RESTRICTED  
  
G/RO/M/64  
 
7 September 2015  
(15-4581)  Page: 1/8  
Committee on Rules of Origin    
 
 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 30 APRIL 2015 
CHAIRMAN: MR KEN CHANG-KENG CHEN (CHINESE TAIPEI) 
Subjects Discussed1 
1   REPORT OF THE WORK OF THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON RULES OF ORIGIN 
(WORLD CUSTOMS OR GANIZATION)................................................................................ 1  
2   HARMONIZATION OF NON PREFERENTIAL RULES OF ORIGIN – 
TRANSPOSITION OF DRAFT HARMONIZED RULES OF ORIGIN TO MORE RECENT 
VERSIONS OF THE HS NOMENCLATURE – (DOC UMENT JOB/RO/5) .................................. 2  
3   HARMONIZATION OF NON-PREFERENT IAL RULES OF ORIGIN – DEDICATED 
ITEM ON EXISTING NON-PREFERENTIA L RULES OF ORIGIN ("EDUCATIONAL 
EXERCISE") ...................................................................................................................... 2  
4   ELEMENTS FOR A DISCUSSION ON PREFERENTIAL RULES OF ORIGIN FOR 
LDCS – SUBMISSION BY BANGLADESH ON BEHALF OF THE LDC GROUP 
(DOCUMENT G/RO/W/154) ............................................................................................. 4  
5   NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 5 AND UNDER PARAGRAPH 4 OF ANNEX II 
OF THE AGREEMENT ON RULES OF OR IGIN (DOCUMENTS  G/RO/N/-) ............................. 7  
6   ELECTION OF  OFFICERS .............................................................................................. 7  
7   OTHER BU SINESS ........................................................................................................ 8  
 
1  REPORT OF THE WORK OF THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON RULES OF ORIGIN (WORLD 
CUSTOMS ORGANIZATION) 
1.1.  The representative of the World Customs Organization (WCO) informed Members that the 
Technical Committee on Rules of Origin (TCRO) held its 33rd Session on 3 February 2015 under the 
chairmanship of Mr. Liu Ping, from China.  At the meeting, the TCRO adopted the 16th Periodic 
Report and the 16th Annual Review on the technical aspects and implementation of the Agreement 
on Rules of Origin.  The annual review had been short, since Members had not applied harmonized 
non-preferential rules of origin and hence had not referred any problems relating to harmonized 
rules of origin to the TCRO. During the regular session, the TCRO had also considered draft guidelines on advance rulings and the WCO Guidelines on Origin Certification.  Additionally, a workshop on origin certification, advanced rulings and origin irregularities had been organized at 
the occasion of the regular session. 
1.2.  Finally, with respect to preferential rules of origin, the representative of the WCO informed 
Members about the state-of-play of the origin pa rt of the WCO revenue package action plan and 
said that a guide to counter origin irregularities would be presented to the WCO Council in June 
2015 and published on the Members' section of the WCO website. 
1.3.  The Committee thanked the WCO and the TCRO  for the work undertaken and took note of 
this report. 
                                               
