RESTRICTED  
  
G/RO/M/66  
 
17 June 2016  
(16-3310)  Page: 1/8  
Committee on Rules of Origin    
 
 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 22 APRIL 2016 
CHAIRMAN: MR CHRISTIAN WEGENER (DENMARK) 
Subjects Discussed1 
1   REPORT OF THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON RULES OF ORIGIN (WORLD 
CUSTOMS ORGANIZATION) .............................................................................................. 1  
2   HARMONIZATION OF NON-PRE FERENTIAL RULES OF ORIGIN: 
TRANSPOSITION OF DRAFT HARMONIZED RULES OF ORIGIN TO MORE RECENT 
VERSIONS OF THE HS NO MENCLATURE (DOCUMENTS  JOB/RO/5/REV.1 AND 
JOB/RO/5/REV.1/CORR.1)  – STATUS REPORT BY  THE CHAIRMAN .................................. 2  
3   HARMONIZATION OF NON-PRE FERENTIAL RULES OF ORIGIN – 
"EDUCATIONAL EXERCISE" ON EXISTING NATIONAL NON-PREFERENTIAL RULES 
OF ORIG IN ..................................................................................................................... .. 2 
4   IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MINISTERIAL DECISIONS ON PREFERENTIAL 
RULES OF ORIGIN FOR LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (WT/L/917, 
WT/L/917/ADD.1 AND G/RO/W/159) ............................................................................ 5  
5   NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 5 AND UNDER PARAGRAPH 4 OF ANNEX II 
OF THE AGREEMENT ON RULES OF ORIGIN (DOCUMENTS G/RO/N/136 TO 
G/RO/N/140) .................................................................................................................. 8 
6   ELECTION OF  OFFICERS .............................................................................................. 8  
7   OTHER BU SINESS ........................................................................................................ 8  
 
 1  REPORT OF THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON RULES OF ORIGIN (WORLD CUSTOMS 
ORGANIZATION) 
1.1.  Ms Mette Azzam, of the WCO Secretariat, informed Members that the Technical Committee 
on Rules of Origin (TCRO) had held its 34th Sessi on on 2 February 2016 under the chairmanship of 
Mrs. Nsikan P. Umoh (Nigeria). 
1.2.  On non-preferential rules of origin, the TCRO adopted its 17th Periodic Report and the 2015 
Annual Review on technical aspects and implementa tion of the Agreement. The Review had been 
brief as no specific questions had been referred to the TCRO in the absence of harmonized 
non-preferential rules of origin. The TCRO also  discussed performance measurement indicators in 
the framework of the WCO programme relating to Achieving Excellence in Customs. In addition, after the session, a workshop was held to review  new origin-related developments in free trade 
agreements, origin certification and origin irregularities. 
1.3.  On preferential rules of origin, Member s were informed about the new WCO "Guide for 
Technical Update of Preferential Rules of Origin". The Guide was developed to assist Members in 
updating rules of origin as a result of changes in the HS nomenclature. It was available on the 
WCO website. 
                                               
