RESTRICTED  
  
G/RO/M/62  
 
19 June 2014  
(14-3585)  Page: 1/6  
Committee on Rules of Origin    
 
 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 10 APRIL 2014 
CHAIRMAN:  MR. MARHIJN VISSER (THE NETHERLANDS) 
 
Subjects Discussed1 
 
A. REPORT OF THE WORK OF THE TE CHNICAL COMMITTEE ON RULES OF 
ORIGIN (WORLD CUSTOM S ORGANIZA TION) .................................................................. 1  
B. HARMONIZATION OF NON-PREFERENTIA L RULES OF ORIGIN - REPORTING 
OF THE INFORMAL CONSULTATIONS ................................................................................ 2  
C. HARMONIZATION OF NON-PREFERE NTIAL RULES OF ORIGIN - 
TRANSPOSITION OF DRAFT HARMONIZED RULES OF ORIGIN TO MORE RECENT 
VERSIONS OF THE HS NOMENCLA TURE (DOCUMENT JOB/RO/5) ..................................... 3  
D. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MINISTERIAL DECISION ON PREFERENTIAL 
RULES OF ORIGIN FOR LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (WT/MIN(13)/42 OR 
WT/L/917) ..................................................................................................................... . 4 
E. NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 5 AND UNDER PARAGRAPH 4 OF ANNEX 
II OF THE AGREEMENT ON RULES OF ORIG IN (DOCUMENTS G/RO/N/109 - 115)............ 6  
F. ELECTION OF OFFICERS .......................................................................................... 6  
G. OTHER BUSINESS .................................................................................................... 6  
 
 
A. REPORT OF THE WORK OF THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON RULES OF ORIGIN (WORLD CUSTOMS ORGANIZATION) 
1.1 A representative of the World Customs Organization (WCO) reported on the activities of the 
Technical Committee on Rules of Origin (TCRO) for 2013. She informed Members that the TCRO 
had held its 32nd session on 22 January 2014 unde r the chairmanship of Mr. Ping Yu (China). 
At that occasion, a two-day conference on preferential rules of origin and FTA utilisation was 
organized.  During the session, the TCRO had adopted the 15th periodic report and the 15th Annual Review on Technical Aspects and Implem entation of the Agreement for the Period 1 
January to 31 December 2013.  The Annual Review  was short since the WTO Agreement on Rules 
of Origin had not yet been fully implemented.  The Periodic Report relating to Technical Aspects 
and Operation of the Agreement also contained information on the Secretariat's activities and the work of the Technical Committee. In addition, th e TCRO also discussed the transposition of the 
consolidated draft rules of origin into newer versions of the Harmonized System (HS) and took 
note of the recommendations included in the do cument prepared by the WCO Secretariat for the 
2012 transposition.  
1.2 The representative of the WCO also reported that the WCO Secretariat had conducted a 
survey on the use of non-preferential certificates  of origin, the results of which had been made 
available as a study in the WCO website.  The study would be used for the elaboration of guidelines on preferential and non-preferential or igin certification. She further informed Members 
                                               
