WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/REG228/2 
15 September 2008 
 
 (08-4255) 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements  Original:   English 
  
 
 
COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN 
INDIA AND SINGAPORE  
 
Questions and Replies
 
 
  The following communication, dated 23 June 2008,  is being circulated at the request of the 
delegations of India and Singapore.  
 This document reproduces the questions addressed to the Parties and the responses submitted. 
 
_______________ 
 
Questions from the Delegation of Chinese Taipei
 
 
1. We have noticed that, according to Arti cle 2.9.1 of the Comprehensive Economic 
Cooperation Agreement between India and Singapo re, a safeguard measure may be applied to 
certain goods in cases where the absolute quantity of their imports is increasing as a result of 
the reduction or elimination of a customs duty under this Agreement, and such imports alone constitute a substantial cause of serious injury  or threat of serious injury to the domestic 
industry producing a like or directly competitive product.   
 With respect to these conditions, we would appreciate some further clarification from 
both Parties as follows;   What is the definition of “substantial cause of serious injury”?  Could we please also 
have clarification of the differences and/or advantages of using such terminology compared with 
that used in the Agreement on Safeguards? 
 
 Article 2.1 of CECA defines “serious injury” as – “serious injury means a significant overall 
impairment in the position of a dom estic industry”.  This definition is similar to the definition of 
“serious injury” under Article 4 of the Agreement on Safeguards. 
 
 “Substantial cause of serious injury” can be  understood to mean a cause which is important 
and not less than any other cause.  This has to be in terpreted in the overall context of Article 2.9.1 of 
CECA which reads “If as a result of the reduction or elimination of a custom duty under this Agreement ... that the imports of such goods from the other Party alone constitute a substantial cause 
of serious injury ...”.  
  The difference and/or advantages of using diffe rent terminologies as compared to  those used 
in the Agreement on Safeguards is that they are sp ecific to the CECA which is aimed to liberalise 
trade between the two parties.   WT/REG228/2 
Page 2  
 
   As specified in Article 2.9.2(e) of the Agre ement, Parties are required to comply with the 
requirements of Article 4.2(a) and (b) of the WT O Agreement on Safeguards and Article 4.2(a) and 
(b) are incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement, mutatis mutandis.  
2. In proposing a safeguard measure under th e Agreement on Safeguards an increase in 
the quantity of imports of the goods in question may be expressed either in absolute or in 
relative terms.  We would appreciate knowing wh y this bilateral agreement limits the scope of 
application for safeguard measures to the absolute quantity of imports only? 
 Article 2 of Agreement on Safeguards appli es to trade between WTO members in a global 
context.  
 
 In the bilateral trade agreement under CECA, the two parties chose to use the term of imports 
in increased quantities in ‘absolute terms’ as this is more precise and specific in the context of 
increased imports resulting due to reduction or elimin ation of a custom duty.  The use of the term 
absolute increase in imports is specific to the CE CA which is aimed to liberalise trade between the 
two parties.  
 
3. In addition to the increased quantity of im ports in absolute terms, such an increase 
should also result from the reduction or elimination of a customs duty under the said FTA. What is the rationale for including this extr a criterion for the application of a safeguard 
measure compared to the conditions set out in the Agreement on Safeguards? Will the 
investigating authorities of each contracting part y be required to demonstrate two causal links – 
first, between the increased imports and the reduction or elimination of a customs duty, and second, between the serious injury and the increase in imports? 
 The main objective to have preferential safeguard measures under CECA is to have 
provisions to impose safeguard measures against surge in preferential imports that may alone 
constitute a substantial cause of serious  injury or threat of serious injury .  It is therefore, natural that 
the causal link analysis has to demonstrate increase d imports in absolute terms as a result of the 
reduction or elimination of a customs duty.   As specified in Article 2.9.2(e) of the Agre ement, Parties are required to comply with the 
requirements of Article 4.2(a) and (b) of the WT O Agreement on Safeguards and Article 4.2(a) and 
(b) are incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement, mutatis mutandis. 
  In Article 4.2(b) of the WTO Agreement on Sa feguards, the competent authorities would have 
to demonstrate the existence of the causal link be tween increased imports of the product concerned 
and serious injury or threat thereof.  When factor s other than increased imports are causing injury to 
the domestic industry at the same time, such inju ry shall not be attributed to increased imports. 
 
