RESTRICTED  
  
G/RO/M/70  
 
28 August  2018 
(18-5365) Page: 1/7 
Committee on Rules of Origin    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETI NG OF 19 APRIL  2018 
CHAIR PERSON : MR GERALD PAJUELO (PERU)  
Subjects Discussed1 
1   WORK OF THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON RULES OF ORIGIN ( TCRO) – 
REPORT BY A REPRESEN TATIVE OF THE WORLD CUSTOMS ORGANIZATION  ....................  1 
2   IMPLEMENTATION  OF THE BALI AND THE NAIROBI MINISTERIAL DECISIONS 
ON PREFERENTIAL RULE S OF ORIGIN FOR LEAS T DEVELOPED COUNTRIE S .....................  2 
2.1   Notification of Preferential Rules of Origin for LDCs – Update by the Secretariat  ..................  2 
2.2   Submission by the Central African Republ ic on Behalf of the LDC  Group  .............................  3 
2.3   Update by Preference -Granting Members  ................................ ................................ ........  4 
3   HARMONIZATION OF NON -PREFERENTIAL RULES O F ORIGIN – 
EDUCATIONAL EXERCISE  AND EXPERIENCE SHARI NG ABOUT EXISTING NO N-
PREFERENTIAL RULES O F ORIGIN – REPORT BY THE CHAIRM AN ................................ ..... 4 
4   GUIDELINES AND PRINC IPLES TO STREAMLINE NON-PREFERENTIAL RULES 
OF ORIGIN – REPORT BY SWITZERLAN D ................................ ................................ .........  5 
5   NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE  5 AND UNDER PARAGRAP H 4 OF ANNEX  II 
OF THE AGREEMENT ON RULES OF ORIGIN  ................................ ................................ ...... 6 
6   ELECTION OF OFFICERS  ................................ ................................ ..............................  7 
7   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  7 
 
1  WORK OF THE TECHNICA L COMMITTEE ON RULES  OF ORIGIN (TCRO) – REPORT BY A 
REPRESENTATIVE OF TH E WORLD CUSTOMS ORGA NIZATION  
1.1.  The Chairperson  invited Ms  Mette AZZAM, Senior Technical Officer at  the World Customs 
Organization (WCO) Secretariat, to report on the activities of the WCO  Technical Committee on 
Rules of Origin.  
1.2.  Ms Azzam , speaking on behalf of the WCO Secretariat , noted  that the Technical Committee 
had held it s 36th Session on 30  January  2018, under the chairpersonship  of Mrs  Nsikan P.  Umoh 
(Nigeria). During the session, WCO  Members had adopted the 19th periodic report and the 
19th annual review on technical aspects and implementation of the Agreement (2017).  The annual 
review was concise given that  the Harmonization Work Programme had not been finalized and no 
problems or specific questions on non -preferential rules of origin had been referred to the TCRO. 
In this regard , a workshop to share experience and exc hange views on origin procedures had been 
organized and held on the same day, back-to-back with the TCRO  session.  
1.3.  With regard  to the work undertaken by the WCO  Secretariat, Ms Azzam  informed Members 
that the WCO was currently working on the Revenue Package Phase  III Action Plan. The absence  
of harmonization in the area of origin had created significant challenges that the WCO was trying 
to mitigate by promoting procedural harmonizati on in a number of its instruments, in cluding : 
"Guidelines on origin certification"; "Guidelines on origin verification"; "Guidelines on advance 
                                                
