WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
S/WPDR/W/47 
9 February 2012  
 
(12-0789) 
Working Party on Domestic Regulation  
  
 
"MEASURES OF GENERAL APPLICATION" 
IN WTO AGREEMENTS 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
 
 
1. At the request of the Working Party on Domestic  Regulation, this Secretariat Note seeks to 
clarify the understanding of the term "measures of ge neral application", in particular the meaning of 
the term "of general application" as contained in WTO Agreements.  The purpose of this Note is to 
assist Members in the context of the domestic regul ation negotiations mandated under Article VI:4 of 
the GATS.  It does not purport to interpret the u se of this term in documents submitted by Members 
nor does it seek to establish an interpretati on for any future dispute settlement cases.  
2. The Note is divided into three sections.  Th e first section compiles all instances where the 
term "of general application" appears in WTO Agre ements.  This is followed in the second section by 
a description of the instances where this term has been clarified in WTO Panel and Appellate Body 
reports.   Finally, the third section discusses the concept "of general application" based on the 
provisions and cases reviewed.  
I. THE TERM "OF GENERAL APPLICATION" IN WTO AGREEMENTS  
3. The term "of general application" appears in three separate provisions in the GATS, namely 
in Articles III:1, III:4 and VI:1.   In these provisions , the term is used with respect to "measures of 
general application".  
4. Article III:1, which sets out a transp arency obligation, provides that: 
1. Each Member shall publish promptly and,  except in emergency situations, at the 
latest by the time of their entr y into force, all relevant measures of general application which 
pertain to or affect the operation of this Agreem ent.  International agreements pertaining to or 
affecting trade in services to which a Member is a signatory shall also be published.   
5. Article III:4 on responses to requests for information provides that: 
4. Each Member shall respond promptly to all requests by any other Member for 
specific information on any of its measures of ge neral application or in ternational agreements 
within the meaning of paragraph 1.   
6. Article VI:1 of the GATS with respect to th e administration of measures provides that:  
                                                      
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and without prejudice to 
the positions of Members and to their rights and obligations under the WTO. S/WPDR/W/47 
Page 2  
 
  1. In sectors where specific commitments ar e undertaken, each Member shall ensure that 
all measures of general application affecting trade in services are administered in a reasonable, objective and impartial manner. 
 7. While the term "of general application" is not further clarified by the GATS, the term 
"measures" is defined in Article XX VIII(a).  The definition provides that: 
(a) "measure" means any measure by a Member, whether in the form of a law, regulation, 
rule, procedure, decision, administrative action, or any other form;  
8. The term "of general application" can also be found in Articles X:1 and X:2 of GATT 1994; 
Article 63:1 of the TRIPS Agreement; Article 12 of  the Customs Valuation Agreement; Articles 1, 
2(a), 2(g), 3(e), 5:1 and Annex II:2, 3(a), 3(c) and 4 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin; and Article 
XIX:1 of the Agreement on Government Procurement.
2  For ease of reference, the texts of these 
provisions are annexed to this Note.  In all of th e foregoing provisions, the use of the term "of general 
application" has mainly served to specify certain tr ansparency obligations and would appear to have 
been modelled on the publication requirements of Articles X:1 and X:2 of GATT 1994, namely that:3   
1. Laws, regulations, judicial decisions  and administrative rulings of general 
application , made effective by any contracting party,  pertaining to the classification or the 
valuation of products for customs purposes, or to rates of duty, taxes or other charges, or to requirements, restrictions or prohibitions on impor ts or exports or on the transfer of payments 
therefor, or affecting their sale, distribu tion, transportation, insurance, warehousing 
inspection, exhibition, processing, mixing or othe r use, shall be published promptly in such a 
manner as to enable governments and trader s to become acquainted with them.  
2. No measure of general application take n by any contracting party effecting an 
advance in a rate of duty or other charge  on imports under an established and uniform 
practice, or imposing a new or more burdens ome requirement, restriction or prohibition on 
imports, or on the transfer of payments theref or, shall be enforced before such measure has 
been officially published. 
 9. Specific reference to the obligation to act in  conformity with Article X:1 of GATT 1994 is 
found in Article 12 of the Customs Valuation Agreem ent and Articles 2(g), 3(e) and Annex II.3(a) of 
the Agreement on Rules of Origin.  Article 63 of th e TRIPS Agreement does not refer to Article X of 
GATT 1994 but has a similar provision on publication, which provides that:  
1. Laws and regulations, and final judicial  decisions and administrative rulings of 
general application, made effective by a Memb er pertaining to the subject matter of this 
Agreement (the availability, scope, acquisition, enforcement and prevention of the abuse of 
intellectual property rights) shall be published, or where such publication is not practicable 
made publicly available, in a national language , in such a manner as to enable governments 
and right holders to become ac quainted with them.  Agreements  concerning the subject matter 
of this Agreement which are in force between the government or a governmental agency of a 
Member and the government or a governmental  agency of another Member shall also be 
published. 
                                                      
