RESTRICTED  
  
G/RO/M/60  
 
3 May 2013  
(13-2382)  Page: 1/7  
Committee on Rules of Origin    
 
 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 18 APRIL 2013 
CHAIRMAN:  MR CHANGSHENG LI (CHINA) 
 
Subjects Discussed1 
 
1   REPORT OF THE WORK OF THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON RULES OF ORIGIN .......... 1  
2   TECHNICAL ISSUES IN THE HARMONIZATION WORK PROGRAMME 
(G/RO/W/111/REV.6) - RE PORTING OF THE INFORM AL CONSULTATIONS ..................... 2  
A. Workshop on harmonized rules of origin and labelling requirements 
(RD/RO/3/R ev.1) .............................................................................................................. 2 
B. Transposition of draft harmonized rules of origin into more recent versions of the 
HS (documents JOB/RO/2/Rev.1, JOB/RO/3/Rev.1 and JOB/RO/4) ........................................... 3  
C. Future work of the Committee .................................................................................... 3  
3   NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 5 AND UNDER PARAGRAPH 4 OF ANNEX II 
OF THE AGREEMENT ON RULES OF ORIG IN (DOCUMENTS G/RO/N/88-94) ..................... 3  
4   ELECTION OF  OFFICERS .............................................................................................. 3  
5   OTHER BU SINESS ........................................................................................................ 3  
ANNEX ......................................................................................................................... .... 4 
Overall Arch itecture ..........................................................................................................  4 
Proposal by El Salvador for a Workshop on Rules of Origin and Labelling requirements 
(RD/RO/3/R ev.1) .............................................................................................................. 5 
Transposition exercise ....................................................................................................... 6 
Future work by the Committee ............................................................................................ 6  
 
 1  REPORT OF THE WORK OF THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON RULES OF ORIGIN 
1.1 The representative of the World Customs Organization (WCO) presented the report of 
activities of the Technical Committee on Rules of Origin (TCRO) for 2012. 
1.2 On non-preferential rules of origin, the TCRO held its 31th Session on 22 January 2013 
under the chairmanship of Mr. Liu Ping (People's Republic of China).  During the meeting, the 
TCRO adopted its 14th Periodic Report and the Fourteenth Annual Review on technical aspects and 
implementation of the Agreement on Rules of  O r i g i n  f o r  t h e  p e r i o d  f r o m  1  J a n u a r y  t o  
31 December 2012.  As the Harmonization Work Programme had not been finalized, both the 
review and the report were short as no problems or specific questions relating to the 
implementation of the Agreement had been referred to the TCRO. 
1.3 With respect to the transposition of draft harm onized rules of origin to more recent versions 
of the Harmonized System (HS), the Committee wa s informed that the TCRO had examined the 
                                               
1 The agenda of the meeting had been circulated in document WTO/AIR/4109. G/RO/M/60 
 
- 2 - 
 
  recommendations for simplification elaborated by the WCO Secretariat for complex cases resulting 
from the mechanical 2002 and 2007 transposition ex ercises.  The WCO Secretariat had, in fact, 
proposed a simplified rule for cases in which the mechanical transposition had led to the inclusion of exceptions or to the creation of new split head ings or split subheadings.  After reviewing such 
recommendations, the TCRO took note of the document and sent it to the CRO for consideration. 
1.4 In addition, the representative of the WC O also mentioned that the WCO Secretariat had 
initiated a survey on use of non-preferential certif icates of origin.  The responses would be used to 
draft a study which would be followed up by guidance materials both on preferential and 
non-preferential origin certification. 
1.5 The Committee took note of the report and thanked the TCRO and WCO for their continued 
support of the work of the CRO. 
2  TECHNICAL ISSUES IN THE HARMONIZATION WORK PROGRAMME 
(G/RO/W/111/REV.6) - REPORTING OF THE INFORMAL CONSULTATIONS 
2.1 The Chairman informed the Committee that some Members had held informal consultations 
on technical issues related to the Harmonization Work Programme (HWP).  He informed Members 
that the Secretariat had prepared and made av ailable a summary of these consultations.  
The summary would be annexed to the minutes of  the meeting as per past practice in the 
Committee. 
2.2 With respect to these consultations, the Chairman proposed to return to three items which 
had been discussed:  a proposal by the delegation of El Salvador for a workshop on rules of origin and labelling requirements; the on-going transposition of harmonized rules of origin; and the 
organization of the Committee's future work. 
A. Workshop on harmonized rules of origin and labelling requirements 
(RD/RO/3/Rev.1) 
2.3 The representative of El Salvador informed the Committee that her delegation had revised 
their proposal for a workshop on "Non-preferential rules of origin and labelling requirements" 
(document RD/RO/3/Rev.1).  The representative reiterated that her government did not apply 
non-preferential rules of origin and that it had proposed an exchange of experiences with other 
Members who implemented such rules, in particular with reference to labelling requirements.  She further reiterated that their revised proposal aimed at promoting an educational exercise and that the workshop would not undermine the positions of  Members concerning the HWP.  She reported 
that, despite drawing wide support during the info rmal discussions, additional consultations would 
be needed to explore the various formats in which these topics could be addressed in the Committee. She proposed that the Ch airman hold such consultations. 
2.4 The representatives of Chinese Taipei, Cuba , the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Honduras, 
Japan, Jordan, Korea, Kuwait, Malaysia, Nicaragu a, Philippines, and Saudi Arabia supported the 
workshop as proposed by El Salvador.  The representative of the European Union (EU) said that 
his delegation was open to the idea but stressed that the issue of implications could not be solved 
in the workshop. 
2.5 The representative of the United States (US) recognized the utility of workshops, but stated 
that his delegation would need additional information about the proposal.  In that sense, El 
Salvador's suggestion that the Chairman organize additional consultations was useful.  The 
representative of Canada agreed and stressed that the reference to the TBT Agreement in the 
proposal was problematic because it assumed linkages which did not exist.  The representative of 
Australia stated that his delegation was ready to engage in informal consultations on the proposal. 
2.6 The Chairman proposed that he would hold further consultations on the proposal. 
2.7 The Committee agreed to the Chair's proposal. G/RO/M/60 
 
