RESTRICTED  
  
G/RO/M/71  
 
2 May 2019  
(19-3037) Page: 1/14 
Committee on Rules of Origin    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETI NG OF 15-16 OCTOBER  2018 
CHAIR PERSON : MRS. THEMBEKILE MLAN GENI (SOUTH AFRICA ) 
Subjects Discussed1 
1   IMPLEMENTATION O F THE BALI AND THE N AIROBI MINISTERIAL DECISION S ON 
PREFERENTIAL RULES O F ORIGIN FOR LEAST D EVELOPED COUNTRIES  ...........................  2 
1.1   Report by Members about measures being taken to implement the Decisions  ......................  2 
1.1.1    Report by the European Union about the implementation of the "REX System" of  
registered exp orters  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  2 
1.1.2    Report by other preference -granting Members  ................................ ..............................  3 
1.2   Developments regarding methods using a Change of Tariff Classification (CTC) criterion  
to determine substantial transformation ................................ ................................ .................  3 
1.3   Notification of Preferential Rules of Origin for LDCs – Update by the Secretariat  ..................  6 
1.4   Utilization rates under Preferential Trade Arrangements (PTA) for Least developed  
countries (LDCs)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  6 
1.4.1    Presentation by the WTO Secretariat (RD/RO/69)  ................................ .........................  6 
1.4.2    Presentation by the LDC Group (RD/RO/73)  ................................ ................................ . 8 
1.5   Draft Report of the CRO to the General Council on preferential rules of origin for LDCs .........  9 
2   EDUCATIONAL EXER CISE AND EXPERIENCE SHARING ABOUT NON -PREFERENTIAL 
RULES OF ORIGIN – INFORMATION SESSION ON  "TRANSPARENCY AND A VAILABILITY 
OF INFORMATION"  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  9 
3   CONSULTATIONS ON  "ENHANCING TRANSPAR ENCY IN NON -PREFEREN TIAL  
RULES OF ORIGIN" – REPORT BY SWITZERLAND  ................................ ...........................  12 
4   NOTIFICATIONS UN DER ARTICLE  5 AND UN DER PARAGRAPH  4 OF A NNEX  II  
OF THE AGREEMENT ON RULES OF ORIGIN  ................................ ................................ .... 13 
5   TWENTY -FOURTH AN NUAL REVIEW OF THE I MPLEMENTATION AND OP ERATION  
OF THE AGREEMENT ON RULES OF ORIGIN  ................................ ................................ .... 13 
6   DRAFT REPORT OF THE CRO TO THE COUNC IL FOR TRADE IN GOOD S .......................  14 
7   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 14 
7.1   "Determination of non -preferential origin for hot-rolled coil by Indonesia" – statement  
by Kazakhstan  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  14 
7.2   Dates of the next CRO meeting  ................................ ................................ ...................  14 
_______________  
 
The Committee  on Rules of Origin (CRO)  adopted  the agenda as reproduced in 
document  WTO/AIR/ RO/8 with the inclusion of the following two items under Other Business: 
(i) "Determination of non -preferential origin for hot-rolled coil  by Indon esia" – statement by 
Kazakhstan ; and (ii) dates of the next CRO meeting.  
                                                
1 The agenda of the meeting was circulated in document  WTO/AIR/RO/8.  G/RO/M/71  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1  IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E BALI AND THE NAIRO BI MINISTERIAL DECIS IONS ON 
PREFERENTIAL RULES O F ORIGIN FOR LEAST D EVELOPED COUNTRIES  
1.1.  The Chair proposed , as indicated in the agenda, to discuss first all matters related to 
preferential rules of origin for LDCs and the implementation of the Bali (WT/L/917) and of the Nairobi 
(WT/L/917/Add.1) Ministerial Decisions . He therefore asked preference -granting Members to report 
any new development s related to both Decisions.  
1.1  Report  by Members about measures being taken to implement the Decisions  
1.1.1   Report by the European Union about the implementation of the "REX System" of 
registered exporters  
1.2.  The representative of the  European Union  (EU) recalled t hat the certification aspects  of the 
EU's GSP rules of origin had changed . Since 2017,  the EU had implemented  "self-certification"  for 
registered exporters (presentation ( RD/RO/71 ). Certification of origin was now based solely on a 
statement by the exporte r, with no need for a third-party certificate of origin . Such a statement 
could be based o n any commercial document. This was a very trade -facilitating measure for LDC 
exporters. However, she added, to  benefit from these simplified procedures, exporters ha d to first 
register in a database. Registration was free of charge and consisted of a one -time only operation. 
Through the registration, the competent authorities in LDCs assigned a REX number to their 
exporters with which they could use the REX system in their trade operations. The information was  
transmitted to the EU and included in a public database of the EU 's DG-TAXUD. Consignments of a 
value of less than €6,000 were exempted from that obligation. In addition  to the registration system , 
beneficiary LDC authorities needed to complete two  simple  administrative pre -requisites. First , LDC 
governments had to  sign a memorandum of understanding regarding administrative cooperation 
with the EU (in case of a verificati on of origin). Second, LDCs had to  inform the contact details of 
the authorities competent for managing their registration system. The EU representative indicated 
that an identical regime was being implemented by Norway and Switzerland. As a result, comple ting 
these procedures also triggered an automatic recognition by both countries .  
1.3.  The objective of the EU, she said, was that all exports to the EU from LDCs would  use the REX 
self-certification system  by 30 June 2020. After that date , Form A certificates of origin would no 
longer be accepted. However, the EU realised that transitioning to this new system could  prove 
challenging  for some governments. For that reason, the Commission had envisioned a transitional 
period.  She reported that  25 LDCs would apply the REX system from January 2017, but eight had 
not completed the two pre -requisites : Central African Republic ; Chad; Democratic Republic of 
Congo ; Djibouti ; Liberia ; Somalia ; South Sudan ; and Timor -Leste. Another eleven LDCs had to apply 
the system from J anuary 2018, but seven had not provided the prerequisites to the EU : Afghanistan ; 
Eritrea ; The Gambia ; Guinea; Mozambique ; Niger and Sudan . The EU Commission organized regular 
training sessions in Brussels and in LDCs for governments that needed assistance .  
1.4.  The representative of Afghanistan  asked whether exporters had to register at the national level , 
with local governments,  or with the EU  Commission . He also wondered whether there were any 
conditions that had to be met by exporting companies. Finally, he asked about the trainings and 
how to make sure his government could benefit from such opportunities.  
1.5.  Likewise, the representative of Senegal  sought to clarify whether there were any checks made 
by the EU on applying companies. He asked, in addi tion, about the time it would take companies to 
complete registration procedures. Finally, he wondered whether there had been any  evidence that 
the new system had facilitated the export process for companies and countries already using it . 
1.6.  In response, t he representative of the EU clarified that only when all steps had been completed , 
would self -certification under REX be implemented for any given LDC. The steps, as she had 
explained , consisted of : (1) the registration of exporters  with national authorities ; (2) the conclusion 
of a memorandum of understanding between participating LDC governments  and the EU Commission 
for administrative cooperation in case of an origin verification; and (3) the communication of the 
names and details of the competent local au thorities. The registration of companies was made 
directly with national authorities, who themselves checked that applications were valid and complete. 
The registration could be completed electronically or on paper. The time needed to complete these 
proced ures depended on national authorities alone. She argued, however, that the process could be G/RO/M/71  
 