Questions from the Delegation of the European Communities
 
 III.  National treatment and Market access for Goods   
Scope and coverage 
 4. Under paragraph 22 of the Factual Presentation, the EC notes that for India, a total of 
23.6% of tariff lines are liberalized under the Ag reement, corresponding to 75.1% in terms of 
import values from Singapore 2003-5.  This means that 76.4% of tariff lines are not included 
under the Agreement.  
  WT/REG228/2 
 Page 3 
 
 
   Could the Parties elaborate how they inte nd to fulfil the obligations set out in 
GATT Article XXIV of eliminating duties on substantially all trade?   
 As noted in the factual presentation, 75.1% of import values (2003-5) from Singapore to India 
are liberalized.  In addition, the agreement provi des for expansion of c overage under the review 
mechanism. 
 
5. Paragraph 25 of the Factual Presentation shows the elimination of tariffs under the 
Agreement by HS section product categories.  Th e EC notes that there is no tariff elimination 
foreseen for certain sections (including III animal or vegetable fats and oils) and very limited 
tariff elimination foreseen for others (including II vegetable products, XII footwear, headgear, 
XIV precious stones, etc).   
 Could the Parties elaborate how they intend to fulfil the obligation to not exclude any 
major sector from duty elimination?   
 There is no express provision in WTO against Pa rties choice of not envisaging coverage of 
any specific product or sectors for tariff elimination under CECA.   The Agreement, including the liberalization of the specified sections, is subject to periodic 
review.  Priority for this liberalization schedule h as been given to sectors in which Singapore & India 
have trade and economic interest. 
 
6. Could the Parties describe the criteria followed  so as to determine sensitivity of sectors 
excluded from full liberalization?  
 The criteria such as labour intensivity, small-s cale industry, infant industry protection, etc are 
taken into account to determine sensitivity of sectors excluded from full liberalization. 
 
7. Paragraph 36 of the Factual Presentation mak es no explicit mention of the elimination 
of export duties and charges.  
 Could the Parties confirm that the Agreeme nt does not eliminate export duties and 
charges?   
 Yes, the Agreement does not elim inate export duties & charges. 
 
8. If so, could the Parties clarify how many  tariff lines (and which ones) and how much 
bilateral trade (in value and in percentage of exports between the Parties) are affected by existing export duties and charges?  
 These lines are 2601, 2610, 4102, 4201 (at HS 4 digit) and 41032000,  4101030, 41032120 (at 
HS 8 digit).  India has no exports to Singapore under these items in 2006.  
9. Also, could the Parties elaborate - with resp ect to current and any future export duties 
on trade between the Parties - on how they inte nd to ensure compliance with the obligation set 
out in GATT Article XXIV to eliminate duties and restrictive regulations of commerce on 
substantially all the trade (as opposed to  only imports) between the Parties?  
 On 1 October 2007, India and Singapore concl uded the 1st Review of the CECA.  Following 
the Review, India and Singapore have agreed to fu rther expand the coverage of tariff concessions as 
outlined in the Protocol Amending the CECA.  List of items is attached.  WT/REG228/2 
Page 4  
 
  10. Footnote 3 of the Factual Presentation not es that the Parties agreed to further expand 
the coverage of tariff concessions follo wing the first review of the CECA.  
 Has this review taken place? If so, plea se provide details on products and revised 
coverage. If not, are the Parties intending to give  further consideration to the coverage of tariff 
concessions and when?  
 
 On 1 October 2007, India and Singapore concl uded the 1st Review of the CECA.  Following 
the Review, India and Singapore have agreed to fu rther expand the coverage of tariff concessions as 
outlined in the Protocol Amending the CECA.   
 The list of items can be found at the following websites:  
  http://app.mti.gov.sg/default.asp?id=148&articleID=11921
 
 http://www.fta.gov.sg  
 http://www.cbec.gov.in/customs/cs-act/notifications/notfns-2k8/cs10-2k8.htm  
 
 It is the intention of the parties to continue to increase the scope  and coverage of the FTA in 
this gradual manner pursuant to reviews of the FTA.   
 
