RESTRICTED  
  
G/VAL/M/61  
 
20 January 2016  
(16-0389)  Page: 1/17  
Committee on Customs Valuation    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 7 OCTOBER 2015  
CHAIRPERSON:  MR LIU PING (CHINA) 
 The agenda proposed for the meeting, circulated in WTO/AIR/VAL/2 and         
WTO/AIR/VAL/2/Corr.1, was adopted as follows: 
 
1   INFORMATION ON IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE 
AGREEMENT .....................................................................................................................  2 
1.1   Notification of national legislation ................................................................................. 2  
A. Kingdom of Bahrain .................................................................................................. 2  
B. Belize ..................................................................................................................... 3  
C. Cabo Verde ............................................................................................................. 3  
D. Colombia ................................................................................................................ 3  
E. Ecuador .................................................................................................................. 4  
F. The Gambia ............................................................................................................. 4  
G. Guinea.................................................................................................................... 4  
H. Honduras  ................................................................................................................ 5  
I. Mali ........................................................................................................................ 5  
J. Republic of Moldova .................................................................................................. 5  
K. Montenegro ............................................................................................................. 5  
L. Nepal ..................................................................................................................... 6  
M. Nicaragu a ............................................................................................................... 6  
N. Nigeria ................................................................................................................... 7  
O. Russian Fede ration ................................................................................................... 7  
P. Rwanda .................................................................................................................. 8  
Q. Saint Vincent and th e Grenadines ............................................................................... 8  
R. South Afri ca ............................................................................................................ 8  
S. Sri Lank a ................................................................................................................ 9  
2   INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATIO N OF DECISIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON 
CUSTOMS VALUATION .................................................................................................... 10  
2.1   The status of notifications under the Committee's Decisions ............................................ 10 
2.2   Uruguay's proposal to upda te the carrier me dia decision ................................................ 10 
3   TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ........................................................................................... 12  
3.1   Information on Technical As sistan ce ............................................................................ 12 
3.2   Article 20.3 Technical Assistance and Trade-Related Tec hnical Assistance ......................... 13 G/VAL/M/61 
 
- 2 - 
 
  4   UNITED STATES - ARMENIA'S RE FERENCE PRICE SYSTEM IN CONNECTION 
WITH THE VALUATIO N OF GOODS.................................................................................. 14  
5   PARAGRAPH 12 OF THE DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION:  
IMPLEMENTATION-REL ATED ISSU ES ............................................................................. 14  
6   PRESHIPMENT INSPECTI ON ...................................................................................... 15  
6.1   Status of notifications by Members .............................................................................. 15 
6.2   The replies by Indonesia to questions posed by the United States .................................... 15 
7   ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION OF THE 
CUSTOMS VALUATION AGREEMENT ................................................................................ 15  
8   ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMMI TTEE ON CUSTOMS VALUATION TO THE 
COUNCIL FOR TRAD E IN GOODS .................................................................................... 16  
9   ELECTION OF VI CE-CHAIRPERSON ............................................................................ 16  
10   OTHER BU SINESS .................................................................................................... 16  
10.1   Follow-up to the Informal Workshop on the Use of Customs Valuation Databases ............. 16 
10.2   Procès-verbal de re ctification (W T/Let/986) ................................................................ 16 
10.3   Date of next meeting............................................................................................... 16 
 
_______________ 
 
 1  INFORMATION ON IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE AGREEMENT 
1.1  Notification of national legislation 
1.1.  The Chairperson recalled that, pursuant to Article 22 of the Agreement and the Decision on 
"Notification and circulation of national legislation in accordance with Article 22 of the Agreement", 
Members must submit the complete texts of their national legislation on customs valuation in one 
of the three official WTO languages.  They shou ld also inform the Committee of any changes in 
their laws and regulations relevant to this Agreement and in the administration of such laws and 
regulations.  The notification procedures had been adopted by the Committee at its meeting of 
12 May 1995 and were contained in section B.2 of document G/VAL/5.  As agreed at the Committee's meeting of 25 October 2012, the Secretariat had issued a document, with the symbol G/VAL/W/232/Rev.3, which summarized the status of those notifications.   
1.2.  The notification of national legislation su bmitted by Chinese Taipei remained suspended since 
the Committee's meeting on 4-5 November 2002 pend ing resolution of the differences in views 
between the parties involved in notifications across the WTO.   
A. Kingdom of Bahrain 
1.3.  The Chairperson recalled that it had been agreed at the last meeting to revert to the 
examination of Bahrain's notification of national legislation and responses to the checklist of issues 
which had been circulated in document s G/VAL/N/1/BHR/1, G/VAL/N/1/BHR/2 and 
G/VAL/N/2/BHR/1, respectively.  The United States had submitted questions which had been circulated in documents G/VAL/W/181 and G/VAL/W/201, and Bahrain had provided responses in documents G/VAL/W/191 and G/VAL/W/217. Follow-up questions submitted by the United States 
had been circulated in document G/VAL/W/223.   
1.4.  The representative of the United States noted that her delegation remained interested in 
receiving Bahrain's written responses to the United States' questions.   
1.5.  The representative of the Kingdom of Bahrain stated that their responses were under review 
by the Gulf Cooperation Council Common Customs Law Committee.  They would be submitted as 
soon as possible.   G/VAL/M/61 
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.6.  The Committee took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to Bahrain's 
notification at the next meeting.   
B. Belize 1.7.  The Chairperson recalled that it had been agreed at the last meeting to revert to the 
examination of Belize's notification of national legislation and responses to the checklist of issues, 
which had been circulated in documents G/VAL/N /1/BLZ/1 and G/VAL/N/2/BLZ/1, respectively.  
Canada and the United States had submitted questions in documents G/VAL/W/176 and 
G/VAL/W/168, to which Belize had replied in documents G/VAL/W/183 and G/VAL/W/184, 
respectively. The United States had submitted follow-up questions in documents G/VAL/W/175, G/VAL/W/188, G/VAL/W/272 and G/VAL/W/272/Corr.1.   
1.8.  The representative of the United States stated that her delegation looked forward to receiving 
the responses to their follow-up questions.    1.9.  The Committee took note of the statement made  and agreed to revert to Belize's notification 
at the next meeting. 
C. Cabo Verde 
1.10.  The Chairperson recalled that at its last meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert to the 
examination of Cabo Verde's notification of national legislation which had been circulated in 
documents G/VAL/N/1/CPV/1 and G/VAL/N/1/CPV/2.  The United States had raised a number of 
questions in document G/VAL/W/224, to which Cabo Verde had replied in document G/VAL/W/239.  The United States had submitted follow-up questions in document G/VAL/W/244 to which Cabo Verde had replied in document G/VAL/W/263.  The United States had submitted additional 
questions in document G/VAL/W/270.   
1.11.  The representative of the United States thanked Cabo Verde for their written responses and 
looked forward to receiving the responses to th eir subsequent follow-up questions.      
1.12.  The representative of Canada thanked Cabo Verde for having provided a translated version 
of its legislative notification and also looked forw ard to the written responses to the United States' 
questions. 
1.13.  The representative of Cabo Verde stated that the United States' questions had been sent to 
their authorities and written responses would be available as soon as possible. 
1.14.  The Committee took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to Cabo Verde's 
notification at the next meeting.   
D. Colombia  
1.15.  The Chairperson recalled that at the last meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert to 
the examination of Colombia's notification of changes to its national legislation and revised 
responses to the checklist of issues, which we re circulated in documents G/VAL/N/1/COL/2, 
G/VAL/N/1/COL/3, and G/VAL/N/2 /COL/2, respectively. The United States had submitted 
questions which were circulated in documents G/VAL/W/258/Rev.1 and to which Colombia had 
provided responses in documents G/VAL/W/276  and G/VAL/W/276/Corr.1 (in Spanish only).   
1.16.  The representative of Canada re-stated their concern that Colombia was using a private 
reference price database for purposes other than a risk assessment tool.  Canada had been 
informed that the database was being maintained in a non-transparent matter.  They reminded 
Members that reference price databases were not to be used as substitute values for imported 
goods or as a means of establishing minimum values.  Canada urged Colombia to ensure its customs practices were in line with the Customs Valuation Agreement.   
1.17.  The representative of the European Union thanked Colombia for its substantial notification, 
which went beyond the content of the Customs Valuation Agreement itself.  The European Union G/VAL/M/61 
 