- 3 - 
 
  quick since the elements of the application were simple. Moreover, operators could start using the 
system from the moment they had requested registration and obtain ed an individual exporter 
number. They did not need to apply for any further procedures. Every consignment should simply 
mention the  new individual exporter number. She clarified, furthermore, that it was the obligation 
of national authorities to monitor t he application of the REX system. In case of irregularities, a 
company could be withdrawn from the system. Finally, regarding implementation, the EU had not 
received any complaints from LDCs. S everal countries were already using the system successfully, 
including under some of the EU's free trade agreements  (FTA) . In conclusion, she invited delegations 
with further questions to approach the EU delegation in Geneva to make sure they could benefit 
from the system as quickly as possible.  
1.7.  The Committee took not e of the report and of the statement made.  
1.1.2   Report by other preference -granting Members  
1.8.  The representative of China  reported that his government had  granted  trade preferences to 
LDCs with diplomatic relations with China  since January 2005 . The preferences had been gradually 
expanded and now covered more than 8,200 commodities and 43 LDCs. This meant that beneficiary  
LDCs could benefit  from duty-free treatment on 97% of tariff lines. In 2017, he added, imports 
under the preferential treatment  had reached 11.7 billion Yuan. Import s had been recorded on 403 
8-digit tariff lines, consisting mainly of sesame, shelled peanuts, jute and non -alloyed nickel. Imports 
of these commodities had preference utilization rates of 99.8%, 99.8%, 100% and 89% re spectively. 
In 2017, 93% of imports had originated from ten countries : Bangladesh; Ethiopia; Sudan; Tanzania; 
Senegal; Madagascar; Niger; Mauritania; Mozambique; and Togo. He reported , in addition , that 
China had taken various measures to continuously prom ote the implementation of the Bali and 
Nairobi Ministerial Decisions. First, it had reformed  its rules o f origin through five customs decrees  
and ten announcements and regulations. Second, it had sought to ensure better coordination and 
communication with LDC members. China ha d organized four training programmes on rules of origin 
and issuance of certificates of origin for more than 20 countries  since 2005 . More than 120 senior 
officials from customs and certificate -issuing authorities had been trained . Third, China had sought 
to optimize customs management methods  through, in particular, a new Internet -based system for 
the issuance of certificates, to be implemented by the end of 2018. The system would improve the 
quality and efficiency of certificates of origin and help achieve paperless customs clearance under 
the preferences.  
1.9.  The representative of the World Customs Organization  (WCO) reported that t he WCO 
Secretariat had developed a practical guide on the implementation of the Nairobi Decision for LDCs. 
The Guide,  published in June 2018 , consisted of a practical guide, meant for customs administrations 
but also for the private sector. The guide  was p ublicly available at the WCO website in English, 
French and Spanish and could be presented in further detail at the request of Members.  
1.10.   The representative of Tanzania  thanked China for its efforts to implement the Ministerial 
Decisions. He had been impress ed with the utilization rates mentioned and asked the delegation of 
China to consider submitting its preferential import statistics to the WTO Secretariat. Th is would 
allow the Secretariat and the LDCs to have a more comprehensive overview of China's prefe rential 
trade with LDCs.  
1.11.   In response, the representative of China  said that his delegation had been preparing China's 
preferential tariffs and imports and that it would submit the information to the Secretariat over the 
coming days.  
1.12.   The Committee took note  of the report and of the statement made.  
1.2  Developments regarding methods using a Change of Tariff Classification (CTC) 
criterion to determine substantial transformation  
1.13.   The Chair person  recalled that , according to Paragraph 1.9 of the Bali Decision  (WT/L/917) , 
one of the objectives of the Committee  was to monitor the implement ation of  the Ministerial 
Decisions  and, in doing so,  promote an exchange of experiences and identify  and mainstream best 
practices.  In this regard, at the last meeting of the CRO , it had been proposed to use a thematic 
approach to take that work forward . She therefore proposed to initiate that work by focusing on G/RO/M/71  
 
- 4 - 
 
  paragraph 1.2 of the Nairobi Decision, that is, an examination of current practices and rules of origin 
based on  the change of tariff classification  (CTC)  criterion. For that, s he proposed to hear 
presentations  by the WTO Secretariat and  by the LDC group.  
1.14.   The Secretariat  presented a background note which summarized and described Members' 
current practices on the use  of CTC rules (G/RO/W/ 178). Paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2 of the Bali  
Ministerial Decision did not recommend the use of  a single type of rules of origin. It recognized, 
instead, that different methods could be used to determine substantial transformation and the origin 
of goods, including the change of tariff classification  criterion . In addition, the Bali and the Nairobi 
Decision contained a series of provisions to ensure that , when used,  such rules were simple and 
transparent. The Decision contained four specifi c aspects:  
a. Paragraph 1.2 encouraged Members to  use a simple change of tariff heading (CTH) or change 
of tariff sub -heading (CTSH) ; 
b. It asked Members to eliminate restrictions and exceptions in their rules (paragraph 1.2(b)) ; 
c. It asked Members to refrain from  using rules which imposed a combination of requirements 
(paragraph 1.4) ; and  
d. It asked Members to introduce a tolerance  (de minimis) allowance  in their CTC rules .  
1.15.   Based on these requirements, the Secretariat noted that the following  preference -granting 
Members appl ied the CTC as a general rule : China ( CTH as an alternative to the ad valorem  
criterion); India ( CTSH in combination with the ad valorem  criterion); Japan  (CTH) ; Norway ( CTH); 
and Switzerland ( CTH). The EU applie d the CTC criterion only in its product specific rules of origin  
(CTH, either separately or in combination/alternation with the ad valorem  percentage criterion ). 
The Secretariat  also noted that thes e six preference -granting Members, with the exception of China 
and India, had introduced tolerance allowances in their rules.  
1.16.   The representative of Tanzania  made a presentation on behalf of the LDC Group (RD/RO/72)  
recalling the Nairobi Decision  benchmarks  related to CTC rules . The presentation , he said,  sought to 
identify  preference -granting Members who applied CTC rules ; Members who had exceptions in their 
rules; Members who applied  CTC rules in combination with other requirements (double 
requirement s); and Members whose rules could be considered as possible best practices. 
In connection with these questions , he noted that China;  the EU ; India;  and Japan were the only 
preference -granting Membe rs using the CTC method in their preferential rules or origin for LDCs  
(although , he noted, that  several other Members used this method in their FTAs). In the case of  
exceptions,  he noted that the rules of the EU and Japan contained several exceptions whic h resulted 
in restrict ive product -specific rules of origin and which hindered market access.  He noted , 
furthermore,  that o nly India and Japan applied the CTC method in combination with other 
requirements. Finally, he provided illustrations of rules which c ould be seen as best practices, such 
as that for shoes in the EU GSP. He asked those Members whose rules and practices had been 
identified in the presentation , to consider simplifying their requirements whenever possible.  
1.17.   The representative of Chad deliver ed a statement on behalf of the LDC Group. He said that 
LDC delegations welcomed the progress made in the implementation of the Ministerial Decisions in 
the CRO. He acknowledged that implementation was a continuous process and asked preference -
granting Mem bers to continue simplifying their origin requirements to facilitate exports from LDCs , 
and help LDCs integrate international trade. He recalled that the Istanbul Programme of Action 
(IPoA) chartered  out the international community 's vision and strategy for the sustainable 
development of LDCs for the next decade , with a strong focus on developing their productive 
capacities. One of the objectives of the Programme of Action was to double the exports of  LDCs by 
2020. In that sense, the IPoA and the UN Sustainable Development Goals created a framework for 
collective commitment , which should guide preference -granting donors in their efforts to implement 
the Ministerial Decisions. Moreover, he said that the  Group had been pleased with the high level of 
engagement by preference -granting Members on transparency and notifications. He noted, however, 
that some important Members had not yet notified their preferential import statistics. He asked all 
Members to no tify the necessary tariff and import data so that the Committee could continue it s 
work on preference utilization.  
1.18.   The European Union  thanked the LDC Group and the Secretariat for their presentations and 
highlighted the importance of building the capacity of economic operators on preferential rules of 
origin. Better communicatin g and understanding of preferential origin requirements was key to 
achieving higher  utilization of trade preferences. In relation to CTC rules, she s aid that the EU's 2010 G/RO/M/71  
 
