RESTRICTED  
  
G/VAL/M/56  
 
16 April 2014  
(14-2394)  Page: 1/17  
Committee on Customs Valuation    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 27 SEPTEMBER 2013 
CHAIRPERSON:  MR. PIERRE E. BRUSSELMANS 
 The agenda proposed for the meeting, circulated in WTO/AIR/4187, 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. Cambodia ............................................................................................................... 3  
D. Cape Verde ............................................................................................................. 4  
E. China ..................................................................................................................... 4  
F. Costa Rica ............................................................................................................... 5  
G. Ecuador .................................................................................................................. 5  
H. Japan ..................................................................................................................... 5  
I. Lao People’s Democr atic Republic ............................................................................... 6  
J. Macao, China ........................................................................................................... 6  
K. Mali ........................................................................................................................ 6  
L. Nicaragu a ............................................................................................................... 7  
M. Nigeria ................................................................................................................... 7  
N. Russian Fede ration ................................................................................................... 7  
O. Rwanda .................................................................................................................. 8  
P. Saint Vincent and th e Grenadines ............................................................................... 8  
Q. Tunisia ................................................................................................................... 8  
R. Uruguay .................................................................................................................. 8  
S.  Ukraine ................................................................................................................... 9  
3   INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATIO N OF DECISIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON 
CUSTOMS VALUATION ...................................................................................................... 9  
4   TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ........................................................................................... 10  
-  Information on Technical Assistance ........................................................................... 10 
-  Article 20.3 Technical Assistance and Trade-Related Technical Assistance ........................ 10 
5   UNITED STATES - ARMENIA'S RE FERENCE PRICE SYSTEM IN CONNECTION 
WITH THE VALUATIO N OF GOODS.................................................................................. 11   G/VAL/M/56 
 
- 2 - 
 
  6   PARAGRAPH 12 OF THE DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION:  
IMPLEMENTATION-REL ATED ISSU ES ............................................................................. 11  
-  Paragraph 8.3 of document WT/MIN/(01)/17 ............................................................... 11 
7   PRESHIPMENT INSPECTI ON ...................................................................................... 12  
-  Status of notifications by Members and information provided by IFIA .............................. 12 
-  Question from the United States to Indonesia .............................................................. 12 
8   PROPOSAL BY URUGUAY TO RECTIFY THE ENGLISH AND SPANISH VERSIONS 
OF ARTICLE 8:(1)(B)(IV) OF THE AG REEMENT ON CUSTOMS VALUATION ..................... 12  
9   PROPOSAL TO HOLD A SEMINAR ON THE POSSIBLE USE OF DATABASES TO 
SET REFERENCE PRICES ................................................................................................. 14  
10   ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION OF THE 
CUSTOMS VALUATION AGREEM ENT (G/VAL/W/233) .................................................... 17  
11   REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO TH E COUNCIL FOR TRAD E IN GOODS .................... 17  
12   OTHER BU SINESS .................................................................................................... 17  
-  Date of the next meeting .......................................................................................... 17 
 
_______________ 
 
1  REPORT OF THE WORK OF THE TECH NICAL COMMITTEE ON CUSTOMS VALUATION 
1.1.  The representative of the World Customs Organization (WCO), Mr Richard Soki, noted that 
this session of the Committee of Customs Valuation had been held exceptionally before the 
37th Session of the Technical Committee and therefor e he had nothing to report.  The Chairperson 
noted that the Committee had received three documents from the Technical Committee of the WCO, namely: i) document G/VAL/W/225, sent by the Director of The Tariff and Trade Affairs 
Directorate of the WCO, addressing the issue of consistency of interpretation and application of 
Article 8.1(b) of the Agreement on Customs Valuation; ii) document G/VAL/W/227, sent by the Chairman of the Technical Committee on Customs Valuation, concerning the request for factual 
information made by the former Chairperson of the Committee on the possible misuse of 
databases on Customs Valuation; and iii) document G/VAL/W/229, sent by the Chairman of the Technical Committee of Customs Valuation, dealing with the decision on the "Valuation of carrier media bearing software for data processing equipment", also known as "Decision 4.1" by various 
customs offices.  He proposed to take note of  the comments by the WCO representative and to 
address the issues under the relevant agenda items.  It was so agreed. 
1.2.  The Committee so agreed. 
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 
text of their national legislation on customs valuation in one of the three official WTO languages; 2) any change 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 published a new document (G/VAL/W/232), 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  G/VAL/M/56 
 
