responses to the questions that had been submitted in document G/VAL/W/181 
in 2009. His delegation was also interested in any draft harmonized legislation that had been examined and discussed by the Government in 2010, so he would appreciate an update regarding 
the status of this legislation. 
2.73.  The Committee took note of the statement made and agreed to revert to this matter at its 
next meeting. G/VAL/M/57 
 
- 10 - 
 
  T. Tunisia 
2.74.  The Chairperson recalled that it was agreed at the last meeting to revert to the examination 
of the national legislation which had been circulated in G/VAL/N/1/TUN/2/Rev.1.  The United 
States had raised questions in G/VAL/W/188, to which Tunisia had replied in G/VAL/W/202.  
The United States had submitted follow-up questions in G/VAL/W/206, to which Tunisia had replied 
in G/VAL/W/228. New follow-up questions had been submitted by the United States in 
G/VAL/W/236.  The Chairman drew Members attention to the fact that the delegate of Tunisia had 
recently submitted replies, which had not yet been circulated to Members.   
2.75.  The representative of the United States was encouraged by Tunisia's submission of new 
responses and looked forward to receiving them.   
2.76.  The Committee took note of statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. U. Uruguay 2.77.  The Chairperson drew Members' attention to Uruguay's notification of changes to its 
national legislation which had been circulated in G/VAL/N/1/URY/2. 
2.78.  The representative of the United States noted that this was another notification in which his 
delegation was still waiting for the translation.  His delegation would submit questions in writing 
after the English version had been reviewed. 
2.79.  The Committee took note of statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. V.  Ukraine 
2.80.  The Chairperson recalled that it was agreed at the last meeting to revert to the examination 
of the national legislation and responses to the ch ecklist of issues which had been circulated in 
G/VAL/N/1/UKR/1 and G/VAL/N/2/UKR /1, respectively. Ukraine had also notified amendments to 
its Custom Code, which had been circulated in  G/VAL/N/1/UKR/2. The European Union; Norway; 
and the United States had submitted question s in G/VAL/W/179, G/VAL/W/199, as well as 
G/VAL/W/188 and G/VAL/W/207, respectively.  Ukraine had provided responses to these questions 
in G/VAL/W/182, G/VAL/W/200 and G/VAL/W/212. The United States had submitted additional 
questions in document G/VAL/W/221, to which Ukraine had replied in document G/VAL/W/230. A new set of questions had been submitted by the United States in document G/VAL/W/235. 
2.81.  The representative of United States looked  forward to receiving Ukraine's written responses 
to the questions in G/VAL/W/235. 
2.82.  The representative of Canada highlighted that some of the new questions, besides relating 
to the inclusion of the interpretative notes into Ukraine's national legislation, concerned the 
possible use of reference prices.   His delegation was particularly interested in reviewing the 
replies to those questions. 
2.83.  The representative of the European Union no ted that his delegation had an interest in the 
totality of questions and replies, including the information yet to be received. 
2.84.  The Committee took note of statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. Other 
2.85.  Before concluding the discussion under th is agenda item, the Chairperson drew Members' 
attention to the fact that 40 of the 160 WTO Members still needed to notify their national 
legislation and that 67 Members had not provided responses to the checklist of issues.  In addition, 
it appeared, from interventions that had been made at previous meetings, that many Members 
had failed to notify changes to their national legislations since they first made a notification.   G/VAL/M/57 
 
- 11 - 
 
  2.86.  The Committee took note of this information. 
3  INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION OF DECISIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON 
CUSTOMS VALUATION 
3.1.  The Chairperson recalled that, under this ag enda item, the Committee examined notifications 
pursuant to two Decisions that had been adopted by the Committee at its meetings of 
12 May 1995.  These were the Decisions on "Treat ment of Interest Charges in the Customs Value 
of Imported Goods" and "Valuation of Carrier Media Bearing Software for Data Processing 
Equipment".  A summary report of the notification s received had been prepared by the Secretariat 
and circulated in G/VAL/W/5/Rev.23.  Since the last  meeting, a new notification had been received 
from Chile in G/VAL/N/3/C HL/1 and G/VAL/N/3/CHL/2. 
3.2.  The committee took note of this information. 
3.3.  The Chairperson recalled that Uruguay had submitted a proposal to update the Decision on 
the "Valuation of carrier media bearing software for data processing equipment", the latest version 
of which had circulated in document G/VAL/W/241/Rev.1.  The Chairman informed the Committee 
he had held informal consultations on this issue where Members, without really objecting the 
proposal, wanted to receive more explanations. 
3.4.  The representative of Uruguay noted that Mr Guzmán Mañez, who worked with Uruguay 
Customs and was the author of the proposal, had come to the meeting.  Mr Mañez noted that the 
issue had been discussed by the Technical Committee in Brussels, where Uruguay had understood that it was important to bring the issue to Geneva.  He recalled that the "Decision on the valuation of carrier media bearing software for data processing equipment" had been approved in 1984 and 
allowed for two types of treatment.  Under the first one, a Member could determine the customs 
value based on the value of the software, plus the value of the carrier media, while under the second one Members who so decided could determine the value solely for the carrier media used 
to transport the software program.  Uruguay had chosen the second option, but began 
experiencing a problem he would try to explain to the Committee.  As it was well-known, the definition of "carrier media" of the Decision had to conform to certain characteristics when 
presented to customs for importation, and excluded "integrated circuits, semiconductors and 
similar devices or articles incorporating such circuits or devices".  From the date in which the Decision had been adopted by Uruguay, all imports of software that came on tapes, diskettes and 
CDs had been valued solely on the basis of the physical carrier medium.  However, in more recent 
times, these products had been increasingly presented using new carrier media and, in particular, 
USB keys (also known as flash drives or pen driv es).  This had generated a problem for customs, 
because a software program that was imported using a tape, diskette or a CD-ROM would be 
treated differently from an identical software program being imported using a pen drive.  As an 
example, the importation of a software program could be valued at US$1,000 if imported in a USB k e y ,  a s  o p p o s e d  t o  U S $ 5  i f  i t  w e r e  i m p o r t e d  using another carrier medium covered by the 
Decision.  The issue had been discussed at the Technical Committee, and it was determined that it 
would be better to discuss the issue in this Committee.  His delegation remained available for any questions in this respect. 
3.5.  The representative of Argentina thanked Uruguay for the explanation provided.  
He considered that the Committee might be able to reach consensus to adopt the proposal. 3.6.  The representative of the United States thanked Uruguay for the explanation, which he 
considered very helpful.  His delegation was in the process of studying the issue and wanted to 
keep it in the agenda for further discussion with Members.   
3.7.  The representative of China also thanked Uruguay for its presentation.  As he had indicated 
at the informal consultations, his delegation had no objection to the idea of updating the Decision 
to take account of developments in the IT sector over the last 30 years.  His delegation realized 
this was the first substantial amendment that the Committee would make to any of its instruments with regards to customs valuation, so he wanted to make sure the Committee would come up with a solid decision.  He also recalled that he had posed two questions during the informal 
consultations.  The first one was in relation to the content and the product (the USB drive/flash 
storage drive).  He recalled the Decision also had exclusionary language with respect to data G/VAL/M/57 
 
