RESTRICTED  
  
G/VAL/M/54  
 
14 February 2013  
(13-0827)  Page: 1/17  
Committee on Customs Valuation   
 
 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 25 OCTOBER 2012 
CHAIRPERSON:  MS IRENA BANASZYNSKA (POLAND) 
 The agenda proposed for the meeting, circulated in WTO/AIR/4025, was adopted 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 
-  Notification of nati onal legislation ............................................................................... 2  
A. Kingdom of Bahrain .................................................................................................. 2  
B. Belize ..................................................................................................................... 3  
C. Cambodia ............................................................................................................... 3  
D. Cape Verde ............................................................................................................. 4  
E. China ..................................................................................................................... 4  
F. Costa Rica ............................................................................................................... 4  
G. Ecuador .................................................................................................................. 5  
H. Nicaragu a ............................................................................................................... 5  
I. Nigeria ................................................................................................................... 5  
J. Russian Fede ration ................................................................................................... 6  
K. Rwanda .................................................................................................................. 6  
L. Saint Vincent and th e Grenadines ............................................................................... 6  
M. Thailand ................................................................................................................. 7  
N. Tunisia ................................................................................................................... 7  
O. Ukraine ................................................................................................................... 8  
3   INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATIO N OF DECISIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON 
CUSTOMS VALUATION ...................................................................................................... 9  
4   TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ............................................................................................. 9  
-  Information on Technical Assistance ............................................................................ 9  
-  Article 20.3 Technical Assistance and Tr ade-Related Technical Assistance ......................... 9  
5   UNITED STATES - ARMENIA'S RE FERENCE PRICE SYSTEM IN CONNECTION 
WITH THE VALUATION OF GOODS (G/VAL/W/213) ........................................................ 9  
6   PARAGRAPH 12 OF THE DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION 
(WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1):  IMPLEMEN TATION-RELATED ISSUES ....................................... 10  
-  Paragraph 8.3 of document WT/MIN/(01)/17 ............................................................... 10 
7   PRESHIPMENT INSPECTI ON ...................................................................................... 11  G/VAL/M/54 
 
- 2 - 
 
  -  Status of notifications by Members and information provided by IFIA .............................. 11 
-  Question from the United States to Indonesia .............................................................. 11 
8   ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION OF THE 
CUSTOMS VALUATION AGREEMENT ................................................................................ 12  
9   REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO TH E COUNCIL FOR TRAD E IN GOODS ...................... 12  
10   OTHER BU SINESS .................................................................................................... 13  
-  Date of the next meeting .......................................................................................... 13 
-  Letter from the Internatio nal Chamber of  Commerce .................................................... 13 
ANNEX 1 ....................................................................................................................... . 15 
 