1 The agenda of the meeting had been circulated in document WTO/AIR/RO/1. G/RO/M/64 
 
- 2 - 
 
  2  HARMONIZATION OF NON PREFERENTIAL RULES OF ORIGIN – TRANSPOSITION OF 
DRAFT HARMONIZED RULES OF ORIGIN TO MORE RECENT VERSIONS OF THE HS NOMENCLATURE – (DOCUMENT JOB/RO/5) 
2.1.  The Chairman reminded Members that, at the last meeting of the Committee on Rules of 
Origin (CRO) in October 2014, Chapters 1 to 40 of  document JOB/RO/5 had been finalised, which 
left Chapters 41 onwards to be examined in order to conclude the technical verification of the transposition exercise.  He further informed Members that the Secretariat had prepared a revision 
of that document (JOB/RO/5/Rev.1) to reflect comments which had been received from the 
delegations of Ecuador, Japan and Norway.  
2.2.  The representative of the United States thanked the Secretariat for its swift work in 
transposing the rules and mentioned that his delegation was still examining the document and the 
draft transposed rules.  He therefore asked for mo re time before his delegation could validate the 
work.  The representatives of Japan, Guatemala, Mexico, Brazil, Ecuador, Pakistan, Thailand and 
the EU agreed that the document should remain open for comments while delegations were 
reviewing it. 
2.3.  The representative of Switzerland also than ked the Secretariat for the substantial work that 
had been carried out.  He regretted the lack of  enthusiasm by Members to engage in a proper 
review and discussion of this document.  In his view, delegations should take this opportunity to 
discuss product specific rules and finalize all chapters. 
2.4.  The Chairman agreed that the text should remain open for comments from Members. 
He highlighted, nevertheless, that his objective was simply to verify the technical accuracy of the 
transposition carried out. He asked Members to submit their comments by September 2015, so 
that a complete document could be considered in October by the CRO. 
2.5.  It was so agreed. 
3  HARMONIZATION OF NON-P REFERENTIAL RULES OF ORIG IN – DEDICATED ITEM ON 
EXISTING NON-PREFERENTIAL RULES OF ORIGIN ("EDUCATIONAL EXERCISE") 
3.1.  The Chairman recalled that, at the last  CRO meeting, Members had agreed that an 
"educational exercise" should be initiated to share experiences in relation to the application of 
existing non preferential rules of origin.  He prop osed to start the exercise with presentations by 
the Secretariat, the WCO and any Members who wished to share their experiences. 
3.2.  The Secretariat started with a brief presentati on indicating the latest situation on notifications 
of non-preferential rules of origin (Article 5 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin).  One third of the 
membership (44 Members) applied non-preferential rules of origin according to the notifications 
available.  Some of these notifications, however, were not complete. The Secretariat then 
indicated that another third did not apply any no n-preferential rules of origin (52 Members). 
On the basis of existing notifications, it was no t possible to know how these Members implemented 
trade policy measures which required the identification of a country of origin, such as labelling, 
anti-dumping duties or quotas.  The Secretaria t recommended examining existing notifications 
more closely to identify patterns or trends with respect to the scope, objectives, design and impact of existing non-preferential rules of origin.  In addition, the Secretariat informed Members that, for 
easy reference, the list of Members applying non-pref erential rules of origin as well as the relevant 
notifications would be made available on the WTO website. 
3.3.  The Secretariat then presented a summary of  the main obligations of the Agreement on Rules 
of Origin and recalled the state of play in the Harmonization Work Programme (HWP).  In the 
absence of harmonized non-preferential rules of origin, the disciplines which applied were the 
"transitional disciplines" of Article 2 of the Agreement, so the Secretariat summarized the 
obligations contained in that article. 
3.4.  A representative of the World Customs Or ganization then made a presentation about the 
challenges that the absence of harmonized rules of origin could generate for customs 
administrations (document RD/RO/20).  The WCO recalled that, in the absence of harmonized 
rules at the WTO, Members had adopted their own ru les of origin.  This had created a "spaghetti G/RO/M/64 
 
- 3 - 
 
  bowl" of different non-preferential rules and proc edures, which generated operational difficulties 
for customs and for economic operators.  In fact, customs officers and economic operators had to know, understand, handle, verify or certify a variety of third-country rules (that is, the importing country). Against this background, the WCO had focused on elaborating common guidelines, 
principles and procedures in areas such as origin verification, certification and advance rulings. 
These common guidelines, it was hoped, could facilitate trade in the absence of fully harmonized rules. 
3.5.  After thanking the WTO and the WCO Secret ariats for their presentations, the Chairman 
invited Members to share their own experience with  the implementation of non-preferential rules 
of origin. 
3.6.  The representative of China described the ru les currently used for non-preferential purposes 
(State Council Decree No. 4.416 and Customs Decree No.122) in his country (RD/RO/18). 
The rules were primarily based on a change in tariff  classification requirement at four digit HS level 
and were, in few cases, complemented by value-added and process-specific rules. 
The representative of China argued that non-preferen tial rules of origin were all the more relevant 
in a globalized world of global value chains and increasingly segmented manufacturing across borders. He argued, furthermore, that governments frequently used trade measures which 
required the discrimination of goods on the ba sis of origin (anti-dumping and safeguards, 
government procurement and quotas, etc.) and such measures also justified having harmonized rules. 
3.7.  The representative of Norway recalled that  her delegation had already submitted a written 
report in 2013 describing the rules in Norway.  She recalled that non-preferential rules of origin 
were not frequently applied in Norway, with the exception of certificates of origin for the export of fish. 
3.8.  The representative of Chinese Taipei mentio ned that non-preferential rules of origin were 
particularly important in the context of tariff rate quotas and specific trade remedy measures. 
He argued that the existence of multiple national rules of origin had the effect of trade barriers for 
traders. 
3.9.  The representative of Peru mentioned that , since 2011, his country had used non-preferential 
rules of origin to assess origin in the context of countervailing and anti-dumping measures related 
to imports of textiles, shoes, zips and some other accessories. 
3.10.  The representative of Ecuador reported that, in Ecuador, a certificate of non-preferential 
rules of origin was exclusively used to prove the origin of Ecuadorian exports. 
3.11.  The representative of Canada said his count ry took the view that it was not necessary to 
adopt harmonized rules of origin and that the lack of harmonized rules did not actually create 
obstacles to trade.  In fact, in Canada's experience, using different rules of origin for different purposes had not raised any issues within government or industry. 
3.12.  For the representative of the European Union, the presentations had raised interesting 
questions regarding the coverage, interpretation, objectives and design of existing non-preferential 
rules. This proved that sharing experiences regard ing the application (or not) of non-preferential 
rules of origin was useful.  In this respect, it would be useful to hear, in addition, from Members 
who did not implement any non-preferential rule s and understand how they applied anti-dumping 
and countervailing duties, country of origin markin g, etc., that is, trade policy measures which 
necessitated an origin assessment. He said that the EU would consider submitting written 
questions to have a more focused discussion. 
3.13.  The representative of Hong Kong, China thanked the WTO, the WC O and Members for their 
very informative presentations.  The presentation of Article 2 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin 
had been a timely reminder of Members' existi ng obligations under the transitional period. 
She added that Hong Kong, China did apply non-preferential rules of origin and had an origin certification system in place.  As Hong Kong, China was a free port with no import tariff, the origin certification system was administered mainly to facilitate Hong Kong, China's exports to foreign 
markets.  The Trade and Industry Department (T ID) was the government agency responsible for G/RO/M/64 
 
