RESTRICTED  
  
G/VAL/M/62  
 
4 August 2016  
(16-4177)  Page: 1/17  
Committee on Customs Valuation    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 25 APRIL 2016 
VICE-CHAIRPERSON: MRS JOANNA K. Y. CHEUNG (HONG KONG, CHINA) 
The agenda proposed for the meeting, circulated in WTO/AIR/VAL/3 and WTO/AIR/VAL/3/Corr.1, 
was adopted with modifications, 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 
2.1   Notification of national legislation ................................................................................. 2  
A. Kingdom of Bahrain .................................................................................................. 2  
B. Belize ..................................................................................................................... 3  
C. Cabo Verde ............................................................................................................. 3  
D. Colombia ................................................................................................................ 3  
E. Ecuador .................................................................................................................. 4  
F. The Gambia ............................................................................................................. 4  
G. Guinea.................................................................................................................... 4  
H. Honduras  ................................................................................................................ 4  
I. Mali ........................................................................................................................ 5  
J. Republic of Moldova .................................................................................................. 5  
K. Montenegro ............................................................................................................. 5  
L. Nepal ..................................................................................................................... 6  
M. Nicaragu a ............................................................................................................... 6  
N. Nigeria ................................................................................................................... 6  
O. Russian Fede ration ................................................................................................... 7  
P. Rwanda .................................................................................................................. 7  
Q. South Afri ca ............................................................................................................ 7  
R. Sri Lank a ................................................................................................................ 7  
S. Ukraine ................................................................................................................... 8  
3   INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATIO N OF DECISIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON 
CUSTOMS VALUATION ...................................................................................................... 8  
3.1   The status of notifications under the Committee's Decisions ............................................. 9  
3.2   Uruguay's proposal to upda te the carrier me dia decision ................................................. 9  
4   TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ........................................................................................... 10  
4.1   Information on Technical As sistan ce ............................................................................ 10 G/VAL/M/62 
 
- 2 - 
 
  4.2   Article 20.3 Technical Assistance and Trade-Related Tec hnical Assistance ......................... 11 
5   UNITED STATES - ARMENIA'S RE FERENCE PRICE SYSTEM IN CONNECTION 
WITH THE VALUATIO N OF GOODS.................................................................................. 11  
6   UNITED STATES – UKRA INE RESOLUTION  NO. 724 ................................................... 11  
7   PARAGRAPH 12 OF THE DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION: 
IMPLEMENTATION-REL ATED ISSU ES ............................................................................. 13  
8   PRESHIPMENT INSPECTI ON ...................................................................................... 14  
8.1   Status of notifications by Members .............................................................................. 14 
8.2   Questions and Responses by the United States  and Indonesia ......................................... 14 
8.3   Information on PSI programmes ................................................................................. 15 
8.4   Report on th e Work by the WCO ................................................................................. 15 
9   ELECTION OF CHAIR .................................................................................................. 15  
10   OTHER BU SINESS .................................................................................................... 15  
10.1   Date of next meeting............................................................................................... 15 
 