Rules of origin  
11. Could the Parties explain why Free on Board price is used as a reference to establish 
origin of goods and not the ex-works price instea d, which is the price paid to the manufacturer?  
 There are various price references including th e Free-on-Board price and ex-works price.  The 
tariff concessions are offered on the landed value of  the goods in terms of CIF and not the ex-works 
price.  Besides, the ex-works price is also not a uniform reference for establishing origin of goods. 
 
 Using the Free-on-Board price as the reference is a negotiated outcome.  India and Singapore in their other agreements have followed FOB as a re ference for calculating the value addition and the 
same has been adopted in this case.  
12. Article 3.9 of the Agreement indicates that th e origin of the finished product would be 
determined under Article 3.4. The EC would appreciate if the Parties could provide further 
information on this.   
 Article 3.4 provides the originating criteria for goods that are not wholly obtained or produced 
and Article 3.9 refers to the accumulation provision.  Article 3.9 allows for a product manufactured in 
one Party and used in the other Party as a materi al for the finished product to be considered 
originating.  The finished product would then be su bject to the originating criteria in Article 3.4. 
 
13. Could the Parties explain whether "advance rulings", as indicated in Article 13.3, do not 
undermine the value of certificates of origin? 
 “Advance rulings” do not undermine the value of certificates of origin, nor are they intended 
to replace certificates of origin. It is a trade fac ilitation tool that facilitates the exporters’ knowledge 
on how his product will be classified and thereby know ing then what origin criteria it would have to 
meet to qualify for preferential treatment. Overall it facilitates the application process for a certificate 
of origin, provides certainty and transparency. Please note that the provision for advance rulings is not 
in Article 13.3 but in Article 3.13.   WT/REG228/2 
 Page 5 
 
 
  14. What is the purpose of and the meaning of 'advanced rulings' if on their basis 
preferences are not granted in the country of import?  
 “Advance rulings” are done prior to the importation of a good to determine the tariff 
classification of a good in the importing Party and subsequently to assess whether the good qualifies 
under the Agreement. 
 
15. Could the Parties elaborate on the reasons fo r setting up visits to the exporter by the 
importing country's administration under Articl e 3.17?  Would the Parties agree that these 
visits undermine the value of the verification pro cedure of certificates of origin under rule 15 of 
Annex 3b?  
 Article 3.17 sets up the grounds for denial of preferential tariff treatment by the importing 
authorities if the stipulated condition are met whilst Rule 15 of Annex 3b allows retroactive checks to 
be performed on a governmental basis.  This retroa ctive check may not amount to verification visits 
by the importing authorities.  16. Could the Parties explain the reason for a certificate of origin being issued retroactively 
only within a year from the date of shipment? Do  the Parties consider this condition could affect 
trade flows?  
 In instances where shipment had already been effected but the importer did not ask for any 
Certificate of Origin at the time of shipment, upon request by the exporter, the issuing authority is 
allowed to retroactively issue the Certificate of Orig in within 1 year from date of shipment. This is 
also the same cap used for validit y of Certificate of Origin.  From our experience, most exporters 
apply their Certificates of Origin at the time of shipment.  The period of 1 year is to deal with exceptional cases which are far and few in between.  
A. REGULATORY PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT  
1. Standards 
(a) Technical barriers to trade 
17. Could the Parties confirm whether conformity  assessment bodies have been designated 
under Annex 5A of the Agreement yet? If so , how many and how many test reports and 
certifications have been accepted by the ot her party under this Annex in particular?  
 Please see response to question 18. 
 
18. Has any conformity assessment bodies been designated under Annex 5C of the 
Agreement yet? If so, how many  and how many test reports and certifications have been 
accepted by the other party under this Annex in particular? 
 The Parties agreed to implement the MRA in  accordance with Annex 5A and 5C.  The MRA 
had commenced with Designation Authorities of eith er Party submitting the application with regards 
to Conformity Assessment Body (CAB) to the othe r Party and the application process is ongoing.   
 