- 12 - 
 
  relating to sound, cinematic or video recordings.  The second question had to do with the trade 
significance of this product, where his delegation wanted to have data on the trade volume.  His delegation thought that perhaps the ICC could ha ve trade volume figures with regards to this 
product, so the Committee could decide on the significance of the product and any eventual 
Decision. 
3.8.  The representative of Canada noted that his delegation was open to the idea of amending the 
Decision, as it recognised the evolution that had occurred in the IT sector, where Canada was part 
of the Information Technology Agreement and ITA expansion negotiations.  His delegation had 
taken pro-active steps to consult domestically on this matter, as it could require a change in Canada's domestic legislation.  He also observed that further information had been requested by other Members, which could help them to better understand the scope of the changes that may be 
required.  To conclude, he noted that his delegation was positive, but that it needed to see how 
the issue would unfold. 
3.9.  The representative of the European Unio n thanked Uruguay for its presentation and, in 
particular, its graphical illustration of the issue.  Like other Members, his delegation was still 
considering the issue, including whether this was purely a technical issue.  In other words, whether it was just a question that technology had evolved and produced new products, which 
obviously it had, or whether that change required a special recognition.  He observed that any 
decision taken three decades ago reflected the tech nology at the time, and not of today.  Whether 
that meant that the Decision as such was no longer current was a different issue.  He considered that it was at least quite current, and the technological evolution itself was not a disabling feature.  
The example that had been presented seemed to focus on just one kind of object, i.e. a pen drive, 
and his delegation was curious on how this had to be reflected with respect to this technology or the next generation of technologies.  He assumed that pen drives would soon be replaced by 
something else.  On a wider issue, he wanted to have a full understanding of the issue, or plurality 
of issues if they were, in order to fully appreciate what would be the scope of any review of the Decision.  The European Union wanted to know if Members were having problems with particular 
pieces of technology, as they were perfectly free, even today, to adjust their own practices if 
necessary.  In other words, Members were free to update their appreciation of the relevant 
technology, at least domestically.  Finally, his delegation would be interested to know where to find these products in terms of the Harmonized  System nomenclature.  In this regard, he 
supported China's request to obtain trade data on these products.  There was still a lot of 
homework to do, and his delegation would be k eeping an eye on the issue.  He concluded by 
noting that the question would be taken to the relevant stake-holders. 
3.10.  The representative of the Philippines expr essed her delegation's interest on the issue and 
thanked the Chairman for having held informal consultations.  She also thanked the delegation of 
Uruguay for a graphical representation of the issue.  Like many others in the room, she was not a 
technical person and still had to understand the issue.  However, since the Decision had been 
adopted many years ago, it was natural for techno logy to have changed after 30 years.  For this 
reason, she considered there was merit in looking closely at the Uruguayan proposal.  She also supported China's request to have trade data on the issue. 
3.11.  The representative of Mexico thanked the Uruguayan delegate for a very clear explanation 
of the current situation facing customs administrations concerning the value of carrier media and 
their contents.  He understood the need to continue studying the topic and he applauded the fact 
that it was being done in a very positive way.  From Mexico's point of view, this proposal was  
timely with regards to the need to have legal instruments which had to be adequate to the realities faced.  He hoped the Committee could very  soon be able to amend the Decision. 
3.12.  The representative of Japan thanked the dele gation of Uruguay and welcomed taking up this 
issue.  His delegation would be interested to he ar other delegations' views on it.  Japan would 
continue to engage positively and constructively in this discussion. 
3.13.  The representative of Uruguay thanked the delegations of Argentina, the Philippines, Mexico 
and Japan for their support.  He also wanted to respond to some of the issues which had been 
raised by the United States, China, Canada and th e European Union.  The delegation of China had 
mentioned some concerns with regards to the fact that certain data were excluded, and in 
particular cinematographic, music or video content.  He acknowledged the Decision excluded them 
and it was not his delegation's intention to modify this aspect of the Decision.  Uruguay's concern G/VAL/M/57 
 
- 13 - 
 
  was exclusively focused on software programs, but would not object to discuss other aspects if the 
Committee considered that a modification beyond this element were relevant.  On the concerns expressed regarding the scope, he noted that it had to do with the current situation regarding 
imports of software which were presented in pen dr ives, USB keys or similar media.  It was not his 
delegation's intention to extend beyond that, and he recalled that customs administrations were 
confronted with this problem on a daily basis.  The European Union had mentioned that it would be possible to fix the issue by amending the domestic legislation.  However, he considered that the 
Decision was quite clear in the sense that carrier media shall not include integrated circuits, 
semiconductors and similar devices.  Therefore, in his delegation's view, it was difficult to have changes in the national legislation when the language of the Decision was so firm and specific.  He concluded by stressing that these were preliminary reactions. 
3.14.  The Chairperson thanked Uruguay and the delegations which had taken the floor.  Based on 
what he had heard at the meeting, globally there s eemed to be a positive attitude with regards to 
reviewing the proposal, but Members required more time to take account of all the ramifications.  
On China's request to have a better sense of the impact on trade volumes, he proposed to request 
the Secretariat to undertake a small study in this regard, so that information could be shared at the next meeting with a view to better understanding the issue.  He also encouraged delegations 
to take profit of the presence of Uruguay's capi tal-based expert to discuss the issue and exchange 
the information more rapidly.  Members seemed wi lling to consider Uruguay's proposal positively, 
but it had to be done prudently and taking into account all the different aspects in terms of the impact it could have.   
3.15.  The Committee took note of statements made  and agreed to ask the Secretariat to provide 
trade data on the issue and to revert to this matter at its next meeting. 
4  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 
- Information on Technical Assistance 
4.1.  The Chairperson recalled that, as reflected in section B.4 of document G/VAL/5, the 
Committee had agreed that greater transparency of technical assistance activities would be 
ensured if information documents prepared for the Technical Committee on Customs Valuation 
were also circulated as WTO documents. The objective was to enable developing countries Members to avail themselves of broader information and to help them organize their efforts in this regard. For this reason, the WCO Secretariat periodically provided information of the technical 
assistance activities carried out under the au s p i c e s  o f  t h e  W C O .   D o c u m e n t  G / V A L / 8 / A d d . 2 9  
contained the most recent information that ha d been compiled by the Technical Committee on 
Customs Valuation concerning technical assistance activities carried out by Members, as well as by 
the WCO Secretariat. 
4.2.  The Committee took note of this information. 
- Article 20.3 Technical Assistance an d Trade-Related Tec hnical Assistance 
4.3.  The Chairperson recalled that the Committee's work programme on technical assistance for 
capacity-building concerning the implementation  and administration of the Agreement was now 
incorporated in the overall technical assistance  p r o g r a m m e  o f  t h e  W T O .   T h e  W T O  w a s  i n  t h e  
process of implementing the 2014-2015 biennial TA  plan. Unlike previous years, there had not 
been regional activities planned.  The Chairperso n drew Members' attention to the fact they had 
the right to submit individual requests for techni cal assistance, which would result in a national 
activity tailored to the specific needs of the beneficiary.  In this regard, a national activity had 
been carried out in Azerbaijan and another one was being planned for Colombia by the end of May.  
The latter would be delivered jointly by the WTO and WCO Secretariats.   
4.4.  The Committee took note of this information. G/VAL/M/57 
 
