|
I. Preamble back to top
A. Text of the Preamble
Members,
Noting that
Ministers on 20 September 1986 agreed that the Uruguay Round of
Multilateral Trade Negotiations shall aim to “bring about further
liberalization and expansion of world trade”, “strengthen the role
of GATT” and “increase the responsiveness of the GATT system to
the evolving international economic environment”;
Desiring to
further the objectives of GATT 1994;
Recognizing that
clear and predictable rules of origin and their application facilitate
the flow of international trade;
Desiring to ensure
that rules of origin themselves do not create unnecessary obstacles to
trade;
Desiring to ensure
that rules of origin do not nullify or impair the rights of Members
under GATT 1994;
Recognizing that
it is desirable to provide transparency of laws, regulations, and
practices regarding rules of origin;
Desiring to ensure
that rules of origin are prepared and applied in an impartial,
transparent, predictable, consistent and neutral manner;
Recognizing the
availability of a consultation mechanism and procedures for the speedy,
effective and equitable resolution of disputes arising under this
Agreement;
Desiring to
harmonize and clarify rules of origin;
Hereby agree
as follows:
B. Interpretation and Application of the preamble
No jurisprudence or decision of a competent WTO
body.
Part I: Definitions and Coverage
II. Article 1
back to top
A. Text of Article 1
Article 1: Rules of Origin
1. For the purposes of
Parts I to IV of this Agreement, rules of origin shall be defined as those laws, regulations
and administrative determinations of general application applied by any
Member to determine the country of origin of goods provided such rules
of origin are not related to contractual or autonomous trade regimes
leading to the granting of tariff preferences(1) going beyond the
application of paragraph 1 of Article I of GATT
1994.
2. Rules of origin referred to in
paragraph 1
shall include all rules of origin used in non-preferential commercial
policy instruments, such as 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 Article XIX of GATT
1994; origin marking
requirements under Article IX of GATT
1994; and any discriminatory
quantitative restrictions or tariff quotas. They shall also include
rules of origin used for government procurement and trade statistics.(1)
(footnote original)
1 It is understood
that this provision is without prejudice to those determinations made
for purposes of defining “domestic industry” or “like products of
domestic industry” or similar terms wherever they apply.
B. Interpretation and Application of Article 1
No jurisprudence or decision of a competent WTO
body.
Part II: Disciplines to Govern the Application of Rules of Origin
III. Article 2
back to top
A. Text of Article 2
Article 2: Disciplines During the Transition Period
Until the work
programme for the harmonization of rules of origin set out in Part IV is
completed, Members shall ensure that:
(a) when they issue administrative determinations
of general application, the requirements to be fulfilled are clearly
defined. In particular:
(i) in cases where the criterion of change of
tariff classification is applied, such a rule of origin, and any
exceptions to the rule, must clearly specify the subheadings or headings
within the tariff nomenclature that are addressed by the rule;
(ii) in cases where the ad valorem percentage
criterion is applied, the method for calculating this percentage shall
also be indicated in the rules of origin;
(iii) in cases where the criterion of
manufacturing or processing operation is prescribed, the operation that
confers origin on the good concerned shall be precisely specified;
(b) notwithstanding the measure or instrument of
commercial policy to which they are linked, their rules of origin are
not used as instruments to pursue trade objectives directly or
indirectly;
(c) rules of origin shall not themselves create
restrictive, distorting, or disruptive effects on international trade.
They shall not pose unduly strict requirements or require the fulfilment
of a certain condition not related to manufacturing or processing, as a
prerequisite for the determination of the country of origin. However,
costs not directly related to manufacturing or processing may be
included for the purposes of the application of an ad valorem percentage
criterion consistent with subparagraph (a);
(d) the rules of origin that they apply to imports
and exports are not more stringent than the rules of origin they apply
to determine whether or not a good is domestic and shall not
discriminate between other Members, irrespective of the affiliation of
the manufacturers of the good concerned(2);
(footnote original) 2 It is
understood that this provision is without prejudice to those
determinations made for purposes of defining “domestic industry” or
“like products of domestic industry” or similar terms wherever they
apply.