- 3 - 
 
  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.  The Chairperson informed the Committee that he had tried to contact all the delegations 
which had a notification with outstanding question s. He recalled Members that transparency was a 
virtue of the WTO and encouraged delegations to work diligently to cultivate this virtue and to 
facilitate the work of the Committee. 
2.4.  In absence of statements by Members, the Chairperson proposed to take up the legislations 
in the order set out in the agenda.   A. Kingdom of Bahrain 2.5.  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 in G/VAL/W/181, to which Bahrain had replied in G/VAL/W/191.  The United States had submitted follow-up questions in G/VAL/W/201, which had been replied by Bahrain in 
G/VAL/W/217.  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.  
2.6.  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.   
2.7.  The Committee took note of the statement and agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. 
B. Belize 
2.8.  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 a new set of follow-up questions in G/VAL/W/188.   
2.9.  The representative of the United States recalled that his delegation had sought further 
clarifications on two points that had been highli ghted in document G/VAL/W/188.  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. 
2.10.  The representative of Canada recalled his delegation's general position that the 
interpretative notes were extensions of the ob ligations included in the Agreement and should, 
therefore, be reflected in each Member's legal framework.     
2.11.  The Committee took note of statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. C. Cambodia 
2.12.  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/KHM/1 and G/VAL/N/2/KHM/1, respecti vely.  The United States had submitted 
questions in G/VAL/W/193, to which Cambodia had replied in G/VAL/W/195.  The United States 
had submitted follow-up questions in G/VAL/W/201, to which Cambodia had replied in G/VAL/W/209.  Additional follow-up questions ha d been submitted by the United States in 
document G/VAL/W/217, which had been answered  by Cambodia in document G/VAL/W/222.    G/VAL/M/56 
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.13.  The representative of the United States was grateful for the written responses that had 
been provided in G/VAL/W/222 and commended Cambodia on the comprehensive quality of its 
responses.  The United States did not have further questions and agreed to conclude this review. 
2.14.  The representative of Canada noted that some of the concerns raised on this notification 
concerned the possible use of reference prices, but he  did not stand in the way of the conclusion of 
this item.   
2.15.  The Committee took note of statements made and agreed to conclude the examination of 
the national legislation of Cambodia. D. Cape Verde 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/CPV/1.  The United States had 
submitted questions in G/VAL/W/224, to which Cape Verde had replied very recently but had not 
been circulated before the meeting.  
2.17.  The representative of Cape Verde thanked the United States for the questions raised and 
noted that some errors had been detected in the national Code, including some translation errors.  
Of the 31 questions that had been raised, 12 had been replied and clarified, 15 related to translation problems, and six were still awaiting reply due to error or missing piece of information. Therefore, it 
was necessary to wait for corrections in the translation and subsequent revision of the Code. In the 
meantime, Cape Verde noted that in five of the six errors, they had been able to find a provisional solution and that interim instructions would be given to the customs authority.    
2.18.  The representative of the United States thanked Cape Verde for the update. He noted that, in 
reviewing Cape Verde's notification, his delegation had had a number of technical questions that had 
been circulated in G/VAL/W/224.  His delegation looked forward to receiving written responses. 
2.19.  The representative of Canada observed that that some of the answers seemed to suggest the 
use of reference prices and the lack of inclusion in the interpretative notes of Cape Verde's 
legislation. His delegation looked forward to reviewing the responses at the earliest possible date. 
2.20.  The Committee took note of statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. E. China 2.21.  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. 
2.22.  The representative of the United States re called that his delegation  had submitted questions 
to China in October 2011, which sought clarification of two aspects of China's customs valuation 
practices.  These questions had been circulated in G/VAL/W/205 and his delegation looked forward to receiving written responses. 
2.23.  The representative of Canada noted that his delegation was also very interested in receiving 
the replies to the questions raised by the United States, as the they appeared to deal with the use of 
reference pricing and the inclusion of the interpretative notes in China's legislation.   
2.24.  The Committee took note of statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting.  G/VAL/M/56 
 
- 5 - 
 
  F. Costa Rica 
2.25.  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.  The United States had 
submitted questions in G/VAL/W/211. 
2.26.  The representative of the United States re called that his delegation had submitted questions 
which had been circulated in November 2011 in document G/VAL/W/211.  His delegation had 
requested additional information regarding Costa Rica's use of a customs valuation database and 
remained interested in receiving Costa Rica's written responses to these questions. 
2.27.  The representative of Canada noted that his delegation was also very interested in receiving 
the replies to the questions raised by the United States, particularly with regards to the possible 
use of a customs valuation database.  
2.28.  The representative of Costa Rica thanked the United States and Canada for their interest. 
Costa Rica was aware of the questions raised an d informed the Committee that the Ministry of 
Finance was in the process of amending the decree, which would enter into force after its official 
publication.  Costa Rica would then notify it to the WTO.   
2.29.  The Committee took note of statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. 
G. Ecuador 
2.30.  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, to which Ecuador had replied in G/VAL/W/226.   
In addition, Ecuador had notified a compilation of changes to its national legislation in 
G/VAL/N/1/ECU/3, as well as replies to questions asked. 
2.31.  The representative of the United States th anked Ecuador for the notification of its customs 
valuation legislation and other documents that had been circulated in G/VAL/N/1/ECU/3 and 
G/VAL/N/2/ECU/1.  His delegation believed that a number of the questions raised in G/VAL/W/220 had been addressed in that submission.  However, the United States remained interested, 
especially in light of the questions that had been posed in G/VAL/W/220 and Ecuador's most recent 
notification on the implementation of its treatmen t of interest charges.  In this respect, his 
delegation had requested at the May session of the Committee that the legislation and documents circulated in G/VAL/N/1/ECU/3 be translated by th e Secretariat into the three official languages of 
the WTO, so it asked the Secretariat to provide an update on the progress of the translation. 
2.32.  The Secretariat confirmed that it had requested the translation into the three official 
languages of all the notifications.  However, the notification by Ecuador included almost 300 pages 
and would, therefore, take some time to be concluded. 
2.33.  The Committee took note of statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. 
H. Japan  
2.34.  The Chairperson drew Members' attention to Japan's new notification of changes in its 
national legislation, which had been circul ated in G/VAL/N/1/JAP/2  and G/VAL/N/2/JAP/2, 
respectively. 
2.35.  The delegation of Japan was not able to attend the meeting, but the Chairperson read a 
statement on its behalf.  Japan explained that it had amended its national legislation in order to 
clarify or codify a number of elements.  This am endment was not intended to change the practice 
or interpretation of the Agreement or relevant regulations in Japan and therefore, the amended 
laws continued to be consistent with the Agreement.  Japan invited Members' seeking clarifications on this issue to submit them in writing.  G/VAL/M/56 
 
