WT/REG347/2  
18 June 2014  
(14-3539)  Page: 1/4  
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements  Original: English/Spanish  
 
  FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COSTA RICA AND SINGAPORE 
(GOODS AND SERVICES) 
QUESTIONS AND REPLIES 
The following communication, dated 29 April 2014, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegations of Costa Rica and Singapore.  
 This document reproduces the questi ons addressed to the Parties and the 
responses submitted.  
_______________ 
 
 Questions from the delegation of Chile  
 
1.1.  Apart from the Singapore-Costa Rica FTA, of the three agreements that Singapore 
has concluded with Latin America (Chile, Pa nama and Peru), only the agreement with 
Chile includes a chapter on intellectual prop erty. The Singapore-Costa Rica FTA not only 
has a chapter on intellectual property, but that chapter also includes "innovation". 
In this connection, the first paragraph of Article 13.1 states that: " [t]he Parties 
recognize the importance of intellectual property rights in promoting economic 
and social development, partic ularly in the globalization of technological innovation 
and trade, science, as well as the tr ansfer and dissemination of knowledge 
and technology to the mutual advantage of technology producers and users, and agree 
to encourage the development of social economic well-being and trade through these 
means. " Paragraph 2 of Article 13.3 further stat es that "[t]he Parties acknowledge 
and reaffirm the principles and provisions established in the Convention on Biological 
Diversity  adopted on 5 June 1992 and encourage a mutually supportive relationship 
between the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity ." 
With respect to Article 13.1, how does the phrase " agree to encourage 
the development of social economic we ll-being and trade through these means " 
translate into reality? Could you also explain how the Arti cle 13.3 intention 
to "encourage a mutually supportive relati onship between the TRIPS Agreement and the 
Convention on Biological Diversity " would be put into practice? 
 
 Article 13.1 establishes certain principles that guide trade relations between the Parties with regard to intellectual property and innova tion. In practice, the Parties see the development 
of social economic well-being and trade as inte rconnected with and supported by the promotion 
of intellectual property rights.   With respect to Article 13.3, Costa Rica and Singapore are parties to the TRIPS Agreement 
and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Acco rdingly, the Parties decided to use the language 
of "a mutually supportive relationship" between these agreements – drawn from the 8
th preambular paragraph of TRIPS, in order to  fulfil the objectives in both of them. 
 
1.2.  In Chapter 18 of the Singapore-Costa Rica FTA on exceptions, Article 18.5 sets out 
restrictions to safeguard the balance of paym ents. That article does not appear in any 
other agreement between Lati n America and Singapore. WT/REG347/2 
- 2 - 
  At the same time, under Article XII of the GATT on balance of payments, 
Members confirm their commitment to give pr eference to those measures which have 
the least disruptive effect on trade, and the application of such safeguards 
for balance-of-payments purposes may ex clude certain "essential products". 
Should the Parties apply balance-of-payment s safeguards, are there any predetermined 
mechanisms that would give cause for such  action, and specifically, have "essential 
products" been defined in advance? 
 
 Under the FTA between Costa Rica and Singapore, there are no predetermined mechanisms to apply restrictions to safeguard the balance of payments. However, Article 18.5.1 obliges the Parties to apply the restrictions in a manner consistent with the conditions established 
in the WTO Agreement and with the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund. 
  According to Article 18.5.2, any notification or consultation with respect to any restriction 
to safeguard the balance of payments is to be carried out between the Parties, in accordance with 
the applicable agreements mentioned in paragraph 1 above.  
Questions from the delegation of Colombia 
 
Rules of origin 
 
1.3.  Paragraph 3.18 on "Transit Through Non-Parties", which is included 
in the Agreement as Article 3.15, states that goods that transit through non-Party countries shall be eligible for preferential tariff treatment when it is proved to the 
satisfaction of the importing country's customs authorities that the goods have 
not undergone any operation in the non-party country other than unloading, reloading, or any operation necessary to preserve them  in good condition, that they have not 
entered into commerce, that the transit entr y is justified for geographical reasons, 
and that the goods remain under the control of the customs authorities. 
What documents are required as proof th at the goods have met these conditions? 
 
 The Costa Rican Customs Authority requires shipping documents, as well as a customs 
control document issued by the customs authority of the non-party, stating that the transiting 
goods from such country comply with the requirem ents established in Article 3.15, paragraph 2. 
 
 Singapore's customs authority (Singapore Customs) can accept documents such as a Certificate of Non-Manipulation (CNM) issued by the relevant authorities in the country 
of transit to prove that the conditions stipulated in Article 3.15 of the SCRFTA ROO text have been 
fulfilled. In the case where the relevant authoritie s in the country of transit does not issue a CNM, 
Singapore Customs can accept equivalent documents such as the Bill of Lading and in the case of storage, storage documents to prove that the goods are stored in a licensed warehouse. 
 
