RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/VAL/M/46/Rev.1 
29 April 2009 
 (09-2067) 
Committee on Customs Valuation  
  
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 17 OCTOBER 2008 
 
Chairman: Octavia Cerchez (Romania)
 
 
Revision  
 
  The agenda proposed for the meeting, circ ulated in WTO/AIR/3254 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. NOTIFICATION OF NATIONAL LEGISLATION ................................................................................2  
III. INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION OF DECISIONS OF THE 
COMMITTEE ON CUSTOMS  VALUATION......................................................................9  
IV. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ..................................................................................................9  
V. TRANSITIONAL REVIEW IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 18 OF 
THE PROTOCOL OF ACCESSION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA .......................................................................................................................... .............9
 
VI. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN 
GOODS .......................................................................................................................... ..........10  
VII. FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH, SEVENTH, EIGHTH, NINTH, TENTH, 
ELEVENTH, TWELFTH, AND THIRTEENTH ANNUAL REVIEWS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION OF THE CUSTOMS VALUATION AGREEMENT ...................................................................................................................... ..10
 
VIII.  PRESHIPMENT INSPECTION ...........................................................................................11  
IX. PARAGRAPH 12 OF THE DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION 
(WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1):  IMPLEMENTATION-RELATED ISSUES................................11  
X. OTHER BUSINESS................................................................................................................1 3 
 
_______________ 
 
 G/VAL/M/46/Rev.1 
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 between the 26th and 27th session, which would be held on 20 – 25 October 2008.  This 
report is contained in Annex I.  
 
1.2 The Committee took note  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, 
adopted by the Tokyo Round Committee, required each Member to notify its legislation to the 
Committee.  She suggested that, under this sub- item, the Committee take up the legislations in 
sequence as listed in the agenda.  She further recal led that the notification of legislation by the 
Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu had been presented to the 
Committee.  However, the examination of this no tification remained suspended since the Committee's 
meeting on 4-5 November 2002 pending resolution of  the difference in views between the parties 
involved on notifications across the WTO.   
 
- Albania 
 
2.2 The Chairman  drew Members' attention to Albania' s responses to the Checklist of Issues 
which were circulated in document G/VAL/N/2/ALB /1.  She recalled that Albania had notified its 
national legislation in document G/VAL/N/1/ ALB/1 in September 2001 and the Committee had 
concluded its examination of  this legislation at its meeting on 25 October 2001. 
 2.3 The representative of Canada
 recalled that at the last meeting, her delegation had asked two 
technical questions on Albania's notification re lated to inter-company prices and the appeals 
procedure.  Her delegation's questions were in the report of the last meeting.  However, since her 
delegation did not receive a response from Albani a, she would circulate the questions through the 
Secretariat.  She asked that the item remain on the agenda of the Committee's next meeting.   
 2.4 The Chairman
 proposed that the Committee takes note of the statement made and reverts to 
this notification at its next meeting. 
 2.5 It was so agreed
. 
 
 - Bahrain 
 2.6 The Chairman
 drew Members' attention to Bahrain' s responses to the Checklist of Issues 
circulated in document G/VAL/N/2/BHR/1.  The Secr etariat had informed her that Bahrain had also 
notified its implementing  legislation.  However, it was not yet complete and would be circulated once 
complete.  She therefore, suggested that the Comm ittee defers its examination of the responses to the 
Checklist of Issues, pending circulation of the national legislation. 
 
2.7 It was so agreed .  G/VAL/M/46/Rev.1 
 Page 3 
 
 
   - Belize 
 
2.8 The Chairman  drew Members' attention to Belize's notif ication of its legislation circulated in 
document G/VAL/N/1/BLZ/1.  This document contai ned Chapter 48 of the Customs And Excise Duty 
Act, of 2000.  Belize also notified its r esponses to the Checklist of Issues in document 
G/VAL/N/2/BLZ/1. 
 2.9 The representative of the United States
 stated that her delegation did not see the interpretative 
notes to Annex I of the Agreement incorporated in  the legislation and asked where these provisions 
might be found in the Belize legislation.  
 
2.10 The representative of Canada  said that her delegation also had a question similar to that of the 
US.  Her delegation had 3 additiona l questions on the right to appeal without penalty, publication and 
explanations in writing.  She would submit these questions in writing to Belize before the next 
meeting.   
 
2.11 The Chairman  proposed that the Committee takes note of the statements made and reverts to 
this matter at its next meeting.  2.12 It was so agreed
. 
  - 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 last 
meeting and these were circulated in G/VAL/W/168 and Corr.1. 
 
2.14 The representative of China  responded to the questions from the United States.  The first 
question focused on the disclosure of confiden tial, commercial information by the customs 
administration.  According to Article 10 of the Ag reement, confidential info rmation should not be 
disclosed except to the extent that it may be requi red to be disclosed in the context of judiciary 
proceedings. The rules regarding determination of  customs value of imported and exported goods as 
mentioned were in full conformity with the prin ciples of the Agreement in that any information 
relating to the determination of customs value, which was by nature, confidential should not be 
disclosed to any party other than customs, unless in some cases as provided in the Article 45 of the 
criminal procedural law of the People's Republic  of China.  The second question related to the 
conditions under which the reversal  of Articles 5 and 6 of the Agreement may be applied.  Still, 
Article 6 of the Chinese legislation was consistent with Article 4 of the Agreement which stipulated 
that, at the request of the importer, the order of the application of Articles 5 and 6 shall be reserved. It 
was clear that the success of application of th e computed value method was based on relevant but 
sufficient information.   2.15 The third question concerned the definiti on and proper application of Article 7 of the 
Agreement.  Article 7 of the Agreement stipulated that the application of reasonable means should be 
consistent with the principles and the general provi sions of the Agreement and should be based on the 
data available in the country of importation. Pa ragraphs 2 and 3 of the notes to Article 7 of the 
Agreement emphasized that such methods would be in  conformity with the aims and the provisions of 
Article 7, while following up the question of order in a more flexible way.  Instead of providing a 
strict definition of the reasonable methods of Article  7, the Agreement only stipulated the application 
of principles.  Considering this, China Customs set forth a definition for applying the reasonable 
method which embodied not only the norms and the principles of Article 7 of the Agreement, but also those reflected in its interpretative notes.  Questi on 4 touched upon the assumption of the omission of 
a sales test.  The same question was once raised by  the US and China's reply could be found in G/VAL/M/46/Rev.1 
Page 4  
 