- 5 - 
 
  reform of its preferential rules of origin had aimed at simplifying rules of origin for the EU's GSP but 
also for the EU FTAs. Extensive consultations with different stakeholders  had pointed to the need to 
offer a choice of rules to economic operators. In this sense , the general objective of the reformed 
European origin system was to propose  the choice between  CTH or value -added. While s ome 
operators could fulfil the CTH criterion, others might have been more comfortable with a value -
added requirement. As part of tha t reform, the EU had also eliminated double requirements (e.g. 
concomitant CTH and value -added requirements). Regarding some of the restrictions which 
appeared in the presentation, she said that they reflected the fact that the EU had moved away from 
more restrictive, wholly -obtained rules. Some of these limitations had in fact been thought of as a 
relaxation of the previous requirements. Finally, she said that the EU had a more general interest 
on the impact of rules of origin on preference utilization and  that it stood ready to discuss best 
practices, whether in GSPs or FTAs.  
1.19.   The representative of Japan  also thanked the LDC Group and Secretariat for the presentations. 
She understood that LDC exporters could face difficulties in obtaining originating status  for some 
products. She recalled that the preferential rules of origin of Japan foresaw the possibility of 
considering specific requests. She therefore encouraged LDCs to engage with her government to 
discuss any specific difficulties they faced . 
1.20.   The repre sentative of Tanzania  thanked the European representative for sharing the EU's 
experience in reforming its rules of origin. He said that it would be equally useful to learn more about 
the European experience improving the utilization of its FTAs. The Tanza nian delegate also thanked 
Japan for its readiness to discuss the specific difficulties of the LDCs and said that the LDC 
presentation had highlighted a number of product -specific rules of origin , which were restrictive and 
could create difficulties for LD C exporters. He invited the Japanese delegation to assess those cases 
and consider reforming those rules.  
1.21.   The representative of Senegal  supported the statements made by other LDCs during the 
meeting and stressed that the presentations offered very specific  examples of restrictive rules of 
origin. These illustrations offered a roadmap for preference -granting Members to reform their rules 
of origin and facilitate the participation of LDCs in world trade. Product -specific rules of origin which 
contained except ions were particularly complex and restrictive, he said.  
1.22.   Likewise, the representative of Burkina Faso  called on Members who had not yet reassessed 
their preferential rules of origin in light of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision , to do so as soon as 
possible . He suggested that preference -granting Members could, as a first step, examine their 
product -specific rules of origin and the extent to which exceptions to the rule were needed or not. 
Similarly, he invited Members who applied combination rules to examine  the need for such rules. 
India was one of the Members using extensive combination rules. He therefore wondered whether 
the government of India was considering specific reform to simplify its rules and facilitate imports 
from LDCs. He also said that India could consider implementing technical assistance programmes to 
build the capacity of LDC operators about market access opportunities in India. Finally, he asked the 
EU and Japan to clarify why stricter origin criteria were needed for specific products , instead of the 
more lenient general rules of origin.  
1.23.   The representative of Yemen  recalled that the LDCs had been arguing for simpler rules of 
origin for some time , and noted that several preference -granting Members applied more flexible 
rules of origin in the ir FTAs than in their preferences for LDCs. H e asked the Committee to further 
examine such trade -facilitating rules with a view to identifying best practices. He argued that an 
intention to establish trade creating rules of origin should guide the reform of LDC preferential 
schemes.  
1.24.   In conclusion, the  Chairperson  thanked the Secretariat, the LDC Group and other delegations 
for their engagement in these discussions. She said that a thematic approach to examining existing 
rules of origin and practices had proved useful , as it had allowed for more focused  discussions among 
Members. She therefore proposed to continue this approach. She also encouraged Members to share 
experiences that could help the Committee identify and promote best practices.  
1.25.   The Committee took note  of the statements made  and agreed  to proceed accordingly . G/RO/M/71  
 