1  REPORT OF THE WORK OF THE TECH NICAL COMMITTEE ON CUSTOMS VALUATION 
1.1.  The Chairperson of the Technical Committee on Customs Valuation, Ms Yuliya A. Gulis, 
reported on the activities of the Technical Committee at its 42nd session which had been held on 
18-22 April 2016. Her report is contained in Annex 1. 
1.2.  The Chairperson thanked Ms Gulis for her report and expressed the Committee's appreciation 
for the continued valuable work of the Technical Committee on Customs Valuation. 
1.3.  The Committee took note of the report. 
2  INFORMATION ON IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE AGREEMENT 
2.1  Notification of national legislation 
2.1.  The Vice-Chairperson recalled that pursuant  to Article 22 of the Agreement and the Decision 
on "Notification and circulation of national legislation in accordance with Article 22 of the 
Agreement" Members must submit the complete texts of their national legislation on customs 
valuation in one of the three official WTO langua ges. They should also inform the Committee of 
any changes in their laws and regulations relevant to this Agreement and in the administration of such laws and regulations. The notification proc edures had been adopted by the Committee at its 
meeting of 12 May 1995 and were contained in section B.2 of document G/VAL/5. As agreed at the 
Committee's meeting of 25 October 2012, the Secretariat had issued a document with the 
symbol G/VAL/W/232/Rev.4 which summarized the status of those notifications. That document had been revised, as agreed at the last Committee meeting, to include references to documents 
containing the questions and responses raised with regard to notifications. 
2.2.  The Vice-Chairperson recalled that the situat ion regarding the notification of Chinese Taipei's 
legislation remained unchanged. 
A. Kingdom of Bahrain 
2.3.  The Vice-Chairperson recalled that it had been agreed at the last meeting to revert to the 
examination of Bahrain's notification of national legislation and responses to the checklist of issues 
which had been circulated in document s G/VAL/N/1/BHR/1, G/ VAL/N/1/BHR/2 and 
G/VAL/N/2/BHR/1, respectively. The United States had submitted questions which had been 
circulated in documents G/VAL/W/181 and G/ VAL/W/201, to which Bahrain had provided 
responses in documents G/VAL/W/191 and G/VAL/W/217. Follow-up questions had been submitted 
by the United States in document G/VAL/W/223. G/VAL/M/62 
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.4.  The representative of the Kingdom of Bahrain stated that its responses to the United States' 
follow-up questions were in the final stages of review by the Gulf Cooperation Council Common 
Customs Law Committee and it was hoped to have the responses as soon as possible. 
2.5.  The representative of the United States ac knowledged Bahrain's continuing efforts to answer 
the questions, including its bilateral engagement with the United States delegation. His delegation 
thanked Bahrain and looked forward to receiving the written responses. 
2.6.  The Committee took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to Bahrain's 
notification at the next meeting. B. Belize 2.7.  The Vice-Chairperson recalled that it had been agreed at the last meeting to revert to the 
examination of Belize's notification of national le gislation and responses to the checklist of issues 
which had been circulated in documents G/VAL /N/1/BLZ/1 and G/VAL/N/2/BLZ/1, respectively. 
Canada had submitted questions in document G/VAL/W/176 and the United States had submitted questions in G/VAL/W/175. Belize had provided responses in documents G/VAL/W/183 and 
G/VAL/W/184, respectively. The United States had raised follow-up questions in 
documents G/VAL/W/188, G/VAL/W/272 and G/VAL/W/272/Corr.1. 
2.8.  The representative of the United States stat ed that his delegation looked forward to receiving 
the follow-up responses. 
2.9.  The Committee took note of the statement made  and agreed to revert to Belize's notification 
at the next meeting. 
C. Cabo Verde 
2.10.  The Vice-Chairperson recalled that it had b een agreed at the last meeting to revert to the 
examination of Cabo Verde's notification of national legislation which had been circulated in 
documents G/VAL/N/1/CPV/1 and G/VAL/N/1/CPV/2 . Questions from the United States on 
G/VAL/N/1/CPV/1 had been circulated in document G/VAL/W/224 and Cabo Verde had provided 
responses in document G/VAL/W/239. The United States had raised follow-up questions in document G/VAL/W/244 to which Cabo Verde had provided responses in document G/VAL/W/263. 
The United States had submitted questions on G/VAL/N/1/CPV/2 which had been circulated in 
document G/VAL/W/270. 
2.11.  The representative of the United States stated that his delegation looked forward to 
receiving the written responses. 
2.12.  The Committee took note of the statement made and agreed to revert to Cabo Verde's 
notification at the next meeting. 
D. Colombia  
2.13.  The Vice-Chairperson recalled that it had b een agreed at the last meeting to revert to the 
examination of Colombia's notification of changes to its national legislation and revised responses 
to the checklist of issues which had been circulated in documents G/VAL/N/1/COL/2, 
G/VAL/N/1/COL/3, and G/VAL/N/2/COL /2, respectively. The United States had raised additional 
questions which were circulated in document G/VAL/W/258/Rev.1, to which Colombia had responded in document G/VAL/W/276 and G/VAL/W/276/Corr.1 (in Spanish only). Canada and Honduras had also raised questions which had been circulated as document G/VAL/W/290. 
2.14.  The representative of Canada stated that its questions stemmed from concerns related to 
the use of customs reference prices and databank s, concerns which had also been expressed by 
interested Canadian stakeholders. Canada thanked Colombia for its continued engagement on the 
issue and looked forward to the written replies. 
2.15.  The representative of Honduras stated that her delegation's concern focused on the price 
reference system. She requested responses from Co lombia to the questions that had been tabled. G/VAL/M/62 
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.16.  The representative of the United States stated that his delegation was interested in 
Colombia's replies to Canada's questions as they were also deeply concerned about the potential 
use of reference prices and reference price databases in lieu of declared customs values. 
2.17.  The representative of the European Union expressed her delegation's interest in Colombia's 
responses to the questions raised as they had similar concerns about the use of minimum prices. 2.18.  The representative of Colombia stated that it hoped to be able to answer the questions as 
soon as possible. 
2.19.  The Committee took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to Colombia's 
notification at the next meeting. 
E. Ecuador  
2.20.  The Vice-Chairperson recalled that it had b een agreed at the last meeting to revert to the 
examination of Ecuador's responses to the checklist of issues which had been circulated in 
document G/VAL/N/2/ECU/1. The United States had raised questions which had been circulated in 
document G/VAL/W/220 to which Ecuador had provided replies in document G/VAL/W/226. 
Subsequently, Ecuador had notified a compilation of changes to its national legislation in 
document G/VAL/N/1/ECU/3. The United States had submitted questions in document G/VAL/W/260 to which Ecuador had responded in document G/VAL/W/277. 
2.21.  The representative of the United States stated that it would review Ecuador's responses. 
2.22.   The Committee took note of the statement made and agreed to revert to Ecuador's 
notification at the next meeting. 
F. The Gambia  
2.23.  The Vice-Chairperson recalled that it had b een agreed at the last meeting to revert to the 
examination of The Gambia's notification of national legislation which had been circulated in 
documents G/VAL/N/1/GMB/1 and G/VAL/N/4/GMB/1. The United States had submitted questions 
in document G/VAL/W/245. 
2.24.  The representative of the United States stated that his delegation remained interested in 
receiving the replies. 
2.25.  The Committee took note of the statement made and agreed to revert to The Gambia's 
notification at the next meeting. 
G. Guinea 2.26.  The Vice-Chairperson recalled that it had b een agreed at the last meeting to revert to the 
examination of Guinea's notification of national legislation which had been circulated in 
document G/VAL/N/1/GIN/1. Questions from the United States had been circulated in document G/VAL/W/266. 
2.27.  The representative of the United States stated that his delegation looked forward to 
receiving replies to its questions. 
2.28.  The Committee took note of the statement made and agreed to revert to Guinea's 
notification at the next meeting. H. Honduras  
2.29.  The Vice-Chairperson recalled that it had b een agreed at the last meeting to revert to the 
examination of Honduras' notification of national legislation and responses to the checklist of 
issues which had been circulated in documents G/VAL/N/1/HND/1 and G/VAL/N/2/HND/1 
respectively. The United States had submitted questions in document G/VAL/W/268. G/VAL/M/62 
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.30.  The representative of the United States stated that his delegation looked forward to 
receiving a written response to its questions. 
2.31.  The Committee took note of the statement made and agreed to revert to Honduras' 
notification at the next meeting. 
I. Mali 
2.32.  The Vice-Chairperson recalled that it had b een agreed at the last meeting to revert to the 
examination of Mali's notification of national legislation which had been circulated in 
document G/VAL/N/1/MLI/1. Questions submitted by Canada had been circulated in 
document G/VAL/W/238 and Mali's responses had been circulated in document G/VAL/W/255. Questions from the United States had been circulated in document G/VAL/W/262, to which Mali had provided responses in documents G/VAL/W/282 and G/VAL/W/283. 
2.33.  The representative of the United States thanked Mali for the responses and had no further 
questions. 
2.34.  The representative of Mali thanked the United States for its interest and was pleased that 
steps had been taken to resolve the issue. 2.35.  The representative of Canada thanked Mali for its responses and stated that it had no 
further questions. 
2.36.  The Committee took note of the statements  made and agreed to conclude the examination 
of Mali's national legislation. 
J. Republic of Moldova 2.37.  The Vice-Chairperson recalled that it had b een agreed at the last meeting to revert to the 
examination of Moldova's notification of changes to its national legislation which had been 
circulated in documents G/VAL/N/1/MDA/2 an d G/VAL/N/1/MDA/3. The United States had 
submitted questions in document G/VAL/W/259 to  which Moldova had submitted responses in 
G/VAL/W/285. 
2.38.  The representative of Moldova thanked the United States for its interest. Any additional 
questions would be addressed once they had been received in written form. 
2.39.  The representative of the United States thanked Moldova for the replies and had no further 
questions. 
2.40.  The Committee took note of the statements  made and agreed to conclude the examination 
of Moldova's national legislation. 
K. Montenegro 
2.41.  The Vice-Chairperson recalled that it had b een agreed at the last meeting to revert to the 
examination of Montenegro's notification of national legislation and responses to the checklist of 
issues which had been circulated in documents G/VAL/N/1/MNE/1 and G/VAL/N/2/MNE/1, 
respectively. Questions had been raised by the United States in document G/VAL/W/267 and Montenegro had provided responses in documents G/VAL/W/279 and G/VAL/W/284. 
2.42.  The representative of Montenegro thanked the United States for its constructive interest and 
questions related to Montenegro's notifications. Montenegro had responded with preliminary 
written responses submitted in advance of the October 2015 meeting and consequently with 
additional elaborative responses which had been circulated to the Members. 
2.43.  The representative of the United States thanked Montenegro for its responses which were 
currently being reviewed. G/VAL/M/62 
 