- 4 - 
 
  issuing Certificates of Origin (COs), together with five Government Approved Certification 
Organisations (GACOs).  The Hong Kong, China non-preferential rules of origin for specific products were established in accordance with internationally accepted principles.  Under the basic principle of substantial transformation, goods would be originating if they were either natural 
products of Hong Kong, China or if they had undergone a principal manufacturing process in Hong 
Kong, China and changed permanently and substantia lly the shape, nature, form or utility of the 
materials used in the manufacture. 
3.14.  The representative of Australia said that recently his country had focused a lot of attention 
on the impact that rules of origin in all their forms had on traders.  It was surprising to note that, 
despite the "spaghetti bowl" of rules, industry representatives had not reported any major difficulties in complying with rules of origin.  This could be explained in different ways.  One was 
that most companies had their operations concentrated on a few products, so they actually only 
needed to handle only a few rules and requirements.  Overall, origin-related difficulties were a theoretical rather than a practical problem from a business perspective.  As a consequence, his 
government had tended to disregard the impact of the "spaghetti bowl" for businesses.  However, 
he acknowledged that administrators and customs officers did have to deal with the complexities of having a number of different regimes in place.  
3.15.  For the representative of the United Stat es, the presentations had provided the Committee 
with additional background information, which, however, did not alter the fact that Members had 
divergent views regarding the utility of having harmonized rules.  He asked Members to keep in mind the larger questions that remained, such as the fundamental concerns that some Members 
had expressed with regard to the so-called implications issue. 
3.16.  In response, the representative of China said that the HWP continued to be a worthwhile 
goal for many reasons.  First and foremost, non-preferential rules of origin were an import basis 
for trade policies and international trade statisti cs.  The absence of harmonized non-preferential 
rules had a negative impact on the implementation of trade policies. Diverging rules also prevented Members from having a truthful picture of international trade statistics and trade 
balance issues.  Second, in spite of the difficulti es that the Committee had faced, the consolidated 
text was almost complete and could be finali sed with minimum engagement by delegations. 
Agreeing on a common denominator would definitely bring transparency and predictability to international trade and help reduce trade costs.  The Agreement had a clear requirement to 
harmonize rules of origin to facilitate trade, so Members should not shy away from that objective, 
particularly as Members at the WTO had now b een focusing on trade facilitating measures. 
3.17.  In conclusion, the Chairman mentioned th at this agenda item had triggered a fruitful 
exchange of views.  He therefore proposed to co ntinue it, perhaps tackling more specific questions 
and hearing additional viewpoints, such as, for instance, that of the private sector.  He asked Members, in addition, to think of additional qu estions and to submit them in writing to the 
Committee.  He proposed to hold informal consultations with Members to identify new items for 
the continuation of this educational exercise. 
3.18.  The Committee agreed to proceed accordingly. 
4  ELEMENTS FOR A DISCUSSION ON PREFERENTIAL RULES OF ORIGIN FOR LDCS – 
SUBMISSION BY BANGLADESH ON BE HALF OF THE LDC GROUP (DOCUMENT 
G/RO/W/154) 
4.1.  The Chairman recalled that the LDC group had previously submitted document G/RO/W/148 
(presented in October 2014) and G/RO/W/154.  He invited the delegation of Bangladesh to 
introduce the latest paper on behalf of the group. 
4.2.  The representative of Bangladesh said that  the paper had been drafted with the objective of 
fostering discussions in the CRO about the challeng es that LDCs faced when they exported under 
preferential schemes.  The objective of the LDCs was to discuss possible improvements to existing 
preferential rules and therefore the document al so contained recommendations building upon the 
guidelines of the 2013 Ministerial Decision (WT/L/917).  In fact, document G/RO/W/148 had 
abundantly documented the problems which some ru les of origin created for LDCs.  Consequently, 
document G/RO/W/154 followed up by raising a se t of six questions to preference-giving Members G/RO/M/64 
 