- 6 - 
 
  1.3  Notification of Preferential Rules of Origin for LDCs – Update by the Secretariat  
1.26.   The Chair  recalled that  the Committee had adopted  in 2017 , a template for the notification of 
preferential rules of origin for LDCs , which ha d proved a very successful tool in obtaining  
standardized and comparable information about current origin requirements . He invite d the 
Secretariat  to report on this issue . 
1.27.   The Secretariat  explained that document G/RO/W/163/Rev.4 contained a detailed list with 
the late st notifications available  in the three relevant areas . In fact, w ork on preferential rules of 
origin for LDCs in the CRO , relied on the availability of information notified under three types of 
requirements. First, notifications to the Committee on Trade and Development (CTD) , contained 
information about the specific list of tariff lines for which trade preferences were available, the 
duration of preferences, the precise list of LDC beneficiaries and the eligibility requirements. Second, 
notificatio ns to the CRO  allowed Members to identify the specific criteria used to determine and 
certify the origin of goods obtained or manufactured in the LDCs. Third, annual notifications to the 
Integrated Database (IDB) , allowed the identif ication of tariff lines  on which preferences were 
available, the rates of preferential duties (zero, most of the time, but not always ), and values of 
imports from each LDC under PTAs at the tariff -line level. While coverage of information about rules 
of origin for LDCs had signi ficantly improved thanks to the template agreed by Members (G/RO/84), 
a few Members had still not notified their preferential rules of origin to the Secretariat, namely: 
Armenia; Iceland; Kyrgyz Republic; Montenegro; Tajikistan; and Turkey. Moreover, prefe rential 
tariffs and preferential imports were still missing from several Members in the IDB, namely: China; 
Iceland; India; Kyrgyz Republic; New Zealand; the Russia Federation ; Tajikistan; and Turkey.  
1.28.   Having heard this report, t he Chair asked the Secretari at to get in touch with the delegations 
for whom some notifications were missing , to ensure that the se delegations understood what was 
expected from them. She asked the Secretariat to assist these delegations as necessary , to make 
sure they could  prepare s uch notifications. She asked the Secretariat to report back to the 
Committee on such efforts at the next meeting of the Committee.  
1.29.    The Committee took note  of the report and agreed  to proceed accordingly . 
1.4  Utilization rates under Preferential Trade Arrangements (PTA) for Least developed 
countries (LDCs)  
1.30.   The Chair recalled  that, based on the Paragraph 4.3 of the Nairobi Decision, the Secretariat 
may calculate utilization rates to contribute to improv ing Members'  understanding about origin 
requirements  and their effects on the ability of LDCs to use trade preferences. She asked the 
Secretariat to present the updated report on the issue  (G/RO/W/179) . She also informed Members 
that the LDC Group would also be making a presentation  under this agenda item . 
1.4.1   Presentation by the WTO Secretariat (RD/RO/ 69) 
1.31.   The Secretariat  presented a background note on preference utilization rates (G/RO/W/179). 
Unlike the first note on the matter (G/RO/W/16 8/Rev.1), the current note had taken a new approach 
and focused on underu tilization. In fact,  a high utilization of preferences necessarily indicated that 
preferential rules of origin could be complied with and were not an obstacle to trade. Non -utilization 
of trade preferences, on the contrary, indicated that preferential rule s of origin could be hindering 
trade. For this reason, identifying "pockets" of non -utilization or underutilization could provide 
Members with a more adequate tool to identify restrictive rules of origin. The note therefore 
contained underutilization rates  for specific LDCs, specific PTAs, and specific sectors. The Secretariat 
explained that underutilization concerned all sectors and all LDCs , but seemed to be of greater 
concern for some specific countries, some schemes , or some sectors.  For instance, about  half of all 
exports of fruits and vegetables from the LDCs did not utilize trade preferences (49.3%). This was 
surprising as these were products which were subject to simple rules of origin (presumably wholly 
obtained products). If the rule itself could n ot explain low utilization rates, further research was 
needed to identify other possible causes, such as certification requirements or the obligation of direct 
shipment. Other possible causes could be that there was no incentive to utilize the preference 
(e.g. MFN rate of zero) or the existence of  other trade preference s (e.g. a FTA). Annex 1 of the note 
showed  more disaggregated figures for each LDC and each PTA. G/RO/M/71  
 
- 7 - 
 
  1.32.   The representative of Djibouti  expressed concern over the figures on utilization of trade 
preferences shown in the Secretariat report. She asked Members to examine the causes of 
under utilization of trade preferences, with the support of the Secretariat. She also encouraged 
preference -granting Members to work for  an effective and fuller use of the G SP. 
1.33.   The representative of Tanzania  thanked the Chair on behalf of the LDCs and appreciated the 
work done by the Secretariat. He commented that  the Secretariat report confirmed that  restrictive 
rules of origin  created market access hurdles for the LDCs. He was particularly concerned to learn 
that agricultural products were, in some cases, not utilizing trade preferences. Unprocessed 
agricultural goods, one would think, should easily comply with wholly obtained rules o f origin. 
However, low utilization rates could be an indication that other requirements, such as the obligation 
to ship goods  with a through bill of landing , the requirement to indicate the name of end buyers in 
the documents  or to present a certifi cate of non-manipulation could be affecting trade of those 
products . He suggested that Members should continue analysing these issues in greater detail . 
1.34.   The representative of Nepal  pointed out  that the presentation had confirmed that there was  
room for improving utilization of trade preferences , and therefore conducting further work to 
understand all factors impacting preferential trade. She recalled that LDCs represented less than 1% 
of global trade , despite being amongst the most open and trade dependent countries in the world.  
She further recalled that the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration had established the commitment to 
provide duty -free and quota -free preferences to all products originating in the LDCs . It mentioned , 
furthermore, that preferential rul es of origin should be as transparent, simple and objective as 
possible , as further elaborated upon in the Bali and Nairobi Ministerial Decisions . In her view, 
effective trade preferences should lead to export diversification , enhancement of the productive  
capacities and increase in exports from the LDCs. Preferential rules of origin and other origin 
requirements played a central role in shaping trade preferences to achieve such objectives.  
1.35.   The representative of Switzerland  noted that while over 90% of exp orts from LDCs  entered 
Switzerland on a duty -free basis, only about 50% of trade on dutiable lines utilized trade 
preferences. He agreed that this was not satisfactory. He shared the same view expressed by the 
representative of Djibouti that Members had not sufficiently explored the cause s of underutilization. 
He asked if the Secretariat could deepen its analysis by studying more specific products and trade 
between two Members . A more specific examination could perhaps help identify  the causes of low 
utilization rates. In addition, h e commented tha t one of  the possible causes  of low utilization rates 
for Switzerland might  be certificates of origin. To solve the problem, Switzerland, Norway and the 
EU had reformed  their origin certification system to move  towards self -certification and the REX 
System since 2018.  
1.36.   The representative of the European Union  said that the EU Commission had recently 
conducted  a study on the utilization of EU's FTAs. The study had examined  utilization rates  and 
revealed that some economic operators were not using preferences because they did not know where 
to find the relevant information . If they did, the study had shown  that operators did not know how 
to read very complicated rules or had  practical difficulties in applying the legal requirements . Without 
prejudice to the report, she considered th at these additional elements should also be considered . 
She mentioned that communication and training for economic operators explaining  how to apply for 
preferences  and how to comply with origin requirements , would also be useful tools to improve 
utilization rates . 
1.37.   The representative of Tanzania  appreciated that there seemed to be a growing consensus in 
the Committee that in some cases preference utilization rates were disappointing. He thought that 
LDCs and preference -granting Members could, nonetheless, address the challenges which lead to 
underutilization if th ey collaborated to better understand these matters . To that end, he appreciated 
Switzerland's proposal to carry out more specific studies between two Members to identify the 
possible causes of non -utilization of preferences. He recalled that Annex 1 of the  note of the 
Secretariat , highlighted several  countries and showed underutilization in specific markets. He 
highlighted, for instance, the case of India where the value of imports foregoing preferences and 
being imported under MFN conditions was very large  and therefore a great cause of concern.  
1.38.   The representative of India thanked all the delegates who had made a useful contribution to 
this important discussion. In relation to low utilization rates, he recalled  that there were obligations 
on both ends of trade preferences  and both ends would  need to be looked at to fully understand the 
hurdles that could lead to non -utilization. He recalled a study done by the International Trade Centre G/RO/M/71  
 
