RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/VAL/M/45 
27 May 2008 
 (08-2467) 
Committee on Customs Valuation  
  
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 6 MAY 2008 
 
Chairman: Joe McClintock (United Kingdom)
 
  
 The agenda proposed for the meeting, circulated in WTO/AIR/3183 was adopted and 
amended during the meeting 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......................................................................8
 
IV. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ..................................................................................................8  
A. INFORMATION ON TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ...............................................................................8  
B. ARTICLE 20.3  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRADE -RELATED TECHNICAL 
ASSISTANCE ............................................................................................................................... .8 
V. FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH, SEVENTH, EIGHTH, NINTH, TENTH, 
ELEVENTH, TWELFTH, AND THIRTEENTH ANNUAL REVIEWS OF THE 
IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION OF THE CUSTOMS VALUATION 
AGREEMENT ...................................................................................................................... ....9 
VI. PRESHIPMENT INSPECTION .............................................................................................9  
VII. PARAGRAPH 12 OF THE DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION 
(WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1):  IMPLEM ENTATION-RELATED ISSUES..................................9  
A. PARAGRAPH 8.3 OF DOCUMENT WT/MIN(01)/17.......................................................................9  
VIII.  OTHER BUSINESS................................................................................................................1 2 
(i) India.......................................................................................................................... ................12  
(ii) Indonesia...................................................................................................................... .............13  
(iii) Date of the n ext meeting ....................................................................................................... ....13  
IX. ELECTION OF OFFICERS..................................................................................................13  
 
 G/VAL/M/45 
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 25th and 
26th Sessions of the Technical Committee.  Th is report is contai ned 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.  He suggested that, under this sub- item, the Committee take up the legislations in 
sequence as listed in the agenda.  He further reca lled 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.  He 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
 presented two questions which she would follow-up in writing.  
The first was related to question 1(a)ii concerning the issue of inter-company prices. It was not clear to her delegation from the response whether all inter-company prices were questioned under the 
system on the basis that they presented grounds fo r being influenced.  Regarding the response to 
question 9(b) on the appeals procedures, her delegati on sought more clarification on what was meant 
by the reference to the "rest of the fine 60%" whic h her delegation interpreted to be a penalty.    
 2.4 The Chairman
 proposed that the Committee takes note of the statements 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 him that Bahrain had also 
notified its implementing  legislation.  However, it was not yet complete and would be circulated once 
a document was received from Bahrain.  He ther efore, suggested that the Committee 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/45 
 Page 3 
 
 
   - China 
 
2.8 The Chairman  drew Members' attention to China's recent notification of the Decree of the 
Customs General Administration of the People’s Rep ublic of China, No. 148 of 2006 entitled, "The 
Rules Regarding Determination on Customs Valu e of Imported and Exported Goods".  This 
administrative measure had been circulated in document G/VAL/N/1/CHN/5.    
 2.9 The representative of China
 explained that the rules regardi ng determination of customs value 
of imported and exported g oods had been revised and came into force on 1 May 2006, as indicated in 
Decree No. 148 of Customs General Administration of China. The revised version contained new 
information in Articles 9 and 10 compared to the prev ious version. Article 9 was about restriction and 
Article 10 was about the conditions and consideratio ns which could not determine the customs value. 
These two new articles were designed to further elaborate Article 8 (a) and (b) in relation to determining the transaction value.  Articles 52 a nd 53 contained normally necessary procedures like 
price consultation, etc. which should be followed before the customs value could be determined. 
However these two articles stipulated that under so me special conditions cu stoms values could be 
determined without the set of procedures. This was to facilitate the process of clearance of goods. He 
added that there might be some other new contents in the revised version as well.  2.10 The representative of the United States
 said that his delegation was still reviewing the 
legislation but would provide some initial comme nts and questions, and may provide additional 
questions later in writing.  With respect to Article 4, the general provisions stated that customs shall 
not disclose such information outside of cust oms unless otherwise provided for by law or 
administrative regulations.  Please clarify what laws or administrative regulations would require that 
confidential information be disclosed. With regard to  Article 6, on what basis did China require that 
the duty payer provide sufficient information in or der to have the order of deductive and computed 
value reversed? Article 4 of the Agreement stated onl y that at the request of the importer the order of 
application of Articles 5 and 6 shall be reversed.  Articles 6.e and 25 appeared to be the provisions 
related to the implementation of Article 7 of the Ag reement.  However, it seemed that article 6.e and 
25 did not fully incorporate this Article and its in terpretive note.  For example, the definition of 
"reasonable means" did not appear to incorporate the note to Article 7 which stated that the method of valuation to be employed should be those laid down in Articles 1 to 6 with reasonable flexibility.  
 
2.11 He turned to the issue of related parties in  Articles 8 and 17 which appeared only to allow test 
values to be used to establish the acceptability of the transaction value. However, Article 1 of the 
Agreement provided for two tests that could be applied to determine whether a related party 
transaction value was acceptable, i.e. the circumstan ces of sale and test values.  His delegation would 
appreciate if China could clarify whether the sale te st was permitted and, if so, where in Chinese law 
it was incorporated.  On what basis did China comp el the duty payer to provide information and what 
were the consequences if the duty payer did not prov ide the information.  Furthermore, could China 
explain why importers, according to Article 48, were  only given 5 to 10 days to submit information to 
allay the doubts of customs over the truth of its declarations.  
 