- 4 - 
 
  shared Canada's concerns regarding reference prices.  It was also looking at Colombia's treatment 
of transfer pricing.  The European Union would li ke to keep the notification on the agenda.   
1.18.  The representative of the United States th anked Colombia for the responses to its questions 
which were still being reviewed.  Any follow-up questions would be submitted in writing.  
1.19.  The representative of Colombia thanked Ca nada, the European Union and the United States 
for their interest. Colombia's written responses in document G/VAL/W/276 addressed the concerns 
expressed by some delegations during the last m eeting of the Committee. With regard to concerns 
expressed by delegations on reference pricing an d the use of reference prices by Colombia, the 
written responses provided addressed those concerns.  Reference pricing in Colombia's legislation did not constitute a means of substituting a declared transaction value.  It was just one amongst various parameters within the risk assessment process, including various parameters for control 
and monitoring.  It was an additional element used to shed light on any doubts with regard to the 
declared value of imported goods, in accordance with Article 6.1 as adopted and enacted by the Committee.   
1.20.  Reference pricing in Colombia was simply used for certain goods and in no case would it 
lead to the automatic rejection of the declared transaction value for imported goods.  Colombia would welcome any comments in writing and would be equally happy to respond to such 
comments in writing.   
1.21.  The Committee took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to Colombia's 
notification at the next meeting.   E. Ecuador  
1.22.  The Chairperson recalled that at the last meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert to 
the examination of Ecuador's responses to the checklist of issues, which had been circulated in 
document G/VAL/N/2/ECU/1.  The United States ha d submitted questions which were circulated in 
document G/VAL/W/220 to which Ecuador had replied in document G/VAL/W/226.  Subsequently, 
Ecuador had notified a compilation of changes to its national legislation in document G/VAL/N/1/ECU/3.  The United States had submitted questions which had been circulated in 
document G/VAL/W/260 and Ecuador had replied to those questions in document G/VAL/W/277 
(which could not be circulated in time for the meeting).   
1.23.  The representative of the United States thanked Ecuador for the responses, which would be 
examined by their experts.  Any further questions would be submitted in writing prior to the next 
meeting of the Committee.    
1.24.   The Committee took note of the statement made and agreed to revert to Ecuador's 
notification at the next meeting.   
F. The Gambia  
1.25.  The Chairperson recalled that at the last meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert to 
the examination of The Gambia's notification of na tional legislation, which had been circulated in 
documents G/VAL/N/1/GMB/1 and G/VAL/N/4/GMB/1. The United States had submitted questions 
in document G/VAL/W/245.   
1.26.  The representative of the United States st ated that they were looking forward to receiving 
replies to their questions. 
1.27.  The Committee took note of the statement made and agreed to revert to The Gambia's 
notification at the next meeting.   
G. Guinea 
1.28.  The Chairperson recalled that at the last meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert to 
the examination of Guinea's notification of national legislation, which had been circulated in 
document G/VAL/N/1/GIN/1. The United States had posed questions in document G/VAL/W/266. G/VAL/M/61 
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.29.  The representative of the United States st ated that they were looking forward to receiving 
written replies to their questions.   
1.30.  The Committee took note of the statement made and agreed to revert to Guinea's 
notification at the next meeting.   
H. Honduras  
1.31.  The Chairperson recalled that at the last meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert to 
the examination of Honduras' notification of national legislation and responses to the checklist of 
issues, which had been circulated in documents G/VAL/N/1/HND/1 and G/VAL/N/2/HND/1 
respectively. The United States had submitted questions in document G/VAL/W/268.  
1.32.  The representative of the United States th anked Honduras for the notification of its customs 
valuation legislation.  They were looking forward to receiving the responses to their written 
questions. 
1.33.  The representative of Honduras stated that  the questions had been sent to capital and that 
once the responses were received they would be made available immediately.  
1.34.  The Committee took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to Honduras' 
notification at the next meeting.   
I. Mali 
1.35.  The Chairperson recalled that at the last meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert to 
the examination of Mali's notification of national legislation, which had been circulated in document 
G/VAL/N/1/MLI/1. Canada had submitted questions in document G/VAL/W/238 to which Mali had replied in document G/VAL/W/255. The United States had submitted questions in document 
G/VAL/W/262. 
1.36.  The representative of Mali stated that th eir experts were working on the responses to the 
United States' questions in order to provide the information in the briefest possible delay. 
1.37.  The representative of the United States sa id that they looked forward to receiving Mali's 
responses to their newest questions. 
1.38.  The Committee took note of the statements ma de and agreed to revert to Mali's notification 
at the next meeting.   
J. Republic of Moldova 1.39.  The Chairperson recalled that at the last meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert to 
the examination of Moldova's notification of changes to its national legislation, which had been 
circulated in documents G/VAL/N/1/MDA/2 an d G/VAL/N/1/MDA/3.  The United States had 
submitted questions which had been circulated in document G/VAL/W/259.   
1.40.  The representative of the United States said that they remained interested in receiving 
written replies to their questions.  1.41.  The representative of Moldova stated that  the questions had been sent to capital and his 
delegation would come back with written responses as soon as possible. 
1.42.  The Committee took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to Moldova's 
notification at the next meeting.   
K. Montenegro  
1.43.  The Chairperson recalled that at the last meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert to 
the examination of Montenegro's notification of na tional legislation and responses to the checklist G/VAL/M/61 
 