- 8 - 
 
  (RD/RO/67) and he quoted that "among the difficulties reported, 77% rela ted to origin procedures, 
for example certification, and 9% to rules itself" and "furthermore, 90% of the procedural delays 
and costs were caused by barriers in the exporting countr y itself ". He suggested to examine these 
aspects further and try to find so lutions to th ese problems.  
1.39.   The Secretariat  clarified  that underutilization rates (as opposed to utilization rates) was a 
more useful indicator of trade barriers which could be impacting the ability of LDCs to fully utilize 
trade preferences. Lack of utiliz ation or underutilization constitute d a missed opportunity from the 
point of view of the LDCs. The Secretariat agreed that more specific analyses would be useful, 
including by focusing on country pairs to try to find patterns that could be linked to specif ic rules of 
origin.  
1.4.2   Presentation by the LDC Group (RD/RO/ 73) 
1.40.   The representative of Tanzania  presented, on behalf of the LDC Group, further analyses on 
the utilization of PTAs by LDC countries. He explained that a recent study conducted by UNCTAD and 
the Swedish Board of Trade on the utilization of the EU's FTAs had highlighted a number of interesting 
factors. First, the direct transportation requirement seemed to have a negative impact on the 
utilization, for ins tance, of the EU -Korea FTA. Second, the stringency of product -specific rules of 
origin seemed to have a negative impact on the utilization of the EU -Mexico FTA. If both patterns 
were true of these agreements among advanced economies, the same patterns shou ld certainly also 
negatively affect LDC exporters.  
1.41.   With relation specifically to LDC PTAs, a preliminary study of the trade statistics available 
confirmed a number of assumptions. First, underutilization and non -utilization concerned all 
preferential sche mes. Sometimes, utilization rates were low across all products. In other cases, even 
when the overall utilization was high, there were "pockets" of low utilization in critical products. 
For instance, only 28% of suitcases (HS42.02) from LDCs had been grant ed preferences in the US . 
Similarly, only 1.1% of fish exports from LDCs (HS03.03) had received preferences in Japan. 
Similar  examples could be found in the schemes of Canada;  the EU ; Switzerland and those of 
developing countries.  
1.42.   While further detailed an alysis would be needed, the representative of Tanzania made some 
recommendations. First, he urged all preference -granting Members to comply with the transparency 
and notification obligations contained in the Bali and Nairobi Ministerial Decisions, in parti cular, those 
relating to import statistics  as this would allow wider studies. Second, all preference -granting 
Members should strive to notify trade data for multiple years. A multi -year analysis would be more 
robust as it avoided annual trade variations. F inally, he recommended that the Committee continue 
discussing preferential utilization rates as an indicator of the restrictiveness of rules of origin.  
1.43.   The representative of Myanmar  noted that the figures showed that his country was particularly 
vulnerable  to underutilization of trade preferences. In 2015, for instance, only a tiny fraction of 
exports from Myanmar had been granted preferences in India;  Korea;  or Switzerland. This was a 
great concern. His delegation was ready to engage in further technical w ork with the Secretariat, 
UNCTAD and preference -granting Members to identify ways of reversing that situation.  
1.44.   The representative of the Democratic Republic of Congo  also expressed concern over low 
utilization rates and suggested that, as proposed by Switz erland, the Committee should conduct a 
deeper analysis of trade flows to better understand these problems. An examination of bilateral trade 
flows could be a useful step forward. She said that, in addition to relax ing preferential rules of origin, 
Members should also work towards improving the information available about preferences. In her 
country, economic operators undoubtedly lacked information about preferential market access 
opportunities and the conditions attached to them. She proposed to hold infor mation sessions on 
these preferences and help disseminate information among government officials and economic 
operators.  
1.45.   The representative of the European Union  agreed that the presentation contained interesting 
figures. She highlighted the case of vanil la from Madagascar, a very simple product which was not 
being granted preferences. She would be curious to research further the reasons that could explain 
that paradox. A similar reasoning could apply to many other products, such as turbo chargers, with 
a rule of origin of "CTH or 70%". She said that the EU would be willing to collaborate fully with other G/RO/M/71  
 
- 9 - 
 
  Members and the Secretariat to understand cases such as those. She recalled that the EU had indeed 
been conducting further research on the utilization of its FTAs. One of the aspects which had emerged 
was the fact that different countries had different methods of collecting trade data. This raised the 
question about the comparability of the statistics being used. Furthermore, she added, the EU had 
noted tha t an identical rule being applied to two different partners under two different agreements , 
could lead to different levels of utilization, suggesting that the rule alone was not an impediment to 
trade. She also said that direct shipment could be a challeng e, which is why , in the case of the EU's 
preferences for LDCs, a more flexible "non -alteration" requirement was applied.  EU studies had also 
pointed to additional complications, such as the importance of trade from free -trade zones or the 
availability of tariff suspensions. For instance, utilization of the EU -Chile FTA was very low and the 
reason seemed to be that the bulk of trade was taking place on products traded , for which duty-free 
treatment could be obtained under a tariff suspension  regime . These a rguments, she said, did not 
diminish the importance of rules of origin , but rather shed some light on how complex or nuanced 
these matters were. 
1.46.   The representative of Canada  joined others in supporting more detailed work to explore the 
causes behind low ut ilization rates. She said that the Canadian government had granted preferences 
for over 30 years to promote economic development in the LDCs. Such preferences had rules of 
origin which aimed at ensuring that the benefits of such preferences actually accrue d to the 
beneficiary LDCs. Canada had amended its rules of origin in 2017 to allow LDCs to use manufacturing 
inputs sourced and processed in an expanded list of countries in the production of garments, t -shirts 
and trousers . These changes were intended to better reflect the sourcing patterns and manufacturing 
capabilities of certain LDCs for these products. As a result, Canada stood ready to work with the 
LDCs and find solutions for any problems that may still persist.  
1.47.   In conclusion, the Chair  proposed that the Committee took note of the Secretariat report and 
the presentations and statements  that had been  made. In addition, she encouraged Members to 
continue improving their understanding of the impact that origin requirements had on preference 
utilization. In that sense, the Secretariat should further its analyses to further assist Members in 
their discussions.  
1.48.   The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed  to proceed accordingly.  
1.5  Draft Report of the CRO to the General Council on prefe rential rules of origin for LDCs  
1.49.   The Chair asked Members to consider the Committee's draft report to the General Council 
(G/RO/W/180).  
1.50.   The representative of Norway  pointed out that the first page should read "Members also took 
note of the status of implementation of the self -certification system for registered exporters being 
implemented by the European Union, together with Norway and Switzerland (Registered Exporter 
system, REX)"  
1.51.   The report was adopted  with the changes proposed by Norway ( G/RO/87 ). 
2  EDUCATIONAL EXERCISE  AND EXPERIENCE SHAR ING ABOUT NON -PREFER ENTIAL 
RULES OF ORIGIN – INFORMATION SESSION ON "TRANSPARENCY AND  AVAILABILITY OF 
INFORMATION"  
2.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that the objective of the educational exercise was to help the 
Committee bet ter understand the impact that existing non -preferential rules of origin had on 
international trade. In previous sessions, several speakers had complained about a lack of 
transparency on non -preferential origin requirements. Some had highlighted the diffic ulty to retrieve 
the applicable rules of origin (access to information). Others had mentioned problems with finding 
reliable or simple -language information (transparency). As a result, she proposed that the 
Committee focused its attention on better underst anding "transparency and notification gaps". 
She therefore proposed to hear three presentations: by the WTO Secretariat, by the WCO Secretariat 
and by the International Trade Centre (ITC).  
2.2.  The WTO Secretariat  presented the existing  notification obligations  covering  non-preferential 
rules of origin and highlighted some of the main information gaps related to such notifications. G/RO/M/71  
 