- 6 - 
 
  2.36.  The representative of the United States th anked Japan for its notification of changes in its 
national legislation, which would be examined by the technical experts in Washington.  As 
requested by Japan, the United States would provide any question in writing before the next Committee meeting. 
2.37.  The Committee took note of statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. 
I. Lao People’s Democratic Republic 
2.38.  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. 
2.39.  The representative of the United States th anked the People’s Democratic Republic of Lao for 
its notification and commended the country on its thorough and thoughtful approach to the 
national customs valuation legislation. 
2.40.  The representative of the European Union al so thanked the People’s Democratic Republic of 
Lao for its notification. Her delegation was still in the process of reviewing the notification, but it 
appeared only to cover the Annex rather than the entire WTO Agreement.  The European Union 
would like to seek clarification from the People's Democratic Republic of Lao on this issue.   
2.41.  The Committee took note of statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. 
J. Macao, China 2.42.  The Chairperson recalled that it was agreed at the last meeting to revert to the examination 
of 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. 
2.43.  The representative of the United States thanked Macao, China for its notifications in 
G/VAL/N/1/MAC/2, G/VAL/N/2/MAC/1 and G/VAL/N/3/MAC/1.  His delegation will submit questions 
in writing in light of Macao, China's Trade Policy Review, because there appears to be a contradiction. 
2.44.  The Committee took note of statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. 
K. Mali 2.45.  The Chairperson recalled that it was agreed at the last meeting to revert to the examination 
of national legislation which had been circulat ed in G/VAL/N/1/MLI/1. Canada had submitted 
questions a few months earlier, but they had only been distributed recently in document G/VAL/W/238. He apologized with the dele gation of Canada for this omission.  
2.46.  The representative of Canada noted that its questions concerned the possible use of 
minimum values to set reference prices, and hi s delegation looked forward to receiving the 
responses.  He further noted that the notification  had been issued in French and assumed that it 
would be translated into the three official languages, so as to facilitate more questions from other 
Members in the future.   
2.47.  The representative of the United States thanked Mali for its notification and noted that his 
delegation would undertake a meaningful review of it.  However in order to do so, they required a 
translation of the documents circulated.  He th erefore asked the Secretariat if there was any 
update on the progress of the translation.   
2.48.  The Secretariat confirmed that all documents had been sent for translation and was waiting 
for the translation unit to complete the work.    G/VAL/M/56 
 
- 7 - 
 
  2.49.  The Committee took note of statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. 
L. Nicaragua 2.50.  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. 
2.51.  The representative of the United States thanked Nicaragua for its notification, and noted that 
his delegation would undertake a meaningful review of it.  However in order to do so, they 
required a translation of the documents circulated.  The United States would therefore submit follow-up questions on the checklist of issues in the customs valuation legislation once these 
documents had been translated.   
2.52.  The representative of Canada thanked Nicaragua for its notification. His delegation 
continued with the review process of the notificati on and in the case of questions, these would be 
submitted before the next committee meeting.   
2.53.  The Committee took note of statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. 
M. Nigeria 
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 
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.   
2.55.  The representative of the United States noted that his delegation continued to be interested in 
receiving answers to the questions that had been put forward to Nigeria in G/VAL/W/175 and 
requested that the Committee retained this agenda item. 
2.56.  The representative of Canada noted that his delegation also remained interested in the replies 
to the questions that had been raised, and supported the retention of this item in the agenda until 
answers had been provided.   
2.57.  The Committee took note of statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. 
N. Russian Federation 2.58.  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/RUS/1 and G/VAL/N/2/RUS/1, respectively. 
2.59.  The representative of the United States th anked the Russian Federation for its notification, 
but noted that his delegation had been unable to locate the Customs Code of the Customs Union, 
which had been referenced as one of the attached documents in G/VAL/N/1/RUS/1.  This document was an important piece of legislation which had been referenced numerous times in the 
checklist of issues and the Russian Federation's "Federal Law on Customs Regulations".  For this 
reason, his delegation requested the Russian Federation to notify this document to the Committee.   
2.60.  The representative of the European Union noted that, like the United States, her delegation 
was still in the process of reviewing the notification and expected the Russian Federation to also 
notify the Customs Code of the Customs Union.  
2.61.  The representative of Canada informed that his delegation continued to review the 
comprehensive and voluminous submission, and requested that the item be retained on the 
agenda until the review had been completed.    G/VAL/M/56 
 
- 8 - 
 
  2.62.  The Committee took note of statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. 
O. Rwanda 2.63.  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/RWA/1 and G/VAL/N/2/RWA/1, respec tively. The United States had submitted 
questions in G/VAL/W/215.  
2.64.  The representative of the United States noted that, in reviewing the notifications, his 
delegation had identified certain areas where a clarification was required.  The United States had 
submitted questions in writing and remained interested in receiving and reviewing Rwanda's written response. 
2.65.  The Committee took note of statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. 
P. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 
2.66.  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/VCT/1 and G/VAL/N/2/VCT /1, respectively.  The United States had submitted questions 
in G/VAL/W/181. 
2.67.  The representative of the United States recalled that, although the representative of 
St. Vincent and the Grenadines had responded verbally to some the questions during the 
May 2010 meeting, his delegation considered it necessary to formally circulate written responses 
to each of the questions contained in G/VAL/W/1 81.  Additionally, during the May 2010 meeting, 
the representative of St. Vincent and the Grenadines had mentioned that draft harmonised legislation was being examined by its Government, which was to be implemented by July 2010.  
The United States would appreciate an update regarding the status of this legislation. 
2.68.  The Committee took note of the statement made and agreed to revert to this matter at its 
next meeting. 
Q. Tunisia 
2.69.  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/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.  
2.70.  The representative of the United States thanked Tunisia for the written responses and noted 
that, in reviewing them, his delegation was concerne d by one of the responses.  The United States 
had circulated an additional question in G/VAL/ W/236, and looked forward to receiving Tunisia's 
response to this most recent question and to concluding the review.   
2.71.  The representative of Tunisia thanked the United States for their follow-up question and 
noted that it would be answered as soon as possible. 
2.72.  The Committee took note of statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. 
R. Uruguay 
2.73.  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.  G/VAL/M/56 
 