2.12 With regard to the verification of inform ation provided for the computed value method in 
Article 24, China stated that customs may verify th e information.  He asked how this complied with 
Article 6.2 of the Agreement?  With respect to Chap ter 3 of the legislation, customs value of special 
imported goods, he asked wh ich products were covered by these pr ovisions.  He asked for references 
in Chinese laws and regulations for China's implem entation of Article 11 of the Agreement regarding 
appeals, and Article 13 regarding guarantees.  His delegation would also appreciate receiving a copy 
of such laws and regulations. Article 23 of the regulations regarding deductions under the deductive 
value method appeared to include profit, general expenses and commissions.  Under Article 5 of the 
Agreement, deductions could be made either for commissions or for profit and general expenses. 
Could China explain whether Article  23.3 requi red deduction of profit,  general expenses and G/VAL/M/45 
Page 4  
 
  commissions or instead allowed for deduction e ither of commissions or of profit and general 
expenses.  Based upon his delegation's initial revi ew of Articles 11, 13 and 14 relating to the 
treatment of royalties and licence fees, it had some concerns about whether these Articles properly implemented the provisions of Article 8.1.c in the interpretative notes to the Agreement.  However his 
delegation needed additional time to undertake its  evaluation and expected to have additional 
questions for China at the next meeting.  
 2.13 Turning to the interpretativ e notes, based on his delegation's review of the Decree, it appeared 
that China had incorporated only some of the in terpretative notes.  Many important provisions 
appeared to be missing such as circumstance of th e sale value, application of Article 7, and some 
elements relating to general expe nses and profit, among others.  In view of the fact that the 
interpretative notes were central to the proper impl ementation of the Agreement, the inclusion of 
some and the absence of other interpretative notes in  the Decree, regulations or elsewhere raised 
concerns. Did China have any plans to incorporate them?  His delegation realized that it may be 
difficult to answer many of these questions immediately and looked forward to receiving written 
responses.  However, it would welcome any responses th at China could provide at this meeting.  His 
delegation also requested that this item rema in on the agenda for the next meeting.  
 2.14 The representative of the European Communities
 said that his delegation was also still 
examining the legislation.  To give an indicati on of potential questions, he noted Article 2 of the 
legislation which referred to the basic principles of value determination.   He wondered if the 
principles therein were intended to reflect the princi ples in the Agreement or if there were additional 
principles being implicated or introduced.  Concerning Article 3, his delegation noted that the rules would not be applicable to certain categories of  trade such as passenger personal affects, personal 
postal traffic and so forth.   His delegation applie d the WTO rules to all trade and goods regardless of 
the actual circumstances and was wondering if th ere was any particular reason or need for these 
exemptions.  His delegation had noted the provisi ons on royalties, for two reasons.  One reason was 
the innovative approach to presenting the rules as set  out in the WTO Agreement.  He was not saying 
that there was anything wrong with this, just that it was different and, for that reason, his delegation 
was looking at it carefully.  His delegation did note, in  particular, the reference in Article 13.d. which 
said that royalties and license fees paid for the right to distribute or resell, belonged to a class of 
royalty payment which were deemed to  be related to the imported goods.  At this stage, he just wished 
to refer to this type of royalty fee, i.e. those described in Article  13.d, which were identified in the 
Agreement as being not taxable.  This provision coul d be read in different ways.  His delegation also 
noted, not necessarily a new provision in Article 14 , but an innovative reform of what would be a 
condition of sale.  So without going into technicalities, it was clear that the Agreement had been reflected in a different way.  Because of this, his delegation was taking the time to read through it and, 
therefore, could not give its final reflections at this meeting. 
 2.15 He added that an extensive section in Ch apter 3 from Articles 27 on the customs value of 
special imported goods, described extensive treatment  of how to value goods after they had been 
processed in trading zones, free trade zones and so forth.  There was not a distinct chapter in the 
Agreement on this, and goods coming from these zones ha d to be valued in accordance with the rules.  
Where administrations did develop special rules, a nd many did, it was good that they were notified 
because they deserved a certain amount of attention.  Further, in Chapter 5, his delegation noted that 
the customs value of exported goods was also covered.   Moving on to the more administrative part of 
the application of the Agreement, his delegation no ted, like the United States,  that the specific time 
lines for getting information, documents and so forth from traders, seemed pretty tight.  His 
delegation wondered whether these w ould be prejudicial for the operator or importer/trader if these 
deadlines could not be met.  Another point that ca ught his delegation's attention was in Article 47(f) 
which, in dealing with the powers of customs to ve rify declared values, said that customs may carry 
out checks with the National Tax Authorities and on  whether, presumably the importer, was a good 
citizen in terms of paying internal  taxes in relation to imported and exported goods .  He asked if being  G/VAL/M/45 
 Page 5 
 