  document G/VAL/W/141 of 23 Oct. 2004.  The provi sions of Article 1.2 and the corresponding notes 
were embodied in the Chinese legislation.  It was al so provided that the transaction value could not be 
refused simply on the grounds that the seller and the buyer were related.  China Customs carried out a 
price test or conducted an examination of the circum stances of the sale in a ccordance with the relative 
provisions stipulated in Articles 17 and 48 of the Chinese legislation.   
 
2.16 With respect to question 5 regarding the time-limit set for the importer/buyer to make a 
response, it should be noted that China Customs did not compel the duty payer to provide information.  According to Article 1.2 of the Agreement and its corresponding note, his delegation 
understood that to provide information to customs was an important right granted to the duty payer to 
cooperate with customs in order to lessen or avoi d misunderstandings.  His Government believed that 
mutual understanding and successful consultations be tween the two parties would enable the customs 
value to be determined in a fair, uniform and neutral system avoiding unnecessary loss to the duty 
payer. Secondly, in such cases wh ere the customs administration had reason to consider that the 
relationship did influence the price and the duty pa yer did not provide the information to reassure 
customs, then the customs value could not be de termined on the basis of the transaction value and 
would be determined by applying the method of relationship laid down in Article 6 in sequential 
order.  Thirdly, assuring customs clearance remain ed one of the most important tasks for China 
customs and practically most importers were able to provide the information within the set time limit. 
Ten more working days were permitted at the reque st of the duty payer which meant that, according 
to Article 48 of the Chinese legislation, importers  were possibly given 10 to 15 working days to 
submit relevant information. Furthermore, in sp ecial cases the extension could be considered to 
exceed 15 working days.   2.17 The seventh question was related to the customs value of special imported goods, and the 
pertinence of certain provisions under Chapter 3 of the Chinese legislation.  Specially imported goods 
in the provisions of Chapter 3 did not refer to specifi c items but rather to the goods that entered into 
the customs territory of China by special trade term s or special arrangements.  On the eighth question 
he stressed that the Chinese legislation was consiste nt with the provisions in Articles 11 and 13 of the 
Agreement. The obligations of Ar ticles 11 and 13 of the Agreement could be found in the provisions 
of the Chinese valuation legislation at three different  levels. The first level was the law of the People's 
Republic of China;  the second level was the regulat ions of the PRC on import and export duties;   and 
the third level was the rules formulated by the Cu stoms Administration such as the rules regarding the 
determination of the customs value of importe d and exported goods, and the rules of the PRC 
regarding administrative reconsideration of custom s matter.  The last question also clarified the 
correct understanding or note falling unde r Article 5 of the Agreement.  It was clear that mention was 
made for commissions or for profit and general expen ses.  Since the role of the person in business was 
easy to identify, it was not hard to distinguish the identity of the importer from its agent.  Both sums 
might eventually, but respectively, be deducted from the customs value.  It would not be assumed that 
the scope of the duty basis was also to be used fo r the purpose of customs valuation.  China had been 
committed to fully implementing the Agreement since its  accession to the WTO.  It had consistently 
made its best endeavour to improve  its national legislation on customs valuation, including the formal 
incorporation of the interpretative notes to the Articles within the fra mework of the Agreement.  The 
notes to Articles 1, 5, 6, and 7, mentioned in the US  questions were reflected in China's legislation. 
 2.18 The representative of the United States
 requested that the Chinese responses be submitted in 
writing so that her delegation could have time to review them prior to the next meeting of the 
Committee.  She reserved her delegation's right to pose follow-up questions after its review of the 
responses.   
 2.19 The representative of China
 said that his delegation would provide the written responses to 
the Committee.   G/VAL/M/46/Rev.1 
 Page 5 
 
 
  2.20 The representative of  the European Communities  said that his delegation looked forward to 
receiving the responses in written form as well.  He not ed that, in a few areas, the Chinese legislation 
was presented in an innovative way, structured diffe rently that the Agreement.  On example was the 
provisions on royalties and licence fees.  While it remained to be seen in practice how these 
provisions would actually be applied, royalties and licence fees was an area with which many customs 
administrations had struggled.  The way these provi sions were presented in the Chinese legislation 
might actually be useful in helping traders to unde rstand the rules and the customs administrations to 
apply them.  Having separate and different headings  for aspects of royalties and licence fees was an 
interesting way to structure the rules, and his de legation looked forward to seeing how useful this 
turned out to be in practice over the years.  
 