2 Article 4(a) of the TRIPS Agreement uses the term  "of a general nature".  The provision refers to 
"international agreements on judicial  assistance or low enforcement of a general nature and not particularly 
confined to the protection of intellectual property".   
3 It should be noted that the Agreement on Rules of Origin exceptionally uses the term "of general 
application" in other instances apart from the publication of laws, regulations, judicial decisions and 
administrative rulings.  S/WPDR/W/47 
 Page 3 
 
 
   
10. The Agreement on Rules of Origin, in addition to the publication requirement, uses the term 
"of general application" in many other instances.  In  Article 1, rules of origin are defined as those 
"laws, regulations and administrativ e determinations of general appli cation applied by any Member to 
determine the country of origin of goods provided."  Article 2(a) specifies that transitional disciplines 
are to be applied to "administra tive determinations of general app lication" until the work programme 
for the harmonization of rules of origin has been completed.  Article 5 requires each Member to 
provide to the Secretariat, "within 90 days after th e date of entry into force of the WTO Agreement 
for it, its rules of origin, judicial decisions, and administrative rulings of general application relating 
to rules of origin in effect on that date."  Furt hermore, these provisions are replicated in Annex II on 
the Common Declaration With Regard to Preferential Rules of Origin.4 
11. The term "of general application" is, however, not further clarified in any of the above 
agreements. 
II. CLARIFICATION OF THE TERM "OF GENERAL APPLICATION" IN WTO 
PANEL AND APPELLATE BODY REPORTS  
12. While the exact term "measures of general a pplication" as contained in Articles III:1, III:4 
and VI:1 of the GATS has not been clarified by WTO panels or the Appellate Body5, there have been 
some findings on the term "of general a pplication" in Article X:1 of GATT 1994.6  
13. In US – Underwear , the Appellate Body upheld the Panel's interpretation that an 
administrative order was "of general application" to the extent that it affected an "unidentified number 
of economic operators, including do mestic and foreign producers."7  The Appellate Body agreed with 
the following reasoning by the Panel: 
We note that Article X:1 of GATT 1994, which al so uses the language 'of general application', 
includes 'administrative rulings' in its scope. The mere fact that the restraint at issue was an 
administrative order does not prevent us from c oncluding that the restraint was a measure of 
general application. Nor does the fact that it was a country-specific measure exclude the 
possibility of it being a measure of general app lication. If, for instance, the restraint was 
addressed to a specific company or applied to a specific shipment, it w ould not have qualified 
as a measure of general application. However, to the extent that the restraint affects an 
                                                      
4 These are Articles 2, 3(a) and 4 of the Annex.  Article 4 does not specify a time duration but 
otherwise requires Members to submit information to th e Secretariat of "…their pr eferential rules of origin, 
including a listing of the preferential arrangements to wh ich they apply, judicial decisions, and administrative 
rulings of general application relating to their preferential rules of origin… ." 
5 In US – Gambling , Antigua did claim that the United States had violated Article VI:1 of the GATS by 
failing to ensure that "all measures of general applica tion affecting trade in services are administered in a 
reasonable, objective and impartial manner."  The Panel in  examining this claim did not, however, deal with the 
question as to what constituted a measure of general appli cation. The Panel took the view that Article VI:1 did 
not apply to measures of general application themselves bu t, rather, to the administration of these measures.  It 
did not go further to examine Article VI:1 as the Pane l noted that Antigua had not specifically identified which 
"state and federal measures" and which provisions of those measures impose authorization requirements.  Nor 
had it demonstrated that its gambling and betting service supp liers had ever filed any applications to obtain such 
authorization.  Panel Report on US – Gambling , WT/DS285/R, adopted 20 April 2005,  para 6.432. 
6 This section identifies panel and Appellate Body reports that discuss and interpret the term "of 
general application" in some detail, and does not purport to capture every reference to the term in panel and Appellate Body reports. 
7 Appellate Body Report on US – Underwear , WT/DS24/R, adopted 25 February 1997, p. 21. S/WPDR/W/47 
Page 4  
 
  unidentified number of economic operators, includi ng domestic and foreign producers, we find 
it to be a measure of general application.
8 
 
