RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/VAL/M/50 
15 December 2010 
 (10-6729) 
Committee on Customs Valuation  
  
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 4 NOVEMBER 2010 
 
Chairman:  Tamás Vattai (Hungary)
 
   The agenda proposed for the meeting, circul ated in WTO/AIR/3632/Rev.1 was adopted as 
follows: 
  
I. REPORT OF THE WORK OF THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON 
CUSTOMS VALUATION .......................................................................................................2  
II. INFORMATION ON IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF 
THE AGREEMENT.................................................................................................................2  
A. N
OTIFICATION OF NATIONAL LEGISLATION ................................................................................2  
III. INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION OF DECISIONS OF THE 
COMMITTEE ON CUSTOMS  VALUATION......................................................................9  
IV. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ................................................................................................10  
A. INFORMATION ON TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE .............................................................................10  
B. ARTICLE 20.3  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRADE -RELATED TECHNICAL 
ASSISTANCE ..............................................................................................................................1 0 
V. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN 
GOODS .......................................................................................................................... ..........10  
VI. FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH, SEVENTH, EIGHTH, NINTH, TENTH, 
ELEVENTH, TWELFTH, THIRTEENT H, FOURTEENTH, FIFTEENTH 
AND SIXTEENTH ANNUAL REVIEWS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION OF THE CUSTOMS VALUATION AGREEMENT .................................10  
VII.  PRESHIPMENT INSPECTION ...........................................................................................11  
VIII.  PARAGRAPH 12 OF THE DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION 
(WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1):  IMPLEMENTATION-RELATED ISSUES................................11  
IX. OTHER BUSINESS................................................................................................................1 2 
A. C
HAIR 'S CONSULTATIONS ON WAYS TO IMPROVE THE TIMELESS AND COMPLETENESS 
OF NOTIFICATIONS AND OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION ON TRADE MEASURES 
FALLING WITH THE AMBIT OF THE AGREEMENT ON CUSTOMS VALUATION ...........................12  
B. DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING ....................................................................................................13  
ANNEX I........................................................................................................................ .......................14  
 
_______________ 
  G/VAL/M/50 
Page 2  
 
  I. REPORT OF THE WORK OF THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON CUSTOMS 
VALUATION 
1.1 The observer of the World Customs Organization
 reported on the activities of the Technical 
Committee on Customs Valuation at its 31th session, held on 25 to 29 September 2010; including 
details of the two instruments concluded, the review of procedures and processes and technical 
assistance activities.  This report is contained in Annex I.  
 1.2 The representative of the United States
 thanked the WCO for providing that report and for its 
consideration of various or possible future work .  His delegation recommended considering ways to 
improve procedures and practices; th erefore, he looked forward to reviewing the proposals that came 
up on the 31st session and appreciated the consideration suggested.  
 1.3 The Chairman
 thanked the observer from the WCO for his very informative report and 
expressed the Committee's appreciation for the continued valuable work of the TCCV. 
 
1.4 The Committee took note  of the statements made and of the report. 
 
II. INFORMATION ON IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE 
AGREEMENT 
A. NOTIFICATION OF NATIONAL LEGISLATION  
2.1 The Chairman  recalled that Article 22 of the Agreem ent on Customs Valuation (hereafter, the 
Agreement) required each Member to inform th e Committee of any changes in its laws and 
regulations relevant to the Agreement, and of an y changes in the administration of such laws and 
regulations.  In addition, the Decision on Notifi cation and Circulation of National Legislation, 
required each Member to notify its legislation to the Committee.  To date, 41 Members had not yet 
notified their implementing legislation in accordance with Article 22 of the CVA. As this is an 
important transparency obligation, he urged Member s who had not yet notified to do so as early as 
possible.   
- Bahrain 
 
2.2 The Chairman
 recalled that it had been agreed to re vert to the examination of Bahrain's 
legislation at this meeting pending responses to qu estions posed at the last meeting by the United 
States.  These questions were circulated in document G/VAL/W/181.  Responses from Bahrain were 
circulated in document G/VAL/W/191.   2.3 The representative of the United States
 thanked Bahrain for submitting its responses and said 
that in its responses, Bahrain referred to the 2008 version of the GCC Common Customs Law which 
contains provisions relevant to customs valuati on. His delegation requested that this version be 
officially notified to the Committee by Bahrain as well as by any other Members implementing such 
legislation. His delegation had several technical  follow-up questions which would be submitted in 
writing following this meeting. Generally his continuing questions were about the administrative appeal process such as why the review Committe e would consult outside of the government with 
regards to customs valuation appeals. 
 2.4 The Committee took note
 of the statement made and agreed  to revert to the notification of 
Bahrain at its next meeting.   G/VAL/M/50 
 Page 3 
 