- 14 - 
 
  5  UNITED STATES - ARMENIA'S REFERENCE PRICE SYSTEM IN CONNECTION WITH THE 
VALUATION OF GOODS  
5.1.  The Chairperson recalled that it was agreed at the last meeting to revert to this issue.  
In 2003, Armenia had notified its national legislat ion and responses to the checklist of issues in 
G/VAL/N/1/ARM/1 and G/VAL/N/2/A RM/1, respectively.  The Committee had concluded its review 
of these notifications at its meeting of 18 October 2005.  Subsequently, the United States had posed new questions to Armenia, which had been circulated in G/VAL/W/208, which had been 
answered by Armenia in G/VAL/W/213 in March 2012.  Canada then submitted questions in 
G/VAL/W/214 in June 2012. 
5.2.  The representative of Canada noted that his delegation's questions concerned the possible 
use of reference prices.  His delegation considered this was an important issue and remained 
interested in receiving responses as soon as possible.  
5.3.  The Committee took note of statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. 
6  PARAGRAPH 12 OF THE DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION:  IMPLEMENTATION-
RELATED ISSUES 
-  Paragraph 8.3 of document WT/MIN/(01)/17  
6.1.  The Chairperson recalled that, at its meeting in December 2002, the General Council had 
authorized the Committee to continue its work under the existing mandate in paragraph 8.3 of the 
Decision on Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns, and to report back to the General 
Council once its work had been completed.  Since the last meeting, WTO Members had concluded 
at Bali the Agreement on Trade Facilitation.  Th is new agreement contained elements which were 
related to this agenda item and, bearing this in mind, he wanted to know whether Members wanted to keep the item in the agenda. 
6.2.  The representative of India indicated that hi s delegation would like to retain the item on the 
agenda and asked the Committee to take note of this.  
6.3.  The representative of the European Union recalled that his delegation had repeatedly stated 
that this issue should be dealt with in the cont ext of the Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation, 
which had worked on it and led to an outcome he believed to be very positive and comprehensive.  
In his delegation's view, the new Agreement covered de facto this situation and gave full satisfaction in terms of the outcome. But to be ab le to test and put it to work, the Agreement on 
Trade Facilitation was required.  For this reason, his delegation considered that the Committee 
could draw the curtain on the issue as there was probably no need to return to it.   
6.4.  The representative of Canada indicated that his delegation's position was similar to that of 
the previous speaker. His delegation would question  retaining the item on the agenda, in particular 
because Article 12 of the Agreement on Trade Facili tation dealt with customs cooperation.  This 
Article provided for the mandatory exchange upon request of information set-out in export or 
import declarations and subject to certain conditions, such as ensuring the production of 
confidential information consistent with domestic laws.  In light of that development, his delegation wondered whether the issue had already b een addressed.  If India wanted to keep it on 
the agenda, he wanted to receive information on how it differed from the TFA and why.   
6.5.  The representative of Argentina noted that  his country believed that customs cooperation for 
the purpose of exchanging information was very important.  
6.6.  The representative of Ecuador supported  the statements by India and Argentina.  
His delegation believed that the issue should be retained in the agenda and that the Committee 
should have further discussions on it. 
6.7.  The representative of Australia recalled that his delegation had intervened in the past saying 
that the Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation was a more appropriate forum for this discussion.  
His delegation was pleased to see that, with the conclusion of the agreement, the contents of G/VAL/M/57 
 
- 15 - 
 
  Article 12 seemed to address the issue in this pr oposal.  From Australia's perspective, there was 
no value in continuing to discuss the issue in this Committee.  He considered it would be preferable to work on the implementation of the TFA and the implementation of the customs 
cooperation disciplines contained therein.   
6.8.  The representative of the Philippines recalle d that this had been a long-standing issue in the 
Committee.  She also noted that there had been a long discussion on the issue of customs 
cooperation in the context of the Trade Facilitati on Agreement.  She would, therefore, ask the 
Indian delegate what would be the value addition of trying to discuss this particular issue in this 
Committee.  She would prefer not to go back and forth and her delegation would not like to have two venues to discuss the same issue.  She acknowledged that India and the other delegations who supported retaining the issue in the agenda may have had a good reason, but she wanted to 
hear it. 
6.9.  The representative of India thanked all Members for their comments.  Although he 
understood the concerns which had been expressed, at this juncture, he asked the Committee's 
indulgence because he needed to discuss the issue with capital.  He also recalled that India was 
not the only proponent of customs cooperation in the Agreement on Trade Facilitation, so it was necessary to have broader consultations before he could come back to the Committee with a firm 
answer. 
6.10.  The Chairperson proposed to take note of  the positions expressed and suggested to come 
back to this issue at the next meeting.  He also urged his successor to hold informal consultations 
with those delegations which had taken the floor to see how to deal with the issue at the next 
meeting. 
6.11.  The Committee took note of statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. 
7  PRESHIPMENT INSPECTION 
7.1.  The Chairperson recalled that Preshipment Inspection was a standing item on the agenda of 
the Committee on Customs Valuation and that he want ed to address three issues: 1) the status of 
notifications, as well as information received from the International Federation of Inspection 
Agencies (IFIA); 2) questions that had been posed by the United States to Indonesia; and 3) the 
triennial review of the agreement on preshipment inspection.   
-  Status of notifications by Member s and information provided by IFIA 
7.2.  On the status of notifications submitte d by Members, the Chairperson drew Members' 
attention to the new compilation that had been prep ared by the Secretariat pursuant to Article 5 of 
the Agreement on Preshipment Inspection and circ ulated in G/PSI/N/1/Rev.1 and addenda.  Since 
the last meeting, a new notification had be en submitted by The Gambia which had been 
distributed in G/PSI/N/1/Rev.1/Add.4.  
7.3.  On the report by IFIA concerning countries that use preshipment inspection services, the 
Chairperson noted that new information had been received at the beginning of May, which had 
been distributed in G/VAL/W/63/Rev.16.  
7.4.  The Committee took note of this information. 
-  Question from the United States to Indonesia  
7.5.  The Chairperson recalled that it was agreed at the last meeting to revert to this issue.  
The United States had indicated that it had not received responses to the questions that had been 
posed to Indonesia in documents G/VAL/W/167 and G/VAL/W/180. The representative of 
Indonesia had taken note of those questions and st ated this issue had been discussed with capital. 
The United States had submitted follow-up questions in G/VAL/W/237. 
7.6.  The representative of the United States informed the Committee that US exporters were 
being subjected to a growing number of preshipmen t inspection requirements which had not been G/VAL/M/57 
 
