G/RO/W/175  
 
12 September  2018 
(18-5629) Page: 1/6 
Committee on Rules of Origin    
 
SUMMARY OF THE INFOR MATION SESSION ON  
NON-PREFERENTIAL RULES O F ORIGIN  
18 APRIL  2018 
Note by the Secretariat1 
1. Introduction  
1.1 In the absence of negotiations on the harmonization of non -preferential rules of origin , the 
Committee on Rules of Origin (CRO) engaged  in an "educational exercise" to share experiences of 
existing  non-preferential rules of origin  and to develop a clearer understanding of the design, 
coverage , and impact  of such rules (G/RO/M/63) . In that context,  Members  heard presentations by 
international organizations, business associations , and representatives of the private sector in a 
series of "information sessions" , held since 2015 ( summaries of previous sessions may be found in 
documents G/RO/W/162 , G/RO/W /167, and G/RO/W/170 ). This document contains a brief 
summary of the presentations made during the session  of 18 April 2018. 
2. Darlan F. Martí, Trade Policy Specialist, Market Access Division, World Trade 
Organization (WTO) (RD/RO/ 66) 
2.1 In the presentation "The certification of orig in in the WTO Agreement on Rules of Origin and 
other WTO Agreements ", Mr Martí reminded Members  that existing WTO provisions  already 
regulate the use of certificates  of origin. He noted,  however, that the current provisions  only cover 
certain specific aspects of origin certificates and that there was scope for further international 
disciplines  in this area. In particular, he noted  that: 
 the WTO Agreement on Rules of Origin  focuses primarily on the rules themselves (that is, 
the harmonization of  the criteria used to determine non -preferential origin) and does not 
contain specific provisions regarding procedures or certification related to origin ; 
 however , Article  VIII of the GATT  1994 ("Fees and Formalities connected with Importation 
and Exportat ion") contains some provisions that would be directly relevant ; for example , the 
need to minimiz e the incidence and complexity of import and export formalities and to 
decreas e and simplify import and export documentation requirements.  In addition, the Notes 
to Article  VIII clearly state that certificates of origin should only be required "to the extent 
that is strictly indispensable "; 
 the provisions of Article  VIII explicitly cover fees, charges, formalities , and requirements 
imposed by governmental aut horities in connection with importation and exportation, 
"including those relating to: ( a) consular  transactions, such as consular invoices and 
certificates "; and "(f) documents , documentation and certification "; 
 moreover , the recent WTO  Trade Facilitation  Agreement also contains provisions intended to 
make certification obligations more transparent (for example , through their publication; 
through their availability over the Internet ; through their availability at Enquiry Points; and 
through their translati on into all three of the WTO's official languages  (Article  1)). 
                                                
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  G/RO/W/175  
 
- 2 - 
 
  Furthermore, the Agreement  aims to make certification obligations simpler and fast (for 
example,  by allowing for the prior processing of documents , and the electronic payment of 
trade documents  (Article  7); and  by the acceptance of copies  (Article  10)). Finally, the 
Agreement calls for the standardization of trade documents wherever  possible, in particular 
by promoting cooperation among customs administrations ( Article  12); 
 in addition to these Agreements, the 2013 and 2015 Ministerial Decisions on preferential 
rules of origin for LDCs also contain provisions intended to  keep proofs of origin as simple as 
possible  by, for example, using  self-certification , customs cooperation and risk-management 
measures , and simpler certification requirements for small consignments . 
3. Ms Mette AZZAM, Senior Technical Officer at the World Customs Organization 
(WCO)  (RD/RO/ 64) 
3.1 Ms Azzam  summarized the  "WCO  legal instruments and guidelines on the certification of 
origin" . She highlighted the following points : 
 a proof of origin was always needed in preferential trade agreements. However, in most 
cases, a proof of origin was not needed for non -preferential pur poses because of an absence 
of practical consequence. In fact, t he Revised Kyoto Convention recommended that a 
certificate of origin (CO) should only be requested when it was necessary  for the application 
of trade preferences, for the application of unilat eral trade measures , or when customs 
authorities suspect ed fraud2; 
 with regard to  types of proofs of origin, Ms  Azzam noted  that different categories were 
available ; for example, different systems existed according to the authority issuing the 
certificates  (such as  government or delegated authority, Chambers of Commerce) , or 
according to the entities applying for a certificate  (trusted expo rters, any other category of 
exporter, and importers);  
 certificates of origin for non -preferential purposes entail ed significant difficult y: in addition to  
adding costs for operations, they could not be established according to internationally  
agreed rules  of origin (in the absence of multilaterally  agreed non -preferential rules of 
origin). As a result, certifying entities  in the exporting country were expected to interpret 
and ensure compliance with the rules of the importing country ; 
 a 2013 WCO Survey  confirmed that most WCO  Members did not require certificates of origin 
for non -preferential transactions. However, some Me mbers did in certain cases and a few did 
in all cases.  Among the reasons reported by customs administrations for a request for a 
certificate were: customs valuation purposes; duty assessment; consumer protection; 
enforcement of intellectual property rights ; risk management profiling; and application of 
quotas. It could be argued that a CO is not an appropriate instrument for achieving certain  
of these objectives . Furthermore, a ccording to the Survey, t he average fee for issuing a CO 
ranged  between  US$30 and US$50 (for certificates issued by chambers of commerce)  and 
between zero to US$ 9 (if issued by a governmental agency ); 
 based on this survey and practices, the WCO developed guidelines to be used as guidance 
for Members wishing to design, develop , and achieve robust management of origin -related 
procedures. These non-binding guidelines encourage d Members to use self -certification as 
frequently as possible and to ask for a non-preferential CO only when absolutely necessary . 
4. Mr Martin Van der Weide, Chair of the International Chamber of Commerce 
World Chambers Federation ( ICC WCF ) CO Accreditation Committee and 
currently leading the revision of the CO Guidelines  (RD/RO/ 61) 
4.1 Mr Van der Weide  explained that, y ear after year, the number of COs issued reach new 
record numbers. This continuous increase seemed to confirm  their utility and benefit for 
international trade.  Chamber s of commerce were the most common entity issuing COs (third -party 
                                                