 
   - Belize 
 
2.5 The Chairman  recalled that the Committee had agreed to revert to this notification following 
questions posed to Belize by the United States an d Canada.  These questions were circulated in 
documents G/VAL/W/175 and G/VAL/W/176, respectively.  Belize had responded to some of these 
questions in document G/VAL/W/183.  However, th e United States had more questions which were 
circulated in document G/VAL/W/188.    2.6 The representative of the United States
 said that his delegation remained interested in 
receiving responses to the questions it had posed  and which were circulated in document 
G/VAL/W/188.   
 2.7 The Chairman proposed that as Belize was not  in the room, the Committee revert to this 
matter at the next meeting.  
2.8 The Committee took note
 of the statements made and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting.  
 - Cambodia 
 
2.9 The Chairman
 recalled that the Committee had agreed to  revert to the examination of this 
notification following questions posed to Cambodi a by the United States. These questions were 
circulated in document G/VAL/W/193. Cambodia had responded to these questions in document 
G/VAL/W/195.   2.10 The representative of the United States
 thanked Cambodia for promptly replying to the 
questions circulated in May 2010. His delegation c ontinued to have some concerns regarding Prakas 
32 of Cambodia's customs valuation legislation whic h appeared to provide for the use of valuation 
methods other than those contained in the WTO Cu stoms Valuation Agreement for certain goods that 
Cambodia deemed as sensitive or high risks goods. Cambodi a's reply stated that this was a transitional 
provision providing Customs for some flexibility in the implementation of the agreement. His delegation wondered when Cambodian  would envision the end of th is transition period and how 
Cambodia considered this to be consistent with  its commitment to full y implement the Customs 
Valuation Agreement by 01 January 2009. His de legation had some additional follow-up questions 
that would be submitted in writing after this meeting.  Finally, he encouraged Cambodia to submit also 
its responses to the check list of issues.   
2.11 The representative of the Canada
 supported the United States in their follow-up questions to 
Cambodia and said that her delegation looked forward to receiving responses as well.  
 2.12 The Committee took note
 of the statements made and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting.     - China 
 
2.13 The Chairman
 recalled that at the last meeting, it was agreed to revert to China's notification 
in G/VAL/N/1/CHN/5 at this meeting.  The United States had posed questions to China at the May 
2008 meeting and these were circulated in G/VAL /W/168 and Corr.1.  China had responded to these 
questions in document G/VAL/W/184. However, th e United States had more questions which were 
circulated in document G/VAL/W/192. China's repli es to these second questions were circulated this 
morning in document G/VAL/W/198.  G/VAL/M/50 
Page 4  
 
  2.14 The representative of China
 recalled that his delegation notified the Chinese customs 
legislation which is the rules regarding determin ation on customs value of the imported and exported 
goods in WTO document G/VAL/W/168.  The delegation of the United States previously asked questions for the rules in WTO document G/VAL/W/184 and responses had been provided by his delegation in WTO document G/VAL/W/185.  His delegation received further questions from the 
United States and the detailed answers had been  submitted to the Committee in document number 
G/VAL/W/198. Question number one questioned if the official interpretative notes for implementing decree 148 had been notified. The full text of the Annex 1 (Interpretative Notes) to the Agreement 
had, due to the nature of the Chinese custom s law system, been included in the customs law 
framework.  In addition to the rules regarding de termination of a customs value, the official 
interpretative notes functions were as a guideline both for the customs valuation officers and the 
traders under the Decree number 148. And this offici al interpretative note had been published in 2007 
and was available in Chinese. Question number tw o concerned how the Chinese customs law dealt 
with circumstances surrounding sale to be examined  to establish acceptability of transaction value and 
specific methods to be used to determine if the re lationship influenced the price.  This question had 
been answered by China's previous response, which explained clearly in detail about the two methods.  
One was the examination of the sale is circumstanc es and the other was the test values which were 
contained in the rules of determining the customs value.  Question number three from the United States concerned where in the customs law it reflected  appellant's right in the China's customs appeal 
procedure.  It was reflected in Article 64 of Chin a's customs law and also it had been notified to the 
WTO. Question number four from the United States concerned under what circumstances customs did 
not release against the securities.  There were not such circumstan ces that goods were put on hold by 
the Chinese customs when the guarantee was paid.  It  might be that the English translation from the 
United State's customs was slightly different from the Chinese original. His delegation was going to 
double check with capital and see if more improveme nt could be done.  Qu estion number five was 
very comprehensive and he believed that had al ready explained the reason and the background in 
China's answer to the first question.  Lastly, his delegation thanked again the questions from the 
United States and hoped that it felt comfortable with the answers.   2.15 The representative of the United States
 thanked the Chinese delegation for its written 
responses. His delegation would take some time to  review them and follow-up if there were any 
further questions.  
 
