WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/TF/W/156 
14 July 2008 
 
 (08-3381) 
Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation  Original:   English 
  
 
COMMUNICATION FROM UGANDA AND THE UNITED STATES 
  
 The following communication, dated 11 July 2008, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegations of Uganda and the United States. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
PROHIBITING CONSULARIZATION REQUIREMENTS:  
FULFILLING A LONGSTANDING T RADE FACILITATION OBJECTIVE 
  
1. In a joint communication (TN/TF/W/104 of 10 May 2006), Uganda and the United States 
submitted a textual proposal proposing that "a Memb er shall not require a consular transaction, 
including any related fee or charge, in c onnection with the importation of any good".  
Joint submissions had been made earlier, propos ing elements of a commitment of this nature 
(TN/TF/W/22 of 21 March 2005 and TN/TF/W/86 of 4 April 2006). 
2. The proposal defines "consular transaction" (a lso sometimes referred to as "consularization" 
or "legalization") as the procedure of obtaining from a consul of the importing Member in the territory 
of the exporting Member, or in the territory of a third party, a consular invoice or a consular visa for a 
commercial invoice, certificate of origin, manifest, sh ippers' export declaration, or any other customs 
documentation in connection with the importation of the good. 
3. In light of the NGTF's move to more focu sed discussions of Member proposals, and to 
advance Members' understanding of the consulari zation proposal, Uganda and the United States 
are providing Members with additional informa tion on the costs and burdens associated with 
consularization requirements, as well as the historical efforts to eliminate consularization. 
Costs and Burdens Associated with Consularization
 
 
4. The utility of consularization requirements has long been questioned, at least since 1923.  
In the modern trading environment they are clearly  obsolete.  The fees and delays associated with 
consularization requirements have an inordina te impact on exporters from developing-country 
Members – particularly least-developed and landloc ked countries.  For small- and medium-sized 
enterprises (SMEs) from all Members, consularization requirements can present a barrier to market access in the following ways, among others:  
• Consularization requirements add unnecessary costs , contributing to higher prices for 
importers and consumers.  In some cases, c onsular fees amount to hundreds of dollars per 
shipment, which can exceed the invoi ce value of smaller consignments. 
 
• Consularization requirements cause unnecessary, time-consuming delays , not only as a result 
of the stamping and signing process, but also the need to travel to the nearest embassy or TN/TF/W/156 
Page 2  
 
  consulate, which may not always be located in the same city or country as the exporter, and 
the need to accommodate the working  hours of th e consular office.  Such delays are generally 
unacceptable in an age where the delivery e xpectations of customers are demanding. 
 
• Furthermore, businesses report that consular requirements all too often present a genesis for  
corruption , because of the inherent lack of transp arency associated with the procedures.  
Frequently, it is unclear whether document A, B or both have to be legalized, and how many 
copies are needed.  The frequent practice of paying cash for this formality, often without a 
clear basis for calculating the fees, presents opportunities for corruption.
1  
 5.  For Uganda, a landlocked, least-developed country with an economy dependent on small-
sized enterprises, consularization has been a great barrier to access into markets of countries applying 
that requirement. 
6. Furthermore consularization requirements serve  no discernible legitimate customs-related 
function.  Consularization does not contribute to ri sk management, nor can it be defended for reasons 
of health, environment and security.  Diplomatic and consular officials rarely, if ever, have scientific 
and technical expertise.  Further, such inspections  are usually conducted by technical experts at the 
point of entry into the importing Member and co nsularization requirements add an additional, 
unrelated burden. 
Historical Efforts
 
 
7. In light of the costs and burdens associated with  consularization requirements, there has been 
a long history of efforts to eliminate them, going back at least to 1923.  Elimination of consularization 
has been a persistent theme under the GATT and WT O since 1948.  Attachment 1 contains some key 
events in the nearly century-long effort to e liminate consularization requirements.  Notably, 
the GATT CONTRACTING PA RTIES recommended their elimination in decisions between 1952 
and 1962 that remain in effect in the WTO today.2  
8. Despite steady progress, however, the GATT/ WTO recommendation has not been fully 
implemented by all Members.  The fact that a fe w countries at any given time have not followed the 
recommendation has led to continued efforts by othe r countries over the years to eliminate the fees, 
whether bilaterally in regional trade agreements or  multilaterally, including in the accession context.  
Eliminating consularization requirements would be a significant accomplishment of these trade facilitation negotiations.   
Conclusion
 
 
9. Eliminating consularization requirements woul d result in cost savings to traders and 
administrators alike, and would remove a practice that continues to prevent traders in developing 
countries and LDCs from enjoying the maximum be nefits from the WTO Agreement and the results 
of the Doha Round negotiations (including the Trade Facilitation negotiations).  It would also achieve 
a long-standing goal of the GATT CONTRACTING PARTIES and WTO Members. 
                                                      
1 See "Legalisation of trade documents as an unnecessary trade barrier";  Statement from the 
Committee on international trade facilitation, NorStella, Norway. 
2 The Abolition of Consular Formalities, and Code of Standard Practices, Recommendation of 7 
November 1952  (BISD 01S/25);  Consular Formalities , Decision of 17 November 1956 (BISD 05S/33);   
Consular Formalities, Recommendation of 31 October 1962  (BISD 11S/59).  Article 1.b(iv) of the GATT 1994 
incorporates the decisions of the CONTRACTING PARTIES; thus, the recommendation in the 1952, 1956 and 
1962 decisions to abolish consular formalities remains in effect.  TN/TF/W/156 
 Page 3 
 