- 6 - 
 
  2.44.  The Committee took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to Montenegro's 
notification at the next meeting. 
L. Nepal 2.45.  The Vice-Chairperson recalled that it had b een agreed at the last meeting to revert to the 
examination of Nepal's notification of national legislation which had been circulated in 
document G/VAL/N/1/NPL/1. The United States had submitted questions which had been circulated in document G/VAL/W/286. 
2.46.  The representative of the United States no ted that his delegation remained interested in 
receiving the responses. 
2.47.  The representative of Canada stated that his delegation was also interested in Nepal's 
responses. At the last meeting, Canada had raised similar concerns about the use of estimated 
amounts by customs authorities. 
2.48.  The Committee took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to Nepal's 
notification at the next meeting. 
M. Nicaragua  
2.49.  The Vice-Chairperson recalled that it had b een agreed at the last meeting to revert to the 
examination of Nicaragua's notification of legislat ion 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. Questions 
from the United States had been circulated in document G/VAL/W/261 with replies from Nicaragua circulated in document G/VAL/W/265. The United States had raised additional questions in document G/VAL/W/273 to which Nicaragua had provided responses in document G/VAL/W/281. 
The United States subsequently had posed an additional question, circulated in 
document G/VAL/W/289. 
2.50.  The representative of the United States thanked Nicaragua for its active engagement and 
remained interested in receiving a written reply to its question. 
2.51.  The representative of Nicaragua stated that a written response would be provided as soon 
as possible. 
2.52.  The Committee took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to Nicaragua's 
notification at the next meeting. 
N. Nigeria  
2.53.  The Vice-Chairperson recalled that it had b een agreed at the last meeting to revert to the 
examination of Nigeria's notification of national le gislation and responses to the checklist of issues 
which had been circulated in documents in G/ VAL/N/1/NGA/1 and G/VAL/N /2/NGA/1, respectively. 
The United States and Canada had raised questions which had been circulated in 
documents G/VAL/W/175 and G/VAL/W/176, respectively. 
2.54.  The representative of Canada enquired wh en it might be able to expect answers to its 
questions raised in 2009. 
2.55.  The representative of the United States said that it remained interested in receiving replies 
to the questions posed by itself and Canada. 
2.56.  The representative of the European Union expressed her delegation's interest in receiving 
answers to the questions raised so far. 
2.57.  The Committee took note of the statemen ts made and agreed to revert to Nigeria's 
notification at the next meeting. G/VAL/M/62 
 
- 7 - 
 
  O. Russian Federation  
2.58.  The Vice-Chairperson recalled that it had b een agreed at the last meeting to revert to the 
examination of the Russian Federation's notification of legislation which had been circulated in 
G/VAL/N/1/RUS/1; G/VAL/N/1/RUS/2 and G/VAL /N/1/RUS/2/Add.1; G/VAL/N/1/RUS/3 and 
G/VAL/N/1/RUS/3/Add.1, as well as to the Russian  Federation's responses to the checklist of 
issues, which had been circulated in document G/VAL/N/2/RUS/1. The Russian Federation had circulated in document G/VAL/N/1/RUS/1/Add.1 legislation referred to in 
document G/VAL/N/1/RUS/1. Questions raised by the United States had been circulated in 
document G/VAL/W/287. 
2.59.  The representative of the United States thanked the Russian Federation for the additional 
notification. He also referred to the questions that had recently been submitted by his delegation. 
2.60.  The representative of the European Unio n thanked the Russian Federation for the recent 
notification and remained interested to receive th e replies to the questions raised by the United 
States. 
2.61.  The Committee took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to the 
Russian Federation's notification at the next meeting. 
P. Rwanda  
2.62.  The Vice-Chairperson recalled that it had b een agreed at the last meeting to revert to the 
examination of Rwanda's notification of national le gislation and responses to the checklist of issues 
which had been circulated in documents G/VAL /N/1/RWA/1 and G/VAL/N/2/RWA/1, respectively. 
Questions raised by the United States had been circulated in document G/VAL/W/215.  
2.63.  The representative of the United States stated that his delegation remained interested in 
receiving Rwanda's written replies.  
2.64.  The Committee took note of the statement made and agreed to revert to Rwanda's 
notification at the next meeting. Q. South Africa 2.65.  The Vice-Chairperson recalled that it had b een agreed at the last meeting to revert to the 
examination of South Africa's notification of new customs valuation legislation which had been 
circulated in document G/VAL/N/1/ZAF/2. The United States had submitted questions in document G/VAL/W/271 to which South Africa had provided responses in document G/VAL/W/280. 
2.66.  The representative of the United States thanked South Africa for the responses and stated 
that it had no further questions. 2.67.  The Committee took note of the statement ma de and agreed to conclude the examination of 
South Africa's legislation. 
R. Sri Lanka 
2.68.  The Vice-Chairperson recalled that it had b een agreed at the last meeting to revert to the 
examination of Sri Lanka's notification of national legislation and its responses to the checklist of 
issues which had been circulated in document s G/VAL/N/1/LKA/1 and G/VAL/N/1/LKA/1/Corr.1, 
and G/VAL/N/2/LKA/1, respectively. The United States had raised questions in document G/VAL/W/269. 
2.69.  The representative of Sri Lanka thanked the delegation of the United States for its 
questions. Sri Lanka had taken steps to review and streamline its domestic taxation and 
international trade-related taxes. This had been done in order to generate sustainable revenue 
facilitating international trade and it would include the introduction of a new customs act. G/VAL/M/62 
 