(e) their rules of origin are administered in a
consistent, uniform, impartial and reasonable manner;
(f) their rules of origin are based on a positive
standard. Rules of origin that state what does not confer origin
(negative standard) are permissible as part of a clarification of a
positive standard or in individual cases where a positive determination
of origin is not necessary;
(g) their laws, regulations, judicial decisions
and administrative rulings of general application relating to rules of
origin are published as if they were subject to, and in accordance with,
the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article X of GATT
1994;
(h) upon the request of an exporter, importer or
any person with a justifiable cause, assessments of the origin they
would accord to a good are issued as soon as possible but no later than
150 days(3) after a request for such an assessment provided that all
necessary elements have been submitted. Requests for such assessments
shall be accepted before trade in the good concerned begins and may be
accepted at any later point in time. Such assessments shall remain valid
for three years provided that the facts and conditions, including the
rules of origin, under which they have been made remain comparable.
Provided that the parties concerned are informed in advance, such
assessments will no longer be valid when a decision contrary to the
assessment is made in a review as referred to in subparagraph
(j). Such
assessments shall be made publicly available subject to the provisions
of subparagraph (k);
(footnote original) 3 In respect of
requests made during the first year from the date of entry into force of
the WTO Agreement, Members shall only be required to issue these
assessments as soon as possible.
(i) when introducing changes to their rules of
origin or new rules of origin, they shall not apply such changes
retroactively as defined in, and without prejudice to, their laws or
regulations;
(j) any administrative action which they take in
relation to the determination of origin is reviewable promptly by
judicial, arbitral or administrative tribunals or procedures,
independent of the authority issuing the determination, which can effect
the modification or reversal of the determination;
(k) all information that is by nature confidential
or that is provided on a confidential basis for the purpose of the
application of rules of origin is treated as strictly confidential by
the authorities concerned, which shall not disclose it without the
specific permission of the person or government providing such
information, except to the extent that it may be required to be
disclosed in the context of judicial proceedings.
B. Interpretation and Application of
Article 2
1. Article 2
(a)
Negative list of disciplines prescribed by Article 2(b) through
(d) of the Agreement on Rules of Origin
1. With respect to the provisions prescribed by
Article 2 of the
Agreement on Rules of Origin, the Panel on US — Textiles Rules of
Origin explained that subparagraphs (b) through
(d) lay down a negative
set of disciplines that apply during the transition period. According to
the Panel, during the transition period members enjoy “considerable
discretion in designing and applying their rules of origin”:
“With regard to the provisions of Article 2
at issue in this case
— subparagraphs (b) through (d)
— we note that they set out what
rules of origin should not do: rules of origin should not pursue trade
objectives directly or indirectly; they should not themselves create
restrictive, distorting or disruptive effects on international trade;
they should not pose unduly strict requirements or require the
fulfilment of a condition unrelated to manufacturing or processing; and
they should not discriminate between other Members. These provisions do
not prescribe what a Member must do.
By setting out what Members cannot do, these provisions leave for
Members themselves discretion to decide what, within those bounds, they
can do. In this regard, it is common ground between the parties that Article 2
does not prevent Members from determining the criteria which
confer origin, changing those criteria over time, or applying different
criteria to different goods.