2.16 The representative of European Union  thanked both China and the United States for having 
this public dialogue. Some questions in the Committe e could take the character of a public dialogue 
and might contribute to an overall understanding that could benefit all Members; and in this light he 
wanted to make two comments.  First, the emer ging discussion on the interpretative notes in general 
and many delegations' insistence that the notes should  be reflected in each Member's legislation as 
they were part of the WTO Agreement. However, he  also noted that the interpretative notes might be 
a special case, as being a single block of notes wh ich many Members had taken the easy way out and 
just adopted them as they were; notwithstanding, it did not exclude that they could be reflected in a different way in a national legislation.  The exampl e of Cambodia was very reasonable and effective.  
What was important to emphasize was a fact that that  the interpretative notes were legally binding, not 
guidelines and the necessity, therefore, to make sure  that Members included all of them in their 
legislations as confirmed by the reply from China.   Second, regarding the second question on the so-
called tests for circumstances surrounding sale and tran sactions in trade between related companies, 
sometimes a second test was seen as be ing an obligatory test. But he wanted to draw attention to what 
the Agreement actually said about the discretion of impor ters to trigger this test; in other words it was 
not the test that could be imposed by the administration.  His delegation thought it was useful to mark 
this distinction . Lastly, he thanked again Chin a and the United States for looking at these issues 
enabling Members to look at them in the immedi ate context of the notification of legislations. 
  G/VAL/M/50 
 Page 5 
 
 
  2.17 The Committee took note  of the statement made and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting.  
 - Nigeria 
 
2.18 The Chairman
 recalled that it had agreed to revert to Nigeria's notification at the last meeting.  
The United States and Canada had posed some questi ons to the Nigerian delegation which had been 
circulated in documents G/VAL/W/175 and G/VAL/W/176, respectively.    2.19 The representative of the United States
 said that his delegation continued to be interested in 
the questions that it put to Nigeria in document G/ VAL/W/175, and requested that this item remained 
open until those questions had been addressed.  2.20 The representative of Canada
 said that her delegation was also awaiting responses to its 
questions contained in document G/VAL/W/176. 
 
2.21 The representative of the European Union  expressed his interested in responses to questions 
put by other members. His delegation also would put  forward some questions as it might be useful to 
make sure that everything that needed to be  asked was asked. His delegation wondered where the 
interpretative notes were in Nigeria's legislation and thought it might be useful to put some questions 
for Nigeria's benefit.  
 
2.22  The Chairman  proposed that, as Nigeria was not in th e room, the Committee reverted to this 
matter at the next meeting.  2.23 The Committee agreed
 to revert to this notification at its next meeting. 
 
 - Norway 
 
2.24 The Chairman  recalled that at the last meeting of the Committee, it had agreed to revert to 
Norway's notification circulated in document G/ VAL/N/1/NOR/2.  The United States raised some 
questions to Norway which were circulated in document G/VAL/W/188.Norway circulated its 
responses in document G/VAL/W/194. 
 2.25 The representative of Norway
 referred to its written response to the questions from the United 
States just circulated to the Committee before th is meeting and highlighted a few issues from that 
response.  Before addressing the specific questi ons, her delegation made some general comments 
regarding its implementation of the Agreement.  Th e Agreement was covered by different parts of the 
Norwegian legislation. For instance, the valuati on methods were implemented through the Customs 
Act. These methods were outlined with detailed pr ovisions and regulations to the Customs Act.  
Additionally, some parts of the agreement were cove red by different provisions set out in the Public 
Administration Act.  Furthermore, in order to  secure full equivalence between the Norwegian 
legislation and the Agreement, Section 7.2 stated th at valuation must be done in accordance with the 
Agreement.  As far as the specific questions were co ncerned, she highlighted some of the main points 
from its answers.  First, the answer to questions 1 and 2, the regulation to the Customs Act contained 
several provisions related to the implementation of the Agreement. Such provisions were, for 
instance, promulgated in relation to the use of transaction value as customs value for an imported 
good.  Her delegation referred to its written response for a list of where specific articles in the 
Agreement were implemented in Norway's legislation.  Question 3, related to an importer's right to be 
informed in writing of the determination of the cu stoms value of an imported good.  As said in its 
written response, every importer had the right to be informed in writing of how the customs value had been determined.  Such a right was a fundamental part of the Norwegian legal system related to 
decisions from the Public Administration.  Since this  was a part of the Public Administration Act, it G/VAL/M/50 
Page 6  
 