 
  a good fiscal subject was the same as a good citizen.  Again, this was something his delegation had 
not seen before.  It was trying to understand what the implications of this would be, whether, for 
example, the actual fiscal status or standing of a ta x payer in relation to the internal revenue services 
and so forth would have a bearing on the valuati on of their goods.   His delegation would presume 
that it should not, but the text opened the window into an area of activity of traders/importers that was 
unusual to see in valuation legislation.   
 2.16 His last point concerned Article 56 which was a series of definitions.  His delegation noticed a 
definition of a buyer and seller where the buyer wa s defined as a person who brought goods into the 
People's Republic of China.  He assumed that th is meant that a buyer was in China as opposed to 
somebody buying goods into China but his delegation ask ed for a clarification on this.  He hoped that 
China would take note of these comments and questions and perhaps come back with some clarifications or assurances.  His delegation would lik e to be sure that it fully appreciated the content 
and the scope of the legislation because it was comp rehensive and innovative in its presentation of  
the rules.   
 
2.17 The representative of China
 informed the Committee that he had received the US questions 
the previous day and had transferred them to his capital for review.  It would be necessary to come 
back to these questions at the next meeting of th e Committee.  He also encouraged other Members 
who had questions to submit them in advance so th at his delegation could ha ve enough time to review 
and prepare the answers.  He asked the EC to provide  its questions in writing so that he could transfer 
them to his capital for review as well.   
 2.18 The Chairman
 proposed that the Committee takes note of the statements made and reverts to 
this notification at its next meeting.  
2.19 It was so agreed
. 
 
 - Egypt 
 
2.20 The Chairman  recalled that Egypt had notified Articles 22 and 23 of Egypt's law no. 95 of 
2005, amending Articles 22 and 23 of the customs Law no. 66 of 1963, and Articles 14-35 of the 
Ministerial Decree no. 10 of 2006.  These had been circulated in WTO document G/VAL/N/1/EGY/1.  
Egypt had also notified its responses to the Checklist of Issues in document G/VAL/N/2/EGY/1.  At 
the last meeting, questions were posed to Egypt by the United States and Canada.  The United States 
circulated their questions in document G/VAL/W/166.  It was agreed at the last meeting to revert to 
this examination at this meeting.    2.21 The representative of the United States
 confirmed that his delegation had posed questions to 
Egypt which had been circulated in document G/VAL/W/166.  Egypt had provided the US with a 
response to the questions bilaterally in late Ap ril 2008.  His delegation was still reviewing those 
responses and would follow up with any additional qu estions.  However, his delegation believed that 
Egypt should provide responses to the Secretariat for circulation to all Members of the Committee and 
requested that the Committee take up this matter at it s next meeting.  When all Members have had the 
opportunity to see the answers then the Committe e could have a more meaningful discussion. 
 
2.22 The representative of Canada  informed the Committee that her delegation had also received a 
response bilaterally to its specific question on th e appeal procedures.  Egypt responded that the 
importer would have access to the judiciary in Egyp t.  However, as the response was not detailed in 
terms of how and under what circumstances such access could be obtained, she also encouraged 
Egypt to circulate its answers to the rest of the Membership. 
 G/VAL/M/45 
Page 6  
 
  2.23 The representative of Egypt
 said that his delegation woul d circulate the responses sent 
bilaterally to the US and Canada to the Membersh ip through the official documents of the WTO. 
 2.24 The Chairman
 proposed that the Committee takes note of  the statements made and revert to 
this notification at its next meeting. 
 
2.25 It was so agreed . 
 
 - Kuwait 
 
2.26 The Chairman  drew Members' attention to Kuwait's no tification of its national legislation in 
G/VAL/N/1/KWT/1.  In its submission, Kuwait ha d notified the Amiri Decree No. 10/2003 on issuing 
the unified Customs Law of the GCC States, (Articles 26-29 and 61-62 as well as explanatory notes, sections IV and VI) in order to implement Artic les 11, 12 and 13 of the Agreement on Customs 
Valuation;  and the Amiri Decree No. 200/2003 on issuing the Rules of Implementation of the unified 
Customs Law of the GCC States, article (1) en titled "Value of Goods for Customs Purposes". 
 2.27 In the absence of comment s or questions, the Chairman
 proposed that the Committee agrees 
to conclude the examination of the legislation of Kuwait.   2.28 It was so agreed
. 
 
 - Saudi Arabia 
 
2.29 The Chairman  recalled that at the last meeting, it was agreed to revert to the legislation of 
Saudi Arabia contained in document G/VAL/N/1/S AU/1 and to its responses to the Checklist of 
Issues contained in document G/VAL/N/2/SAU/1.    
 2.30 In the absence of comment s or questions, the Chairman
 proposed that the Committee agrees 
to conclude the examination of the legislation of Saudi Arabia.    2.31 It was so agreed
. 
 