2.21 He noted that, in Article 7.2, the title sec tion was "transaction value methods".  He asked if 
this was meant to be in the singular form referri ng to the one and only transaction value method.  He 
added that there appeared to be  several mentions in the law of  how the goods had to be valued 
subsequent to processing in an export processing zone or in other free-zone type arrangements.  There 
may be some differences in approach in terms of how  the rules might be applied.  While he was aware 
that administrations might feel the need to make  specific valuation rules for goods which had come 
through industrial zones, it would be interesting to see how the rules were applied in practice.  There 
seemed to be a tendency in the legi slation to consider additional situ ations not normally mentioned in 
the WTO Agreement.  Another example included the case under Article 52 where, if a trader actually 
requested it, customs would not make any further e nquiry or examination to determine the value.  
Customs would simply use previously determin ed customs values for the same goods.  This was 
another innovation and might be quite useful.  Wh ile he might have other comments about the way 
the provisions were expressed, what was important  was how they were applied in practice.   
 2.22 The Chairman
 proposed that the Committee takes note of the statements made and reverts to 
this matter at its next meeting. 
 2.23 It was so agreed
. 
 
 - Egypt 
 2.24 The Chairman
 recalled that at the previous meetin g it was agreed to revert to Egypt's 
legislation and responses to the checklist of issues.  The United States and Canada had posed questions to Egypt at the October 2007 meeting wh ich were circulated in document G/VAL/W/166.  
Egypt circulated its responses in document G/VAL/W/169.  
2.25 The representative of the United States
 posed a few follow-up questions in its continuing 
efforts to clarify some of the provisions in th e Egyptian legislation.  Her delegation would be 
submitting a question asking for clarification of Egypt 's response on Article 13 and situations where  
goods were prohibited.  Also on page 5 of Egypt's responses, there was reference to the fact that  
customs took promptly into consideration the inte rpretative notes of the Agreement along with the 
Egyptian customs law.  Her delegation would s ubmit a follow-up question on how customs officers 
would have access to these interpretative notes in or der to take them properly into account.  Her 
delegation continued to have c oncerns and questions about Artic les 22 and 23 of Law No. 95 from 
2005, the notified legislation.  It asked what was meant by the term "actual value."   Her delegation 
looked forward to working with Egypt in impr oving its understanding of the Egyptian legislative 
framework.   
 
2.26 The representative of Canada  said that her delegation also had a follow-up question.  Egypt's 
response suggested that the right of appeal to the judiciary branch was not universal, particularly for 
cases stated in arbitration law.  Her delegation s ought more clarity on the specific circumstances 
where the judiciary was available, and confirmation that they followed Article 22 of the Agreement G/VAL/M/46/Rev.1 
Page 6  
 
  and provided the decision in writing.  She asked if all traders would be informed of their further 
appeal rights and whether all customs decisions co uld be appealed to the judiciary level without 
penalty.  Her delegation would follow-up this matter bilaterally with Egypt.  
 
2.27 The representative of Egypt  said that his delegation looked forward to receiving the questions 
in writing in order to be able to answer them correctly before the next meeting. 
 
2.28 The Chairman  proposed that the Committee takes note of the statements made and reverts to 
this matter at its next meeting.  2.29 It was so agreed
. 
  - Nigeria 
2.30 The Chairman
 drew Members' attention to the notif ication received from Nigeria in document 
G/VAL/N/1/NGA/1.  This notification contained the Act to Amend the Customs and Excise Management Act of 2003.  Nigeria also notified its  responses to the Checklist of Issues in document 
G/VAL/N/2/NGA/1. 
 
2.31 The representative of the United States
 had a question that it would be submitting in writing.  
It concerned Article 8 of the legislation concerning importers being allowed to reverse the application 
of Articles 5 and 6 of the Agreement.  Based on her delegation's research, it did not appear that 
Nigeria had made a reservation on this.  Her delega tion was surprised to see this provision in the 
Nigerian legislation and sought to understand its basis.   Her delegation also had several other 
questions that it would submit and looked forward to answers and further discussion of this item. 
 
2.32 The representative of Canada  also had some questions that it would submit in writing to the 
Nigerian delegation. They were mainly related to Ar ticle 4 and the reversal of the order of Articles 5 
and 6 of the Agreement.  Other questions concer ned confidentiality of information in Article 10, 
appeals in Article 11, access to the judiciary branch , and particularly a questi on related to paragraphs 
2, 2.b and 3.b of the Nigerian legislation that re quired the use of the greater value where the use of 
two values were possible.  This was contrary to the Agreement in Articles 2.3 and 3.3 which required 
the lowest value to be used.  
 
2.33 The representative of  the European Communities  noted that the first Article simply said the 
"customs value shall be the transaction value".  It  did not then make refere nce to paragraph 7 which 
said that the customs value was the price of th e goods. Normally these 2 concepts were grouped 
together as they were found in Article 1 of the Ag reement.  On another point, in the categories of 
parties who would be regarded as related parties, di fferent wording as that of  the Agreement was used 
and this could be confusing to the reader.  Also , the legislation referred to the release of goods 
provided the buyer provided adequate surety, deposit or another appropriate instrument.  The adequate 
surety would be for the customs duty that may be payable, whereas the alternative being a deposit or 
another appropriate instrument to cover the ultimate of customs duties. This might seem excessive, but sometimes these slight change of words could act ually have an effect on the customs procedures.  
This may be a small matter that could be clarified quickly by Nigeria.  
 
