RESTRICTED  
  
G/VAL/M/69/Rev.1  
 
9 October 2020  
(20-6974) Page: 1/19 
Committee on Customs Valuation    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 25 OCTOBER  2019 
CHAIRPERSON: MR WINEGA BAMANA  (TOGO ) 
Revision  
1.1.  The Chairperson  thanked  Members for the honour of electing him a s Chairperson of the 
Committee on Customs Valuation. He was very grateful for the Members' confidence and trust in his 
ability to carry out th e task. He assure d the Committee that he would work very hard as Chairperson 
to advance the work of the Committee.  There had already been great strides made by the Committee 
in its work over the past year under the chairmanship of Mr Yuichi Okamura (Japan) , and he was 
committed to ensuring that that the Committee continue d its efforts to reach its objectives.  
1.2.  The Chairperson  recalled that the proposed agenda for the meeting  had been circulated in  
document s WTO/AIR/VAL/10/Rev.1  and WTO/AIR/VAL/10/Rev.1/Corr.1 .  
1.3.  The Committee adopted the agenda as follows:  
1   REPORT OF THE WORK OF THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON CUSTOMS VALUATION  ..... 2 
2   INFORMATION ON IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE AGREEMENT  .... 3 
2.1   Notification of national legislation  ................................ ................................ ...................  3 
A. Kingdom of Bahrain  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4 
B. Belize  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  4 
C. Burundi  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  4 
D. China  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  4 
E. Dominican Republic ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 5 
F. The Gambia  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  5 
G. Guinea  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  5 
H. Honduras  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  5 
I. India ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  6 
J. Kazak hstan  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  6 
K. Kyrgyz Republic  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  6 
L. Malawi  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  7 
M. Montenegro  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  7 
N. Myanmar  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  7 
O. Nepal ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  7 
P. Niger  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  7 
Q. Nigeria  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  8 
R. Russian Federation  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 9 G/VAL/M/69/Rev.1  
 
- 2 - 
 
  S. Rwanda  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  10 
T. Solomon Islands  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  10 
U. Sri Lanka  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  10 
V. Togo ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  10 
3   INFORMATION ON THE APP LICATION OF DECISIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON 
CUSTOMS VALUATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 11 
3.1   The status of notifications under the Committee's Decisions  ................................ .............  11 
3.2   Uruguay's proposal to update the carrier media decision  ................................ .................  12 
4   TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  ................................ ................................ ............................  13 
4.1   Article 20.3 – Technical Assistance and Trade -Related Technical Assistance  .......................  13 
4.2   Information on Technical Assistance  ................................ ................................ .............  13 
4.3   Follow -up to the experience -sharing workshop of 14 February 2019 – report by the 
Chairperson ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  13 
5   SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  ................................ ................................ ......................  15 
5.1   Pakistan's determination of customs values of paper – request by Thailand  .......................  15 
6   PRESHIPMENT INSPECTION  ................................ ................................ .......................  16 
6.1   Status of notifications by Members  ................................ ................................ ...............  16 
6.2   Questions and Responses by the United States and Indonesia  ................................ ..........  16 
7   EGYPT'S STATUS OF NOTIFICATION OF PSI – REQUEST BY THE UNITED STATES ....... 17 
7.1   Information on PSI  programmes  ................................ ................................ ...................  17 
7.2   Fifth Triennial Review of the PSI Agreement  ................................ ................................ ... 17 
8   AGENDA ITEM G: DRAFT ANNUAL REVIEW (G/VAL/W/346)  ................................ ...... 17 
9   AGENDA ITEM H: DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
(G/VAL/W/345)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  18 
10   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 18 
10.1   Date of next meeting  ................................ ................................ ................................  18 
10.2   The meeting was adjourned.  ................................ ................................ ......................  18 
ANNEX I  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  19 
 
_______________  
 
 
1  REPORT OF THE WORK OF THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON CUSTOMS VALUATION  
1.1.  The representative of the World Customs Organization  (WCO), Mr. Jiabin LU O, reported on the 
work of the WCO Technical Committee on Customs Valuation (TCCV)  since the its 48th Session , which 
had taken place from 13 to 17 May 2019 . His report is contained in Annex  I to this document . 
1.2.  The Chairperson  thanked Mr  Luo for his report and expressed the Committee's appreciation for 
the continued valuable work of the TCCV . 
1.3.  The representative of the European Union  suggested that the next meeting of the  Committee 
on Customs Valuation in the springtime 2020, and subsequent me etings, should take place directly 
after the meetings of the Technical Committee  on Customs Valuation (TCCV) , to allow  the WTO 
Committee to benefit from the  TCCV's detailed report of its 49th Session from 4 to 8 November  2019. 
This would allow the WTO Comm ittee to have meatier and more interactive discussion s. G/VAL/M/69/Rev.1  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.4.  The representative of the United States  support ed the EU's suggestion of scheduling th e 
meetings of the WTO Committee on Customs Valuation to  closely coincide with the 50 th session  of 
the TCCV. The U S considered that it would be beneficial and efficient to schedule th e meetings of 
the WTO Committee to coincide alternatively with the TCCV and then potentially with the meetings 
of the Trade Facilitation Committee, alternating between meetings. This would be an efficient and a 
cost-effective way to increase capital -based participation.  
1.5.  The Committee took note  of the report  and of the statements made . 
2  INFORMATION ON IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE AGREEMENT  
2.1  Notification of national legislation  
2.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that,  pursuant to Article  22 of the Agreement and the Decision on  
"Notification and circulation of national legislation in accordance with Arti cle 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 should also inform the Committee of any changes relevant 
to this Agreement in their laws an d regulations , including any changes to  their administration. 
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 Se cretariat had issued a document  summariz ing the current status of 
notifications  and the latest version of this document had been circulated as 
document  G/VAL/W/232/Rev. 11. As agreed at the Committee 's meeting  of 7 October  2015, this 
document ha d been revised  to include references to documents containing the questions and 
responses regarding notifications.  
2.2.  The Chairperson  also recalled that  the situation regarding the notification of  Chinese Taipei 's 
legislatio n remain ed unchanged.   
2.3.  The Chairperson  reminded Members that the Committee's ability to conclude its examination 
of Members' legislation depended upon a timely response to any questions raised during the review. 
The Committee was currently awaiting respons es from Rwanda to questions raised in 2012; from 
Guinea and Honduras  to questions raised in 2015; and from Kazakhstan ; Malawi ; Nepal;  and the 
Solomon Islands  to questions raised in 2017.  Since the previous Committee meeting, The Gambia ; 
China ; Myanmar;  and the Russian Federation had provided responses to questions raised during 
their review. He concluded by urging members who were in the process of preparing responses to 
speed up the process.   
2.4.  The representative of the  United States  acknowledge d that a significant number of Members 
had notified their national customs valuation legislation and responses to the checklist of issues  in 
2019. There had been a measurable increase in 2019 compared to 2018, which was an exciting 
trend that they hoped to see continue , especially in light of the proposal on procedures to enhance 
transparency and strengthen notification requirements under WTO Agreements  being discussed in 
the Council on Trade in Goods . The proposal recognise d that transparency and notificati on 
requirements constitute d fundamental elements of a properly functioning WTO System and thus, of 
Members' obligations.  The ability to have a deep understanding of other Members' trading systems 
was only possible when notifications were submitted in a tim ely manner.  The U S commend ed those 
Members that ha d submitted notifications and continue d to stand ready to work with Members that 
were facing specific notification challenges . Her delegation hoped that those Members that were 
ready to notify legislation, or to respond to the checklist of issues, would push forward and submit 
those notifications to the Secretariat as soon as possible.  
2.5.  The representative of the European Union  said that her delegation was also pleased to see an 
increase in the number  of notifications and responses to the list of issues  that had been submitted 
to the Committee, in particular, since the Customs Valuation Workshop that had taken place  in 
February 201 9. The EU encourage d those Members that had not yet submitted notifications  to do 
so. If they ha d specific problems in doing so, they should request technical assistance  from the 
WTO Secretariat . The EU hoped that a trend towards transparency and notification would continue 
in the Committee on Customs Valuation.   
2.6.  The Committee took note  of the information and of the statement s made .  G/VAL/M/69/Rev.1  
 
