. /.   WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/VAL/W/167 
13 May 2008 
 (08-2207) 
Committee on Customs Valuation Original:   English 
  
 
 
QUESTIONS TO THE DELEGATIONS OF INDIA AND INDONESIA  
 
Communication from the United States
 
 
 
 The following information and questions were raised under Other Business at the meeting of the Committee on Customs Valuation on  6 May 2008.  They are being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of the United States. 
 
_______________ 
 
INDIA
 
  
The United States asks India for clarification on  the implementation of two articles of the 
Agreement on Customs Valuation.  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 states 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 states that “Rule 10A (2) of the Customs Valuation Rules 
(Determination of Price of Imported Goods), 1988 pr ovides that, at the request of the importer, the 
proper officer shall intimate the importer in writing the grounds for doubting the truth or accuracy of the value declared of the imported goods.”  
However, recently the United States has received re ports that in order to file an appeal in a 
valuation investigation by Indian Customs a comp any must receive documentation, such as a Show 
Cause notice.  It has been further reported that such documentation has not been provided on request, 
which we understand would eff ectively preclude appeal.   
 
• Could India please explain how companies are informed of actions taken by Indian Customs 
with regards to them or their shipments? 
• Could India confirm that an appeal cannot  be made until documentation is received? 
• If documentation is required before an appeal can be lodged, are there guidelines as to when 
such documentation must be provided? 
• If a company requests documentation and does not  receive it, are there avenues which the 
company can pursue to obta in such documentation? 
 
With regards to the implementation of Artic le 13, the United States understands 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 
allow an importer to withdraw his goods from custom s pending final determination of value by giving 
a guarantee in the form of surety, security deposit or bank guarantee.”   
 G/VAL/W/167 
Page 2  
 
  • Could India confirm that an importer has the right, not just the ability, to withdraw its goods 
by providing a guarantee as required by Article 13 of the CVA? If so, where is that stated in the law? 
• Does India have any additional laws, regulati ons or directives pertaining to guarantees?  
Please provide references for the additiona l laws, regulations, and directives.  
• Furthermore, could you please provide additio nal information regarding how the guarantee 
amount is determined and what procedures importe rs must follow in order to withdraw goods 
from customs pending final determination of value? 
  INDONESIA
 
  
The United States continues to seek responses to the questions it posed at the October 2007 
meeting of the Customs Valuation Committee with  regards to the process by which Indonesia 
currently determines the duties on imported goods on the basis of a price database that incorporates, 
among other things, an established risk criterion for importers.  
 
 As stated in October, the United States w ould again ask that Indonesia provide further 
clarification on its current valuation methods.  Specifically, 
 
• How is the risk level of an importer determined ?  Are importers considered “high risk” alerted 
of their status?  
• Once an importer has been labelled with a pa rticular risk level how are the corresponding 
prices assessed?  
• Is the check-price database publicly available? 
• Can Indonesia clarify how the use of importer risk  levels and reference pricing in determining 
the customs value of imported goods is consis tent with Articles 1.1 and 7.2 of the Customs 
Valuation Agreement?  
 
  
 The United States has 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 
expects that any revisions to In donesia’s customs laws and regulat ions would not permit the customs 
value to be determined based on reference pri ces or risk.  While the United States understands 
Indonesia is concerned with under-invoicing practices , it urges Indonesia to adopt a valuation system 
that is consistent with the Customs Valuation Agr eement, which will lead to more transparent and less 
trade-distorting methods of valuation.  
 
 
__________