Accordingly, in assessing whether the relevant United States rules of
origin are inconsistent with the provisions of Article 2, we will bear
in mind that, while during the post-harmonization period Members will be
constrained by the result of the harmonization work programme, during
the transition period, Members retain considerable discretion in
designing and applying their rules of origin.”(2)
2. Article 2(b)
(a)
Purpose of Article 2(b)
2. The Panel on US
— Textiles Rules of Origin explained that
Article 2(b) is intended to preclude Members from using rules of origin
“to substitute for, or to supplement, the intended effect of trade
policy instruments”:
“In our view,
Article 2(b) is intended to ensure that rules of
origin are used to implement and support trade policy instruments,
rather than to substitute for, or to supplement, the intended effect of
trade policy instruments. Allowing Members to use rules of origin to
pursue the objectives of ‘protecting the domestic industry against
import competition’ or ‘favouring imports from one Member over
imports from another’ would be to substitute for, or supplement, the
intended effect of a trade policy instrument and, hence, be contrary to
the objective of
Article 2(b).”(3)
(b)
Pursuit of trade objectives
(i) General
3. In
US — Textiles Rules of Origin India claimed that both Section
334 of the United States Uruguay Agreement Act and Section 405 of the
United States Trade and Development Act of 2000 are inconsistent with
Article 2(b) of the Agreement on Rules of Origin. The Panel agreed with
both India and the United States that the operative clause of
Article 2(b) is the obligation that rules of origin must not be used as
instruments to pursue trade objectives:
“The Panel agrees with the parties that the operative part of
Article 2(b) is the phrase ‘rules of origin are not [to be] used as
instruments to pursue trade objectives directly or indirectly’. It is
clear from this phrase that in order to establish a violation of
Article 2(b), a Member needs to demonstrate that another Member is using rules
of origin for a specified purpose, viz., to pursue trade objectives.”(4)
(ii)
Panel’s duty to conduct an inquiry into the objectives of the
measure
4. The Panel on US
— Textiles Rules of Origin noted the statements
of the Appellate Body on Chile — Alcoholic Beverages on how Panels
should carry on an inquiry into the objectives of a measure. While the
Chile — Alcoholic Beverages interpretation was related to the second
sentence of Article III:2 of the
GATT
1994, the Panel said that this
reasoning also applies in the context of
Article 2(b) of the Agreement
on Rules of Origin:
“[W]e agree with India that the Appellate Body has already taken a
position on how panels should conduct an inquiry into the objectives of
a measure. The Appellate Body did so in the context of an analysis under
Article III:2, second sentence, of the GATT 1994. In examining whether a
tax measure was applied ‘so as to afford protection to domestic
production’, the Appellate Body stated that:
‘[…] it is not necessary for a panel to sort through the many
reasons legislators and regulators often have for what they do and weigh
the relative significance of those reasons to establish legislative or
regulatory intent.’ The subjective intentions inhabiting the minds of
individual legislators or regulators do not bear upon the inquiry, if
only because they are not accessible to treaty interpreters. It does not
follow, however, that the statutory purposes or objectives —
that is,
the purpose or objectives of a Member’s legislature and government as
a whole — to the extent that they are given objective expression in
the statute itself, are not pertinent. To the contrary, as we also
stated in Japan — Alcoholic Beverages:
Although it is true that the aim of a measure may not be easily
ascertained, nevertheless its protective application can most often be
discerned from the design, the architecture, and the revealing
structure
of a measure. (emphasis added)’(5)
The reasons cited by the Appellate Body in support of its view do not
appear to be specific to the provisions of Article
III:2, second
sentence, of the GATT 1994. Hence, these reasons apply with equal force
in the context of
Article 2(b) of the RO Agreement. Accordingly, in
applying
Article 2(b), we will follow the above-quoted statement by the
Appellate Body.”(6)
(iii)
An incidental trade effect should not be inferred as a trade
objective
5. In addressing India’s claim that that Section 405 of the United
States Trade and Development Act of 2000 is being used to pursue the
trade objective of favouring imports from the European Communities over
imports from other countries, and particularly imports from developing
countries such as India, the Panel on US — Textiles Rules of Origin
ruled that an incidental effect should not be inferred as a trade
objective:
“[W]e note, finally, that even if section 405 had the practical
effect of favouring goods imported from the European Communities over
competitive goods imported from other Members, that effect might be
incidental rather than intentional. In other words, we do not think that
the mere effect of favouring European Communities imports over imports
from other Members would in itself justify the inference that creating
such an effect is an objective pursued by the United States.”(7)
3. Article 2(c), first sentence
(a)
“themselves”
6. The Panel on US
— Textiles Rules of Origin interpreted several
terms used in the first sentence of Article 2(c), and considered that
the term “themselves” specifically relates to a Member’s rules of
origin as opposed to something like a commercial policy. The Panel
discussed the term “themselves” as follows:
“[W]e consider that, in the first sentence of Article
2(c), the
pronoun ‘themselves’ is used mainly to emphasise the preceding term
‘rules of origin’. By emphasising the term ‘rules of origin’,
the pronoun ‘themselves’ brings out very clearly that the first
sentence of Article 2(c) is concerned with a Member’s rules of origin,
as distinct from something other than rules of origin, and that it is
rules of origin, as opposed to something other than rules of origin,
that must not ‘create restrictive, distorting, or disruptive effects
on international trade’.