- 4 - 
 
  A. Kingdom of Bahrain  
2.7.  The Chairperson  recalled that it had been agreed at the Committee's previous meeting to revert 
to the examination of Bahrain's no tification of national legislation and responses to the checklist of 
issues that had been circulated in documents  G/VAL/ N/1/BHR/ 1, G/VAL/ N/1/BHR/ 2, and 
G/VAL/N/ 2/BHR/ 1. The latest questions raised by the United States had been circulated  in 
document  G/VAL/ W/223  and Bahrain had provided its responses in document  G/VAL/W/308. 
The United States had raised additional questions in document  G/VAL/W/310  and Canada had raised 
questions in G/VAL/W/317  and G/VAL/W/323 . 
2.8.  The representative of the Kingdom of Bahrain  said that  his delegation would be submitt ing the 
responses to Members later that day.   
2.9.  The Committee took note  of the statement made and agreed  to revert to Bahrain's notification 
at its next meeting.  
B. Belize  
2.10.   The Chairperson  recalled that it had been agreed at the Committee's previous  meeting to 
revert  to the examination of Belize's notification of its national legislation and responses to the 
checklist of issues  as circulated in documents  G/VAL/N/1/BLZ/1 a nd G/VAL/N/2/BLZ/1 . 
The United States had raised questions in documents  G/VAL/ W/188 , G/VAL/ W/272 , and 
G/VAL/W/272/Corr.1  and Belize had circulated responses in document G/VAL/W/326. The U nited 
States raised follow -up questions in document G/VAL/W/330.  
2.11.   The representative of the United States  continued to  look forward to receiving written 
response s to their follow -up questions  by the time of the next Committee meeting.  
2.12.   The Committee took note  of the sta tement made and agreed  to revert to Belize's notification  
at its next meeting.  
C. Burundi  
2.13.   The Chairperson  drew the Committee 's attention to the notification by Burundi of its national 
customs legislation which had been circulated in document G/VAL/ N/1/BDI/1.  
2.14.   The representative of Burundi  said that Burundi had notified its legislation on customs 
valuation which was contained in Annex 4 of the Law of the East African Community 2009.  
2.15.   The representative of the United States  thanked Burundi for its notificat ion which was the 
2009 revision of the East African Community Customs Management Act.  The US was reviewing the 
notification and would submit any follow -up questions. Her delegation urged Burundi to submit 
responses to the Checklist of Issues.  
2.16.   The Committee took note  of the statement s made and agreed  to revert to Burundi's 
notification  at its next meeting.  
D. China  
2.17.   The Chairperson  recalled that it had been agreed at the Committee's previous meeting to 
revert to the examination of China's notifica tion of its amended national legislation, which had been 
circulated in document  C/VAL/ N/1/CHN/6. The United States  had raised questions in document 
G/VAL/W/315  to which China had provided responses in document G/VAL/W/3 27. It had also raised 
follow -up questions in document G/VAL/W/332. Canada had raised questions in document 
G/VAL/W/318 to which China provided responses in document G/VAL/W/331.  China had provided 
responses in document G/VAL/W/347 to the questions raised by the United States in  document 
G/VAL/ 332. 
2.18.   The representative of the United States  thank ed China for its responses, which the United 
States would review .  G/VAL/M/69/Rev.1  
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.19.   The Committee took note  of the statement s made and agreed  to revert to China's notification  
at its next meeting.  
E. Dominican Republic  
2.20.   The Chairperson  drew the Committee 's attention to the notification by the Dominican Republic 
of its amended national customs legislation which had been circulated in document 
G/VAL/ N/1/DOM/2. 
2.21.   The representative of the United States  thanked the Dominican Republic for the notification.  
The U S would review the legislation which could give rise to some questions. The U S also encouraged 
the Dominican Republic to submit its responses to the Checklist of Issues.  
2.22.   The Committee took note  of the statement  made and agreed  to revert to the Dominican 
Republic's notification  at its next meeting.  
F. The Gambia  
2.23.   The Chairperson  recalled that the Committee had agreed at its previous meeting to revert to 
its examination of The Gambia's notification of national 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 
to The Gambia in document  G/VAL/W/245  to which the Gambia had provided responses in documen t 
G/VAL/W/334 . The Gambia had also notified an additional element of its customs legislation in 
document G/VAL/N/1/GMB/1 /Add.1, as well as its responses to the Checklist of Issues in document 
G/VAL/ N/2/GMB/1  
2.24.   The representative of the United States  thanked The Gambia  for the written replies , which 
the US would review.    
2.25.   The Committee took note  of the statement made and agreed  to revert to The Gambia's 
notification  at its next meeting.  
G. Guinea  
2.26.   The Chairperson  recalled that the Committee had agreed at its previous meeting to revert to 
its examination of Guinea's notification of national legislation , which had been circulated in 
document  G/VAL/ N/1/GIN/1.  Questions raised by the U nited States had been circulated in 
documen t G/VAL/W/266.  
2.27.   The representative of the United States  said that her delegation continued to look forward to 
receiving a written response to their questions, which dated from September  2015.  They would also 
like to receive Guinea's responses to the Checkli st of Issues.  
2.28.   The Committee took note  of the statement made and agreed  to revert to Guinea's notification  
at its next meeting.  
H. Honduras  
2.29.   The Chairperson  recalled that the Committee had agreed at its previous meeting to revert to 
its examination of Honduras' notification of national legislation and its 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 . 
The United States had submitted questions in document  G/VAL/W/268.  
2.30.   The representative o f the United States  said that her delegation looked forward to receiving 
a written response from Honduras . 
2.31.   The Committee took note  of the statement made and agreed  to revert to Honduras' 
notification  at its next meeting.  G/VAL/M/69/Rev.1  
 