- 10 - 
 
  The Secretariat explained that Article 5 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin contained the se 
notification  obligations . The more recent Trade Facilitation Agreement also contained transparency 
provisions  however, those related to domestic publication and not to notification. He  highlighted the 
following main features of Article 5: 
a. All WTO Members had an obligation to submit a notifi cation  to the Secretariat , whether the 
Member applied non-preferential origin requirements or not;  
b. Article 5 contained n o guidance regarding the format  to be used , the level of detail to be 
reported or the specific items (scope) to be notified ; 
c. Neither did  Article 5 provide guidance on the language  to be used. Members had, nevertheless, 
adopted a Committee Decision (G/RO/1 ), which required that  a summary in one of the WTO 
working languages  be used when the national legislation was not available in a n official WTO 
language;  
d. The Agreement did not contain any guidelines regarding the type of follow -up or examination 
of notifications ; and 
e. Finally, Article 5 did not oblige Members to notify modifications  of their legislation (it only 
requested that any modificati ons be published domestically, but not that i t be submitted to 
the Secretariat).  
2.3.  The Secretariat explained that many of these features and apparent gaps could be explained 
by the fact that the Agreement had been drafted on the premise that harmonized non -preferential 
rules of origin would be adopted. In other words, national non -preferential rules of origin were 
thought to be temporary as they would have been replaced by harmonized, multilateral rules.  Such 
rules had not been finalized. As a result, interes t for national legislation in this area had increased, 
putting notifications  under greater scrutiny  however, given the lack of guidance from the Agreement, 
current notifications presented the following problems:  
a. The bulk of notifications available had been  received  over 20 years ago,  in 1995 -96. Since the 
Agreement did not require the notification of changes, it was impossible to know whether the 
sets of legislation notified were still correct or in force;  
b. It was impossible to know the s cope of application  of Members' non -preferential rules of origin. 
There was  no clarity regarding the trade policy measures for which the rules notified appl ied 
and whether the same rules applied in all cases;  
c. Similarly, it was not clear from the notifications whether the rules applied across the board to 
all products  or only to some sectors ; 
d. Inconsistent  or insufficient  information had been reported about certification and other 
procedural requirements . It was thus not possible to compare requirements across Members. 
Neither was it possible to identify  the type of proof of origin used and whether  a prescribed 
format of certificat es of origin was required in some or all cases;  
e. There was no information available about Members' proc edures regarding advance rulings 
(Article 2(h)); and 
f. Seldom had t he original legislation been provided in full or referenced (through an Internet 
link). 
2.4.  The representative of the WCO Secretariat  continued and explai ned that the lack of 
transparency regardi ng non -preferential rules of origin  also affected the work of customs 
administrations. In fact, one of the essential functions of customs was to ensure correct revenue 
collection. To that end, customs officials needed certainty about the value, the classif ication and the 
origin of imported goods.  Without any of these three elements, customs could not operate efficiently.  
Since there were no multilaterally harmonized non -preferential rules of origin, the applicable rules 
were those of the importing country . Different countries had different rules and practices which 
added to the already complex "spaghetti bowl" of preferential rules of origin. Complexity and lack of 
certainty also affected the ability of customs to offer predictability and trade -facilitating solutions 
(e.g. by offering advance rulings). Given this situation, she concluded, the WCO was working to 
develop guidelines and tools that could be used by Members to streamline and simplify their origin 
procedures.  
2.5.  The International Trade Centre (ITC)  informed Members  about a recently launched tool aimed 
at providing access to reliable information regarding tariffs and rules of origin. The WTO -WCO-ITC 
"Origin Facilitator" ( https://findrulesoforigin.org ) allowed users to find product -specific origin 
requirements. The Facilitator was being developed to display  the origin -related rules and 
requirements contained in (reciprocal) FTAs , (non-reciprocal ) PTAs and in non -preferentia l G/RO/M/71  
 
