. /.   WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/REG173/4 
10 May 2007 
 
 (07-1932) 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements  Original:   English 
  
 
FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ARMENIA AND MOLDOVA 
 
Questions and Replies
 
  
 The following communication, dated 16 April 2007,  is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegations of Armenia and Moldova.   This document reproduces the questions addressed to the Parties and the responses submitted.    
_______________ 
 
 
Questions from Japan 
 
 1. With respect to Footnotes 3 and 4 (Page 4) of the Factual Presentations 
(WT/REG173/3), Could the Parties clarify the relationship between the Agreement and the 
CIS FTA? Has the Agreement between Armenia and Moldova expanded the tariff elimination between them compared to the CIS-FTA? Has the Agreement established new rules related to 
trade which are not included in the CIS-FTA?  
No reply received. 
Questions from the European Communities
 
 1. Could the Parties indicate whether any qua ntitative restrictions have been applied 
pursuant to Article 4?  
2. Have the Parties convened any Joint Armenian-Moldovan Commission meeting since 
the entry into force of the Agreement? If so, could the Parties explain the outcome of the 
discussions?   Have the Parties agreed any amendments to the Agreement?  
No replies received. 
Questions from the United States 
 
1. According to paragraph 9 of the Factual Su mmary, this FTA is to be “seen in the 
context of the Agreement on Creation of a Free Trade Area between the Commonwealth of 
Independent States(CIS FTA)”.   
• What is the legal relationship between this FTA and the CIS FTA?   
 
 WT/REG173/4 
Page 2  
 
  Rules of Origin [Para. 20] 
 
2. According to paragraph 14 of the Factual P resentation, rules of origin are governed by 
Article 1.2 of the FTA as well as by the Decision on Rules for the Determination of a Country of 
Origin of Goods, which governs rules of origin for the CIS FTA.   Pursuant to paragraph 9 of 
that decision, in order for a good to receive pref erential treatment, the good must be exported 
on the basis of an agreement/contract between residents of the CIS FTA and the importer must 
be a resident of a party to the CIS FTA.  This measure raises two concerns.  First, it imposes a potentially significant non-tariff barrier to trade between Moldova and Armenia by denying 
preferential access for goods based solely on co untry of residency of parties involved in the 
transaction (buyer/seller/importer of record), notwithstanding the fact that those goods are of 
Armenian or Moldovan origin.  Second, it exte nds benefits under the FTA to countries (other 
signatories to the CIS FTA) that are not parti es to the Armenia-Moldova FTA; that is,  a good 
of Moldovan or Armenian origin th at is bought or sold by a resident of a CIS country, or that is 
imported by a resident of a CIS country, will receiv e preferential treatment as if that good had 
been bought/sold/imported by a resident of Mo ldova or Armenia.  By contrast, a good of 
Moldovan or Armenian origin that is bought/s old/imported by, example, a resident of the 
United States will be denied preferential treatment.   
• What is the rationale for this residency requirement?  How does this provision, in the 
words of Article XXIV:4, “facilitate trade” between Armenia and Moldova, particularly 
considering that (as we understand it) such a limitation on trading rights did not exist between the two countries before  the FTA? 
 
• How is the extension of preferential access to residents of countries that are not a party 
to the FTA consistent with Armenia and Moldova’s obligations under Article I? 
 
• In light of the fact that this provision applies to trade in any product, how is it consistent 
with the obligation under Art. XXIV:8 to eliminate duties and other restrictive regulations of commerce on subs tantially all the trade?   
  No replies received. 
 
__________