2 Specific Annex K "Origin", Chapter 2 " Documentary evidence of origin", available at 
http://www.wcoomd.org/en/topics/facilitation/instrument -and-tools/conventions/pf_revised_kyoto_conv.aspx   G/RO/W/175  
 
- 3 - 
 
  certification). He shared with Members some of the efforts currently being deployed to ensure that 
the COs issued by chambers of commerce were of high quality and credibility , as follows:  
 several  instruments had been put in place by the ICC World Chambers Federation, in  
particular,  "CO Guidelines " and a "CO Accreditation Chain". These efforts were intended to 
establish universal procedures  for issuing and attesting COs, thereby ensuring a uniform 
level of trust and integrity . The progressive utilization of these standards and processes 
should reinforce the int egrity and credibility of certificates issued by chambers and enhance 
the role of chambers as a competent trusted third party in the issuance of COs. However, 
these instruments would not replace harmonized  rules of origin  and a clear interpretation of 
the rules;  
 the "CO Guidelines " covers: the use and purpose of COs; definitions and language; the role 
and authority of chambers; place of issue; printing and distribution of forms; pricing and 
issuing fees; outline of the issuing process; determination and ver ification of origin; 
supporting documents; concessions and prohibitions; training requirements; changes or 
problems with certificates of origin; a supplement for CEOs; and printable sample letters and 
forms ; 
 the "CO Accreditation Chain " is an ICC WCF initi ative to which individual chambers can 
adhere on a voluntary basis. The Accreditation Chain affirms that chambers are mutually 
responsible and globally interconnected, assuring businesses, traders, banks and customs 
administrations that COs are issued in a ccordance with international best practices . 
Adherence to the CO G uidelines is mandatory for all chambers participating in the 
Accreditation Chain. There are currently 20 participating chambers in the chain. Accredited 
chambers to the CO chain may use the ICC WCF international quality label on their CO 
forms, which reinforces their credibility when goods arrive at the Customs entry point;  
 any chamber may join the chain subject to the acceptance of an " accreditation committee". 
In order fully to implement these guidelines, participating chambers receive training to build 
the capacity of the staff issuing certificates and to enhance trust and controls. In fact, the 
most significant element of the guidelines is that participating chambers must obtain 
evidence of origin before agreeing to issue a CO.  
5. Mrs Ursula Hermelink, Non -Tariff Measures Programme Manager, 
International Trade Centre  (ITC) (RD/RO/ 67) 
5.1 Mrs Hermelink explained that t he ITC  business surveys on NTMs document ed the 
experiences of companies that were involved in international trade.  The surveys covered 
interviews and reports conducted in 35  developing countries and the EU  28 member States.  The 
purpose of the surveys was to identify the regulatory and procedural t rade obstacles  imposed by 
importing countries  as well as potential bottlenecks in the exporting country . Based on the survey 
results , Mrs Hermelink highlighted the following points : 
 exporters  value d clarity ( regarding the relevant regulations ), consistency  (what applie d 
when) and procedural efficiency (cost and time) . Unfortunately, s mall exporters in 
developing countries usually only worry about regulatory requirements until the very last 
moment, once all other trade hurdles have been jumped over (finding a buyer, meeting 
quality standards, obtaining export certificates and licences , etc.); 
 in the surveys collected among responding businesses, r ules of origin appear ed as a trade 
obstacle in 16% of cases . Problems relating to rules of origin concerned primar ily 
manufactured goods (81% of cases) . Certain sectors , such as non -electric machinery, 
clothing, leather products , and textiles , were particularly affected by problems relating to 
origin.  Among the difficulties reported, 77% related to origin procedures (e.g. certification) 
and 9% to the rule itself  (e.g. origin criteria) . In other words,  origin procedures represented 
a hurdle more commonly than in other areas (such as SPS  measures, for example ); 
 according to the surveys, the biggest problems related to co sts (often judged prohibitive) , 
administrative burden (number of documents to be prepared) , and delays for obtaining COs. 
Furthermore, 90% of procedural delays and costs occur red in the exporting country  (and not  G/RO/W/175  
 