 - Tanzania 
 
2.32 The Chairman  recalled that at the last meeting, the United States posed an oral question to 
Tanzania on its legislation implementing the Agreement which had been circulated in 
G/VAL/N/1/TZA/1.  Tanzania had also notified its  responses to the Checklist of Issues in document 
G/VAL/N/2/TZA/1.  It was agreed to revert  to this examination at this meeting.    
 2.33 The representative of the United States
 recalled that his delegati on had had many complaints 
about the Tanzanian Customs Valuation methodolog y for used clothing.  His delegation sought 
clarification on how Tanzania determined the va lue of used clothing and how such valuation 
conformed to the Agreement.  As discussed bilatera lly, his delegation would be willing to work with 
Tanzania on this matter.  2.34 The Chairman
 proposed that the Committee takes note of the statement made and reverts to 
this matter at its next meeting. 
 
2.35 It was so agreed . 
  G/VAL/M/45 
 Page 7 
 
 
   - Thailand 
 
2.36 The Chairman  recalled that at the last meeting, members agreed to revert to Thailand's 
notification in G/VAL/N/1/THA/1 and to the responses to the Checklist of Issues in 
G/VAL/N/2/THA/1.  The United States had circulat ed questions to Thailand in G/VAL/W/128, and 
Thailand’s replies were circulat ed 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.  Following the last meeting the 
Philippines circulated questions regarding Thailand' s valuation of cigarettes in G/VAL/W/164 and the 
United States circulated in additional questions on the legislation in G/VAL/W/165.  2.37 The representative of the European Communities
, while hoping that the process of questions 
and answers could be concluded, informed th e Committee that his delegation had requested 
consultations with Thailand in relation to customs valuation matters.  Such consultations had taken 
place in March in a constructive and positive manner.  It remained to be seen what the follow-up 
would be.  Obviously trade was continuing so his delegation looked forward to seeing this 
constructive atmosphere reflected in a practical wa y.  Having said that, his delegation believed that 
the process in this Committee still had to continue and,  for the benefit of all interested parties, his 
delegation hoped that Thailand could tidy up the gaps in information in relation to the questions posed 
in this Committee.   
 2.38 The representative of the United States
 confirmed that his delega tion still had not received a 
response from Thailand to the questions it had subm itted in G/VAL/W/158 of 9 October 2006.  It was 
perplexed by this and asked Thailand if it inte nded to respond to these questions.  His delegation 
requested the item to remain on the agenda even if an oral response was made at this meeting because 
time was need to study any responses.  Turning to al coholic beverages, the US continued to consider 
it important that the proper valuation be made of al coholic beverages and other products in Thailand.  
It looked forward to further discussions with Th ailand in this regard, including steps by which 
Thailand could avoid improper resort to the deductive value method.  It would be useful for Thailand 
to respond to the outstanding questions on this topic which had yet to be answered in the context of 
the WTO notification and review process. 
 
2.39 The representative of the Philippines  informed the Committee that, like the EC, his 
Government had also requested consultations with Thailand under the DSU.  The consultations took 
place last month in Bangkok.  They were useful a nd his delegation looked forward to resolving many 
issues with Thailand hopefully soon.  
2.40 The representative of Thailand
 confirmed that her delegation was now in the process of 
consultations on the issue with both the EC a nd the Philippines and hoped that positive progress in 
resolving these issues would be made soon.  She acknowledged that the US had posed questions 
circulated in document G/VAL/W/165.  She recalle d that the US had also posed these questions 
during a Thailand Trade Policy Review sessions in November 2007.  Her delegation had provided its 
responses in writing which were circulated in a TPR document WT/TPR/M/191/Add.1.  There were 
some questions that the US had posed in the docum ent referred to earlier, to which her delegation had 
updated its response, particularly the question on Se ction 11 bis of the Thai Customs Act B.E. 2469.  
Thailand's political situation had been changing du ring the past years.  Last year, Thailand had 
national elections and the body previously acting as a parliament was dissolved and did not have the 
chance to approve the customs proposal to repeal sec tion 11 bis.  Currently, customs is preparing to 
re-submit to the Ministry of Finan ce its proposal to repeal section 11 bis.  Afterwards, it will be 
proposed to the Cabinet and the House of Represent atives again.  With regard to the interpretive G/VAL/M/45 
Page 8  
 
  notes, Article 14, her delegation strongly believed th at the Thai customs law fully complied with the 
Agreement and its interpretive notes.  However, sh e took note of the US concern and, in the same 
token, would appreciate if the US could share with Thailand the information on how the US had 
incorporated and adopted the interpretive notes of  the Agreement into the US customs law and 
regulations.    
2.41 The representative of the United States
 said that he could not comment on the responses 
provided in the TPR context since he did not have those documents with him.  He noted that the  
questions to which he referred were posed in a diff erent context, i.e. this Committee, and that he 
believed that the additional transparency of circul ating them in this context would be useful.  
Otherwise there would be questions on record to wh ich there were no responses given.  So, he asked 
Thailand to take the questions that had been answer ed in its TPR and simply resubmit them to this 
Committee so that they could be circulated and reviewed at the next Committee meeting.   
 