1 The agenda of the meeting was circulated in document  WTO/AIR/RO/ 7. G/RO/M/70  
 
- 2 - 
 
  rulings"; and "Guidelines on Customs infrastructure for classification, origin and valuation". These 
guidelines had been developed to ensure trade facilitation for compliant traders while striking a 
balance between trade facilitation and customs control. In addition, the WCO  Secretariat was also 
finalizing a "Practical Guide to the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Ru les of Origin for LDCs" that 
would provide practical information on how to qualify for preferential treatment as well as  detailed 
explanation of the Ministerial Decision 's various elements . The guide  was intended for customs 
administrations (operating as "competent issuing authorities " in LDCs) but would also prove useful  
to LDC exporters and producers.2 
1.4.  Finally, Ms Azzam  drew Members' attention to the fact that a number of capacity -building 
materials had also been developed  at the WCO , such as  e-learning m odules on subjects such as 
origin certification , origin verification , cumulation , origin criteria , and direct transport. Technical 
assistance efforts had also included the trainin g of accredited regional expert s. 
1.5.  The Committee took note  of this report.  
2  IMPLEMENTATION OF THE B ALI AND THE NAIROBI MINISTERIAL DECISION S ON 
PREFERENTIAL RULES O F ORIGIN FOR LEAST D EVELOPED COUNTRIES  
2.1  Notification of Preferential Rules of Origin for LDCs – Update by the Secretariat  
2.1.  The Chair recalled that  in 2017 the Committee had adopted  a new template for the 
notification of preferential rules of origin for LDCs. He invite d the Secretariat  to report on this 
issue. 
2.2.  The Secretariat  noted  that almost all preference -granting Members had submitted 
notifications using the agreed template. Members now had access to detailed information on the 
origin requirements that applied in the trade preferences for LDCs of Australia; Canada; Chile; 
China;  the European Union; India; Japan; Kazakhstan; Korea; New  Zealand; Norway; the Russian 
Federation; Switzerland; Chinese Taipei; Thailand; and the United States. Only four  Members had 
not yet submitted their notification s: Iceland; the Kyrgyz Republic; Tajikistan; and Turkey. The 
Secretariat ha d contacted the  delegations concerned to further raise awareness of the relevant 
notification requirements with a view to those delegations achieving  full coverage of preferen tial 
rules of origin for LDCs.  
2.3.  In addition,  the Nairobi Decision also contained transparency obligations regarding Members' 
detailed preferential trade flows with LDCs ; as a result, preference -granting Members should also 
notify tariff lines that were covered by their non -reciprocal preferences as well as  information on  
the flow of trade occurring under those tariff lines. The Secretariat reported that the quality of the 
data now available had greatly improved, even if significant gaps  remained; additional detail could 
be found in  document  G/RO/W/16 3/Rev.3 , to which a  further revision would be circulated later in  
2018. In addition, any new notification submissions would be considered in a revised report by the 
Secretariat on utilization rates (also to be considered by Members at the CRO 's 2018 autumn  
meeting ). 
2.4.  Finally, with regard  to the dissemination of information on origin requirements, the 
Secretariat  briefed Members on two ongoing efforts. First, all origin requirements notified to the 
Secretariat were gradually being made available on the WTO  Preferential Trade Arrangements 
database and in the WTO's three  official languages).3 Second, the Secretariat had also been 
collaborating with the International Trade Centre (ITC) to integrate these notifications  into the 
ITC databases  (in particular , the ITC's "Trade Helpdesk" and "Origin Facilitator" –tool). 
2.5.  Following this report, the representative of Tanzania , on behalf of the LDC  Group, t hanked all 
those Members that had worked hard to submit  their rules of origin and preferential trade regime 
data to the Secretariat. He also urged those preference -granting Members whose rules of origin or 
preferential trade regime data was not yet available to complete such notifications as soon as 
possible.  
                                                