- 4 - 
 
  the importing country). While this may be surprising at first sight, it could  be explained by 
the fact that COs must be obtained from entities located in the importing country;  
 in conclusion, the multiplicity of requirements create d complexities for compa nies that in 
turn generate d confusion and unpredictability . In the absence of standardization and 
harmonization, transparency and training were fundamental to minimizing unpredictability 
and achieving greater efficiency . 
6. Mr Michel Anliker, Director an d Head of Trade & Customs, 
KPMG  Switzerland  (RD/RO/ 65) 
6.1 Mr Anliker, shared with Members his impressions of how companies complied with origin 
certification require ments . Among some of the main points he made were the following : 
 non-preferential rules of origin create significant barriers  for companies engaging in 
international trade  as a result of  costly and cumbersome certification requirements , lack of 
clarity in the applicable rules , and differences in origin outcomes ( that is,  the same product 
may hav e different countries of origin depending on the applicable regulations of importing 
countries);  
 businesses tend to understand trade regulations  very poorly . For example , businesses have 
difficulty calculating  the origin  of their products in the case of va lue-added rules. Such 
difficulties could be partly explained by a lack of transparency, clarity , or precision , in the 
applicable regulations . Moreover, companies must  understand the requirements of each 
importing country because the rules are not harmonized. Finally, companies also frequently 
confuse  preferential origin , non-preferential origin , and marks of origin ; 
 many companies fe lt that non -preferential COs d id not bring any value  to their transactions, 
that a CO was required in many instances when it was  in fact  not needed , and that they 
carried significant costs . In Switzerland , for example , chambers  charged a minimum fee of 
CHF10 or CHF 20, and a maximum of CHF300 to CHF 450 per certificate. Moreover, there was 
confusion about the applicable ru les for establishing COs : should the y be established 
according to the rules of the importing or the exporting country? ; 
 some of the recommendations Mr  Anliker made included  the following : to align or 
standardiz e preferential and non -preferential origin requirements; to simplify rules of origin 
(to have a single rule based on the l ast substantial transformation with an increased 
catalogue of minimal processing ); and to establish a mutual recognition framework . 
7. Mr Stefa no Inama, Chief, Technical Assistance, Trade and Customs in the 
Division on African and Least Developed Countries (LDCs), UNCTAD  
(RD/RO/ 68) 
7.1  Mr Inama presented his latest research on "Measuring transparency on origin certification ". 
Among his  main argu ments were the following : 
 there were problems and inefficiencies in the certification of origin that generate d costs for 
businesses . This was in part a result of the  proliferation of national requirements , as well as 
regulatory gap s in this area . In fact,  on the one hand, t he Revised Kyoto Convention was not 
binding and had become outdated ; on the other, the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement had 
not entirely filled in the gaps in this area. In reality , origin certification had barely evolved:  a 
majority of C Os were still paper -based and stamped ; 
 Mr Inama's o ngoing research focussed on  codifying  national certification requirements to 
classify and compare the stringency, transparency , and trade facilitation of such 
requirements. The requirements being compiled related to preferential and non -preferential 
rules of origin. A total of  38 different types of variables  had been identified to date , 
indicating  wide discrepancies in national practice s. The outcomes of th is research would be 
described in  a forthcoming study by UNCTAD and the WCO , which measured the 
transparency  and stringency of such requirements;  G/RO/W/175  
 