2.34 The representative of Nigeria  said that his delegation was looking forward to receiving these  
questions in writing so that they could be refe rred to the Capital for further clarification and 
responses.   2.35 The Chairman
 proposed that the Committee takes note of the statements made and reverts to 
this matter at its next meeting.  
2.36 It was so agreed
.  G/VAL/M/46/Rev.1 
 Page 7 
 
 
   - Oman 
 
2.37 The Chairman  drew Members' attention to Oman's notification in document 
G/VAL/N/1/OMN/2 which contained the Sultani D ecree No. 67/2003 on Application of the Unified 
Customs Law of the Arab Gulf Cooperation Coun cil.  This unified GCC Customs Law replaced 
Oman's Customs Law which had been notified under document G/VAL/N/1/OMN/1 of 25 January 
2001.  Oman had also notified its responses  to the Checklist of Issues in document 
G/VAL/N/2/OMN/1.    2.38 As there were no statements, the Chairman
 proposed to conclude the examination of Oman's 
legislation. 
 2.39 It was so agreed.  
 - Tanzania 
 
2.40 The Chairman
 recalled that it had been agreed to revert to this notification at this meeting.  At 
the previous meeting, the United States had indicated  that it had concerns with Tanzania's valuation 
methodology for used clothing.  His delegation soug ht clarification on how Tanzania determined the 
value of used clothing and how such valuation conformed to the Agreement.    
2.41 The representative of the United States
 reiterated her delegation's concern about the 
Tanzanian valuation methodology for used clothing a nd remained interested in knowing the valuation 
method used.  Her delegation was aware that the West African Community was currently reviewing 
this issue and looked forward to the results and ultimate outcome from this study.  
2.42 The Chairman
 proposed that the Committee takes note of the statement made and reverts to 
this matter at its next meeting.  2.43 It was so agreed
. 
 
 - Thailand 
2.44 The Chairman  recalled that at the previous meeting it had been agreed to revert to this 
legislation at this meeting.  The United States ha d 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 in document G/VAL/W/143 of November 2004.  Thailand's responses to these 
questions were circulated in document G/VAL/W /158.  Additional questions from the European 
Communities and the United States regarding Thaila nd's valuation of alcoho lic beverages imports 
were circulated prior to the last meeting in doc ument G/VAL/W/160.  And, following the last meeting 
the Philippines circulated questions regarding Tha iland's valuation of cigarettes in G/VAL/W/164 and 
the United States circulated additional questi ons on the legislation in G/VAL/W/165.   
 2.45 The representative of Thailand
 informed the Committee that her delegation had just received 
written answers from the capital which it had already passed on to the US.  It hoped that the US would 
be satisfied with its responses this time, and it would circulated these responses to the Committee for 
transparency purposes.  2.46 The representative of  the European Communities
 looked forward to seeing the responses as 
soon as possible.  His delegation was consulting w ith Thailand and believed that good progress was 
being made.  Some time was going to be needed for confirmation and updates from all contributors to 
the process, and hopefully this coul d be done soon. He reiterated th e importance of the notification 
process in the Committee and hoped that, with the responses from Thailand, the process in the G/VAL/M/46/Rev.1 
Page 8  
 
  Committee could be concluded.  As a general rema rk he noted that sometimes notifications dated 
several years back.  It was important for the Committee to be sure that it was following the 
sequencing of legislation and the changes made.  This  was important in order to have the full picture 
of the current state of legislation. While he beli eved that this was the case under this item, his 
delegation was always interested in any new inform ation regarding the legislations of Members.   
 
2.47 The representative of the United States
 confirmed that her delegation had received the 
answers from Thailand prior to the meeting.  It woul d review them and perhaps come back with some 
follow-up questions.  Her delegation would appreciate it if the responses could be circulated to the 
entire Committee.    
 
2.48 The Chairman  proposed that the Committee takes note of the statements made and reverts to 
this matter at its next meeting.  2.49 The Committee so agreed
. 
 
 - Ukraine 
2.50 The Chairman  drew Members' attention to the notification received from the Ukraine in 
document G/VAL/N/1/UKR/1.  The notification contained an Abstract from the Section XI of the Customs Code, 11 July 2002, No. 92-IV;  the Decisi on of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine "On 
Approval of the Order of Declaration of the Cu stoms Value of Commodities Crossing the Customs 
Border of Ukraine, and Presentation of Information for its Confirmation";  the Order of the State 
Customs Service of 31 January 2007 "On A pproval of Methodological Recommendations on 
Application of certain provisions of the Custom s Code of Ukraine, which concerned issues of 
definition of the customs value of commodities import ed to the customs territory of Ukraine”;  and  
the Decision of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukrain e “On approval of the Order of exercising control 
over the accuracy of determination of the customs value of commodities” of 9 April 2008, No.339.  
Ukraine had also submitted its responses to the Checklist of Issues in document G/VAL/N/2/UKR/1. 
 2.51 The representative of the European Communities
 noted some issues in the legislation which 
could be related to translation problems.  His delegation would study the texts further and discuss 
bilaterally with Ukraine with a view to reverting to the matter at the next meeting of the Committee.   
He noted, as well, that there was an increasing tende ncy for Members to include the procedural parts 
of their laws when submitting customs valuation legi slation.   Given the large amount of information 
presented, his delegation wanted to be sure that it clearly understood the legislation before coming to 
the Committee with specific questions.   
2.52 The representative of the United States
 supported the statement by the European 
Communities.  She noted that Ukraine had work ed hard on customs valuation during the accession 
process.  The translations provided during that process seemed to be better than the translations that 
were before the Committee.  In this regard, she al so believed that any quest ions that his delegation 
had would probably be related to translations issues.   Her delegation would fo llow up bilaterally with 
Ukraine. 
 
2.53 The Chairman  proposed that the Committee takes note of the statements made and reverts to 
this matter at its next meeting.  2.54 The Committee so agreed
. 
  G/VAL/M/46/Rev.1 
 Page 9 
 
 
  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 Da ta Processing Equipment", both adopted by the Committee and 
contained in document G/VAL/5.  Since the last mee ting, Albania had notified its application of the two 
Decisions as of 8 September 2000 and Ukraine had notif ied its application of the two Decisions as of 20 
March 2006.  This was recorded in the updated doc ument G/VAL/W/5/Rev.20.  She urged Members to 
notify the Committee, as necessary, on their practices regarding these two Decisi ons.  She proposed that 
the Committee takes note of this information. 
 3.2 The Committee so agreed
. 
 
