ARCHIVESHISTORIQUES
DELACOMMISSION
COLLECTION RELIEEDES
DOCUMENTS "COM"
COM(82)269
Vol.1982/0103

Disclaimer
Conformément aurèglement(CEE,Euratom)n°354/83duConseildu1erfévrier1983
concernantl'ouvertureaupublicdesarchiveshistoriquesdelaCommunauté économique
européenneetdelaCommunautéeuropéennedel'énergieatomique(JOL43du15.2.1983,
p.1),telquemodifiéparlerèglement(CE,Euratom)n°1700/2003du22septembre2003
(JOL243du27.9.2003,p.1),cedossierestouvertaupublic.Lecaséchéant,lesdocuments
classifiésprésentsdanscedossierontétédéclassifiésconformément àl'article5dudit
règlement.
InaccordancewithCouncilRegulation(EEC,Euratom)No354/83of1February1983
concerningtheopeningtothepublicofthehistoricalarchivesoftheEuropeanEconomic
CommunityandtheEuropeanAtomicEnergyCommunity(OJL43,15.2.1983,p.1),as
amendedbyRegulation(EC,Euratom)No1700/2003of22September2003(OJL243,
27.9.2003,p.1),thisfileisopentothepublic.Wherenecessary,classifieddocumentsinthis
filehavebeendeclassified inconformitywithArticle5oftheaforementioned regulation.
InÜbereinstimmung mitderVerordnung(EWG,Euratom)Nr.354/83desRatesvom1.
Februar1983überdieFreigabederhistorischen ArchivederEuropäischen
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft undderEuropäischen Atomgemeinschaft (ABI.L43vom15.2.1983,
S.1),geändertdurchdieVerordnung(EG,Euratom)Nr.1700/2003vom22.September2003
(ABI.L243vom27.9.2003,S.1),istdieseDateiderÖffentlichkeitzugänglich.Soweit
erforderlich,wurdendieVerschlusssachen indieserDateiinÜbereinstimmung mitArtikel5
dergenanntenVerordnungfreigegeben.

COMMISSION OFTHEEUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COM(82)269 final
Brussels,13May1982
COMMUNICATION FROMTHECOMMISSION TOTHECOUNCIL
* ""
DecisionoftheACP-EECCustomsCooperation Committeederogating from
thedefinitionoftheconceptof'originating products'totakeaccount
ofthespecialsituationofMauritiuswithregardtoitsproduction of
cannedtuna
3V'^
"..-y
C0MC82)269final

EXPLANATORY NOTE
Upto1977 ,Mauritius wasable tofulfil itsrequirements ofrawtuna fish ..
foritscannery ,setupin1972 ,inother ACPStates with theresult that
thecanned tuna qualified asanoriginating product andthus benefitted
from thepreferential regime provided forbytheLome Convention onimport
into theCommunity .TheACPStates from which thecannery inMauritius
usually obtained itssupplies ,progressively terminated then their exports
oftuna fish .
Asthemaintenance ofthepreferential regime was indispensable forthecon­
tinuation ofthe 'working ofthecannery andinorder togive Mauritius the
opportunity totake themeasures necessary tosatisfy theorigin rules in
theorigin Protocol totheLome Convention ,aseries ofderogations were
granted toMauritius .
Since then Mauritius hastaken steps toconform to "theorigin rules .A
fishing vessel waspurchased in1979 andhassupplied part oftherawfish
used bythecannery with mixed success .
Thelast derogation Mauritius benefitted from wasforoneyear andexpired
on29January 1982 .Unfavourable conditions atthattimehadprevented theMaurit ian
vessel from exploiting itsmaximum potential fishing capacity .Hopes of
obtaining additional supplies oforiginating fish intheSeychelles ,a
neighbouring ACPState ,didnotmaterialize because thecatches there were
notuptoexpectations .
Byletter No,ACP/6408/82of18February 1982 theACPStates submitted a
request onbehalf oftheMauritian Government forafurther derogation from
theorigin rules inrespect ofcanned tuna foraperiod ofthree years and
relating to1,000 tonnes ayear .
•••/•••

This reouest isbased onthe following considerations :
a)theMauritian vessel ,while increasing itscatches steadily ,cannot
initself ensure sufficient supplies oforiginating tuna fish for the
cannery asitsmaximum fishing capacity isbetween 2,000 and 2,500
tonnes offish per year .
b)thepossibilities ofobtaining supplies ofraw fish .in .the Seychelles
(which isdeveloping itsfishing industry with thehelp ofanEEC
Member State )arevery limited .Aproject ,started intheSeychelles
was interrupted in1981 and although aCommunity vessel isfishing
there atpresent onanexperimental basis ,itisdoubtful whether there
will besufficient fish available for thecannery inMauritius ,
c)efforts tofind alternative sources ofsupply offish originating in
other ACP States have not had anyresult .
d)given itsfinancial commitments ,particularly those resulting from
repayments oftheloan obtained toacquire thefishing vessel ,the
company operating thecannery need tomaintain itspresent level of
sales ontheCommunity market .Itcanonly dothis ifitcanbenefit
from the tariff preference provided forbytheLome Convention .
Consequently ,there isalarge deficit insupply oforiginating fish for
thecannery which canonly bemade upbyimports from third countries .
This means ineffect that Mauritius remains dependent upon supplies of
fish originating intheMaldive Islands ,oneoftheleast developed
countries .Inthis context ,attention should bedrawn toArticle 30 (5)
ofProtocol No.1which states "theexamination ofrequests shall in
particular take into account onacase -by-case basis ,thepossibility
ofconferring originating status onproducts which include intheir
composition products originating inneighbouring developing countries or
indeveloping countries with which oneormore ACPStates have special
relationships ,provided that satisfactory administrative cooperation
can beestablished ."