- 11 - 
 
  legislation. He noted, however, that the team working on this tool were facing serious difficulties in 
accessing reliable information about non -preferential requirements. While the official text of FTAs 
and PTAs could often be easily accessed, non -prefer ential requirements relied on multiple, complex 
regulations which were not always easily available. Yet, rules of origin and origin procedures ranked 
among the top barriers faced by businesses . ITC surveys of businesses had revealed that rules of 
origin we re seen as an impediment to trade by 8% of companies for the export of agricultural goods 
and in 23% of cases for manufacture d good s. The problems reported concerned procedural and 
documentary difficulties (78% of cases), the stringency of the origin crite ria (9%) or both (13%). 
These findings, he thought, called for  work aimed at simplify ing rules of origin and improving access 
to information about the relevant requirements.  
2.6.  The representative of Switzerland  noted that the three presentations had highlighted 
information gaps from three different perspectives: policy -makers, customs officials and private 
sector operators. He noted , in addition,  that Members were under the obligations of Article 2(c) of 
the Agr eement on Rules of Origin which required that "rules of origin shall not themselves create 
restrictive, distorting, or disruptive effects on international trade." Given the scope of information 
gaps that had been identified by the WTO Secretariat, he wonde red how Members would effectively 
monitor the observance of that article. He argued that information gaps jeopardized the ability of 
Members to properly monitor the implementation of WTO Agreements. Similarly, the lack of certainty 
about the applicable non -preferential rules of origin also jeopardized essential aspects of the work 
of customs administrations, such as origin certification and origin verification. Finally, he noted that 
businesses also suffered from the lack of information, as could be inferre d from the difficulties that 
the ITC had in obtaining relevant information to feed its database. As a result, he suggested that it 
was incumbent on the Committee to take steps and improve the current situation.  
2.7.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  deplor ed the situation as depicted by the three 
presenters and argued that the Committee had a very strong case to improve notifications and 
ensure the relevance of the WTO for traders. She said that from a trade -facilitation viewpoint, it had 
become urgent to i mprove access to information. This was particularly in the interest of small 
businesses who simply did not have the resources to bridge this information gap. She wondered 
whether there were estimates about the portion of international trade that was subjec t to non -
preferential origin requirements. She also wondered whether the ITC intended to widen the scope 
of its rules of origin database to cover non -preferential rules of origin . 
2.8.  The representative of the European Union  reiterated that her delegation supp orted 
transparency both in terms of domestic publication and notification to the WTO. She agreed that 
access to accurate information was essential for economic operators. The EU had conducted a survey 
which corroborated some of the findings mentioned by th e present ers. In particular, the fact that 
operators need ed greater  and simplified  access to simple, business -friendly information . This was 
actually in the interest of administrations as it would ensure better compliance with their 
requirements. Furthermo re, she highlighted the importance of the ambitious work being conducted 
by the ITC in this area. She said that the EU might have some suggestions regarding the terminology 
being used in ITC's Facilitator. She wondered how the ITC was planning to ensure th at the Facilitator 
remained up -to-date once all the rules of origin had been entered in the Facilitator.  
2.9.  The representative of the United States , reflecting on the presentation by the WTO Secretariat, 
asked other Members to reflect about the extent to which information gaps had made their trade 
more difficult in a practical sense. She thought the gaps on rules of origin greatly  illustrated some 
of the major problems with respect to information gaps in the WTO notification system. 
She wondered whether other Members thought  that some gaps were more pressing than others. 
She also wondered whether the needs of traders could be disaggregated to better i dentify whether 
their problems only related to lack of information or also to other origin -related procedural aspects.  
2.10.   Likewise, the representative of Canada  wondered if information was available about the more 
specific challenges that industry was facing in relation to rules of origin.  
2.11.   The representative of El Salvador  asked whether the percentages of Members who had notified 
their non -preferential rules of origin considered all notifications received since 1995. She was 
interested to confirm the number of  Members who had notified that they did not apply non -
preferential origin requirements. She asked, in addition, whether the Secretariat had more 
information about the trade policy measures to which non -preferential origin requirements applied 
in different Members.  G/RO/M/71  
 
- 12 - 
 
  2.12.   The WTO Secretariat  clarified that the percentages of Members who had notified that they 
applied or did not apply non -preferential origin requirements were up -to-date and reflected all 
notifications since 1995. Some Members, who did not apply non -preferential rules of origin, had 
introduced such rules more recently (e.g. Brazil or Peru) and that was reflected in the figures 
presented. The numbers seemed to indicate that a growing number of countries were adopting non -
preferential rules of origin however, the Secretariat warned, these numbers had to be interpreted 
with caution. In fact, some Members who had notified that they did not apply non -preferential rules 
of origin might, for instance, require a certificate of non -preferential origin in some o r all cases. 
Similarly, some countries had notified that they did not apply any rules but had policies associated 
with non -preferential origin verification (such as anti -dumping or SPS restrictions). In other words, 
some requirements might not have been re flected in the notifications. Moreover, the current 
notifications did not allow Members to have an overview of the trade -policy measures to which non -
preferential rules of origin applied (anti -dumping, labelling, quotas, etc.). As had been pointed out 
by Switzerland, the Committee was, at present, ill -equipped to monitor the impact of rules of origin 
on international trade as required in Article 2 of the Agreement.  
2.13.   The representative of the WCO Secretariat  said that surveys of Members' practices conducted 
in 2005 and 2012 had shown that fewer Members were systematically asking for a certificate of 
origin for non -preferential purposes. According to the latest available figures, 8% of Members asked 
for a non -preferential certificate of origin in all cases. Ye t, in most cases, such certificates did not 
serve any purpose hence, were an unnecessary burden for traders. The WCO recommended to 
Members to request a certificate of non -preferential origin exclusively  when the certificate was 
necessary.  
2.14.   The representati ve of the ITC clarified that widening the scope of any database of rules of 
origin was constrained by the fact that it was so difficult to obtain accurate information on non -
preferential origin. However, once the information would be available, ITC would e nsure it was 
updated at least yearly, as is done for tariff rates. Traders relying on the Origin Facilitator needed 
to trust the information displayed. The ITC needed to be confident that the information was correct 
and up -to-date and that was the main rea son why the ITC collaborated with the WTO and the WCO 
to build the Facilitator and why it supported improved WTO notifications. Uncertainty in this area 
also explained that there were no estimates about the portion of trade covered by non -preferential 
origin requirements. This was a complex calculation. Rules of origin, he said, would become part of 
the capacity building programmes of ITC, so it was necessary to improve access to information and 
train operators accordingly. He also said that he welcomed any  suggestions regarding the Facilitator 
and ways to improve terminology or its functioning. Finally, on specific complaints from businesses, 
he clarified that the ITC business surveys had revealed that problems related to rules of origin were 
very common. M ost often, problems concerned very operational issues like obtaining the right 
certificate of origin, completing it correctly, traveling to the capital city to obtain the necessary 
signatures, etc. However, the surveys did not allow to differentiate among preferential or non -
preferential origin.  
2.15.   The Committee took note  of the presentations and statements made.  
3  CONSULTATIONS ON "EN HANCING TRANSPARENCY  IN NON -PREFERENTIAL  RULES OF 
ORIGIN" – REPORT BY SWITZERLAND  
3.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that in previous meeti ngs of the Committee, the delegation of 
Switzerland had reported that they were coordinating informal discussions about non -preferential 
rules of origin. The objective of these discussions was to identify ways of facilitating international 
trade by reducin g the barriers created by non -preferential rules of origin and origin requirements. 
She therefore asked the Swiss delegation to update Members on their consultations and the progress 
made.  
3.2.  The representative of Switzerland  confirmed that small group consul tations had been held 
among 16 WTO Members from a variety of geographical locations, development status and trade 
profiles. In very broad terms, the discussions pursued the objective of facilitating international trade 
by reducing trade barriers inherent t o non -preferential rules of origin and origin procedural 
requirements. The small group had met four times since April and had decided to focus on 
"Enhancing Transparency in non -preferential rules of origin". This narrower focus stemmed from a 
realisation t hat better transparency and understanding of Members' practices was a prerequisite to 
any future work in the Committee. After that, Members would be in a better position to identify G/RO/M/71  
 