Dispute settlement 
 
1.4.  According to paragraph 5.24, Article 17.3 contains "forum shopping" 
as well as "forum exclusion" clauses for matters falling under the Agreement 
and the WTO Agreement or any other agreem ent to which both Parties are party. 
It would be useful if we could have further details on the rules governing 
the selection of the forum, since it wo uld appear that while the general rules 
are followed with respect to the possibility of selecting the forum, once the forum 
is selected, other forums are excluded. However, the phrase "forum shopping" 
is unclear: the general rule is that it is up  to the complainant to select the mechanism 
to be used. Moreover, it needs to be stresse d that the possibility of selecting the forum 
refers to disputes arising from the FTA (and not from any agreement to which both 
parties belong). 
 
The terms "forum shopping" and "forum exclus ion" are not found in Article 17.3 but were 
used by the Secretariat in para 5.24 of the report to convey the operation of the "choice of forum" 
rules in Article 17.3.  WT/REG347/2 
- 3 - 
  Article 17.3 establishes in its first paragraph that the complaining Party is entitled to choose 
the forum in which the dispute shall be settled. Therefore, it can be said that the general rules on choice of forum apply.  
However, the second paragraph of the above-mentioned Article states that once a Party 
has requested the establishment of a Panel, the selected forum shall be used to the exclusion of the others in respect of the specific matter. 
 
As stated in Article 17.3, the choice of forum rules apply, as between Costa Rica 
and Singapore, to disputes arising under the Free Trade Agreement between Costa Rica 
and Singapore, and under the WTO Agreement or any other agreement to which both Parties 
are party, that could be settled in any of the app licable forums. This does not mean that the rules 
in Article 17.3 are thereby extended to and incorp orated into the other agreements to which both 
Parties are party. 
 
Questions from the delegation of Peru
1 
 
Regulatory provisions on trade in goods 
Anti-dumping and countervailing measures 
 
1.5.  Paragraph 3.36. In accordance with para graph 2(c) of Articl e 7.10 (Transparency 
and Legal Certainty) in the chapter on trad e remedies, one of the practices that the 
Parties agree to observe in anti-dumping and countervailing measures cases is that, 
a Party's investigating authority, upon the re quest of an exporter from the other Party, 
shall make available the time-frames, proc edures and any documents necessary for the 
offering of an undertaking. 
In terms of undertakings, both Singapore and Costa Rica have notified their laws 
and regulations to the WTO (doc uments G/ADP/N/ 1/SGP/2/Suppl.1, 
G/SCM/N/1/SGP/2/Suppl.1, G/ADP/N/1/CRI/3 and G/SCM/N/1/CRI/3). Could Singapore and Costa Rica indicate whethe r, in addition to the laws and regulations 
notified to the WTO, they have provid ed for these time-frames, procedures 
and documents necessary for the offering of an understanding in their domestic laws 
on anti-dumping and countervailing measur es or in another legal framework? 
If so, could they point out the specific provis ions in that legislation and, if available, 
provide the electronic link to access the documents? 
No response provided by the Parties. 
1.6.  Paragraph 3.36. Pursuant to Article 7. 12 (Consideration of  Public Interest) 
in the chapter on trade remedies, anti-d umping or countervailing measures may not 
be applied by a Party when it can clearly be co ncluded that it is not in the public interest 
to apply such measures. Public interest sh all take into account the situation of the 
domestic industry, importers and their repres entative associations, representative users 
and representative consumer organizations, to  the extent they have provided relevant 
information to the investigating authorities. What are the criteria that would be taken 
into account in order to determine that the application of such measures is not in the 
public interest, considering that the assessment, according to Article 7.12, 
would be based on the situation of intere st groups that have divergent interests 
and that are affected by or benefit fr om the application of an antidumping 
or countervailing measure in different ways? 
No response provided by the Parties. 
Other provisions 
Competition policy 
 
1.7.  Paragraph 5.16. According to Article 9.1 (Ob jective) in the chapter on competition 
policy, the Parties consider "anti-competit ive mergers and acquisitions or economic 
concentrations" to be an anti-competitive prac tice. In this regard, what criteria do the 
                                               
1 Questions were submitted to the Parties on 28 May 2014 (three weeks, five days before the meeting). WT/REG347/2 
- 4 - 
  Parties use to determine whether a merger , acquisition or economic concentration 
is anti-competitive? How does this practice  differ from those listed in paragraphs (a) 
and (b) of Article 9.1? 
No response provided by the Parties. 
1.8.  Paragraph 5.16. Pursuant to Article 9.4 (Consultations) in the chapter 
on competition policy, in order to fost er understanding between the Parties, 
or to address specific matters that arise under this Chapter, a Party shall, at the request 
of the other Party, enter into consultations.  In its request, the Party shall indicate, 
if relevant, how the matter affects trade or investment between the Parties. The Party 
to which a request is addressed shall consider  the issue of concern to the other Party, 
and inform it of the outcome of such consider ation. What, exactly, is meant by the fact 
that the Party to which the request is addr essed must consider the issue of concern? 
What kind of consideration does this invo lve and what elements would be included 
in the report submitted to the other Party? 
No response provided by the Parties. 
1.9.  Paragraph 5.16. Pursuant to Article 9.4 (Consultations) in the chapter 
on competition policy, the Party shall indicate in its request how the matter affects trade 
or investment between the Parties. What criteria do the Parties consider should 
be observed in order to determine whet her an activity that is the subject 
of consultations affects trade or investment between the Parties. 
No response provided by the Parties. 
 
__________