- 16 - 
 
  notified to the Committee.  The United States was concerned with the rise of new requirements 
and their lack of transparency, including Member s' failure to notify introduction of such 
requirements.  His delegation had requested In donesia to notify its preshipment inspection 
legislation and had submitted a number of questions in G/VAL/W/237 in September 2013.  
His delegation looked forward to receiving a prompt response to those questions. 
7.7.  The Committee took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its 
next meeting. 
-  Triennial review of the Agr eement on Preshipment Inspection 
7.8.  The Chairperson drew Members' attention to Article 6 of the Agreement on Preshipment 
Inspection, which provided for a triennial review of the provisions, implementation and operation 
of the Agreement, taking into account the objectives thereof and experience gained in its 
operation.  On 10 December 1997, a working party presented a first report to the General Council, 
which was circulated in G/L/214.  The terms of references of this work ing party were extended 
twice (see G/L/273 and G/L/300).  In its last re port, the working party recommended the General 
Council to entrust the monitoring of this agreement to the Committee on Customs Valuation as a 
recurrent item on its agenda.  In 2006, the Committee undertook a second review, which began by asking Members to submit written proposals be fore a certain deadline.  Because no written 
contribution was submitted, the Committee requested the Secretariat to develop a factual report, 
which was circulated in G/L/809.  Since then, the Committee had not reviewed the Agreement on Preshipment Inspection.   
7.9.  The Chairperson proposed to conduct the th ird review of the PSI Agreement at the autumn 
meeting on the basis of Members' written subm issions, which should be transmitted to the 
Secretariat no later than 30 September 2014.  In  case no written communication was submitted, 
the Committee would then request the Secretariat to produce a factual report. 
7.10.  The Committee agreed to proceed as described by the Chairperson. 
8  PROPOSAL BY URUGUAY TO RECTIFY THE ENGLISH AND SPANISH VERSIONS OF 
ARTICLE 8:(1)(B)(IV) OF THE AGREEMENT ON CUSTOMS VALUATION 
8.1.  The Chairperson recalled the proposal by the delegation of Uruguay to rectify the English and 
Spanish versions of Article 8:(1)(b)(iv) of the Agreement on Customs Valuation, as described in 
G/VAL/W/240.  The Chairman informed the Commi ttee he had held informal consultations on 
Uruguay's proposal.  Like the proposal on the carrier media Decision, Members did not necessarily 
object to the proposal, but wanted to have a more complete explanation of the problem and why 
was the proposed rectification necessary. 
8.2.  The delegation of Uruguay noted that th e Spanish version of Article 8:(1)(b)(iv) of the 
Agreement had a different presentation with respect to the French and Spanish versions.  This 
provision had five separate elements that had to be taken into account for the proposed rectification: engineering; development; artwor k; design work; and plans and sketches.  The 
problem arose because there was a clause immediately after "plans and sketches", which was not 
separated by a comma.  It read "and plans and sketches undertaken elsewhere other than the country of importation and necessary for the production of the imported goods".  Uruguay understood that those two requirements (i.e. 1) undertaken elsewhere other than the country of 
importation and 2) necessary for the production of the imported goods) applied to the five 
elements.  The problem with the Spanish version was that, grammatically, formally and legally speaking, the wording could give the impression th at those two requirements only applied to the 
"plans and sketches".  The French version was clearer in this respect.  The issue had also been 
presented by Uruguay at the Technical Committee in Brussels, where all Spanish-speaking delegates had agreed on the problem and concluded that the problem deserved the attention of 
this Committee in Geneva.  On the impact of the current wording in the Spanish version, a 
customs officer could understand, for example, that payments for a design might deserve an 
adjustment, even if it was not undertaken outside of the country of importation and was not necessary for the production of the good.  The problem was, therefore, a discrepancy in the 
Spanish wording of this provision, which was very clear in French.  Although he was not a native 
English speaker, he believed that version had a similar problem.  In this last respect, however, G/VAL/M/57 
 
- 17 - 
 
  some delegates of the Technical Committee had considered there was not necessarily a problem in 
the English version.  The Uruguayan delegate concluded by noting he was ready to answer any question on the proposal.   
8.3.  The representative of India thanked the delegate of Uruguay and sought a clarification.  If he 
had understood correctly, the Technical Committee had considered that the English version was 
fine and it did not require any amendment.  However, the proposal which had been put forward by Uruguay would also rectify the English version.  He would, therefore, like to clarify whether 
Uruguay was seeking an amendment only to the Spanish version or to the English version as well. 
8.4.  The representative of the European Union thanked the Uruguayan delegate for the 
explanation which had been very clear.  He also informed the Committee that, having discussed 
the issue with Spain, he was informed that Uruguay's rectification was the appropriate way of 
reading the text.  Because Spanish was one of the official languages in the European Union, a 
similar correction had been introduced in the European Legislation many years ago, and it would make sense to do the same in the WTO as well.  In fact, the Uruguayan proposal reflected the 
current state of the European Legislation, so  it had already been implemented without any 
problems.  On the English version, he agreed that when the issue had been discussed at the Technical Committee of the WCO, the positions had been a bit more nuanced as to whether or not 
it was really necessary to fix it and align it to the French version.  He considered it did not seem so 
clear-cut, as it depended on the particular reading style, or grammatical preferences of the English jurist/linguist specialist.  This was the own reading of the EU as well, so his delegation was rather agnostic with regards to rectifying the English version.  The EU could, however, be flexible in this 
respect.   
8.5.  The representative of Argentina took th e floor to express his country's support to the 
proposal by Uruguay.   
8.6.  The representative of Ecuador endorsed the proposal of Uruguay and noted his delegation 
was ready to accept the proposal as submitted. 
8.7.  The representative of the Philippines thanked Uruguay and the European Union for the 
explanations.  She trusted the EU because they  had to implement the Agreement in the three 
languages.  Therefore, if the EU had already fixe d the Spanish version of the text as proposed by 
Uruguay, then she concluded that the proposal was acceptable.   
8.8.  The representative of Uruguay thanked Argentina, Ecuador, the European Union, and the 
Philippines for their support.  He also clarified that the Technical Committee had analysed the issue 
and had also concluded that there were five elements, all of which had to comply with the two conditions at the end.  This idea was expressed perfectly in French, but was not the case of the 
Spanish version, which meant that the authorities in the Spanish-speaking countries might 
interpret the text differently.  Since he was not an English speaker, he preferred not to comment 
on whether the English version also had to be adjusted, so he would prefer the English-speaking 
delegates to comment on the issue. What was certain was that, as the EU's delegate had 
mentioned, the European Union had rectified the text in the Spanish version of their Code.  This had been the basis for Uruguay's proposal.  The Technical Committee in Brussels had the mandate to interpret and ensure the uniform application of the Agreement, and that was the reason why 
the issue had been raised first in that context.   
8.9.  The representative of Mexico thanked the Uruguayan delegate and asked whether he could 
share his views on the issue that had been raised by India.  He concluded by noting that it was 
important and timely to adjust the Spanish version. 
8.10.  The delegate of Uruguay insisted that it should be the English-speaking delegates the ones 
who should answer the question.  Uruguay's proposal had included both the English and Spanish 
versions, but he would not have a problem if the Committee considered that it should only proceed 
with the rectification of the Spanish version.  His delegation was not in a position to give an opinion on the English version. 
8.11.  The Chairperson observed that he did not see any objection to proceed with the rectification 
of the Spanish version.  Since there were still some  concerns or doubts on the English version, he G/VAL/M/57 
 