- 6 - 
 
  I. India  
2.32.   The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to India's notification of its revised legislation 
in document G/VAL/N/1/IND/4 together with its revised responses to the Checklist of Issues in 
document G/VAL/N/2/IND/2. The United States had  raised questions to India in document 
G/VAL/W/338 and Canada had also raised questions in document G/VAL/W/339.  
2.33.   The representative of  Canada  said that Canada looked forward to receiving responses to their 
questions  from India.  
2.34.   The representative of the United States  said that her delega tion looked forward to receiving 
written re sponses to their questions.  
2.35.   The representative of the European Union  said that the EU was also looking forward to seeing 
India's replies to the questions from Canada and the US.  
2.36.   The representative of India thanked  Canada and the US for their questions, to which India 
would reply in due course following examination.   
2.37.   The Committee took note  of the statement s made and agreed  to revert to India's notification s 
at its next meeting.  
J. Kazakhstan  
2.38.   The Chairperson  recalled that the Committee had agreed at its previous meeting to revert to 
its examination of Kazakhstan 's notification of its national legislation , which had been circulated in 
document  G/VAL/N/1/KAZ/1. The United States had raised questions which had been circ ulated in 
document  G/VAL/W/302.  Kazakhstan had circulated an amended legislation in document 
G/VAL/N/1/KAZ/2. The United States had raised questions on this notification in document 
G/VAL/W/343.  
2.39.   The representative of the United States  thanked Kazakhstan for updat ing its legislation 
notification. The U S looked forward to receiving written responses  to both sets of questions as 
contained in documents G/VAL/W/302 and G/VAL/W/343.   
2.40.   The representative of the European Union  also thanked Kazakhstan for having notified its 
updated legislation. The EU looked forward to receiving written responses to the questions that it 
had raised at the Committee 's meeting  in November 2018 , and which they had  submitted bilaterally 
to the Kazakh  delegation .  
2.41.   The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed  to revert to Kazakhstan's  
notification at its next meeting . 
K. Kyrgyz Republic  
2.42.   The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to the notification by the Kyrgyz Republic of 
its revised legislation  as circulated in document G/VAL/N/1/KGZ/2. He also drew attention to 
questions that had been raised by the United Sta tes and circulated in document G/VAL/W/341.  
2.43.   The representative of the United States  thanked the Kyrgyz Republic for its updated 
legislation. The U S looked forward to receiving written responses to its questions.  
2.44.   The representative of the Kyrgyz Republic  thanked the U S for their questions. They were 
currently being reviewed in capital and responses would be provided in due course . 
2.45.   The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed  to revert to the 
Kyrgyz  Republic's notification at its next meeting.  G/VAL/M/69/Rev.1  
 
- 7 - 
 
  L. Malawi  
2.46.   The Chairperson  recalled that the Committee had agreed at its previous meeting to revert to 
its examination of Malawi's notification of national legislation , which ha d been circulated in 
document  G/VAL/ N/1/MWI/2 . Malawi's notification of its responses to the checklist of issues had 
been circulated in document  G/VAL/N/2/MWI/1. The U nited States had raised questions in 
document  G/VAL/W/303.  
2.47.   The representative of the United States  said that her delegation looked forward to receiving 
a written response to their very important questions, which dated from 2015.  
2.48.   The Committee took note  of the statement made and agreed  to revert to Malawi's notification  
at its next meeting.  
M. Montenegro  
2.49.   The Chairperson informed the Committee that this notification would be addressed under 
agenda item C.  
N. Myanmar  
2.50.   The Chairperson  recalled that the Committee had agreed at its previous meeting to revert to 
its examination of Myanmar's notification of its national legislation which had been  circulated in 
document G/VAL/N/1/MMR /1. Myanmar has also notified its Checklist of Issues in document 
G/VAL/N/2/MMR/1 . The United States had  raised questions which were circulated in documen t 
G/VAL/W/329  to which Myanmar had provided responses in document G/VAL/W/344.  
2.51.   The representative of the United States  thanked Myanmar for its replies to the US follow -up 
questions , as well as for responses to the Checklist of Issues. Myanmar was another country that 
had helped to contribute to the Committee's record year of notifications  and the US thanked it for 
its commitment . The US would review Myanmar's responses and would submit any follow -up 
questions that might be necessary.  
2.52.   The Committee took note  of the statement made and agreed  to revert to Myanmar's 
notification  at its next meeting.  
O. Nepal  
2.53.   The Chairperson  recalled that the Committee had agreed at its previous meeting to revert to 
its examination of  Nepal's notification of its national  legislation, which had been circulated in 
document  G/VAL/N/1/NPL/1. The U nited States had raised questions  in document  G/VAL/W/286, to 
which Nepal had provided responses in document  G/VAL/W/300. The  United States had raised 
follow -up questions  in document  G/VAL/W/301.  
2.54.   The representative of the United States  urged Nepal to respond to the US questions and to 
respond to the Checklist of Issues.  
2.55.   The Committee took note  of the statement made and agreed  to revert to Nepal's notification  
at its next meeting.  
P. Niger  
2.56.   The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to the notification by  Niger of its national 
legislation which had been  circulated in document G/ VAL/N/1/NER/1.  
2.57.   The representative of the United States acknowledge d Niger's notification  of its legislation and 
said that Niger was another Member that ha d helped to contribute to the Committee's record year 
of notifications. The US would review Niger's legislation  and would f ollow-up with any questions as 
necessary .  The US also encourage d Niger to use th e momentum to provide responses to the 
Checklist of Issues.  G/VAL/M/69/Rev.1  
 
- 8 - 
 
  2.58.   The Committee took note  of the statement made and agreed  to revert to Niger's notification  
at its next meeting.  
Q. Nigeria  
2.59.   The Chairperson  recalled that th e Committee had agreed at its previous  meeting to revert to 
its examination of Nigeria's notification of national legislation and responses to the checklist of 
issues , which had been circulated in documents  G/VAL/N/1/NGA/1 and G/VAL/N/2/NGA/1. 
The United States had raised questions  in document  G/VAL/W/175 to which Nigeria had provided 
responses in documents G/VAL/W/321 and G/VAL/W/321/Corr.1. Canada had raised questions in 
document G/VAL/W/176  to which Nigeria had provided responses in  document G/VAL/W/322 and 
G/VAL/W/322/Corr.1.  Canada had raised follow -up questions in document G/VAL/W/325.  The United 
States had raised follow -up questions in document G/VAL/W/337.  
2.60.   The representative of the United States  said that the y looked forward to receiving written 
responses to its questions.  
2.61.   The representative  of Canad a said that Canada looked forward to receiving written responses 
to its questions.  
2.62.   The representative  of Nigeria  thank ed the U S for its interest in Nigeria's Customs and Exercise 
Management A ct 2003 (CEMA 2003), which had been  notified in 2008. The U S was one of Nigeria's  
most cherished trading partners and Nigeria consistently took the US views into account regarding  
Nigeria's  trade and economic policies , given both countries'  robust bilateral engagements, especially 
under the Nigeria – USA Trade and Inves tment Framework Arrangement and the Bi -National 
Commission. As Nigeria had stated in its previous responses to the C hecklist of Issues regarding 
CEMA  2003, most of the issues raised which were not explicitly addressed in the 2003 Act, ha d been 
taken into account in the revised "Nigeria Customs Services Act, 2013" currently being debated by 
the National Assembly and stakeholders in line with Article 2 of the Trade Facilitation Agreement.  
2.63.   The US request in document  G/VAL/W/337  for clarif ication on  whether Nigeria ensure d that 
the fact that the buyer and seller were related was not in itself grounds for regarding transaction 
value as unacceptable, as required by Article 1.2(a) of the C ustoms Valuation Agreement (C VA), had 
been addressed by Nig eria in document G/VAL/W/321. Paragraph 1(d) of CEMA 2003 envisage d a 
two-tier test , i.e., whether the buyer and seller were related and if so, whether the relationship had 
influenced the price. Nigeria believed that Paragraph 1(d) was consistent with Arti cle 1.2(a) of the 
CVA, in particular the 2nd sentence which state d that "in such case the circumstances surrounding 
the sale shall be examined and the transaction value shall be accepted provided that the relationship 
did not influence the price". Under Pa ragraph 1(d) of CEMA 2003, even if the buyer and the seller 
were related, and it was established that the relationship d id not influence the price, the transaction 
value was accepted  by default . It was pertinent to note that the CVA did not provide any too l or 
window for sellers and buyers to collude and present  a lower price for the purpose of paying lower 
duties.  
2.64.   Regarding the second  question by the United States, Nigeria was  mindful of its obligation 
under Article 1 of the CVA, including paragraph 2(2) of the Interpretative Note to Article 1 of the 
CVA and had  taken note of the issues raised which were being explicitly addressed in the revised 
"Nigeria Customs Services Act, 2013".  
2.65.   On the issue of the US c oncern under Article s 2.3 and 3.3 of the CVA, it was pertinent to note 
that in analysing  the extent of inconsistency of a Member 's legislation with its WTO commitments, 
both de jure  and de facto analysis were key. Nigeria had stated  in document G/VAL/W/321 that the 
CEMA 2003 d id not explicitly provide for "where more than one transaction value of identical or 
similar goods is found, the lowest value shall be used to determine the customs value." However, 
Nigeria believe d that  paragra ph 6(1) of the Act would  ensure that the lowest value of identical or 
similar goods that was fair, transparent and verifiable for the parties involved would  be used to 
determine the Customs value. Th at notwithstanding, Nigeria had  taken steps to ensure tha t the 
provision of Article s 2.3 and 3.3 of the CVA were explicitly reflected in section 69(3) and 70(3) of 
the "Nigeria Customs Service Act, 2013" legislation currently undergoing due process.                 G/VAL/M/69/Rev.1  
 