- 5 - 
 
  so that they could explain what efforts they were  deploying to make their rules simpler and more 
transparent for the LDCs. At the outset, the LDC Grou p recognized that no form of rules of origin 
was necessarily better than the other.  However, unequivocal evidence from the experience in the 
EU and Canada had shown that, under certain conditions, a reform of rules of origin could 
generate improved market access opportunities fo r LDCs.  As a result, the LDC group requested 
other preference-giving countries to carry out signif icant reforms of their rules of origin to improve 
the benefits of such schemes for the LDCs. 
4.3.  The representative of Nepal supported th ese recommendations and said that preferential 
rules of origin were indeed one of the priorities of the LDCs at the WTO and that they should be 
considered as an essential complement to th e discussions on duty-free and quota-free market 
access for LDCs.  In fact, he argued that the trad e preferences for LDCs would only yield their full 
benefits with a reform of rules of origin and a simplification of documentary and certification 
requirements.  For a land-locked country like Nepal, one aspect of the 2013 Ministerial Decision was particularly relevant: namely, that the costs of freight and insurance be deducted from the 
calculation of the value of non-originating materials.  As a matter of fact, the cost of shipment of a 
container to a land locked country could be as high as the cost of the imported materials.  Hence, adding freight costs distorted the results of the percentage calculation and the assessment 
of substantial transformation. 
4.4.  The representative of Tanzania supported the statements of Bangladesh and of Nepal and 
recalled that the LDC group had adjusted their position at the WTO to adopt non-binding guidelines 
in order to accommodate the interests of preference-granting Members.  The LDCs had also moved 
away from their original intention of simplifying and harmonizing preferential rules of origin. 
Nevertheless, preference granting countries had not yet reformed their rules.  In fact, they had not 
yet engaged in a sustentative debate about this issue.  The LDC submission of October 2014 
(G/RO/W/148) had extensively documented how certain requirements of percentage values 
currently in place did not reflect global value ch ains.  For example, the US-GSP scheme required 
35% value addition and the Japanese GSP scheme required 60% of local content. 
These percentage thresholds did not match the indu strial capacity of LDCs and had diminished the 
positive impact that preferences could have had for trade and investment. According to a WTO-OECD paper, China was only responsible for about 10% of the value of an iPod/iPhone 
manufacturing with the bulk of the components  being imported from Japan, US and Korea. 
This proved that even a large developing country would not be able to comply with some of the 
origin requirements which were being applied to the LDCs.  In conclusion, he said that the reforms of the Canadian and European rules of origin provided good lessons for other Members and that it 
would be useful to have a discussion about such lessons learnt during a special dedicated session 
of the CRO. 
4.5.  The representative of Yemen agreed that a dedicated discussion would be useful to make 
progress on the implementation of the 2013 Mini sterial Decision on rules of origin for LDCs. 
In fact, it had been clearly documented that a relaxation of origin requirements had led to positive results on both trade and investment flows.  He nce, a dedicated session would provide a platform 
to share experiences, discuss improvements to ex isting rules and learn more about practices which 
enabled the LDCs to meaningfully benefit from preferences.  
4.6.  With regard to the cumulation, the repres entative of Cambodia recalled that the LDCs had 
raised specific questions in previous submissions. He said that Cambodia had greatly benefited 
from the EU reform of rules of origin which allowed for cumulation with other ASEAN nations. 
However, that possibility had been discontinued af ter the graduation of some ASEAN countries out 
of the EU's GSP scheme.  Cambodian exporters had been hit hard by this change in the rules. 
A temporary derogation from the EU had avoided major trade disruptions, but this arrangement 
was only temporary.  Moreover, according to the EU legislation, countries which concluded a FTA with the EU would be automatically excluded from GSP cumulation.  As a result, Cambodia would have more restrictive cumulation options while countries having signed a FTA with the EU would 
have expanded cumulation options.  In addition , other preference granting Members did not offer 
c u m u l a t i o n  t o  A S E A N  c o u n t r i e s .   T o  s u m  u p ,  t h e  r e p r e s e n t a t i v e  o f  C a m b o d i a  r e c a l l e d  t h a t  Paragraph 1.7 of the Bali decision underscored th e importance of cumulation for LDCs and thus 
asked Members to consider expanding cumulation possibilities. 
4.7.  The representative of Cambodia also recalled that Paragraph 1.8 of the Decision mentioned 
that self-certification of origin should be used wh enever possible.  He recognized that the EU would G/RO/M/64 
 