- 3 - 
 
  B. Transposition of draft harmoniz ed rules of origin into more recent versions of the 
HS (documents JOB/RO/2/Rev.1, JOB/RO/3/Rev.1 and JOB/RO/4) 
2.8 The Chairman recalled that the WTO Secretar iat had almost completed the mechanical work 
related to the transposition of draft harmonized ru les. In light of these developments he proposed 
that the Secretariat compile all transposed draft harmonized rules of origin in a single document 
for reference. The document would show the rules in their latest version and in their most simplified form, with clear references which would allow Members to trace back all rules to their 
original form.  He also proposed that the Committ ee review these rules at its forthcoming meeting. 
2.9 The Committee agreed to proceed as proposed. 
C. Future work of the Committee 
2.10 The Chairman recalled that at the last CR O meeting, some delegations had questioned the 
current organization of work in the Committee.  Based on the informal consultations he had 
conducted on this topic, he proposed to keep informal meetings exclusively for technical matters related to the HWP.  If there were no technica l items to be discussed, the Committee would hold 
only a formal session which could move into informal mode as warranted.  For the next meeting of 
t h e  C o m m i t t e e ,  n e v e r t h e l e s s ,  h e  p r o p o s e d  t o  m a i n t a i n  a n  i n f o r m a l  s e s s i o n  i n  o r d e r  t o  o f f e r  Members an opportunity to review the transposed and simplified draft rules of origin. 
2.11 The representative of Australia thanked th e Chairman for having reflected some of his 
delegation's suggestions in his proposal and stated that the proposal contained useful steps to 
avoid duplicative discussions in the Committee.  Th e representative of the US suggested that the 
informal and formal sessions could be combined in a single day for greater efficiency.  
The representative of Canada agreed with that suggestion. 
2.12 The Chairman proposed to continue to consult Members on these agreed suggestions. 
2.13 The Committee agreed to proceed as proposed. 
3  NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 5 AND UNDER PARAGRAPH 4 OF ANNEX II OF THE 
AGREEMENT ON RULES OF ORIGIN (DOCUMENTS G/RO/N/88-94) 
3.1 The Chairman informed the Committee that, since the previous Committee meeting, seven 
new notifications had been received concerning preferential rules of origin regarding the following 
Members:  the US; Mali; the EU; Chile and Malaysia; Nicaragua and Panama; Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Pana ma and the EU; and Colombia, Peru and the EU. 
3.2 In light of these new submissions, it appeared that approximately 41 Members applied 
non-preferential rules of origin, 41 Members did not and 44 Members had not submitted any 
information regarding non-preferential rules of origin.  The Chairman urged all countries who had not yet complied with their notification obligations to do so as soon as possible, particularly with 
respect to Article 5 of the Agreement.  He also encouraged delegations to seek the assistance of 
the Secretariat in case they had doubts about how to prepare their notifications. 
3.3 The Committee took note of the report made.  
4  ELECTION OF OFFICERS 
4.1 The CRO elected Mr. Marhijn VISSER, of the Ne therlands, by acclamation as Chairman of the 
Committee for 2013. 
5  OTHER BUSINESS 
5.1 The Committee agreed that its next meeting would be held on 26 September 2013. G/RO/M/60 
 