2 WCO Guidelines related to origin as well as the Practical Guide to the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on 
preferential rules of origin for LDCs can be found on the WCO website: 
http://www.wcoomd.org /en/topics/origin.aspx .  
3 http://ptadb.wto.org  G/RO/M/70  
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.6.  The Committee took note  of the report and of the stat ement made.  
2.2  Submission by the Central African Republic on Behalf of the LDC  Group  
2.7.  The Chair  invited Members to consider a communication by the Central African Republic on 
behalf of the LDC  Group (document  G/RO/W/174).  
2.8.  The representative of Tanzania , on beh alf of the Central African Republic and the LDC  Group, 
explained  that the purpose of the communication was to maintain  a high level of engagement in 
the CRO on the issue of working towards  a full implementation of the obligations of the Nairobi 
Ministerial  Decision. According to the Decision, preference -granting Members were expected to 
undertake specific reforms with a view to making their rules of origin applicable to LDC  imports 
more transparent, simpler , and trade facilitating. At the l ast CRO  meeting ( 4 and 5  October  2017), 
several LDC  delegations had given  detailed presentations illustrating the specific challeng es facing 
LDC exporters with regard to existing origin requirements. The communication posed a  question  to 
three categories of Member:  first, preference -granting developed Members were requested  to 
report on any steps that they had taken to implement the commitments of the Decision , and any 
outcomes achieved as a result of such efforts ; second , the same question was addressed to 
preference -grant ing developing Members ; and finally , the question was repeated in the context of  
any efforts made by preference -granting Members  that had not yet submitted to the Secretariat 
their preferential import data.  
2.9.  The Chair thanked the LDC  Group and the delegatio n of Tanzania for their communication 
and presentation. He believed  that a technical and a ppropriately  focused discussion in the CRO 
was useful in order to continue monitoring new developments with regard to preferential rules of 
origin for LDCs.  
2.10.   The repre sentative of Canada  noted  that, as had been reported in Canada's notifications, 
her government had taken several measures to implement the Ministerial Decision. In addition, 
her delegation had provided tariff and import data to the Secretariat  annually . In her view, Canada 
had complied fully with the Decision.  
2.11.   The representative of Switzerland  said that his government had also fully implemented the 
relevant sections of the Ministerial Decision. In fact, over 90% of exports from LDCs were already 
importe d into Switzerland free of duty. Moreover, the  Swiss government had for the first time 
submitted it s import trade data up to 2016. In addition, the Swiss government had begun to 
introduce  a registered exporter system ("REX") , and  his delegation would close ly monitor 
subsequent developments and report back as necessary.  
2.12.   The representative of the United States  noted that his delegation had already submitted 
information regarding US compliance  with the Decision (document  G/RO/83). In addition, the US 
had provi ded for cumulation  under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) between 
current and former beneficiaries. Moreover, the value of merchandise shipments that could be 
imported by one person  on a single day free of duties and taxes had been raised from  US$200 to 
US$800. Finally, he also noted that the US Generalized System of Preference s had been re -
authorized until end-2019.  
2.13.   The representative of the European Union  also made reference to previous EU notifications 
and confirmed that the EU had complied with all the requirements of the Nairobi Decision. The EU 
offered a very open market access regime to all products, including to certain  very sensitive 
products such as textiles and sugar. In addition , her delegation had already submitted the EU's 
relevant  import data.  
2.14.   The representative of Japan  also recalled the efforts his government had made  to facilitate 
trade and customs procedures, including by simplifying origin procedures. In addition, Japan had 
introduced simpler rules for clothing products falling under  HS Chapters  61 and 62. Finally, he 
drew Members' attention to the fact that Japan was open to requests from LDCs with regard to  any 
specific difficulties they faced in accessing Japan's market.  G/RO/M/70  