14. In Japan – Film , the Panel, while referring to the Panel Report on US – Underwear , 
interpreted the term "of general application" to ex tend to "administrative ru lings in individual cases 
where such rulings establish or revise principles or criteria applicable in future cases".  The Panel 
stated that: 
It stands to reason that inasmuch as the Article X:1 requirement applies to all administrative 
rulings of general application, it also should extend to administrative rulings in individual cases 
where such rulings establish or revise principles or  criteria applicable in future cases.  At the 
same time, we consider that it is incumben t upon the United States in this case to clearly 
demonstrate the existence of such unpublished administrative rulings in individual matters 
which establish or revise principles applicable in future cases.9 
 
15. In EC – Poultry , the Appellate Body upheld the Pane l's finding that certain import licensing 
measures of the European Communities on certain poultry products were not inconsistent with 
Article X because, "the information which Brazil cl aims the EC should have made available concerns 
a specific shipment, which is outside the scope of Article X of GATT."  Furthermore, the Appellate 
Body, in citing the interpretation "o f general application" used in US - Underwear , held that: 
Although it is true, as Brazil contends, that an y measure of general application will always 
have to be applied in specific cases, neverthe less, the particular treatment accorded to each 
individual shipment cannot be considered a me asure ‘of general application’ within the 
meaning of Article X. (…) We agree with the Panel that "conversely, licences issued to a 
specific company or applied to a specific shipme nt cannot be considered to be a measure 'of 
general application' within the meaning of Article X ." 10 
 
16. In US –  Hot-Rolled Steel , the Panel was presented with an alleged violation of Article X:3(a) 
of GATT 1994.  Before addressing this question th e Panel ruled that the anti-dumping measure at 
issue did not constitute a measure "of general appli cation" within the meaning of Article X:1, as it 
related only to a single case.  The Panel stated:  
Finally, we have been presented with arguments  alleging violation of Article X:3(a) of GATT 
1994 which relate to the actions of the United St ates in the context of a single anti-dumping 
investigation.  We doubt whether the final anti- dumping measure before us in this dispute can 
be considered a measure of 'general application' .  In this context, we note that Japan has not 
even alleged, much less established, a pattern  of decision-making with respect to the specific 
matters it is raising which would suggest a lack of uniform, impartial and reasonable 
administration of the US anti-dumping law.  While it is not inconceivable that a Member's 
actions in a single instance might be evidence of lack of uniform, impartial, and reasonable 
administration of its laws, regulations, decisions  and rulings, we consider that the actions in 
question would have to have a significant impact on the overall administration of the law, and 
not simply on the outcome in the single case in question .  Moreover, we consider it unlikely 
that such a conclusion could be reached where the actions in the single case in question were, 
                                                      
8 Panel Report on US – Underwear , para. 7.65. 
9 Panel Report on Japan  – Film , WT/DS44/R, adopted 22 April 1998, para.10.388.  The case was not 
appealed. 
10 Appellate Body Report on EC – Poultry , WT/DS69/AB/R, adopted 23 July 1998,  paras. 111 and 
113.  Emphasis added.  S/WPDR/W/47 
 Page 5 
 
 
  themselves, consistent with more specifi c obligations under other WTO Agreements.11 
(emphasis added) 
 
17. Likewise, in EC – Selected Customs Matters , the Panel reasoned that:  
Article X:1 of the GATT 1994 refers to"[l]aw s, regulations, judicial decisions and 
administrative rulings of general application " (emphasis added).  The ordinary meaning of 
the term "general", which is of relevance in the context of Article X:1 of the GATT 1994, is: 
"Not specifically limited in application; related to a whole class of objects, cases, occasions, etc.; (of a rule, law etc.) true for all or nearly all cases coming under its terms."
  The ordinary 
meaning of the term "application" of relevance for the purposes of Article X:1 of the GATT 
1994 is:  "The bringing of a general or figurative statement, a theory, principle, etc., to bear 
upon a matter."  The Panel understands that, therefore, the "'[l]aws, regulations, judicial 
decisions and administrative ruli ngs of general application' d escribed in Article X:1 of the 
GATT 1994 are laws, regulations, judicial decisi ons and administrative rulings that apply to 
a range of situations or cases, rather than be ing limited in their scope of application" .12 
(emphasis added)  
 