1 The agenda of the meeting had been circulated in document WTO/AIR/4277. G/RO/M/62 
 
- 2 - 
 
  that the WCO Secretariat had undertaken a large number of technical assistance activities on both 
non-preferential and preferential rules of origin. 
1.3 The Chairman thanked the TCRO and the WC O Secretariat for the continued support that 
they provided to the CRO. 
1.4 The CRO took note of the report. 
B. HARMONIZATION OF NON-P REFERENTIAL RULES OF ORIGIN - REPORTING OF THE 
INFORMAL CONSULTATIONS 
2.1 The Chairman briefed the CRO on his recent consultations with Members regarding the 
Harmonization Work Programme (the "HWP"). He  had sought Members' views on areas where 
technical work was possible and desirable. Members had, however, not made concrete suggestions, which, he said, was not surprising given the state of play in the HWP. While some 
Members continued to believe that fully harmonized non-preferential rules of origin facilitated 
world trade, others believed that such rules were no longer needed or desirable. According to the 
Chairman, these divergent views raised fundamental questions about the mandate contained in 
the Agreement on Rules of Origin and about the continuation of the HWP. 
2.2 The Chairman further reported that, given these developments, he had written a letter to 
the Chairman of the General Council, to inform him about the state of play in the CRO. The letter 
repeated the assessment contained in the CRO's 2013 Annual Report and asked the General 
Council to consider sending back to the CRO all the "core policy issues" which had been previously 
referred to the Council for political guidance. According to the Chairman, the CRO should be empowered to discuss all topics as would be necessary to make decisions regarding the 
continuation of the HWP. 
2.3 In addition, the Chairman stated that there was consensus on the fact that the CRO should 
utilize its resources in the most efficient manner, which meant aiming at short, relevant and useful 
meetings. He therefore asked Members to share their views about topics on which work on non-
preferential rules of origin could be usefully co nducted. According to the Chairman, one option was 
to conduct a review of existing rules as they ha d been notified to the Secretariat to examine the 
structure, objectives and impact of such rules on  trade. Greater transparency and analytical work 
could be useful in helping the CRO decide the best way forward for the HWP. 
2.4 Commenting on the Chair's report and suggestion,  the representative of the EU recalled that 
there still was an important amount of technical work which could be done in accordance to the 
mandate that the General Council had given to the Committee in 2007, including the finalization of 
chapter notes and the overall architecture. Such te chnical work nonetheless, required the presence 
of origin experts in the meetings.  In addition, th e delegation of the EU believed that article 6 of 
the Agreement on Rules of Origin provided for an annual review of the implementation and 
operation of parts II and III of the Agreement, which also included a review of compliance with the disciplines during the transition period (Article 2 of the Agreement). A more in-depth study of the 
implementation by the Members of such disciplines would be useful. 
2.5 The representative of Chinese Taipei agreed that some research, technical discussion and 
information exchange would contribute to more relevant meetings and added that the recent 
adoption of the Trade Facilitation Agreement open ed new areas of work for the CRO, such as an 
exchange of information on advance rulings on origin. 
2.6 The representative of China acknowledged the differences among Members regarding the 
merits of continuing the HWP, but also stresse d that technical work related to the overall 
architecture and chapter notes would be useful. He added that China would also welcome greater 
transparency regarding existing rules and practices on the basis of Members' notifications.  
2.7 The representative of Switzerland agreed that the Committee could engage in technical work 
and stated that Switzerland could show flexibility in many areas of work. For the representative of 
Switzerland, the completion of the transposition ex ercise offered the CRO an opportunity to review 
the consolidated text chapter by chapter and engage in a detailed discussion. G/RO/M/62 
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.8 The representative of Australia agreed that one of the problems the CRO faced was the lack 
of engagement by capital-based origin experts, but noted that the finalization of the HWP was a 
much larger problem. Notwithstanding that, Australia  agreed that there would be very useful work 
which could be conducted in the CRO and supported suggestions which increased the participation 
of experts to the CRO. 
2.9 For the representative of the United States , the state of play in the HWP was such that 
engaging in technical work would not be productive. For the United States, the Committee could 
better use its resources to undertake work which was consensual, useful and relevant. 
2.10 The representative of Canada agreed th at intensifying technical work would not be 
productive. In fact, for Canada, the multiplication of national non-preferential rules did not create 
obstacles to international trade. As a result, for Canada, harmonized rules would not facilitate 
global trade. Canada could, nevertheless, consider  new areas of work including implementation by 
Members of the transitional disciplines, notifications and perhaps preferential rules of origin for LDCs.  
2.11 Having heard Members, the Chairman noted that all the delegations who had taken the floor 
had agreed to engage in more meaningful wo rk, for instance, greater transparency and the 
examination of notifications in light of the transitional disciplines contained in the Agreement. As a 
result, he proposed to hold consultations to identify useful topics and the best manner to initiate 
that educational exercise. 
2.12 The Committee agreed to proceed accordingly. 
C. HARMONIZATION OF NON-P REFERENTIAL RULES OF ORIG IN - TRANSPOSITION OF 
DRAFT HARMONIZED RULES OF ORIGIN TO MORE RECENT VERSIONS OF THE HS 
NOMENCLATURE (JOB/RO/5) 
3.1 The Chairman recalled that the Secretariat had completed all technical work related to the 
transposition of the draft rules of origin into more recent versions of the HS nomenclature (the 
"mechanical" transposition). The most recent and most simplified versions of transposed rules 
were contained in document JOB/RO/5. The document included the recommendations for 
simplification of the transposed rules which had been prepared by the WCO Secretariat and which 
were forwarded by the TCRO. 
3.2 After a brief presentation of the document by  the Secretariat, the Chairman proposed that 
Members reviewed it with a view to validating the technical work and completing the transposition 
exercise. He proposed, in addition, to engage in a more detailed review of the document at future 
meetings of the Committee. 
3.3 Several delegations thanked the Secretariat for efficiently completing the mandate it had 
been given to transpose the draft rules. The repres entative of China noted that some of the rules 
presented were quite complex and could be further simplified. He noted that additional suggestions 
for simplification from the Secretariats of the WTO or the WCO could be considered. The 
representative of the EU agreed that recommendations for the simplification of additional rules 
would be useful and added that the Committee could devote some time to reviewing the rules in 
greater detail at its next meeting. The representa tives of India and Switzerland proposed to review 
the document chapter by chapter. In that respect,  the representative of Mexico noted that further 
simplifying some rules might require complex technical adjustments, which, would require a 
careful consideration by Members to keep the scope and intent of the initial draft rules. 
3.4 The representative of Canada stated that his delegation would not have finished the review 
of the transposed rules by the next meeting of the CRO and would not be in a position to provide 
final views on the document. For that reason, he believed that the document should remain open for Members' comments at all times. The representa tive of Switzerland agreed that the document 
should remain open for comments by Members. 
3.5 The representative of the United States stated that his delegation needed some time to 
reflect about the best way to proceed with the document. G/RO/M/62 
 