- 9 - 
 
  2.66.   Nigeria was  mindful of its Article 4 obligation  with regard to the US  concerns about  Paragraph 
8 of Nigeria's CEMA 2003, which appear ed to require importers to seek approval from the Board for 
the reversal of the sequence of Articles 5 and 6 of the CVA. It was also conscious of the fact that 
Nigeria ha d not made any reservation pursuant to paragraph 3 of Annex  III of the C VA that would 
have allowed Nigeria as a developing country to derogate from its Article 4 obligation. However, if 
an importer ma de a formal request as envisaged under Article 4, such a request ordinarily should 
be assessed by a Customs authority. It was also pertinent to note that Paragraph 14 of the CEMA 
2003 took cognizance of the principle of consistent interpretation of the provisions of the Act with 
"the provisions of Article VII o f the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 as contained in 
the Agreement on the implementation of Article  VII, together with all the notes to the Articles, and 
all the Annexes to those Articles,(…)". Th at notwithstanding, Nigeria would  take the US' concerns on 
the issue into account in the ongoing consultation on the Nigeria Customs Services Act, 2013 
legislation. Nigeria c ould also explore the chances of obtaining a reservation from WTO Members, in 
accordance with paragraph 3  of Annex III of the CVA  in line with the advice of its cherished trading 
partner, Canada,  via document G/VAL/W/325.  
2.67.   Regarding the fifth question from the U S, which concern ed the incorporation of the 
Interpretative Notes of the CVA into Nigeria's legislation, given that Nigeria h ad ratified and 
domesticated all WTO Agreements to which it was party, such agreement ha d a direct effect in 
Nigeria. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, paragraph 14 of the CEMA  2003, took cognizance of the 
principle of consistent interpretation of the provisions of the Act with "the provisions of Article VII of 
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 as contained in the Agreement on the 
implementation of Article VII, tog ether with all the notes to the Articles, and all the Annexes to those 
Articles,(…)". It was important to Nigeria that t he US concerns on the need for Nigeria to incorporate 
the Interpretative Notes of the CVA into its legislation ha d been addressed or was being addressed 
and not the specific text of paragraph 64 of the "Nigeria Customs Service Act, 2013" which was 
currently being debated by Nigeria's  National Assembly and stakeholders.          
2.68.   Nigeria  thank ed the U S and Canada for their interest in its Customs and Exercise Management 
Act. Nigeria would make a written submission in due course.  
2.69.   The representative of the United States  thanked Nigeria for its detailed response, which 
sounded very positive.  
2.70.   The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed to revert to Nigeria's notification  
at its next meeting.  
R. Russian Federation  
2.71.   The Chairperson  recalled that the Committee had agreed at its previous meeting to revert to 
its examination of the Russian Federation's notification of legislation , which had been circulated 
G/VAL/N/1/RUS/1 , G/VAL/N/1/RUS/1/Add.1, G/VAL/N/1/RUS/2 , G/VAL/N/1/RUS/2 /Add.1 , 
G/VAL/N/1/RUS/3  and G/VAL/N/1/RUS/3 /Add.1. The  Russian  Federation's response s to the 
checklist of issues  had been circulated in  G/VAL/N/2 /RUS/1 . The U nited States had raised questions 
which had been circulated in G/VAL/W/287.  The Russian Federation had provided responses in 
documents G/VAL/W/333 plus G/VAL/W/333/Corr.1 and G/VAL/W/333/Corr.2. The U nited States 
had raised follow -up questions  in document G/VAL/W/336.  
2.72.   The representative of the United States  thanked the Russian Federation for notifying its 
legislation.  Her delegation looked forward to receiving responses to its latest questions.  The U S 
also thanked Russia for further notifying  the application of the reserve method in document 
G/VAL/N/1/RUS/5. The U S would forward any arising questions in due course.  
2.73.   The representative  of the European Union  thank ed  the Russian Federation for its responses 
to the US questions, which the EU was reviewing. The delegate recalled that the EU was looking 
forward to responses to the questions it had raised at the Customs Valuation Committee meeting in 
April 2018. The EU wished to retain t his item on the agenda  while awaiting the Russian Federation's 
replies.  
2.74.   The representative of the Russian Federation  said the Russian Federation very much 
appreciate d the interest of the EU and the US in its customs legislation. Responses would be forth G/VAL/M/69/Rev.1  
 
- 10 - 
 
  coming as qui ckly as possible, following internal consultations. The Russian Federation would await  
further questions from the US and the EU.  
2.75.   The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed  to revert to the 
Russian  Federation's notification  at its next meeti ng. 
S. Rwanda  
2.76.   The Chairperson  recalled that the Committee had agreed at its previous meeting to revert to 
its examination of Rwanda's notification of its national legislation and its responses to the checklist 
of issues , which had been  circulated in documents  G/VAL/ N/1/RWA/1 and G/VAL/N/2/RWA/1. 
The United States had raised questions which were circulated in document  G/VAL/W/215.  
2.77.   The representative of the United States  said that her delegation was very much looking 
forward to  receiving a written respo nse to their questions, which dated from June  2012. 
2.78.   The Committee took note  of the statement made and agreed  to revert to Rwanda's notification  
at its next meeting.  
T. Solomon Islands  
2.79.   The Chairperson  recalled that the Committee had agreed at its previous meeting to revert to 
its examination of  the Solomon Islands' national legislation, which had been circulated in 
document  G/VAL/N/1/SLB/1. The U nited States had raised questions  which had been circulated in 
document  G/VAL/W/298.  
2.80.   The representat ive of  the United States  said that her delegation looked forward to receiving 
a written response to their questions  which dated from May  2017.  Furthermore, the U S would also 
like to see the Solomon Islands' responses to the Checklist of Issues.  
2.81.   The Committ ee took note  of the statement made and agreed  to revert to the Solomon Islands' 
notification  at its next meeting.  
U. Sri Lanka  
2.82.   The Chairperson  recalled that the Committee had agreed at its previous meeting to revert to 
its examination of Sri Lanka's notification of its national legislation and its responses to the checklist 
of issues , which  had been circulated in documents  G/VAL/N/1/LKA/1 , G/VAL/N/1/LKA/1 /Corr.1, and 
G/VAL/N/2/LKA/1.  The United States had raised questions in document  G/VAL/W/269 and Sri Lanka 
had provided responses in document  G/VAL/W/291. The U nited States had raised additional 
questions in document  G/VAL/W/297, to which Sri Lanka had provided written responses in 
document  G/VAL/W/304. The U nited States had raised further questions in document  G/VAL/W/313  
to which Sri Lanka had provided responses in document G/VAL/W/320 . The U nited States had raised 
follow -up questions in document G/VAL/W/ 328. 
2.83.   The representative of the United States  thanked Sri Lanka for its responses contained in 
G/VAL/W/320 and  looked forward to receiving written replies to the follow -up questions.  
2.84.   The representative of Sri Lanka  thanked the U S for its interest in Sri Lanka's customs valuation 
measures. The matter had been referred to the relevant authorities in capital for action.  
2.85.   The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed  to revert to Sri Lanka's 
notification at its next meeting.  
V. Togo  
2.86.   The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to the notification  by Togo of its national 
legislation which had been circulated in document G/VAL/N/1/TGO/1. Canada had raised questions 
which had been circulated in document G/GAL/W/340.  G/VAL/M/69/Rev.1  
 