  was not explicitly mentioned in the customs legislation.  In question 4 the United States was 
concerned about the wording that was seen in the firs t paragraph of Section 7.17. In the United State's 
view, this provision seemed to be broader when a dding royalty payment to the customs value that the 
corresponding article in the Agreement which wa s Article 8.1(c).  Provisions in the customs 
legislation that were relevant to  valuation must be interpreted in  accordance with the Agreement.  
When considering whether a royalty payment should be  added to the customs value, the application in 
Section 7-17 must be in line with the understanding of  article 8.1(c).  This was covered by the first 
sentence which or more else was a direct transl ation of Article 8.1(c).  The second sentence was 
meant to clarify how valuation should be done when the royalty was paid to a third party that was 
related to the seller.  This part of section 7-17 did not derive directly from the Agreement but was 
covered by Advisory Opinion 4.11 from the WCO Technical Committee on Customs Valuation.  
Finally, as regards the answer to question 5, the last question related to the expression " special cases " 
in section 7-20.  This provision was an implemen tation of Article 13 in the Agreement.  The 
expression " special cases " was used in the Norwegian legislation where the agreement states " if...it 
becomes necessary ".  Norway's previous implementation was in line with the actual wording in the 
Agreement. However, as a result of the technical revision of the customs legislation " special cases " 
was used as a replacement for " if...it becomes necessary ".  Nevertheless this did not form a 
substantive change of the im plementation of Article 13. 
 2.26 The representative of the United States
 thanked Norway for its responses. His delegation 
understood that Norway's legislati on referenced the need to comply with the WTO Customs Valuation 
Agreement and recognized that some of the Cu stoms Valuation agreement provisions were not 
expressly included in Norway's legislation. Under hi s delegation's view all provisions of the Customs 
Valuation agreement should be fully incorporated Me mber's legislation; however, the United States 
did not have any further questions at this time  and accepted to close this agenda item.   
 
2.27 The Committee took note  of the statement made and agreed to conclude  the examination of 
Norway's legislation.   
 - Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 
 
2.28 The Chairman
 recalled that, at the last meeting, it had agreed to revert to this notification at 
this meeting.  The United States had posed questi ons to the delegation of Saint Vincent and the 
Grenadines which had been circulated in document G/VAL/W/181.  2.29 The representative of United States
 said that although the representative of Saint Vincent and 
the Grenadines responded verbally to some of their questions during the last meeting, his delegation 
wanted to request the responses to their questions  contained in document G/VAL/W/181 be formally 
circulated in writing.  Additionally, he noted that  during the last meeting the representative of Saint 
Vincent and the Grenadines mentioned that the dr aft harmonized legislation was being examined by 
the government to be implemented by July 2010;  therefore, his delegation requested Saint Vincent 
and the Grenadines to provide an update of the status of this legislation.  
 
2.30  The Chairman  proposed that, as Saint Vincent and th e Grenadines was not in the room, the 
Committee revert to this matter at the next meeting.  2.31 The Committee agreed
 to revert to this notification at its next meeting. 
  - Thailand 
 
2.32 The Chairman
 recalled that, at the last meeting, it had agreed to revert to this notification at 
this meeting.  The United States had circulated questions to Thailand in G/VAL/W/128 and Thailand's 
replies were circulated in G/VAL/W/130.  Follow- up questions from the United States were circulated  G/VAL/M/50 
 Page 7 
 
 
  in document G/VAL/W/143 of November 2004.  Thailand's responses to these questions were 
circulated in document G/VAL/W/158.  Additiona l questions from the European Union and the 
United States regarding Thailand's valuation of al coholic beverages imports were circulated in 
document G/VAL/W/160, and from the Philippines rega rding Thailand's valuation of cigarettes in 
G/VAL/W/164.  Following this, the United States circ ulated additional questions on the legislation in 
G/VAL/W/165.  Thailand submitted responses which were subsequently circulated in document 
G/VAL/W/174.  Lastly, the United States posed additional questions to  Thailand which were 
circulated in document G/VAL/W/181.  At the last  meeting, Thailand responded to these questions 
which were circulated in document G/VAL/W/190.    
2.33 The representative of the United States
 thanked Thailand for circulating responses to its 
questions.  In reviewing these responses, his delega tion still had some additional follow-up questions 
that would be presented in writing.  He highlighted a couple of them; first, in response to its question 
on Section 11 bis of the Customs Act which provided for the use of reference prices, Thailand 
indicated that this had been abolished in the draft amendment and was pending approval.  His 
delegation requested Thailand to clarify if referen ce prices were still being used since the amendment 
was still in draft form and had not yet been offi cially approved through the legislative amendment 
process.  He also asked when Thailand expected  that the amendment would be approved by the 
cabinet and when would all other legislative amendm ents steps be finalised.  His delegation remained 
interested in the draft customs law that would am end Thailand's previously notified customs valuation 
legislation and when Thailand anticipated that the draft customs law would be finalised and 
implemented.  Finally, he continued to be concerned about Thailand's refund process for cash 
guarantees provided by importers  and urged Thailand to prom ptly address this issue. 
 2.34 The representative of the European Union
 said that his delegation remained interested to 
know the current state of play of the Thai's legisl ation.  As the point had been expressed well by the 
United States, he would have the same interests.  It was important to know the exact state of play 
because the Committee was still looking  at legislations from 2003 on the basis of expected, or actual 
changes, or a more comprehensive revision of the law.  What was needed was an overview of the 
current state of play of the laws and changes of it.  There were several minor points he wanted to make about specific provisions which maybe were being revised but maybe not too minor to be missed if they were involved in real cases, posi ng the example of the rules on royalties where there 
seemed to be no reference to the classic formulatio n in WTO code of royalties relating to the goods 
and conditions of sale.   2.35 The representative of Thailand
 said that at the moment Thailand's Customs legislation was on 
the process of amendment and could no t tell when this work would be done.  However, he encouraged 
Members to make their follow-up questions in writin g so they could be forwarded to the capital for 
responses.    2.36 The Committee took note
 of the statements made and agreed  to revert to this notification at its 
next meeting.   - Tunisia 
 