- 6 - 
 
  of issues, which had been circulated in documents G/VAL/N/1/MNE/1 and G/VAL/N/2/MNE/1 
respectively.  The United States had submitted questions in document G/VAL/W/267 and Montenegro had provided responses (which could not be circulated in time for the meeting).   
1.44.  The representative of Montenegro stated  that the Ministry of Economy and the Customs 
Office of Montenegro were committed to providing re sponses to the best of their ability bearing in 
mind the time constraints.  Montenegro was looking forward to further contributions from the United States and other interested parties on the matter. 
1.45.  The representative of the United States thanked Montenegro for its efforts in providing a 
very quick response to the questions.  They wo uld study the responses and should they have any 
further questions they would provide them in writing before the next meeting. 
1.46.  The representative of the European Union thanked Montenegro for their rapid and positive 
responses to the questions posed, which was the kind of response that was to be encouraged and 
which the European Union would like  to see more of from Members. 
1.47.  The Committee took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to Montenegro's 
notification at the next meeting.   L. Nepal 1.48.  The Chairperson recalled that at the last meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert to 
the examination of Nepal's notification of national legislation, which had been circulated in 
document G/VAL/N/1/NPL/1. 
1.49.  The representative of the European Union thanked Nepal for the substantial notification.  
The European Union was still reviewing the legislation and would like to keep it on the agenda. 
1.50.  The representative of Canada posed a question that it would also submit in writing.  
Section 14.6 provided for the use of an estimate d amount for likely freight insurance and other 
related expenses to calculate the customs value.  Canada noted that the Customs Valuation 
Agreement precluded the use of arbitrary customs values. Could Nepal please explain how it 
determined those estimated amounts and how such practices were consistent with the Customs Valuation Agreement. 
1.51.  The representative of the United States thanked Nepal for the notification.  It was being 
examined in Washington and the United States would provide any questions in writing before the 
next meeting. 
1.52.  The Committee took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to Nepal's 
notification at the next meeting.   M. Nicaragua  
1.53.  The Chairperson recalled that at the last meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert to 
the examination of Nicaragua's notification of legislation and responses to the checklist of issues, 
which had been circulated in documents G/VAL/N /1/NIC/1 and G/VAL/N/2/NIC/1, respectively.  
The United States had submitted questions which had been circulated in document G/VAL/W/261 
to which Nicaragua had replied in document G/VAL/W/265. The United States had submitted 
additional questions in document G/VAL/W/273. 
1.54.  The representative of the United States thanked Nicaragua for the rapid responses.  
The United States had submitted additional ques tions plus a request for a copy of other legal 
provisions that were part of the notifications mentioned in the documents but which had not been 
made available at that time. 
1.55.  The representative of Nicaragua thanked the United States for the follow-up questions, 
which had been sent to capital.  A written response would be provided as soon as possible and 
they had taken note of the document that that been requested.   G/VAL/M/61 
 
- 7 - 
 
  1.56.  The Committee took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to Nicaragua's 
notification at the next meeting.   
N. Nigeria  
1.57.  The Chairperson recalled that at the last meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert to 
the examination of Nigeria's notification of nation al legislation and responses to the checklist of 
issues, which had been circulated in documents in G/VAL/N/1/NGA/1 and G/VAL/N/2/NGA/1, respectively. The United States and Canada had posed questions, which had been circulated in 
documents G/VAL/W/175 and G/VAL/W/176, respectively.   
1.58.  The representative of Canada enquired when  they might be able to expect answers to the 
questions that had been outstanding for some time.   
1.59.  The representative of the United States said that they remained interested in receiving 
replies to the questions that they had posed a number of years ago.   1.60.  The representative of Nigeria thanked the delegations of Canada and the United States for 
their questions and for their continuous interest and concern on the matter.  The ongoing customs 
reforms in Nigeria would fully address all their concerns. Nigeria would continue to update 
Members on any new developments, and it reiterated its commitment to the Committee on Customs Valuation in terms of meeting its obligations.  Experts in Abuja were still reviewing the 
questions and the delegation would get back to the Committee as soon as they had responses. 
1.61.  The representative of the European Union expressed his delegation's interest in Nigeria's 
legislation and how it was implemented in practice. They were also interested in seeing the 
responses to questions raised by Members.  Mayb e Nigeria could suggest ways of structuring or 
channelling questions that would facilitate Nigeria providing responses in a reasonable period of 
time.   
1.62.  The representative of Nigeria stated that the Nigerian Government had put in efforts to 
ensure that there was a new customs act which was to be implemented, and which addressed 
some of the questions which had already been noted.  Nigeria was in transition and the recent parliament had just got on board two or three week s earlier.  By the time they were fully settled, 
the issues raised in the questions would have been put forward to a committee which would 
arrange to provide the final responses.   
1.63.  The Committee took note of the statemen ts made and agreed to revert to Nigeria's 
notification at the next meeting.   
O. Russian Federation  
1.64.  The Chairperson recalled that at the last meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert to 
the examination of the Russian Federation's notifica tion of legislation which had been circulated in 
G/VAL/N/1/RUS/1, G/VAL/N/1/RUS /2 and G/VAL/N/1/RUS/2/Add.1 and G/VAL/N/1/RUS/3 and 
G/VAL/N/1/RUS/3/Add.1, as well as to the Russian  Federation's responses to the checklist of 
issues, which had been circulated in document G/VAL/N/2/RUS/1.   
1.65.  The representative of Ukraine stated that they were reviewing the legislation and would 
come back with written questions at a later stage. 
1.66.  The representative of the United States stated that their review of the legislation was still 
on-going.  A number of pieces of legislation that had been referred to in the checklist of issues 
were not part of the notification and they requ ested the Russian Federation to make available 
other relevant legislation and documents, in particular, the State Customs Committee Letter No. 01-06/2236 of 18 June 2004 which was "On the Determination of the Customs Value of Goods 
Imported in Accordance with Foreign Trade Ag reements of Different Types" and FCC Letter 
No. 15-14/8524 of 17 March 2006 "On the Customs Clearance of the Information Transmitted 
through the Internet".  Once the United States had received access to those documents, they 
would present any questions in writing. G/VAL/M/61 
 