1 The agenda of the meeting was circulated in document WTO/AIR/RO/3. G/RO/M/66 
 
- 2 - 
 
  1.4.  Ms Azzam further informed the CRO that the various WCO guidelines and recommendations 
in relation to advance rulings had been updated in light of the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement. A common set of Guidelines on Advance Rulings for Tariff Classification, Rules of Origin and Valuation was therefore available on the WCO website. 
1.5.  The Committee took note of this report and thanked the WCO for its work. 
2  HARMONIZATION OF NON-P REFERENTIAL RULES OF OR IGIN: TRANSPOSITION OF 
DRAFT HARMONIZED RULES OF ORIGIN TO MORE RECENT VERSIONS OF THE HS 
NOMENCLATURE (DOCUMENTS JOB/RO/5/REV.1 AND JOB/RO/5/REV.1/CORR.1) – 
STATUS REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN 
2.1.  The Chairman reminded Members that, in March 2014, the Secretariat had completed the 
transposition exercise and presented the results of that exercise in document JOB/RO/5. Since 
then, Members had been asked to examine the tran sposed rules to validate their accuracy. Upon 
completion and verification of the transposition exercise, a revision (JOB/RO/5/Rev.1) and a corrigendum (JOB/RO/5/Rev.1/Corr.1) of the consolidated results had been circulated. At the last 
CRO meeting, Members had requested additional time to review the documents and agreed that 
additional comments should be sent to the Secr etariat by 15 March 2016. The Chairman reported 
that no comments had been received. As a result, he asked Members to validate these documents 
and take note of the completion of the transposit ion exercise. He added that delegations would still 
be able to submit comments or rectifications to the transposed rules at any time. 
2.2.  The representative of the European Union ag reed to proceed as suggested but reiterated the 
preference of her delegation for keeping the tran sposition results (JOB/RO/5 series) separate from 
the draft consolidated text (G/RO/W/111/Rev.6). 
2.3.  The representative of the United States asked the Chair or the Secretariat to clarify what the 
implications would be of agreeing to proceed as suggested. 
2.4.  The representative of Ecuador mentioned that her country had sent comments which did not 
seem to be reflected in the revised versions. 
2.5.  At the request of the Chairman, the Secret ariat clarified that the documents only reflected 
technical rectifications or corrections which had been received because possible simplifications or 
preferences would have required a discussion in the Committee. The Secretariat further reiterated that the results of the transposition exercise an d the draft consolidated text would be kept as 
separate documents as requested by Members. Fina lly, the Secretariat confirmed that the results 
would be kept in a "JOB" document and therefore had no formal or legal status. The validation 
being sought merely concerned the technical accuracy of the transposed rules and did not entail an endorsement of the rules themselves. The benefit of  validating the draft transposed rules was to 
release the Secretariat from the mandate it had be en given to transpose the rules and to remove 
this item from the agenda of the CRO until further notice. 
2.6.  The Committee therefore agreed to proceed accordingly. 
3  HARMONIZATION OF NON-PREFERENTIA L RULES OF ORIGIN – "EDUCATIONAL 
EXERCISE" ON EXISTING NATIONAL NON-PREFERENTIAL RULES OF ORIGIN 
3.1.  The Chairman recalled that, in 2015, the CRO had initiated an "educational exercise" to share 
experiences and learn more about non-preferential rules of origin being applied by some Members. 
In the absence of negotiations for the harmonizat ion of non-preferential rules of origin, more 
information about the design, the coverage and the trade effects of national rules of origin could 
help Members decide how to take the work of the Committee forward. Having heard presentations 
by the WCO, the WTO, the International Chamber of Commerce (RD/RO/30), UNCTAD 
(RD/RO/31), and the International Trade Centre (RD/RO/32), Members had agreed to broaden the range of views being heard. In particular, Members had agreed that hearing the views of the 
private sector would be insightful. Hence, following consultations with Members, an "information 
session on non-preferential rules of origin" was held on 21 April 2016. During the session, four business representatives shared their views about th e impact of non-preferential rules of origin. 
The Chairman noted that the presentations had been very informative (RD/RO/36, RD/RO/37, G/RO/M/66 
 