…
[T]he term ‘themselves’ is meant to highlight that, although
there may be commercial policy measures which create restrictive,
distorting, or disruptive effects on international trade, the rules of
origin used to implement and support these commercial policy measures
must not create restrictive, distorting, or disruptive effects on
international trade additional to those which may be caused by the
underlying commercial policy measures.(8) Similarly, in cases where an
underlying commercial policy measure does not cause any restrictive,
distorting, or disruptive effects on international trade, the word ‘themselves’
would serve to underscore that rules of origin must not create any new
restrictive, distorting, or disruptive effects on international trade.”(9)
(b)
“create”
7. The Panel on US
— Textiles Rules of Origin continued exploring
the interpretation of terms used in Article 2(c)
first sentence, and
explained that the term “create” ensures that there should be a “causal
link” between a certain rule of origin and a prohibited trade effect
for that rule of origin to be considered inconsistent with the first
sentence of Article 2(c):
“The next element of the text of the first sentence of
Article 2(c) to be considered is the term ‘create’. The ordinary meaning of the
term ‘create’ is to ‘cause, occasion, produce, give rise to’.(10)
Thus, it is implicit in the term ‘create’ that a Member’s rules of
origin only contravene the first sentence of Article
2(c) if there is a
causal link between those rules and the prohibited effects specified in
the first sentence.(11)“(12)
(c)
“restrictive, distorting or disruptive effects”
8. The Panel on US
— Textiles Rules of Origin explained that the
prohibited trade effects “restrictive, distorting or disruptive
effects” listed in the first sentence of Article
2(c) form “alternative
bases” for a claim:
“Turning to the prohibited effects —
i.e., ‘restrictive,
distorting, or disruptive effects’ — the Panel notes that these
effects constitute alternative bases for a claim under the first
sentence of Article 2(c), as is confirmed by the use of the disjunctive
‘or’. Accordingly, independent meaning and effect should be given to
the concepts of ‘restriction’, ‘distortion’ and ‘disruption’.
In this regard, we note that the ordinary meaning of the term ‘restrict’
is to ‘limit, bound, confine’; that of the term ‘distort’ is to
‘alter to an unnatural shape by twisting’; and that of the term to
‘disrupt’ is to ‘interrupt the normal continuity of’.(13) Thus,
the first sentence of Article 2(c) prohibits rules of origin which
create the effect of limiting the level of international trade (‘restrictive’
effects); of interfering with the natural pattern of international trade
(‘distorting’ effects); or of interrupting the normal continuity of
international trade (‘disruptive’ effects).”(14)
(d)
“effects on international trade”
9. The Panel on US
— Textiles Rules of Origin determined that the
term “effects on international trade” could not be interpreted as
covering adverse effects on trade in different goods:
“[W]e cannot assume that Members intended to bring adverse effects
on different types of goods within the ambit of the prohibition set out
in the first sentence of Article 2(c). Indeed, as the Appellate Body has
said in a different context, ‘[t]o sustain such an assumption and to
warrant such a far-reaching interpretation, treaty language far more
specific […] would be necessary’.(15) We consider that the same could
be said of Article 2(c), first sentence.(16)
Therefore, we consider that it would not be appropriate to interpret
the phrase ‘effects on international trade’ as covering adverse
effects on trade in different (but closely similar) types of finished
goods. We construe the phrase ‘effects on international trade’ to
cover trade in the goods to which the relevant rule of origin is applied
(e.g., cotton bed linen)”(17)
4. Article 2(c), second sentence
(a)
“unduly strict requirements”
10.