2.37 The Chairman
 recalled that, at the last meeting, the United States had posed some questions to 
Tunisia on its notification.  These had been circulated in document G/VAL/W/188.  
2.38 The representative of the United States
 said that his delegation was still waiting for the 
questions posed in document G/ VAL/W/188 and requested the age nda item to remain open until 
responses were received.   G/VAL/M/50 
Page 8  
 
  2.39 The Chairman
 proposed that, as Tunisia was not in the room, the Committee revert to this 
matter at the next meeting.  2.40 The Committee agreed
 to revert to this notification at its next meeting. 
  - Ukraine 
 
2.41 The Chairman
 recalled that at the last meeting it had agr eed to revert to this notification at this 
meeting.  The European Union supported by the Un ited States, had posed some questions to Ukraine 
which had now been circulated in  document G/VAL/W/179.  Ukraine had provided responses to these 
questions which had been circulated in document G/VAL/W/182.  Both the European Union and the 
United States had further questions for Ukraine on its notification.  The EU posed its questions orally 
and the US circulated them in document G/VAL/W/188.    2.42 The representative of Ukraine
 thanked the delegations of the European Union and the United 
States for their interest and questions posed as rega rds Ukraine's customs valuation legislation.  She 
said that there had been an issue with the transl ation in terms of costs of operation and transaction 
value and explained that actually in the meaning of the customs valuation agreement, costs of 
operation was the same as transaction value.  He r delegation kept working on providing further 
clarifications and additional information on the pendi ng questions and would reite rate the interest of 
the Members to Ukraine's customs va luation legislations to capital. 
 
2.43 The representative of Norway  raised some questions regarding Ukraine's legislation which 
would be submitted in writing after this meeting.  She noted that  the general rule on customs 
valuation, as set out in Article 1.1 of the Agreemen t is that the customs value of imported goods shall 
be the transaction value.  Article 1 described that at the same time, exhaustively, the situations in 
which one might use other valuation methods.  The subsidiary valuation me thods were set out in 
Articles 2 through 7, which applied in ascending order.   The customs authorities had to substantiate 
the need to depart from the transaction value in Ar ticle 1.  Furthermore, customs authorities had to 
substantiate the need to move from the method in Ar ticle 2 to Article 3, from Article 3 to Article 4 
and so forth.  Article 266 of the Customs code of Ukraine app eared to give precedence to the 
transaction value as further described in Article 267.   However, in practice there seemed to be 
widespread use of reference prices which is also termed "indicative prices", whose level, application 
and relationship to the customs code of Ukraine as well as the customs valuation agreement were 
unclear.  She noted in this respect that basing customs valuation on "minimum import prices" was prohibited by the Customs Valuation Agreement Ar ticle 7 as well as Article 273 paragraph 6 of the 
Customs Code of Ukraine.  In this respect, her de legation requested Ukraine to answer the following 
questions; first, what was the legal basis for the re ference price system as applied by Ukraine;  she 
requested Ukraine to refer both to the customs code  of Ukraine as well as to the Customs Valuation 
Agreement.  Second, her delegation requested Uk raine to provide a detailed description of the 
reference price system including a detailed descripti on of how the reference prices were calculated. It 
was also requested to describe how often they were amended.  Third,  her delegation received 
numerous reports of the application of differentiated reference prices, indicative prices, for fish at 
different levels of reference prices for the same  goods in different customs offices.  She requested 
Ukraine to describe what measures were taken or w ould be taken to ensure that where it was legally 
permissible to apply reference price and if such  reference price was applied uniformly all across 
Ukraine and equally to all importers .  Forth, her delegation requested Ukraine how it ensured that any 
reference price, indicative price, was known to th e importers in advance of the importation.  In 
particular where such prices were published as re quired by Article 12 of the Customs Valuation 
Agreement.  Fifth, Article 267 provides that "the method of definition of the customs value at the price 
of the contract concerning the goods imported. Th e cost of operation is used in case when(...) ".  This 
language was slightly different fro m the language of Article 1.1 of the Customs Valuation Agreement 
where it stated that " The customs value of imported goods sha ll be the transaction value (...) provided   G/VAL/M/50 
 Page 9 
 