 To date, one CAB had recently received notif ication of approval in end March 2008 and the 
MRA with regards to Annex 5C is  now operational.  So far, no re port/certifications have been done 
yet. WT/REG228/2 
Page 6  
 
  2. Safeguard mechanisms 
(a) Global Safeguard Measures 
19. Could the Parties indicate whether Article 2.9.5 has been invoked under the Agreement? 
If so, could the Parties elaborate further? 
 Neither Party has invoked the provisions of Article 2.9.5. 
 
(b) Bilateral safeguards 
20. As indicated in paragraph 42, "Article 2.9 set s out the rules that apply to the imposition 
of a bilateral safeguard measure.  A Party m ay impose a bilateral safeguard measure on an 
originating good if there is an increase in imports in absolute terms which causes or threatens to cause". 
 Has this article been invoked under the Ag reement? If so, could the Parties elaborate 
further? 
 
 Neither Party has initiated any bilateral safe guard measure against the other Party under 
Article 2.9 of CECA  
IV.  Provisions on Trade in Services and Investment  
 
21. Article 7.11 contains provisions on recognition of standards or criteria for the 
authorization, licensing or certification of servic es suppliers. The Parties agreed to ensure that 
their respective professional bodies in the service sectors of accounting and auditing, 
architecture, medical (doctors), dental and nur sing negotiate and conclude, within twelve 
months of the date of entry into force of this  Agreement, any such agreements or arrangements 
providing for mutual recognition of the educatio n or experience obtained, requirements met, or 
licenses or certifications in those service se ctors, the details of such agreements or 
arrangements, including the exact extent and scope of recognition.  
 Could the Parties explain how many of these agreements or arrangements were 
concluded and whether or not these were notified  to the WTO pursuant to GATS Article VII? 
 
 The following Negotiations for MRAs under India-Singapore CECA between the concerned 
professional bodies of India and Singapore are underway:   i) Council of Architecture of India and Board of Architects (BOA), Singapore; 
 ii) Institutes of Chartered Accountants of I ndia (ICAI) and Institute of Certified Public 
 Accountants of Singapore (ICPAS); 
 iii) Dental Council of India (DCI) and Singapore Dental Council (SDC);  iv) Medical Council of India and Singapore Medical Council;  v) Indian  Nursing Council and Singapore Nursing Board (SNB).  
 Further, all the issues pertaining to Mutual  Recognition Agreements (MRA’s) on Electrical & 
Electronic (EE) are settled and have become operational from the mutually agreed date of 
30 November 2007.    So far, no agreement for an MRA with any identified professional bodies has been concluded 
therefore question of notification to the WTO pursuant to Article VII of GATS does not arise. 
  WT/REG228/2 
 Page 7 
 
 
  22. In Article 7.9, the Parties agree to review their schedules of specific commitments at 
least once every three years, or earlier at the request of the other Party, with a view to 
eliminating substantially all remaining discrimi nation between the Parties in the services 
covered by the Agreement. ¨ 
 Could the Parties explain whether or not a review as meant in Article 7.9 has already 
taken place and whether the review conclude d on 1 October 2007 also addressed services? 
 
 No meeting, pursuant to Article 7.9, to revi ew the schedules of specific commitments on trade 
in services has been held so far.   
 However, a review of the CECA took place (concluded 1 Oct 2007), and involved discussions 
on services areas, including the MRAs on accounting, architecture, medical (doctors), dental, and 
nursing.  
23. Paragraph 73 of the Factual Presentation no tes that India maintains in the CECA the 
following horizontal commitment under mode 3 th at cannot be found in India's GATS schedule: 
"Prior Government approval shall be requi red where a joint venture or technology 
transfer/trademark agreement existed in the ‘same’  field except in the case of investment by 
Venture Capital Funds registered with the Security  & Exchange Board of India or where in the 
‘existing’ joint venture investment by either of the parties is less than 3% or where the existing 
joint venture is defunct or sick." 
 Could the Parties confirm that this limitatio n is more restrictive than those inscribed in 
India's GATS schedule for mode 3?  
 In general, although India’s horizontal limitati ons in the CECA differ from those in its GATS 
schedule, these commitments are not intended to prejudice India’s commitments under the GATS.  
India has bound a wider coverage of sectors under the CECA than it has under the GATS, and in that 
respect, greater market access and national treatment commitments were gained.   In this particular case, according to India, th is is basically a transparency provision of the 
policy regime in force in India and has been inco rporated in the schedule of India as per the Press 
Note 1 of 2005 of the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion. 
 