- 4 - 
 
  ANNEX 
Summary of the Informal Consultations He ld by the Committee on Rules of Origin 
16 April 2013 
 
 
Overall Architecture 
1. The Chairman of the Committee on Rules of Origin (CRO) informed Members that, following 
the exchange of views on his proposal at the November 2012 meeting of the Committee, he had 
revised his proposal for Rules 1(a)-(i) of Appendix 2 of the Consolidated Text as follows: 
APPENDIX 2 - Product Specific Rules of Origin 
 
Rule 1:  Determination of Origin 
 
 This Rule shall be applied in sequence, taking into account Rule 2 where applicable: 
 
(a) The country of origin of a good is the country in which the good is produced exclusively 
from originating materials; 
 
Primary Rules 
 
(b) When a primary rule by its own terms identifies the country of origin of a good, that 
country is the country of origin of the good; 
 
(c) The country of origin of a good is the last country of production, provided a primary rule 
prescribed for the good in this Appendix has been satisfied in that country; 
 
Residual Rules 
 
(d) The country of origin of a good is the country where a residual rule at the chapter level 
is satisfied;  
 
(e) When a good is produced by further processing of a material which is classified in the 
same subdivision1 as the good, the country of origin of the good shall be the single 
country in which the material originated; 
 
(f) When a good is produced by further processing a material that does not satisfy the 
primary rule for the good, the country of origin of the good shall be the single country 
in which the material originated. For the purposes of this rule, account shall be taken of 
both originating and non-originating material; 
 
(g) The country of origin of a good shall be the country of origin of material or materials 
incorporated in the good by further processing, provided the origin of material or 
materials is a single country; 
 
(h) When a good is produced from materials of more than one country, whether 
originating or non-originating , the country of origin of the good shall be the country 
in which the major portion of those materials originated, as determined by the criterion 
specified in the Chapter where the good is classified; 
 
(i) where the criterion specified for the application of Rule 1(h) is weight or volume, and 
the application of neither of these criteria can determine the country of origin, the 
criterion of value shall be used; where the criterion specified for the application of Rule 
1(h) is value and the application of this criterion cannot determine the country of origin, 
the criterion of weight or volume, as appropriate, shall be used. 
 
                                               
1 The term "subdivision" relates to the lowest leve l of classification of the good, i.e. heading, 
subheading, split heading or split subheading, at which a primary rule is specified in this Appendix. G/RO/M/60 
 
- 5 - 
 
  2. The Chairman summarized his new proposal saying that Rules 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) which 
dealt with simpler cases were stable and did not require additional discussion.  According to him, 
however, Rules 1(d) to 1(i) covered more complex situations and their order and exact language did require additional discussions.  In his view, the following changes would help build consensus 
on these Rules: 
a. Rules 1(e) and 1(f) had been moved upwards to appear as the first residual rules; 
b. The second sentence of Rule 1(f) (i.e. previously Rule 1(e)) had been removed as 
practically all delegations thought that the sentence was confusing or not needed; 
c. Rule 1(h) was amended to refer to both "originating and non-originating" materials; 
and 
d. Rule 1(i) had simpler language. The Chair no ted, nevertheless, that one delegation had 
reservations about using the term "value" in it. 
3. The representatives of the EU; Japan; India; and Hong Kong, China supported the revised 
proposal made by the Chairman as presented.  
4. The representative of the US stated that his delegation disagreed that the order of the rules 
should be based on order of general to specific. What mattered was being able to make a clear 
determination of a single country of origin under all circumstances. In this sense, the second 
sentence of Rule 1 (f) served a valuable purpose.  The US would suggest three possibilities.  First, 
rule 1(f) in the Chair’s text, previously rule 1(e) in the Consolidated Text could be moved up to the group of "primary rules".  If this were the case, the order of the other residual rules would be less problematic. Second, the order of the Rules in the Consolidated Text could be reverted back to. 
Third, the Committee could continue the stalemate on this issue. 
5. The Chairman took note of the comments made and proposed to reflect further on these 
comments and on possible revisions that could be proposed to further improve these Rules. 
Proposal by El Salvador for a Workshop on Rules of Origin and Labelling requirements 
(RD/RO/3/Rev.1) 
6. The Chairman recalled that the delegation of El Salvador had proposed to hold a technical 
workshop on "Non-Preferential Rules of Origin and Labelling Requirements" (document RD/RO/3) 
at the last Committee meeting.  Following discussions about that proposal at the last Committee meeting, he had encouraged delegations to consult further about the proposal.  
7. The representative of El Salvador stated that, following additional consultations, her 
delegation had revised their proposal (document RD/RO/3/Rev.1) and had removed the most 
sensitive items from the agenda of the workshop.  The representative reiterated that the workshop 
would be a purely educational exercise and that she did not underestimate the sensitivities tied to 
the "implications" issue.  She stressed that the workshop could be based on notifications and on 
Members' experiences.  She mentioned that her delegation was open to suggestions regarding the content of the workshop and that she could also envisage tackling these topics in other formats, 
for instance, as a dedicated item on the agenda of the Committee. 
8. The representatives of Cuba, Saudi Arabia , the Dominican Republic, Jordan, Guatemala, 
Korea, India, Japan and the EU expressed their su pport for the Salvadoran proposal and the idea 
of a workshop.  
9. The representative of the US mentioned that, while his delegation had no objections to a 
technical and educational exercise, the proposal seemed like a collection of unrelated issues, many 
of which were not related to the technical work of the Committee.  He also wished to have greater 
clarity on any proposed paper to be drafted by the Secretariat. 
10. The representative of Canada stated that the revised proposal was useful but that his 
delegation continued to have difficulties with th e proposal as the reference to the TBT Agreement 
assumed linkages that did not exist. G/RO/M/60 
 