- 18 - 
 
  proposed to separate them.  In case there was consensus on a rectification, he would submit a 
request to the Director-General, who would initiate the procès-verbal  of rectification by notifying 
all Members and giving them 90 days to react or to oppose it.  He proposed to request only the rectification of the Spanish version.  He proposed that the Committee would come back to discuss 
the rectification of the English version, so that English-speaking countries had time to look closer 
at the issue. 
8.12.  The delegation of Canada noted they could go along the proposal and recalled that his 
country was both English and French-speaking.  Like the European Union, his delegation was 
indifferent on changing the English version.   
8.13.  The representative of India indicated that, although he did not have final instructions from 
capital, he could go along with the proposed change.  He recalled that Members had just been 
through the legal review of the Agreement on Trade Facilitation, where they had had lot of 
discussions on the significance of commas.  In fact , most of the time had been spent on whether a 
particular comma was needed or whether it could be deleted.  So, from that point of view, his 
preliminary view was that a comma after "plans and schedules" did clarify the text, as it made it 
clearer that the qualification applied to all the categories that preceded it.  He had heard a different view from the European and Canadian delegates, who said they could live with the 
current version of the text.  He also observed th at India did not have a problem with interpreting 
this provision, and the wording and punctuation were quite similar to that of the Agreement on Customs Valuation.  He would, therefore, need to go back and check whether there would be a legal problem rectifying it.  However, on the face of it, the rectification appeared correct.   
8.14.  The Chairperson thanked the delegate of In dia and reiterated his proposal to proceed in a 
two-step approach.   
8.15.  The representative of the Philippines noted that, although it was not her interest to prolong 
the debate, she thought it would be better to try to avoid coming back to the issue at the next 
meeting.  Since it appeared that delegations could go along with the proposal to rectify the English 
version, it would be better to give India some time to consult with capital and see whether it was 
possible to proceed with both rectifications together. 
8.16.  The representative of India said he would be comfortable to proceed as proposed by the 
Philippines and that one month should be enough.   8.17.  The Chairperson concluded that the rectification would be prepared for both the Spanish and 
English versions. With respect to the English version of the text, one month would be given for 
comments, in the absence of which he would proceed to request the Director General to initiate a procès-verbal  procedure of both the Spanish and English versions. 
8.18.  The Committee took note of the statements made and agreed to proceed as described by 
the Chairperson. 
9  PROPOSAL TO HOLD A SEMINAR ON THE POSSIBLE USE OF DATABASES TO SET 
REFERENCE PRICES  
9.1.  The Chairperson drew Members' attention to a revised proposal from Australia; Canada; the 
European Union; Chinese Taipei; and the United States, which was contained in document G/VAL/W/231/Rev.1.  He reported that he had held informal consultations on 11 February 2014, in 
which a number of Members seemed to be favourable to holding an informal workshop back-to-
back with the next Committee meeting.  However, other Members noted they were still awaiting an official reaction from capital.   
9.2.  On behalf of the co-sponsors, the representative of Canada thanked the Chairperson for his 
introduction.  As it had been noted, a revised proposal for an informal workshop to discuss 
customs valuation databases had been submitted.  Reference prices were pre-established values 
which were used to establish the price on which import duties and taxes were set.  Reference 
priced databases were repositories of price information.  The use of this information was permitted for risk management purposes, but could not be used to set minimum prices for customs valuation.  The permitted and non-permitted use of reference prices was an issue of growing G/VAL/M/57 
 
