G/VAL/W/283  
1 April 2016  
(16-1819)  Page: 1/2  
Committee on Customs Valuation  Original: French  
 
  NOTIFICATION UNDER ARTICLE 22 OF THE AGREEMENT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF 
ARTICLE VII OF THE GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE 1994 
Replies by Mali to the additional questions from the United States 
regarding document G/VAL/N/1/MLI/1 
MALI 
The following communication, dated 10 March 2016, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of Mali. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
Set out below are the replies by the delegation of Mali to the additional questions posed by 
the United States, initially circulated as document G/VAL/W/262 of 19 May 2015, regarding the 
notification by Mali under Article 22 of the Agr eement on Implementation of Article VII of the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994.  
_______________ 
  Following its communication of 14 January 2013, the Republic of Mali submitted to the World Trade 
Organization (WTO), of which it has been a Member since 2003, a notification under Article 22 of 
the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the GATT 1994.  
Attached to that notification were the following documents: 
 
 A copy of Regulation No. 05/99/CM/UEMOA of 6 August 1999 on customs valuation in 
the member countries of the West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU) and 
the Annex thereto containing an interpretative note; 
 
 A copy of Order No. 02-02589/MEF-SG of 31 December 2002 establishing procedures for 
determining the customs value of imported goods and the Annex thereto containing 
interpretive notes to Articles 3 to 6, 8 to 11 and 13; and 
 
 A copy of Order No. 09-1030/MEF-SG of 5 May 2009 establishing the reference values 
serving as a basis for the assessment of customs duties and taxes on certain products. 
Following this communication, the United States sent Mali two questions on Regulation 
No. 05/99/CM/UEMOA of 6 August 1999 on customs valuation: 
 1. Article 2(1): methods of determining customs value under the Customs Valuation Agreement 
include the residual method provided for in Article 7, which appears to be reflected in 
Article 10 of Regulation No. 05/99/CM/UEMOA. Accordingly, should Article 2(1) of the 
regulation refer to "Articles 3 and 5 to 10" rather than "Articles 3 and 5 to 9"? 
 
2. Article 7: Could Mali explain why the consen t of the customs administration is required 
where the importer chooses to reverse the order of application of the valuation methods in Articles 8 and 9, given that the CVA itself do es not provide that the importer's choice be 
subject to acceptance by the customs authorities? G/VAL/W/283 
- 2 - 
  Regarding the first question, we acknowledge that Article 2(1) of the Regulation should indeed 
refer to "Articles 3 and 5 to 10" rather than "Articles 3 and 5 to 9".  Regarding the second question on the required consent of the customs administration where the 
importer chooses to reverse the order of applicatio n of the valuation methods in Articles 8 and 9 of 
Regulation No. 05/99/CM/UEMOA, this is based on paragraph 3 of Annex III of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the GATT 1994, which states that "[d]eveloping countries which 
consider that the reversal of the sequential orde r at the request of the importer provided for in 
Article 4 of the Agreement may give rise to real difficulties for them may wish to make a reservation to Article 4 in the following terms:  
'The Government of … reserves the right to  provide that the relevant provision of 
Article 4 of the Agreement shall apply only when the customs authorities agree to the 
request to reserve the order of Articles 5 and 6.' 
 
If developing countries make such a reservation,  the Members shall consent to it under Article 21 
of the Agreement." 
 
It should be noted that with Order No. 02-02589/MEF-SG of 31 December 2002 Mali, like the WAEMU with Regulation No. 05/99/CM/UEMOA, did not transpose paragraph 3 of Annex III of the Agreement on Implementation of Arti cle VII of the GATT 1994 as it appears in the 
Agreement itself. However, the idea was transposed. 
 In the two mentioned texts, the reservation is formulated as follows: 
 
"If the customs value of the imported goods cannot be determined under the provisions of Articles 3, 5 and 6, the customs value shall be determined under the provisions of Article 8 or, 
when the customs value cannot be determined under that Article, under the provisions of Article 9 
except that, at the request of the importer, the or der of application of Articles 8 and 9 shall be 
reversed, subject to acceptance by the customs authorities concerned ." 
However, in the specific case of Regulation No. 05/99/CM/UEMOA, it could prove difficult to 
formulate the reservation in the same terms as the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII 
of the GATT 1994, since that wording suits the purp oses of Member States that are individually 
committed by their ratification of the said Agreement. In this case, the community text had no 
choice but to interpret that wording. 
 In any case, Mali will have to take the necessary steps to correct the mentioned erroneous 
reference to Articles 3 and 5 to 9 rather than Articles 3 and 5 to 10 of Regulation 
No. 05/99/CM/UEMOA of 6 August 1999 on customs valuation.  
__________