18. In line with the interpretation of the te rm "of general application" given in EC – Selected 
Customs Matters  and US – Underwear , the Panel in EC – IT Products  found that "because the 
application of a CNEN is not limited to a single import or a single importer and they set forth rules or norms that are intended to have ge neral and prospective application that create legitimate expectations 
among the public and among private actors."
13  In EC – IT Products , the Panel relied on its finding 
under Article X:1 in finding that the CNEN amendmen ts were a measure "of general application" for 
the purposes of Article X:2 of GATT 1994.14 
19. In Thailand – Cigarettes (Philippines) , the parties agreed that the overall methodology used 
to determine the Maximum Retail Selling Price (MRSP) for importers constituted a measure "of 
general application" within the meaning of Article  X:1, and the Panel saw no reason to disagree given 
that "the methodology applies to all potential sales of cigarettes".15  The Panel further found that 
certain rules that were unwritten, but explained by Thailand in detail in the course of the Panel 
proceeding, qualified as a "rule of general app lication" within the meaning of Article X:1.16  However, 
the Panel considered that the data used to cal culated the MSRPs did not constitute measures "of 
general application": 
Data necessary for determining an MRSP, such  as the c.i.f. price, customs duties, and 
internal taxes and marketing costs, are essentially company-specific, rather than 
generally applicable to all companies.   We also note that the Philippines 
acknowledges that these four specific items are business-derived confidential data, which are by definition company-specific.   As such, the data used for such 
                                                      
11 Panel Report on US – Hot-Rolled Steel , WT/DS184/AB/R, adopted 23 August 2001, para. 7.268.  
Emphasis added. 
12 Panel Report on EC – Selected Customs Matters , WT/DS315/R, adopted 11 December 2006, para. 
7.116.  The finding was not appealed. Emphasis added. Footnote omitted. 
13 Panel Report on EC – IT Products, WT/DS375/R, WT/DS376/R, WT/DS377/R, adopted 21 
September 2010 , para. 7.1034.  The case was not appealed.  Emphasis added.  See also para. 7.1034, 
14 Panel Report, EC – IT Products, para. 7.1097. 
15 Panel Report on Thailand – Cigarettes (Philippines) , WT/DS371/R, adopted 15 July 2011, para. 
7.73. 
16 Panel Report on Thailand – Cigarettes (Philippines) , paras. 7.79-7.780. S/WPDR/W/47 
Page 6  
 
  components of the MRSP cannot be consider ed as rules generally and prospectively 
applicable.
17 
20. In China – Raw Materials,  the Panel found that a series of measures were "of general 
application" within the meaning of Article X:1.  With respect to one group of measures, the Panel 
found that they were "of general application" on th e grounds that the "measures apply generally to the 
exportation of goods subject to export quotas.  Mo reover, the measures affect all enterprises wishing 
to export coke, bauxite, fluorspar, and silicon carbide under the quota.  None of the measures at issue 
is limited to the treatment of particular companies or particular shipments."18  With respect to another 
measure, the Panel stated that "it affects any en terprise wishing to export the zinc quota; hence it 
fulfils the "general application" criterion."19  The Panel found that another measure was "of general 
application" on the ground that it "has the potential to  affect trade and traders, including a wide array 
of domestic and foreign economic ope rators in particular, the "trade activities" of business within the 
broad metals, minerals an d chemicals industries".20 
21. In addition to the clarifications given in the context of Article X:1 of GATT 1994, reviewed 
above, the Panel in US – FSC  introduced the concept of a measure "of general application" in the 
context of examining a claim under Article III.4 of GATT 1994.  The Panel found that: 
On this basis, we note that the distinction made between imported a nd domestic products in 
The Act's foreign articles/labour limitation c oncerning the limitation on fair market value 
attributable to 'articles' is solely and explic itly based on origin.  We do not believe that the 
mere fact that a good has US origin renders it "unlike" an imported good .  We further note 
that the Act is a measure of general application.  It applies horizontally to all possible 
products that can be used for the production of goods that might eventually be qualifying 
foreign trade property.   Thus, in our view, there is no need to demonstrate the existence of 
actually traded like products in order to establis h a violation of Article III:4.  Furthermore, 
where there are no like US goods, the issue of less favourable treatment of imported goods would not even arise.
21  (emphasis added) 
 