- 9 - 
 
  2.74.  The representative of the United States thanked Uruguay for its notification.  Like in 
previous cases, he requested that the notified documents be translated into the three official 
languages of the WTO. They would then submit written questions, as appropriate. 
2.75.  The Committee took note of statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. S.  Ukraine 2.76.  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. 
2.77.  The representative of United States thanked Ukraine for its responses in G/VAL/W/230.  The 
United States had submitted questions in response to the replies contained in G/VAL/W/230, which 
had been circulated in G/VAL/W/235.  The United States looked forward to Ukraine's written 
responses to the additional set of questions.   
2.78.  The representative of the European Union noted that her delegation continued to examine 
the notification and expressed interest in the re sponses to the questions of the United States. 
2.79.  The representative of Ukraine thanked the Un ited States for its additional questions, which 
related to questions posed to Ukraine in document G/VAL/W/230. The delegation of Ukraine would 
respond to these questions at the earliest possible time. 
2.80.  The Committee took note of statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. 
2.81.  Before concluding the discussion under th is agenda item, the Chairperson drew Members' 
attention to the fact that 41 of the 159 WTO Members still needed to notify their national 
legislation and 68 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 
not notified changes introduced to their national legislations since they first made a notification.   
2.82.  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 la st meeting, new notifications had been received 
from Ecuador in G/VAL/N/3/ECU/1, Macao, Ch ina in document G/VAL/N/3/MAC/1, and from 
Uruguay in documents G/VAL/N/3/URY/1 and G/VAL/N/3/URY/2. 
3.2.  The Chairperson noted that Uruguay had submitted a proposal to update the Decision on the 
"Valuation of carrier media bearing software for data processing equipment" on the agenda of the 
meeting.  The same question was addressed in the communication by the Chairman of the 
Technical Committee which circulated in document G/VAL/W/229.  
3.3.  The representative of Uruguay confirmed th e position of his delegation and noted that the 
results of the work of the Technical Committee co uld be found in the referred document.  Uruguay  G/VAL/M/56 
 
- 10 - 
 
  had proposed new text for the third subparagraph of paragraph 2 of the Decision, which could be 
found in document G/VAL/W/229 (Annex III to WCO document VT0889E1a, Draft letter to the Chair of the Committee on Customs Valuation). The new text should read as follows: "For the purpose of this Decision, the expression "carrier medium" shall not be taken to include integrated 
circuits, semiconductors and similar devices or articles incorporating such circuits or devices, 
with the exception of those which take the form solely of a means of temporary storage for transfer of data or instructions (software) to data processing equipment in order to be used; the 
expression "data or instructions" shall not be taken to include sound, cinematic or video 
recordings". 
3.4.  The delegation of Japan was not able to attend the meeting, but the Chairperson read a 
statement on its behalf.  In Japan's view, the magnitude and implication of the proposal by 
Uruguay went beyond technical aspects of interpre tation, and might in fact lead to amending the 
Decision. For this reason, Japan considered that the WTO's Customs Valuation Committee was the appropriate forum to discuss this issue.  In the future discussion, Members had to bear in mind 
that the Decision had been drafted in 1984, and some element failed to reflect on the changed 
circumstance derived from the rapid pace of innovation in information technology.   
3.5.  With a view to making progress on this ma tter, the Chairperson invited Uruguay, as well as 
other delegations interested, to submit a written prop osal so that it could be circulated to Members 
for their review and discussion at the next Committee meeting. 
3.6.  The committee took note of this information and statements made, and agreed 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 8  
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 2012-2013 biennial TA plan in document WT/COMTD/W/180/Rev.1, 
which foresaw regional activities on "Market Access Issues", which included customs valuation as one of the areas covered in that training.  Regi onal activities had already been undertaken in 
2013, namely: for English Speaking Africa in Pretoria, South Africa; for Central and Eastern Europe, 
as well as Central Asia countries in Austria; and for Arab and Middle East countries in Kuwait.  The regional activity for Caribbean countries had been scheduled to take place in Saint Lucia at the end 
of October 2013. 
4.4.  The Chairperson drew Members' attention to the fact they can individually submit requests for 
technical assistance, which would result in a national activity tailored to the specific needs of the 
beneficiary country.  In this regard, national activities had been carried out in the following 
Members and acceding countries in 2013: Costa Rica, Ukraine, Iran, Brunei, Tajikistan, and Togo.  The majority of these activities had been held join tly by the Secretariats of the WTO and the WCO.  
No other technical assistance activity at national level had been scheduled for 2013.    G/VAL/M/56 
 