- 3 - 
 
  RD/RO/38 and RD/RO/39) and proposed to further th is exercise. Moreover, at the request of some 
delegates, the Chairman also proposed to hear a presentation by the Secretariat about the past negotiations for the harmonization of non-preferential rules of origin in the CRO. 
3.2.  The Secretariat explained (RD/RO/34) th at the harmonization work programme (HWP) had 
involved intense negotiations from 1995. In 2002, the CRO had decided to refer 94 controversial 
"core policy issues" to the General Council for political guidance (G/RO/52). Among these issues, the "implications issue" had constituted a major stumbling block in the CRO. It concerned the 
question of whether or not the harmonized rules should apply to other trade policy instruments 
such as anti-dumping, marking of origin (label ling) or trademarks (G/RO/W/31). Despite their 
efforts, Members could not reach an agreement and, in 2007, decided to suspend discussions on these core policy issues (paragraphs 78 to 95 of WT/GC/M/109). Work on the HWP gradually came 
to a halt thereafter. Members now held different views about the need to resume and finalize the 
work programme (G/RO/W/152 and G/L/1047). Given these divergences, the CRO had agreed to initiate an "educational exercise" to better unde rstand the impact that existing national non-
preferential rules of origin had on international trade. 
3.3.  The Chairman thanked the Secretariat for th e presentation and concluded that, against this 
background, technical work on the HWP would no t be productive. He therefore proposed to 
continue the educational exercise with additional presentations and another information session. 
3.4.  The representative of the Philippines said that the presentations heard during the information 
session had been informative. Building on the experiences shared, she wondered whether 
Members could explore the idea of elaborating guidelines on non-preferential origin. These 
guidelines could build on the successful experience of  the Ministerial Decision on rules of origin for 
Least-developed countries (LDCs) adopted in Nairobi. In other words, the CRO could discuss a set of provisions which would frame the design and utilization of non-preferential rules of origin by 
Members. 
3.5.  The representative of China thanked the Secretariat and the Chair for organizing the 
information session. According to her, the Committ ee should pursue the educational exercise and 
strengthen it, particularly by bringing speakers from developing countries. 
3.6.  The representative of Switzerland thanke d the Chair and the Secretariat for the useful 
presentation. He reiterated that his delegation had always been in favour of the continuation and 
finalization of the HWP. According to him, the lack of harmonized rules undermined the 
competitiveness of some Swiss products on key ex port markets and, on a few occasions, had even 
led to firms closing down. Harmonization was an important task of the CRO and it should be completed. However, he admitted that the approach taken over the past 20 years had not yielded 
the expected results, so time could be ripe to take a fresh look at this objective. The Committee 
could reflect on an approach that addressed the challenges inherent to current global trade patterns, in particular the proliferation of regional  trade agreements. In this context, he welcomed 
the idea shared by the delegation of the Philippi nes and looked forward to developing it further, 
keeping in mind the imperative that any outcome should be easily implemented by all Members. Furthermore, the educational exercise was a useful tool to harness lessons and recommendations. He agreed that hearing views from developing coun tries would be useful. Finally, he requested the 
Secretariat to prepare and circulate a summary of  the presentations and discussions held at the 
information session. 
3.7.  The representative of the European Unio n also stressed that the information session had 
been a very useful reality check from those who actu ally faced non-preferential rules of origin, that 
is, businesses. One lesson from the presentations was that companies saw compliance with non-preferential rules of origin as a cost with no obvious benefits. These costs could be reduced 
through less complexity in the rules, greater tr ansparency and harmonization. The EU was ready 
to pursue the HWP and welcomed any fresh ideas to move that work forward. In that sense, the EU looked forward to hearing further about the ideas mentioned by the representative of the 
Philippines. In the meantime, her delegation would support continuing and strengthening the 
educational exercise with additional presentations by businesses and also by speakers from 
developing countries. She also requested that the presentations made during the information session be circulated to Members as room documents for reference. G/RO/M/66 
 