 
  (...)".  Her delegation requested Ukraine to agree that the transaction value should be accepted in all 
cases except where the specific conditions in subparagr aphs (a)-(d) of paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the 
Customs Valuation Agreement were fulfilled.    2.44 The representative of the European Union
 made three main points.  Firstly, on Ukraine's 
legislation, his delegation received their responses to their questions and was preparing additional 
questions.  He said that overall, Ukraine's legi slation as a whole was hard to read and Ukraine 
recognised that this was a translation related issu e and structurally the way things had been put 
together.  These were real practical difficulties in actua lly getting to grips with the legislation.  He had 
a number of questions and some of these were follo w-up questions to its initial questions in order to 
seek additional clarification and explanation.  One or two practical suggestions to the Ukraine might 
be made as regards how they reflected WTO rules in their legislation.  The second point was actual 
and real implementation issues.  There were si gnificant implementation problems being noted in 
trade.  His delegation was getting a lot of complain ts, referring to high rates of examinations from the 
point of view of customs valuation, high rates of not using transaction value methods, very often 
using the last method.  Norway had referred to refere nce prices that seemed to be central elements in 
generating and keeping a problem in play.  There just seemed to be a real issue of the customs administration to accept the commercial reality of what traders were actua lly declaring in their 
documents, their invoices and so forth.  The EU was trying to work bilaterally with Ukraine regarding 
these problems.  If the legislation was right, the implementation issues could be lesser of a concern.  If it was not based on law, might the law, need some in tense scrutiny in order to ensure what law would 
be needed to make the application right.  Third,  his delegation would pose additional questions that 
would also be submitted in writing after this meeting.  For example, there were references in the legislation to special controls, or even use of ot her methods where the cost of the good was below the 
raw material cost and another provision which me ntioned about the controls on value which would 
take place after a whole series of other controls took place at the time of import.  His questions 
concerned with how the reflection of the WTO rules fitted in with the customs control issues and how 
these measures were made reasonable, as well as with  the actual questions in relation to the precise 
wording in the law.  Finally, he hope d for positive results from this process. 
 2.45 The representative of the United States
 said that his delegation had similar concerns as those 
expressed by Norway and the European Union, a nd looked forward to more detailed responses from 
Ukraine on its customs valuation regime.  
 2.46 The Committee took note
 of the statements made and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting.  
 
III. INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION OF DECISIONS OF THE COMMITTEE 
ON CUSTOMS VALUATION 
3.1 The Chairman
 recalled that under this agenda item, the Committee noted any new 
notifications of application of the Decisions of  the Committee on Customs Valuation on, first, the 
"Treatment of Interest Charges in the Customs Value of Imported Goods” and, second, the “Valuation 
of Carrier Media Bearing Software for Data Processing Equipment", both adopted by the Committee 
and contained in document G/VAL/5.  Since the last meeting, there had not been any new 
notifications.    3.2 The Committee took note
 of this information. 
 G/VAL/M/50 
Page 10  
 
  IV. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 
A. I
NFORMATION ON TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  
4.1 The Chairman  recalled that, under this item, the Secretariat informed Members of the 
technical assistance activities carried out under the auspices of the WCO.  Document 
G/VAL/8/Add.23 contained the most recent information compiled by the Technical Committee on 
Customs Valuation of technical assistance activities carried out by Members as well as by the WCO 
Secretariat.    B. A
RTICLE 20.3  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRADE -RELATED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  
4.2 The Chairman  recalled that the Committee’s Work Pr ogramme on Technical Assistance for 
Capacity Building as Regards the Implementation and Administration of the WTO Agreement on 
Customs Valuation was contained in document G/VAL/W/82/Rev.1.  The Customs Valuation 
technical assistance was now incorporated in the WTO-wide technical assistance program.  The 
2010 – 2011 TA Plan was being im plemented presently.  This Plan foresaw regional activities on 
Market Access Issues which would include customs valuation training as one of the areas covered.  
Three such activities were scheduled for 2010 and four  were scheduled for 2011.  In addition, requests 
for technical assistance on customs valuation could be made at any time by individual Members and 
would be met by a national activity designed to meet th e needs of the recipient.  In June of this year, 
the WTO Secretariat held a national activity on cust oms valuation in Samoa.  The WTO Secretariat 
also planned to hold a national activity on customs va luation in Bahamas in November of this year.  
 
4.3 The Committee  took note of the information presented. 
 
V. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
 
5.1 The Chairman  drew Members' attention to document  G/VAL/W/197 which contained the draft 
report of the Committee to the Council for Trade in Goods.  
 5.2 The Committee adopted
 its annual report (G/L/942).   
 
VI. FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH, SEVENTH, EIGHTH, NINTH, TENTH, ELEVENTH, 
TWELFTH, THIRTEENTH, FOURTEENT H, FIFTEENTH AND SIXTEENTH 
ANNUAL REVIEWS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION OF THE 
CUSTOMS VALUATION AGREEMENT 
 
6.1. The Chairman  recalled that the WTO Secretariat circ ulated a draft of the Sixteenth Annual 
Review contained in document G/VAL/W/196.  
 