- 6 - 
 
  soon introduce a system of registered export ers and asked the EU to provide additional 
information about the new system and how the EU would ensure a smooth transition.  He invited other preference giving countries that did not allow for self-certification to explain how they were working to simplify existing requirements for origin certification. 
4.8.  The representative of the People's Democr atic Republic of Lao supported the statements 
made by other LDC delegations and reiterated that the Ministerial Decision on Preferential Rules of 
Origin for LDCs had paved the way for the simplific ation and increased transparency of preferential 
rules of origin for LDCs. He added that changes in the way that world trade took place today 
required rethinking of the use of rules of origin. The spread of global value chains and the integration of a large number of tasks from different geographical origins meant that preferential rules should also be flexible and open.  The productive capacity of LDCs only allowed producers in 
these countries to contribute to small parts of the production process.  In particular, landlocked 
LDCs could only benefit from trade preferences if rules of origin were flexible enough to allow the processing of non-originating materials. The costs of complying with origin requirements should 
remain as low as possible for businesses in LDCs to make use of the available preferences. 
That was the reason why the LDCs were urging preference granting Members to think about new 
ideas to simplify their rules. 
4.9.  The representative of the United States th anked the LDC Group for their work in this area. 
While his delegation was still studying the papers  presented by the LDCs, he said that one could 
argue that rules of origin and a reform in rules of origin were not the only factors which explained increased preference utilization.  Depending on the product, other factors could affect trade flows, 
including the relative number of producers, ph ysical distance between the manufacturer and the 
consumer, the ability of the producer to respon d quickly to changes in market demand, etc. 
With that in mind, he asked the LDCs to explain what other evidence there was to support the 
conclusion that changes in the European and Canadian rules of origin had led to investments and 
greater production in the LDCs.  Secondly, he cautioned against drawing too many conclusions from the data and utilization rates, particularly for 2013.  The authorisation for the GSP 
Programme by the United States had lapsed on 31 July 2013, so the value of imports claiming GSP 
for that year in the United States had been underst andably lower.  Similarly, the sharp drop in GSP 
benefits and corresponding increase in MFN imports from Bangladesh was attributable to Bangladesh's suspension from benefits under the United States GSP programme effective 
September 2013.  Last, the representative of the United States informed other Members that the 
United States Senate Finance and the House of Representatives Ways and Means Committees had voted to approve legislation covering a variety of US preference programmes, including the 
extension of AGOA to 2025, extension of GSP to December 2017 and the extension of the 
Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement Act for Haiti till September 2025. 
4.10.  The representative of the European Un ion also thanked the LDCs and Bangladesh for 
submitting and presenting their paper.  He said th at the EU appreciated this contribution and that 
it supported the efforts and objectives of the paper.  He informed Members that his delegation would soon submit written responses to some of the questions the paper had raised.  He added that the EU was aware of the specific problems faced by Cambodia and that the EU was satisfied 
with the fact that a temporary solution could be found.  EU rules on cumulation, certification and 
the rules for the utilisation of non-originating materials were already very favourable to LDCs, but the EU was ready to discuss further improvements. 
4.11.  The representative of Japan first emphasized that his delegation had been a long-time 
supporter of LDCs market access objectives. Japan already provided duty-free, quota-free 
treatment to all LDCs and was a donor of the EIF as well as many other bilateral support 
programmes.  Second, he said that his delegation was still reviewing the submission of the LDC 
Group.  Third, he informed Members that Japan had submitted a recent notification (G/RO/N/131) with information regarding changes to its preferential rules origin.  He said the notification would inform delegations about the exact design of Japan's preferential rules, which were basically based 
on a change of tariff classification criterion. 
4.12.  The representative of Canada was of the vi ew that the larger question raised by the LDCs 
really related to the extent to which Members intended to or were already aligned with the 
guidelines set out in the Bali Ministerial Decision .   I n  t h a t  r e s p e c t ,  h e  a r g u e d  t h a t  C a n a d a ' s  
preferential rules of origin for LDCs were already generally consistent with these guidelines. G/RO/M/64 
 
