WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/C/W/581 
3 July 2007 
 
 (07-2802) 
Council for Trade in Goods Original:   French 
  
 
REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF 
MINIMUM VALUES BY SENEGAL 
 
Communication from Senegal
 
 
 
 The following communication, dated 29 June 2007,  is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of Senegal.  
_______________ 
 
  The purpose of this report is to follow up on and assess progress in the implementation of the 
minimum values that Senegal was authorized to maintain by the WTO General Council, at the 
proposal of the Council for Trade in Goods, follow ing a request for an extension of the waiver 
referred to in document WT/L/571 of 7 June 2004  which Senegal enjoys u nder Article IX of the 
Marrakesh Agreement. 
  In submitting this report, Senegal is comply ing fully with the principles and modalities set 
forth in the Decision granting the extension, point 2 of which provides that Senegal
 will report to the 
Committee on Customs Valuation by 31 March 2007 on th e status of its implementation of officially 
established minimum values . 
  The Customs administration has been consis tent in its approach, holding extensive 
consultations with the other authorities involved a nd actors interested in the implementation of the 
minimum values.  
 Following a brief reminder of the context, which will help readers to better situate the report, 
the body of the text is split into two main part s, highlighting, on the one hand, the methods of 
administering and managing minimum values in relati on to the standards set forth in the Decision, 
and, on the other, the impact of these values on the Senegalese economy.  
Preliminary chapter:  Context
 
  Senegal is party to a regional trade agre ement known as the West African Economic and 
Monetary Union (WAEMU), characterized by a common external tariff (CET) that has very low rates, 
ranging from 0 to 20 per cent. 
 
 Senegal is also a contracting party to the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VII 
of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, otherwise known as the Customs Valuation 
Agreement.   By virtue of its LDC status, however, Senegal officially invoked and was granted the benefit 
of more favourable transitional provisions under th e special and differential treatment afforded by 
Article 20 of and Annex III to the Agreement, a lthough these did not take effect until 1 July 2001. G/C/W/581 
Page 2  
 
   
 On 5 June 2002, Senegal submitted a requ est to the WTO under Article IX of the 
WTO Agreement for authorization to apply minimum values to a restricted list of goods identified 
using criteria based on objective data and information taken from trade statistics. 
 
 On 17 May 2004, the General Council agreed to this request and waived the obligations set 
forth in the Agreement for a period of three years,  with retroactive effect from the date when the 
request was made, namely 2 June 2002.  The fi rst official note, No. 1035/DGD/DEL/DRCI/BOV of 
2 June 2004, giving effect to the minimum values,  is apposite evidence that Senegal was able to 
benefit from the minimum values for only one year , significantly less than the three-year period 
anticipated. 
  In order to benefit fully from the expected th ree years, Senegal requested a waiver extension 
for a further two years.  
 The request for an extension met with su ccess, with Decision G/C/W/551 of 4 May 2006 
granting the requested extension until 30 June 2007, the date when the extension will officially come 
to an end.   This report addresses first of all the institutiona l and administrative management of the waiver 
within the general framework of the Customs Va luation Agreement and then its economic impact. 
 
Chapter I:  Institutional and admini strative management of the waiver
 
  During the implementation of the waiver, the Cu stoms administration worked consistently to 
establish collegiate administration characterized by broad consultation of the private sector (industrial 
operators and businessmen) and the authorities directly  involved in providing fo llow-up (in particular, 
the departments of finance, trade and industry).   To this end, an institutional framework was set up for dialogue on major decisions concerning 
minimum values.  Within this framework, the Subc ommittee on Trade in Goods, coordinated by the 
Director of Customs Studies and Legislation and subsidiary to the National Committee on 
International Trade Negotiations, meets regularly wi th the actors involved to discuss minimum values. 
  The modifications made in respect of the values for certain products were thus introduced by consensus – in some cases hard come by owing to the often very wide divergence in positions.  In 
such a context, arbitration by Customs is ba sed on objective and quantifiable data, hence the 
importance of the methodology used to determine minimum values. 
  It should be recalled that this methodology w as officially notified to the WTO and published 
in accordance with the requirements of the Decision.  It is based partly on the  world prices of the 
inputs used in the composition of products, wher e they are guaranteed or easily identified, and partly 
on the real production costs of imported products as compared to those of the various sectors that 
remain vulnerable.  The first of the above elements  enables the adverse effects of price manipulation 
to be offset, and the second enables recognized or di sguised support to be curbed.  Since these 
elements also fluctuate, regular reviews have been instituted.  
 