- 11 - 
 
  2.87.   The representative of Canada  said that  it would appreciate receiving responses to its questions 
from Togo.  
2.88.   The representative of the United States  welcomed Togo's notification which she said, 
contributed to the Committee's record year of notifications. The U S was still reviewing the legislation 
and would follow -up with any resultant questions. The U S also encouraged Togo to submit responses 
to the Checklist of Issues.  
2.89.   The representative of  Togo thanked Canada for its interest and said that capital would be 
sending a formal response. In the meanti me, in reference to a point made by Canada, he referred 
to Togo's reservation in document WT/Let/19 under Annex 3, paragraph 3 of the Customs Valuation 
Agreement which said: " the Government of the Togolese Republic reserves the right to provide that 
the re levant provision of Article 4 of the Agreement shall apply only when the customs authorities 
agree to the request to reverse the order of Articles 5 and 6.   
2.90.   The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed  to revert to Togo' s notification 
at its next meeting.  
Concluding agenda item B  
2.91.   The Chairperson  updated the Committee on the latest state of play regarding notifications. 
Up to 25 October  2019, 103 Members had notified their national legislation on customs valuation. 
This inc luded 16  Members which had submitted communications indicating that their legislation 
notified under the Tokyo Round Customs Valuation Agreement remained valid under the WTO 
Customs Valuation Agreement (both figures counted the European Union as one Member ). 
In addition, 73 Members had provided responses to the checklist of issues. There were 32 Members 
which had not yet made either of those two  notifications as indicated in document 
G/VAL/W/232/Rev.11.  
2.92.   The Chairperson  welcome the new notifications , includ ing the notification of three Checklists 
of Issues,  that ha d been received since the Committee 's meeting in May 20 19. He urged other 
Members to notify their legislation , and assured Members of his continued availab ility to assist as 
required. Over  the last number of months, he had reached out to Members to offer his support . 
2.93.   He had organized an information meeting on 29 July 2019  for Members that ha d not yet 
notified their legislation. He had also held meetings with capi tal-based officials who were attending 
the October meeting of the Trade Facilitation Committe e. The Secretariat remained available to 
assist with technical issues.   
2.94.   The Chairperson also reminded Members  that in accordance with Article 22 of the Agreement,  
Members were required to notify any amendment to their customs legislation to the Committee. 
Three such notifications had been received in 2019. Once again, he encourage d delegations to 
investigate whether they need ed to notify any amendments to their cus toms legislation to the 
Committee.  
2.95.   The Committee took note  of the information  and of the statements made . 
3  INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION OF DECISIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON CUSTOMS 
VALUATION  
3.1.  The Chairperson  stated that the Committee had two  issues under this agenda item: (i)  the 
status of notifications under the Committee's Decisions; and (ii)  the proposal by Uruguay, which had 
been circulated in document  G/VAL/W/241/Rev.1.  
3.1  The status of notifications under the Committee's Decisions  
3.2.  The Chairperson  recall ed that the Committee examined notifications pursuant to two  Decisions 
that had been adopted by the Committee at its meeting of 12  May 1995 namely,  the Decisions on 
"Treatment of Interest Charges in the Customs Value of Imported Goods" , and "Valuation of C arrier 
Media Bearing Software for Data Processing Equipment"  which were both contained in 
document  G/VAL/5 . Since the 25 February 2019 meeting of the Committee, Cambodia ha d notified G/VAL/M/69/Rev.1  
 
- 12 - 
 
  under the Decision on the Treatment of interest charges in document G/VAL /N/3/KHM/1 and 
Montenegro ha d notified under the Decision on the Valuation of Carrier Media Bearing Software in 
document G/VAL/N/3/MNE/2. Both notifications were contained in the latest status report by the 
Secretariat which ha d been circulated in document  G/VAL/W/5/Rev.31.  
3.3.  The Committee took note  of the information.  
3.2  Uruguay's proposal to update the carrier media decision  
3.4.  The Chairperson  recalled Uruguay's  proposal to amend the Carrier Media Decision, also known 
by Customs as "Decision  4.1", which was contained in document  G/VAL/W/241/Rev.1. According to 
Uruguay, software was increasingly being imported using new types  of carrier media, such as 
USB flash dr ives or other similar devices, which did not necessarily fall under the definition of "carrier 
medium" as set out in the Decision. This meant that imports  of certain software could be treated 
differently from software  imported using other types of media su ch as CDs or DVDs. Switzerland 
had submitted comments on Uruguay's proposal , which had been circulated in 
document  G/VAL/W/254. At the request of the Committee, the Secretariat had also prepared a 
report containing  statistics on imports of th ose products , which had been circulated in 
document  G/VAL/W/249.  Uruguay had provided written responses in document G/VAL/W/264 to 
questions raised by a Member.  
3.5.  The delegate of Uruguay  said that their proposal responded to the need to maintain the same 
technical criteri a for valuation of computer equipment containing software, given the development of 
technology as was defined since 1984 by the Customs Valuation Committee. The current situation 
mean t that different technical criteria were applied according to different  devises. The WCO TCCV had 
recognized that the development of computer software require d an update of Decision 4.1.  
3.6.  In order to determine the imported computer equipment that contained data or instructions, 
Customs only take account of the value of the computer support. The customs value, or the value of 
the data instructions , were not included because that referr ed to the cost of computer support.  
3.7.  With reference to paragraph 3 of Decision 4.1, the data and instructi ons (software) which were 
imported and us ed one of the types of computer support such as the USB drive must receive the same 
differentiated treatment than data and instructions which had carried  in an optical or magnetic solution, 
such as a CD. For this re ason, Uruguay understood  that th e Decision deserve d to be updated in order 
to take account for the situations in which data or instructions were transported and received in 
customs with new types of computer support, for example USB flash drives and other similar devices 
which were already developed or would  be developed in the future.  
3.8.  Uruguay's  proposal ha d a strictly technical scope and had a non-discriminatory, practical 
approach . Technological progress  had out -paced Decision 4.1, which dated from 1984 . Uruguay's 
proposal , which was supported by a majority of Members , was to ensure th at the Decision remained 
in conformity with its original purpose and goal . In the same way, Uruguay's  proposal respond ed to 
the need  for the C VA to have appropriate legal ins truments  which conform ed to the current situation. 
In light of all those reasons, Uruguay believe d that it was both appropriate and necessary  to maintain 
its proposal.  
3.9.  The representative of the European Union  said that its position remain ed unchanged, as had 
been reflected many time s in the report s of the Committee meetings. The EU reiterate d its request 
to withdraw th e item from the agenda of the next meeting, because no progress ha d been made to 
date, and her delegation could not support the proposal.  
3.10.   The representative of South Africa  said that they had  previously indicated that they were not 
in support of th e proposal . They considered t hat the proposal amount ed to a substantive market 
access negotiating proposal, yet Members did not know the scope and definition of th e proposal, nor 
the HS codes that would be affect ed. Neither did they know the implication of amending Decision  4.1. 
Her delegation believed that t he proposal also ha d implications for discussions taking place in the 
E-Commerce negotiations. It was on that basis that South Africa did not support the proposal . 
3.11.   The representative of the United States  said that they would  like to retain th e item on the 
agenda. The US s upport ed Uruguay's proposal to expand the definition of carrier media to include G/VAL/M/69/Rev.1  
 