Questions from the Delegation of Japan
 
 Import duties  
24. We recognize that the Protocol to amend the Agreement was signed by the Parties in 
December 2007.  Could the Parties provide us with the percentage of duty-free products under the Agreement based on tariff lines as well as on trade values respectively, incorporating the 
liberalization commitments by India under the Protocol?  
 26.71% of the tariff lines would be duty-free under the Agreement. As far as trade value is 
concerned 80.73% of it would be duty-free. 
 
 The revised coverage is in force with effect  from 15 January 2008.  Details of the Review, 
including the revised product coverage, are provided in the web links below: 
  http://app.mti.gov.sg/default.asp?id=148&articleID=11921
 
 http://www.fta.gov.sg  
 http://www.cbec.gov.in/customs/cs-act/notifications/notfns-2k8/cs10-2k8.htm  WT/REG228/2 
Page 8  
 
  SPS measures 
 25. With reference to Paragraphs 39 and 40 of the Factual Presentation (WT/REG228/1), 
we understand that egg products, dairy products  and packaged drinki ng water are already 
subject to conformity assessment arrangements.  Are there any prospective products which will 
be subject to conformity assessment arrangements?  If that is the case, what are those 
prospective products? 
 The following are the prospective products for which there will be conformity assessment 
arrangements.  They are:  Electrical and Electronic Equipment  Safeguard mechanisms  26. With reference to III.A.2 (paragraphs 41 to 43) of the Factual Presentation, has either 
Party applied any safeguard measures to the other Party after entry into force of the 
Agreement?  Regarding global safeguards, were there any measures applied between Parties 
before entry into force of the Agreement? 
 Neither Singapore nor India has, so far, in itiated any bilateral Safeguard measure against 
Singapore under Article 2.9 of CECA.  
Dispute Settlement 
 
27. With reference to Paragraph 89 of the Fa ctual Presentation i.e. Chapter 15 of the 
Agreement, have any measures under the Chapte r been utilized?  When disputes between the 
Parties are related to both WTO and this Ag reement, do we understand that the Parties can 
utilize both WTO dispute settlement procedures  and the dispute settlement procedures under 
Chapter 15 of the Agreement?  Is there any rule about the sequence of the utilization of 
procedures?  In other words, do the Parti es have the discretion to choose procedures? 
 No, none of the measures have been utilized.  Article 15.1.2 states that “The rules and 
procedures set out in this Chapter may be waived, va ried or modified by mutual agreement.”  Both 
parties can decide whether to choose the proce dures set out in Chapter 15 or the WTO dispute 
settlement procedures.  There is no rule regard ing the sequence of utilization of procedures. 
 
 We would note that as per the provisions of Article 15.1, the dispute settlement mechanism 
under CECA can be invoked only with respect to disputes between the parties concerning their rights and obligations under this Agreement.   As per Article 16.5 of CECA both the parti es have affirmed their existing rights and 
obligations with respect to each other under exis ting bilateral and multilateral agreements to which 
both Parties are parties, including the WTO Agreement.    
Questions from the Delegation of the United States
 
 
28. The pie charts in Chart I.3 do not appear  to correspond to the information noted in 
paragraphs 4 and 5.  For example, paragraph 5 notes that “[a]s to Singapore's imports from 
India in the period 2003-2005, more than 86% were classified under four product categories (base metals, machinery, vehicles and textiles).”  However, the pie charts seem to note that 
Singapore’s four biggest import categories from  India are minerals, pearls, base metals and 
chemicals.   
  WT/REG228/2 
 Page 9 
 
 
   Could the Parties please clarify?  
 