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.15.   The representative of Norway  confirmed that his delega tion had notified Norway's  full 
compliance with the Nairobi Decision. He pointed out that his government had cooperated  with the 
EU and Switzerland to this  end. 
2.16.   The representative of Tanzania  thanked all the preference -granting Members that had 
spoken. He said that his delegation and those of the LDC  Group would review the reports made 
and comment on them in the future, if necessary . However, he wished already to share some 
preliminary thoughts with regard to the reports made. He recalled that, the LDC  Group had agreed  
to Ministerial Decisions that contained flexible language and a progressive introduction of 
commitments. In line with this, he considered  it incorrect for any delegation to claim that it had 
already implemented the Ministerial Decision  in full. LDC  exporters continued to face specific and 
multiple challenges because of their limited capacity to meet many of the origin requirements of 
preference -granting Members. With regard  to the US , for example, he was disappointed to learn 
that specific improvements had not been introduced even as the US  government had recently 
reviewed and extended its trade preferences for LDCs. No country could claim full implementation 
of the Decision until LDCs were able to utilize the preferences available  in full . 
2.17.   The Chair thanked Members for their comments and constructive engagement and proposed 
that the Committee continue its technical and focused  discussion of the issue of implementation 
and compliance in order to continue monitoring progress made in trade facilitation for LDCs.  
2.18.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
2.3  Update by Preference -Granting Members  
2.19.   The Chair reminded Members that paragraph  4.1 and 4.2 of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision 
asked preference -granting Members to update the Committee on efforts being made to implement 
the Decision. This objective had already been covered by the previous agenda item and the 
LDC paper ; nevertheless , he wished  to afford  Members an opportunity to report on any additional 
information, if any.  
2.20.   No additional statements were made. The Chair reminded Members that, end -2018, the 
Committee would undertake an annual review of recent developments in this area and prepare an 
annual report for the General Council. He therefore asked Members to review their recent effo rts 
and to keep the Committee informed  of any new developments . 
2.21.   The Committee took note  of the  Chair's statement . 
3  HARMONIZATION OF NON -PREFERENTIAL RULES O F ORIGIN – EDUCATIONAL 
EXERCISE AND EXPERIE NCE SHARING ABOUT EX ISTING NON -PREFERENTIAL RULES O F 
ORIGI N – REPORT BY THE CHAIRM AN 
3.1.  The Chair recalled that at the Committee's previous meeting he had sought Members' views 
on two issues: first, he had invited Members to share their impressions of and conclusions from 
the educational exercise; and second, he had  asked Members to identify possible topics for future 
educational sessions  (G/RO/M/69).  Such input would help the Committee to design future sessions 
of the educational exercise and to better frame its future work on non -preferential rules of origin.  
3.2.  Before hearing Members' views , the Chair referred to the information session that had been 
held the previous day on certification of origin and other practices relating to proofs of origin 
(G/RO/W/175 ). The session had, in his view, confirmed that these in formation sessions had indeed  
been very useful in guiding the work of the CRO. In fact, the nine  presentations had explained, 
inter alia , the international legal provisions that regulated the use of certificates of origin, the 
complexities involved in thei r preparation, the costs they implied for businesses, and the 
advantages of e -certification and self -certification. All presentations had been circulated as room 
documents (RD/RO/60; RD/RO/61; RD/RO/62; RD/RO/63; RD/RO/64; RD/RO/65; RD/RO/66; 
RD/RO/67 and RD/RO/68). While useful, the session had nevertheless only begun to scratch the 
surface of these issues. In other words, the presentations had highlighted areas of difficulty where  
further discussion would be useful so as to allow  the Committee a better un derstanding of the 
challenges  in these areas and at the same time to identify current best practice. Consequently, 
more focused and more thematic sessions would be very useful going forward, in his view.  G/RO/M/70  
 