_______________ 
 
1  REPORT OF THE WORK OF THE TECH NICAL COMMITTEE ON CUSTOMS VALUATION 
1.1 The representative of the World Customs Organization (WCO), Mr Leonardo Macedo, 
reported on the activities of the Technical Committee at its 35th session, which was held on 
15-19 October 2012.  His report is contained in Annex 1. 
1.2 The Committee took note of the report. 
2  INFORMATION ON IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE AGREEMENT - Notification of national legislation  2.1 The Chairperson recalled that Article 22 of the Agreement on Customs Valuation (hereafter, 
the Agreement) and the Decision on "Notification and circulation of national legislation in 
accordance with Article 22 of the Agreement", requ ired each Member to notify:  1) the complete 
text of their national legislation on customs valuation in one of the three official WTO languages; 2) any change in its laws and regulations which were relevant to the Agreement; and 3) any 
change in the administration of such laws and regulations.  She also reminded Members that the 
notification procedures had been adopted by the Committee at its meeting of 12 May 1995 (G/VAL/5, section B.2).   
2.2 The Chairperson recalled that the examinatio n of the notification of legislation by the 
Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu remained suspended since the 
Committee's meeting on 4-5 November 2002 pending resolution of the difference of views between the parties involved in notifications across the WTO. 
2.3 The Chairperson proposed that the Committee take up the legislations, in the order set out 
in the agenda.   
A. Kingdom of Bahrain 
2.4 The Chairperson recalled that it was agreed at  the last meeting to revert to the examination 
of national legislation and responses to the checklist of issues which had been circulated in 
G/VAL/N/1/BHR/1 and G/VAL/N/2/B HR/1, respectively.  The United States had submitted 
questions in G/VAL/W/181, to which Bahrain had replied in G/VAL/W/191.  The United States had 
submitted follow-up questions in G/VAL/W/201, which had been replied by Bahrain in G/VAL/W/217. In addition, Bahrain had recently notified a copy of the "Common Customs Law of the Gulf Co-operation Council", which ha d been circulated in G/VAL/N/1/BHR/2. 
2.5 The representative of the United States th anked Bahrain for the responses that had been 
provided and for the notification of the 2008 GCC Customs Code.  His delegation had some 
technical questions that would be submitted in wr iting following the meeting.  The United States 
looked forward to working with Bahrain in addressing the remaining questions. G/VAL/M/54 
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.6 The representative of Canada indicated that  this delegation did not have any outstanding 
question, but wanted to raise a systemic point.  With reference to the responses that had been 
provided in document G/VAL/W/217 in respect of United States' question 3.b, Canada considered that Bahrain had not responded directly to the concern that had been raised concerning the 
protection of confidential information when consulting outside the Government.  
Canada considered that such protection when consulting with outside experts was an important systemic issue and, for this reason, was interested in Bahrain's response. 
2.7 The Committee took note of statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. 
B. Belize 2.8 The Chairperson recalled that it was agreed at  the last meeting to revert to the examination 
of national legislation and responses to the checklist of issues, which had been circulated in 
G/VAL/N/1/BLZ/1 and G/VAL/N/2/BLZ/1, respecti vely.  Canada and the United States had 
submitted questions in G/VAL/W/176 and G/VAL/W/175.  Belize had replied to those questions in 
G/VAL/W/183 and G/VAL/W/188, respectively.   
2.9 The representative of the United States recalled that, since November 2009, his delegation 
had sought clarification with respect to certain points raised in G/VAL/W/188.  Specifically, the 
United States would like to know whether Belize had fully incorporated certain aspects of the 
Agreement into its national legislation, including Article 16 (which provided importers with the right to an explanation in writing) and the interpretative notes of the Agreement.  The United States remained interested in rece iving written responses to those questions.  
2.10 The representative of the Canada recalle d his delegation's general position that the 
interpretative notes were extensions of obli gations included in the Agreement and should, 
therefore, be reflected in each Member's lega l framework.  Therefore, Canada supported the 
statement by the United States.   
2.11 The Committee took note of statements made an d agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. 
C. Cambodia 
2.12 The Chairperson recalled that it was agreed at the last meeting to revert to the examination of 
national legislation and responses to the checklist of issues which had been circulated in 
G/VAL/N/1/KHM/1 and G/VAL/N/2/KHM/1, respectively.  The United States had submitted questions 
in G/VAL/W/193, to which Cambodia had replied in G/VAL/W/195.  The United States had submitted 
follow-up questions in G/VAL/W/201, to which Cambodia had replied in G/VAL/W/209.  Additional follow-up questions had been submitted by the United States in document G/VAL/W/216.   
2.13 The representative of the United States recalled that, at the last meeting, his delegation had 
submitted follow-up questions in G/VAL/W/216.  The United States looked forward to receiving 
Cambodia's written responses. 
2.14 The representative of Cambodia thanked the Un ited States for the follow-up questions and 
noted that Cambodia's Customs Department in the Ministry of Finance was still working on the 
replies.  Cambodia's delegation would submit them as  soon as they were rece ived from capital.  He 
also noted that this notification had been on  the agenda of the Committee since 2010 and that 
several replies had been provided.  His delegation requested Members to take into account the 
capacity constraints faced by a least-developed county, and hoped that the outstanding issues would be resolved as soon possible. 
2.15 The representative of Canada thanked th e Cambodian delegate for the update and noted 
that his country was sensitive to the specific circumstances faced by Cambodia.  However, his 
delegation was also interested in receiving written responses to the questions that had been raised 
by the United States.   G/VAL/M/54 
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.16 The Committee took note of statements made an d agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. 
D. Cape Verde 2.17 The Chairperson drew Members' attention to Cape Verde's notification of national legislation 
which had been circulated in G/VAL/N/1/CPV/1 and comprised a copy of "Legislative Decree 
No. 4/2010 of 3 June 2010". 
2.18 The representative of the United States commended Cape Verde for its implementation of the 
Agreement, as well as for the notification that had been submitted.  His delegation wanted to clarify 
Cape Verde's reference to a "transition" and "pos t-transition period", and noted that separate 
procedures appeared to be established depending on the period.  The United States wished to have a confirmation that Cape Verde was currently operatin g in the "post-transition" period.  Finally, he 
noted that his delegation would be submitting written questions shortly after the meeting and looked 
forward to receiving written responses at the next meeting. 
2.19 The representative of the European Union thanked Cape Verde for its timely notification and 
for having submitted its entire Customs Code.  Since customs valuation rules could only be applied 
in the context of the general framework of customs la w, he considered it useful to have the entire 
package at hand.  He also thanked Cape Verde for making sure that its legislation was up-to-date 
in all respects.  Although they did not have any specific question for the moment, his delegation 
would like to know the answer to the question  that had been raised by the United States 
concerning the "pre" and "post" implementation period.  
2.20 The Committee took note of statements made an d agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. 
E. China 2.21 The Chairperson recalled that it was agreed at  the last meeting to revert to the examination 
of national legislation which had been circulated in G/VAL/N/1/CHN/5.  This notification contained 
Decree of the Customs General Administration of the People’s Republic of China No. 148 of 2006, 
with "Rules regarding Determination on Custom s Value of Imported and exported Goods."  
The United States had submitted questions in G/VAL/W/168 and Corr.1, to which China had replied 
in document G/VAL/W/184.  The United Stat es had submitted follow-up questions in 
G/VAL/W/192, to which China had replied in G/VAL/W/198.  The United States had subsequently submitted a new set of follow-up questions in G/VAL/W/205. 
2.22 The representative of the United States recalled that his delegation had submitted questions 
to China in October 2011, which had been circulated in G/VAL/W/205, and sought the clarification 
of two aspects of China's customs valuation practice s.  His delegation looked forward to receiving 
written responses to these questions. 
2.23 The representative of the Canada noted that, to his understanding, the two outstanding issues 
related to the inclusion of the interpretative no tes of the Agreement in China's legal framework, 
which his delegation considered to be very important, and the use of reference prices.   
2.24 The Committee took note of statements made an d agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. 
F. Costa Rica 
2.25 The Chairperson recalled that it was agreed at  the last meeting to revert to the examination 
of changes of legislation which had been circulated in G/VAL/N/1/CRI/2.   The United States had 
submitted questions in G/VAL/W/211. 
2.26 The representative of Costa Rica thanked the United States delegation for the questions that 
had been raised and noted that her capital was still working in the preparation of responses.  
She hoped that they would be submitted shortly to the Committee. G/VAL/M/54 
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.27 The representative of the United States thanked the Costa Rican delegate for the update and 
noted that they were looking forward to receiving those written responses. 
2.28 The Committee took note of statements made an d agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. 
G. Ecuador 
2.29 The Chairperson recalled that it was agreed at  the last meeting to revert to the examination 
of responses to the checklist of issues which had been circulated in G/VAL/N/2/ECU/1.  The United 
States had submitted questions in G/VAL/W/220.  Although Ecuador had submitted a new 
notification before the meeting, the Secretariat had not been able to format the document in time.   
2.30 The representative of Ecuador thanked the Un ited States for its questions.  His capital was 
still in the process of analysing them and preparing written answers.  For the moment, as had 
been requested by the United States and with  a view to meeting Ecuador's transparency 
obligations, his delegation had notified the Andean Community's regulations to Decision No. 571, as well as nine additional laws for the period between 2004 and 2012.  Ecuador would provide 
written replies to the remaining questions as soon as possible. 
2.31 The representative of the United States thanked Ecuador for the new notification and noted 
that his delegation looked forward to receiving written responses and examining the additional pieces 
of legislation.   
2.32 The Committee took note of statements made an d agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. 
H. Nicaragua 
2.33 The Chairperson drew Members' attention to Nicaragua's notification of national legislation 
and responses to the checklist of issues which had been circulated in G/VAL/N/1/NIC/1 and 
G/VAL/N/2/NIC/1, respectively. 
2.34 The representative of the United States noted that, because an English translation of the 
notification was not yet available, his experts had not had the opportunity to review it.  
His delegation requested that the Committee revert back to this matter at the next meeting.   
2.35 The representative of the Canada supported the intervention by the United States and noted 
that his delegation would like to maintain the item on the agenda.   
2.36 The Committee took note of statements made an d agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. 
I. Nigeria 
2.37 The Chairperson recalled that it was agreed at  the last meeting to revert to the examination 
of national legislation and responses to the checklist of issues which had been circulated in 
G/VAL/N/1/NGA/1 and G/VAL/N/2/NGA/1, respecti vely.  The United States and Canada had 
submitted question in G/VAL/W/175 and G/VAL/W/176, respectively.   
2.38 The representative of the United States noted that his delegation was still interested in 
receiving answers to the questions that had been  put forward, and requested that the Committee 
retain the agenda item. 
2.39 The representative of the European Union noted that his delegation understood that the 
administration of those rules would be taken over shortly by the Nigerian Customs Service.   
He recalled that this function had for a long time been performed by a PSI company, but the 
Nigerian government had decided that it was in a position to fully take control of the administration of the Agreement.  The European Union welcomed this development which, in their opinion, was a 
sign of progress.  In terms of the legislation, his delegation was looking forward to the responses 
that had been raised by other Members.  Generally, they considered that the legislation looked a bit G/VAL/M/54 
 