- 8 - 
 
  1.67.  The representative of the European Union supported the request for full access to all the 
relevant legislation.  The notification in document G/VAL/N/1/RUS/2/Add.1 was a significant 
notification and particularly informative but it was not actually about valuation at all – there was only a brief mention at the very end of the notification.  He was not sure if the earlier notifications 
from the Russian Federation were still valid and wanted to ensure that the Committee had got the 
complete picture.  The new legislation which had been in the pipeline seemed to have been made available, and they would like to have confirmation of that.  It would be good to receive an 
overview of the situation from the Russian Federati on and to have the assurance that notifications 
were up to date. 
1.68.  The representative of the Russian Federati on thanked Ukraine, the United States and the 
European Union for their interest in the Russian Federation legislation. With regard to the 
European Union's question in relation to new pieces of legislation, work was continuing on the 
preparation of new versions of the Customs Code of the Eurasian Economic Union and there was a deadline of 31 December 2015 to present a draft to the High Council of the Eurasian Economic 
Commission.  There would be some changes made and his delegation would provide the 
Committee with the new notification when it was adopted. 
1.69.  He requested Members which considered that some documents were missing in the 
Russian Federation notification to indicate which pieces of legislation they needed.     
1.70.  The Committee took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to the 
Russian Federation's notification at the next meeting.   P. Rwanda  
1.71.  The Chairperson recalled that at the last meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert to 
the examination of Rwanda's notification of nation al legislation and responses to the checklist of 
issues, which had been circulated in docu ments G/VAL/N/1/RWA/1 and G/VAL/N/2/RWA/1, 
respectively.  The United States had posed ques tions, which had been circulated in document 
G/VAL/W/215.   
1.72.  The representative of the United States stated that they remained interested in receiving 
Rwanda's written response to their questions.  
1.73.  The Committee took note of the statement made and agreed to revert to Rwanda's 
notification at the next meeting.   Q. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines  
1.74.  The Chairperson recalled that at the last meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert to 
the examination of Saint Vincent and the Grenadin es' notification of national legislation and 
responses to the checklist of issues, which had been circulated in documents G/VAL/N/1/VCT/1 
and G/VAL/N/2/VCT/1, respectively.  The United States had raised questions in document 
G/VAL/W/181, to which St. Vincent and the Grenadines had responded in document G/VAL/W/250.   
1.75.  The representative of the United States st ated that Saint Vincent and the Grenadines were 
undertaking a further review of some issues and they looked forward to any results of that, but 
they had no further questions at this time. 
1.76.  The Chairperson noted that there were no more outstanding issues on these notifications. 
1.77.  The Committee agreed to conclude the examination of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines' 
notifications.                                                                                                                                                   
R. South Africa  1.78.  The Chairperson recalled that at the last meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert to 
the examination of South Africa's notification of new customs valuation legislation which had been 
circulated in document G/VAL/N/1/ZAF/2.  The United States had submitted questions in document G/VAL/W/271. G/VAL/M/61 
 
- 9 - 
 
  1.79.  The representative of the United States stat ed that they looked forward to receiving replies 
to their questions. 
1.80.  The representative of South Africa thanked the United States for the question that had been 
circulated, and provided an oral response, which would be circulated in writing following the 
meeting.  The question was under valuation of goods in the Customs Duty Act No. 30 of 2014.  
The United States had written "Regarding Article 129.1(g), could South Africa please explain which provision of the CVA this Article implements".  In response, South Africa was of the view that 
Article 129.1(g) was in line with sub-paragraph 1 of  paragraph 2 of the note to Article VII of the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, GATT 1994, under the heading "Valuation for Customs  Purposes".  The note to Article VII, paragraph 2, sub-paragraph 1 stated "It would be in conformity with Article VII to presume that "actua l value" may be represented by the invoice price, 
plus any non-included charges for legitimate costs which are proper elements of "actual value" and 
plus any abnormal discount or other reduction from the ordinary competitive price".   
1.81.  The representative of the European Union thanked South Africa for its response.  
The European Union had flagged the reference in South Africa's legislation to the idea of fully 
competitive conditions, which was an idea in GATT Article VII but was not carried forward into the Customs Valuation Agreement.  There was a potential for ambiguity and conflict with the 
provisions of the Agreement itself if that concept should try to be reflected in a Member's 
legislation.  The European Union would like to study the issue in detail to see if it could be problematic in the future. 
1.82.  The Committee took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to South Africa's 
notification at the next meeting.   S. Sri Lanka  1.83.  The Chairperson recalled that at the last meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert to 
the examination of Sri Lanka's notification of national legislation and its responses to the checklist 
of issues, which had been circulated in do cuments G/VAL/N/1/LKA/1  and G/VAL/N/2/LKA/1, 
respectively.  The United States had posed some questions which had been circulated in document 
G/VAL/W/269.   
1.84.  The representative of Sri Lanka appreciated the interest shown by the United States in the 
national legislation notification submitted by Sri La nka.  The questions raised by the United States 
had been referred to the relevant Government auth orities in the capital for response.  Once the 
response was received, Sri Lanka would inform the United States delegation and the Committee. 
1.85.  The representative of the United States thanked Sri Lanka for the notifications of 
implementing legislation and the check-list of issues.  They looked forward to receiving the 
answers in writing. 
1.86.  The Committee took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to Sri Lanka's 
notification at the next meeting.   
1.87.  The Chairperson thanked those Members that had notified their national legislation and had 
provided responses to the checklist of issues.  He strongly encouraged the still considerable 
number of Members who had not notified their nati onal legislation nor provided responses to the 
checklist of issues to work with their capitals to do so as soon as possible.  He reminded Members 
that the Secretariat was available for any assistance in fulfilling the notification obligations.   
1.88.  The Chairperson informed Members that he had requested the Secretariat to compile a 
listing of documents which contained the questi ons and answers submitted on each national 
legislation.  Such a listing would be a good point of reference for the Committee's discussions. 
1.89.  The Committee took note of the information.   G/VAL/M/61 
 