- 7 - 
 
  Canada's rules were liberal and reflected production reality and supply chains in LDCs. For 
instance, Canada had no tariff shift rules of origin and already allowed self-certification. 
4.13.  The representative of China thanked the LDC group and said that it was a good sign to see 
enhanced understanding of rules of origin on part of the LDCs.  He reported that China had, in 
recent years, taken major steps in granting, as a development country, duty-free treatment to 
LDCs, with a view to enhancing their economic  capacity.  Since 2001, China had implemented 
duty-free treatment to 41 LDCs and from 2015 th e product-scope of goods subject to duty-free 
treatment had been expanded to 97% of all tariff lin es.  He also reported that, as a result, exports 
from LDCs to China had considerably increased.  Since the expansion of scope to 97% of lines in January 2015, there had been an increase of 26% in the value of imports and 32% in the amount 
of duties exempted.  In addition, he said that hi s delegation attached great importance to the goal 
of improving the rules of origin scheme and was willing to address those concerns, in particular 
through the development of product-specific rule s, which could be designed to accommodate the 
special concerns of the LDCs. 
4.14.  The representative of Bangladesh thanked partner countries for their readiness to engage in 
discussions on this issue.  His delegation and the LDC group would welcome written replies to the 
questions they had raised.  In addition, he prop osed that the CRO continue these discussions in 
the context of a dedicated session in June or July.  Such a session would facilitate progress in this 
area by allowing for focused discussions and a better understanding of these issues. The representatives of Yemen, Tanzania, Cambod ia and Nepal supported this statement and the 
idea of a dedicated session.  
4.15.  The representative of the United States, while not opposing the proposal for dedicated 
discussions, asked LDC delegations to be more specific about what the schedule, content and 
objectives of such a session would be.  Additionally, he said that meaningful discussions on this 
topic would require the presence or, at least, th e greater involvement of capital-based experts in 
these technical matters. 
4.16.  In conclusion, the Chairman proposed to hold informal consultations with Members as soon 
as possible in order to determine the best format and timing for advancing discussions about 
preferential rules of origin for LDCs in the Committee. 
4.17.  It was so agreed. 
5  NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 5 AND UNDER PARAGRAPH 4 OF ANNEX II OF THE 
AGREEMENT ON RULES OF ORIGIN (DOCUMENTS G/RO/N/-) 
5.1. The Chairman informed Members that a number of notifications, mostly concerning 
preferential rules of origin, had been received by the Secretariat since the last meeting of the CRO. 
These notifications were contained in documents G/RO/N/125 to 129. 
5.2. Taking these latest notifications into account, the current situation of notifications of 
non-preferential rules was as follows:  44 Members had notified the Secretariat that they apply 
Non-Preferential Rules of Origin, 50 Members had notified that they do not apply Non-Preferential 
Rules of Origin and 39 Members had not yet submitted their notification under Paragraph 5 of the 
Agreement. 
5.3. The Chairman urged Members to ensure that th eir notifications were complete and up to 
date and, if needed, to seek assistance from the Secretariat in order to submit their notifications 
as soon as possible. 
5.4. The Committee took note of these new notifications and agreed to proceed accordingly. 
6  ELECTION OF OFFICERS 
6.1.  The Chairman informed the CRO that the Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods had 
carried out informal consultations on a slate of na mes for appointment of Chairpersons of standing 
bodies in accordance with the established Guidelines of Appointment of Officers.  Based on these G/RO/M/64 
 
- 8 - 
 
  consultations, it was proposed that the Committee elect Mr. Christian WEGENER of Denmark as 
Chairperson of the Committee for 2015. 
6.2.    The Committee elected Mr Wegener by acclamation. 
7  OTHER BUSINESS 
7.1.  The Chairman proposed that the date for the next Committee meeting be tentatively set for 
15 October 2015. 
7.2.  The Committee took note of the date. 
________