In US — Textiles Rules of Origin, the Panel explained the
meaning of the phrase “unduly strict requirement” in the context of
India’s claim that the United States’ measures at issue imposed
strict requirements that did not assist the United States in determining
the country with which the product had the most significant economic
link. The Panel explored the meaning of the sentence examining each
term:
“First, we need to examine what kind of ‘requirements’ are
covered by the obligation that Members must ensure that their rules of
origin not ‘pose unduly strict requirements’. In this regard, we
note the view of the United States that the clause ‘as a prerequisite
for the determination of the country of origin’ qualifies also the
phrase ‘[rules of origin] shall not pose unduly strict requirements’.
While the English version of Article 2(c) may
be susceptible of such an
interpretation, the equally authentic French version is not.(18)
Nevertheless, the clause ‘as a prerequisite for the determination of
the country of origin’ is part of the immediate context of the term
‘requirements’. Considered as relevant context, the clause at issue
lends force to the argument that the ‘requirements’ which must not
be unduly strict include the kind of requirements which must be
fulfilled as a prerequisite for the determination of the country of
origin. Article 2(a) of the RO Agreement provides further contextual
support for such an interpretation. The first sentence of that provision
states that the ‘requirements to be fulfilled’ must be clearly
defined. It is clear to us that these requirements include the
substantive requirements which must be met for a good to be determined
to originate in a particular country. For these reasons, we read the
term ‘requirements’ in the second sentence of Article
2(c) as
encompassing the substantive origin requirements(19) that must be met for
a good to obtain origin status.(20)
Another issue presented by the phrase ‘unduly strict requirements’
is the interpretation to be given to the adjective ‘strict’. The
most pertinent dictionary definitions of the term ‘strict’ are ‘exacting’(21)
and ‘rigorous’(22). Thus, a ‘strict’ requirement is an exacting or
rigorous requirement. In the specific context of Article 2 of the
RO
Agreement, and also bearing in mind our interpretation of the term ‘requirements’,
‘strict’ requirements are, therefore, those requirements which make
the conferral of origin conditional on conformity with an exacting or
rigorous (technical) standard.(23)
The second sentence of Article
2(c) only precludes Members from
imposing requirements which are ‘unduly’ strict. The dictionary
meaning of the adverb ‘unduly’ is ‘more than is warranted or
natural; excessively, disproportionately’. (24) Accordingly, an origin
requirement can be considered to be ‘unduly’ strict if it is
excessively strict.”(25)
(i)
“fulfilment of a certain condition not related to manufacturing
or processing”
11.
In US — Textiles Rules of Origin, the Panel noted that the
sentence “fulfilment of a certain condition not related to
manufacturing or processing” requires Members to ensure that the
conditions that their rules of origin impose as a prerequisite for the
conferral of origin do not include a condition unrelated to the
manufacturing or processing:
“[W]e consider that the ordinary meaning of the second clause is
clear. It requires Members to ensure that the conditions their rules of
origin impose as a prerequisite for the conferral of origin not include
a condition which is unrelated to manufacturing or processing.(26) We note
the example offered by the United States that a rule of origin would not
conform to this requirement if it stated that a good can only be
ascribed the origin of a country if the good has been certified by
several authorities through a time-consuming process in the exporting
country.”(27)
5. Article 2(d)
(a)
Scope of application of non-discrimination rule
12.
In US — Textiles Rules of Origin, India
argued that rules of origin violate Article 2(d) if they result in
unjustifiably differential treatment of “closely related (Indian and
European Communities) products”. The Panel rejected India’s claim
and explained that India’s argument was partly based on the erroneous
assumption that Members should apply “the same rule of origin, or at
least equally advantageous rules, to ‘closely related’ products
imported from different Members”. The Panel then determined that Article 2(d)
does not intend to preclude discrimination across different
(but closely related) goods imported from different Members:
“[W]e recall that the second clause of Article 2(d)
states that
rules of origin ‘shall not discriminate between other Members,
irrespective of the affiliation of the manufacturers of the good
concerned’. It does not state that rules of origin ‘shall not
discriminate between closely related goods of other Members […]’.