IV. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 
 - Information on Technical Assistance 
 
4.1 The Chairman  recalled that under this item, the Secret ariat informed Member s of the technical 
assistance activiti es carried out under the auspices of the WCO.  Given that the 27th Session of the 
Technical Committee on Customs Valu ation would be held the follow ing week, this information was 
not available in time to be reported at today's meeting.  It would be reported at the next meeting of the 
Committee.   
 
 - Article 20.3 Technical Assistance and Trade-Related Technical Assistance 
 
4.2 The Chairman  recalled that the Committee’s Work Programme on Technical Assistance for 
Capacity Building as Regards the Implementation and Administration of the WTO Agreement on 
Customs Valuation was contained in documen t G/VAL/W/82/Rev.1.   The Committee noted 
previously that customs valuation technical assist ance was incorporated in the WTO-wide technical 
assistance program. The 2008-9 Plan did not contain an y regional activities on customs valuation.   
Requests for technical assistance on customs valua tion could be made at any time by individual 
Members and would be met by a national activity desi gned to meet the needs of the recipient.  One 
such national activity was scheduled to be carri ed out in Zimbabwe on 27-30 October 2008.  While 
she encouraged Members to inform the Committe e of technical assistance and capacity building 
activities that they had provided on bilateral or ot her bases, no such information had been received for 
this meeting.  She proposed that the Committee takes note of this information. 
 
4.3 The Committee so agreed . 
 
V. TRANSITIONAL REVIEW IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE 
PROTOCOL OF ACCESSION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA 
5.1 The Chairman  informed Members that, in accordance with paragraph 18 of the Protocol of 
Accession of the People's Republic of China, the Co mmittee was to report to the Council for Trade in 
Goods on the outcome of this Review, which w ould then report to the General Council.  The 
Committee conducted its sixth Transitional Re view in 2007, where China explained its 
implementation efforts with regard to the Agre ement on Customs Valuati on and responded to the 
questions raised.  She noted that China had recen tly submitted an informational document for this 
Review.  This had been circulated in document G/VAL/W/172.   
 G/VAL/M/46/Rev.1 
Page 10  
 
  5.2 In the absence of any statements, she pr oposed that the Committee takes note of the 
information provided by China and that the Secr etariat prepares a short factual report on this 
Transitional Review as had been done in previous years.  She would then submit this report to the 
Council for Trade in Goods under her own responsibility.  
5.3 The Committee so agreed
. 
 
VI. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
6.1 The Chairman  drew Members' attention to document  G/VAL/W/170 which contained the draft 
report of the Committee to the Coun cil for Trade in Goods. She asked for any comments on the text.   
 
6.2 The representative of Thailand  reserved her delegation's right to comment on the updated draft 
that would be circulated to Members before circulation.    6.3 The representative of the European Communities
 requested a correction be made to reflect the 
current Membership of the EC.  He  asked if the word "complaint" was the usual language to use in 
this type of report when referring to views exch anged among Members on notifi cations.  If this was 
not the usual language used, he requested that  the different terms be made compatible. 
 6.4 The representative of Thailand
 shared this concern and asked that some other language be 
used instead of "complaint".   
 
6.5 The representative of the United States  supported the request to change the language.   
 6.6 The Chairman
 proposed that the Committee takes note of the statements made.  She proposed 
that the Secretariat revises the document to include the changes and updates the document to include the 
present meeting.  It would then be sent by fax to Members allowing them five day to comment. After 
this period, the report would be forwarded to the Council for Trade in Goods.   
 6.7 The Committee so agreed
. 
 
VII. FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH, SEVENTH, EIGHTH, NINTH, TENTH, ELEVENTH, 
TWELFTH, AND THIRTEENTH ANNUAL REVIEWS OF THE 
IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION OF THE CUSTOMS VALUATION AGREEMENT 
7.1 The Chairman
 recalled that at its previous meeti ng, the Committee took note of the nine 
documents containing the Fourth through Thirteen th Annual Reviews in documents G/VAL/W/29, 
G/VAL/W/43, G/VAL/W/77, G/VAL/W/89, G/ VAL/W/109, G/VAL/W/124, G/VAL/W/136, 
G/VAL/W/150, G/VAL/W/156 and Corr. 1, and G/VAL/W/162.  Today, the fourteenth annual review , 
circulated in document G/VAL/W/171, was added to th is list.  She asked India to update the Committee. 
   7.2 The representative of India
 stated that his delegation had nothing new to report.  He would 
come back to this matter at the next meeting of the Committee.    
 
7.3 The representative of the European Communities  reiterated that his delegation looked forward 
to resolution of this issue which it believed was ripe for resolution.  It hoped that at the next meeting 
the matter could be resolved.  The Committee should not have to go through the item at each meeting 
and its annual reviews shoul d be brought up to date. 
 