- 6 - 
 
  abbreviated and, since it did not include the interpretative notes, they would like to hear how Nigeria 
intended to reflect them in their national legal framework.   
2.40 The representative of Canada considered that the item should remain on the agenda until all 
outstanding questions had been answered.  His delegation also supported the view that had been 
expressed by the European Union regarding the interpretative notes.   
2.41 The Committee took note of statements made an d agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. 
J. Russian Federation 
2.42 The Chairperson drew Members' attention to the Russian Federation's notification of legislation 
and responses to the checklist of issues which had been circulated in G/VAL/N/1/RUS/1 and 
G/VAL/N/2/RUS/1, respectively. 
2.43 The representative of the United States commended the Russian Federation for its timely 
notifications but noted that, since they had just be en submitted the week prior to the meeting, his 
experts in capital were still in the process of  reviewing them.  His delegation would submit 
questions in writing before the next meeting in ca se it was required and requested to revert back 
to this matter at the next meeting. 
2.44 The representative of the European Union indicated that his comments were similar to those of 
the United States.  His delegation wanted to express its appreciation to Russia for the timely 
submission of very specific notifications.  He considered that the checklist of issues in 
G/VAL/N/2/RUS/1 provided quite comprehensive resp onses, including on issues such the right of 
appeal and how importers were notified of the right of appeal.  Like others, his delegation was just 
starting to read the notifications and would like to revert to them at the next meeting. 
2.45 The representative of Canada echoed the requests by the European Union and the United 
States to retain the item on the agenda, because his delegation was still in the process of 
reviewing the notifications.  As a general matter, Canada could support the European Union's 
comments regarding the thoroughness and comprehensiveness of the notifications, and the 
promptness in in which they had been submitted by Russia. 
2.46 The Committee took note of statements made an d agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. 
K. Rwanda 2.47 The Chairperson recalled that it was agreed at  the last meeting to revert to the examination 
of national legislation and responses to the checklist of issues which had been circulated in 
G/VAL/N/1/RWA/1 and G/VAL/N/2/RWA/1, respecti vely.  The United States had submitted 
questions in G/VAL/W/205.   
2.48 The representative of the United States welcomed Rwanda's notifications and noted that his 
delegation had identified a couple of areas that they would like to clarify.  He recalled that 
questions had been submitted in writing, so his delegation looked forward to receiving written 
responses to them.   
2.49 The Committee took note of statements made an d agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. 
L. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 
2.50 The Chairperson recalled that it was agreed at  the last meeting to revert to the examination 
national legislation and responses to the checklist of issues which had been circulated in 
G/VAL/N/1/VCT/1 and G/VAL/N/2/VCT /1, respectively.  The United States had submitted questions 
in G/VAL/W/181. G/VAL/M/54 
 