- 13 - 
 
  trade -facilitating practices and promote their international diffusion. To  that end, Members proposed 
to enhance notifications and standardise the information available with a new template.   A proposal 
containing the draft template would be circulated to the entire Committee for comments. Finally, 
the representative of Switzerl and reiterated that the discussions were without prejudice to the 
harmonization work programme (HWP) and its results.  
3.3.  The representative of Korea  supported work to enhance transparency on non -preferential rules 
of origin and said that it was, in fact, one of the core elements to facilitate international trade and 
make it clearer and more predictable . 
3.4.  The representative of the United States  appreciated the efforts of the Swiss delegation and 
encouraged other interested Members to join the discussions in the small group. She reiterated  that 
the US did not support restarting the HWP but  that i t remained  open to discussing useful ideas. 
She said that the Committee should avoid work that was duplicative and agreed that the collective 
efforts to implement the Nairobi Decision on preferential rules of origin for LDCs could serve as a 
model of cooperation.  
3.5.  In conclusion, the Chair thanked the delega tion of Switzerland as well as the other delegations 
who had been taking part in the small group consultations. She commended their efforts to move 
forward the work in the  Committee. She also encouraged delegations working in the small group to 
intensify t heir consultations so that an outcome could be presented to the Committee as soon as 
possible . 
3.6.  The Committee took note  of the report and of the statements made.  
4  NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE  5 AND UNDER PARAGRAP H 4 OF ANNEX  II OF THE 
AGREEMENT ON RULES O F OR IGIN  
4.1.  The Chairperson reported that new notifications had been received by the Secretariat and had 
been circulated in documents G/RO/N/166, G/RO/N/167, G/RO/N/168, G/RO/N/169, G/RO/N/170, 
G/RO/N/171, G/RO/N/172, G/RO/N/173 and G/RO/N/174. These notification s covered both 
preferential and non -preferential rules of origin. On the basis of these notifications, the situation 
regarding the application of non -preferential rules of origin was the following:  
i. Forty-nine Members applied non -preferential rules of origi n (counting the EU and its member 
states as one);  
ii. Fifty-seven  Members did not apply any non -preferential rules of origin; and 
iii. The remaining 31 Members (about half of which were least developed countries) had not yet 
submitted any notification under Articl e 5.  
4.2.  The full list of notifications received, including outstanding notifications, was available in the 
Annex of document G/RO/W/176. In addition, all the notifications could be accessed on the rules of 
origin page of the WTO website. The Chair encouraged all d elegations to check their notifications to 
make sure they were up to date and that they had been correctly reflected in the website.  
4.3.  The Committ ee took note  of the report made.  
5  TWENTY -FOURTH ANNUAL  REVIEW OF THE IMPLE MENTATION AND OPERAT ION OF THE 
AGREEMEN T ON RULES OF ORIGIN  
5.1.  The Chair reminded Members that Article 6.1 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin required the 
Committee to conduct an annual review of the operation and the implementation of the Agreement. 
Document G/RO/W/176 , prepared by the Secretariat , summarized the recent work of the Committee 
and the latest relevant developments. She proposed to take note of the Secretariat note and 
complete the 24th Annual Review of implementation of the Agreement.  
5.2.  The Committee complete d the 24th Annual Review of implementation of the Agreement  
(document G/RO/88) . G/RO/M/71  
 
- 14 - 
 
  6  DRAFT REPORT OF THE CRO TO THE COUNCIL F OR TRADE IN GOODS  
6.1.  The Chairperson drew Members' attention to document G/RO/W/177 which contained the draft 
report of activities of the C RO to the Council for Trade in Goods  for 2018 . Article 6.1 of the Agreement 
on Rules of Origin required the CRO to review annually the implementation and operation of the 
Agreement and inform the Council for Trade in Goods of any developments.  
6.2.  The Committ ee adopted  its 2018 Annual Report to the Council for Trade in Goods ( document 
G/L/1266 ). 
7  OTHER BUSINESS  
7.1  "Determination of non -preferential origin for hot-rolled coil  by Indonesia"  – 
statement by Kazakhstan  
7.1.  The representative of Kazakhstan  sought clarificat ions on the laws, regulations and 
administrative determinations of general application applied by Indonesia to determine the country 
of origin of goods mentioned in Article 1 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin. The clarifications 
concerned, m ore specifica lly, the use of non -preferential rules of origin for the implementation of an 
anti-dumping measure on hot -rolled coil originating in Kazakhstan. He explained that the original 
anti-dumping measure, imposed in 2008, targeted imports of hot -rolled coil origi nating in China; 
India; the Russia n Federation ; Chinese Taipei; and Thailand. In 2013, the Government of Indonesia 
had extended the application of the original anti -dumping measure to imports also originating in 
Kazakhstan and Belarus in the framework of the measure's  sunset review. He highlighted that the 
application of anti-dumping duties on products from Kazakhstan were inconsistent with the WTO 
laws, since the Indonesian Anti -Dumping Committee had never investigated imports originating in 
Kazakhstan. In  its Report on essential facts pertaining to the 2013 sunset review, the Indonesian 
Anti-Dumping Committee had argued that such an extension of the measure had become necessary 
after the establishment of Eurasian Customs Union between the Russia n Federation ; Belarus; and 
Kazakhstan. His government disagreed  however , and argued that a specific investigation would have 
been needed . Any concerns about anti-circumvention of the anti -dumping measure s had to be 
addressed through customs control, risk management and origin verification , and not through the 
mere extension and continued application of an anti -dumping measure. As a result, his government 
kindly asked the delegatio n of Indonesia to reply to the following questions  (circulated later in 
document G/RO/W/181) : 
a. First, did Indonesia have laws, regulations and administrative determinations of general 
application applied in relation to a WTO Member , to determine the country  of origin of goods 
mentioned in Article 1 of the Agreement on rules of origin of goods, i.e. rules normally used 
for the  determin ation of  non-preferential  origin?  
b. Second, should this not be the case , could Indonesia clarify how the Indonesian Government 
defined and verified the country of origin of goods in the application of: most favoured nation 
treatment under Articles I, II, III, XI and XIII of GATT 1994; anti -dumping and countervailing 
duties under Article VI of GATT 1994; safeguard measures under Art icle XIX of GATT 1994; 
origin marking requirements under Article IX of GATT 1994; and any other quantitative 
restrictions or tariff quotas?  
7.2.  The representative of Indonesia  took note of the concerns and questions raised and said that 
he would convey them to  his authorities in capital.  
7.2  Dates of the next CRO meeting  
7.3.  The Chair informed Members that the next formal meeting of the Committee had been 
scheduled for 15 and 16 May 2019 . 
7.4.  The meeting was adjourned.  
__________