7.4 The Chairman  proposed that the Committee takes note of the statements made and reverts to 
this matter at its next meeting.  G/VAL/M/46/Rev.1 
 Page 11 
 
 
  7.5 The Committee so agreed . 
 
VIII.  PRESHIPMENT INSPECTION 
8.1 The Chairman  recalled that Preshipment Inspection was a standing item on the agenda of the 
Committee on Customs Valuation.  She drew Member s' attention to two documents which had been 
circulated since the last Committe e meeting.  Document G/VAL/W/63/Rev.10 contained an update of 
the information received from the International Fe deration of Inspection Agencies on countries which 
used preshipment inspection services, and G/PSI/N/1 /Add.11 contained an update of the notifications 
received under the PSI Agreement since July 2004.    
8.2 The representative of the United States
 expressed her delegation's appreciation for the report, 
which it continued to value as a mechanism to allow all Members to monitor the use of PSI 
companies.  Her delegation looked forward to all Members reporting any changes in this area. 
 8.3 The representative of the European Communities
 asked if the categories contained in the first 
document were those created by the Internationa l Federation of Inspection Agencies (IFIA).  His 
delegation was particularly interested in the cate gory entitled "Other programs for customs not subject 
to the WTO Agreement on PSI" and was not aware of programmes so described.   8.4 The WTO Secretariat
 informed Members that the docum ent was prepared by IFIA.  The 
categories were created by IFIA and, as such, the document was duplicated in its entirety for 
circulation to Members.    
 8.5 The Chairman
 proposed that the Committee takes note of the information provided and the 
statements made.  
8.6 The Committee so agreed
. 
 
IX. PARAGRAPH 12 OF THE DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION 
(WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1):  IMPLEMENTATION-RELATED ISSUES 
- Paragraph 8.3 of document WT/MIN/(01)/17  
 
9.1 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.  At its previous meeting,  the Committee had an exchange of views on the 
proposal that was circulated by India in Job(07) 153.  Although the exchange was inconclusive, 
several delegations commented on the fact that this matter was being discussed in two fora at the same 
time and some questioned the usefulness of this approach.  It was agreed to revert to this matter at this 
meeting.    9.2 The representative of India
 noted that his delegation's proposal had been debated since 2002.  
It was simply about operationalizing the ministerial mandate contained in para graph 8.3 of the Doha 
Declaration.  His delegation's proposal provided a format and a procedure for the exchange of 
customs valuation information between customs administration.  The proposal also provided certain safeguards to limit requests, including the provisions for confidentiality of the information exchanged. 
During the course of the debate, his delegation had received suggestions from Members which he 
classified under 3 categories: 1) the issue of confiden tiality; 2) the elements of the proposal; and 3) the 
nature of the obligations.  He reiterated that pa ragraph 8.3 did not contain any wording which required 
that the exchange of information be voluntary.  If it had to be voluntary, then it was not necessary to 
discuss the matter here.  As for the first two categor ies, his predecessor had issued a statement and a G/VAL/M/46/Rev.1 
Page 12  
 
  document in which his delegation had tried to address the comments and the concerns of Members.   
His delegation was looking forward to Members'  comments and to a fruitful outcome to the 
consideration of this item.  He added that the f act that the matter was being discussed in another WTO 
body did not affect what was being discussed in th is Committee.  This Committee had a mandate to 
operationalize the mandate in paragraph 8.3 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration. 
 
9.3 The representative of Canada
 agreed that the Committee had a specific mandate in the  Doha 
Declaration and her delegation treated it in that  way when it looked at the matter from a customs 
valuation perspective. The Decision in paragraph 8.3 was clear:  when information exchange was 
sought, the exporting Member shall offer cooperation and assistance cons istent with its domestic laws 
and procedures. Canada maintained that the caveat  that assistance be given consistent with its 
domestic laws suggested that some Members would have difficulty in assisting in all cases. Therefore 8.3 was not binding.  In keeping with this, her de legation did not believe that the proposal so far 
provided exactly the solution that was needed in th is Committee.  India's proposal did not provide for 
cases where a Member could decline a request if it had concerns about the use of the information, 
confidentiality, or consistency with  its domestic laws given that th e information collected would be 
under the domestic laws of the Member concerned. It was important to respect this confidentiality. 
Canada had maintained in previ ous meetings that the Technical Committee on Customs Valuation had 
provided updates on how to deal with situations wh ere customs had doubts about the truth or accuracy 
of the values declared.  Her delegation encouraged India to examine these procedures.  Her delegation 
remained of the opinion that the TCCV had provided good advice on how to operationalise this 
Decision and her delegation supported the emergi ng consensus on a draft decision from this 
Committee in 2002.  Most Members had been ready to adopt this draft decision but India was not.  
Her delegation still believed that India had to come forward and address Members' concerns. 
 9.4 The representative of the United States
 pointed to the fact that this matter was being 
discussed in another forum.  There was a good and r obust discussion in that forum on this issue and 
many of the elements that were contained in th e most recent Indian proposal were being discussed 
there.  Her delegation reiterated its position that th is other forum was the appropriate place for that 
discussion.  9.5 The representative of Hong Kong, China
 echoed other colleagues'  comment about India's 
original proposal.  Paragraph 8.3 clearly stated that  the cooperation needed to be consistent with the 
domestic laws and regulations.  Because of the lega l implication, his delegation looked forward to 
India coming up with some solutions to a ddress Members' concerns in this regard. 
 9.6 The representative of India
 recalled that his delegation's proposal stated that the information 
furnished should be treated as conf idential in accordance with Article 10 of the Agreement.  However, 
in cases where it was required to disclose the in formation in judicial proceedings, necessary 
permission for that purpose should also be provided if sought by the requesting administration. In 
comparing the provisions of the existing Agreement with his delegation's proposal, the latter was 
more liberal than the former.  Article 10 of the Ag reement clearly stated that any information which 
was provided by a Member had to be treated as conf idential except to the extent it may be required to 
be disclose in judicial proceeding.  So the existi ng Agreement already authorised Members to use the 
information obtained on a confidential basis in judi cial proceedings.  Rather, his delegation had gone 
further by saying that where it was required to di sclose the information in judicial proceedings, 
necessary permission for that purpose should be provide d if sought by the requesting administration. 
 