- 7 - 
 
  2.51 The representative of the United States recalled that the representative of Saint Vincent and 
the Grenadines had responded orally to some of the questions during the meeting that had taken 
place on May 2010.  His delegation would like to receive written responses to each of them.  The representative of St. Vincent and the Grenadin es had also mentioned that a draft harmonised 
legislation was being examined with a view to im plementing it by July 2010.  The United States 
would appreciate an update on the status of that legislation. 
2.52 The representative of Dominica took the floor  on behalf of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, 
and thanked the United States for its questions.  He acknowledged the delay in providing the 
written responses and noted that the issue had been brought to the attention of the authorities in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.  He anticipated that the written answers would be forthcoming in the very near future. 
2.53 The Committee took note of the statement made  and agreed to revert to this matter at its 
next meeting. 
M. Thailand 
2.54 The Chairperson recalled that it was agreed at  the last meeting to revert to the examination 
of national legislation and responses to the checklist of issues which had been circulated in 
G/VAL/N/1/THA/1 and G/VAL/N/2/THA /1, respectively.  The United States, the European Union 
and the Philippines had raised questions in G/VAL/W/128, G/VAL/W/143, G/VAL/W/160, 
G/VAL/W/164, G/VAL/W/165 and G/VAL/W/181.  Thailand had provided replies to those questions in G/VAL/W/130, G/VAL/W/158, G/VAL/W/174 and G/VAL/W/190. 
2.55 The representative of the United States noted that his delegation remained concerned by 
section 11 bis, and continued to urge Thailand to abolish that provision.  However, his delegation 
had taken note that Thailand's Customs Department did not exercise this function and was determining the customs value in a manner that was consistent with the Agreement.  While his 
delegation remained interested in the issue and would appreciate updates, they did not have 
further questions. 
2.56 The representative of Thailand thanked the United States’ delegate for his comments and 
support in this process.  As had been previously  discussed, the remaining points concerned section 
11bis of Thailand’s customs act and had been we ll noted.  He stressed that the Customs 
Department had never exercised such arbitrary right. With a view to achieving a long-term 
solution, a draft legal amendment had been proposed to remove section 11 bis, but it was still 
being considered by the Council of State.  He provided assurances that the Committee would be 
kept informed through the appropriate channels.  He recalled that Thailand’s legislation had r e m a i n e d  i n  t h e  a g e n d a  f o r  a  l o n g  t i m e  w i t h  a  g o o d  r e c o r d  o f  c o n t i n u o u s  e f f o r t s  t o  a d d r e s s  
comments raised by Members.  For this reason, he requested Members’ understanding and invited 
the Committee to drop the item from the agenda. 
2.57 The Committee took note of statements made  and agreed to conclude the examination of 
Thailand's national legislation. 
N. Tunisia 2.58 The Chairperson recalled that it was agreed at  the last meeting to revert to the examination 
of national legislation which had been circulated in G/VAL/N/1/TUN/2/Rev.1.  The United States 
had raised questions in G/VAL/W/188, to which Tunisia had replied in G/VAL/W/202.  
The United States had submitted follow-up question in G/VAL/W/206.  
2.59 The representative of the United States recalled that his delegation looked forward to 
receiving written responses to the question s that had been submitted in G/VAL/W/206. 
2.60 The representative of Canada recalled that the questions that had been raised by the United 
States in G/VAL/W/206 dealt with two important issues: Article 6.2 and the inclusion of the 
interpretative notes in Tunisia's national legislation.  Canada considered that both were very 
important systemic issues and looked forward to  receiving answers at the earliest opportunity. G/VAL/M/54 
 
- 8 - 
 
  2.61 The Committee took note of statements made an d agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. 
O. Ukraine 2.62 The Chairperson recalled that it was agreed at the last meeting to revert to the examination of 
the national legislation and responses to the checklist of issues which had been circulated in 
G/VAL/N/1/UKR/1 and G/VAL/N/2/UKR/1, respectively.  The European Union had submitted questions in G/VAL/W/179, to which Ukraine had answered in G/VAL/W/182.  Questions had also 
been submitted by Norway in G/VAL/W/199 and by the United States in G/VAL/W/188 and 
G/VAL/W/207.  Ukraine had provided responses to  these questions in G/VAL/W/182, G/VAL/W/200 
and G/VAL/W/212.  Since the last meeting, Ukraine had notified new amendments to its Custom Code, which had been circulated  in G/VAL/N/1/UKR/2.    
2.63 The representative of United States thanke d Ukraine for notifying in August the amendments 
to its Customs Valuation legislation, and noted th at his delegation had additional questions which 
would be provided in writing after the meeting.  His delegation looked forward to Ukraine's written 
responses. 
2.64 The representative of the European Union thanked Ukraine for its most recent notification, 
which he considered to be quite substantial and seemed to cover most of the Agreement, except 
for the interpretative notes.  Although his delegation was still reviewing the notification, he 
thanked Ukraine for having produced a substantial reworking of its customs rules on valuation.  
His delegation wanted to understand how these rules fit with the customs code and whether any of the previous rules remained in place, because they had not yet been able to establish that with 
certainty.  Overall, he considered that there was more transparency with regard to the powers of 
the administration, and a number of articles included very substantial provisions.  These included, inter alia , Article 55, which related to the adjustment of the customs value, Article 53, which 
related to documents submitted by the applicant to  confirm the declared value, and Article 58, on 
the method of determining the customs value on the basis of the commercial contract.  Although they were still reviewing the notification, he wa nted to note that there appeared to be minor 
translation problems which would be raised at the next meeting together with other questions.   
2.65 The representative of Canada thanked Ukraine for its comprehensive notification and noted 
that his delegation was still in the process revi ewing it.  Since he had heard the comment by the 
European Union concerning the interpretative notes, he wanted to note that his delegation would 
certainly be looking at that issue. 
2.66 The representative of Ukraine recalled that his government had implemented a revised 
customs code as of 1 June 2012, which had been  re-drafted in cooperation with businesses, 
including the American Chamber of Commerce which provided most of the inputs, as well as with 
colleagues from the European Union.  The Ukrainian authorities were actively implementing the revised code and making sure that it was fully operational.  His government was closely monitoring 
the evolution of the situation at the border and no ted that no complaints had been registered to 
date.  His delegation remained read y to respond to any question.   
2.67 The Committee took note of statements made an d agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. 
2.68 Before concluding the discussion under this agenda item, the Chairperson drew Members' 
attention to the annex of document G/VAL/W/218, which contained the status of all notifications of 
national legislation and amendments that have been received since 1994.  According to the 
Secretariat's estimate, 42 of the 157 Members had failed to notify their national legislation and 70 
Members had not provided responses to the checklist of issues.  In addition, it appeared from interventions made at previous meetings that ma ny Members had not notified changes introduced 
to their national legislations since they first made a notification.  With a view to providing more 
transparency and assisting Members in this resp ect, the summary information now included the 
dates of notification. The Chairperson reminded Members that transparency was one of the cornerstones of the WTO, and urged them to cons ult with their customs authorities to make sure 
that the information reflected in the document was up to date and accurate.  Finally, she recalled 
that the Secretariat was available for Members requiring technical assistance in this respect. G/VAL/M/54 
 