- 13 - 
 
  semi-conductor media, such as USB flash drives, within the scope of Decision 4.1.  The US also 
agree d with Switzerland's position and its comments circulated in  G/VAL/W/254 .  
3.12.   The representative of India said that India considered that Uruguay's proposal was a market 
access negotiating proposal without a clear scope and definition. India request ed Uruguay to provide 
more details about the instances when such software on a USB flash drive ha d been taxed at the 
value incorporating the value of software.  
3.13.   The delegate of Uruguay  thanked Members for their comments . Uruguay took note of the 
concerns rais ed, and they were available to discuss the proposal at a bilateral level . 
3.14.   The Committee took note  of the statement s made and agreed  to revert to Uruguay's proposal 
at its next meeting.  
4  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  
4.1  Article  20.3 – Technical Assistance and Trade -Related Technical Assistance  
4.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that the Committee's work programme on technical assistance for 
capacity -building regarding the implementation and administration of the CVA had been incorporated 
into the WTO's  overall technical assistance  programme. The WTO was currently implementing the 
2018-2019 Biennial TA  Plan which was  contained  in document  WT/COMTD/W/227/Rev.1.  
4.2.  A member of the Secretariat (Ms  Dolores Halloran) presented a report on technical assistance 
activity for the period following the Committee's previous meeting in February 2019. She informed 
the Committee that the Secretariat had not received any official request for technical assistance 
during that period. Customs valuation was covered in a very brief manner in the WTO's Regional 
Trade Policy Courses.  
4.3.  The Chairperson  reminded the Committee  that requests for technical assistance could be made 
by individual  Members at any time and a national activity would be designed to meet the needs of 
the recipient country. In the context of notification requirements, it could be an opportunity for 
administrations to consider whether it would be helpful to request assist ance with preparing their 
customs valuation notification s.  
4.4.  The Committee took note  of the information and of the statements made . 
4.2  Information on Technical Assistance  
4.5.  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 with 
regard to technical assistance activities would be ensured if information docum ents prepared for the 
WCO TCCV were also made available as WTO  documents. Accordingly, document  G/VAL/8/Add.3 8 
contained the most recent information compiled by the TCCV concerning technical assistance activities 
carried out by WCO  Members and the WCO  Secretariat.   
4.6.  The Committee  took note  of the information . 
4.3  Follow -up to the experience -sharing workshop of 14 February 2019 – report by the 
Chairperson  
4.7.  The Chairperson  recalled  the experience -sharing workshop that had been held by the 
Committee on 14  February 2019. The purpose of the workshop was for Members to exchange their 
experiences in implementing the CVA. The Committee hoped that this exchange would help LDCs to 
address the challenges they face d when implementing the Agreement.  
4.8.  The Committee had held a follow -up discussion to the Workshop at its meeting on 23 May  2019, 
and it had been agreed t hat the Chairperson would carry out consultations with interested Members 
with regard to possible follow -up by the Committee to  the Workshop.  G/VAL/M/69/Rev.1  
 
- 14 - 
 
  4.9.  The Chairperson informed the Committee that he had started a series of consultations with 
Members to gather their views on possible next steps . So far, he had held two consultation meetings 
that included six members. He would be inviting fu rther Members for consultations in the coming 
weeks. During th ose consultations, he had heard various points of view. Some Members had 
expressed the opinion that there needed to be an initial evaluation of the results of the February 
workshop before it wou ld be possible to identify specific next steps. Other Members had expressed 
the view that the Committee could consider holding further Regional workshops, as well as 
Geneva -based workshops. There had been  a further suggestion to have experience -sharing ses sions 
on specific themes during the C ustoms Valuation Committee meetings.   
4.10.   The Chairperson said that he believe d the three new notifications of legislation submitted to 
Committee since February  was a direct outcome of the workshop's discussions highlight ing the 
important role of notifications. Transparen cy by governments of about their laws, regulations and 
requirem ents regarding customs valuation would considerably help to facilitate compliance and 
would improve efficiency for customs and traders. The formal request for a regional workshop for 
ECOWAS Members was also a direct outcome from the February workshop.  
4.11.   One of the main challenges identified at the workshop had been  the lack of awareness of 
customs valuation by the private sector . There was a poor relationship between the private sector 
and the customs officials, with a subsequent low level of compliance  with the customs valuation 
requirements , making it very difficult for the LDCs to be complian t with the CVA. The Chairperson 
said that he intend ed to continue with his consultations in order to hear further views and to get a 
better idea from Members if the Co mmittee could reach agreement on any specific follow -up action s. 
He would continue to contact interested Members and he would keep the Committee informed of his 
progress.  
4.12.   The delegate of Togo said that the Workshop had allowed least-developed countries  to show 
that despite having received technical assistance  and their efforts to strengthen capacity, Togo still 
faced difficulty in implementing certain aspects of the CVA. Examples included : the notification   
obligations under the CVA, updating and modernis ing the Togo revenue o ffice, including customs 
valuation and taxes plus electronic customs duties currently rese rved for major enterprises. 
The experience -sharing at the workshop had helped Togo to categorise TFA provisions related to 
customs valua tion as category C provisions , for example, electronic payments, risk management, 
trade facilitation measures for operators, as well as border agency cooperation.  This move would 
allow Togo to receive technical for these provisions, thus supporting the imp lementation of the CVA.  
4.13.   Customs revenues and the customs duties on imported merchandise are very important for 
least developed countries . In this regard , Togo would like experience -sharing to be carried out on 
the following topics: c ooperation between cust oms administrations, because this could help to fill 
gaps on the veracity of declared merchandise;  training of trainers within customs administration s; 
best practices in implementing the CVA; and , the involvement of the private sector in the 
implementation  of the CVA.  Togo hope d that other such initiatives would be carried out either in 
Geneva or at the national and regional levels.  
4.14.   The delegation of Senegal  reiterate d its congratulations to the Chairperson on his  
appointment . He also thanked the Chairperson and the Secretariat for their efforts to provide a new 
impetus in discussions in the context of the CVA.  
4.15.   Senegal had requested the February experience -sharing workshop and had made a 
presentation on the current situation in Senegal. D espite efforts undertaken by Senegal over many 
years to update and modernise its customs administration , and despite the technical assistance 
provided by WTO Members and the W CO, Senegal was still facing difficulties in implementing some 
of the provisions of the Agreement . The workshop had enabled Members  to provide a comprehensive 
overview of the constraints faced by developing and least -developed countries  in implementing the 
CVA, which deserve d special attention from Members.  
4.16.   Customs adminis trations of developing  country  Members, as well as least developed country 
Members faced an especially low awareness of the CVA. The y did not have sufficient technical 
capacity, which mean t that the Agreement was n ot being properly implemented. The resolution of 
that situation would help with all their other constraints, including customs cooperation.  G/VAL/M/69/Rev.1  
 