22. With regard to the TRIPS Agreement, in India – Patents (US) , the Panel found that "a 
mechanism for receiving mailbox box applications is , whether made effective by law or through 
administrative practices, a measure "of general app lication" within the meaning of Article 63:1".22  
III. CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS 
23. It is important to emphasise that the m eaning of terms contained in different WTO 
Agreements as well as any further interpretations  given to these terms by WTO panels and the 
Appellate Body cannot necessarily be used interchangeab ly.  They have to be read in their context, 
and in the light of the object and purpose of the WTO agreement concerned.  
                                                      
17 Panel Report on Thailand – Cigarettes (Philippines) , para. 7.806.  See also paras. 8.25-8.29, and 
7.840-7.849. 
18 Panel Report on China – Raw Materials , WT/DS394/R, WT/DS395/R, WT/DS398/R and Corr. 
circulated to WTO Members 5 July 2011, para. 7.772. 
19 Panel Report on China – Raw Materials , para. 7.804. 
20 Panel Report on China – Raw Materials , para. 7.1098. 
21 Panel Report on US  – FSC , WT/DS108/R, adopted 20 March 2000, para.8.133.  Emphasis added.  
Footnote omitted.  The finding on a "measure of general application" was not appealed. 
22 Panel Report on India  – Patents (US) ,WT/DS50/R, adopted 16 January 1998, para.7.48.  The report 
by the Appellate Body, however, ruled that Article 63 :1 was not within the Pane l's terms of reference.  S/WPDR/W/47 
 Page 7 
 
 
  24. Nevertheless, in the interest of facilitating di scussions by Members in the Working Party on 
Domestic Regulation, some general points, based on the provisions and cases reviewed, appear to be 
pertinent: 
(a) The concept "of general application" is commonly used in WTO agreements, 
particularly with respect to the obligati on to publish laws, regulations, judicial 
decisions and administrative requirements, pe rtaining to or effecting the operations of 
the agreement.   In this connection, the requirement in Article III:1 of the GATS, as 
well as those in other WTO agreements, w ould appear to have been modelled on 
Article X:1 of GATT 1994.  
(b) WTO Panels and the Appellate Body have consistently understood the concept "of 
general application" as being not limited in application to a specific individual case or 
economic operator.  The fundamental distinc tion made in that interpretation is the 
ordinary meaning of the term "general" as opposed to that of "specific".   
(c) Following from that reasoning, laws, regulations, judicial decisions and 
administrative decisions of general a pplication have been understood as those 
measures which apply to a range of situ ations, e.g. an unidentified number of 
economic operators or cases, rather than be ing limited in their scope of application. 
(d) However, it should be noted that in Japan – Film , it was found that administrative 
rulings of general application should also  extend to "administrative rulings in 
individual cases where such rulings establish or  revise principles or criteria applicable 
in future cases".23 
25. Naturally, the findings by WTO panels a nd Appellate Body do not necessarily establish 
precedents for future disputes, nor do they circum scribe any possible specific meanings that Members 
may want to give to a particular term when fo rmulating new disciplines.  Thus, should Members find 
it necessary to further clarify the concept, or to give a different meaning to the term "of general 
application", this could always be done in the text of the instrument itself.  
_______________ 
 
                                                      
23 See footnote 12 above. S/WPDR/W/47 
Page 8  
 
  Annex 
 
WTO Provisions relevant for the discussion in this Note 
 
GATT 
Article X ( Publication and Administration of Trade Regulations)  
 
1. Laws, regulations, judicial decisions and admini strative rulings of gene ral application, made 
effective by any contracting party, pertaining to th e classification or the valuation of products for 
customs purposes, or to rates of duty, taxes or other charges, or to requirements, restrictions or prohibitions on imports or exports or on the transfer  of payments therefor, or affecting their sale, 
distribution, transportation, insu rance, warehousing inspection, exhi bition, processing, mixing or other 
use, shall be published promptly in such a manner as to enable governments and traders to become 
acquainted with them.  Agreements affecting intern ational trade policy which are in force between the 
government or a governmental agency of any contra cting party and the government or governmental 
agency of any other contracting party shall also be  published.  The provisions of this paragraph shall 
not require any contracting party to disclose c onfidential information which would impede law 
enforcement or otherwise be contrary to the public interest or would prejudice the legitimate 
commercial interests of particular enterprises, public or private.  2. No measure of general application taken by any contracting party effecting an advance in a 
rate of duty or other charge on imports under an established and uniform practice, or imposing a new 
or more burdensome requirement, rest riction or prohibition on imports, or on the transfer of payments 
therefor, shall be enforced before such measure has been officially published. 
 