- 9 - 
 
  2.69 The Committee took note of this information. 
3  INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION OF DECISIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON 
CUSTOMS VALUATION 
3.1 The Chairperson recalled that, under this agenda item, the Committee examined notifications 
pursuant to two Decisions that had been adopted by the Committee at its meetings of 12 May 1995.  
These were the Decision on the "Treatment of Interest Charges in the Customs Value of Imported Goods” and the Decision on “Valuation of Carrier Media Bearing Software for Data Processing 
Equipment".  Since the last meeting, a new notification had been received from the Russian 
Federation, which had been circulated in G/VAL/N/ 3/RUS/1.  A summary report had been prepared 
by the Secretariat and circulated in G/VAL/W/5/Rev.22.  This report had been updated to reflect new notifications and now also included the "date of application" which had been notified pursuant to the 
Decision on Interest Charges.  The Chairperson noted that 92 of the 157 Members had not make a 
notification in respect of any of these two Decisions. 
3.2 The Committee took note of this information. 
4  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE - Information on Technical Assistance 4.1 The Chairperson recalled that, as reflected in section B.4 of document G/VAL/5, the 
Committee had agreed that greater transparency of technical assistance activities would be ensured 
if information documents prepared for the Technical Committee on Customs Valuation were also circulated as WTO documents.  For this reason, the WCO Secretariat periodically provided information of the technical assistance activities carried out under the auspices of the WCO.  
Document G/VAL/8/Add.27 and Corr.1 contained th e most recent information that had been 
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 Committee took note of this information. 
- Article 20.3 Technical Assistance an d Trade-Related Tec hnical Assistance 
4.3 The Chairperson recalled that the Committee's work programme on technical assistance for 
capacity-building concerning the implementation  and administration of the Agreement was now 
incorporated in the overall technical assistance programme of the WTO.  This plan foresaw regional activities on "Market Access Issues" which included customs valuation as one of the areas covered in that training.  Of the three regional activities that had been  planned for 2012, two of them had 
already taken place: one in Korea for the Asian region, and another one in Chile for the Latin 
American region.  The regional workshop that had been planned for English Speaking Africa had to 
be postponed for 2013.  The Chairperson drew Memb ers' attention to the fa ct that requests for 
technical assistance could be made by Members at any time, which would be met by a national 
activity designed to meet the needs of the recipi ent.  Three such national activities had been 
delivered in 2012.  The first one had taken place in The Gambia and had been delivered by the WTO 
Secretariat.  The other two had taken place in Honduras and Kyrgyz Republic, and had been 
delivered jointly by the WTO and WCO Secretariats.  It was expected that a fourth activity would 
take place in Peru in November. 
4.4 The Committee took note of this information. 
5  UNITED STATES - ARMENIA'S REFERENCE PRICE SYSTEM IN CONNECTION WITH THE 
VALUATION OF GOODS (G/VAL/W/213)  
5.1 The Chairperson recalled that it was agreed at the last meeting to revert to this issue.  
In 2003, Armenia had notified its national legislation and responses to the checklist of issues in 
G/VAL/N/1/ARM/1 and G/VAL/N/2/ARM/1, respectively.  The Committee had concluded their examination at its meeting of 18 October 2005.  Subsequently, the United States had posed new 
questions to Armenia, which had been circulated in G/VAL/W/208.  These were answered by 
Armenia in G/VAL/W/213.  More recently, Canada had submitted questions in G/VAL/W/214. G/VAL/M/54 
 
- 10 - 
 
  5.2 The representative of Canada recalled that his delegation had submitted updated questions 
and would appreciate knowing when the answers could be provided.   
5.3 The representative of the United States noted that while his delegation appreciated Armenia's 
past statements indicating that its customs officials were not applying reference or minimum 
prices, they continued to receive reports suggesting that Armenia was still using arbitrary 
methods.  Therefore, his delegation would also be interested in the responses to the questions that had been put forward by Canada in G/VAL/W/214.  The United States understood that Armenia 
was working on amendments to its customs code, which would impact its customs valuation 
procedures, in which case they looked forward to reviewing them. 
5.4 The representative of the European Union stressed that his delegation was also interested in 
this issue, in particular because they were providing technical assistance to Armenia.  The European 
Union had an agency working with Armenian Customs in trying to ensure the application of best 
practices, as well as the non-application of bad practices.  This project remained on-going and he expected to get progress reports soon in order to  provide an update to the Committee, perhaps at 
the next meeting. 
5.5 The Committee took note of statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. 
6  PARAGRAPH 12 OF THE DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION (WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1):  
IMPLEMENTATION-RELATED ISSUES 
-  Paragraph 8.3 of document WT/MIN/(01)/17  6.1 The Chairperson recalled that, at its meeting in 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 to report back to the General 
Council once its work had been completed.  Under this item, India had argued that "in recognising 
the legitimate concerns of importing Members on th e accuracy of the declared value" Ministers had 
directed this Committee to identify and assess practical means to address such concerns, including through the exchange of information on export valu es.  India considered that this was a separate 
mandate that should be addressed by the Committ ee.  However, other Members were of the view 
that the Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation was the appropriate venue to continue those discussions, in particular because it was examining proposals that contained elements that were very similar to those contained in India's proposal.   
6.2 The representative of India recalled that Paragraph 8.3 of the Decision had emanated after a 
lengthy process of consideration of the implementation-related issues, and that it was imperative to 
find a solution to it.  As the Chairperson had outlined, some Members had taken the position that the 
appropriate forum for taking action on this issue was the Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation, but 
India did not agree with this interpretation.  That Negotiating Group operated under a different mandate, whereas the Committee on Customs Valuation was the designated forum to discuss and 
officialise the mandate contained in Paragraph 8.3 of the Ministerial Decision.  Moreover, working in 
one forum did not prevent the Committee from working in a second forum.  Therefore, he considered that this matter should be kept on the agenda of the Committee and that Members should work constructively to implement the mandate in Paragraph 8.3.  India was ready to engage in this 
discussion. 
6.3 The representative of the United States noted that Members would have to agree on 
disagreeing.   In his delegation’s view, the Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation was the 
appropriate venue to continue these discussions,  because it was currently examining proposals 
that were very similar to those contained in India's paper. 
6.4 The representative of Canada took the floor to reiterate his delegation’s position that India's 
proposal was contrary to the mandate, in part, because it was mandatory in nature and because 
any outcome had to be consistent with domestic laws and procedures.  In addition, Canada was of the strong opinion that the proper forum to discuss the exchange of confidential customs 
information was the Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation. G/VAL/M/54 
 