- 15 - 
 
  4.17.   It had been  particularly useful to hear not only the difficulties faced by certain Members  but 
also the solutions that they h ad tried to implement . Senegal would like to propose that Members 
continue their capacity building  efforts . The organization of other similar act ivities could help 
Members to understand the difficulties experienced by certain least developed country Member s. 
A workshop should be held in Geneva and in West Africa, similar to that which had been requested 
by ECOWAS. T aking a regional aspect into consideration could contribute to providing solutions to 
implementing the Agreement.   
4.18.   Senegal would also welcome a  strengthen ing of technical assistance from the WTO and the 
WCO. One example could be through providing s upport for training of trainers in customs schools , 
such as the school  in Senegal. Another example would be organizing missions for customs officers 
from least developed countries to countries that were already successful ly implementing the CVA. 
Finally, the re should be an effective  link between customs valuation and the T rade Facilitation 
Agreement (TFA) . Similar to Togo and Senegal, Members could access technical assistance for some 
of the difficulties they faced in implementing the CVA through putting those challenges in category 
C of the TFA , thereby increas ing the possib ility of accessing technical assistance. Senegal had done 
this. Senegal remain ed committed to the work of  the Customs Valuation Committee and hope d that 
the impetus triggered by the workshop would continue.  
4.19.   The delegate of the United States  thank ed the Chairperson for his report on the February 
workshop and also for reporting on his small -group and bilateral consultations with Members . 
They also appreciated the support that he had  shown to further advance the  implementation of the 
Agreement.  
4.20.   The US considered that individual country -by-country focus was probably the most useful 
approach and was something that the U S was also trying to do, including through its work in capital.  
The US appreciate d the interventions regarding  follow -up to the Feb ruary workshop, and would give 
them consideration. They could see  benefit in including the private sector, potentially getting views 
from all across the private sector spectrum. The US also believed that there were significant linkages 
between the CVA and the TFA, and that there should be more awareness among Members that the 
implementation of one of the agreements could often automatically lead to fulfilment of the 
obligations of the other . The US l ooked forward to continuing to cooperate with Members and with 
the Chair in consideration of the follow -up to February's workshop , which could be useful but  it would 
need to be concrete  and have demonstra ble results.  
4.21.   The representative of the European Union  said that the EU considered that the February 
workshop had been very useful . The resulting increase in the number of notifications following the 
workshop was going in the right direction. The EU was ready to engage in further consultations or 
small group meetings, topic -by-topic, with interested Members. They shared  the US views about a 
case-by-case and pragmatic approach  because it was obvious from the workshop that LDCs were 
facing differing challe nges. Some were much more related to the implementation of the TFA than 
valuation issues.  The EU looked forward to continuing the discussions in a bilateral or small group 
format . 
4.22.   The representative of Mali supported the proposal to organize national workshops delivered 
jointly by the WTO and the WCO.  These would allow all the country's custom agents to be present . 
She requested that a national workshop be organized in Mali to address their issues in impleme nting 
the CVA.  
4.23.   The Committee took note  of the statements made . 
5  SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  
5.1  Pakistan's determination of customs values of paper – request by Thailand  
5.1.  The Chairperson  informed the Committee that i n a communication dated 4 October, Thailand 
requested that this item be placed on the agenda .  
5.2.  The representative of Thailand  thank ed Pakistan for its continued cooperation. In January 2018, 
Pakistan had amended the relevant valuation ruling and reduced the custom values of paper import s 
from Thailand. This improvement had eliminated the negative impact on Thailand's paper exporters.  G/VAL/M/69/Rev.1  
 
- 16 - 
 
  5.3.  However, Thailand continue d to have systemic concerns since Pakistan was still using values 
published in valuation rulings as the basis for customs valuation. In order to ensure predictability, 
consistency and clarity, Thailand ha d requested that Pakistan's measures fully comply with WTO 
obligations by accepting the transactio n value for valuation purposes for every shipment. 
Thailand  would be grateful for a response from Pakistan. Thailand st ood ready to engage bilaterally 
with Pakistan with a view to settling th e issue amicably in the near future.  
5.4.  The representative of Pakist an referred to the statement made by Thailand at th e Committee 's 
meeting o f 23 May 2019 where Thailand had acknowledged that Pakistan had amended the relevant 
valuation ruling in January 2018 and reduced the customs values of paper imports from Thailand, 
thus eliminating any negative impact on Thailand's paper exporters.  Pakistan also refer red to the 
statements that it had made on the issue at previous Committee meeting s and confirm ed once again 
that Pakistan was fully compliant with its WTO obligations.  They considered that the trade concern 
had been fully addressed and the matter had been resolved. However, it always remain ed open to 
a constructive bilateral engagement with Thailand on any new issues in th at regard.  
5.5.  The Committee took note  of the statements made . 
6  PRESHIPMENT INSPECTION  
6.1.  The Chairperson  noted that the Preshipment Inspection (PSI) was a standing item on the 
agenda of the Committee on Customs Valuation . There were four issues for discussion : status of 
notifications; questions and responses by the United States and Indonesia,  respectively ; and 
information  on PSI  programmes . 
6.1  Status of notifications by Members  
6.2.  The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to the compilation of notifications pursuant 
to Article  5 of the Agreement on Preshipment Inspection, which was contained in the series of 
documents  G/PSI/N/1. The current status of PSI notifications was conta ined in document 
G/PSI/N/1/Rev.3 and Addenda. China ha d subsequently notified its PSI program and it had been 
circulated in document  G/PSI/N/1/ Rev.4 . 
6.3.  The representative of the United States  thank ed China for notifying it's preshipment  inspection 
measures under Article 5 of the Agreement . It would review the notification and would submit any 
follow -up questions.  
6.4.  The Committee  took note  of the aforementioned documents  and the statement made . 
6.2  Questions and Responses by the United States and Indonesia  
6.5.  The Chairperson  recalled that the Committee  had agreed at its previous  meeting to revert to 
the issue of Questions and Responses by the United States and Indonesia. The United States had 
raised questions to Indonesia in documents  G/VAL/W/167,  G/VAL/W/180, G/VAL/W/237 , and 
G/VAL/W/278. Indonesia had provided responses in documents  G/VAL/W/256, G/VAL/W/257 and 
G/VAL/W/257/Corr.1 (in Spanish and English only) and G/VAL/W/309. The United  States had 
submitted additional questions in document  G/VAL/W/314.  
6.6.  The representative of the United States  said that they  looked forward to receiving Indonesia's 
written response to the questions posed by the US in document G/VAL/W/314. The US did not 
understand  Indonesia's assertion that the procedures at issue d id not constitute a preshipment 
inspection requirement, given the definition of preshipment inspection in the Agreement, which 
provide d that "preshipment inspection activities are all activities relating to the verification of the 
quality, the quantity, the price, including currency exchange rate and financial terms, and/or the 
customs classification of goods to be exported to the territory of the user Member".  
6.7.  The US highlight ed that one of the benefits of WTO transparency obligations  was that Members 
and their traders could more easily learn about and understand each other's customs regimes. 
Indonesia's single website includ ed a link to a page entitled "regulations related to preshipment 
inspections". The link provide d the text of Tra de Minister Regulation No. 46 of 2014 "On the General 
Provisions of Verification of Technical Examination for Trade" and the US understood that th e G/VAL/M/69/Rev.1  
 