- 8 - 
 
  2.70.  The minimum value rule had only been applied for importation of motor vehicles classified 
under the HS headings 8702, 8703, 8704, 8705 and 8711. In order to eliminate under-invoicing as well as under-valuation, the minimum value rule had been continuously monitored and revised to reflect the international market trends in the domestic motor vehicle market. As per the Gazette 
notification No. 1956/17 dated 1 March 2016, the minimum value rule was continuously being 
revised to accommodate the invoice FOB value of  the vehicle. Accordingly, the customs value 
would be determined based on the manufacturer's price or invoice FOB value. 
2.71.  Sri Lanka would take the necessary measures to address the concerns raised by the United 
States in due course. 
2.72.  The representative of the United States  thanked Sri Lanka for the information which it 
looked forward to receiving in writing. 
2.73.  The representative of the European Union thanked Sri Lanka for the useful information and 
also requested to have the reply in writing. 
2.74.  The representative of Sri Lanka agreed to submit a written response. 
2.75.  The Committee took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to Sri Lanka's 
notification at the next meeting. S. Ukraine 
2.76.  The Vice-Chairperson recalled that Ukraine had submitted a notification of its legislation in 
document G/VAL/N/1/UKR/1. Norway had raised questions in document G/VAL/W/199 to which 
Ukraine had provided responses in document G/VAL/W/248. Ukraine had subsequently provided updated responses to Norway's questions in the light of the Customs Code of Ukraine No. 4495-VI 
of 13 March 2012. Those updated responses had been circulated in document G/VAL/W/288. 
2.77.  The representative of Norway thanked Ukraine for the responses and had no further 
questions. 
2.78.  The representative of the Ukraine thanked Norway and stated that his delegation was ready 
to answer any further questions. 
2.79.  The representative of the United States thanked Ukraine for the responses which it would 
review. 2.80.  The Committee took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to Ukraine's 
notification at the next meeting. 2.81.  The Vice-Chairperson thanked Members that had notified their national legislation and had 
provided responses to the checklist of issues. She strongly encouraged the still considerable 
number of 36 Members that had not notified their national legislation, nor provided responses to the checklist of issues, to work with their capita l s  t o  d o  s o  as  s o o n  a s  p os s i b l e .  S h e  r e m i n d e d  
Members that the Secretariat was available for any assistance in fulfilling the notification 
obligations. 
2.82.  The Committee took note of the information. 
3  INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION OF DECISIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON 
CUSTOMS VALUATION 
3.1.  The Vice-Chairperson stated that the Commi ttee had two issues under this agenda item: the 
status of notifications under the Committee's Decisions and the proposal by Uruguay circulated in 
document G/VAL/W/241/Rev.1. G/VAL/M/62 
 
- 9 - 
 
  3.1  The status of notification s under the Committee's Decisions 
3.2.  The Vice-Chairperson recalled that the Committee examined notifications pursuant to 
two Decisions that had been adopted by the Committee at its meeting of 12 May 1995 and 
contained in document G/VAL/5. Those were the de cisions on "Treatment of Interest Charges in 
the Customs Value of Imported Goods" and "Valuation of Carrier Media Bearing Software for Data 
Processing Equipment". A report by the Secretariat listing notifications received had been circulated in document G/VAL/W/5/Rev.25 and G/VAL/W/Rev.25/Corr.1. 
3.3.  The Committee took note of the information. 
3.2  Uruguay's proposal to update the carrier media decision 
3.4.  The Vice-Chairperson recalled that the Commi ttee had agreed at the last meeting to revert to 
the proposal by Uruguay contained in docume nt G/VAL/W/241/Rev.1, which was to amend the 
Carrier Media Decision, also known by Customs as "Decision 4.1". According to Uruguay, software 
was increasingly being imported using new types of carrier media, e.g. USB flash drives or other similar devices, which might not fall under the definition of "carrier medium" in the Decision. This 
meant that such importations of software would be treated differently from those imported using 
other types of media, such as CDs or DVDs. Switzerland had submitted comments on Uruguay's 
proposal which had been circulated in document G/VAL/W/254. At the request of the Committee, 
the Secretariat had also prepared a report with statistics on imports of these products which had 
been circulated in G/VAL/W/249. 
3.5.  During the last meeting, many delegations had supported Uruguay's proposal as well as the 
proposed amendment put forward by Switzerland. Some Members had indicated that they would 
need more time to consider the proposal while at the same time they had also expressed their 
willingness and openness to continue discussing the proposal. Uruguay had provided responses in document G/VAL/W/264 to questions that had been raised by one delegation. 
3.6.  The representative of the United States expressed support for the expansion of the definition of 
carrier media to include semi-conductor media such as USB flash drives. His delegation also agreed 
with Switzerland's comments. 
3.7.  The representative of Canada stated that Uruguay's proposal, in amending an existing 
obligation, would create a new, or at least expanded, obligation for Members which would take effect 
immediately. In the case of Canada this would require legislative changes to implement and potentially other Members could be in a similar situation. Canada proposed that some form of a 
transitional period be provided before the new obligation took effect and they were open to views on 
how to realize such an implementation period. His delegation would be happy to work with Uruguay and other Members to discuss it further. 
3.8.  The representative of the European Union stated that there was no change in its position and it 
did not see any reason to review Decision 4.1 or to consider whether there was a reason to replace it 
or not. Its position remained exactly the same as it had been at the last Committee meeting. 
3.9.  The representative of Chile stated that its position remained unchanged and it supported 
Uruguay's proposal together with the contribution made by Switzerland. 
3.10.  The representative of Japan recognized the importance of considering updating the decision on 
carrier media both from the business perspective as well as that of customs administrations. Japan's 
position remained unchanged and it supported the proposals from Uruguay and Switzerland. 
3.11.  The representative of Thailand welcomed Uruguay's proposal to update the definition of carrier 
medium to take into account situations in which data or instructions were carried and presented to 
customs on new types of carrier medium. Her delegation also supported Switzerland's comment to 
delete the word "temporary" from the additional language proposed by Uruguay, given the rapid innovation of IT technologies, as newly-invented carrier media or already existing ones might be able 
to store data permanently. In that case, keeping the word "temporary" would leave out those future 
carrier media from Uruguay's proposal. G/VAL/M/62 
 