Thus, the plain terms of the second clause do not support India’s
reading.
Moreover, the expression ‘the good concerned’ in the singular
indicates that the second clause of Article 2(d)
is not concerned with
discrimination across different (but closely related) goods. Were it
otherwise, the second clause would arguably have referred to ‘the
goods concerned’ in the plural. In our view, the use of the singular
suggests that, for the purposes of assessing whether there is
discrimination ‘between Members’, a comparison should be made
between the rule of origin applicable to a particular good when imported
from one or more Members and the rule(s) of origin applicable to the
same good — ‘the good concerned’ — when imported from one or
more other Members.
If the second clause of Article 2(c) were intended to preclude
discrimination across different (but closely related) goods, we consider
it likely that the drafters would have provided some textual guidance as
to the product scope of the prohibition set forth in the second clause.
Indeed, we note that other WTO non-discrimination provisions, such as
Articles I, III and IX of the GATT
1994, do specify the product scope of
the prohibitions they contain.(28)
Finally, our reading of the second clause of Article 2(d) is
consistent with the objective of that clause. In our view, the principal
objective of the second clause of Article 2(d)
is to ensure that, for a
given good, the strictness of the requirements that must be satisfied
for that good to be accorded the origin of a particular Member is the
same, regardless of the provenance of the good in question (i.e., Member
from which the good is imported, affiliation of the manufacturers of the
good, etc.).(29)”(30)
IV. Article 3
back to top
A. Text of Article 3
Article 3: Disciplines after the Transition Period
Taking into account the
aim of all Members to achieve, as a result of the harmonization work
programme set out in Part IV, the establishment of harmonized rules of
origin, Members shall ensure, upon the implementation of the results of
the harmonization work programme, that:
(a) they apply rules of origin equally for all
purposes as set out in Article 1;
(b) under their rules of origin, the country to be
determined as the origin of a particular good is either the country
where the good has been wholly obtained or, when more than one country
is concerned in the production of the good, the country where the last
substantial transformation has been carried out;
(c) the rules of origin that they apply to imports
and exports are not more stringent than the rules of origin they apply
to determine whether or not a good is domestic and shall not
discriminate between other Members, irrespective of the affiliation of
the manufacturers of the good concerned;
(d) the rules of origin are administered in a
consistent, uniform, impartial and reasonable manner;
(e) their laws, regulations, judicial decisions
and administrative rulings of general application relating to rules of
origin are published as if they were subject to, and in accordance with,
the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article X of GATT
1994;
(f) upon the request of an exporter, importer or
any person with a justifiable cause, assessments of the origin they
would accord to a good are issued as soon as possible but no later than
150 days after a request for such an assessment provided that all
necessary elements have been submitted. Requests for such assessments
shall be accepted before trade in the good concerned begins and may be
accepted at any later point in time. Such assessments shall remain valid
for three years provided that the facts and conditions, including the
rules of origin, under which they have been made remain comparable.
Provided that the parties concerned are informed in advance, such
assessments will no longer be valid when a decision contrary to the
assessment is made in a review as referred to in subparagraph
(h). Such
assessments shall be made publicly available subject to the provisions
of subparagraph (i);
(g) when introducing changes to their rules of
origin or new rules of origin, they shall not apply such changes
retroactively as defined in, and without prejudice to, their laws or
regulations;
(h) any administrative action which they take in
relation to the determination of origin is reviewable promptly by
judicial, arbitral or administrative tribunals or procedures,
independent of the authority issuing the determination, which can effect
the modification or reversal of the determination;
(i) all information which is by nature
confidential or which is provided on a confidential basis for the
purpose of the application of rules of origin is treated as strictly
confidential by the authorities concerned, which shall not disclose it
without the specific permission of the person or government providing
such information, except to the extent that it may be required to be
disclosed in the context of judicial proceedings.
B. Interpretation and Application of Article 3
No jurisprudence or decision of a competent WTO
body.