Response by the Secretariat  
  The pie charts are correct.  Paragra phs 4 and 5 will be amended as follows: 
 
 Three product categories (machinery, chemicals and vehicles) accounted for more than 75% of India's imports from Singapore; wood pulp and base metals accounted for a further 12.6%.  Singapore's three largest export product categories – machinery, minerals and chemicals – made up 
79.1% of its total exports in 2003-2005 and accounted for 64.5% of India's imports from Singapore in 
2003-2005. 
  As to Singapore's imports from India in the pe riod 2003-2005, more than 80% were classified 
under four product categories (minerals, pearls, base metals and chemicals).  India's four largest export product categories – textiles, pearls, minera ls and chemicals – made up 58.6% of its total 
exports in 2003-2005 and accounted for 75.9% of Singapore's imports from India in 2003-2005. 
  This text will be issued in a revised document as WT/REG228/1/Rev.1.  
29. In Paragraphs 4 and 5 what per cent of trad e in the product categories listed is duty-free 
as a result of the CECA?  
 23.13%.  The information is available in  paragraph 22 of the Factual Presentation. 
 
30. There is a footnote accompanying paragraph 19, which indicates that “following the 
first Review of the CECA the Parties agreed to further expand the coverage of tariff 
concessions.  These concessions entere d into force on 15 January 2008.”   
 Please explain the additional tariff con cessions that were made following the first 
Review of the CECA.  Which products were included?  Did all of these lines go to zero?  
 India has notified, with effect from 15 January  2008, reduction/elimination on 539 tariff lines.  
Of these, 404 lines are under tariff elimination and 135 lines are under tariff reduction.  
 A range of products were included the majority of which would have their tariffs eliminated 
by mandated years.  Details of the Review, incl uding the revised product cove rage and tariff modality, 
are provided in the web links below:   http://app.mti.gov.sg/default.asp?id=148&articleID=11921
 
 http://www.fta.gov.sg  
 http://www.cbec.gov.in/customs/cs-act/notifications/notfns-2k8/cs10-2k8.htm  
 
31. Under Table III.2 (“India:  Tariff Elimination under the Agreement, by HS section”), 
what is the average tariff rate of the lines that  remain dutiable by HS section?  What is the 
average tariff rate by HS section on ce the agreement is fully in effect? 
  Please refer to Table 1. 
   
 
  WT/REG228/2 
Page 10  
 
  Table 1 
Average Tariff Rate 
HS section and description  
On dutiable items After full effect of 
Agreement 
I Live animals and animal products 30.53% 15.55% 
II Vegetable products 37.39% 16.71% 
III Animal or vegetable fats and oils 63.87% 31.14% 
IV Prepared food etc. 35.36% 14.68% 
V Minerals 5.99% 2.83% 
VI Chemical and products 8.32% 3.58% 
VII Plastics and rubber 9.63% 4.79% 
VIII Hides and skins 10.00% 4.25% 
IX Wood and articles 9.11% 5.00% 
X Pulp, paper etc. 9.20% 3.36% 
XI Textile and articles 9.95% 4.85% 
XII Footwear, headgear 10.00% 4.88% 
XIII Articles of stone 9.16% 5.00% 
XIV Precious stones, etc. 9.34% 5.00% 
XV Base metals and  products 8.93% 3.64% 
XVI Machinery 7.63% 3.08% 
XVII Transport equipment 41.74% 5.00% 
XVIII Precision equipment 8.99% 3.67% 
XIX Arms and ammunition 10.00% 10.00% 
XX Miscellaneous manufact'd articles 10.00% 10.00% 
XXI Works of art, etc. 10.00% 10.00% 
 