- 10 - 
 
  2  INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION OF DECISIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON 
CUSTOMS VALUATION 
2.1.  The Chairperson stated that, under this agenda item, the Committee had two issues: 1) the 
status of notifications under the Committee's Decisions; and, 2) the proposal by Uruguay 
circulated in document G/VAL/W/241/Rev.1.  
2.1  The status of notification s under the Committee's Decisions 
2.2.  The Chairman recalled that the Committee examined notifications pursuant to two Decisions 
that had been adopted by the Committee at its meeting of 12 May 1995 and contained in 
document G/VAL/5.  These were the Decisions on "Treatment of Interest Charges in the Customs Value of Imported Goods" and "Valuation of Carrier Media Bearing Software for Data Processing Equipment".  A report by the Secretariat listing notifications received had been circulated in 
document G/VAL/W/5/Rev.25.   
2.3.  The Committee took note of the information. 
2.2  Uruguay's proposal to update the carrier media decision 
2.4.  At the last meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert to the proposal by Uruguay 
contained in document G/VAL/W/241/Rev.1 to amen d the Carrier Media Decision, also known by 
Customs as "Decision 4.1".  According to Uruguay, software was increasingly being imported using 
new types of carrier media, e.g. "USB flash drives" or other similar devices, which might not fall 
under the definition of "c arrier medium" in the Decision.  This meant that such importations of software would be treated differently from those imported using other types of media, such as CDs or DVDs.  Switzerland had submitted comments on Uruguay's proposal, which were circulated in 
document G/VAL/W/254.  At the request of the Committee, the Secretariat had also prepared a 
report with statistics on imports of these products, which had been circulated in G/VAL/W/249 and had been presented at the last Committee meeting.   
2.5.  The Chairperson recalled that during the last meeting, many delegations had supported 
Uruguay's proposal as well as the proposed amendment put forward by Switzerland.  Some Members 
had indicated that they would need more time to consider the proposal while at the same time they 
had also expressed their willingness and openness to continue discussing the proposal.  Uruguay had 
also provided responses to questions raised by one delegation which had been circulated in document G/VAL/W/264. 
2.6.  The representative of Switzerland stated that his delegation's understanding from the last 
meeting was that only very few Members were not in a position to adopt the amended proposal.  
His delegation was interested in knowing whether those Members had different positions today. 
2.7.  The representative of the European Union said that his delegation had concerns in relation to 
the need for, or the appropriateness of, re-opening an existing decision.  At the same time, they 
were very pleased to note the development since the Committee's last meeting, that the particular 
products which had been identified were now covered by the ITA Expansion. So for the purpose in 
question, the issue would seem to be solved. 
2.8.  The representative of Japan thanked Uruguay for taking up the issue and thanked 
Switzerland for the additional inputs. Japan vi ewed the revision of the decision as being 
appropriate and was continuing to constructively engage in the discussion.   
2.9.  The representative of Chile reiterated Chil e's support, which had been expressed on previous 
occasions, for Uruguay's proposal, complemented by  Switzerland's proposal.  Could the delegate of 
the European Union clarify the reference to the ITA and how this resolved the issue? 
2.10.  The representative of the European Union stated that, subject to the condition that they 
would need to check with their experts, from what his delegation had been told, the specific 
product in question, and Uruguay had clarified at the last meeting that the product they were 
interested in was the so-called pen drive, fell under the HS nomenclature 85.23 and the entire 
content of that tariff position would now be included in the ITA, which meant that duties would be G/VAL/M/61 
 