9.7 The representative of Singapore  also recalled that paragraph 8.3 of the Decision actually 
stated that when information exchange was sought, the exporting Member shall offer cooperation 
consistent with domestic laws a nd procedures. This meant that the mandate did not provide for a 
binding mechanism.  While his delegation was ope n to discussing how to operationalise paragraph 
8.3, it was still unable to see how the Indian proposal would be able to fulfil the mandate.  It was also  G/VAL/M/46/Rev.1 
 Page 13 
 
 
  pointed out by the US delegation that the appropriate forum for discussion of this proposal was the 
Trade Facilitation Negotiating Group.  The Committ ee should examine the efficiency as well as the 
interface of these two discussions taking place in paralle l.  He also thanked Canada for reminding the 
Committee of the historical situation back in 2002.  
9.8 The representative of Japan
 said that his delegation was also of the view that the Decision in 
Paragraph 8.3 of the Doha Ministerial Decision clea rly mentioned that the information exchange was 
to be conducted in line with each Member's domes tic laws and regulations.  Therefore there was no 
binding nature to this Decision.  His delegation also raised the question of the same issue being 
discussed in two different fora.  He concluded that his delegation wanted to be included in any further 
discussion on this matter.   
 9.9 The representative of Thailand
 also noted that this matter was being discussed elsewhere and 
acknowledged the extensive work done in the World Customs Organization.  Her authorities were 
currently studying the Indian proposal s and needed more time to consider this issue carefully before 
providing further comments.  Having said this, her de legation was willing to en gage in any forum of 
discussions with all interested Member to further understand this proposal.  9.10 The representative of Korea
 also supported discussing this ma tter in the other forum under the 
WTO.  Considering the mandate of paragraph 8.3,  his delegation believed that the exchange of 
valuation information should be on a bilateral and non-binding basis. 
 
9.11 The Chairman  proposed that the Committee takes note of the statements made and reverts to 
this matter at its next meeting.  9.12 The Committee so agreed
. 
 
X. OTHER BUSINESS 
 - Questions posed to India on its valuation practices 
 
10.1 The representative of the United States  recalled that his delegati on had submitted questions to 
the delegations of India and Indonesia at the previo us meeting.  His delegation had received responses 
to its questions from the Indian delegation for whic h it was grateful.  His delegation was still waiting 
for responses from Indonesia and, therefore, wish ed to leave this matter as a standing request. 
 10.2 The representative of India
 presented his delegation's responses orally and would follow with 
written responses.  In his view, the US's primary area of concern was the non-receipt of 
documentation such as Show Cause Notice. The point  raised was that because the importer or the 
exporter did not receive the Show Cause Notice, th ey were precluded from filing the appeal. But this 
was not correct.  Under Indian law, if an impor ter/exporter was aggrieved by an assessment order, 
he/she could file an appeal to the authorities.  If the order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of 
Customs, the appeal could be filed with the Comm issioner of Customs, or if it the order was passed 
by the Commissioner of Customs, the appeal could be  filed with the Tribunal.  The appeal could be 
filed on the strength of the assessment order itself.  He responded directly to the specific questions:  
(i)  Could India please explain how companies were informed of actions taken by Indian Customs 
with regard to them or their shipments?  He r esponded that the document was either filed by the 
importer or by a customs broker.  So whenever the cu stoms had any queries to raise, they would either 
write to the importer or to the customs office agent.  (ii) Could India confirm that an appeal cannot be 
made until documentation is received?  As he had pr eviously clarified, the answer was no since there 
was no documentation requirement for filing an app eal, only a copy of the assessment was necessary.  
He informed the Committee that in  2006, the Customs Act was amended.  In paragraph 5 of Section 
17, dealing with assessment of duty, the law was ame nded to provide that if the order of assessment G/VAL/M/46/Rev.1 
Page 14  
 
  was controlled to the claim filed by the importer on the issue of classification, valuation, or rate of 
duty, or the assessment order passed by the custom s official was not approved or confirmed by the 
importer or its authorizing agent, then the official concerned was duty bound under the law to provide a speaking order within 15 days of the assessment.  So, if any importer/exporter was aggrieved by the 
speaking order, he/she could file an appeal;  (iii)   If documentation was required before an appeal 
could be lodged, were there guidelines as to when such documentation must be  provided?  There were 
no guidelines but the provisions were in the law its elf.  As he had mentioned above, if the official 
gave a decision that was contrary to the claim of the importer/exporter, he/s he would have to pass a 
speaking order.  Using the speaking order, the importer/exporter could file an appeal.    
10.3 He continued to the next question:  (iv)  If a company requested documentation and did not 
receive it, were there avenues which the company could pursue to obtain such documentation?  He 
clarified that the order was required to be served to the affected party and the date of filing an appeal 
was counted from the date of its receipt by the party.   After the order was passed, within 2 months, the 
appeal must be filed.  If there was a delay in serving  the order, the time limit to file an appeal would 
not be affected.  (v) Could India confirm that an  importer had the right, not just the ability, to 
withdraw its goods by providing a guarantee as requi red by Article 13 of the CVA? If so, where was 
that stated in the law?  Section 18 of the Cu stoms Act dealt with provisional assessment. Three 
circumstances could give rise to provisional assessment:  the first was where the importer did not provide the documentation that was required for assessing the goods, the second was where the documentation was provided but the official still n eeded to examine the goods, and the third was 
where the importer provided all the information but the customs officer did not consider it was 
sufficient.  The Act said that in such cases, provisional assessment could be ordered pending the production or furnishing of the necessary documentati on or the completion of tests and inquiry, if the 
importer/exporter produced the security as the officer saw fit.  The provisions of Article 13 of the 
Agreement were along these lines and spoke about "s ufficient guarantee", without giving a definition 
of this term.  That was why it was at the discreti on of the customs officials to order a provisional 
assessment.  If the official believed that the importe r had filed a guarantee/security that was sufficient 
to cover the duty and penalties, the goods could be  cleared.  But this was not mandatory.  Customs 
had to make a determination whether to clear th e goods or not.  In reality, sometimes customs 
accepted a simple letter of undertaking, a corporate guarantee, a security, or a bank guarantee.  India 
did not follow a hard and fast rule.  But the law said that the importer/exporter had to provide a bond 
along with the security to cover the deficiency, i. e. the difference between the provisional and final 
assessment.  (vi)  Did India have any additiona l laws, regulations or directives pertaining to 
guarantees?  Please provide references for the additiona l laws, regulations, and directives.   According 
to Section 18 of the Customs Act, the Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regulations, 1963 
(Notification No. 181-Cus., dated 13.07.1963. Paragraphs  2, 3 and 4 of the said Regulations dealt with 
the execution of bond along with surety or security .  Finally, (vii) could India please provide 
additional information regarding how the guarantee amount was dete rmined and what procedures 
importers must follow in order to withdraw goods fro m customs pending final determination of value?  
The quantum of bond and surety or security depende d on the differential duty between the duty finally 
assessed and the duty provisionally assessed. The importer did not have the right to demand 
provisional assessment. The proper officer, pe nding production of any document/information 
necessary for assessment, may direct that the duty lia ble on the goods be assessed provisionally if the 
importer furnished security.  10.4 The representative of the European Communities
 noted that some attention to customs 
clearance was also being made in the discussions in the Trade Facilitation Negotiations.  He looked 
forward to seeing the responses in writing and, at  this stage, wondered whether this matter would 
benefit from some additional guidance at the international level.   
  G/VAL/M/46/Rev.1 
 Page 15 
 