2.42 The representative of Thailand  said that she would follow-up with her delegation so that it 
could resubmit those response to this Committee.  2.43 The Chairman
 proposed that the Committee takes note of the statements made and reverts to 
this notification at its next meeting.  
2.44 It was so agreed
. 
 
III. INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION OF DECISIONS OF THE COMMITTEE 
ON CUSTOMS VALUATION 
3.1 The Chairman  recalled that under this agenda item, the Committee noted any new 
notifications of application of the Decisions of  the Committee on Customs Valuation on, first, the 
"Treatment of Interest Charges in the Customs Value of Imported Goods” and, second, the “Valuation 
of Carrier Media Bearing Software for Data Processing Equipment", both adopted by the Committee and contained in document G/VAL/5.  Since the last  meeting, Albania had not ified its application of 
the two Decisions as of 8 September 2000.  Th is was recorded in the updated document 
G/VAL/W/5/Rev.19.  He urged Members to notify the Committee, as necessary, on their practices 
regarding these two Decisions.   He proposed that  the Committee take note of this information. 
 3.2 It was so agreed
. 
 
IV. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 
A. INFORMATION ON TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  
4.1 The Chairman  recalled that, under this item, the Secret ariat informed Member s of the technical 
assistance activ ities carried out under the auspices of the WCO.  Document G/VAL/8/Add.19 contained 
the most recent information, reported to the 26th Session of the Technica l Committee on Customs 
Valuation, on technical assistance activities carrie d out by the WCO Secretariat and WCO Members.   
 
B. 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 document G/VAL/W/82/Rev.1.      G/VAL/M/45 
 Page 9 
 
 
  4.3. The Committee noted previously that cu stoms valuation technical assistance was now 
incorporated in the WTO-wide technical assistan ce program. The 2008-2009 Plan did not contain any 
regional activities on customs valuation.   Requ ests for technical assistance on customs valuation 
could be made at any time by individual Members a nd would be met by a national activity designed to 
meet the needs of the recipient.  One such national activity was carried out in Nigeria in 
November 2007 and another was scheduled to ta ke place in Zimbabwe in October 2008.   
 4.4 The Chairman
 proposed that the Committee takes not e of the information presented.   
 4.5 It was so agreed
. 
 
V. FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH, SEVENTH, EIGHTH, NINTH, TENTH, ELEVENTH, 
TWELFTH, AND THIRTEENTH ANNUAL REVIEWS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION OF THE CUSTOMS VALUATION AGREEMENT 
5.1 The Chairman
 recalled that at its last meeting, th e Committee took note of the nine documents 
containing the Fourth through Twelfth Annual Re views 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/AL/W/156 and Corr.1.  It also ad ded the thirteenth Annual Review to  the list contained in document 
G/VAL/W/162.  The delegation of India had stated at the last meeting that it was continuing its review 
of this matter.     
 
5.2 The representative of India  stated that the question of whether to continue with this reservation 
was being reviewed in his capital in consultation with other stakeholders.  This process was taking 
time because of the wide changing nature of these cons ultations.  He expected to be able to inform 
this Committee of a final decision shortly. 
 
5.3 The representative of the European Communities  said that his delegation shared the same hope 
as the Indian delegation.  He thanked the Chair for an active dialogue in this respect and for bringing 
this matter forward and looked forward to  an early resolution of the matter.   
 5.4 The Chairman
 proposed that the Committe e takes note of the statemen ts made and reverts to 
this matter at the next meeting. 
 5.5 It was so agreed
. 
 
VI. PRESHIPMENT INSPECTION 
6.1 The Chairman  asked if any Member wished to take th e floor on this item, which was a standing 
item on the Committee's agenda.   6.2 In the absence of any comments, the Chairman
 concluded this agenda item.   
 
VII. PARAGRAPH 12 OF THE DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION 
(WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1):  IMPLEMENTATION-RELATED ISSUES 
A. PARAGRAPH 8.3 OF DOCUMENT WT/MIN(01)/17   
7.1 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 the last meeting India circulated a paper in Job(07)/153.   G/VAL/M/45 
Page 10  
 