Customs Valuation Agreement (Agreement on Article VII of GATT 1994) 
Article 12  
 
 Laws, regulations, judicial decisions and admini strative rulings of ge neral application giving 
effect to this Agreement shall be published in  conformity with Article X of GATT 1994 by the 
country of importation concerned.  
 
Agreement on Rules of Origin 
Article 1 (Rules of Origin) 
 
1. For the purposes of Parts I to IV of this Agre ement, rules of origin shall be defined as those 
laws, regulations and administrative determinations of general appli cation applied by any Member to 
determine the country of origin of goods provided such rules of origin are not related to contractual or 
autonomous trade regimes leading to the granting of tariff preferences going beyond the application of 
paragraph 1 of Article I of GATT 1994.  
Article 2(a) and (g) (Disciplines During the Transition Period) 
 
 Until the work programme for the harmonization of  rules of origin set out in Part IV is 
completed, Members shall ensure that:   S/WPDR/W/47 
 Page 9 
 
 
  (a) when they issue administrative determ inations of general application, the 
requirements to be fulfilled are clearly defined.  In particular: 
 
(i) in cases where the criterion of change of tariff classification is applied, such a 
rule of origin, and any exceptions to  the rule, must clearly specify the 
subheadings or headings within the tariff nomenclature that are addressed by 
the rule; 
 
(ii) in cases where the ad valorem percenta ge criterion is applied, the method for 
calculating this percentage shall also be indicated in the rules of origin; 
 
(iii) in cases where the criterion of manufacturing or processing operation is 
prescribed, the operation that confers origin on the good concerned shall be precisely specified; 
… 
 
(g) their laws, regulations, judicial decisi ons and administrative rulings of general 
application relating to rules of origin are published as if they were subject to, and in 
accordance with, the provisions of para graph 1 of Article X of GATT 1994; 
 Article 3(e) (Disciplines after the Transition Period) 
Taking into account the aim of all Members to achieve, as a result of the harmonization work 
programme set out in Part IV, the establishment of harmonized rules of origin, Members shall ensure, 
upon the implementation of the results of the harmonization work programme, that:  … 
(e) their laws, regulations, judicial decisi ons and administrative rulings of general 
application relating to rules of origin are published as if they were subject to, and in 
accordance with, the provisions of para graph 1 of Article X of GATT 1994; 
 Article 5(1) (Information and Procedures for Modi fication and Introduction of New Rules of Origin) 
 
1. Each Member shall provide to the Secretariat, within 90 days after the date of entry into force 
of the WTO Agreement for it, its rules of origin, judicial decisions, and administrative rulings of 
general application relating to rules of origin in effe ct on that date.  If by inadvertence a rule of origin 
has not been provided, the Member concerned sha ll provide it immediately after this fact becomes 
known.  Lists of information received and available with the Secretariat shall be circulated to the 
Members by the Secretariat. 
 Annex II:2, 3(a), 3(c) and 4 (Common Declaration with Regard to Preferential Rules of Origin) 
 
2. For the purposes of this Common Declaration, pr eferential rules of origin shall be defined as 
those laws, regulations and administrative determ inations of general application applied by any 
Member to determine whether goods qualify for preferential treatment under contractual or 
autonomous trade regimes leading to the granting of tariff preferences going beyond the application of 
paragraph 1 of Article I of GATT 1994.  
3. The Members agree  to ensure that: 
 S/WPDR/W/47 
Page 10  
 
  (a) when they issue administrative determ inations of general application, the 
requirements to be fulfilled are clearly defined.  In particular: 
 
(i) in cases where the criterion of change of tariff classification is applied, such a 
preferential rule of origin, and any excep tions to the rule, must clearly specify 
the subheadings or headings within th e tariff nomenclature that are addressed 
by the rule; 
 
