G/VAL/W/228  
20 June 2013  
(13-3194)  Page: 1/3  
Committee on Customs Valuation  Original: French  
 
  NOTIFICATION UNDER ARTICLE 22 OF THE  
CUSTOMS VALUATION AGREEMENT 
Reply to the Follow-up Questions from the United States to Tunisia  
(G/VAL/W/206) 
The following communication, dated 15 May 2013, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of Tunisia. 
 
 
_______________ 
 
 
The Permanent Mission of Tunisia to the United Nations Office at Geneva and the International 
Organizations in Switzerland presents its compliments to the Secretariat of the World Trade 
Organization (Committee on Customs Valuation), and has the honour to transmit herewith, for 
circulation, the written replies of the competent Tunisian authorities to the questions raised by the delegation of the United States in document (G/VAL/W/206). 
 
_______________ 
 G/VAL/W/228 
- 2 - 
  Questions regarding (G/VAL/W/202) 
1. Tunisia ratified the Agreement on Implemen tation of Article VII of the GATT 1994 on 
Customs Valuation according to the WTO definiti on (Law No. 95-6 of 23 January 1995), and by so 
doing, it has automatically complied with the provisions of that Agreement, including Article 6.2. 
The paragraph in question contains provisions which, among other things, regulate relations 
between contracting parties, and for that reason it was not incorporated in the Customs Code. 
2. The Tunisian Customs Administration is fully aware that the Interpretative Notes of 
the Agreement form an integral part thereof. Mo reover, their application is guaranteed whenever 
the case arises, since the Agreement was ratified (Law No. 95-6 of 23 January 1995). 
Accordingly, some of the provisions contained in these notes have been incorporated in the 
country's laws and regulations (Articles 22 to 35 of  the Customs Code and the Ministry of Finance 
Order of 28 January 2009). 
However, the interpretative notes containing deta ils, examples and practical cases, have not been 
fully incorporated in the laws and regulations such as the Customs Code or ministerial orders 
because they are being incorporated progressively  and according to need, in response to real 
situations. In any case, the Tunisian Customs Administration is intending to prepare a compendium (administrative text) in the course of this year containing the provisions that appear 
in the interpretative notes. 
Questions regarding docume nt G/VAL/N/TUN/2/Rev.1 
3. Article 23 of the Customs Code covers the prov isions on the definition of the concept of 
transaction value. 
Article 1 of the Ministry of Finance Order of 28 Ja nuary 2009, for its part, deals with the concept of 
"sale" as set forth in Advisory Opinion 1.1 of the WCO's Technical Committee on Customs Valuation. It should be noted that this Advisory Opinion does not expressly define the concept of 
"sale", but cites examples of cases that were not considered as sale, such as the importation of 
waste and scrap for destruction in the importing country in exchange for payment of the destruction service. 
There can be no confusion between cases of sale of waste or scrap in which the importer has to 
transfer an amount corresponding to the price of the imported goods and cases in which the importer is paid for providing an expected service (destruction of the waste and scrap). 
4. Article 8.1(b)(iv) stipulates that developm ent, art work, design work, and plans and 
sketches undertaken elsewhere than in the coun try of importation shall be added to the price 
actually paid or payable, to the extent that they  are necessary for the production of the imported 
goods. 
Research costs are understood to be the costs incurred with a view to developing new knowledge 
which, in the long-term, could lead to the develo pment of a new product, procedure or technology, 
or to the substantial improvement of an alread y existing product, procedure or technology. 
The research work and the preliminary sketches ar e not intended exclusively for the production of 
goods involved in a given transaction. According to the definition given to this kind of work, it is impossible objectively to allocate the resulting costs to a specific operation. Consequently, they are not included in the adjustments mentioned in Article 8.1(b)(iv). 
On the other hand, development costs in relation to a given product can be spread across future 
shipments of that product. 
Finally, Article 11 of the Ministry of Finance Order of 28 January 2009 is in harmony with the 
relevant Community provisions, which state that for the purposes of the application 
of Article 8.1(b)(iv), "the cost of research and preliminary design sketches is not to be included in the customs values", contrary to the developmen t costs relating to "the transformation of G/VAL/W/228 
- 3 - 
  discoveries, research or other knowledge into a descriptive plan for a new product or procedure or 
for a significant improvement thereof".  
5. Article 14(a) and (b) of the Ministry of Finance Order of 28 January 2009 lists additional 
conditions for the inclusion of royalties and licence fees relating to trademarks. These provisions 
are in conformity with the relevant Community provisions (see the specific EC regulation 
on customs value P2398), given the increasing ly close relations between the Tunisian 
and EU economies (80%, 110 of trade). 
6. Under Article 30 of the Customs Code, as well as  Article 8 of the Agreement, the inclusion of 
royalties or licence fees is conditional upon their being directly related to the goods being valued. 
Among other criteria for establishing this relati on between the royalty an d the goods, the method 
used to calculate the royalty must relate to the price applied to the transacted goods. 
7. A free domicile price is one which includes the cost of transport to the agreed destination. 
Within this set of incoterms, the seller must pr ovide the transport and cover transport costs up to 
the place of destination, whether at the border or within the customs territory. The seller may not 
take account of transport costs after importation (negligible costs, for example), in which case the 
invoiced price would correspond to the price at the point of entry. Clearly, in such cases, no deduction can be made for internal transport costs. On the other hand, Article 18(b) specifies that 
this deduction may be made if it is proven that the free domicile price is higher than the free at 
frontier price. 
__________