- 4 - 
 
  3.8.  The representative of Australia thought th at the presentation by the Secretariat offered a 
sobering picture of the difficulties which the HWP had encountered. During the information session, 
speakers had highlighted a number of key questions, including one about the policy reasons behind non-preferential rules of origin. He thought that it was important to reflect about that 
question and keep in mind what exactly the Committee was attempting to do. From Australia's 
perspective, non-preferential rules of origin were not important because MFN trade conditions were granted to all trade partners regardless of their membership to the WTO. In addition, it was no 
longer relevant to attribute the origin of a product to a single country. Linking marks of origin to 
harmonized rules of origin could be quite misleading in a context where inputs came from all over the world and in which firms were globalized. This called for a careful assessment of whether harmonized rules would be a useful tool or not. His delegation stood ready to explore new ideas 
and to work with other delegations to answer those questions. 
3.9.  The representative of the United States thanked the Secretariat and the Chair for having 
organized the information session under the educational exercise. His delegation shared many of 
Australia's reflections regarding the usefulness of ha rmonized rules of origin. He agreed that trade 
had evolved dramatically, which meant that diffe rent policy objectives provided for different 
contexts and hence necessitated different tools. Certainly, the implications issue had not vanished, 
so the CRO needed to explore creative solution s to move ahead productively on these matters. 
The US delegation would be interested in continui ng the educational exercise depending on details 
of the next presentations and how they would add to what had already been heard. 
3.10.  The representative of Bangladesh said th at non-preferential origin requirements also 
affected least developing countries and the presentations during the information session had 
particularly highlighted the difficulties which origin procedures caused (for instance, certification or consular visas). He therefore saw the need for the CRO to move its work forward for the 
harmonization of non-preferential rules of origin. In this context, the educational exercise was very 
useful to help Members take a decision in this regard. 
3.11.  The representative of South Africa thanked the Secretariat for organizing the educational 
exercise. Based on the presentations heard during  the information session, she suggested that the 
next session focus more explicitly on the policy objectives linked to non-preferential origin or on the effect of rules of origin on global value chains. Regarding the suggestion by the Philippines, she said she would need further details to understand it and whether it would entail negotiating 
new provisions under that same Decision or a separate instrument. She invited the delegation of 
the Philippines to submit a proposal in writing. 
3.12.  The representative of India agreed with other speakers that the presentations during the 
information session had been extremely useful. His delegation supported the continuation of this 
exercise in the future but preferred to keep pr esentations by business representatives separate 
from the formal committee process. This was a systemic concern of his delegation whose fear was 
that the direct involvement of private sector in  WTO committees would alter the basic architecture 
of the institution. 
3.13.  The representative of Benin thanked th e Chair and the Secretariat for the information 
session and for their efforts in helping delegations understand the work of the Committee. He said 
that his delegation would be willing to learn more about the ideas mentioned by the representative 
of the Philippines. 
3.14.  The representative of the Philippines thanked all delegations for the interest expressed for 
her idea and said she would reflect further about the possibility of elaborating on her idea of 
guidelines on non-preferential rules of origin in writing. 
3.15.  In conclusion, the Chairman thanked delegations for the support shown for a robust 
educational exercise. He invited all delegations to recommend names of possible speakers so that 
the views expressed were varied and from different countries. He would then consult Members on specific aspects regarding the next information session. Finally, as requested, he also instructed the Secretariat to circulate the presentations made at the information session as room documents 
and to prepare a summary of the discussions for reference. 
3.16.  The Committee took note of the statements made and agreed to proceed accordingly. G/RO/M/66 
 
- 5 - 
 
  4  IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MINISTERIAL DECISIONS ON PREFERENTIAL RULES OF 
ORIGIN FOR LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (WT/L/917, WT/L/917/ADD.1 AND G/RO/W/159) 
4.1.  The Chairman congratulated all delegati ons for their engagement which had enabled the 
adoption of a new legal instrument on rules of origin for LDCs. He noted that the Decision was an 
encouraging sign that Members could deliver very positive and innovative outcomes on origin-related issues. He then drew Members' attention to the fact that, certain provisions in the 
Decision, required follow up work in the CRO. He proposed to hear first a presentation of document 
G/RO/W/159 by the LDCs and then a presentation  on existing transparency obligations by the 
Secretariat.  
4.2.  The representative of Benin, on behalf of the LDC Group, said that the focus of the 
Committee should be to ensure the prompt and smooth implementation of the Ministerial Decision. 
He reminded Members that the commitment had been taken in September 2015 at the UN summit on Sustainable Development Goal to: "realize time ly implementation of duty-free and quota-free 
market access on a lasting basis for all LDCs, consistent with World Trade Organization decisions, 
including by ensuring that preferential rules of origin applicable to imports from LDCs are transparent and simple, and contribute to facilitating market access" (Paragraph 12 of objective 
17). This commitment showed that the reform of preferential rules of origin was of extreme 
political importance. 
4.3.  In addition, the Nairobi Ministerial Decision, pointed out, in paragraph 31, that work on the 
LDC decisions would remain "an important element of our future agenda". In paragraph 24, it also 
stated that Members "strongly commit to addressing the marginalization of LDCs in international 
trade and to improving their effective participation in the multilateral trading system. Towards that end, we shall ensure that all issues of specific inte rest to LDCs shall be pursued on a priority basis, 
with a view to strengthening them, making them commercially meaningful and, when appropriate, 
legally binding". 
4.4.  According to the LDCs, these Decisions corroborated the need for adding preferential rules of 
origin as a permanent item on the agenda of the CRO. In addition, it required specific actions by 
preference-granting Members: the notification of measures being taken by the preference-granting 
Members in order to implement the decision (paragra ph 4.2), the notification of preferential rules 
of origin (paragraph 4.3), the submission of impo rt data to the Secretariat (paragraph 4.3), the 
discussion of modalities for the calculation on ut ilization rates (paragraph 4.3) and the discussion 
of a template for notification of preferential rules of origin (paragraph 4.3). 
4.5.  The paper circulated by the LDCs (G/RO/W/159) raised several questions about how 
developing and developed preference-granting Me mbers planned to implement the Decision and 
follow up on its requirements. The LDCs trusted that these questions would nurture some discussion within the CRO in order to find the best way of implementing the Nairobi Decision in 
favour of LDCs. 
4.6.  The Chairman thanked the LDCs for their paper and asked the Secretariat to make a 
presentation about the existing notification and tr ansparency obligations for preferential rules of 
origin. 
4.7.  The Secretariat reminded Members (RD/RO/35) that the notification of non-reciprocal 
preferential rules of origin was required by th e Agreement on Rules of Origin (paragraph 4 of 
Annex II), the Enabling Clause (although no specific mention was made of rules of origin), the 
waiver decision for preferen tial treatment of LDCs (W T/L/730 and WT/L/759), the 2010 
Transparency Mechanism for Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs, WT/L/806) and the 2013 Bali 
(WT/L/971) and 2015 Nairobi (WT/L/917/Add.1)  Ministerial Decisions. By virtue of the 
Transparency Mechanism, the Secretariat prepared a factual note on new notifications and a 
discussion could take place during the examinatio n of preferences at the Committee on Trade and 
Development in Dedicated Session (CTD-DS). Notifications could be retrieved by their CRO symbol (G/RO/N…) or, most conveniently, through the PTA Database ( http://ptadb.wto.org ). 
The Secretariat clarified that no specific examination of preferential rules of origin occurred at the 
CRO and that discussions under the PTA Transparency  Mechanism were not focused specifically on 
rules of origin. He also mentioned that notifications sometimes contained summarized information G/RO/M/66 
 