- 11 - 
 
  4.5.  The Committee took note of this information. 
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 legislation 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.  Canada had submitted questions in G/VAL/W/214. 
5.2.  The representative of Canada noted that his delegation had submitted questions on the possible 
use of reference prices, and remained interested in receiving responses. He requested that the item 
would remain on the agenda until then.   
5.3.  The representative of the United States stated that his delegation appreciated Armenia's past 
statements regarding reference or control prices, but it continued to be concerned about the issue.  
The United States understood that Armenia was in the process of amending its customs code, 
which would impact Armenia's customs valuation procedures.  His delegation looked forward to receiving any amendments to Armenia's customs valuation legislation or procedures, and would 
continue to engage bilaterally to address any concerns. 
5.4.  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.  Under this item, India had argued that "in recognising 
the legitimate concerns of importing Members on th e accuracy of the declared value" Ministers had 
directed this Committee to identify and assess practical means to address such concerns, including through the exchange of information on export valu es.  India considered that this was a separate 
mandate that should be addressed by the Committ ee.  However, other Members were of the view 
that the Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation was the appropriate venue to continue those 
discussions, in particular because it was examining proposals that contained elements that were very similar to those contained in India's proposal.   
6.2.  The representative of India reiterated its position on this issue and argued that Members 
should work constructively to implement paragraph 8.3 of the Ministerial Decision.  For this 
reason, the item should be kept on the agenda of the Committee. 
6.3.  The representative of Ecuador supported In dia's position and noted that this Committee was 
the right forum to deal with this matter, especially because it had not yet been possible to 
conclude the negotiations of the new Trade Facilitation Agreement. 
6.4.  The representative of the European Union noted that the position of her delegation remained 
unchanged.  The Committee was not the appropriate forum to discuss this issue, because there 
were on-going negotiations in the context of the Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation. Therefore, such negotiations provided the approp riate venue to pursue those discussions and there 
was no point in keeping the item on the agenda of the Committee. 
6.5.  The representative of the United States continued to believe that the negotiations on trade 
facilitation were the appropriate venue to have those discussions and was examining proposals which 
contained elements very similar to those contained in India's paper.    G/VAL/M/56 
 
- 12 - 
 
  6.6.  The representative of Canada noted that his delegation's position remained unchanged. The 
proposal was contrary to the mandate of the Committee and this issue was under intensive 
discussions in the Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation.   
6.7.  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 proposed to discuss two issues separately. The first one 
concerned the status of notifications, as well as information received from the International Federation of Inspection Agencies (IFIA), and th e second one related to questions that had been 
posed by the United States to Indonesia.   
-  Status of notifications by Member s and information provided by IFIA 
7.2 On the status of notifications submitted 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.  New notifications 
had been received from Mali and Lesotho (G/PSI/N/1/Rev.1/Add.1), People's Democratic Republic of Lao (G/PSI/N/1/Rev.1/Add.2), and Samoa (G/PSI/N/1/Rev.1/Add.3).   
7.3 With regard to the report of the IFIA pertaining to countries that use preshipment inspection 
services, the Chairperson informed the committee that the Secretariat had not received further 
information since document G/VAL/W/63/Rev.15 had been issued last year. 
7.4 The representative of the United States thanked the People's Democratic Republic of Lao and 
Samoa for their respective notifications to the Committee.  He also noted that his delegation would 
like to review the PSI legislation that had been notified by Mali.   
7.5 The Committee took note of the three documents and statements made. 
-  Question from the United States to Indonesia  7.6 The Chairperson recalled that it was agreed at the last meeting to revert to this issue.  At the 
last meeting, 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 stated this issue had been discussed with capital. The United States had submitted follow-up questions in G/VAL/W/237. 
7.7 The representative of the United States reported that several US exporters had been 
subjected to a growing number of preshipment insp ection requirements that had not been notified 
to the Committee.  The United States expressed concern about the rise of new requirements and 
the lack of transparency, including the failur e of Members to notify the Committee of such 
requirements, which had been frequently referred to in Indonesia's law and regulations as 
"surveys".  The United States had submitted a number of written questions and a request for Indonesia to notify its legislation, which had been circulated in document G/VAL/W/237.  His 
delegation looked forward to receiving a prompt response to those questions.  
7.8 The Committee took note of the statements made  and agreed to revert to this matter at its 
next meeting. 
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 noted that the delegation of Uruguay requested to include in the agenda its 
proposal to rectify the English and Spanish versions of Article 8:(1)(b)(iv) of the Agreement on 
Customs Valuation, which was reflected in the communication sent by the Director of Tariff and 
Trade Affairs of the WCO (document G/VAL/W/225).   G/VAL/M/56 
 