- 11 - 
 
  eliminated on the entire product range.  That being the case, and as the original objective of 
Decision 4.1 was to ensure import duties would no t be charged on carrier media, the same result 
was now being achieved but on a much more global basis and not just for one product but for the entire content of the chapter heading in question. That was a much more expedient, modern 
solution and was surely a more effective way of achieving the result in question than re-opening a 
30-year old decision which worked fine.  His comm ents were without prejudice to the confirmation 
of the final scope of the ITA. 
2.11.  The representative of Colombia stated that his delegation had already supported Uruguay's 
proposal at the last meeting.  It seemed to be a very solid proposal and it had been well discussed 
within the Committee.  Any doubts had been clarified and hopefully it would be adopted soon.  Regarding the relevance of the issue given the recent adoption of the ITA, the ITA was a 
plurilateral agreement and so would only be applicable amongst the participants.  Therefore, it was 
not clear how the ITA related to Uruguay's proposal, even though the ITA was a useful tool and Colombia continued to support it.   
2.12.  The representative of Chile thanked th e European Union for the explanation without 
prejudice to the fact that Chile continued to su pport the proposals of Uruguay and Switzerland, 
which they saw as something more systemic since it updated a text, which would otherwise 
continue to be out of date, even outside of the ITA. 
2.13.  The representative of Chinese Taipei stated his delegation's support for the proposals of 
Uruguay and Switzerland.  He also shared Colomb ia's view that the ITA was just a plurilateral 
agreement amongst some Members so it would not so lve all the problems at issue.  Therefore, the 
Committee would still have to de cide on the issue before it. 
2.14.  The representative of Argentina, referring to the comments of Chile and Colombia, sought 
clarification from the European Union about the situation of WTO Members that were not Members 
of the plurilateral ITA.  How would Uruguay's proposal lose relevance given such a situation? 
2.15.  The representative of China stated that in  principle, China agreed with Uruguay's proposal 
to amend Decision 4.1 provided that firstly the Committee would clarify the corresponding 
relationship between the products concerned under Decision 4.1 and the scope of products 
described under the relevant HS codes, so that uniformity of interpretation and application could be achieved amongst customs administrations.  Secondly, the operationability of customs control and the declaration of the stakeholders should also be taken into account with a view to 
distinguishing the products to which the new Decision 4.1 would apply.   
2.16.  The representative of Brazil thanked Uruguay for its proposal and reiterated Brazil's support 
for it.  His delegation would welcome some more comments on the inter-linkages between 
Uruguay's proposal and the expansion of the ITA. 
2.17.  The representative of Costa Rica expressed her delegation's support for the Uruguayan and 
Swiss proposals. 
2.18.  The representative of the European Union stated that his delegation would provide further 
comment on the inter-linkages between the ITA and the scope of the Decision 4.1 at a later stage.  
2.19.  The representative of the United States stated her delegation's support for the Uruguayan 
proposal with the Swiss edit.  With regard to the European Union's comments on the ITA 
Expansion, maybe those Members of the ITA Expansion could now look at Decision 4.1 more 
favourably.   
2.20.  The representative of Montenegro echoed the support of other Members for the Uruguayan 
and Swiss proposals. 2.21.  The representative of Mexico shared the doubts expressed by previous delegations 
regarding the linkage between the ITA expansion and Decision 4.1.  The target field of scope of 
the ITA had a different objective to that which had been discussed in previous sessions of the 
Committee regarding the Uruguayan proposal.  The relationship that might exist, if indeed that G/VAL/M/61 
 
- 12 - 
 
  were the case, would be a very tenuous one.  Mexico reiterated its support for the Uruguayan 
proposal with the revision suggested by Switzerland. 
2.22.  The representative of Switzerland thanked a ll participants for their insightful comments, and 
hoped that the Committee could resolve the issue as soon as possible. 
2.23.  The representative of Korea restated his delegation's support for Uruguay's proposal in terms 
of updating technology development. His delegation also wanted to stay engaged in the discussion in 
order to ensure that the language was clear and to have a more focused discussion on what the real 
problem was in accepting the proposal.   
2.24.  The representative of India raised a point with regard to the use of the words "temporary 
storage" and "transfer".  In its written response to questions that had been raised, was Uruguay in 
favour of retaining the word "temporary" or did it agree with the European Union that this word 
was not necessary? 
2.25.  The Chairperson recalled that at the last session there had been quite substantial support 
for accepting the Uruguayan proposal with the amendment proposed by Switzerland, i.e., that the 
word "temporary" would go.  The "transfer of data" was part of the Uruguayan proposal and it 
would stay for those who supported the proposal.   
2.26.  The representative of Turkey supported  the proposals of Uruguay and Switzerland. 
2.27.  The representative of Switzerland confirmed the Chairperson's statement regarding 
Switzerland's proposal. 
2.28.  The Chairperson stated that there had b een a good exchange of views on the issue and 
apparently more time was needed to consider the various points that had been raised by 
delegations.  He proposed that the Committee take note of the statements made and agree to 
revert to this issue at the next session.  But during the inter-session, if there were any developments in Members' positions the Chair and the Secretariat would be grateful to be advised 
so that they knew exactly where they were and they would try to figure out which direction the 
next session would take. 
2.29.  The Committee took note of the statements ma de and agreed to revert to this matter at the 
next meeting. 
3  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 3.1  Information on Technical Assistance 3.1.  The Chairperson recalled that at its meeting of 12 May 1995, and as reflected in section B.4 of 
document G/VAL/5, the Committee on Customs Valuation had agreed that greater transparency of 
technical assistance activities would be ensured if information documents prepared for the WCO Technical Committee on Customs Valuation were also made available as a WTO document.  
Document G/VAL/8/Add.31 contained the most recent information compiled by the Technical 
Committee on Customs Valuation concerning technical assistance activities carried out by Members, as well as by the WCO Secretariat.   
3.2.  The representative of the United States stated that her delegation took the notifications and 
review of legislation very much as the job expected to be done by the Committee, and they were 
always pleased to participate in that process.  However, the Technical Assistance standing agenda item had not been a substantive item for a while and they had noticed in the Secretariat's report 
from the last Committee meeting the positive contributions and report that the EU had made under 
that agenda item.  Her delegation also wanted to raise the issue of technical assistance and capacity building under the new Trade Facilitation Agreement, very similar to what had been raised in the last 
meeting, and what could be done in the Committee on Customs Valuation.  There was a great new 
momentum and synergy in the Trade Facilitation Agreement, and there was quite a bit of overlap between the Trade Facilitation Agreement and the Customs Valuation Agreement.  The Chairperson 
had noted earlier in the meeting that there were over 35 notifications and checklist of issue items 
still open. There was a new Trade Facilitation Agreement Facility available for technical assistance G/VAL/M/61 
 