- 5 - 
 
  3.3.  The representative of the United States  thanked the Secretariat for its work in organizing the 
educational session. His delegation had found the presentations to be informative and relevant to 
the work of the CRO. As a result, his delegation agree d that future educational sessions should 
focus on areas of i nterest to Members  and looked forward to consulting with other Members to 
identify the specific topics of broad interest to the membership.  
3.4.  The representative of Switzerland  also agreed that the presentations had been very useful 
and informative for all Me mbers and therefore concurred that Members should remain open to 
additional such sessions in the future. They had, for example , highlighted clearly how little 
Members actually knew  about other Members' non -preferential rules of origin and related 
requirements . By contrast, sharing national experiences and listening to the perspectives of a 
variety of stakeholders promoted mutual understanding and could help to build consensus in the 
Committee to wards  agreeing solutions to  specific problems. He wish ed to share his delegation's 
two specific conclusions drawn from the information session , namely: first, there existed a lack of 
transparency regarding certification practice s (and non -preferential rules of origin in general) ; and  
second , there were doubts  about the value -added of certificates of origin in a non -preferential 
context  given that certain delegations had mentioned that such certificates were useful in only a 
limited number of circumstances.  
3.5.  The representative of the European Union  likewise cons idered that  the session had been 
useful and that certain topics could be discussed in further detail, such as  the issue of 
transparency and coherence , for example . 
3.6.  The representative of Canada  agreed that the information session had indeed been very 
inform ative and that further reflexion on the issues covered would now be necessary . The different 
views heard would help her delegation to better understand the nature of the problems in this 
area. She also agreed that it would be important for Members to concr etely identify the problems 
that exist ed in relation to non -preferential certificates of origin and other proofs of origin ; Members  
could then identify solutions that would address  those problems and that were practical for 
Members to implement.  
3.7.  The repres entative of  the Republic of Korea  agreed that the information session had been a 
great opportunity to learn more about certificates or proofs of origin in a non -preferential 
environment  and he  would welcome additional sessions to further Members' understanding of 
these issues. In addition, he would welcome a written summary from the Secretariat of the 
findings or recommendations made during the session.4 
3.8.  The Chair thanked Members for their stat ements and comments. In conclusion, he proposed : 
first, to keep open the option of organizing  future information sessions , and that  Members should 
remain open and flexible to focusing on specific topics depending on the needs of the Committee ; 
and second , he asked Members to communicate to the Secretariat any specific proposals that they 
may have with regard to  topics or speakers for future sessions.  
3.9.  The Committee  agreed  to proceed accordingly.  
4  GUIDELINES AND PRINC IPLES TO STREAMLINE NON-PREFERENTIAL RULES OF 
ORIGIN – REPORT BY SWITZERLAN D 
4.1.  Under this agenda item, the Chair wished to offer Members an opportunity to learn more 
about the efforts being led by the delegation of Switzerland regarding possible "Guidelines and 
principles to streamline non -preferenti al rules of origin". He therefore invited Switzerland  to update 
the CRO on their recent consultations on this matter . 
4.2.  The representative of Switzerland  reminded Members that his delegation had been 
coordinating small -group consultations on non -preferential  rules of origin. These consultations 
were inclusive and each participant was encouraged to submit ideas for discussion. 
Sixteen  Members, covering various geographical groups, development status , and trade profiles, 
were currently part icipating  in these co nsultations. He added that the  discussions  were running 
smoothly and took place in a very positive atmosphere. The objective of the consultations was to 
                                                