6.2 The Chairman  recalled that at the May 2009 meeting of the Committee, the Indian delegation 
had informed the Committee that his delegation had decided to lift the reservation on minimum values 
entered under paragraph 3 of the Protocol to the Tokyo Round Customs Valuation Agreement, and in 
paragraph 2 of Annex III to the WTO Customs Valuati on Agreement.  In light of this, in preparation 
for the October 2009 Committee meeting; the Secret ariat updated all of the annual reviews from 1998 
to 2008 in anticipation of their consideration fo r adoption.  Also at the October meeting, the 
Committee was to consider the 2009 report for adopti on.  However, at the October 2009 meeting, the 
delegation of India informed the Committee that hi s delegation still maintained its position regarding 
the adoption of the Annual Reviews.  Therefore the Committee was unable to adopt them at this 
meeting. 
  G/VAL/M/50 
 Page 11 
 
 
  6.3 The Chairman  recalled that the former chair of this  Committee proposed to suspend this item 
on the agenda until such time as a solution was found.  At that time, the item could be taken up again 
and dealt with. In the meantime, the draft annua l reviews from 1998 to 2009 would remain unadopted 
as draft documents. Therefore, the Chairman proposed that the Annual Reviews from 1998 to 2009 remain unadopted as drafts.  
 
6.4 The Committee took note
 of the statements made, adopted  the Sixteenth Annual Review for 
2010, and agreed  that the Secretariat would update the document. 
 
VII. PRESHIPMENT INSPECTION 
7.1 The Chairman  recalled that Preshipment Inspection was a standing item on the agenda of the 
Committee on Customs Valuation.  He drew attenti on to the most recent update of the notifications 
received from Members under Article 5 of the Agre ement on Preshipment Inspection.  It was 
contained in document G/PSI/N/1/Add.13.  At the last  meeting, the United States said that it still had 
not received responses to the questions that it had posed to Indonesia on its new Preshipment 
Inspection Programme.  These were circulated in documents G/VAL/W/167 and G/VAL/W/180.   
 7.2 The representative of the United States
 recalled that it had been over a year that his delegation 
requested information from Indonesia's pre-shipment inspection regime and was disappointed that to 
date his delegation has failed to receive a respons e from Indonesia.  The concerns that he raised 
before remained and if responses were received,  his delegation might have additional follow-up 
questions.  It would be helpful to have more in formation from Indonesia that might answer some of 
these additional questions his delegation had.  7.3 The representative of the European Union
 stated document G/VAL/W/63/Rev/13 of June 
2010, was the Annual Update by the Internationa l Federation of Inspection Agencies (IFIA) where 
IFIA presented information with regard to countries using PSI regimes.  This information was quite 
useful and it was possibly the third time that this information was being supplemented by additional 
information which referred to PSI programs for cu stoms purposes; revenue protection and a different 
class of activity called customs support services includ ing destination inspection and/or selective PSI.  
A possible explanation for these programs was in th e last sentence of the information note where it 
said "These trends, IFIA notes, show a marked reduction in traditional PSI programmes with 
considerable growth in more modern progra mmes that are less intrusive for exporters" .  It seemed 
true that if exporters had a destination inspection that would be less intrusive for exporters but that 
there might be a bigger point to be noted.  What IF IA seemed to be saying was that some of their 
other programmes should be noted or they wanted to  provide information on these matters.  However, 
it was an open question whether or not these othe r programmes would come under the scope of the 
PSI agreement.  
 7.4 As the delegation of Indonesia w as not present, the Committee took note
 of the information 
presented.  
VIII.  PARAGRAPH 12 OF THE DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION 
(WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1):  IMPLEMENTATION-RELATED ISSUES 
 - Paragraph 8.3 of document WT/MIN/ (01)/17  
 
8.1 The Chairman
 recalled that the General Council, at its  meeting in December 2002, authorized 
the Committee to continue its work under the exis ting mandate in paragraph 8.3 of the Decision on 
Implementation-Related Issues and C oncerns, and to report back to the General Council once its work 
had been completed.    G/VAL/M/50 
Page 12  
 
  8.2 The representative of the United States
 reiterated his delegation's position that the Negotiating 
Group on Trade Facilitation was the appropriate venue to continue these discussions given that Trade 
Facilitation was currently examining proposals that cont ained elements very similar to those that were 
in India's paper.  
8.3 The representative of India
 reiterated his delegation's position that these two bodies had 
separate mandates.  In this Committee, the issu e regarded operationalizing the July 2004 mandate 
under paragraph 8.3 of the Doha Declaration.  Even  though a similar subject was covered by the work 
of another body, this did not prevent this Committe e from examining this work .  It was specific to 
customs valuation which was dealt with here. R ecognising the legitimate concerns of importing 
Members on the accuracy of declared  value, the Ministers had direct ed this committee to identify and 
assess practical means to address these concerns includi ng exchange of information on export values, 
thus this was a separate mandate and there was an  urge upon Members that these should be addressed 
by this committee.  The fact that it was be ing dealt with elsewhere was not a concern. 
 