- 19 - 
 
  importance to a number of stakeholders.  It was important for the WCO and the Technical 
Committee on Customs Valuation, who had developed comprehensive guidelines aligning the permitted use of reference priced databases as a risk management tool.  It was also an important issue to the WTO, where discussions in this Comm ittee continually turned on the possible use of 
reference prices, particularly with respect to the review of national legislations.  It was also an 
important issue to the WTO Members domestically, particularly for developing countries, who could find it difficult to differentiate between permitted and non-permitted uses of databases, a difficulty 
which had been highlighted during today's review of le gislative notifications.  Finally, it was also an 
important issue to industry, including the International Chamber of Commerce, who was seeking to discuss reference priced databases with the Commi ttee.  In fact, this interest had served as the 
genesis for the proposed informal workshop.  For all these reasons, the co-sponsors had proposed 
at the last meeting of the Committee to hold an informal workshop to discuss the use of reference 
priced databases.  The proposal did not reach consensus and suggestions were made both during the committee and in subsequent informal consultations with the Chairperson regarding possible 
ways to improve the proposal.  For example, it was suggested that the purpose and objective of 
the seminar could be clarified, as well as certain details of the workshop such as timing and participation.  In addition, some delegations had indicated an interest in bringing capital-based 
experts to participate in the seminar.  
9.3.  The delegate of Canada observed further that the revised proposal had taken into account 
Members' comments.  First, the revised proposal laid out more clearly the background, purpose, 
objectives and details of the proposed informal workshop in comprehensive terms of reference.  
Secondly, the revised proposal had been expanded  to provide for presentations by capital-based 
experts.  The co-sponsors intention was to draw a balanced representation by including one presenter from each of Africa, Asia, Europe, Nort h and South America.  Thirdly, they sought to 
encourage participation and presentations by other capital-based experts.  For this reason, they 
were proposing to hold the workshop immedi ately following the meeting of the Technical 
Committee on Customs Valuation which would take place in October. The workshop was intended 
to provide a forum for Members to share expe riences, with a view to improving their 
understanding, raising awareness and promoting good practices with respect to the use of customs valuation databases.  The workshop was not intended to pass judgement or reach conclusions regarding the use or misuse of databases, and wa s without prejudice to the specific practices of 
any Member.  To be very clear on this point, the co-sponsors were not seeking any specific 
recommendation, outcome or next steps.  In conclu sion, he believed that the revised proposal had 
taken into account Members' comments and they were seeking agreement to hold an informal 
workshop on customs valuation databases in Octo ber.  Recognising that additional details may 
need to be worked out before then, the proposal clearly indicated that further technical and logistical issues may be discussed by Members in subsequent informal consultations.  This included 
any changes or clarifications needed either for technical reasons, or also to gain the support of all 
Members.  His delegation looked forward to hear ing views from Members and, in particular, from 
any Member interested in making a presentation at the workshop. 
9.4.  The representative of Australia indicated that , as a co-sponsor, his delegation agreed entirely 
with the introduction by Canada, which had been quite detailed.  He hoped that the revised 
proposal had addressed the concerns which had been raised by Members in the past. 
9.5.  The representative of the European Union noted that, as a co-sponsor, his delegation was 
pleased to have a revised proposal.  He thanked the Chairperson for the good work in organizing 
the discussions as progress had certainly been made.  He believe the proposal was well-balanced, had a good agenda, respected WTO principles, and seemed to be in good shape so it could lead to 
a good and relevant exercise.  For these reasons, his delegation was happy to be associated with 
the proposal and looked forward to the approval by the Committee. 
9.6.  The representative of the United States supported the intervention made by Canada.  His 
delegation was pleased to be a co-sponsor of th is proposal and believed the issue was a serious 
one, which was important to bring to the attention of the Committee.  He supported having the 
workshop close to the next meeting of the Technical Committee, which would facilitate the participation and having presentations by customs officers.  He hoped that the revised proposal 
would find wide-spread support in the Committee.  He saw it as an important opportunity to 
engage Geneva delegates and capital-based representatives in developing a balanced and informative workshop.  To conclude, he commended Canada and the Chairperson for taking into G/VAL/M/57 
 
- 20 - 
 
  consideration the concerns that had been raised by other delegations in preparing this revised 
programme. 
9.7.  The representative of Chinese Taipei noted that, as a co-sponsor, he wanted to add his voice 
to those supporting the revised version of the proposal, and hoped it could invite broader and 
general support from all Membership.  
9.8.  The representative of Korea thanked the co-sponsors for their efforts to revise the proposal 
and add more clarity.  Korea fully supported the idea of having an informal workshop to discuss 
the possible use of databases to set reference prices.  He also agreed that it would provide a good 
opportunity to have a better understanding on this important issue by hearing the real story and sharing the experience amongst various participants  from private and public sectors.  In Korea's 
view, it was important to have more participation from capital-based experts and a more diverse 
representation of countries in order to fully utilize the opportunity.  The format and timing 
suggested by the co-sponsors had already taken into account these considerations.  His delegation was ready to engage in the process of further developing the agenda. 
9.9.  The representative of the Philippines than ked the co-sponsors and noted that, although her 
delegation was supportive of this idea, she had two technical questions.  Firstly, Canada had 
mentioned that the workshop would be timed to take place close to the next formal meeting of the 
Committee, but in another point there was a reference to the meeting of the Technical Committee.  
Secondly, she was aware that the genesis of the proposal came from the ICC, but she wondered whether there were other private organizations doing similar work and which could also be invited.   
9.10.  The Chairperson noted that, on the first qu estion by the Philippines, the WTO and the WCO 
Secretariats had been trying to coordinate the activities of both Committees.  Meetings were being 
organized very close to each other, to allow delegates attending one meeting the possibility to also attend the other meeting.  Although he did not wa nt to prejudge the outcome of the discussion, if 
there was an agreement to hold the informal wo rkshop, the idea would be that the Technical 
Committee would meet for four days in Brussels, from Monday to Thursday.  Then this Committee would meet Friday, which would allow the customs officers coming from capitals to attend both 
meetings.   
9.11.  The representative of Japan indicated that  his delegation fully supported the workshop and 
was quite comfortable with the provisional agenda.  
9.12.  The representative of the Russian Federati on asked what would be the working language of 
the workshop.  
9.13.  The Chairperson replied that it would be organized back-to-back with the formal meeting, 
and that there would be interpretation into the three official languages of the WTO.  
9.14.  The representative of Argentina thanked the proponents for submitting a revised version of 
the text, which provided detailed terms of referenc e, the purpose and objectives of the workshop, 
as well as the provisional agenda.  As he had said at the meeting of 27 September 2013, and the 
informal meeting of 11 February, that type of information was necessary to facilitate the 
examination of the proposal by the competent authorities in capital, which would in turn allow Geneva delegates to make constructive comments.  However, his delegation wanted to note that his competent authorities had had very little time to review the revised proposal, because the 
version in Spanish was circulated on 7 May.  In other words, the relevant authorities in the 
Spanish-speaking countries, including Argentina, had only had two working days to examine the revised proposal, which were Thursday and Friday of last week.  He would also like to point out 
that the revised proposal, in English, was circulated on the Members website on 28 April.  
He recalled that the legal review of the Agreem ent on Trade Facilitation had taken place between 
28 April and 2 May.  In other words, there was another important customs issue which had 
occupied Members' attention, a situation which had affected the consideration of this proposal.  
This issue was of particular importance to developing countries which had limited human resources.  Secondly, and more importantly, he wanted to note that the request for the proponents to provide a document in writing, with  more details of the proposal, had been made a 
number of months ago by a number of delegations, including Argentina.  This request had been 
made at the meeting that had taken place at the end of last year, as well as the meeting of G/VAL/M/57 
 