Part III: Procedural Arrangements on Notification, Review, Consultation and Dispute Settlement
V. Article 4
back to top
A. Text of Article 4
Article 4: Institutions
1. There is hereby established a Committee on
Rules of Origin (referred to in this Agreement as “the Committee”)
composed of the representatives from each of the Members. The Committee
shall elect its own Chairman and shall meet as necessary, but not less
than once a year, for the purpose of affording Members the opportunity
to consult on matters relating to the operation of Parts I, II, III and
IV or the furtherance of the objectives set out in these Parts and to
carry out such other responsibilities assigned to it under this
Agreement or by the Council for Trade in Goods. Where appropriate, the
Committee shall request information and advice from the Technical
Committee referred to in paragraph 2 on matters related to this
Agreement. The Committee may also request such other work from the
Technical Committee as it considers appropriate for the furtherance of
the above-mentioned objectives of this Agreement. The WTO Secretariat
shall act as the secretariat to the Committee.
2. There shall be established a Technical
Committee on Rules of Origin (referred to in this Agreement as “the
Technical Committee”) under the auspices of the Customs Co-operation
Council (CCC) as set out in Annex I.(31) The Technical Committee
shall carry out the technical work called for in Part IV and prescribed
in Annex I. Where appropriate, the Technical Committee shall request
information and advice from the Committee on matters related to this
Agreement. The Technical Committee may also request such other work from
the Committee as it considers appropriate for the furtherance of the
above-mentioned objectives of the Agreement. The CCC Secretariat shall
act as the secretariat to the Technical Committee.
B. Interpretation and Application of Article 4
1. Observers
13.
At its meeting on 4 April 1995, the
Committee on Rules of Origin agreed that governments granted observer
status by the WTO General Council would be allowed to attend meetings of
the Committee as observers, without prejudice to the possibility of
holding closed sessions without observers.(32)
2. Rules of procedure
14.
At its meeting of 16 November 1995, the
Committee on Rules of Origin adopted its Rules of Procedure(33),
which were subsequently approved by the Council for Trade in Goods at
its meeting of 1 December 1995.(34)
15. The Committee on Rules of Origin reports
to the Council for Trade in Goods on an annual basis.(35)
3. Drafting Group on Rules of Origin
16.
At its meeting on 27 June 1995, the
Committee on Rules of Origin set up a Drafting Group to elaborate a
definition of the term “country” for the purposes of the Agreement
on Rules of Origin.(36) At its meeting on 16 November 1995,
the Committee on Rules of Origin agreed to adopt the following
recommendation from the Drafting Group:
“[T]he Committee requests the Technical
Committee to fully proceed with its harmonization Work Programme in the
absence of an abstractly constructed definition of the term ‘country’;
and to forward to it unresolved issues relating to the definition of the
term ‘country’, for a final determination; and
the Committee may request the Drafting Group to
address particular issues relating to the definition of the term ‘country’
and, in that connection, to offer clarification that may enhance the
work of the Technical Committee;”(37)
4. Working Group
17.
At its meeting on 16 November 1995, the
Committee on Rules of Origin agreed, as concerned the process of
reviewing the reports submitted to the Committee by the Technical
Committee on Rules of Origin in Brussels, to establish an open-ended
Working Group to deal with bracketed interpretations and opinions of the
Technical Committee, and consequently forward appropriate
recommendations to the Committee on Rules of Origin for final
consideration and decision.(38)
VI. Article 5
back to top
A. Text of Article 5
Article 5: Information and Procedures for Modification
and Introduction of New Rules of Origin
1. Each Member shall provide to the Secretariat,
within 90 days after the date of entry into force of the WTO Agreement
for it, its rules of origin, judicial decisions, and administrative
rulings of general application relating to rules of origin in effect on
that date. If by inadvertence a rule of origin has not been provided,
the Member concerned shall provide it immediately after this fact
becomes known. Lists of information received and available with the
Secretariat shall be circulated to the Members by the Secretariat.