Furthermore ,itshould b©not©dthat Mauritius isnow definitively Looking
I
into thepossibility ofacquiring asecond vessel inthenear future with
aview toreducing itsdependency upon imports offish from third countries .
Toconclude ,itshould berecalled that thewhole question oftheorigin
rules forfishery products isavery sensitive point inourrelations with
theACP States .Inaccordance with Joint Declaration XXIannexed tothe
second Lome Convention ,discussions arenowtaking place inaWorking Group
under theACP-EEC Customs Cooperation Committee onthis question .Itis
most probable that should theCommunity refuse toaccept this derogation request
forprocessed products inthefishery sector (which itpromised toexamine
with anopen mind )theconsequences forthese discussions could bevery
serious .
Inview oftheforegoing and inconformity with thegeneral provisions of
Protocol Nr1,inparticular Article 30(5)and (7)(a ).rtheCommission proposes to
accept aderogation from therules oforigin foranannual quantity of1,000
tonnes during twoyears limited tocanned tuna manufactured inMauritius from
rawfish originating intheMaldives .

DECISION
ofthe A'P-EEC .Customs Cooperation Committee
derogating from thedefinition oftheconcept of'originating products'
totake account ofthespecial situation ofMauritius with regard toits
production ofcanned tuna
T!IECUSTOMS COOPERATION COMMITTEE ,
Having regard totheSecond ACP-EEC Convention signed atLome on31October
1979 ,hereinafter referx _edtoas'the Convention' ,
Whereas Article 30ofProtocol No .1totheConvention concerning thedefi­
nition oftheconcept of'originating products' andmethods ofadministrative
cooperation mak.es prov :sion forderogations tobemade from therules of
origin bytheCustoms Cooperation Committee ,inparticular' tofacilitate
thedevelopment ofexisting industries orthecreation ofnew industries ;
Whereas theACP States have submitted arequest from theGovernment of
Mauritius for aderogation from thedefinition set out inProtocol No .1
inrespect ofcanned tuna produced bvMauritius ; '•
Whereas inorder tomaintain itsexisting fishery industry and totake
themeasures necessary for itsfinished products toobtain originating
status there Mauritius has from January .1981 toJanuary 1982 benefitted
under theConvention from aderogation from thedefinition setout in
Protocol No .1forcanned tuna ;
Whereas Mauritius has aLready pure hased avessel with aview tosupplying
thecanneries with raw fish foritsproduction ofcanned tuna ;
Whereas this vessel while increasing itscatches steadily ,isnot
inaposition tosupply sufficient quantities oftana fish forthe
canneries ;whereas Mauritius therefore intends purchasing asecond fishing
vessel within aperiod of3years ifexoerience shows that further supplies
oforiginating fish cannot beguaranteed ;

Whpi'pad Mauritius hasbeen «nafe>le toobtain sufficient supplies offish
originating inother ACPStates *whereas theMauritius canning industry
therefore continues tobedependent upon supplies oftuna fish from third
countries inorder tocontinue itsexports ofcanned tuna totheCommunity ;
Whereas itispossible forMauritius tomeet itsneeds oftuna fish for
thecanneries originating inother developing countries ;whereas pursuant
toArticle 30(5 )ofProtocol No.1theexamination ofarequest for a
derogation should inparticular take into account such apossibility ;
Whereas inthese circumstances atemporary derogation from thedefinition
oftheconcept oforiginating products should beaccorded toMauritius ,
HAS DECIDED ASFOLLOWS :
Article 1
Bywayofderogation from thespecial provisions ofList AinAnnex IIto
Protocol No.1,canned tuna manufactured inMauritius from rawfish origi­
nating intheMaldives andfalling within heading No„ex16.04 ofthe Common
Customs Tariff shall beconsidered asoriginating inMauritius subject to
the following conditions .
Article 2
Thederogation provided forinArticle 1shall relate to1,000tonnes
peryear ofcanned tuna falling within heading No.ex16.04 oftheCommon
Customs Tariff andexported from Mauritius between 1982 and
1984 .
Article 3
Thecompetent authorities ofMauritius shall take thenecessary steps to
ensure that the raw fish used inthe manufacture ofthe canned tana referred
toinArticle 1originates intheMaldives .These authorities shall also
carry outquantitative checks onexoorts ofthe canned tOna inquestion and
shall forward totheCommission every three months astatement

ofthequantities inrespect ofwhich movement certificates EUR.l have
been issued onthe basis ofthis Decision .
Article 4
TheACPStates ,theMember States andtheCommunity shall bebound ,each
totheextent towhich itisconcerned ,totake themeasures necessary
toimplement this Decision .
Article 5
This Decision shall enter into force onthedayofits adoption .
Itshall apply from 1982 until ■1984 .
Done at For the ACP-EEC Customs
Cooperation Committee
The Président