- 13 - 
 
  8.2.  The delegation of Uruguay considered there were some differences in the English, French and 
Spanish versions of Article 8:(1)(b)(iv). As refl ected in document G/VAL/W/225, these differences 
had been examined by the Technical Committee on  Customs Valuation, so his delegation would 
like to align the three versions texts.  The new text in Spanish should read as follows: "ingeniería, 
creación y perfeccionamiento, trabajos artísticos, diseños, planos y croquis, realizados fuera del 
país de importación y necesarios para la producción de las mercaderías importadas."   
8.3.  The representative of the WCO confirmed that Uruguay had raised this question at the 
Technical Committee, which had examined the issu e at its 35th and 36th sessions.  It had found 
that the punctuation in Spanish was different from the English and French versions, and that this could have given rise to a different interpretation of the meaning of this provision in the Agreement.  Therefore, the Technical Committee had decided to submit this question to the 
examination of the Committee on Customs Valuation, which it had done through a letter dated 
13 May 2013. 
8.4.  At the request of the Chairperson, a repres entative of the Legal Affairs Division of the WTO 
explained that Article 79 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties foresaw the possibility of 
correcting errors in treaties.  In particular, Article 79.3 provided for the possibility of correcting errors when there was a lack of concordance among different authentic language versions of a 
treaty.   As WTO Depositary, the Director-General had several errors in WTO treaties since 1995.  
Typically, there were two steps involved.  First, a depositary notification was issued under the title 
"Rectification", identifying the error and the suggested language to correct it.  It typically allowed 30 days for Members to object to the suggested correction.  Second, once the 30 days had passed 
without objections, another depositary notification was issued under the title "Procès-verbal of 
rectification", announcing that, in the absence of objections, the Depositary had introduced the corrections into the original of the treaty in question.  The most recent example was from 2012 
and involved documents WT/Let/853 and WT/Let/854, which corrected a numbering error in the 
French version of Article II of the Protocol Amendi ng the GPA.   Another example involved the the 
Spanish version of the Agreement on Customs Valuation, where a correction was made to change 
the word "entretenimiento" to "mantenimiento" in the interpretative note to Article 1 of the 
Customs Valuation Agreement (cf. documents WT/Let/142 and WT/Let/147). The precondition for initiating this kind of procedure was, using the wo rds of Article 79.3 of the Vienna Convention, that 
Members "agree [that the error] should be correct ed". Accordingly, Members should first agree 
whether there was an error in the Spanish and English versions of Article 8.1(b)(iv) of the Customs 
Valuation Agreement.  If that were the case, they  should then agree on what language should be 
used to correct this error.  Once such an agreem ent was reached, the Depositary could initiate the 
formal correction process described earlier. 
8.5.  The Chairperson thanked the representative  of the Legal Affairs Division for the precise 
explanation.  He then asked whether Members agreed with Uruguay that there was a mistake in 
Article 8:(1)(b)(iv) of the Agreement and, if affirmative, whether the Committee was ready to 
make an amendment as proposed by Uruguay. 
8.6.  The representative of the European Unio n thanked the Chairperson and the Legal Affairs 
Division of the WTO for their explanation, and note d that she would like to revert back to capital 
with the explanation provided.  
8.7.  The representative of the United States th anked the Legal Affairs Division for the explanation 
provided, and joined the European Union in requesting the opportunity to revert back to the capital 
with this explanation. 
8.8.  The Chairperson proposed to revert back to this matter at the next meeting of the 
committee. He invited Uruguay to submit a written proposal so that it could be circulated to 
Members for their review and discussion at the next Committee meeting. 
8.9.  The Committee took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its 
next meeting.  G/VAL/M/56 
 
- 14 - 
 
  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 proposal contained in document 
G/VAL/W/231, which was submitted by received from Australia; Canada; European Union; 
Chinese Taipei; and the United States.  These Members proposed to hold an "informal workshop to 
discuss the possible use of databases to set refere nce prices", to which the International Chamber 
of Commerce (ICC) would be invited together with the WCO and other relevant institutions or 
organizations.  The Chairperson recalled that this subject had been brought to the attention of the 
Committee in 2012, following a letter that had been sent by the Chairman of the Committee on Customs and Trade Regulations of the ICC. As a resu lt of consultations which had been held by the 
former chairperson, Members had agreed that, although the ICC could not be granted observer 
status, the Committee could explore other ways of cooperation, for instance through the 
organization of an informal seminar or workshop.  The Chairperson also noted that he had asked the Chairman of the Technical Committee for factual information on the possible misuse of 
databases to set minimum or reference prices, to  which a reply had been received in document 
G/VAL/W/229. He understood that the Technical Committee would examine the issue at its October 2013 meeting.  The Chairperson observed that, as a result of recent informal 
consultations, some Members were in favour of holding a seminar back-to-back with the next 
Committee meeting, whereas others needed more time to receive a response from capital.   
9.2.  The representative of Canada thanked, on  behalf of the cosponsors, the opportunity to 
present the joint proposal for an informal workshop to discuss the use of databases to set 
reference prices. His delegation believed that, in order to remain relevant, the WTO needed to be 
responsive to the real world challenges faced by businesses, and provide a forum to discuss issues of importance to the global trading system.  He  explained that reference prices referred to pre-
established values which were used by certain customs administrations to establish the price on 
which import duties and taxes were assessed. Despite being prohibited under the Agreement on Customs Valuation, they continued to be used and had become an issue of growing concern to the 
cosponsors.  Canada shared the concerns expressed by the ICC with respect to the establishment 
of such depositories of price information in da tabases, which could then be used by customs 
officials to set minimum or reference prices.  Beca use the ICC could not attend a formal meeting of 
the Committee, the previous chairperson had held informal consultations to determine how to 
proceed.  After several consultations, the Chairperson had reported, at the May 2013 committee 
meeting, that there was general willingness amongst Members to allow the ICC to participate through an informal seminar or workshop.  Canada believed that such a format would provide an 
excellent opportunity for Members to better understand the concerns that had been raised by the 
ICC and proposed verbally that the ICC be invited to present on its work through an informal workshop. No Member had objected to such a proposal, though there had been few suggestions as 
to how to improve it, including to draw on the expertise of the WTO Secretariat, the WCO and the 
Technical Committee.   
9.3.  Canada noted further that the cosponsors  had submitted a written proposal to increase 
transparency and to encourage the engagement of ca pital-based experts.  As it had been outlined 
in the proposal, the cosponsors envisioned the wo rkshop to begin with presentations by the WTO, 
WCO and ICC, so they can describe the nature, scope and consequences of the problem.  Proponents did not intend to amend the Agreemen t on Customs valuation, but rather hoped that 
the workshop would help to inform and encourage a frank discussion on an important issue facing 
business today. The proponents were flexible on the possible date of the workshop, but would propose to hold it early in 2014, possibly back to back with the committee meeting in spring, in 
order to encourage greater capital-based represen tation. They proposed that the more technical 
and logistical issues of the workshop, such as dates and participation, be determined through 
informal consultations with the Chair and Secretariat.  Canada stressed that proponents had no preconceived plans on what should happen after the workshop.  Their proposal was to take note of 
the information, to then consider and digest the i ssues before deciding if and how to move ahead. 
Regardless of the outcome, Canada and the cosponsors remained dedicated to a member-driven process, and looked forward to discussing  the proposal with other Members.  
9.4.  The representative of the United States considered that the ICC had brought a serious issue 
on the use and misuse of reference pricing databases to the Committee's attention. The United 
States supported the organization of an informal workshop to be carried out in conjunction with 
the committee meeting scheduled for Spring 2014.  He hoped that this proposal would find  G/VAL/M/56 
 