- 4 - 
 
  3.6 In conclusion, the Chairman proposed that the document be reviewed in greater detail as 
from the next CRO meeting, noting that it would remain open for comments from delegations at all 
times. He reiterated that the intention of this re view was to validate the transposition of the draft 
rules and not to endorse the rules themselves. He also invited the WCO and WTO Secretariats to 
consider preparing further suggestions for the simplifi cation of some rules. Finally, he recalled that 
a serious review of the document would require th e engagement of experts and their presence at 
the meeting. 
D. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MINISTERIAL DECISION ON PREFERENTIAL RULES OF 
ORIGIN FOR LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (WT/MIN(13)/42 OR WT/L/917) 
4.1 The Chairman recalled that Ministers in Bali had adopted a Decision on Preferential Rules of 
Origin for LDCs (WT/L/917). Paragraph 1.10 of the Decision mandated the CRO to "annually 
review developments in preferential rules of origin applicable to imports from LDCs" and "report to 
the General Council". He said that the Committ ee should, accordingly, discuss the procedures to 
implement that mandate. He suggested that: 
1. Members notify any new or modified preferential rules origin affecting imports from LDCs as 
soon as possible. Such notifications should  be made through the established regular 
procedures, that is, to the CRO in accordance with Paragraph 4 of Annex II and/or to the 
Committee on Trade and Development (CTD). Members having already submitted their 
notifications would simply ensure that the information available remained accurate and 
complete. 
2. The Committee would review any new notification s containing preferential rules of origin 
applicable to imports from LDCs at its next meeting. There would be an opportunity for 
Members to engage in a question and answer ex ercise on the basis of these notifications. 
3. The Committee would then compile the informatio n received and take note of any comments 
made in order to prepare a report to the General Council and the LDCs Sub-Committee. 
4.2  In addition, and as a separate initiative, the Chairman proposed to intensify efforts in the 
CRO to exchange information regarding existing preferential rules of origin for LDCs. In particular, 
he proposed that the Secretariat prepare a background note describing the current state of 
notifications received (enumerating document symbols and listing the information available). This note would be presented during a dedicated agenda item at the CRO. Moreover, Members willing to make presentations about their preferential rules of origin would have an opportunity to do so. 
4.3 The representative of the EU agreed that the Ministerial Decision provided a basis for further 
work on non-reciprocal preferential rules of origin, while strictly requiring the CRO only to "review 
developments". The EU would, nevertheless, suppo rt the way forward proposed by the Chairman. 
4.4 The representative of Uganda, on behalf of the LDCs, stated that, for the LDCs, the 
Ministerial Decision was a stepping stone towards the fulfilment of the Hong Kong mandate to 
improve market access opportunities for LDCs. He informed the CRO that the LDC Group would 
prepare a paper outlining the challenges faced by LDCs in complying with existing rules of origin to 
facilitate discussions and foster exchange informat ion in the CRO. He also urged preference-giving 
countries to make publically available the utilisation  rates of their preferential LDC schemes so that 
more research could be undertaken on the impact of different rules of origin on LDC trade and 
utilization rates. As far as the Chair's proposals were concerned, the representative of Uganda 
agreed that a dedicated agenda item would be welcome and indeed needed. He agreed that information sharing among preferen ce-giving and preference beneficiary countries would be useful. 
In addition, related issues could also be di scussed in workshops or expert group meetings, 
including where capital-based officials and exporters would be present. Such efforts would enrich the CRO report to the General Council. 
4.5 The representative of Cambodia supported th e statement made by Uganda on behalf of the 
LDCs and emphasized that each LDC faced different challenges in terms of complying and utilising 
the existing rules of origin. This called for capacity building in the implementation of the Ministerial Decision. He added that a more detailed paper to be prepared by the LDC Group on challenges 
faced would enrich the discussions in the CRO. G/RO/M/62 
 
