WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/VAL/W/188 
11 November 2009 
 (09-5620) 
Committee on Customs Valuation Original:   English 
  
 
NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 22 OF THE CUSTOMS  
VALUATION AGREEMENT 
 
 
Questions from the United States to the delegations  of Belize, Egypt, Norway, Tunisia and Ukraine
 
 
  The following communication, dated 6 November 2009, is circulated at the request of the 
delegation of the United States.  
_______________ 
 
 
Questions for Belize
 
 1. In G/VAL/W/183, Belize indicates that although the Interpretative Notes of the Customs 
Valuation Agreement are not currently included in its  legislation, all appropr iate explanations and 
definitions are provided for, which make the valua tion process transparent.  The Interpretative Notes 
form an integral part of the Customs Valuation Ag reement, and we, therefore, consider the Notes to 
be an integral part of implementing legislation.    
- Does Belize have any intentions of inco rporating these provisions into its domestic 
legislation? 
 
2. We are also concerned that Belize has not fully incorporated Article 16 of the Customs 
Valuation Agreement into its legislation.  Belize indicates that although there is no reason why local 
customs administrations wouldn’t provide an explanation in writing, there is no provision in its legislation that actually requires Customs to provide  an explanation in writing.  We are therefore 
concerned that Customs is not legally obligated to provide a written explanation when requested by an 
importer, as is prescribed by the WTO Customs Valuation Agreement. 
 
- Can Belize please indicate if it intends to inco rporate Article 16 of the Customs Valuation 
Agreement into its domestic legislation?  
 
Questions for Egypt
 
 1. It is our understanding, based on Egypt’s r esponses contained in G/VAL/W/177, that Egypt’s 
legislation does not specifically incorporate the Inte rpretative Notes of the Agreement, although Egypt 
indicates that Customs is committed to applying the Notes.   
 
- How are the Interpretative Notes made availabl e to customs officials?  That is, what 
document does an official look to, or reference, in order to apply the Interpretative Notes? 
 
2. Article 4 of the Agreement states that “at the request of the importer, the order of application 
of Articles 5 and 6 shall be reversed .”  However, Article 24 of Egypt’ s Ministerial Decree no.10 states G/VAL/W/188 
Page 2  
 
  that the order of application shall be reversed, “p rovided that the Customs Directorate approves.”  Can 
Egypt please explain how, when, and at whose request  and approval the application of Articles 5 and 
6 can be reversed?  3. Could Egypt please confirm that importers can appeal all customs valuation decisions to the 
judiciary, and that they can do so without being subject to a penalty?  
 
Questions for Norway
 
 1. We would like to thank Norway for its recent notification on its customs valuation legislation, 
contained in G/VAL/N/1/NOR/2.  Having reviewed this notification, we would like to seek the 
following additional information from Norway.  2. We are concerned the legislation notified by Norway may be missing some provisions required by the WTO Customs Valuation Agreement.  For example, the legislation does not appear to 
contain references to the following WTO CVA articles:  
 
o Articles 1.2(a), (b) and (c)  
o Articles 2.1(b), 2.2 and 2.3 
o Articles 10-12 and 14-16 of the Agreement.   
 
3. Could Norway please explain if additional pr ovisions of the Customs Valuation Agreement 
can be found elsewhere it its laws or regulations?  If they do not exist elsewhere, does Norway intend 
to implement them?   4. Section 7-10(4) states that “the Ministry may by regulations lay down further provisions to 
supplement subsection (1)(d) regarding the cases in which the transaction value is acceptable...”   
Section 7-11(3) states that “the Ministry may make  regulations concerning th e determination of the 
transaction value pursuant to this section…”.   - Have regulations been promulgated for either of these sections?   
 
5. Can Norway please verify that the importer h as the right to be informed in writing of the 
customs value determined under the provisions of Ar ticle 7 of the Agreement, if the importer so 
requests?     6. We are also concerned that Section 7-17(1)(c), as written, is much broader than Article 8.1(c) 
of the Agreement.   
 - We would therefore appreciate clarification on  the application of this provision and how it 
comports with Article 8.1(c).   7. Section 7-20 of Norway’s legislation states th at in “special cases” goods may be released to 
the importer if sufficient guarantee is provide.  Can Norway please explain what constitutes a 
“special” case?  How often has this provision been utilized?  
 
Questions for Tunisia
 
 
1. We thank Tunisia for its notificati on, contained in G/VAL/N/1/TUN/2/Rev.1. 
 
2. Article 28 of Tunisia’s Customs Code appear s to be missing the provision contained in 
Article 6.2 of the Customs Valuation Ag reement concerning computed value.   
  G/VAL/W/188 
 Page 3 
 
 
  - How has Tunisia implemented Article 6.2 of the Agreement? 
 
3. It also appears that Articles 13 and 16 of th e Agreement are not incorporated into the new 
Customs Code of Tunisia.    
- Is Tunisia planning to incorporate these provisions  into its legislation? If so, when does it 
expect to do so? 
 4. Although some elements of the Interpretative Notes of the Agreement are reflected in the new 
Customs Code, many appear to be absent.  Pursuant  to Article 14, the Interpretative Notes form an 
integral part of the Agreement.  
 
- We would therefore, like to inquire on whether,  and when, Tunisia is planning to incorporate 
the Interpretative Notes into its legislation. 
 
Questions for Ukraine  
 
1. We have the following question regard ing Ukraine’s legislation, notified in 
G/VAL/N/1/UKR/1.  
 
2. Ukraine explains that it uses the phrase “cost of  operation” to describe transaction value.  We 
are not persuaded that the “cost of operation” can be  used interchangeably with transaction value, as 
provided for by the Agreement.  We would therefor e appreciate an explanation as to why Ukraine has 
not used the term “transaction value” in its legislation.   
 
 
__________