- 15 - 
 
  widespread support and saw this as an opportunity to engage Geneva delegates and capital-based 
representatives in the development of a balanced and informative workshop. 
9.5.  The representative of the European Union supported the previous statements and noted that 
the ICC had expressed a legitimate concern on  the eventual misuse of customs valuation 
databases to set minimum or reference prices.  Th e European Union supported having this seminar 
in the form of a frank exchange of information based on real experiences of traders leading the 
system administration.  
9.6.  The representative of Australia agreed with the points made by the cosponsors and welcomed 
the request by the ICC to discuss the use of databases with regard to customs valuation. 
His delegation considered this to be an importan t topic which deserved further exploration through 
the organization of a workshop with the expe rtise of the WCO and the Technical Committee. 
Australia did not have a clear indication of the post-workshop steps that could be taken, but 
supported the request for the Chair to hold informal consultations on the next steps. 
9.7.  The representative of the WCO recalled that  there had been an exchange of correspondence 
between the two Committees concerning the possible misuse of a databases in this area.  
He reminded Members that the Technical Committee of the WCO and the Secretariat of the WTO had regularly organized training activities through seminars and technical assistance missions to 
customs officials on the best possible use of a database. Furthermore, the Technical Committee 
had guidelines on the best practices for the use of a database, which recommended that the database for customs valuation be used as a tool for risk assessment.  These guidelines stated that the data contained in the databases must not be used, not as minimum value or replacement 
values, nor should they systematically reject the de clared value, even in the case of a significant 
gap between the two prices. These guidelines fu rther stated that when a customs value was 
unusually low, then the relevant customs administration could undertake in-depth controls using 
Article 17 of the Agreement and Decision 6. 1 of the Customs Valuation Committee.  
9.8.  The representative of Argentina stated that this was a very important subject, which required 
more time to be analysed and ensure the invo lvement of all Members.  Transparency on the 
objectives, deadlines and structure of the seminar was needed.  He noted that this was the first 
time his delegation had heard from the cosponsors about the content of the proposal and, for this 
reason, it was premature to support it.  Argentina requested more information as to the possible content of the seminar; in particular, it would be useful for his customs authorities to have a 
written document which provided details in terms of  the issues to be covered by the seminar.  For 
example, whether there would be academic repres entatives with experience, what themes would 
be taken up, time allotted in terms of number of da ys, etc.  All these elements were necessary to 
properly assess such a seminar. 
9.9.  The representative of Brazil agreed that this was a very important issue and, due to its 
complexity, more clarifications were required.  He suggested the proponents to circulate a paper 
with in depth explanations on the seminar and its objective. Should Members approve it, Brazil 
wished it would become a member-driven process and to participate in the organization of the 
programme of the seminar. 
9.10.  The representative of Ecuador joined previous speakers in thanking the proponents of this 
proposal and noted that his delegation would like to be included in the discussion, whether formal 
or informal.  He also agreed that a written prop osal was required to clarify the objective of the 
seminar and the nature of panellists. Ecuador would like to see a member-driven process in 
particular with regard to the choice of panellists, themes and objectives of the seminar, in order to 
ensure a proper and balanced representation among panellists in terms of their vision.  Ecuador was ready to continue discussions on the proposal and said that more time was needed before the 
proposal be adopted formally in the Committee.   
9.11.  The representative of Canada recalled that this issue had a bit of history stemming from a 
letter submitted by the ICC back in May 2012.  He could not recall exactly which Members had 
been parties to all the informal consultations that had been taking place since May 2012.  
However, he had already made an intervention in the formal meeting of May 2013 outlining the 
proposal for a workshop, which would include the ICC, as an invitee, to present its work and then an exchange between Members.  Following that in tervention, there had been some suggestions on  G/VAL/M/56 
 