  7.2 The representative of India
 stated that his delegation had made a proposal in 2002 to give 
affect to the mandate contained in Decision 8.3 of the Doha Decision regarding the question of 
information exchange between customs administrations  to check instances of incorrect declaration of 
transaction values.  Taking account of the interventi ons made, at the last meeting his delegation had 
circulated a document incorporating some criteria to  guide such requests for information.  It had 
indicated at that meeting that it would continue discussions with interested delegations to reach 
acceptable language.  These discussions were still goi ng on and he requested the Committee to retain 
this item on its agenda for its next meeting.  7.3 The representative of United States
 said that his delegation considered the exchange of 
information among customs administrations to be  an important endeavour with the purpose of 
strengthening cooperation and preventing fraud.  The exchange of information was important both for 
developed and developing countries.  He noted that  this issue was being considered in the trade 
facilitation negotiations where Members were exam ining a number of proposals, including ones 
which contained elements quite similar to those in  India's paper.  His delegation looked forward to 
further discussions and considered that the trade facilitation negotiations were  the appropriate venue 
to continue them.  7.4 The representative of Brazil
 recognised that there were many similarities between this 
proposal and India's proposal in the Trade Facilitation Committee.  He wished to put on record that, as 
his delegation already supported this proposal in the Trade Facilitation Negotiating Group, it also 
supported the main elements contained in this paper. 
 7.5 The representative of Canada
 said that her delegation continued to hold the view that 
Decision 8.3 clearly stated that, when informati on exchange was sought, the exporting member shall 
offer cooperation and assistance consistent with its dom estic laws and procedures.  This caveat, that it 
had to be consistent with domes tic laws and procedures, suggested that some Members would have 
difficulties in assisting and that it was not binding.  Therefore, her delegation did not believe that the 
proposal provided a solution where Members did not have the information a requesting Member 
sought, nor did it provide any mechanism for a reque sting Member to decline such a request, should 
the use of information or confidentiality or cons istency with domestic laws  remain a concern.  
Therefore, she again pointed to the means provided by the Technical Committee on Customs 
Valuation.  An update to the Customs Valuation Control Handbook was completed by the TCCV that 
would further guide administrations in dealing w ith situations where they doubted the truth or 
accuracy of values declared.  Her delegation encouraged  India to take another look at this because it 
believed that it provided good guidance to how to operationalise paragraph 8.3. 
 
7.6 The representative of Korea  said that his capital was still reviewing the proposal.  As a 
preliminary comment, he considered that the Committee needed to thi nk about whether this 
Committee was the best venue to di scuss this proposal because a simila r proposal had been dealt with 
in another forum.  Secondly, information on custom s value should be treated with confidentiality and 
judiciary proceedings should be used with cauti on.  His delegation did not see the  mandate as 
providing for any binding mechanism.  Therefore, it believed that such exchanges should be pursued 
on a bilateral basis or the excha nge mechanism should be non-binding.   Finally, his delegation was 
prepared to discuss the matter in further consultations if necessary. 
 
7.7 The representative of the European Communities  recalled that his delegation contributed on 
this point at the last meeting.  While not wishi ng to repeat its positions, he noted that there were 
discussions taking place elsewhere with a strong pa rallel to the content being discussed in this 
Committee.  While there was a legitimate agenda item to be dealt with in this Committee, his 
delegation had a preference to focus attention in the other body which was discussing the matter.  His 
delegation looked forward to results in that exerci se.  Stepping slightly outside the scope of this  G/VAL/M/45 
 Page 11 
 
 
  agenda item, he recalled the indispensable need fo r all administrations, not to just apply the WTO 
rules on valuation properly, but to make sure that they carried out valuation properly.  Some of the 
ideas and mechanisms for this were, not necessarily out of date, but certainly some years old.  
Customs administrations needed to continue to reflect on their mission to see how they could make 
sure they were doing their work properly, taking into account that some of the mechanisms might not 
be the most current ones available.  He raised this informally simply to appeal to customs 
administrations to consider whether they were really as modernised as they could be.    
 7.8 The representative of Australia
 noted that the matter was being discussed elsewhere and, for 
that reason, would temper some of his comments.  He had several points of technical feedback on 
India's proposal but would skim over them keeping in  mind that his delegation would engage in more 
substantive feedback in the trade facilitation nego tiations.  His customs service saw some benefit in 
the Indian proposal with some caveats around that support.  The first was to  use the mechanism in 
exceptional circumstances and the second was that it was important to remember that exchange of 
compliance information was only part of the solution  to effective compliance control.  There should 
be a more comprehensive approach that used risk assessment and post clearance auditing systems.  He 
mentioned, without going into detail on the bullet points, that his delegation could agree with, for 
examples bullets 3, 4 and 5.  Other points that might cause some difficulties included, in particular, bullet 6 on the issue of confidentiality.  This see med to be a proposal that Members should always 
consent to the provision of information for u se in judicial proceedings.  This was not his 
Government's practice;  the Australian customs administration was not compelled to consent to 
provide information and it did not think that custom s administration should be expected to ignore its 
national laws and procedures.  This part of the proposal was unacceptable to his delegation.  More 
lengthy feedback on this paper could be expressed elsewhere.  7.9 The representative of Singapore
 confirmed that opposition concerning paragraph 8.3 
remained.  Therefore his delegation maintained its reservations on the proposal circulated by India 
notwithstanding today's effort and future consultatio ns whether they informal or not.  His delegation 
would be happy to participate in them to better unde rstand the proposal by India and at the same time 
share its views on this matter.  As noted by Korea,  Japan, US and several others, similar elements of 
this proposal were also being discussed in th e trade facilitation negotiations.  Therefore one 
consideration for the Committee should be the e fficiency as well as the interface of these two 
discussions taking place in parallel. 
 7.10 The representative of  Japan
 also noted that the content of  the Indian document was very 
similar to another proposal that was tabled in the trade facilitation negotiations.  His delegation 
believed that taking up very similar topics in two different places was rather inefficient.  Further, 
paragraph 8.3 of the Doha Ministerial Decisi on mentioned exchange of information between 
exporting and importing countries.  However, there was no mention that such a scheme was to be binding in nature.  In addition, paragraph 8.3 clear ly mentioned that information exchange should be 
done consistently with domestic laws and procedures in the information providing countries.  So 
taking into account these points, his delegation was op en to further discussing ways to make point 8.3 
more operational.  His delegation had provided detailed comments regarding this proposal in the trade 
facilitation negotiations. 
 7.11 The representative of India
 thanked Brazil for lending its support to the proposal and said that 
his delegation would definitely take into account th e concerns raised by other Members in coming out 
with some solution.  He was not sure why this proposal could not be considered in two different 
Committees.  He did not know what prohibited th at.  This Committee had all the rights and the 
authority to consider this proposal.   G/VAL/M/45 
Page 12  
 