- 11 - 
 
  6.5 The representative of the European Union considered that it should not come as a surprise 
that his delegation favoured to continue work exclusively in the trade facilitation negotiations.  
They did not see any potential for having parallel work at this time.  
6.6 The Committee took note of statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. 7  PRESHIPMENT INSPECTION 7.1 The Chairperson recalled that Preshipment Insp ection was a standing item on the agenda of 
the Committee on Customs Valuation and proposed to discuss two issues separately. The first one 
concerned the status of notifications, as well as information received from the International Federation of Inspection Agencies (IFIA), and th e second one related to questions that had been 
posed by the United States to Indonesia.   
-  Status of notifications by Member s and information provided by IFIA 
7.2 On the status of notifications submitted by Members, the Chairperson drew Members' 
attention to the new compilation that had been prep ared by the Secretariat pursuant to Article 5 of 
the Agreement on Preshipment Inspection and circulated in G/PSI/N/1/Rev.1.  The information had 
not been consolidated in a single report since June 1995, so it had become very difficult to appreciate the overall notification landscape on this issue.  For this reason, the Secretariat had 
prepared a revised version compiling the information contained in the original document, as well 
as its 17 addenda.  The idea was to make it easier for Members to determine whether there had been changes since they last submitted a notification. New notifications had been received from Ecuador and the Russian Federation.  The Chairperson urged Members to review the new 
document and to notify in case there had been any change.   
7.3 The Chairperson also drew Members' attention to the most recent update by the 
International Federation of Inspection Agencies (IFIA) concerning countries which had in place 
preshipment inspection services.  This information had been circulated in document 
G/VAL/W/63/Rev.15.  She noted that IFIA's report stated that there had been a marked reduction in traditional PSI programmes, as well as considerable growth in more modern programmes that 
were less intrusive for exporters. 
7.4 The representative of the United States noted that his delegation continued to have concerns 
about the accuracy and completeness of the preshipm ent inspection reports, as well as the impact 
this situation had on the Committee’s ability to fully understand the scope of such regimes.  As the 
United States had indicated during past meetings, it appeared that certain WTO Members were 
absent from the report in the G/VAL/W/63 document series, leading them to question the usefulness of the document.  While they also a ppreciated the Secretariat's recent efforts to 
compile all PSI notifications in document G/VAL/PSI/N/1/Rev.1, it was not clear to which extent 
Members applied preshipment inspection regimes.  It was clear to them that some Members had not notified their PSI procedures, thus making it difficult for the Committee to fully understand the 
scope of existing PSI requirements.  As had been noted in the last meetings, the United States was 
concerned by Members having recently adopted ne w PSI requirements, which they had failed to 
notify.   
7.5 The Committee took note of the two documents and statements made. 
-  Question from the United States to Indonesia  7.6 The Chairperson recalled that it was agreed at the last meeting to revert to this issue.  At the 
last meeting, the United States had indicated that it had not received responses to the questions that 
had been posed to Indonesia in documents G/VAL/W/167 and G/VAL/W/180.   The representative of 
Indonesia had taken note of those questions. 
7.7 The representative of the United States noted that this was as an example of the lack of 
accurate information available on the issue.  In his delegation's understanding, Indonesia maintained 
several PSI requirements where certain goods had to be inspected by designated surveyors in the country of export in order to verify information such as country of origin, description of the goods, G/VAL/M/54 
 