- 16 - 
 
  how the format of the workshop could be improved, including through the participation of the WTO 
Secretariat and the WCO Technical Committee.  Following that intervention, the Chair had suggested to issue a written proposal, which had been circulated in G/VAL/W/231.  He clarified that the panel would consist of the ICC, WTO Secretariat, and WCO Technical Committee 
representatives.  They would present on their work and experience with respect to the possible use 
of databases to set reference prices, which wo uld then be followed by a discussion amongst 
Members, to share their experiences and react to  the presentations by the panellists.  Canada 
considered that this information had been laid out very clearly in the proposal. Nonetheless, his 
delegation remained open to requests from other delegations regarding participation, timing, that might help the presentation be more balanced.  Canada had attached great importance to this issue and would like to encourage other Members who had questions or concerns to participate 
actively so that this proposal could be moved forw ard.  He also recalled that Canada had played a 
very active role in supporting a number of other workshops, on much more controversial issues, such as macro-prudential regulation, exchange rate s, which really bordered on the mandate of the 
WTO, but they had certainly engage d in the discussions in order to have positive outcomes for the 
proponents.   
9.12.  The representative of Guatemala expressed support to the proposal, but reserved the right 
to make some suggestions to it.  His delegation considered it was an issue of concern for many 
customs authorities in the World, which had often used a database for different purposes.  Thus, sharing experiences among countries would be a valuable experience.   
9.13.  The representative of Australia agreed with Canada.  In his view, this had been a long 
running issue in the Committee and, from the interv entions that had been made it seemed that no 
Member was really against this proposal.  There was a general sense that this issue was important and that no one was against the idea having a seminar, but there was rather the need for clarity 
and more information and details. The Members who had shown interest in this proposal could, in 
the coming months, start that process and provide the clarity needed on timing, sessions, speakers, etc.  If the willingness was there, Memb ers could then work together to move forward. 
He further observed that it had not been general practice in the past in other committees to 
request proponents to have specific details on ex act timing and speakers before agreeing to have 
a seminar.  Australia was looking for good faith to move forward and have the Members, Chair and Secretariat to start working on this and not ge t bogged down with specifics, like the exact 
speakers or timing, before we could have a gene ral agreement to move forward.  His delegation 
was looking for that good faith of from Members and was happy to participate in a transparent way. 
9.14.  The Chairperson noted that he was of the impression that there was a general agreement to 
hold the seminar, but that questions remained with regards to the content, format, participants, 
etc.  He therefore asked whether the Committee could proceed as it had done in the past for the 
seminar on e-commerce, where an agreement had been given in principle by the Committee to 
organize such a seminar, but that informal consultations had followed for all interested Members to provide their contributions. 
9.15.  The representative of Argentina reiterated that this was the first time he had heard from the 
proponents about the content of the proposal. So, for his country it would be premature to give 
definitive support to holding the seminar. Argentina remained interested in receiving a document, in writing, that would cover the areas that had been mentioned previously.  Once circulated, it 
would be transmitted to the competent authorities in Buenos Aires for their consideration.   
9.16.  The representative of Canada asked the delegation of Argentina to specify what revisions 
they expected to see in document G/VAL/W/231 in order to move this issue forward.  In his view, 
the best way to determine the specifics in terms of participation and timing through informal 
consultations.  
9.17.  The representative of Argentina recognized that his delegation had not had a lot of time to 
review the explanations given by the proponents, and that this was the first time he had heard 
about the content of the proposal.  Argentina did not have a clear position at the moment, but 
considered it important to collect different points of views from academics, capital-based officials, 
etc. He would need to revert back to capital on these matters on the basis of a written proposal. 
Until the delegation of Argentina had received clear direction from capital, he would not able to go 
along with this proposal.  G/VAL/M/56 
 
- 17 - 
 
  9.18.  The representative of the European Union suggested Argentina look at the minutes of the 
meetings that had been held since 2010, from where growing concern had emerged about this 
issue and the issue of use of databases to set minimum prices.  This was not a new issue as it had been raised several times in this Committee. A lo t of Members were of the view that this was an 
important issue and they would appreciate to be able to exchange views.  In order to move 
forward, the delegation of the European Union invited the Chairman to organize further consultations to discuss on participants, panellists and to have an exchange with Members for 
more transparency. 
9.19.  The representative of the United States recalled the question from Canada about what more 
Argentina needed to see in the proposal and noted that no specific information from Argentina had 
been provided.   
9.20.  The Chairperson noted that, since it was not possible to take a decision at this time, and as 
proposed by the European Union, he would propose to hold informal consultations with the 
objective of reaching an agreement at the next committee meeting.   
9.21.  The Committee took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its 
next meeting. 
10  ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION OF THE CUSTOMS 
VALUATION AGREEMENT (G/VAL/W/233) 
10.1.  The Chairperson drew Members' attention to Article 23 of the Agreement, which provided 
that the Committee shall review annually the im plementation and operation of the Agreement, 
taking into account the objectives thereof.  In this regard, he drew Members' attention to 
document G/VAL/W/233, which contained the 19th Annual Review of the implementation and 
operation of the Agreement. Pursuant to the recommendations by the Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration relating to Cost Savings in Document Production and Meetings, the 
Secretariat had made changes to avoid duplication.  
10.2.  The Chairperson proposed the Committee to adopt the 19
th Annual Review as contained in 
document G/VAL/W/233 and instructed the Secretariat to update it to take account of this 
meeting.  
10.3.  The Committee so agreed. 
11  REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO TH E COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS  
11.1.  The Chairperson recalled that Article 23 of the Agreement required the Committee to annually 
inform the CTG of developments during the relevant period.  He drew Members’ attention to 
document G/VAL/W/234, which contained a draft report that had been modified by the Secretariat to avoid duplication and which would need to be updated by the Secretariat to take account of this 
meeting.   
11.2.  The Committee so agreed. 
12  OTHER BUSINESS 
- Date of the next meeting 
12.1.  The Chairperson informed Members that the next meeting of the Committee had been 
provisionally scheduled for 21 May 2014.   12.2.  The meeting was adjourned. 
 
__________