 
  10.5 The representative of Canada  also looked forward to receiving the written responses since, on 
the issue of guarantees, there seemed to be some conflicting information on the provision of guarantees in  Indian law.    10.6 The representative of India
 shared the concerns of the EC.  He read out Article 13 of the 
Agreement.  The Article spoke about a "suffi cient" guarantee, without defining what was a 
"sufficient" guarantee.  The Indian law provided for the three conditions he had mentioned above for 
establishing provisional assessment.  He also spoke a bout the current economic situation which could 
call into question the soundness of certain banks, a nd therefore securities provided to release goods.  
Simply because an importer/exporter provided a guarant ee, did not mean that it was "sufficient".  It 
was up to customs to assure itself that the guarant ee was sufficient;  customs had the discretion to 
decide whether a guarantee was sufficient or not.    10.7 The Chairman
 proposed that the Committee tak es note of the statements made. 
 
10.8 The Committee so agreed . 
 
- Date of the next meeting 
 
10.9 The Chairman  informed Members that the next mee ting of the Committee was scheduled for 
7 May 2009. 
 
10.10 The meeting was adjourned.     
_______________ 
 
    G/VAL/M/46/Rev.1 
Page 16  
 
  Annex I 
 
Report of the work of the Technical Committee on Customs Valuation
 
 
 Since the last meeting of the Committee on Customs Valuation, the Technical Committee on 
Customs Valuation (Technical Committee) has not held any meeting. It will hold its 27th Session from 
20 to 24 October at the WCO Headquarters in Brussels.   The report of its 25
th Session and WCO Secretariat’s programme of technical assistance in the 
field of Customs valuation was pres ented to the Committee in May 2008. 
 
Administrative Matters Related to the Application of the Agreement  
  The Council, at its 111/112
th Sessions  in June 2008, adopted Case Study 13.2 on the 
Application of Decision 6.1 of the Committee on Customs Valuation (on Group under invoicing). 
 
Technical Assistance and Capacity Building  
  Since our last report to the Committee on Customs Valuation, the WCO Secretariat has conducted three regional seminars on implementa tion of the WTO Agreement.  These regional 
seminars took place in the Dominican Republic in Ma y, in Burkina Faso in July and in Bosnia and 
Herzegovina in September 2008. 
 Fellowship Programme
 
  The WCO has organized the 48
th Fellowship Programme for English-speaking officers from 29 
September to 24 October 2008 at the WCO Headquarters.  Four officers from the Customs 
administrations of Gambia, Guyana, Kenya and Zambia have chosen Customs valuation as their field of study.  27
th Session of the Technical Committee  
 
 At its 27th Session, the Technical Committee will continue to consider the technical questions of 
Royalties and License Fees submitted by Br azil, Canada, Colombia and Japan. 
 The Technical Committee will also di scuss the following technical issues: 
 
• Customs Valuation of imported electricity (Brazil) 
 
• Customs Valuation treatment of busin ess design documentation (Kazakhstan) 
 
• Valuation of perfume testers (Mauritius) 
 
• Valuation of cinematographic films (Mauritius) 
   The Technical Committee at its 27
th Session will also discuss the issue of Transfer Pricing, 
which was recommended by the Focus Group on Transfer Pricing in October 2007.  The OECD and 
the ICC will make presentations on the issue of Tr ansfer Pricing, and the Technical Committee will 
hold a preliminary discussion on developing draft case studies.  In addition, there has been a proposal 
for the Technical Committee to set up a Working Group on Transfer Pricing.    G/VAL/M/46/Rev.1 
 Page 17 
 
 
  Private Sector Workshops on Transfer Pricing  
  The Second Workshop on Customs Valuation and Transfer Pricing for the private sector was 
held on 14-15 May 2008 at the WCO.  The Third Workshop on the same topic will be held on 
24-25 November at the WCO.  
__________