4 A summary of the session is available in document G/RO/W/175.  G/RO/M/70  
 
- 6 - 
 
  identify ways of facilitating  international trade by reducing trade barriers occurring as a result of  
non-preferential rules of origin. The discussions also covered how to reduce  compliance costs 
connected  to non -preferential rules of origin as well as  how to foster better integration of MSMEs 
in the global economy, and those operating in less integrated economies  in particular . On 
substance, the discussions currently focused on transparency. By contrast , a common 
understanding had emerged that certain other topics, such as certification, before they could be 
meaningfully discussed in the group require d first a clear er sense of overview  and broad er 
understanding of WTO Members' practices. Nevertheless, a  common focus on transparency had 
emerged in the discussions  from the fact that existing notifications on non -preferential rules of 
origin were often outdat ed, incomplete, uneven , or inexistent. These observations had led 
Members to discuss a possible notification template as a means of enhancing  transparency and 
standardizing the information available regarding non -preferential rules of origin and related 
practices. He emphasized at this point that these discussions were without prejudice to the 
Harmonization Work Programme  and that any proposed  notification template or possible guidelines 
would not substitute nor contradict the work already achieved under th at programme . Finally, the 
representative of Switzerland reminded all delegations that the consultations were open to any 
delegation wishing to participate constructively  in them . 
4.3.  The representative of Japan  thanked Switzerland for its proposal on transpar ency, and its 
efforts in coordinating these consultations , and confirmed Japan's view that improving 
transparency in the area of  non-preferential rules of origin should be an important objective of the 
Committee.  
4.4.  The representative of  the Republic  of Korea  considered  that the group had made significant 
progress and noted that his own delegation was in agreement with the group's  focus on 
transparency  given that  availability to accurate information was the most fundamental and cost-
effective instrument to fac ilitate trade and compliance in the origin area. In this sense, a new 
notification template would be  useful and could also build upon the positive experience of the 
Nairobi Decision on preferential rules of origin for LDCs.  
4.5.  The representative of Hong Kong,  China  agreed , adding that transparency regarding import 
and export requirements was of the utmost importance, in particular for MSMEs , and while  there 
did exist  transparency and publication provisions in the WTO  Agreements  that covered rules of 
origin, th ere were also significant gaps in such provisions. Therefore, the work of the Committee 
could significantly enhance transparency and facilitate trade . 
4.6.  The representative of Thailand  noted  that her delegation shared the objective of this initiative 
and appr eciated Switzerland's leadership.  
4.7.  The representative of the European Union  indicated  that her delegation also supported the 
work being undertaken to enhance  transparency  as accurate, detailed , and concise information on 
non-preferential rules of origin would be  important to any future work in the CRO. The EU thus 
supported the idea of a notific ation template.  
4.8.  The Chair thanked the delegation of Switzerland and also the other delegations that were 
active in these consultations. He hoped that their efforts  would ensure that the work of the 
Committee would remain relevant and useful to Members. To that end, he  also encouraged 
Members to intensify their consultations with a view to submitting any ideas or results to the 
Committee for discussion.  
4.9.  The Committee  took note  of the report and of the statements made.  
5  NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE  5 AND UNDER PARAGRAP H 4 OF ANNEX  II OF THE 
AGREEMENT ON RULES O F ORIGIN  
5.1.  The Chair  informed Members that additional  notifications had been received recently by the 
Secretariat covering both preferential and non -preferential rules of origin  
(documents  G/RO/N/163; G/RO/N/164; G/RO/N/165 ). Following these notifications, 49  Members 
had informed the Secretariat that they maintained non -preferential ori gin requirements , and 
56 Members had informed the Secretariat that they did not apply any non -preferential ru les of 
origin ; the  remaining 32  Members had not yet submitt ed a notification under Article  5 of the G/RO/M/70  
 
- 7 - 
 
  Agreement. The Chairman reminded Members that these and all other notifications , including the 
relevant legislation (if notified),  could be retrieved  through the Rul es of Origin webpage of the 
WTO website , under the section "Notifications".5 
5.2.  The Committ ee took note  of the report made.  
6  ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
6.1.  The Chair informed Me mbers that the Chairperson of the Council for Trade in Goods had held 
consultations with Members to identify possible chairpersons  for each of the subsidiary bodies of 
the Council. Following those  consultations, and in accordance with the established Guide lines on 
the Appointment of Officers , it was proposed that Mrs  Thembekile MLANGENI, from South Africa, 
be the next Chair of the Committee on Rules of Origin.  
6.2.  The Committee  elected  Mrs Mlangeni by acclamation.  
7  OTHER BUSINESS  
7.1.  The Chair stated that, under this agenda item, he wished to make two  announcements . 
7.2.  First, he referred to an announcement made by the Director -General, at the Heads of 
Delegation meeting of 23 February  2018, that the note s convening future HODs and TNC  meetings 
would henceforth only b e sent by e -mail to delegations. The Chair indicated that the Secretariat 
had proposed to utilize the same practice in the Committee on Rules of Origin. As a result, all 
official notes convening the meetings of the CRO would in future be sent by e -mail instead of  fax. 
Other channels of communication with Members, such as  the WTO's e -subscription service or 
"documents for meetings" link, for example, remain ed unchanged. The e -mail addresses used 
were those of Members' permanent missions (not the addresses of  individual delegates). Should 
delegations have any questions about the addresses being used, they should contact the 
WTO's Council and TNC  Division.  
7.3.  Second, t he Chair informed Members that the next meeting of the CRO had been 
provisionally scheduled to take place on 15 and 16  October  2018.  
7.4.  The Committee took note  of both announcements.  
__________  
                                                
5 https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/roi_e/roi_e.htm