WT/COMTD/RTA17/2  
 
12 November  2020 
(20-8124) Page: 1/6 
Committee on Trade and Development  
Dedicated Session on Regional Trade Agreements  Original: English/Spanish  
 
COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT (CEPA)  
BETWEEN INDIA AND THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA  
(GOODS ) 
QUESTIONS AND REPLIES  
 The following communication, dated 10 November 2020, is being circulated at the request of 
the delegations of  India and the Republic of Korea . 
 
_______________  
 
 
Question s from the delegation of  Brazil  
 
Characteristic Elements of the Agreement  
 
Background information  
 
1.1.  Regarding paragraph 2.4, have the Parties made amendments to the Agreement 
since its entry into force? If they have, what amendments have been implemented?  
Response from the delegation of India  
 
 No amendments have been made so far.  
 
Response from the del egation of the Republic of Korea  
 
 No amendment  has been made  to the Agreement since the I-K CEPA entered into force on 
1 January 2010 . 
 
1.2.  After all tariff liberalization stages were completed in 1 January 2019, 3459 lines 
remained dutiable for imports to India and 1360 lines remain dutiable for imports to 
Korea.  
 Could the Parties please clarify what percentage these lines represent of the total 
bilateral imports for each country and whether they plan on expanding the concessions 
to include some of these lines?  
 
Response from the delegation of India  
 
 As per HS 2017 3797 lines remain dutiable for imports to India.  
 
Total import from Korea (U S$ mln)  15659.00  
Total imports from Korea on lines that remain dutiable (US$ mln)  5120.86  
% of lines that remain dutiable of the total bilateral imports  ~32%  
 
 Negotiations to amend the I -K CEPA are going on.  
 
  WT/COMTD/RTA17/2  
 
- 2 - 
 
  Response from the delegation of the Republic of Korea  
 
 The share of imports of dutiable items in Korea 's total imports from India 2019 stands at 
4.9%.  
 
Rules of origin  
 
1.3.  Concerning paragraph 3.21, could you please clarify if both India and Korea allow 
both the exporter and the authorized representative to submit an application for the 
certificate of origin? If not, which system does each Party adopt?  
Response from the del egation of India  
 
Both exporters and the authorized representatives are allowed to apply for Certificate of 
Origin.  
 
Response from the delegation of the Republic of Korea  
 
 Article 4.3 of the Korea -India CEPA stipulates that persons who apply for a Certifi cate of 
Origin are the producer of the goods,  exporter or his or her authorized representative . In Korea, 
licensed customs brokers or customs service corporations are designated  as authorized  
representative s.  
 
Technical barriers to trade  
 
1.4.  Regarding paragr aph 3.29, could the Parties explain the reasons for excluding TBT 
and SPS issues from the scope of the dispute settlement mechanism of the Agreement?  
Joint r esponse from the Parties  
 
TBT 
 
This is due to the outcomes of negotiations between the Parties that were reached in the 
Agreement in consideration of the circumstances of each Party at the time.  
 
SPS 
 
As SPS measures not only aim to protect human, animal or plant life and health but also 
have a scientific basis, it is deemed more rational an d appropriate to use the objective WTO 
dispute settlement mechanism rather than the RTA DS mechanism.  
 
Customs -related procedures  
 
1.5.  Regarding section 3.4.5, could the Parties specify which provisions of the 
Agreement are TFA plus?  
Response from the delegation of India  
 
 In TFA it 's an endeavour clause, subject to domestic laws : 
 
 "Each Member shall, to the extent practicable and in a manner consistent with its domestic 
law and legal system, provide opportunities and an appropriate time period to traders and other 
interested parties to comment on the proposed introduction or amendment of laws and regulations 
of general application relat ed to the movement, release, and clearance of goods, including goods 
in transit ". 
 
 We can consider the text of articles 5.2.3, 5.2.6, 5.3, 5.10, 5.11, and part of 5.5, 5.7, and 
5.9 of the I -K CEPA Agreement as TFA Plus.  
 
  WT/COMTD/RTA17/2  
 
- 3 - 
 
  Response from the delegation of the Republic of Korea  
 
 We can consider  the text of  article s 5.2.3, 5.2.6, 5.3, 5.10, 5.11,  and part of 5.5, 5.7,  and 
5.9 of the I-K CEPA Agreement as TFA Plus.  
 
Questions  from the delegation of China  
 
Liberalization of trade and tariff lines  
 
1.6.  According to Para 3.7 and 3.8, 30.5% of India’s tariff and around 11.4% of Korea's 
tariff remain dutiable after the end of implementation of liberalization schedule. Are 
there any plans between the Parties to further liberalize the remaining dutiable tarif fs in 
the future?   
Response from the delegation of India   
 
The negotiations to amend the I -K CEPA are going on to achieve qualitative and quantitative 
increase of trade in a balanced manner.  
 
Response from the delegation of the Republic of Korea   
 
To improve the level of liberalization , I-K CEPA Upgrade negotiations have been underway  
since 2016 . 
 