8.4 The representative of Canada  supported the United States a nd reiterated her delegation’s 
position that India's proposal to deal with this issue in the Committee was being contrary to the 
mandate because of two basic things, the fact that it was mandatory in nature, and the need for any 
outcome to be consistent with  domestic laws and procedures. 
 8.5 The Committee took note
 of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting.  He invited the Members to carry out in formal consultations on this matter, as necessary. 
 
IX. OTHER BUSINESS 
A. CHAIR 'S CONSULTATIONS ON WAYS TO IMPROVE THE TIMELESS AND COMPLETENESS OF 
NOTIFICATIONS AND OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION ON TRADE MEASURES FALLING WITH 
THE AMBIT OF THE AGREEMENT ON CUSTOMS VALUATION . 
9.1 The Chairman  recalled that on 7 May 2009 the former  Chair of the Committee reported on an 
informal open-ended meeting of the Committee held  on 17 March 2009 to consult with Members on 
ways to improve the timeliness and completeness of notifications and other information flows on 
trade measures falling within the areas under the Agre ement.  At the time, suggestions on how to 
increase transparency through complying with notifi cation obligations were made by four Members 
(Canada, the European Union, the United States and Pakistan).  These referred to:  (i) explore the 
possibility of expanding the role of the Techni cal Committee on Customs Valuation (TCCV) which 
was administered by the World Customs Organi zation.  The TCCV could perhaps carry out 
preliminary reviews or offer assistance to WTO Members who had difficulties in notifying.  In this regard, the TCCV should be asked about what kind of assistance it could provide to streamline the 
notification process;  (ii) improve coordination between the Chair and the Secretariat with the recently 
acceded Members who might have submitted their legislation as part of the accession process;  (iii) the status of notifications should be made a regular  part of the Committee's agenda and, before every 
regular meeting, the Secretariat should issue a stat us report on the notifications which might work as a 
reminder to Members, as an encouragement from other Members and as an institutional arrangement. 
It was also agreed, as suggested by  the former Chair, that Members would put them in writing if they 
wanted to pursue any of these suggestions.  Up to now, no written suggestions were received.  As a 
reminder, he invited those Members who had made s uggestions or that might have other suggestions, 
to submit them in writing so that the matter could be further pursued.  G/VAL/M/50 
 Page 13 
 
 
  9.2 The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
B. DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING  
9.3 The Chairman  suggested that the next meeting was sch eduled for Thursday, 12 May 2011.     
  
_______________ 
 G/VAL/M/50 
Page 14  
 
  ANNEX I 
 
Report to the Committee on Customs Valuatio n on the work of the Technical Committee on 
Customs Valuation and related activities of the WCO Secretariat 
 
 The 31
st Session of the TCCV took place from 25 to 29 October 2010. 
  The Committee finalized two instruments wh ich would be incorporated into the WCO 
Valuation Compendium; Commentary 23.1, "Examina tion of the expression "circumstances of sale" 
under Article 1.2(a) in relation to the use of tr ansfer pricing guidelines" and Commentary 24.1, 
"Determination of the Value of an Assist under Article 8.1(b) of the Agreement".  The former was an 
important first step in the Committee's work on the ke y topic of transfer pricing.  The latter addressed 
a technical question raised by Japan.  These documents would be presented to the Council for formal adoption next year.   
 The Committee continued its discussions on royalties and licence fees and decided to carry 
forward this item to the next session. Fundament al differences of opinion currently exist between 
Members on this important issue.  Discussions woul d also continue on the links between transfer 
pricing and Customs valuation; the ICC were current ly coordinating a trade position on this topic and 
would be liaising with the Secretariat during the intersession.  
 Following a recommendation made at the event celebrating the 30
th anniversary of the WTO 
Valuation Agreement, an initial discussion took pl ace regarding how the Committee could refresh its 
processes and procedures to meet new challenges, improve its service to Members and the business 
community and ensure it was fulfilling its mandate to  the WTO, as defined in the Agreement. Some 
constructive proposals were made and the Committee agreed to continue discussions at the next 
Session. 
 
Revenue Package 
 
 The Committee was updated on the latest devel opments of the Revenue Package and provided 
some useful comments and voiced its support for the programme. 
 
Technical Assistance/Capacity Building 
 
 Since the last Policy Commission, a national event has been conducted in the Gambia to 
provide advice on the implementation of the WT O Valuation Agreement (20-24 September).  A 
regional event was held in Brazil for Spanish- speaking countries of the Americas and Caribbean 
Region, between 4 and 8 October.  Two facilitators  from Paraguay and Uruguay delivered this event 
for the WCO.  A valuation accreditation event for the East and Southern African Region would be 
held in Harare between 10 and 14 January 2011.  
    
 
__________