ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES 
DE LA COMMISSION 
 
 
 
COLLECTION RELIEE DES 
DOCUMENTS "COM" 
 
 
 
 
COM (85) 303 
 
 
 
Vol. 1985/0 129 
  
 
Disclaimer  
Conformém ent au règlement (CEE, Euratom) n° 354/83 du Conseil du 1er février 1983 
concernant l'ouverture au public des archives historiques de la Communauté économique 
européenne et de la Communauté européenne de l'énergie atomique (JO L 43 du 15.2.1983, 
p. 1), tel que modifié par le règlement (CE, Euratom) n° 1700/2003 du 22 septembre 2003 
(JO L 243 du 27.9.2003, p. 1), ce dossier est ouvert au public. Le cas échéant, les documents 
classifiés présents dans ce dossier ont été déclassifiés conformément à l'article 5 dudit 
règlem ent. 
In accordance with Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 354/83 of 1 February 1983 
concerning the openi ng to the public of the historical archives of the European Econom ic 
Community and the European Atomic Energy Communit y (OJ L 43, 15.2.1983, p. 1), as 
amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1700/2003 of 22 September 2003 (OJ L 243, 
27.9.2003, p. 1), this f ile is open to the public. Where necessary, classified documents in this 
file have been declassified in conformity with Article 5 of the aforementioned regulation.  
In Übereinstimmung mit der Verordnung (EWG, Euratom) Nr. 354/83 des Rates vom  1. 
Februar 198 3 über die Freigabe der historischen Archive der Europäischen  
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft und der Europäischen Atomgem einschaft (ABI. L 43 vom  15.2.1983,  
S. 1), geändert durch die Verordnung (EG, Euratom) Nr. 1700/2003 vom 22. Septem ber 2003  
(ABI. L 243 vom 27 .9.2003, S. 1), ist diese Datei der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich. Soweit  
erforderlich, wurden die Verschlusssachen in dieser Datei in Übereinstimmung mit Artikel 5  
der genannten Verordnung freigegeben.  
COMMISSION OF/THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COMC85) 303 final
Brussels, 13 June 1985
Draft
DECISION OF THE ACP-EEC CUSTOMS COOPERATION COMMITTEE
derogating from the definition of the concept of "originating products"  
to take account of the special situation of Mauritius  
with regard to its production of canned tuna
(submitted to the Council by the Commission)
C0M(85) 303 final

C * M / n / 2o £
EXPLANATORY NOTE
Since 1977, Mauritius has been granted a series of derogations from the rules  
of origin governing its exports of canned tuna to the Community, under the  
Lomé Convention. These derogations resulted from the difficulties encountered  
by the single canning plant on the island in supplying itself with tuna from  
ACP or Community states.
In 1979 this situation, which results from a still unreliable fishing  
environment in the Indian Ocean, was partially improved by the Mauritian  
tuna canning company's acquisition of a fishing vessel. While the catch of  
native fish was increased and regularized the vessel's capacity was not  
sufficient to bring the yield of the Mauritian industry up to a minimum  
level. On the basis of the latest derogations given, Mauritius has used  
tuna originating from the Maldives, a neighbouring country which is on the  
list of least developed countries.
The latest derogation granted to Mauritius was for a short period of seven  
months, with a view to covering the period to the end of the second Lomé  
Convention. It expired therefore with Lomé II on 28 February 1985 and on  
that date the ACP States presented a request (*) for an extension on behalf  
of Mauritius based on transitional measures and on the future Lomé III  
Convention.
Under the terms of this request, Mauritius is seeking the renewal of the  
derogation for a three-year period, plus a possible extension for two years,  
in accordance with the procedure laid down (automatic renewal, unless one of  
the parties objects), for a quantity of 1 000 tonnes of preserved tuna per  
annum.
It has also requested that there be no restriction as to the origin of the  
imported fish.
(*) Letter from Mr. JOHNSON, Co-Chairman of the ACP-EEC Customs Cooperation  
Committee to Mr. KLEIN (28 February 1985). Ref. ACP/64/7/(I)/85.

- 2 -
The reasons given by Mauritius are as follows :
- the situation as regards supplies of tuna in the region has not improved ;  
the Mauritian company has been unable to obtain fish supplies from Community  
vessels fishing in the exclusive economic zone of the Seychelles, as
these do not offer the guaranteed regularity necessary.
the conditions for provisioning from the Maldives are still unreliable  
with regard to both quantity and quality ; moreover, the Mauritian  
company has found difficulties in negotiating acceptable contracts with  
the Maldives authorities.
- the intake of native fish by the Mauritian vessel, although it has  
obtained a more regular supply since its authorization to fish in the  
Seychelles waters, is insufficient.
as the financial situation of the Mauritian canning company is still  
unsteady, it cannot consider the purchase of a second fishing vessel just  
now and the jobs of the workforce (389) cannot be safeguarded without a  
relatively long derogation.
During the negotiations leading up to the renewal of the Lomé Convention, a  
great stumbling block in the discussions was the question of rules of origin  
governing fishery products ; the Community was able to avoid fundamental  
changes only by undertaking, under Annex XXX in particular, to examine in  
a positive spirit the requests for derogations presented by the ACP States.  
Although the Mauritian request does not come under the criteria of the  
declaration in Annex III, the ACP States will attach special significance to
···/···