Exceptions  
 
1.7.  Para 4.3 mentions that the Agreement incorporates general and security exceptions 
provision. Since the Agreement entered into force, have the general and security 
exceptions provisions been invoked? If so, under what circumstance, such exceptions 
provisions would be triggered?  
Response from the delegation of India   
 
No invocation has been made with relation to the General and Security Except ions article 
since the I -K CEPA entered into force on 1 January 2010. It is difficult to estimate the possible 
situations and factual circumstances in which the exception provisions would be invoked by a party.  
 
Response  from the delegation of the Republic of Korea   
 
No invocation has been made with relation to the General and Security Exceptions article 
since the I-K CEPA entered into force on 1 January 2010.  
 
Question s from the delegation of  Ecuador  
 
Liberalization of trade and tariff lines  
1.8.  Section  3.1.2: Are there plans to widen the scope for liberalization of tariff lines 
that remain dutiable (with regard to the 30.5% of the total Indian tariff lines that 
remain dutiable), given that amendments or additions could be made in accordance with 
the Agreement? If so, on what would that possibility depend? Would it be linked to the 
trade relationship with regard to the imports of each Party?  
Response from the delegation of India  
 
 The negotiations to amend the I -K CEPA are going on to achieve qualitative and quantitative 
increase of trade.  WT/COMTD/RTA17/2  
 
- 4 - 
 
  Global safeguards  
 
1.9.  Article 2.27 of the Agreement provides that: "This Agreement does not confer any 
additional rights or impose any additional obligations on the Parties with regard to 
measures taken pursuant to Article XIX of GATT 1994 and the Safeguards Agreement, 
except that a Party taking a safeguard measure under Article XIX of GATT 1994 and the 
Safeguards Agreement may, to the extent consistent with the obligations under the WTO 
Agreement, exclud e imports of an originating good of the other Party if such imports are 
not a substantial cause of serious injury or threat thereof" . (Emphasis added by 
Ministry)  
 It would be useful to know which provisions of Article XIX of GATT 1994 and the 
Agreement o n Safeguards would justify such a measure, which would allow the 
exclusion of imports originating in the other Party, for the application of a safeguard 
measure. How is it determined, quantitatively and qualitatively, that imports from the 
other Party are not a substantial cause of injury or threat thereof in order to make this 
exception? How is such a measure brought into line with the Parties' obligations under 
WTO provisions?  
 
Response from the delegation of India  
 
 A determination of imports not amounti ng to a substantial cause of serious injury or threat 
thereof may vary in different factual circumstances. In any event, any exclusion cannot be done 
unless it is consistent with the obligations under the WTO Agreement.  
 
Response from the delegation of the  Republic of Korea  
 
 Article 2.2 of the WTO Safeguard Agreement states that safeguard measures apply to 
imported goods regardless of their source. However, Article XXIV.8 of the GATT states that, in the 
case of a customs union, tariffs and other restrictive commercial transaction regulations will be 
abolished for virtually all trade. Article XXIV.8 of the GATT allows many countries to eliminate 
restrictive regulations of  commerce between  countries that have signed  FTAs. 
 
 Given that much time has passed  since Korea launched SG, there is no quantitative standard 
to determine the actual damage caused by imports from other countries in the multilateral 
measure. Qualitative s tandards will need to be accumulated on a case -by-case basis when a 
safeguard investigation is launched.  
 
 With respect to quantitative indicators, if the exporter is not the main exporter, or if the 
market share is smaller than a certain standard, it may be thought that there is no real damage.  
 
 If necessary, we can refer to the three overseas cases below. 1. For non -TOP3 (EL Salvador -
Chinese Taipei FTA), 2.  for non -TOP5 (NAFTA) by market share  and, 3. for the NIC-CTP FTA, 
import does not exceed 7% . 
 
 Some foreign countries have determined  that the se three conditions are not the real cause 
of the damage.  
 
Current payments and capital movements  
 
1.10.   It is stated that in trade in services, restrictions cannot be applied to international 
payments and transfers  for current transactions, or to any capital transactions 
inconsistently with specific commitments regarding such transactions (document 
WT/REG286/1), with the exception of restrictions to safeguard the balance of 
payments.  
 Given that the provisions of Article XII of the GATS on balance of payments are 
included for the adoption of measures to safeguard the balance of payments, it would be 
useful to know whether such measures to safeguard the balance of payments would 
apply in  a similar way to the specific commitments regarding to such transactions 
(international payments and transfers and capital transactions) in relation to sectors in 
which there are no specific commitments. Are other types of measures envisaged for WT/COMTD/RTA17/2  
 
- 5 - 
 
  those sec tors in which there are no specific commitments and, if so, what might those 
measures be?  
 
Response from the delegation of India 
 
 With respect to transactions in sectors where specific commitments have been undertaken, 
I-K CEPA recognizes the right of the  Parties to impose restrictions on trade in services, including 
on payments or transfers for transactions relating to such obligations, to safeguard their external 
financial positions and balance of payments or a threat thereof.  
  