- 10 - 
 
  3.12.  The representative of Chinese Taipei stated his delegation's support for the Uruguayan and 
Swiss proposals, which the majority of Members had supported at the last meeting. However, 
unfortunately, some Members still had different views. Both sides were encouraged to hold bilateral consultations as soon as possible in order to reach consensus on the issue. 
3.13.  The representative of Costa Rica stated that it maintained its position of supporting Uruguay's 
proposal. Her delegation would also like to have a bilateral exchange with the delegation of Uruguay. 
3.14.  The representative of Singapore stated her delegation's support for the Uruguayan and 
Swiss proposals. 
3.15.  The representative of Korea restated his delegation's support for the proposals by Uruguay 
and Switzerland. 3.16.  The representative of Uruguay thanked the delegations that had expressed support for its 
proposal, as well as that of Switzerland. He thanked the delegation of Canada for its proposal 
regarding a provisional period of implementation and his delegation was ready to have further discussions on that issue. 
3.17.  The representative of Switzerland stated that his delegation was ready to engage on the 
issue and hoped for resolution as soon as possible. 
3.18.  The Vice-Chairperson stated that there continued to be wide support for the proposal. 
However, some Members had also expressed their concerns. She suggested that Uruguay, 
Switzerland and other interested Members have furt her bilateral consultations and report back to 
the Committee on any developments. 
3.19.  The Committee took note of the statements ma de and agreed to revert to this matter at the 
next meeting. 
4  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 4.1  Information on Technical Assistance 
4.1.  The Vice-Chairperson recalled that at its meeting of 12 May 1995, and as reflected in 
section B.4 of document G/VAL/5, the Committee on Customs Valuation had agreed that greater 
transparency of technical assistance activities would be ensured if information documents prepared 
for the WCO Technical Committee on Customs Valuation were also made available as a 
WTO document. Document G/VAL/8/Add.32 contained the most recent information 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 representative of the World Customs Organization (WCO), Mr Ian Cremer, informed the 
Committee that requests from Members in recent years had been more for the practical application 
of the Valuation Agreement. Members asked how to develop risk-management and how to 
integrate and implement post clearance audit, both of which were components of the Trade 
Facilitation Agreement (TFA). 
4.3.  The WCO also commonly received requests for the development of evaluation databases and 
there were sensitivities about the possible misapplication of reference prices. Both the 
WCO Secretariat and the Technical Committee on Customs Valuation had developed guidelines on best practice in developing and applying evaluation databases and they had given a lot of advice to Members in that regard. 
4.4.  The WCO intended to put a special focus on LDCs which continued to face particular challenges 
in implementing the Agreement, dealing typically with a highly unregulated business sector. The WCO was introducing a diagnostic approach where it would work with Me mbers or where Members 
could self-assess the standards of their evaluation infrastructure and see whether it was fit for 
purpose to apply the Agreement. The WCO assisted Members in developing strategic plans to strengthen their evaluation infrastructure and ensure that they were extracting the revenue legally G/VAL/M/62 
 
- 11 - 
 
  due, which was often the first priority of the administrations. They also assisted Members with 
facilitating compliant trade as well as meet ing their objectives under the WTO Agreement. 
4.5.  The WCO was working closely with the OECD  promoting the idea of closer customs and tax 
cooperation. They had conducted some joint work shops where both customs and tax officials were 
in the same room sharing information and best practices. That was an important initiative going 
forward. The Chairperson of the Technical Committee on Customs Valuation had announced in her report the new instrument that had been issued by  the technical committee in relation to transfer 
pricing and customs valuation. They were seeing more of an interface between customs and tax in 
that regard. 
4.6.  The WCO appreciated the ongoing partnership with the WTO in the field of technical 
assistance. They had conducted some successful joint missions and the WCO was happy to take 
the initiative forward. There was potential to link customs valuation assistance with the TFA, as the 
result of an overlap in a number of areas, and the WCO was willing to engage further with the 
WTO on how to take forward that important area of technical assistance. 
4.7.  The Committee took note of the information. 
4.2  Article 20.3 Technical Assistance and Trade-Related Te chnical Assistance 
4.8.  The Vice-Chairperson went on to recall that the Committee's Work Programme on technical 
assistance for capacity building as regards the implementation and administration of the 
WTO Agreement on Customs Valuation was now incorporated into the overall technical assistance program of the WTO. The WTO was currently implementing the 2016-2017 Biennial TA Plan contained in document WT/COMTD/W/211. Requests for technical assistance could be made by 
individual Members at any time and would be met by a national activity designed to meet the 
needs of the recipient. 
4.9.  The Committee took note of the information. 
5  UNITED STATES - ARMENIA'S REFERENCE PRICE SYSTEM IN CONNECTION WITH THE 
VALUATION OF GOODS 
5.1.  The Vice-Chairperson recalled that it had been agreed at the last meeting to revert to this 
issue. Armenia had notified its national legislation in August 2003 in document G/VAL/N/1/ARM/1 
as well as its responses to the checklist of issues in document G/VAL/N/2/ARM/1. The Committee had concluded its examination of this legislation at its meeting on 18 October 2005. The United States had raised follow-up questions in document G/VAL/W/208 to which Armenia had provided 
responses in document G/VAL/W/213. Canada had subsequently submitted questions in 
document G/VAL/W/214. 
5.2.  The representative of Canada referred to the outstanding questions it had submitted in 2012 
relating to the possible use of reference prices. It was an important issue and his delegation 
looked forward to receiving replies as soon as possible. 
5.3.  The Committee took note of the statement made and agreed to revert to the issue at the 
next meeting. 6  UNITED STATES – UKRAINE RESOLUTION NO. 724 6.1.  The representative of the United States  stated that his delegation wanted to better 
understand Ukraine's Resolution No. 724; how it worked in practice and how it related to other 
aspects of Ukraine's legislation. It would like to see Ukraine notify the Resolution to the 
Committee. His delegation had questions regarding how it would be implemented in light of the Custom Valuation Agreement's prohibitions on the use of reference and minimum prices. 
6.2.  His delegation understood that the resolution called for the creation of a type of database of 
pre-determined commodities with their country of origin and their weighted average customs value for the preceding six months and that these would be benchmarks. What would be the source of G/VAL/M/62 
 