- 6 - 
 
  about rules of origin, so there were information gaps regarding specific elements such as product-
specific rules, cumulation provisions, certificat ion requirements, etc. Since the 2013 Bali Decision, 
nevertheless, some Members had made presentations of their rules at the CRO, which had contributed to improving access to information. Finally, the Secretariat reported that very few 
Members had actually provided to the Secretariat the necessary data regarding the tariff and trade 
covered by their LDC preferences. 
4.8.  The Chairman invited Members to comment on the LDC paper and on the provisions in the 
Decision which required follow up action by the CRO, namely: Members' notifications of measures 
being taken to implement the Decision; the notificati on of rules of origin and of preferential trade 
data; the discussion of modalities for the calculation of utilization rates; and the discussion of a possible template to enhance the transparency of notifications of preferential rules of origin. 
4.9.  The representative of Tanzania recalled th at the benefits of the Ministerial Decision would 
only materialize if Members effectively implemented the reforms provided for in the Decision. 
He reiterated that a permanent agenda item in the CRO agenda would constitute a good 
opportunity to sustain Members' efforts in this area. He thought that LDCs may not need a new 
notification requirement. Members could focu s instead on improving the way in which the 
notifications were prepared and submittted. 
4.10.  The representative of Cambodia also called for the timely implementation of the 
commitments contained in the Nairobi Decision on preferential rules of origin. He recalled that 
reforms of the preferential rules of origin in the EU had allowed Cambodia to almost double its exports to the EU in 2011, with the utilization rate reaching 90%. This clearly illustrated the 
importance of reforming rules of origin. However, the entry into force of some RTAs signed by the 
EU, could jeopardize these gains by enhancing competition from other countries in the region (particularly on the garment and bicycle sectors,  which respectively constituted 71% and 12% of 
Cambodia's export to the EU). These RTAs contained more flexible rules of origin and cumulation 
provisions, which would disadvantage Cambodian exports. Similarly, the TPP concluded between 
the United States and other Asian nations would increase competition for Cambodia, whose 
exports of garments did not benefit from duty and quota free access into the American market. 
These illustrations attested to the importance of  expanding market access opportunities for LDCs 
and, in particular, of reforming preferential rules of origin. 
4.11.  The representative of Switzerland than ked the LDC group for their submission and the 
questions it contained. According to him, Switzerland already implemented the provisions of the 
Ministerial Decision, especially with respect to the requirements for the assessments of sufficient 
or substantial transformation. Switzerland applied a highly liberal system and allowed for the use 
of up to 70% of value of non-originating ma terials. In addition, in 2011 a distinction was 
introduced in order to differentiate LDCs from other developing countries and give the former better access to the Swiss market. Switzerland had also been working to improve cumulation 
procedures and to introduce self-certification for registered exporters ("REX" system). 
4.12.  The representative of Bangladesh expressed his gratitude to other WTO Members for their 
collaborative work and the adoption of the Ministerial Decision. He trusted that preference-granting 
Members would implement the Decision faithfully and rapidly and looked forward to elaborating 
further on the Decision, particularly on a template  for new notifications as well as a methodology 
for the calculation of utilization rates. On utilization rates he thought it would be useful if preference-granting Members could, in preparing their trade data, differentiate those imports 
which had used RTAs and those which had come in under PTAs. Regarding transparency and a 
template for notifications, his delegation a ttached importance to having comprehensive 
information, particularly in cases where product-specific and cumulation provisions applied. Having 
access to information regarding certification obligations would also be valuable. What mattered 
ultimately was that all requirements were well understood so that exporters could comply with preferences and utilize them more extensively. 
4.13.  The representative of the United States congratulated the LDC group and other Members for 
achieving a significant multilateral outcome. According to him, the United States was well 
positioned for consistency with paragraphs 1 to 3 of the Decision as well with notification obligations. With respect to notifications, he added that his delegation had circulated a "Guide" to 
the preferences maintained by the United States under the PTA Transparency Mechanism. He also 
highlighted that the United States submitted annu al reports, including trade data and utilization G/RO/M/66 
 