  7.12 The Chairman
 proposed that the Committee takes note of  the statements made and revert to 
this matter at its next meeting.  In the meantime, he would be available for informal consultations, if 
necessary.  7.13 It was so agreed
. 
 
VIII.  OTHER BUSINESS 
8.1 The representative of the United States  requested an amendment to the agenda in order that he 
may raise two items, India and Indonesia, under Other Business.   
8.2 The Chairman
 proposed that the agenda be amended by the addition of the two items to be 
raised by the United States. 
8.3 It was so agreed . 
(i) India 
8.4 The representative of the United States  asked India for clarification on the implementation of 
two articles of the Agreement.  With regards to the implementation of Article 11, the information 
provided by India in its response to the Checklist of  Issues in G/VAL/N/2/IND/1 stated that under the 
"Customs Act, 1962 the importer and his agent can appeal against a decision on valuation to the 
Commissioner (Appeal) in the first instance.  A se cond appeal also lies to the Customs Excise and 
Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal.”  Further, G/VAL/N/2/IND/1 stated that “Rule 10A (2) of the Customs Valuation Rules (Determination of Price of Imported Goods), 1988 provides that, at the 
request of the importer, the proper officer sha ll intimate the importer in writing the grounds for 
doubting the truth or accuracy of the value declared of the imported goods.”  8.5 Recently the United States had received reports th at in order to file an appeal in a valuation 
investigation by Indian Custom s, a company must receive documentation, such as a Show Cause 
notice.  It had been further reported that such documentation had not been provided on request, which 
his delegation understood would eff ectively preclude appeal.  He asked (i) if India could explain how 
companies were informed of actions taken by Indian Customs with regards to them or their shipments;  
(ii) if India could confirm that an appeal could not  be made until documentation was received;  (iii) if 
documentation was required before an appeal could be  lodged, were there guidelines as to when such 
documentation must be provided;  and (iv) if a company requested documentation and did not receive 
it, were there avenues which the company could pursue to obtain such documentation? 
 8.6 With regards to the implementation of Article 13, the United States understood from the information provided by India in response to th e Checklist of Issues in G/VAL/N/2/IND/1 that 
“Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regulations, 1963 
allowed an importer to withdraw his goods from customs pending final determination of value by 
giving a guarantee in the form of surety, security de posit or bank guarantee.”  He asked if India (i) 
could  confirm that an importer had the right, not just the ability, to withdraw its goods by providing a guarantee as required by Artic le 13 of the Agreement.  If so, where wa s that stated in the law;  (ii) had 
any additional laws, regulations or directives pertaini ng to guarantees.  He asked for the references of 
these additional laws, regulations, and directives;  ( iii) could provide additiona l information regarding 
how the guarantee amount was determined and what  procedures importers must follow in order to 
withdraw goods from customs pending final determination of value. 
  G/VAL/M/45 
 Page 13 
 
 
  (ii) Indonesia 
8.7 He added that his delegation continued to seek responses to the questions it posed at the 
October 2007 meeting of the Committee with regard s to the process by which Indonesia currently 
determined the duties on imported goods on the basi s of a price database that incorporated, among 
other things, an established risk criterion for importers .  As stated in October, his delegation asked  
Indonesia to provide further clarification on its curre nt valuation methods.  Specifically,  (i) how was 
the risk level of an importer determined;  (ii) Were  importers considered “high risk” alerted of their 
status;  (iii)  once an importer had been labelled  with a particular risk level, how were the 
corresponding prices assessed;  (iv)  was the check -price database publicly available;  (v) could 
Indonesia clarify how the use of importer risk levels  and reference pricing in  determining the customs 
value of imported goods was consistent with  Articles 1.1 and 7.2 of the Agreement?  
 
8.8 His delegation had learned that Indonesia ma y be revising its customs valuation laws and 
regulations to more closely follow the hierarchy of  valuation methodologies set forth in the Customs 
Valuation Agreement.  This would be a welcome de velopment.  In this regard, the United States 
expected that any revisions to Indonesia’s customs laws and regulations would not permit the customs 
value to be determined based on reference pr ices or risk.  While the United States understood 
Indonesia was concerned with under-invoicing practices, it urged Indonesia to adopt a valuation system consistent with the Agreement, which would lead to more transparent and less trade-distorting 
methods of valuation.  
 