- 12 - 
 
  the information? Particularly, would it be based on past importations into Ukraine kept in its 
automated customs system or would the information be sourced elsewhere? 
6.3.  The resolution did not make clear how the benchmarks would be used or what additional 
forms of customs control might be taken. Which customs were provided for in the resolution? 
Could the relevant provisions providing for thos e actions be identified? The resolution did not 
endorse the use of benchmark prices as minimum declared values and it complied with the Agreement hierarchy. In this regard, was there a specific prohibition on using those benchmark 
prices as alternates to the declared values as set forth in the resolution? If not, Ukraine might 
consider amending the resolution to add a specific prohibition against using the benchmarks as alternates to the declared value. 
6.4.  The representative of Norway stated that the Ukrainian authorities had previously explained 
that Resolution No. 724 was intended to ensure equal conditions for foreign economic activity and 
a common approach to risk management systems used for customs valuation. Stake-holders were still experiencing that the actual practice at border offices varied, and that indicative prices in 
some cases were still used by the customs service as a basis for their calculations. Her delegation 
appreciated Ukraine's cooperation so far, and look ed forward to the answers to the United States' 
questions. 
6.5.  The representative of Switzerland stated that Swiss companies also faced customs valuation 
problems related to Resolution No. 724. As previous ly noted in the Council for Trade in Goods, the 
situation had not improved since the beginning of the year. He encouraged Ukraine to reply to the questions posed by the United States. 
6.6.  The representative of the European Union stated that it had similar concerns to the United 
States. Her delegation looked forward to receiving more details, especially regarding the use of 
minimum or benchmark prices. Her delegation in vited Ukraine to look at a risk management 
system based on the WTO/WCO principles for best international practices. 
6.7.  The representative of Ukraine thanked the delegations of the United States, Norway, 
Switzerland and the European Union for their ques tions. Ukraine's customs administration system 
was undergoing considerable reforms and customs reform was a top priority for the new 
government. In 2012, Ukraine had adopted a new customs code to align with the European Union model customs law and had introduced key WCO Revised Kyoto procedures. The new code retained full legal compliance with the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the 
GATT 1994 and other customs-related WTO Agreements. As required under the WTO Agreement, 
the code ensured administrative and judicial appeals, advance rulings, transparency and 
confidentiality. 
6.8.  Ukraine was in the process of strengthen ing the capacity of customs officers regarding 
customs valuation. In accordance with the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of 
GATT 1994, traders had the possibility to lodge an administrative or judicial appeal regarding 
customs issues, including valuation. Additionally, in order to simplify the customs procedures and 
diminish the number of permits required for customs clearance, Ukraine had introduced a 
mechanism for issuing advance rulings on origin and classification to traders and planned to build greater awareness of this mechanism within th e business community. Furthermore, Ukraine would 
be strengthening internal audit and control functions within the state fiscal service and was paying 
significant attention to the development of human resources within customs. 
6.9.  The Resolution did not introduce new methods for defining the customs value of goods and 
did not endorse the use of benchmark prices as minimum declared values. According to the 
Resolution, benchmarks were used only within the risk management system. Ukrainian legislation did not include the determination of customs value on the basis of minimum, arbitrary or fictitious 
values, including indicative or reference prices. 
6.10.  The procedure and methods of the customs valuation of goods crossing the customs border 
of Ukraine were determined by Section 3 of the customs code of Ukraine and were based on the 
provisions of Article VII of GATT 1994 and the Agre ement on the Implementation of Article VII of 
GATT 1994. According to Article 57 of the custom s code, the main method of determining the 
customs value was the method of the contract pric e or transaction value of imported goods. In G/VAL/M/62 
 