- 5 - 
 
  4.6 The representative of the United States re called that his delegation had been one of the 
proponents of the Bali Decision and reiterated that the USA was committed to implementing the 
Decision fully. He hoped the Decision would guide countries who were considering modifying their existing rules of origin or creating new preferenti al schemes for LDCs. He re called that the Decision 
did not stipulate a single set of rules of origin, but agreed that rules of origin should be as simple, 
transparent and objective as possible. For the United States, the Decision required the Committee to review new developments on rules of origin, that is, any modification of existing rules of origin 
applicable to imports from LDCs or new rules of origin applicable to such imports. While respecting 
that legal framework and requirement, he agreed  that the Committee could, as an additional 
effort, exchange information and experiences so that  rules of origin were better understood by all. 
Paragraph 1.9 of the Decision highlighted this objective, so he could support the Chair's proposal 
to allow Members to make a presentation on their existing rules of origin. Such dialogue should be 
technical, not political, recognizing that rules of origin could take many forms and there was no "one size fits all" approach. In fact, the CRO should be familiar with the difficulties in harmonising 
non-preferential rules of origin and therefor e refrain from imposing any harmonization of 
preferential rules of origin. Ultimately, the desire of the United States was that rules of origin facilitate trade and lead to an effective utilizat ion of the preferences made available to the LDCs. 
4.7 The representative of Nepal, echoing the statement made by Uganda, emphasized that 
preferential rules of origin were of critical importance for the LDCs. He noted that while the 
Ministerial Decision did not provide binding language  on what the rules should be, they did provide 
sufficient guidance to encourage preference-giving countries to modify and further improve or 
simplify their preferential rules of origin.  
4.8 The representative of Japan stated that his government was committed to the Bali Decision 
and would constructively engage in an exchan ge of information with other Members, the 
Secretariat and the Chairman. In that sense, he supported the proposal put forward by the 
Chairman. In addition, he agreed with the United States that the Decision did not intend to force Members to modify their existing rules. 
4.9 Like other delegations, the representative of India stated that his government was 
committed to implementing the Ministerial Decision and, as a result, would welcome a 
transparency exercise. He also encouraged LDCs to present a paper about their specific challenges in the CRO. A focused discussion would be a useful way to move forward to build on the objectives 
of the Decision. 
4.10 For the representative of Canada, the transpar ency elements of the Decision could indeed be 
strengthened. He agreed that the Chairman was correct in his interpretation of the strict 
requirements of the Decision and supported his proposal. In addition, however, Canada supported 
further transparency efforts, including in the co ntext of workshops organized at the WTO and in 
other fora, such as in the UNCTAD. He concluded by  stating that the harmonization of preferential 
rules of origin was not the most beneficial avenue to secure greater market access for LDCs. What 
mattered was indeed that Members' strived to keep their rules transparent, simple and predictable. 
4.11 The representative of Korea stated that his government had already put preferences in place 
for the LDCs and would implement the Decision as  proposed by the Chairman, observing strictly 
the legal framework of the Ministerial Decision. Th e delegation of Korea would welcome presenting 
Korea's new preferential rules of origin for LDCs and sharing Korea's experience. 
4.12 The representative of China recalled th at China had implemented a duty and quota free 
programme for LDCs which would soon cover 97 per cent of all exports from LDCs. China shared 
the views of those Members who thought it was important to limit the role of the CRO to reviewing 
any new developments only. As for an exchange of information, China supported this parallel effort 
but wished to ensure that the results of this exchange of information were not part of the report from the CRO to the General Council. 
4.13 Having heard Members, the Chairman conf irmed that only discussions related to "new 
developments" would be part of the report of the Committee. He proposed first, that Members 
notified any new or modified preferential rules of origin affecting imports from LDCs as soon as possible so that the Committee would review such new developments and compiled the G/RO/M/62 
 