- 13 - 
 
  and capacity building under the Trade Facilitation Agreement and her delegation wanted to hear 
other Members' views on how the Committee could use the Facility to address the need that had been expressed for more technical assistance and capacity building in the area of customs valuation. 
3.3.  Her delegation did not yet have a proposal, but would be really interested in other Members' 
views about what could be done in the area, that would be more dynamic in moving forward. The 
Trade Facilitation Agreement with some of its overlap with the Customs Valuation Agreement gave an opportunity to have a discussion about technical assistance and capacity building, and the need 
for it had been seen in the meeting.  Her delegati on would like to be resp onsive to that need.   
3.4.  The representative of the European Union stated that the United States' intervention was very 
positive, and his delegation associated itself with it, and offered its support.  A lot of technical 
assistance had been designed and delivered for the Trade Facilitation Agreement, and the 
Agreement in itself substantially supported valuation by providing legal structural instruments for 
administrations for risk management, auditing and engagement of services - mainly customs services - with commerce and trade.  Bearing in mind that it was envisaged, promised and 
guaranteed under the Trade Facilitation Agreement that technical assistance and capacity building 
must and would be made available, there surely was scope to see how best to achieve mutual gains across the Customs Valuation Agreement and the Trade Facilitation Agreement, since there were 
strong links between the two.  His delegation continued to think about this and associated 
themselves with discussions within the World Customs Organization.  There was certainly a role for the Committee on Customs Valuation in discussions and policy direction at that level, and his delegation joined the United States in calling on Members on engage on the subject.  It would need 
to be done in a concrete way and to have some proposals in that respect.  His delegation would 
come back to it in the future. 
3.5.  The representative of Japan expressed interest in the intervention made by the United States.  
Japan provided technical assistance to developing countries in customs valuation as well as trade 
facilitation.  They would like to join the discussions in the future. 
3.6.  The representative of the World Customs Organization (WCO) informed the Committee that his 
Organization received a lot of requests for capacity building in relation to the Trade Facilitation 
Agreement.  It could be done in different ways, as there were many different subjects related to that Agreement.  The WCO could provide capacity building on advanced rulings, to mention one, but also on valuation. Recently, the WCO were trying to develop a pool of trainers that could assist Members 
in the entire implementation of the Trade Facilitation Agreement.  In addition, they were also 
providing training on specific topics that were part of the Agreement.  Currently, they were having training seminars on valuation topics in a number of countries, the details of which would be 
reported at the next Committee meeting.   
3.7.  The Chairperson stated that the Committee first needed to recognise that both the WTO and 
the WCO had been trying their best to provide capa city building and technical assistance to help 
developing countries in implementing the valuation agreement.  They were always willing to help 
any Members that requested assistance in this re gard.  But the point had been made that there 
was still substantial scope for the Committee to step up its capacity building and technical assistance efforts to take advantage of the momentum from the Trade Facilitation Agreement, 
probably working in synergy with the Trade Facilitation Agreement so that the Committee would be 
in a position to provide more dynamics to the implementation of the Customs Valuation Agreement through enhanced and reinforced capacity building strategies.   
3.8.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
3.2  Article 20.3 Technical Assistance and Trade-Related Te chnical Assistance 
3.9.  The Chairperson went on to recall that the Committee's Work Programme on Technical 
Assistance for Capacity building as Regards th e Implementation and Administration of the WTO 
Agreement on Customs Valuation was now incorporated in the overall technical assistance program of the WTO.  The WTO was currently implementing the 2014-2015 Biennial TA Plan, which was contained in document WT/COMTD/W/200. Requests for technical assistance could be 
made by individual Members at any time, which would be met by a national activity designed to 
meet the needs of the recipient.   G/VAL/M/61 
 
- 14 - 
 
  3.10.  The Committee took note of the statement made. 
4  UNITED STATES - ARMENIA'S REFERENCE PRICE SYSTEM IN CONNECTION WITH THE 
VALUATION OF GOODS  
4.1.  The Chairperson recalled that at the last m eeting, the Committee had agreed to revert to this 
issue.  Armenia had notified its national legislation in document G/VAL/N/1/ARM/1 in August 2003, 
as well as its responses to the checklist of i ssues in document G/VAL/N/2/ARM/1.  The Committee 
concluded its examination of this legislation at its meeting on 18 October 2005.  The United States 
had posed follow-up questions in document G/VAL/W/208, to which Armenia had replied in 
document G/VAL/W/213. Canada had subsequently submitted questions in document G/VAL/W/214.   
4.2.  The representative of Canada expressed his delegation's continuing interest in the matter and 
in particular, receiving responses to the questions which had been submitted in 2012.   4.3.  The Committee took note of the statement made and agreed to revert to the issue at the 
next meeting.   
5  PARAGRAPH 12 OF THE DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION:  IMPLEMENTATION-
RELATED ISSUES 
5.1.  The Chairperson recalled that, at its meeting of 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 had asked the Committee to report back to the General Council once its work had been completed.   
5.2.  At the last meeting, Members had indicated th at there had been no change in their positions. 
Following discussions with its capital, India had said that it wished to retain this item on the 
agenda while some other Members had been of the view that the Agreement on Trade Facilitation 
that had been agreed in Bali would have  already taken care of the issue.   
5.3.  The representative of India confirmed that there had been no change in their position.  The 
mandates for the two were quite different, they  resided in different documents and apart from 
that, the Trade Facilitation Agreement had yet to enter into force.  Even after its entry into force, 
there would be a time lag before Members would start to implement the various provisions. 
Therefore, his delegation could not agree to the deletion of the item from the agenda at this stage.   
5.4.  The representative of Canada restated their position, that while the mandates might be 
different, the practical effect was basically the same, in particular in relation to Article 12 on 
Customs Cooperation of the Trade Facilitation Agreem ent.  Therefore, at that stage it would be far 
more productive for Members to dedicate their efforts to completing their domestic ratification process in order to bring the Trade Facilitation Agreement into force as soon as possible. 
5.5.  The representative of the European Union st ated that his delegation's position remained the 
same since they continued to believe that the Trade Facilitation Agreement took care of the issue. 
The time lag was a vanishing one, and then there wo uld no longer be need to consider such issues 
in this Committee.   
5.6.  The representative of Japan restated their position that the issue was already covered in the 
Trade Facilitation Agreement. 5.7.  The representative of the United States stated that the Trade Facilitation Agreement 
addressed the issue and was a good vehicle for customs cooperation.  It went back to the earlier 
discussion about a lot of good symmetry betwee n the Trade Facilitation Agreement and the 
Customs Valuation Agreement.  Her delegation looked forward to working with other Members on 
ideas on how the Committee could build some momentum for its work with what had been 
achieved by the Trade Facilitation Agreement, which was going to look at customs holistically.  It 
was the opportunity to push some of the customs and valuation issues when the Committee was 
looking at reforms to customs in general.  She thanked the WCO for their remarks on their G/VAL/M/61 
 