- 13 - 
 
  practice, customs officers were required to follow risk management with the aim of accepting 
transaction value for the majority of import transactions. That approach corresponded to the international convention of certification and harmonization of customs procedures. Using the customs value of goods as the risk area was recommended by the WCO, which was a guide to the 
general obligations of Chapter 6 Customs Control. 
6.11.  The result of the application of the analysis and risk management system was only a 
recommendation to customs officials to use additional forms of customs control including the 
verification of documents and data concerning customs value of goods. It could not be a reason to 
reject the clearance of goods according to the customs value declared by the declarant. 
6.12.  In addition, Ukraine had ratified the WT O TFA on 16 December 2015. Implementation of the 
TFA would simplify customs procedures, stimulate foreign trade and reduce trade costs. More 
importantly, Ukraine had launched the implementation  of the TFA and its highest priorities were to 
modernise the risk management system and to develop a programme for authorized economic operators. Ukraine had developed draft amendments  to the customs code in order to strengthen 
the provisions of the authorized economic op erators. The amendments were planned to be 
adopted in 2016 and Ukraine envisioned an operational programme in 2017. Advanced processing of goods and post-clearance audit would be introduced concurrently. 
6.13.  Resolution No. 724 would be notified to the Committee. Ukraine was ready to answer any 
questions received in writing concerning its customs valuation procedures. 
6.14.  The representative of the United States thanked Ukraine for its response and for notifying 
Resolution No. 724 to the Committee. 
6.15.  The Committee took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to the issue at the 
next meeting. 
7  PARAGRAPH 12 OF THE DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION: 
IMPLEMENTATION-RELATED ISSUES 
7.1.  The Vice-Chairperson recalled that at it s meeting of 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 had asked the Committee to 
report back to the General Council once its work had been completed. 
7.2.  At the last meeting, Members had indicated th at there had been no change in their positions. 
Following discussions with its capital, India had said that it wished to retain the item on the 
agenda while some other Members had been of the view that the TFA that had been agreed in Bali 
would have already taken care of the issue. 
7.3.  The representative of India confirmed that there had been no change in its position. Members 
had sought to draw parallels with Article 12 of  the TFA. Those Members had argued that the 
customs cooperation in the TFA would adequately address the mandate provided in paragraph 8.3. However, the mandate of the Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation given in Annex D of the 
July 2004 Framework Agreement was different from  the mandate given in paragraph 8.3. The 
July 2004 Framework was a negotiating mandate wherein the TFA was one of the elements under negotiation. 
7.4.  On the other hand, the Ministerial Decision  on Implementation-related Issues and Concerns 
of which paragraph 8.3 was meant for this Committee, was adopted with a view to establishing 
mechanisms so as to address the problems faced by the developing and LDC Members in implementing their Uruguay Round commitments. 
7.5.  Therefore, the mandate of paragraph 8.3 was still relevant and merited discussion in the 
Committee. Without prejudice to the position out lined, the TFA had not yet entered into force and 
even after its entry into force there would be a time-lag before Members started to implement 
various provisions. Therefore, his delegation was unable to agree to delete the item from the 
agenda. G/VAL/M/62 
 
- 14 - 
 
  7.6.  The representative of the United States st ated that the issue had been resolved. Members' 
ability to use the new cooperation mechanism as part of the TFA was dependent on the 
Agreement's entry into force. Therefore, Members were urged to complete their domestic procedures so that they might notify their acceptance of the TFA to the WTO. 
7.7.  The representative of the European Union echoed the United States' statement. Her 
delegation also looked forward to the full implementation of the TFA. 
7.8.  The representative of Canada stated that its position on the issue remained unchanged. 
7.9.  The representative of Japan supported the statements of the United States, the European 
Union and Canada. Members that had not ratified the TFA were encouraged to do so as soon as 
possible. 
7.10.  The Committee took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to the issue at the 
next meeting. 
8  PRESHIPMENT INSPECTION 8.1.  The Vice-Chairperson noted that Preshipmen t Inspection was a standing item on the agenda 
of the Committee on Customs Valuation and that there were three items to discuss: Status of 
notifications; Questions and Responses by the Un ited States and Indonesia, respectively; and, 
Information on PSI Programmes. 
8.1  Status of notifications by Members 
8.2.  The Vice-Chairperson drew attention to the compilation of notifications pursuant to Article 5 
of the Agreement on Preshipment Inspection contained in documents G/PSI/N/1/Rev.2 and 
G/PSI/N/1/Rev.2/Add.1 and G/PSI/N/1/Rev.2/Add.2. 
8.3.  The situation had not changed since last ye ar when Members had taken note of Addendum 2 
informing them of Sri Lanka's notification. A document consolidating the information on PSI notifications would be issued once new notifications had been received. 
8.4.  The Committee took note of the document. 
8.2  Questions and Responses by the United States and Indonesia 
8.5.  The Vice-Chairperson recalled that it had been agreed at the last meeting to revert to the 
issues of Questions and Responses by the United States and Indonesia, respectively. The United 
States had submitted questions to Indonesia in documents G/PSI/W/167, G/PSI/W/180 and G/PSI/W/237 to which Indonesia had provided replies in documents G/VAL/W/256, G/VAL/W/257 and G/VAL/W/257/Corr.1. The United States  had submitted additional questions in 
document G/VAL/W/278. 
8.6.  The representative of Indonesia thanked the United States for its continued interest in the 
issue. Responses to the questions contained in document G/VAL/W/278 were being prepared. 
Under the current administration, Indonesia had issued 11 new economic deregulation packages, 
including PSI requirements, and the administration  planned to issue further deregulations once 
they were finalized. 
8.7.  The representative of the United States thanked Indonesia for its statement. His delegation 
looked forward to receiving Indonesia's fort hcoming notifications and written replies. 
8.8.  The Committee took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to the issue at the 
next meeting. G/VAL/M/62 
 