- 17 - 
 
  measure had been amended by Trade Minister Regulation No. 116 of 2018. The US was not aware 
of those measures having been notified to any WTO Committee.  
6.8.  Additionally, Indonesia stated in G/VAL/W/309 that the aim of th ose procedures was only to 
conduct verification for import documents and technical documents. However, Trade Minister 
Regulation No.  46 of 2 014, as amended, require d that surveyors be accredited by Indonesia's 
national accreditation committee, KAN and have at least one testing laboratory. A laboratory 
requirement would appear to imply inspection of goods was involved in the procedure. Furtherm ore, 
the measure refer red to situations where the verification of the surveyor t ook place abroad, i.e. in 
the country of export. Th e measure appear ed to fall within the definition of preshipment inspection 
provided in Article 1.3 of the PSI Agreement, ther efore the US looked forward to Indonesia's 
notification of th ose measures to the Customs Valuation Committee, as other countries ha d recently 
done.  
6.9.  The Committee took note  of the statement made and agreed  to revert to this issue at its next 
meeting.  
7  EGYPT 'S STATUS OF NOTIFICATION OF PSI – REQUEST BY THE UNITED STATES  
7.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that, at its previous meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert to 
this issue.  Egypt ha d notified its PSI contained in Ministerial Decree Nos. 961/2012 and 991/2015 , 
which ha d been distributed in document G/PSI/N/1/Rev.3/Add.3. The US had raised questions in 
G/VAL/W/342, and Egypt had notified responses, which would  be circulated  in the near future . 
7.2.  The representative of the United States  thank ed Egypt for n otifying its PSI measure to th e 
Committee . Ministerial Decree  Nos. 961 of 2012 and 991 of 2015 ha d been deposited with the 
Secretariat and the US appreciated that Egypt ha d promptly responded to its qu estions on those 
measures . The speedy response had  greatly facilitated the bilateral discussions on the measures.  
7.3.  The Committee took note  of the statement made and agreed  to revert to this issue at its next 
meeting.  
7.1  Information on PSI  programmes  
7.4.  The Chairperson  said that i n a correspondence dated 21 October, the International Federation 
of Inspection Agencies (IFIA) had provided the most recent information on the status of Members 
that use preshipment inspection services up until that date. Consequently, the document would be 
circulated following the meeting as G/VAL/W/63/Rev.25.  
7.5.  The Committee took note  of the information.  
7.2  Fifth Triennial Review of the PSI Agreement  
7.6.  The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to Article 6 of the PSI Agreement  under which the 
Committee on Customs Valuation was required to carry out the Fifth Triennial Review of the PSI 
Agreement in 2020. The review would be launched at the Committee's 202 0 Spring meeting. 
The fourth Triennial Review had been carried out in 2017.  
7.7.  Article 6 of the PSI Agreement state d that "At the end of the second year from the date of 
entry into force of the WTO Agreement and every three years thereafter, the Ministerial Conference 
shall review the provisions, implementation and operation of this Agreement, taking into account 
the ob jectives thereof and experience gained in its operation. As a result of such review, the 
Ministerial Conference may amend the provisions of the Agreement".  
8  AGENDA ITEM G: DRAFT ANNUAL REVIEW (G/VAL/W/346)  
8.1.  The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to A rticle 23 of the Customs Valuation 
Agreement, which provided that the Committee shall review annually the implementation and 
operation of the Agreement, taking into account the objectives thereof. The Secretariat had prepared 
a draft review, which had been  circulated in document  G/VAL/W/34 6. G/VAL/M/69/Rev.1  
 
- 18 - 
 
  8.2.  He proposed that the Committee adopt the Annual Review1 and instructed the Secretariat to 
update it as necessary to take account of the discussions in the October meeting.  
8.3.  The Committee  so agreed . 
9  AGENDA ITEM H: DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS  
(G/VAL/W/ 345) 
9.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that A rticle 23 of the Agreement 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 report, which had been circulated in document  G/VAL/W/ 345.  
9.2.  He proposed that the Committee adopt  the Annual Report to the Council for Trade in Goods2 
and instructed the Secretariat to update it as necessary to take account of the discussions in the 
October  meeting.  
9.3.  The Committee  so agreed . 
10  OTHER BUSINESS  
10.1  Date of next meeting  
10.1.   The Chairperson  stated that the date of the Committee's next meeting  would be f ixed in 
consultation with Members,  taking into account the suggestions made at the beginning of the 
meeting to hold it back to back with the 50th meeting of the WCO TCCV, which would be held from 
11 to 15 May 2020.   
10.2  The meeting was adjourned . 
_______________  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
1 Subsequently issued as document  G/VAL/77.  
2 Subsequently issued as document  G/L/1333.  G/VAL/M/69/Rev.1  
 
- 19 - 
 
  ANNEX I  
REPORT TO THE W TO COMMITTEE ON CUSTOMS VALUATION  ON THE WORK  
OF THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON CUSTOMS VALUATION  
AND RELATED ACTIVITI ES OF THE WCO SECRETARIAT  
25 October  2019 
The Technical Committee on Customs Valuation ( "Technical Committee ") held its 48th Session at 
WCO Headquarters in Brussels from 13 to 17 May 2019  and a report on it has been made at the last 
meeting of the Committee on Customs Valuation .  
 
The 49th session of the Technical Committee will be held on 4 -8 November, which means the week 
after next.  
Therefore, for this session of the Customs Valuation Committee, there is no official report of the 
Technical Committee meeting. However, I would like to draw your attention to several issues to be 
considered at the coming session of the Technical Committee.  
First, there is the progress report on Members' application of the agreement. This is standing agenda 
item where the WCO Secretariat invites Members to make a report of the progress made in the 
implementation of the WTO Valuation Agreement during the session. This can cover any aspect of 
implementation, for example, legal procedures. At the coming session the European Union and 
Turkey will make presentations.  
The second issue I would like to mention is the tech nical questions. At the coming session, the 
Technical Committee will examine nine technical questions submitted by Member administrations 
namely, Cameroon; Canada; China; Egypt; Ghana; and Uruguay. Five of these technical questions 
related to Article 1 of the agreement and the other four relates to adjustments under Article 8.  
The WCO Secretariat received two new questions during the intersession, one from Mauritius and 
one from North Macedonia. The Technical Committee will consider whether to take them as specific 
technical questions and examine them at the coming session.  
Another issue I want to mention is the Theme M eeting , which is a regular feature of the Technical 
Committee, under which various subjects of interest could be examined. The latest Theme M eeting  
was held at the 44th session of the Technical Committee with two topics. The first is valuation risk 
management and the second is valuation aspect of E -commerce. At the 48th session, delegates 
highlighted the importance of the Theme M eeting  in provi ding opportunities to discuss new ideas 
and share experiences. So, the approved inclusion of a Theme M eeting in the agenda of the coming 
session, with a will to us holding meeting at the 50th session. At the coming session, the Technical 
Committee will cov er the topics, format and the duration of the Theme M eeting . 
The Technical Committee will continue to examine the proposals made by the European Union 
regarding the working method for dealing with technical questions of the Technical Committee, with 
a will to improving the content of the technical questions examined by the Technical Committee and 
to achieve technical decisions which would address the chang ing need. 
As usual, the Technical Committee will invite Members to make presentations on specific valuation 
issues, if they are interested, at the coming session. The International Chamber of Commerce would 
give a presentation on broadcasting rights and the OECD would make an oral presentation on 
updates on transfer pricing as well base erosion  and profit shifting.  
The details of the 49th session of the Technical Committee would be formally reported to you at the 
next meeting of  the Customs Valuation Committee  
4. Da tes of next Session  
 
The dates of the 49th Session were provisionally set for 4 to 8 November 201 9. 
__________