- 6 - 
 
  11. The representative of Australia stated that his delegation also had concerns with the 
linkages which the proposal implied, but agreed to explore alternative ways in which this topic 
could be addressed, for instance, in th e agenda of a regular Committee meeting. 
12. In conclusion, the Chairman stated that he would report on these discussions at the formal 
CRO meeting and share his views about possible ways to proceed. Transposition exercise 13. The Chairman reminded the CRO that a tec hnical workshop on the transposition exercise 
would take place on 17 April 2013.  During that workshop, the Secretariat would present the 
results of the HS2007-2012 transposition exercise as  well as rules which had been revised in the 
HS1996-2002 and HS2002-2007 transposition results.  He proposed to focus discussions during the informal CRO meeting on next steps. 
14. The Chairman informed the Committee that a ll draft harmonized rules of origin had been 
transposed at this point.  It was therefore now possible to identify a rule of origin for all products 
under their most recent HS classification.  The Chairman also added that the rules had only been 
mechanically transposed and that some of the result s were impractical.  Therefore, he argued that 
the Committee should discuss possible simplifications for some of the transposed rules.  In this context, he informed the Committee that the TC RO had forwarded to the CRO recommendations 
for the results of the HS2002 and 2007 transposition,  which had been prepared by the Secretariat 
of the World Customs Organization (document G/RO/W/143). 
15. In light of these developments, the Chairman  proposed that the WTO Secretariat prepared a 
compilation of all the transposed rules in their most recent form and in their most simplified 
version for the Committee to review. 
16. The representatives of Japan and the EU agreed with the procedure proposed by the 
Chairman. The representative of Australia also agreed and added that the Committee should be 
guided by the objective of keeping rules that  were transparent, robust, user-friendly and 
pragmatic.  In that context, the compilation to be  prepared by the Secretariat should make it easy 
to trace back a transposed rule to its initial and intermediary forms. 
17. The Chairman proposed to proceed as suggested. 
Future work by the Committee 
18. The Chairman recalled that, at the last CRO meeting, Members had raised issues about the 
organization of work in the Committee.  Some delegations had thought that it was confusing or 
inefficient to hold both informal and formal di scussions.  In addition, some delegations had 
deemed that the summaries prepared by the Secretariat and annexed to the minutes were an inadequate method of recording the Committee' s discussions.  Other delegations, however, 
thought these practices had worked well for ma ny years.  Noting that there had been no 
consensus to change the Committee's method of work, the Chairman invited delegations to express their views about possible improvements.  
19. The representative of Australia stated that  in order to avoid a repetition of the topics 
discussed at the informal and at the formal meet ings of the CRO, the Committee could start its 
meetings in formal mode and move to an informal mode depending on the topic at hand.  The representative of the US said that this could be a good suggestion and that there were 
creative ways to finalise the work of the Committee in half a day or one day. 
20. The representative of Canada proposed to suspend the informal meetings until there was 
considerable new information, and instead make progress where possible, consistent with guidance 
from Ministers. 
21. The representatives of the EU and Japan stated that the current practice of the Committee 
had proved effective and was still relevant.  The representative of El Salvador mentioned that the 
summaries prepared by the Secretariat were useful for capital-based officials who could not attend 
the meetings in Geneva. G/RO/M/60 
 
- 7 - 
 
  22. The Chairman took note of the suggestions made and proposed to make some suggestions 
at the formal meeting for Members to consider. 
 
 
__________