- 21 - 
 
  February of this year.  He also noted that the revised proposal had not been circulated in French, a 
situation which would pose difficulties for the French-speaking Members.  As had been discussed 
under Agenda item B, it was important to have the documentation in the three official languages.  Moreover, very little time had elapsed since the publication of the revised proposal, a situation 
which had not given enough time for delegations to make substantive comments nor allowed for a 
substantive analysis by the relevant authorities. 
9.15.  The representative of Brazil joined others in thanking the proponents for submitting a 
revised proposal, which he considered to be very interesting.  However, like Argentina, Brazil had 
not had enough time to evaluate the revised proposal, in particular because he had been isolated last week in the trade facilitation legal review.  This being said, his delegation was going to have a thorough evaluation of the document and requeste d to have at least two or three weeks to have 
sufficient time to receive f eedback from capital.   
9.16.  The representative of Ecuador joined othe rs in thanking the proponents for their revised 
proposal, which had given a clearer idea of the objectives and content of the workshop.  Ecuador 
had taken note of the improvements which had been mentioned by the delegate of Canada, 
including the question of geographical distribution  of delegations.  Like other delegations, he 
considered that the proposal had not been distributed with sufficient time, and in particular for 
smaller delegations.  He recalled that those delegates covering trade facilitation were also 
responsible for customs valuation and rules of origin, as was the case of Ecuador.  Delegations had been involved in trade facilitation for months, as if  they were electing the Pope.  So, his delegation 
had not had the time to devote to issues such as customs valuation and his capital had still not 
taken any definitive decision with regards to th e workshop.  With this in mind, he had some 
preliminary comments to make.  Firstly, he noticed that there was a session for the private sector, where the International Chamber of Commerce would be invited, and another session for the 
public sector.  He considered it important to invite other international organizations to intervene, 
such as the Technical Committee.  He wanted to know whether consideration was being given to inviting other organizations, governmental or otherwise, who could provide information which 
could enrich what the WCO, the WTO and the Technical Committee could provide.  Secondly, he 
wanted to have further information on what would be the basis or criteria for selecting the capital-based experts.  Ecuador was interested in participating, but his delegation wanted to know whether some form of financing would be available to facilitate the participation of such capital-
based experts.  He had listened carefully to what Canada said in the sense that there would not be 
any prejudgement with regards to the use or misuse  of databases.  For this reason, he wanted to 
know whether, in addition to the negative aspect s, Members could also have presentations on the 
advantages of using databases, in order to have  a balanced discussion and to add constructive 
value to the workshop.  To conclude these preliminary comments, the delegate of Ecuador noted that his delegation was favourable to having the workshop, and wanted to actively participate in it. 
9.17.  The representative of India noted that hi s comments would be along the lines of previous 
speakers.  Unfortunately, he had not received final instructions from capital, so he was not in a 
position to support the proposal, which was still being reviewed in capital.  As everyone was aware, India was in the midst of elections and would have a new government next week. Several 
pending issues would be up for review and this  was one them.  India thanked Canada and the 
other proponents for the revised proposal, which they considered to be a substantial improvement over the earlier version.  It was much more full-throated and detailed, and gave a fairer idea of 
what proponents were thinking of.  However,  India wanted to reserve its right to make 
suggestions for changes, and he echoed the concer n that had been raised by Ecuador on whether 
there would be any basis for the selection of speakers.  Also, as mentioned by the Philippines, 
whether they were contemplating to invite other organizations.  His delegation needed to have a 
balanced presentation of ideas.  India's experi ence had been that valuation databases could be 
very useful for risk management and they had put them to good use.  Therefore, India would not 
like to see that the good work that databases had helped customs administrations to achieve be 
questioned as misuse, especially when the Committ ee was not even aware of what the size of the 
problem was.  The Committee was not aware of ho w widespread the proble m of misuse, which was 
mentioned again and again by some speakers, really  was.  He wanted to flag this concern and 
reserve India's right to come back with sugge stions on how to improve the format and the 
presentation of the workshop. 
9.18.  The representative of Cuba took the floor to join other delegations that had spoken before, 
and noted her country required more time to study the proposal.   G/VAL/M/57 
 
- 22 - 
 
  9.19.  The representative of Canada took the floor to respond to some of the questions and 
comments.  Firstly, he thanked the Chairperson fo r addressing the question by the Philippines on 
the relationship with the Technical Committee and the timing which had been proposed.  On the second question by the Philippines on the particip ation by the private sector, he recalled they had 
begun working on the issue because of the letters from the ICC.  His delegation would be open to 
looking at inviting additional representatives, but he recalled that the issue was always one of balance.  That was why the ICC was convenient, because it was an international organization that 
was particularly pressing this issue.  However, they were open to other suggestions and that was 
precisely the type of issue they could consider in  the subsequent informal consultations.  With 
respect to the questions and comments by Ecuador and India in terms of how would capital-based attendance be determined, he considered that, like everything else, it would be determined 
through the subsequent informal consultations by Members.  He considered it important to 
highlight that nothing was agreed until everything was agreed, so a tentative agreement to go forward with the workshop was subject to reaching an agreement on the details.  That applied to 
the entire agenda, like inviting private sector  representatives, but also the capital-based 
attendance.  The Canadian delegate noted that he could not comment on the availability of financing, and perhaps the Chairperson and the Secretariat could help in that respect.  On India's 
comment, he believed it would be useful to have someone presenting the benefits of using 
databases.  Proponents had tried to be very balanced and non-judgemental in the way the proposal had been drafted.   He considered th at having presentations by those Members who use 
databases would be very valuable to the discussion and, in particular, he would invite any 
delegation who wanted to make a presentation on the benefits and proper use of databases to 
volunteer a speaker.  He considered there were a lot of open spaces in the public sector session, and he thought that kind of balance would be re ally valuable.  He encouraged other Members to 
put their names forward and then it would be up to  Members to decide.  That covered all questions 
he heard.  He noted he had heard suggestions an d questions about defining the agenda, as well as 
some concerns about not having enough time, but no t substantive objections.  He wanted to stress 
that the agenda was by no means closed nor agreed .  However, he considered it important to take 
the next step, because there was an issue of timing if Members wanted to hold the workshop back-to-back to the Technical Committee's meeting of October.  He proposed to move forward on the understanding that until all Members had agreed on  the details, nothing had been agreed and then 
see where Members could get to. 
9.20.  The Chairperson observed that he had he ard a number of positive comments, but questions 
had also been raised with regards to the time necessary to assess the proposal.  He would, 
therefore, like to come back to the question  which had just been posed by Canada, and in 
particular, the delegations who had requested more time to consult with capital.  How should the Committee move forward on this issue?  Was it st ill possible to hold the workshop back-to-back 
with the next meeting of the Technical Committee? Or, as the delegate of Canada had said, could 
the Committee agree to have it when everything had been sorted out?  Finally, the Chairperson wanted to have an indication of how much time would be required to have inputs from capital.   On the availability of the documents, the Secretariat would make its best effort to ensure that the 
French translation was made available as quickly as possible.   
9.21.  The representative of the Philippines endorsed the comments by Canada.  She also had the 
sense there was no objection in principle, so the Committee could work on the details of who 
should be invited.  She considered it important to try to have the workshop this year, by October.  
She recalled that the delegate from Brazil had mentioned he would need around three weeks to get feedback from capital.  She assumed it would be the same for other Spanish-speaking 
Members, but had no idea about the French-speak ing ones, because nobody had spoken about the 
French version.  She also noted that many of  the suggestions which had been made could be 
taken into account to have a balanced presentation.  Perhaps the Committee could have informal consultations so that the Committee could determine whether the workshop could be held in 
October.  She concluded by noting it was important not to lose time, because it was an important 
issue. 
9.22.  The representative of Argentina noted he was no t sure that it was only a question of details.  
The proposal would need to be analysed in capital by the competent authorities so he could 
provide comments.  He recalled he had had a very short time to react to the document, just two working days, which was insufficient to be able to provide constructive comments.  Therefore, it 
was not just an issue of adjusting details, but rather a question of examining the proposals 
thoroughly, within a reasonable period of time .  The proponents were requested to provide a G/VAL/M/57 
 