 
  Attachment 1  
 
Efforts to Abolish Import-Related Consular Formalities in the GATT and WTO 
 
1923 :  International Convention Relating to the Simp lification of Customs Formalities, Article 11(8) 
provides that consularization fees should be as lo w as possible. (Cited in US – Customs User Fees , 
BISD 35S/245, para. 71).  1927
:  World Economic Conference affirms 1923 Conven tion on consularization fees, stating that 
such fees should be fixed, not exceed costs and not  be a source of revenue.  (Cited in US – Customs 
User Fees , BISD 35S/245, para. 71)  
 August 1948
:  The Chairman of the GATT CONTRACTING PARTIES states that consular taxes 
were covered by Articles I and VIII of the GATT.  (BISD II/12)  
November 1952
:  GATT CONTRACTING PARTIES recommend the abolition of consular 
formalities by 31 December 1956.  (BISD 01S/25)  December 1954
:  A GATT Technical Group examining the notifications of countries maintaining 
consular formalities notes that some progress towards the removal of consular fees had been made and 
expresses the hope those countries would graduall y reduce existing measures and provide for final 
elimination by December 31, 1956.  (BISD, 3S/91) 
 November 1956
:  Only nine Contracting Parties continued to generally impose consular formalities.  
Seven other Contracting Parties maintained consular formalities only in a few exceptional 
circumstances.  (L/595 p.9) 
 
Just before the deadline for the abolition of consular formalities, the CONTRACTING PARTIES 
issue a Decision to maintain their 1952 recomme ndation.  They recommend that countries still 
applying consular formalities examine urgently  the possibility of introducing measures to abolish or 
reduce them at the earliest possible date.  (BISD 05S/33)  
November 1957
:  The CONTRACTING PARTIES again rea ffirm their recommendations of 1952 
regarding the abolition of consular formalities.  They further recommend that consular invoices be 
abolished in favor of commercial invoices and that fees for certifying or visaing commercial documents be kept free-of-charge or at a nominal rate.  (BISD 06S/25) 
 
March 1962
:  A Panel of Experts on Consular Formaliti es reported that Argentina, Chile, Cuba and 
the United States had suppressed entirely their previously  expansive use of consular formalities.  Only 
eight Contracting Parties continue to normally require consular intervention in trade.  (L/1743 p. 2)  
 October 1962
:  Ten years after the recommendation to abolish consular formalities, the 
CONTRACTING PARTIES again recommend that  they be removed.  (BISD 11S/59) 
 
March 1966 :  Contracting Parties maintaining requirement s for consular formalities were invited to 
report on their reasons for maintaining these requireme nts and on their future policy.  Six countries 
submitted reports, including one st ating consular formalities had been removed.  (L/2563 and 
Add./1-4) 
 
December 1969 :  Consular Fees & Formalities were incl uded on the Illustrative List of Non-Tariff 
Barriers to be addressed by the GATT Committee on Industrial Products.  (L/3298 p. 8)   TN/TF/W/156 
Page 4  
 
  February 1971
:  The report of the GATT Committee on Industrial Products Working Group on 
Customs and Administrative Entry Procedures summa rizes the proposal of countries not maintaining 
consular formalities to phase out consular formaliti es and fees over five years and a maximum flat-
rate cap in the interim.  (L/3496, p. 12)   
November 1988
:  The Uruguay Round Negotiating Group on Non-Tariff Measures includes consular 
formalities in the category of measures proposed  for a multilateral rule-making approach.  
(MTN.GNG/13 p.6)  May 1989
:  The Secretariat prepared a background note  on Customs and Consular Formalities for the 
Negotiating Group on Non-Tariff Measures, recordi ng past efforts in the GATT and elsewhere to 
abolish consular formalities, which continued to be perceived as a barrier to trade.  
(MTN.GNG/NG2/W/29)    June 1989
:  A study prepared for the Working Party on Facilitation of International Trade Procedures 
of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe and submitted to the Negotiating Group on 
Non-Tariff Measures recommends that appropriate step s be taken to press for the abolition of consular 
formalities.  (MTN.GNG/NG2/W/34)  January 1995
:  The GATT 1994 entered into force.  Article  1.b(iv) incorporates the decisions of the 
CONTRACTING PARTIES; thus, the recommendation in the 1952, 1956 and 1962 decisions to 
abolish consular formalities remains in effect.   
 March 2005
:  Uganda and the United States submit a proposal to prohibit import-related consular 
requirements to the Doha Round Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation, followed up with proposed 
text in May 2006.  (TN/TF/W/22;  TN/TF/W/104) 
 
November 2005 :  Egypt reports in a national experience communication to the Negotiating Group on 
Trade Facilitation that consular fees and invoices were phased out by a Ministerial Decree in 2005.  
(TN/TF/W/75)  2003-2006
:  Notifications of Non-Tariff Barriers to the Negotiating Group on Market Access include 
consular formalities measures (e.g. TN/MA/W/46/Add. 1-17). 
 
 
__________