 With regard to valuation issues in general,  Senegal has introduced legal instruments which 
enable the Agreement to be implemented on the basi s of relevant standards and best practices.  For 
instance, the laws and regulations on valuation which are currently in effect provide for both internal 
(administrative review and appeal) and external  (arbitration or judicial review) remedies. 
  G/C/W/581 
 Page 3 
 
 
   As regards controls, a risk targeting and analys is system is in opera tion and, in parallel, a 
database is being built up progressively; these tools aid decision-making without constituting a 
mechanism to replace transaction value as the principle method for determining customs value. 
  As far as product coverage is concerned, Senegal is in full compliance with the requirement 
set forth in point 3 of the Decision, which prohibits  the application of minimum values to any goods 
not explicitly mentioned in the Annex thereto.  In this regard, the most recent report to the WTO has 
already provided ample explanation regarding th e omission of certain products, such as matches 
(tariff heading 3605), woven sacks and sheaths, of polypropylene (tariff heading 6305) and alcoholic beverages (tariff headings 2203 to 2206 and 2208). 
 
 Although the foregoing is not an exhaustive analysis, it can legitimately and reasonably be 
concluded that, as far as administration, regulat ions and recommended practices are concerned, 
Senegal comes close to best standards in the area of valuation. Suffice it to recall that Senegal not 
only complies with the WTO Decision set forth in G/VAL/5, notably the provisions of paragraph 2 on 
the valuation of carrier media-bearing software for data-processing equipment, but is also working to 
gradually integrate the computerized risk analysis system.   It is appropriate at this point to analyse th e impact of the application of minimum values on 
the economy and trade.  
Chapter II:  The economic and fiscal impact of the application of minimum values
 
  As far as the impact on the production system is concerned, certain sectors may initially see 
the measure as a panacea for illegal practices linked in particular to price manipulation (fraud, false 
declarations, under-invoicing).  However, this is not true of other sectors, which, despite the 
application of minimum values, consider their activ ities threatened by the emergence of practices that 
nowadays appear to be immune to the introduction of minimum values alone.   These practices, which are generally related to the existence of dumping or a subsidy, really 
need to be tackled with other specific instrume nts, such as anti-dumping, countervailing and even 
safeguard measures. 
 
 At sectoral level, three products were used to support the analysis in the last status report 
submitted in September 2006, namely tobacco (t ariff heading 2402.20), exercise books (tariff 
heading 4820.20) and polypropylene  sacks (tariff heading 6305.33). 
 
 There have been reports of practices used to circumvent minimum values and the existence of 
production support.  Local industry complaints continue today.   This is also true for other sectors, judging by the volume of requests for either the establishment of a minimum value for a product or  the upward adjustment of the minimum value 
applicable to eligible products. 
 
 The upshot is that, without wishing to con ceal the structural weaknesses of the local 
production sector which require internal adjustment and restructuring, it is becoming more and more 
urgent to envisage capacity-building and techni cal assistance for the authorities responsible for 
implementing trade defence measures. 
 
 With regard to the impact on trade, sin ce Senegal, like the other WAEMU countries, has 
delegated its fiscal competency to the community bodies that manage such matters through the common external tariff (CET), renowned for its low applied rates, control over tax-base components, 
in particular customs value, takes on particular importance. G/C/W/581 
Page 4  
 
   
 The statistical data taken from the Customs authorities' computer system covering the period 
1
 October 2006 to 28 February 2007 indicate the onset of  market stabilization, particularly with regard 
to the range of products used to illustrate trends during the previous reference period. 
 