- 15 - 
 
  8.3  Information on PSI programmes 
8.9.  The Vice-Chairperson drew attention to document G/VAL/W/63/Rev.18 and 
G/VAL/W/63/Rev.18/Corr.1 which contained the most recent update of information received from the International Federation of Inspection Agencies (IFIA) on Members that used PSI services. 
8.10.  The Committee took note of the information. 
8.4  Report on the Work by the WCO 
8.11.  The representative of the WCO, Mr Ian Cr emer, reported on a survey conducted by the WCO 
in West and Central Africa on countries' use of PSI/destination inspection services. That region 
contained the majority of the contracts still in place with regard to private sector companies working actively with customs administrations in the context of classification and valuation controls. There was a strong momentum in the area to terminate contracts, which was a good sign 
in the context of Article 10.5 of the TFA. In th e last couple of years, Ghana and Nigeria had 
successfully terminated contracts and other co untries were actively planning to do so. 
8.12.  The WCO considered it absolutely critical that Members planned for such an initiative. The 
WCO was actively working with administrations to encourage detailed planning and strategizing to 
make sure that the handover of the controls to customs was done efficiently and that ultimately, customs would be conducting valuation controls compliant with the valuation agreement. 
8.13.  In 2013, the WCO together with the Director s-General of the West and Central Africa region 
established a document referred to as the "Niamey Declaration". This was a statement of intent from those countries in terms of the commitments, roles and responsibilities of Governments, Customs Administrations and the inspection companies themselves. As a follow-up, the WCO had 
compiled guidance material which was being shared with countries going through the termination 
process. In terms of good practices, they incorp orated the diagnostic approach just mentioned in 
terms of Members assessing current weaknesses and infrastructure which they would need to 
address. That was a critical piece of work and there was more to be done. Maybe the WCO could 
share this survey, which was quite detailed in terms of indicating the status of the various contracts in that region, and which linked back to the technical assistance activity referred to 
earlier. 
8.14.  The Chairperson thanked Mr Cremer for his report and expressed the Committee's 
appreciation for the continued valuable work of the Technical Committee on Customs Valuation. 8.15.  The Committee took note of the report. 
9  ELECTION OF CHAIR 9.1.  The Vice-Chairperson informed the Committee that consultations on the slate of names for 
Chairs of the Council for Trade in Goods were  ongoing. Once the Council process had been 
concluded, a fax would be sent indicating the na me of the delegate being nominated as Chair of 
the Committee on Customs Valuation, with a 24 hour period for comments. If no comment had been received within the specified timeframe, the nominee would be considered elected through 
acclamation as of that moment.
1 
10  OTHER BUSINESS 10.1  Date of next meeting 10.1.  The Vice-Chairperson stated that the next  meeting of the Committee would take place in 
October 2016. The final date would be fixed in consultation with Members and the new Chair. 
10.2.  The meeting was adjourned. 
_______________  
                                               
1 Dr Yasser KORANI (Egypt) was elected. G/VAL/M/62 
 
- 16 - 
 
  ANNEX 
REPORT TO THE WTO COMMITTEE ON CUSTOMS VALUATION 
ON THE WORK OF THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON CUSTOMS VALUATION 
AND RELATED ACTIVITIES OF THE WCO SECRETARIAT 
25 April 2016 
The 42nd Session of the TCCV took place from 18 to 22 April 2016. 
Specific Technical Questions 
 Related party transactions under the Customs Valuation Agreement, and transfer pricing – 
case based on transactional net margin method and on resale price method . The Technical 
Committee has discussed this issue for a number of years. The interaction between customs 
valuation and transfer pricing is one of the key challenges in the effective implementation of 
the WTO Customs Valuation Agreement today. Th e challenge is to determine to what degree 
commercial information, prepared primarily for transfer pricing purposes, is both relevant and useful to customs administrations when examining related party transactions for 
customs valuation purposes. The Technical Committee finalized the text of the case study 
introduced originally by the United States on the application of one of the transfer pricing methods, transactional net margin method  (TNMM) in the customs valuation context. The 
new instrument, Case Study 14.1, on the set of transfer pricing documentation when 
examining related party transactions under Article 1.2(a) of the Agreement, will be presented to the WCO Council in July for form al endorsement. This instrument provides 
much-needed guidance to the business community and customs administrations in the areas 
of customs valuation and transfer pricing. Th e Technical Committee has two more cases left 
on the agenda with respect to this issue. These cases were introduced by China and Ecuador. These examples also deal with various documentations prepared for tax purposes 
and the application of different transfer pricing methods in the customs valuation context. 
Some good progress was made at the recent Session with respect to both cases and the examination will continue at the next Session. 
 Treatment of the fees for unlocking a function of imported goods after importation 
(application of Articles 1, 8.1 (c) and 8.1 (d) of the Agreement): submitted by Japan . This 
case has been on the agenda for some time and at the last Session no consensus could be reached on this item. It was proposed that no further discussions would take place on this 
question. It will be placed in the Conspectus of technical questions (which acts as a 
repository for all current and past technical questions presented to the Committee).  
Additionally, the Technical Committee agreed to prepare a summary of discussions that took 
place with respect to this issue and attach it to the official report for the 42
nd Session so as 
not to lose the important comments provided by Members during the discussions. 
 Treatment of advertising and promotion costs: request by Uruguay.  The Technical 
Committee concluded its discussion on the case presented by Uruguay concerning dutiabililty 
of advertising and promotion costs. No consensus could be reached on this item. This question was also put in the Conspectus of technical questions at the request of the delegate from Uruguay. 
 Meaning of the expression "sold for export to  the country of importation": submitted by 
Uruguay.  The issue for the Technical Committee was how to determine the customs value of 
imported goods in situations where goods were  purchased by one trader but destined for 
many countries. It is the issue of how to split shipments for customs valuation purposes. 
The Technical Committee opined that it had exhausted its discussion on this issue and concluded the examination of this case by putting it in the Conspectus of technical 
questions. 
The Technical Committee had examined two other questions: G/VAL/M/62 
 
- 17 - 
 
   Royalties paid under the franchise agreement: submitted by Mexico 
 The dutiability of International Marketing Fees: submitted by Colombia 
The Technical Committee had fruitful discussions on both of these cases and agreed to continue 
examining them at the next session. 
There were no questions raised during the intersession so there were no new questions from 
Members raised before the Technical Committee. 
Other issues 
TCCV working procedures 
The Technical Committee adopted new working procedures for the Technical Committee on 
Customs Valuation and the Members adopted a few changes to the working committee procedures. One of those important changes was that the Technical Committee adopted the proposal to make 
all Technical Committee working documents availa ble immediately to the public. This reflects 
general policy of the WTO which makes the majority of WTO working documents available to the public. 
The Technical Committee also adopted a new reporting procedure and determined that in cases 
where no consensus can be reached, the Technical Committee may decide to produce alternative outputs, such as a summary document, in order to provide record of relevant opinions or 
background information on a particular topic. 
Elections The Committee re-elected Ms. Yuliya GULIS of the United States as Chairperson and elected Vice 
Chairs from Netherlands and Democratic Republic  of Congo who will serve for the next year. 
Date of next meeting 
The 43
rd Session of the Technical Committee will be held at WCO Headquarters in Brussels from 
17-21 October 2016. 
__________