- 23 - 
 
  revised proposal, in writing, several months ago, so his delegation now needed a reasonable 
period of time to react.  He concluded by noting that his delegation could also come back with substantive issues, and not just questions regarding the details. 
9.23.  The representative of India noted that even if feedback were given to the Committee 
informally, the proposal would need to come back to the Committee for its final approval.  So, he 
was unsure of what was meant by the suggestion to have an informal consultation in the interim.  India would be fine with this, but eventually the proposal needed to come back to the Committee.  
He did not think that an informal group could take a decision on the final shape and format of this 
workshop, which was an important issue to bear in mind. 
9.24.  The representative of Ecuador noted that his delegation saw favourably the organization of 
this workshop, but he thought the most important part was agreeing on the agenda.  He 
understood why it would be desirable to have the workshop in October, but this was not a reason 
to sacrifice the discussion of the content of the agenda.  His delegation considered it important to define the themes and the speakers, so they wanted to continue the discussions on these matters.  
In fact, Ecuador would possibly be interested in actively participating in the workshop, because 
they used databases and considered that they were  helpful.  His delegation wanted the workshop 
to reflect on the best practices that Canada was referring to, as well as the proper use of these 
databases, and how beneficial they could be.  For this reason, he considered important to define 
and clarify who would be the speakers, and to seek  the appropriate balance.  Since this was the 
last meeting before the October meeting, and th e decision had to be taken officially by the 
Committee, he did not see how the Committee could undertake the necessary informal 
consultations. His delegation wanted to see a clearly defined agenda and list of speakers for the 
next Committee meeting to be able to adopt it.  He reiterated the discussion would need to take place in the Committee, and he was not sure how this could happen because there would not be 
another meeting in which to adopt it.  
9.25.  The representative of Brazil took the floor  to support the previous speakers and reiterated 
that his delegation was very open-minded concerning this workshop.  However, as it had been 
pointed out by Argentina, it was still premature to say that it was just about agreeing on the 
details, because his capital had not had the time to evaluate the document.  He was sure that he would be able to provide a final decision within the shortest possible time.   
9.26.  Based on comments made, the Chairperson recognized that the next formal meeting of the 
Committee had been scheduled to take place in Oc tober.  However, he noted that the Committee 
could agree to schedule another formal meeting in the month of June, which would be dedicated exclusively to this issue.  His successor could also, in the interim, hold informal discussions with a 
view to getting inputs, so that the proposal could eventually be cleared out by the next formal 
meeting.  He asked whether it would be agreeable for the Committee to have a formal meeting by mid-June to discuss the issue.   
9.27.  The Committee took note of statements made and agreed to proceed as described by the 
Chairperson. 
10  ELECTION OF OFFICERS 10.1.  The Chairperson informed the Committee th at the Chairman of the Council for Trade in 
Goods had carried out informal consultations on a slate of names for appointment of Chairpersons 
of standing bodies, in accordance with the established Guidelines for Appointment of Officers.  On the basis of those consultations, he proposed that the Committee elect Ms Joanna Cheung (Hong 
Kong, China) as Chairperson for the year 2014.  He proposed that the Committee elect 
Mrs Cheung by acclamation. 
10.2.  The Committee elected Ms Joanna Cheung by acclamation. 
10.3.  Before giving the floor to the new elec ted Chairperson, Mr Brusselmans thanked Mr Roy 
Santana from the WTO Secretariat, the interprete rs, and the Members having helped him during 
his chairmanship over the past year.   G/VAL/M/57 
 
- 24 - 
 
  10.4.  As the newly elected Chairperson, Ms Cheung thanked Mr Brusselmans for leading the work 
of the Committee over the past year, as well as Members for supporting her election.   
10.5.  The meeting was adjourned.  
 G/VAL/M/57 
 
- 25 - 
 
  ANNEX 
Report to the Committee on Customs Valuation on the work of the  
Technical Committee on Cu stoms Valuation (TCCV)  
and related activities of the WCO Secretariat 
12 May 2014 
The 38th Session of the Technical Committee on Customs Valuation  took place from 5 to 
9 May 2014.   
The TCCV finalised discussions on the treatment of the fees for unlocking a function of imported 
goods after importation.  
The TCCV discussed the draft case study which illu strates the use of information derived from a 
transfer pricing study for the purposes of exam ining related party transactions based on the 
Transaction Net Margin Method under the topic "Related party transactions under the agreement 
and transfer pricing".  A new draft case study based on the Resale Price Method has been presented by China in the same vein and will be examined in the next session. 
The TCCV continued its discussions on the valuatio n treatment of distributi on fees and payments 
based on projected net profits and decided to ca rry forward this item to the next session.  
The TCCV agreed to examine the questions of  
 Royalties and Licence fees in a two party transaction and the implication on the Customs 
value of a retention tax in the country of importation on licence fees paid by the licensee under Article 8.1(c) of the Agreement; and 
 Valuation of goods in a global value chain. 
Theme meeting 
The theme for this session "The Challenges of Undervaluation" was analysed into three topics:  1) Practical use of risk management data to combat undervaluation 
2) Tackling under/over-invoicing : establishing an effective control strategy 
3) Challenges of the informal sector 
Three delegates shared their country experience on  each of the above topic and was acknowledged 
by the delegates present to be enriching. 
Revenue Package This package has been developed to assist member administrations to collect the proper amount of 
revenue as a result of cross border movement of goods. The Committee was updated on the latest 
developments of the second phase of the Revenue Package.  
Revenue Conference The Revenue Conference will take place 30 June-1 July 2014 at the WCO Headquarters in Brussels.  
The conference will focus on a range of reve nue-related issues, including the WCO Revenue 
Package and Members' experiences of same, VAT, excise taxes, environmental taxes, drawback 
fraud, transfer pricing, informal trade practices,  post-release verification and audit, compliance 
with Customs requirements, pre-shipment inspection amongst others. 
Technical Assistance/Capacity Building A joint WCO/ WTO workshop will take place in Columbia at the end of May. G/VAL/M/57 
 
- 26 - 
 
  WCO is conducting a joint WCO/OECD workshop in Budapest on Customs valuation and transfer 
pricing for Eastern Europe region. 
Next Committee The next meeting of the Technical Committee has been scheduled for the week ending 
24 October 2014 and will last for four days, subject to approval by the Council.  
Elections Ms Yuliya Gulis from United States has been elec ted as the new Chairperson of the TCCV and the 
two elected Vice Chairpersons are Mr Ravindrakumar and Mr Villaroel from Sri Lanka and Chile 
respectively.  
__________