 Thus, with the exception of cigarettes classi fied under tariff subheading 2402.20, the volume 
of which has experienced exponential development wi th an import value of CFAF six (6) billion, the 
growth of the other products subject to minimum values is well controlled.   An interpretation of these statistics from a more economic point of view, together with an 
analysis of the concerns of the companies bene fiting from these minimum values, reveals an obvious 
degree of vulnerability which brings to light these companies' upgrading and capacity-building needs.  
Aggressive imports are chiefly a result of unfair practices, such as subsidies, dumping, etc.   The Customs administration, in turn, is pursu ing its modernization and capacity-building plan 
thanks to the improvement of the computerized risk analysis system as a result of the expansion of its 
database, which serves as an information system on the value of goods that  can be drawn on for 
decision-making in the area of valuation, but which does not replace transactional value as the 
principle method of determining the customs value of imported goods.   In conclusion, expertise in and implementati on of trade defence instruments (anti-dumping, 
countervailing and safeguard measures) in keepi ng with WTO rules and disciplines are essential 
before lifting the waiver authorizing the app lication of minimum values can be envisaged. 
 Documents attached
: Copy of the most recent publication on the methodology 
 Copy of statistical record  G/C/W/581 
 Page 5 
 
 
  Direct Product Imports  
(1 October 2006 to 28 February 2007) 
 
Product Value OIDS Liquidation 
170410 913 178 245 538 698 193 382 640
170490 941 669 552 1 872 673 392 006 437
190211 1 268 537 541 601 040
190219 411 282 534 1 082 842 104 154 550
190220 5 928 324 3 995 1 142 556
190230 40 655 420 60 633 18 920 367
190240 224 657 411 1 131 920 99 929 430
240210 36 189 073 2 367 5 555 407
240220 6 026 235 498 642 961 7 566 901 652
482010 257 189 034 186 212 104 762 859
482020 18 512 776 19 506 6 801 819
482030 90 348 679 81 532 37 361 622
482040 3 279 758 2 376 1 458 970
482050 11 771 423 11 421 5 865 692
482090 27 672 875 16 097 9 252 075
630510 117 933 463 119 833 47 350 643
630520 651 184 120 289 740
630532 35 012 717 26 678 16 444 457
630533 1 549 303 709 1 114 239 249 273 801
630539 5 228 107 2 068 2 516 565
630590 41 435 392 32 276 1 150 619
871200 178 684 780 187 946 95 547 401G/C/W/581 
Page 6  
 
  Imports into Senegal
 
  Products:  1704**, 1902**, 2402**, 4820**, 6305**, 8712**  Period:  1 April to 20 September 2006  
Product Value Liquidation 
170410  793 191 384  190 489 217 
170490  1 483 260 569  661 141 818 
190211  1 111 129  509 003 
190219  312 897 506  127 192 775 
190220  6 905 158  3 090 420 
190230  63 037 905  28 859 727 
190240  237 093 521  105 730 480 
240210  1 446 773  2 082 182 
240220  881 288 405  600 279 461 
240290  457 864  615 510 
482010  110 692 344  48 477 196 
482020  293 640 548  127 938 388 
482030  84 764 474  35 884 354 
482040  24 039 860  10 734 238 
482050  26 205 591  12 604 208 
482090  80 920 585  33 611 817 
630510  85 318 587  38 489 998 
630520  123 650  61 071 
630532  10 563 146  4 698 735 
630533  2 098 664 775  800 004 565 
630539  3 509 059  1 610 970 
630590  144 567 913  62 713 590 
871200  87 013 631  41 135 774 
 
Products:  1704**, 1902**, 2402**, 4820**, 6305**, 8712** 
 Period:  30 September 2005 to 31 March 2006  
Product Value Liquidation 
170410  891 145 909  194 889 896 
170490  1 790 084 725  797 921 974 
190211  5 262 385   2 357 365 
190219  493 708 357  218 055 656 
190220  3 309 840  1 353 190 
190230  142 334 177  64 652 089 
190240  322 963 385  143 634 595 
240210  2 816 372  4 064 065 
240220  223 948 698  191 388 485 
240290  484 500  651 321 
482010  330 687 201  146 882 094 
482020  269 555 097  123 877 727 
482030  114 840 124  50 237 836 
482040  20 777 558   9 290 439 
482050  22 687 226  10 979 697 
482090  40 760 721  13 458 509 
630510  151 804 048  67 580 433  G/C/W/581 
 Page 7 
 
 
  Product Value Liquidation 
630520  348 947  165 909 
630532  31 974 946  14 231 277 
630533  1 945 332 953  757 000 265 
630539  14 607 974  9 788 285 
630590  105 562 174  38 753 014 
871200  230 833 580  98 696 148 
 
__________