- 6 - 
 
  information and comments for a report to the General Council and the LDC sub-committee. 
Second, and as a separate element, he proposed that the Committee engaged in a transparency and out-reach exercise where the Secretariat would prepare a background note describing the current state of notifications to be examined during  a dedicated agenda item by CRO. An additional 
contribution to this dedicated agenda item would be the paper to be submitted by the LDCs about 
their specific challenges. While the results of the fi rst proposal would be part of the CRO's report to 
the General Council and the LDC sub-committee, the results of the second would not. 
4.14 The Committee agreed to proceed accordingly. 
E. NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 5 AND UNDER PARAGRAPH 4 OF ANNEX II OF 
THE AGREEMENT ON RULES OF ORIGIN (DOCUMENTS G/RO/N/109 - 115) 
5.1 The Chairman informed the Committee that, new notifications had been received by the 
Secretariat and circulated in documents G/RO/N/109 to 114. With these notifications, 47 Members 
had not yet submitted information on whether or not they applied any type of non-preferential 
rules of origin. He urged these Members to seek th e assistance of the Secretariat to submit their 
notifications as soon as possible. He also invited all other Members to review their previous 
notifications to ensure that these remained up to date. 
5.2 The CRO so agreed. 
F. ELECTION OF OFFICERS 6.1 The Chair informed Members that following th e consultations carried by the Chairman of the 
Council for Trade in Goods, it was proposed that the Committee elect Mr. Ken CHEN, of 
Chinese Taipei, as Chairperson of the Committee for 2014. 
6.2 The Committee elected Mr. CHEN by acclamation. 
6.3 Before giving the floor to Mr Chen, Mr Visse r thanked all the delegations and the Secretariat 
for their collaboration and assistance during his period of chairmanship. 
6.4 Mr Chen thanked the Members of the CRO for his election as Chairperson for 2014. He also 
noted that several tasks had already been attributed to him to help steer the work of the 
Committee. He hoped that his long experience as a customs officer would contribute to a dynamic 
and meaningful Committee. Finally, he pointed ou t that the Rules of Procedures for meetings of 
the CRO foresaw the possibility of electing a Vi ce-Chairperson. He proposed to conduct further 
consultations with delegations on whether or not the election of a Vice-Chair was necessary. 
6.5 It is so agreed. 
G. OTHER BUSINESS 7.1 The Chairman informed Members that a letter from the Chair of the Technical Committee on 
Rules of Origin had been received confirming that both Committees could aim at holding their 
meetings back to back in order to facilitate the participation of capital-based experts. This could 
happen for the first time in 2015 depending on arrangements to be made by both the WCO and the WTO Secretariats. 
 
________