. 1
-  3 -
the way in which it is handled, in that this presents the first and only
' ‘  Irequest made regarding fishing matters since that time. This facet is of  
central importance in the light of the re-examination of matters relating  
to origin as applied to fishing which has been planned for the first year  
of the Convention's implementation. ~
•1For these reasons the Commission proposes to respond favourably to the  
Mauritian request, as follows :*
*  *
(i) the new derogation will be implemented from 1 March 1985 for a  
period of Jhree years, in accordance with the procedure provided
\ for in Article 30 (8)(a) of Protocol 1 to Lomé III.
The Commission is of the opinion that it would be right to give full  
effect to the new provisions of the Convention in order to demonstrate  
the Community's goodwill in this matter to the ACP States ; taking into  
account the perspective'of the enlargement, it does not consider that the  
possibility or not of a renewal can be judged at this stage.
(ii) the annual ceiling will be 1 000 tonnes of canned tunà,~
This amount is the same as in the past and represents a tiny percentage of  
total Community imports.
(iii) only fish originating in developing countries may be used, as  
was the case under the last derogation.

Draft
DECISION No OF THE ACP-EEC CUSTOMS COOPERATION COMMITTEE
of
derogating from the definition of the concept of"originating products'  
to take account of the special situation of Mauritius with regard to  
its production of canned tuna
THE CUSTOMS COOPERATION COMMITTEE
Having regard to the second ACP-EEC Convention, signed at Lomé on  
31 October 1979,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No..485/85 of 26 February  
< 1 9 0 5 concerning the application of
Decision No 2/85 of the ACP-EEC Council of Mauritius on transitional  
measures valid from 1 March 1985,
Whereas Decision No 2/85 states in Article 4 that the provisions  
concerning the procedure for derogating from the rules of origin contained  
in Article 30 of Protocol 1 to the third ACP-EEC Convention, signed in  
Lomé on 8 December 1984, are to be applied in advance as from 1 March  
1985;
Whereas Article 30 of Protocol 1  to the third Convention  
concerning the definition of the concept of originating 
products and methods of administrative cooperation 
makes provision for derogations to be made, from the 
rules of origin by .  the Customs Cooperation 
Committee, in particular to facilitate the development 
61 existing industries or thft.creatlon of new industries;
Whereas the African, Caribbean and Pacific (A CP)
States have submitted a request from the Government 
of Mauritius for a .derogation from the definition set 
out in Protocol 1  in respect of canned tuna produced 
by Mauritius; ·
Whereas, in order to maintain its existing fishery 
industry and. to take the measures necessary for its 
finished products to obtain originating status, Mauri­
tius has from 1  August 1984 to 28 February-1985 benefited  
from the definition set out in Protocol I for canned 
tuna ; · ·  '
Whereas Mauritius has already,purchased a vessel with 
a view to supplying the canneries with raw fish for its -  
production of canned tuna;
(1) O J No L 61 of 1.3.1985, p.1

- 2 -
W here»« this. venel, while increasing lu ettchei ■ 
steadily. Is not In »  position to supply sufficient quan­
tities of tune fish for the canneries; whereas the 
' undertaking concerned intends making use of a  
second fishing vessel within the Com ing years if 
experience khows that further supplies of originating 
fish cannot be guaranteed ;
Whereas Mauritius ha<  been unable to obtain suffi­
cient supplies of fish originating in other ACP States; ·  
whereas the Mauritius canning industry therefore 
continues to be dependent upon supplies of tuna fish 
from third countries in order to continue its exports of 
canned tuna to the Community;
Whereas it is possible for Mauritius to meet its tuna . 
fish requirements ·  for the canneries through supplies 
from other developing Countries; whereas, pursuant, to 
•  Article 30 (5). of Protocol 1 , the examination of a ’  ___^
re
quest for a derogation should in particular take into ' ■  ·  ,
account such a possibility;
Whereas in these circumstances a temporary deroga·; 
tion from the definition of the concept of originating 
products should be accorded to Mauritiusiri accordance with  
•Article 30(8) of Protocol " 1, ■
•  H A S  D B C ID B D  A S  FOLLO W S:  .  .
\  Article 1
B y way of derogation from the special provisions of 
List A in Annex II to Protocol 1 , canned tuna falling 
within heading No ex 16.04 of tlw Common Customs 
Tariff, manufactured in Mauritius from tuna originat­
ing in other developing countries shall be considered 
as originating in Mauritius under the follqwlng condi­
tions. 1  ■
Article 2
The derogation provided lot in Article 1  shall relate to an  annual quantity of 
100Qtonnes of canned tuna falling within heading No 
ex 16.04 of the Common Customs Tariff and exported .  
from Mauritius between 1  Fterch 1985 ‘  and 2 9 
February i 988.
Article 3* *The competent authorities of Mauritius shall take the 
necessary steps to ensure that the tuna used in the
manufacture of the canned'tuna referred to in Article >
-  i .  originates in other1  developing countries. These 
authorities shall also carry out quantitative checks on 
exports of the products referred to in Article 2 and
shall forward to the Commission every three, months a
statement of the quantities In respect of which move­
ment certificates EUR 1  have been issued on the basis 
of this Dejision. . '
Article 4
The(ACP States, the Member States and the Commu­
nity shall be bound, each to the extent to which it is 
concerned, to take the measures necessary to imple-. 
ment this Decision.

- 3 -
-------- ' \  Article 5
Th
is Decision shall çnter into force on the day of its 
adoption.
It shall apply from 1 March 1985. It shall cease to apply on  
28 February 1986 if the third ‘  ACP-EEC Convention has not entered  
into force by that date.
Done at Brussels For the Customs
Cooperation Committee  
ACP-EEC
The Chairman