The I -K CEPA does not add ress the sectors where specific commitments have not been 
taken.  
 
Response from the delegation of the Republic of Korea  
 
 In the event of serious balance of payments and external financial difficulties or a threat 
thereof, Article 6.13 of the I -K CEPA agre ement stipulates that as an exceptional right a Party may 
adopt or maintain restrictions on trade in services on which it has undertaken specific 
commitments, including on payments or transfers for transactions relating to such obligations, and 
is thus in accordance with Articles XI and XII of GATS.  
 
Question s from the delegation of Japan  
 
Rules of origin  
 
1.11.   Article 3.23: Five years after the entry into force of the Agreement, the Parties 
shall examine and revise, if deemed necessary, the system of issuing of certificates of 
origin under the Chapter. According to the Parties no review has taken place. India 
indicates that it has started issuing electronic certificates of origin under the Agreement 
through a Common Digital Platform introduced for issu e of Preferential certificates of 
origin.  
 We would like to request Korea to share the details of the countermeasures it has 
decided to introduce in response to India 's move to start issuing electronic certificates 
through a Common Digital Platform. Please include details on how Korea is planning to 
issue electronic certificates that are acceptable to customs agencies in India.  
 
Response from the delegation of the Repub lic of Korea  
 
 The Korea Customs Service (KCS) was notified by the India Customs Authority last March 
that Certificate of Origins are now being issued through an electronic  platform in India. To offer 
proper preferences to those Certificates of Origins iss ued through  the platform, the KCS conveyed 
it to the pertinent departments of the Korean Customs.  
 
 In addition, Korea adopted the Electronic Certificate Issuing System in 2006. Since then, 
applying for certificates, printing and stamping are all done electronically  under this system.   
 
Question s from the delegation of  the United States  
 
Annex 1  
 
Tariff liberalization  
 
1.12.   When examining the composition of each country 's top exports to the world, the 
United States note that much of the trade between Korea and India is complementary, 
and not directly competitive.  
 When looking at India 's and Korea 's top 25 exports to the world, and the final 
disposition of duty free or dutiable lines among those products, it is noted that some of 
the most sizable exports for  each country remain subject to duty. For example:  
 WT/COMTD/RTA17/2  
 
- 6 - 
 
  • As a result of the Agreement, 37 lines in India's tariff schedule remained 
subject to duties for imports from Korea in 2017, including for autos and parts 
(see Table  A1.3 "India: Market Access opportuniti es under the agreement for 
Korea's top 25 exports to the world").  
• As a result of the Agreement, 12 lines in Korea's tariff schedule remained 
subject to duties for imports from India, including for rice; frozen shrimps; and 
frozen boneless bovine meat (see Table A1.4 "Korea: Market Access 
opportunities under the agreement for India's top 25 exports to the world").  
 What consideration went into the decision of retaining duties on these sizable 
exports?  
 
Response from the delegation of India  
 
 Decisions to retain /exempt duty on an item/product depend on domestic market sensitivity 
including various factors like domestic demand/manufacturing of the item in the country, size of 
domestic market, views of industry associations,  etc. 
 
 However, to i mprove the existing situation, negotiations to amend the I -K CEPA are going 
on since 2016.  
 
Response from the delegation of the Republic of Korea  
 
 In the I-K CEPA negotiations, both countries considered a mutually beneficial balance  and 
goods sensitivit ies so that duties remained on a certain  amount of tariff  lines regarding the top 25 
export items of both countries to the world .  
 
 To improve this, I -K CEPA Upgrade negotiations have been underway  since 2016 . 
 
1.13.   With reference to India, paragraph 2 of Annex 1 says "…The total share of duty -
free lines rose to 4.4% overall and 4.5% for industrial products, while it was unchanged 
for agricultural products." Table A1.1 in the factual presentation shows that the share of 
duty-free tariff lines remained fixed at 3.3% for agricultural products throughout the 
liberalization process.  
• Because the % of tariff lines that are duty free in India's MFN tariff schedule is 
also 3.3%, it appears that India did not grant any additio nal duty -free access 
for agricultural products in this agreement.  
 With reference to India, can the Parties explain why the total share of duty -free 
lines for agricultural products remained unchanged during the liberalization process?  
 
Response from the d elegation of India  
  
 The number of duty -free lines is decided after consultations with domestic stakeholders and 
keeping the domestic sensitivity of the sector in mind.  
 
 A mutually agreed  configuration, taking into account the sensitivities of both the p arties, has 
been endeavoured  under  the liberalization process under I -K CEPA.  
 
Response from the delegation of the Republic of Korea  
 
 In the I-K CEPA negotiations, both countries considered a mutually beneficial balance  and 
goods sensitivit ies so that duties remained on a certain  amount of tariff  lines regarding the top 
25 export items of both countries to the world .  
 
 To improve this, I -K CEPA Upgrade negotiations have been underway  since 2016 . 
 
__________