8.9 The representative of India
 requested that the United States send these questions in writing so 
that he could forward them to his Capital.  He  would revert with the replies as soon as possible. 
 8.10 The representative of the United States
 said that he would circulate the questions to the two 
delegations in writing.   
 
(iii) Date of the next meeting 
8.11 The Chairman  informed Members that the next mee ting of the Committee was scheduled for 
17 October 2008.      
IX. ELECTION OF OFFICERS 
9.1 The Chairman
 reported that the Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods had carried out 
informal consultations on a slat e of names for appointment of Chairpersons of standing bodies in 
accordance with the established Guidelines for Appointment of Officers.  On the basis of 
consultations, he had proposed that the Comm ittee elect Ms. Octavia Cherchez (Romania) as 
Chairperson for 2008.  He proposed that th e Committee elect Ms. Cherchez by acclamation. 
 
9.2. The Committee so agreed . 
 9.3 The meeting was adjourned.   
 
    
 
 G/VAL/M/45 
Page 14  
 
  Annex I
 
 
Report to the Committee on Customs Valuatio n on the work of the Technical Committee on 
Customs Valuation and on technical assistance. 
(May 2008) 
  Since the last meeting of the Committee on Customs Valuation, the Technical Committee on 
Customs Valuation (Technical Committee) held its 25
th Session from 22 to 25 October 2007 and the 
26th Session from 31 March to 4 April 2008 at the WCO Headqua rters in Brussels.  The report of its 
25th Session and the WCO Secretariat’s programme of  technical assistance in the field of Customs 
valuation contained in document VT0598E1c, which was adopted at the 26th Session, is annexed. 
  The report of the 24
th Session and the WCO Secretariat’s programme of technical assistance in 
the field of Customs valuation was presented  to the Committee in Geneva in May 2007. 
 
Administrative Matters Related to the Application of the Agreement  
  The Council at its 111/112
th Sessions  in June 2008 is likely to adopt 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 is conducting a regional seminar on impl ementation of the WTO Agreement for the countries of   the 
Central America region in the Dominican Republic from 26
th May to 30 May 2008.  Another regional 
seminar is being organized in Burkina Faso. 
 
Fellowship Programme  
  The WCO organized the 46
th Fellowship Programme for English-speaking officers from 1 to 
26 October 2007 at the WCO Headquarters.  Two officers from the Customs administrations of Bangladesh and India chose Customs valuation as their field of study. 
 
 The 47
th WCO Fellowship Programme for French speaking fellows took place from 
25 February to 20 March 2008 at the WCO, and two Customs officers from the Central African Republic and Togo attended the course in Customs valuation.  
25
th Session of the Technical Committee  
  At its 25
th Session, in October 2007 the Technical Committee continued to consider technical 
questions on Royalties and License Fees submitte d by Brazil, Canada, Colombia and Japan. 
 The Technical Committee also discusse d the following technical issues: 
 
• Customs Valuation of imported electricity (Brazil) 
• Customs Valuation treatment of busin ess design documentation (Kazakhstan) 
• The issue of “Group under invoicing” (Pakistan) 
• Valuation of perfume testers (Mauritius) 
• Valuation of cinematographic films (Mauritius)  G/VAL/M/45 
 Page 15 
 
 
  26th Session of the Technical Committee  
  The Technical Committee at its 26
th Session in March-April 2008 continued to deliberate upon 
the technical issues discussed at the 25th Session, besides other routine matters.  It also held a Theme 
Meeting for the first two days on Risk Assessme nt and Valuation Database, Post Clearance Audit, 
Authorized Economic Operators a nd Secondary Valuation Methods. 
  The Technical Committee also deliberated upon the issue of Transfer Pricing which was 
recommended by the Focus Group on Transfer Pricing and agreed to take the issue forward in the next 
session by way of developing draft case studies a nd presentations by the OECD and the ICC. 
 
 The Technical Committee approved Case Study 13.2 on Application of Decision 6.1 of the 
Committee on Customs Valuation (on Group under invoicing).   Mr. Ian Cremer of the UK was re-elected as the Chairperson, and Mr. G. Manes from Uruguay 
and Mrs. D. Yilmaz from Turkey were elected as the two Vice-Chairpersons for a period of one year. 
 Focus Group on Transfer Pricing
 
  As a follow-up to the recommendations of the Second Joint WCO-OECD Conference on 
Transfer Pricing in May 2007, the Focus Group on Transfer Pricing with representatives of the WTO, 
WCO, OECD, Customs, Tax Administrations and th e Private Sector, held its first meeting on 
26 October 2007 in Brussels following the 25
th Session of the Technical Committee.  It deliberated 
upon issues of convergence between transfer pricing and Customs valuation, intangibles and greater 
certainty for business.  
Private Sector Workshops on Transfer Pricing
 
  The WCO held its First Workshop on Customs Va luation and Transfer Pricing for the private 
sector on 13-14 November 2007 at the WCO Headquarters.   The Second such Workshop on the same subject is being organized on 14-15 May 2008 at the 
WCO. 
__________