- 12 - 
 
  quantity and their HS classification.  Despite repeated requests for Indonesia to notify them and 
provide an explanation of those requirements, Indonesia had failed to provide any response.  For example, why was it that Indonesia had not notified Decree No. 21/M/DAG/PER/6/2009, dated 11 June 2009, or the technical verification on the importation of iron and steel products? Similarly, 
why was it that Indonesia had failed to notify Decree No. 40/M/DAG/PER/9/2009, concerning the 
verification of quality, quantity, customs classification of sheet glass?   Indonesia's apparent lack of notification raised the question of what other PSI requirements existed which had not been notified 
to this Committee.   
7.8 The Committee took note of the statements made, and agreed to revert to this matter at its 
next meeting. 8  ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION OF THE CUSTOMS 
VALUATION AGREEMENT 
8.1 The Chairperson drew Members' attention to Article 23 of the Agreement, which provided that 
the Committee shall review annually the implementation and operation of the Agreement, taking into 
account the objectives thereof.  In this regard, she drew Members' attention to document 
G/VAL/W/218, which contained a draft eighteenth annual review of the implementation and operation of the Agreement.  She proposed to adopt the review as contained in that draft document 
and to instruct the Secretariat to update it as necessary to take account of this meeting.   
8.2 The Committee so agreed.
1 
8.3 The Chairperson also noted that pursuant to the recommendations by the Committee on 
Budget, Finance and Administration relating to Cost Savings in Document Production and 
Meetings, the Secretariat had suggested that minor changes could be introduced in future annual 
reviews. For example, it was suggested that the first point in the annual review –listing all WTO Members– could be deleted. This change would not have an influence on the other information 
contained in this annual review.  In addition, she drew Members’ attention to the fact that the 
information contained in the Annex to the annual review was very similar to the information contained in the annex to the report to the Council for Trade in Goods (CTG) (document 
G/VAL/W/219).  The Secretariat considered that the information contained in both annexes could 
be merged in a single document that could then be cross-referenced in the annual review and the report to the CTG. This would avoid unnecessary duplication, and save costs to the Organization. The Chairperson asked whether Members would be ready to consider these changes with a view to 
implementing them in 2013.   
8.4 The Committee so agreed. 
9  REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
9.1 The Chairperson recalled that Article 23 of the Agreement required the Committee to annually 
inform the CTG of developments during the relevant period.  She drew Members’ attention to 
document G/VAL/W/219, which contained a draft report which would need to be updated by the 
Secretariat to take account of this meeting.   
9.2 The representative of the European Union thanked the Secretariat for the preparation of the 
draft report.  Although his delegation did not have any substantive comment, he had noticed that 
Paragraph 6 made reference to “notifications by the EU and EU member states”.  They requested the 
Secretariat to double check what was the current practice on how this was indicated in such reports 
so that the same format was used in all of them.   
9.3 The Chairperson suggested to treat the European Union’s as a technical suggestion and 
recommended that the Committee agree to adopt the report.  A fax would be sent to Members with 
a revised version which would take account of the outcome of the meeting, as well as other technical changes raised by Members.  The Secretariat would fax it no later than Monday, 29 October, with the 
view to receiving comments from Members no later than Friday, 2 November.  
                                               
1 The updated document was circulat ed as G/VAL/70 an d G/VAL/70/Corr.1. G/VAL/M/54 
 
- 13 - 
 
  9.4 The Committee so agreed.2 
10  OTHER BUSINESS 
 - Date of the next meeting 10.1 The Chairperson informed Members that the next meeting of the Committee was scheduled 
for 16 May 2013.  In preparation for that meeting, and to allow the Secretariat sufficient time to 
process the documentation, she requested Members that new documents should be submitted no later than 3 May 2013.   
 - Letter from the International Chamber of Commerce 
10.2 The Chairperson informed Members that she had received a follow-up letter from 
Mr Anthony Barone, Chairman of the Customs & Trade Regulations Committee of the International 
Chamber of Commerce (ICC).  She recalled that the ICC had expressed an interest to cooperate 
with the Committee and, in particular, with respec t to problems that could arise from the eventual 
misuse of customs valuation databases to set minimum or reference prices.  In addition, the ICC wished to obtain an observership status in this Committee.  The Chairperson informed the 
Committee that she had held an informal consultation with some delegations on 28 June 2012.  
At that meeting, some Members had expressed supp ort to the idea of coordinating with the ICC, 
and in particular on the database issue, while other Members had considered that the possible 
misuse of databases had already been addressed in the Committee and that no such coordination 
was necessary.  Although concerns had been raise d by some Members, she understood that the 
importance of the very problem presented in the letter had not been undermined, and that Members would like to have a wider discussion on the issue of eventual misuse of customs valuation databases 
to set minimum or reference prices. 
10.3 The representative of the European Union thanked the Chairperson for having held informal 
consultations with Members on this issue.  His delegation welcomed the fact that the ICC was paying 
attention to the good application of the Agreement.  As regarded the actual issue in question, he 
considered that it was a practical and legitimate one, because everybody wanted to see these rules being applied the way they were meant to be applied.  The European Union remained open to 
consider in the Committee the issues that had been raised by the ICC and to discuss them with 
Members.  Bearing in mind that this was a very technical matter, and that it meant looking into the manner in which customs administrations applied the rules in specific cases, his delegation considered that it would be appropriate to notify the Technical Committee.  The Technical Committee 
could be informed that the ICC had raised those issues and be invited to provide appropriate input in 
accordance with their ability, experience and know-how.  The WTO Committee could then, as a follow-up, review the situation and consider further steps as needed.   
10.4 The representative of Canada joined the European Union in thanking the Chairperson for the 
opportunity to express their views on this important issue.  Canada fully agreed with the intent of 
Article 7.2(f) of the Agreement, which prohibited the use of minimum prices for purposes of customs 
valuation.  His delegation was willing to work in whatever format the Committee might agree upon, 
including with the WCO, to address the concerns that had been raised by the ICC.   
10.5 The representative of India also thanked the Chairperson for having held informal 
consultations and to be able to express the views of his delegation.  He reiterated that, at this stage, 
his delegation would not be able to support establishing further collaboration with the ICC, and that 
he was awaiting instructions from capital on this matter. 
10.6 The representative of Chinese Taipei took the floor to support the views expressed by the 
European Union and Canada.  He recalled that the use of valuation databases was one of the key 
instruments of the WCO's Revenue Package.  His delegation would support referring the issue to the Technical Committee with the request that detailed information be provided. 
10.7 The representative of Thailand indicated that his delegation stood ready to work in any format 
on this issue.  He also shared information that he had received from Thailand's customs department 
                                               