- 5 - 
 
   by collecting details about national certification practices , the research had revealed that  
there were major gaps in WTO notifications of non-preferential rules of origin : many of the 
Internet links provided did not work ; the information provided was often partial or had gaps ; 
there was a lack of clarity regarding the scope of practices (imports or exports ); and the 
legislative texts were rarely provided and, even if available, were often too complex or 
lengthy , or had not been provided in an official WTO  language ; 
 Mr Inama said that greater transparency regarding non-preferential origin requirements , 
including certification , was urgent . He also said that improved notification guidelines were 
necessary . 
8. Mr Tokio YAMAOKA, Director, Office of Rules of Origin, Customs and Tariff 
Bureau, Ministry of Finance of Japan (RD/RO/ 62) 
8.1 Mr Yamaoka presented some of the main initiatives being deployed by Japan Customs to 
facilitat e compliance with Japan's origin requirements. The following are among  the points he 
highlighted:  
 Japan Customs had t hree main roles: (i)  contributing to a safe and secure society ; 
(ii) collecting taxes and duties appropriately  and fairly ; and (iii)  facilitating trade.  
Risk assessment and verification measures  were needed to achieve these objectives in 
parallel ; 
 in principle, Japan did not require a CO for imports . However, the government  may issue a 
CO at the request of Japanes e exporters  in case s where exporters may need to present a CO 
abroad (Japan's Chamber of Commerce and Industry);  
 many measures had been taken to facilitate compliance with origin requirements. These 
measures could be divided into three types: the examination of information before 
clearance ; at clearance ; and after clearance;  
 the main instrument used before clearance was advance rulings. Requests for advance 
rulings ha d increased very sharply since the conclusion o f the Japan -Australia EPA. 
This agreement had introduced self-certification for the first time  in Japan. In fact, 
self-certification was possible by the importer, by the exporter , or by the producer . A CO 
issued by a competent authority was acceptable . More than 70% of transactions currently 
claimed preferential treatment based on self -certification ; 
 in relation to the clearance phase, Mr  Yamaoka said that the el ectronic submission of COs  
was now possible (in pdf format ). In addition, Japan had  introduced facilitated or simplified 
procedures for low -value consignments  (those with a customs value that did not exceed 
200,000 yen) , and for transactions by authorized operators.  Furthermore, it had also 
introduced a f lexible treatment for minor errors and mistakes in CO s; 
 in relation , specifically, to preferential rules of origin for LDCs, Japan had taken several 
initiatives : it had introduced bilateral cumulation ; it had simplified the  rules of origin for 
textiles and clothing ; and it had also i ntroduced a de minimis  rule for products of chapters 
HS50 to HS63 (10%  of the weight of the product ). 
9. Mr Peter Bishop, Deputy CEO of the London Chamber of Commerce 
(RD/RO/ 63) 
9.1 Mr Bishop highlighted certain aspects of the UK's practice when issuing certificates of origin , 
explaining  that: 
 rules of origin and origin requirements ha d never been so  relevant  as now  in the UK's 
international trade agenda. Brexit and other developments meant that governments were 
increasingly looking to rules of origin and other possible ways to fig ht fraud, abuse , and 
circumvention . In addition, there was a growing interest in the l inkages between origin and 
product quality ; G/RO/W/175  
 
- 6 - 
 
   Chambers of Commerce dated back to 1599 when a chamber had been  established in 
Marseille. The 1923 Geneva Convention on the Simplification of Customs Procedures 
confirmed, for the first time , that  government s could delegate the authority to issue trade 
documents to a third  party. Today, o ver 15  million COs were issued by chambers every year 
(and the numbers continued to increase ). In addition, chambers continued to modernize 
COs, particularly by introducing electronic  COs in a growing number of countries;  
 requests for non -preferential COs were also increasing , perhaps to counter unpredictability 
in trade and business. In certain countries, COs were requested systematically ( for instance, 
in many parts of the Middle East ). 
10. Mrs Choidog Oyunjargal, Director of Customer Service, Mongolian National 
Chamber of Commerce and Industry (RD/RO/ 60) 
10.1 Mrs Oyunjargal  shared with Members some of the main features of Mongolia's practices in 
issuing non -preferential certificates of origin. She highlighted the following elements:  
 the Mongolian National Chamber of Commerce and Industry was the sole body authorized, 
accordi ng to Mongolian law, to determine the origin of goods and issue COs for international 
trade. The Chamber was responsible for issuing both preferential and non -preferential rules 
of origin;  
 the number of requests for COs had increased steadily in Mongolia. Most of the commodities 
that certified were natural resources ( such as coal, copper, gold, crude oil, iron oils , and 
cashmere). Most products were exported  either  to China (85%) , the UK  (10.7%) , or the 
Russian Federation  (1.1%); 
 the COs were issued according to the origin requirements and origin criteria of the importing 
country. The fees charged by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry ranged from USD4 to 
USD60 depending on the value of the shipment ; 
 in her view, b usinesses were not yet ready to move to self -certification . They would first 
require training.  
__________