- 7 - 
 
  rates, on the African Growth and Opportunity Act, Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act and the 
Former Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. Fu rthermore, data regarding the GSP programme was 
available for free on the website of the United States International Trade Commission and could 
also be submitted to the Secretariat. His delegati on looked forward to discussing modalities for the 
calculation of utilization rates. The practice for the United States to yield utilization rates was to 
divide the value of imports entering under preferences by the total value of imports. 
4.14.  The representative of China drew Members' attention to document G/RO/N/132, which 
contained the rules of origin applied by China. The rules offered LDC exporters the choice between 
value rules and tariff shift rules. These were the most liberal rules currently applied by China to any of its trading partners. She informed Members that a new customs regulation had abolished certificates of non-manipulation. Finally, she added that her delegation would continue to take 
measures to implement the commitments provided for in the Decision. 
4.15.  The representative of Chinese Taipei recalle d that the Decision provided developing country 
Members appropriate flexibility in implementing the Decision. His government had initiated a 
process of internal consultation to determine sp ecific improvements which could be implemented. 
In the meantime, his delegation could certainly provide import data to the Secretariat. 
4.16.  The representative of Canada also welcomed  the Nairobi Decision. In his view, the Canadian 
LDC tariff regime complied with the elements of the Nairobi Decision and his delegation would 
provide, before 31 December, a detailed account of how Canada's regime was consistent with those guidelines. With respect to import data, Canada already provided comprehensive import data to the Secretariat on an annual basis in line with the PTA mechanism. In addition, his 
delegation also provided GSP utilization data to UNCTAD when requested. His delegation was 
flexible about how utilization rates would be calculated, but he invited the CRO to take into account the experience of other organizations, such as UNCTAD, to avoid duplicating efforts. 
Regarding a template for the notification of preferential rules of origin, he recalled the common 
understanding amongst Members during the negotiation of the Ministerial Decision that no new notification requirements should be created. Noti fications of preferential rules of origin were 
currently submitted to the CTD and the CTRA and cr oss-referenced to the CRO. This was a useful 
practice which avoided duplication. Furthermore, the template should not be overly prescriptive and should encourage Members to provide an Internet link whenever possible. 
4.17.  The representative of the European Union thanked the LDCs for their questions and reported 
that her delegation had always submitted notifications in a timely manner. In her view, the 
presentation by the Secretariat had highlighted that there was really no need for new legal 
instruments regarding notifications. What was needed was that the existing notification obligations 
be fulfilled by all Members. This was true not only of the notification of legislation but also, very 
importantly, of the required data. She confirmed that the EU provided import trade data on an 
annual basis in line with the requirements of  the Integrated Database (IDB) and the PTA 
mechanism. As seen in the presentation, if all delegations did the same, the Secretariat would 
have all the necessary data in order to calculate utilization rates. In the case of the EU, utilization rates were calculated by dividing the value of imports under preferential regimes by eligible imports. This excluded tariff line s for which the MFN tariff was zero. 
4.18.  The representative of Japan welcomed the Na irobi Decision on preferential rules of origin. 
Regarding the calculation of utilization of preferential trade, his delegation believed that it should 
not impose an additional burden on national statistical operations. It should also be compatible 
with the customs tariff schedules of each Member and the national statistics base of each 
schedule. Similarly, a template for notifications should have a simple and clear structure without requiring excessive details. 
4.19.  The representative of Chile congratulated Members for the results attained in Nairobi. She 
recalled, however, that her government still faced challenges in implementing preferences for 
LDCs, mostly notably because her government had not received the names and details of the LDC 
certifying authorities. She invited LDC Members to provide the names of their authorities 
responsible for issuing certificates of origin before attempting to broaden the scope of the 
provisions adopted in Nairobi. G/RO/M/66 
 