(ii) in cases where the ad valorem percenta ge criterion is applied, the method for 
calculating this percentage shall also be indicated in the preferential rules of 
origin; 
 
(iii) in cases where the criterion of manufacturing or processing operation is 
prescribed, the operation that confers pr eferential origin shall be precisely 
specified; 
 … 
 
(c) their laws, regulations, judicial decisi ons and administrative rulings of general 
application relating to preferential rules of origin are published as if they were subject 
to, and in accordance with, the provisions of  paragraph 1 of Article X of GATT 1994; 
 
4. Members agree to provide to the Secretariat promptly their preferential rules of origin, 
including a listing of the preferential arrangement s to which they apply, judicial decisions, and 
administrative rulings of general application relating to  their preferential rules of origin in effect on 
the date of entry into force of the WTO Agreem ent for the Member concerned.  Furthermore, 
Members agree to provide any modifications to thei r preferential rules of origin or new preferential 
rules of origin as soon as possible to the Secretariat.  Lists of information received and available with 
the Secretariat shall be circulated to the Members by the Secretariat.  
Agreement on Government Procurement 
Article XIX (Information and Review as  Regards Obligations of Parties) 
 
1. Each Party shall promptly publish any law, regul ation, judicial decision, administrative ruling of 
general application, and any procedure (including st andard contract clauses) regarding government 
procurement covered by this Agreement, in the a ppropriate publications liste d in Appendix IV and in 
such a manner as to enable other Parties and supp liers to become acquainted with them. Each Party 
shall be prepared, upon request, to  explain to any other Party its government procurement procedures. 
 
_______________ 
 
   S/WPDR/W/47 
 Page 11 
 
 
  TABLE OF WTO CASES CITED IN THIS NOTE 
 
China – Raw Materials  Panel Reports, China – Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw 
Materials , WT/DS394/R / WT/DS395/R / WT/DS398/R / and Corr.1, 
circulated to WTO Members 5 July 2011, as modified by Appellate Body 
Report  WT/DS394/AB/R,WT/DS395/AB/R, WT/DS398/AB/R , circulated 
on 30 January 2012 
EC – Poultry Panel Report, European Communities – Measures Affecting the Importation of 
Certain Poultry Products , WT/DS69/R, adopted 23 July 1998, as modified by 
Appellate Body Report WT/DS69/AB/R, DSR 1998:V, 2089 
EC – Selected Customs Matters Panel Report, European Communities – Selected Customs Matters , 
WT/DS315/R, adopted 11 December 2006, as modified by Appellate Body 
Report WT/DS315/AB/R, DSR 2006:IX-X, 3915 
EC – IT Products Panel Report, European Communities and its member States – Tariff 
Treatment of Certain Information Technology Products , WT/DS375/R, 
WT/DS376/R, WT/DS377/R, adopted 21 September 2010 
India – Patents (US) Appellate Body Report, India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and 
Agricultural Chemical Products , WT/DS50/AB/R, adopted 16 January 1998, 
DSR 1998:I, 9 
Japan – Film Panel Report, Japan – Measures Affecting Consumer Photographic Film and 
Paper , WT/DS44/R, adopted 22 April 1998, DSR 1998:IV, 1179 
Thailand – Cigarettes 
(Philippines) Panel Report, Thailand – Customs and Fiscal Measures on Cigarettes from the 
Philippines , WT/DS371/R, adopted 15 July 2011, as modified by Appellate 
Body Report WT/DS371/AB/R 
US – FSC Panel Report, United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales 
Corporations" , WT/DS108/R, adopted 20 March 2000, as modified by 
Appellate Body Report WT/DS108/AB/R, DSR 2000:IV, 1675 
US – Gambling Panel Report, United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of 
Gambling and Betting Services , WT/DS285/R, adopted 20 April 2005, as 
modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS285/AB/R, DSR 2005:XII, 5797 
US – Hot-Rolled Steel Panel Report, United States – Anti-Dump ing Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled 
Steel Products from Japan, WT/DS184/R, adopted 23 August 2001 modified 
by Appellate Body Report WT/DS184/AB/R, DSR 2001:X, 4769 
US – Underwear Panel Report, United States – Restrictions on Imports of Cotton and 
Man-made Fibre Underwear, WT/DS24/R, adopted 25 February 1997, as 
modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS24/AB/R, DSR 1997:I, 31 
 
 
__________