- 15 - 
 
  capacity building and technical assistance, and reiterated Canada's intervention that the real 
solution was for all Members to make a push to get the TFA entered into force. 
5.8.  The Committee took note of the statements ma de and agreed to revert to this issue at the 
next meeting.  
6  PRESHIPMENT INSPECTION 
6.1.  The Chairperson noted that Preshipment Inspection was a standing item on the agenda of the 
Committee on Customs Valuation, and that there were two items to discuss:  1) the status of 
notifications; and, 2) the replies by Indonesi a to questions posed by the United States.   
6.1  Status of notifications by Members 6.2.  The Chairperson drew attention to the compilati on of notifications pursuant to Article 5 of the 
Agreement on Preshipment Inspection, contained in document G/PSI/N/1/Rev.2/Add 2.   
6.3.  The Committee took note of the document.   
6.2  The replies by Indonesia to questions posed by the United States 
6.4.  With regard to the second issue, the Unit ed States had submitted questions to Indonesia in 
documents G/PSI/W/167, G/PSI/W/180 and G/PSI/W/237 to which Indonesia had issued replies in 
documents G/VAL/W/256, G/VAL/W/257 and G/VAL /W/257/Corr.1. The United States had 
submitted questions which were circulated in document G/VAL/W/278 but which had been too late 
for consideration in the meeting.   
6.5.  The representative of the United States th anked Indonesia for their replies and stated that 
her delegation had not known that Indonesia ha d requested them to provide the questions in 
writing following their intervention at the last m eeting.  They had now done so and looked forward 
to receiving the replies. 
6.6.  The representative of Indonesia thanked the United States delegation for its continued 
interest in the issue.  The questions had only been received recently and so they would be 
conveyed to capital. Regarding Indonesia's response in documents G/VAL/W/256 and 
G/VAL/W/257 which they had submitted in March 2015, they highlighted that Indonesia's customs 
and excise authorities did not conduct preshipment inspection.  Preshipment inspection was an 
import licensing policy instrument used to overcome issues related to health, safety and 
environment and consumer protection.  It was a technical verification procedure for certain imported goods used for customs valuation.  As such, preshipment inspection regulation had been appropriately notified to the Committee on Import Licensing. 
6.7.  The Committee took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to the issue at the 
next meeting. 
7  ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION OF THE CUSTOMS 
VALUATION AGREEMENT 
7.1.  The Chairperson drew Members' attention to Article 23 of the Agreement, which provided 
that the Committee shall review annually the im plementation and operation of the Agreement, 
taking into account the objectives thereof.  The Secretariat had prepared a draft in line with the 
previous reviews, which had been circulated in document G/VAL/W/274.  He proposed that the Committee adopt the Annual Review and instructed the Secretariat to update it as necessary to take account of the discussions in that meeting. 
7.2.  The Committee so agreed. G/VAL/M/61 
 
- 16 - 
 
  8  ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON CUSTOMS VALUATION TO THE COUNCIL FOR 
TRADE IN GOODS 
8.1.  The Chairperson recalled that Article 23 of  the Agreement also required the Committee to 
annually inform the Council for Trade in Goods of developments during the relevant reporting 
period.  The Secretariat had prepared a draft which had been circulated in G/VAL/W/275.  
He proposed that the Committee adopt the annual report and instructed the Secretariat to update it as necessary to take account of the discussions in the meeting.   
8.2.  The Committee so agreed. 
9  ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIRPERSON 
9.1.  The Chairperson informed the Committee that  he would be leaving Geneva in December 2015 
and would have to terminate his role as Chairperson at that time.  In order to continue the smooth 
operation of the Committee until the election of a new Chairperson in 2016, he had carried out 
consultations on the proposal to elect a Vice-Chairperson to manage the working of the Committee until then. As a result of those consultations, he proposed that the Committee elect Ms Joanna 
Cheung as Vice-Chairperson for 2015.  He than ked Ms Cheung for agreeing to undertake the 
position so soon after her recent ro le as Chairperson of the Committee. 
9.2.  The Committee elected Ms. Cheung by acclamation. 
10  OTHER BUSINESS 10.1  Follow-up to the Informal Workshop on the Use of Customs Valuation Databases 10.1.  The representative of the United States noted that the "Informal Workshop on the Use of 
Customs Valuation Databases" held by the Committee on 24 October 2014 had been a positive 
step for the Committee.  The United States was not proposing another Workshop, they just noted 
that there might be some follow-up work that they would be interested in pursuing with other delegations. 
10.2  Procès-verbal de rectification (WT/Let/986) 
10.2.  The Chairperson referred to document WT/Let/986, dated 23 September 2014, which was a 
"Procès-Verbal of Rectification" signed by the Dire ctor General, to amend Article 8.1(b) (iv) of the 
Customs Valuation Agreement in order to align the Spanish and English versions.  The WCO had 
highlighted an editorial error in the document. The word "mercaderías" had inadvertently been used in the amendment in place of the word "m ercancías" which had been used throughout the 
Customs Valuation Agreement.  The procedure to rectify the situation would be to circulate a 
corrected "Procès-Verbal of Rectification, in th e WT/Let document series. The Chairperson wished 
to explore whether any Member had any objections to correcting this error.  
10.3.  The representative of Argentina requested confirmation that the word "mercaderías" had 
been used when it should have been "mercancías", and that the rectification process being 
proposed by the Chairperson would be to once ag ain circulate a note in the WTO WT/Let series. 
10.4.  The Chairperson confirmed the first point, and he also confirmed that the procedure to 
rectify the situation would be to have the Secretariat circulate a corrected "Procès-verbal de 
rectification" in the same WTO/Let document se ries.   He proposed that the Committee rectify 
document WT/Let/986 and circulate a new Procès-verbal de rectification" in the same WTO/Let series. 
10.5.  The Committee so agreed. 
10.3  Date of next meeting  
10.6.  The Chairperson stated that the next meeting of the Committee was provisionally scheduled 
for 17 May 2016.  In preparation for the next meeting, Members were reminded that any further 
questions or replies should be submitted to the Secretariat before mid-April 2016.  If any G/VAL/M/61 
 
- 17 - 
 
  delegation had been planning to submit new legislat ion, it should be sent in Word format by end 
March so that the Secretariat would have sufficient time to process the notification for the meeting.   
10.7.  The meeting was adjourned. 
__________