- 8 - 
 
  4.20.  The representative of Tanzania asked the EU and Switzerland to elaborate further on their 
new system of self-certification for registered exporters. He wished to know what steps were 
needed from the LDCs and how any new requirements were being communicated to the beneficiaries. 
4.21.  The European Union said that a presentati on about the new REX system had been made at 
a CTD meeting in 2015 and that additional informatio n was available in the records of that meeting 
(paragraphs 59 to 66 pf WT/COMTD/M/97). She stood ready to complement that information as 
necessary. 
4.22.  In concluding, the Chairman thanked all delegations for their engagement. He reminded 
preference-granting Members that the Decision required them to inform the Committee, by 
31 December of 2016 of the measures being taken in order to implement the Decision. He recalled 
that developing countries enjoyed appropriate flexibilities in implementing the Decision, so a 
notification would only be due from them when th ey decided to implement the Decision. He invited 
all delegations to start preparing their submissions as early as possible and confirmed that there 
was no specific format for such notifications. 
4.23.  Members took note of the statements made. 
5  NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 5 AND UNDER PARAGRAPH 4 OF ANNEX II OF THE 
AGREEMENT ON RULES OF ORIGIN (DOCUMENTS G/RO/N/136 TO G/RO/N/140) 
5.1.  The Chair drew Members' attention to the most recent notifications received (documents 
G/RO/N/136, G/RO/N/137, G/RO/N/138, G/RO/N/139 and G/RO/N/140). After these notifications, 
45 Members implemented some type of non-prefer ential origin requirement, 52 Members did not 
apply any non-preferential requirements and 39 Members had not yet made a notification to the 
Secretariat under paragraph 5 of the Agreement. He urged all delegations to comply with their notification obligations and ensure that their notifications were complete. 
5.2.  In addition, the Chair updated Members on  two developments regarding notifications and 
transparency. First, he reported that, as agreed by the CRO (G/RO/M/65), the Secretariat had initiated work to include notifications regarding rules of origin in the WTO database of trade policy 
measures: the Integrated Trade Intelligence Portal (I-TIP). Second, the Secretariat had also 
started revamping the rules of origin page in the WTO website to, among other things, list notifications with direct links to origin-related regulations contained in these notifications. 
5.3.  The Committee took note of report. 
6  ELECTION OF OFFICERS 6.1.  The Chairman reminded Members that, under this agenda item, the CRO would have elected 
its new Chairperson. However, the Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods had not yet 
concluded his consultations on a slate of names of possible chairpersons. He therefore proposed to 
send a fax to Members with the name of the candidate for the CRO chairmanship as soon as there would be consensus. If no objections were receiv ed within a prescribed time-frame, the candidate 
would be deemed elected by the Committee.
2 
6.2.  It was so agreed. 
7  OTHER BUSINESS 7.1.  The Committee took note of the provisional date of the next CRO meeting 
(22 September 2016). 
__________  
                                               
2 Through this process, Mr. Chin-Tung CHANG (Chine se Taipei) was elected Chairman of the Committee.