2 The final report was ci rculated as G/L/1012. G/VAL/M/54 
 
- 14 - 
 
  in the sense that, although a database was used as a tool for risk assessment, customs officers did 
not misuse it to set reference or minimum prices.  He believed that raising the awareness and common understanding on this issue would move the situation in the right direction. 
10.8 The Chairperson considered that there were two separate issues being discussed.  On the one 
hand, some Members wanted to ask the Technical Committee for more information on "the possible 
misuse of customs valuation databases to set minimum or reference prices". She saw interest to continue work in this area and the need to have background information.  On the other hand, there 
was the issue of whether the Committee wanted to establish some form of co-operation with the 
ICC.  Since further discussions were needed on the latter, she proposed holding informal consultations.   
10.9 The Committee agreed to the proposals by the Chairperson. 
10.10 The meeting was adjourned. G/VAL/M/54 
 
- 15 - 
 
  ANNEX 1 
Report from the WCO TCCV to the WTO CCV 
about the 35th Session held from 15-19 October 2012 
1. The Technical Committee on Customs Valuation (TCCV) held its 35th Session from 15 to 19 
October 2012, and it will hold its next session from 15 to 19 April 2013. 
2. The Session was chaired by Mr. O. Aoufi (Morocco) and counted with 73 WTO/WCO Member 
administrations plus observers from the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Organisation for 
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) 
and ASAPRA (Latin America asso ciation of Customs brokers). 
3. The agenda of the session included items such as intercessional developments, technical 
assistance, technical questions and administrative measures. 
Intercessional developments 
4. On intercessional developments, Mr. Giuseppe Favale, Director of Tariffs and Trade Affairs, 
commented on the outcomes of the Customs Cooper ation Council (CCC) Sess ion (June 2012), on the 
fellowship programme, and on the partnership on matters of Customs Valuation and Transfer Pricing 
with the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 
5. Mr Roy Santana, representing the WTO, presented a report on the WTO Committee on 
Customs Valuation (CCV) meeting that was held in May 2012. 
Technical assistance 6. Under the technical assistance item, several missions were reported by Members (US and 
Japan) and the World Customs Organization (WCO). 
7. A special emphasis was given to the successful joint WTO/WCO missions conducted in 
Kyrgyzstan (June 2012) and Honduras (August 2012).  A third joint mission will be done in Peru 
(November 2012).  Other combined missions are expected to happen in 2013. 
Technical questions 
8. The agenda under the technical questions had several cases. 
- A case concerning royalties and licence fees by Brazil 
 The main issue is whether the royalties paid to the owner of the trademark would form part of 
the customs value.  According to the Brazilian delegation, during the post clearance audit it was found that the owner of the trademark and the manufacturer (seller of the goods) were not related parties.  The proposed text for an Advisory Opinion will be revised and the case discussed again at 
the next session. 
- A case concerning related party transactions and transfer pricing by the United States 
 The case is considered to be a practical application of Commentary 23.1, which mentions 
transfer pricing studies as a possible basis for Customs Administrations to examine the 
circumstances of the sale. 
 The discussion was about Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM), Advance Pricing 
Agreements (APA), and the fact that the transfer pricing study should be approved by the tax 
authorities before being submitted to Customs. 
 The US delegate agreed to work with the WCO Secretariat and re-present the case at the 36th 
Session. G/VAL/M/54 
 
- 16 - 
 
  - A case concerning a consignment of industrial waste by Belarus 
 The case discusses whether additional transport costs that were incurred by the seller, in order 
to facilitate the delivery of the goods, should for part of the customs value. 
 Divergent opinions were expressed regarding the possible conclusion and at this point the 
TCCV did not reach a solution.  The case remains in the agenda. 
- A case concerning the treatment of distribution fees by Singapore 
 The International Chamber of Commerce (I CC) made a presentati on on Distribution 
Agreements so that Members could have a better understanding of such contracts. 
 After the ICC presentation, the Singapore case was discussed and Members requested 
clarifications on the Import Sales Agreement.  The delegation of Singapore clarified the doubts and mentioned that there were no sales contracts, but only invoices. 
 Singapore agreed to work with the Secretariat to take into account the comments received 
and improve the text for the next session 
- A case concerning treatment of bonus payments by Thailand 
 The case is about bonus payments originated from door to door sales of imported goods.  
The bonus payments depend on several factors and the question posed by Thailand is whether the different bonuses should form part of the customs value. 
 During the discussions, Thailand responded to several questions and committed to provide 
more information on certain points.  The case remains in the agenda for the next session. 
- A case concerning the valuation of USB flash drives and the application of WTO Decision 4.1 
(software on carrier media) by Uruguay 
 The case is about the interpretation of the WTO Decision on "Valuation of carrier media 
bearing software for data processing equipment" and whether USB flash drives should be excluded as a carrier medium because these devices have integrated circuits.  Some Members consider that 
the Decision does not reflect current technological developments. The relevant language of this 
Decision reads as follows: 
Decision on Valuation of carrier media bearing software for data processing 
equipment 
2. (…) For the purpose of the Decision, the expression “carrier medium” shall not be 
taken to include integrated circuits, semiconductors and similar devices or articles 
incorporating such circuits or devices; the expression “data or instructions” shall 
not be taken to include sound, cinematic or video recordings.” 
 It was decided that the Secretariat will propose options for taking this issue forward.  A 
possible option might be to refer the case to the WTO CCV to update the Decision. 
- A proposed case on the interpretation of Art. 8.1 b) iv) by Uruguay 
 The TCCV considered a proposal from Uruguay who considers that there is an error in the 
Spanish translation of Art. 8.1 b) iv).  This error may allow for a different interpretation with respect 
of the other two official versions (English and Fren ch).  Several Members agreed that there could be 
a problem with the Spanish version. 
 Some Members noticed that similar translation and interpretation issues were solved in the 
past by a "Procès-Verbal of Rectification" by the Director General of the WTO (1997 - WT/Let/147).  G/VAL/M/54 
 
- 17 - 
 
    Others were solved through Decisions of the WTO CCV in 1995.  The case was accepted and 
will be discussed at the next session. 
9. This brings me to end of my report.  Thank you for your attention. 
 
__________