32. We would appreciate understanding on what basis the Parties consider they have met 
the "substantially all trade" requirement under GA TT Article XXIV, given the fact that India 
will eliminate tariffs on only 23.6 per cent of it s tariff lines, which cover only 75.1 per cent of 
imports from Singapore.  
 As noted in the factual presentation, 75.1% of import values (2003-5) from Singapore to India 
are liberalized.  In addition, the agreement provi des for expansion of c overage under the review 
mechanism. 
  Pursuant to the recent conclusion of the review  of the FTA, India has increased the coverage 
of import values as well as tariff lines under the Agreement.    
 It is the intention of the parties to continue to increase the scope and coverage of the FTA in 
this gradual manner pursuant to reviews of the FTA.    It is pertinent to note that the GATT Artic le XXIV para 8(b) does not specify that the 
indicator of substantially all trade has to be at  the commencement of the FTA for those FTAs which 
have review provisions allowing for expansi on of coverage of scope of the FTA.   
 
33. Please explain why, under the CECA, India is not eliminating tariff lines under which 
there has historically been no or negligible  levels of imports from Singapore?   
 The decision on preferential tariff reduction and elimination is a negotiated outcome. 
 34. Table V.2 (“India and Singapore: Participat ion in other RTAs …”) lists a number of 
agreements to which India is a party.  Several of  these agreements have not been notified to the 
WTO.  Could India please provide when these agreements will be notified?  
 The process of notification of other agreements is ongoing. 
   WT/REG228/2 
 Page 11 
 
 
  35. Please describe how the margin s of preferences were calcul ated under paragraphs 92, 93 
and 98. 
 Margin of Preference (MOP) offered by I ndia to Singapore on specific products, shall be 
calculated on the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) impor t duty applicable on the date of import.  
 
 For example, if the MFN duty on a particular product is 20%, and India offers a MOP of 10% 
to Singapore, the duty reduction for import from Si ngapore will become 20% - 10% of 20% = 2%. 
Hence, the applicable rate of duty for that pa rticular originating product coming from Singapore will 
be 20-2 = 18%.  If the MOP of 100% is offered to Singapore, then such originating goods shall 
receive duty free entry into India from Singapore. 
 
36. Paragraphs 73-75 note that India’s schedule of services commitments under the CECA 
includes horizontal limitations not present in India’s GATS schedule.  These limitations – 
pertaining to approval requirements for Mode 3 market access and national treatment for 
equity transfers and repatriation of sales proceeds – apply to all sectors in India’s CECA 
services schedule, including sectors in which India has existing GATS commitments.   
 Do these new horizontal limitations not result in less liberalizing and more 
discriminatory commitments than I ndia’s commitments under the GATS? 
 
 These commitments are not intended to pr ejudice India’s commitments under the GATS. 
India has bound a wider coverage of sectors under the CECA than it has under the GATS, and in that 
respect, greater market access and national treatment commitments were gained.   
 According to India, the horizontal inscription in question under Mode 3 is an industrial policy 
regime of India as per the Press Note 1 of 2005 of th e Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion. 
It has been incorporated with a view of transparency provisions.  
 
37. Article 7.11 of the CECA calls on Parties to  “ensure” that their respective professional 
bodies in four sectors (accounting and auditing, architecture, medical, and dental and nursing) 
negotiate and conclude mutual recognition agreements  within twelve months of the date of entry 
into force of the Agreement (or by August 1, 2006).   
 Can India and Singapore describe the steps they have taken to ensure this outcome? 
 
 Negotiations for an MRA as per the Indi a-Singapore CECA between the concerned 
professional bodies of India and Singapore in the area of architecture accounting, medical, Dental and 
Nursing services are underway and will be concluded as soon as possible.    Both sides consulted and met with their relevant professional bodies on their obligations 
under the CECA. Both sides also helped facilitate  meetings between the professional bodies on the 
MRAs. 
 
38. See paragraph 79.  Will the 15 new bank branches in India offered to three Singapore 
banks over four years come out of India’s global quota on new foreign bank branches?  
 India’s Response
 
 
 India confirms that the 15 new branches for 3 Singapore banks over 4 years would come out 
of India's global quota on new foreign bank branches in India.  WT/REG228/2 
Page 12  
 
   Singapore’s Response
 
  Commitments made under the bilateral CECA agreement are over and above the obligations 
of  India or Singapore under the WTO.  
__________