2. During the period referred to in
Article 2,
Members introducing modifications, other than de minimis
modifications, to their rules of origin or introducing new rules of
origin, which, for the purpose of this Article, shall include any rule
of origin referred to in paragraph 1 and not provided to the
Secretariat, shall publish a notice to that effect at least 60 days
before the entry into force of the modified or new rule in such a manner
as to enable interested parties to become acquainted with the intention
to modify a rule of origin or to introduce a new rule of origin, unless
exceptional circumstances arise or threaten to arise for a Member. In
these exceptional cases, the Member shall publish the modified or new
rule as soon as possible.
B. Interpretation and Application of Article 5
1. Notification procedures
18.
At its meeting of 4 April 1995, the
Committee on Rules of Origin agreed that, if a notification under
Article 5.1 and paragraph 4 of Annex II were to be made in a language
other than one of the WTO working languages, such notification should be
accompanied by a summary in one of the WTO working languages.(39)
19.
As of 31 December 2004, 84 Members have
made notifications of non-preferential rules of origin and 89 Members
have made notifications of preferential rules of origin pursuant to
Article 5 and paragraph 4 of Annex II.(40)
20.
At its meeting of 1 February 1996, the
Committee on Rules of Origin adopted a procedure to deal with queries by
Members in respect of national legislation; such queries should be
communicated to the Secretariat ten working days in advance of the
meeting at which they are to be raised.(41)
VII. Article 6
back to top
A. Text of Article 6
Article 6: Review
1. The Committee shall review annually the
implementation and operation of Parts II and III of this Agreement
having regard to its objectives. The Committee shall annually inform the
Council for Trade in Goods of developments during the period covered by
such reviews.
2. The Committee shall review the provisions of
Parts I, II and III and propose amendments as necessary to reflect the
results of the harmonization work programme.
3. The Committee, in cooperation with the
Technical Committee, shall set up a mechanism to consider and propose
amendments to the results of the harmonization work programme, taking
into account the objectives and principles set out in Article
9. This
may include instances where the rules need to be made more operational
or need to be updated to take into account new production processes as
affected by any technological change.
B. Interpretation and Application of Article 6
1. Article 6.1
21.
As of 31 December 2004, the Committee on
Rules of Origin has conducted ten reviews of the implementation and
operation of the Agreement.(42)
VIII. Article 7
back to top
A. Text of Article 7
Article 7: Consultation
The provisions of Article XXII of GATT
1994, as
elaborated and applied by the Dispute Settlement Understanding, are
applicable to this Agreement.
B. Interpretation and Application of Article 7
No jurisprudence or decision of a competent WTO
body.
IX. Article 8
back to top
A. Text of Article 8
Article 8: Dispute Settlement
The provisions of Article XXIII of GATT
1994, as
elaborated and applied by the Dispute Settlement Understanding, are
applicable to this Agreement.
B. Interpretation and Application of Article 8
22.
The following table lists the dispute in
which the panel report has been adopted where the provisions of the
Agreement on Rules of Origin were invoked:
| |
Case Name |
Case Number |
Invoked Articles |
|
1 |
US — Textiles Rules of Origin |
WT/DS165 |
Article 2 |
Part IV: Harmonization of Rules of Origin
X. Article 9
back to top
A. Text of Article 9
Article 9: Objectives and Principles
1. With the objectives of harmonizing rules of origin and,
inter alia, providing more certainty in the conduct of world trade, the
Ministerial Conference shall undertake the work programme set out below
in conjunction with the CCC, on the basis of the following principles:
(a) rules of origin should be applied equally for all purposes as set
out in Article 1;
(b) rules of origin should provide for the country to be determined
as the origin of a particular good to be either the country where the
good has been wholly obtained or, when more than one country is
concerned in the production of the good, the country where the last
substantial transformation has been carried out;
(c) rules of origin should be objective, understandable and
predictable;
(d) notwithstanding the measure or instrument to which they may be
linked, rules of origin should not be used as instruments to pursue
trade objectives directly or indirectly. They should not themselves
create restrictive, distorting or disruptive effects on international
trade. They should not pose unduly strict requirements or require the
fulfilment of a certain condition not relating to manufacturing or
processing as a prerequisite for the determination of the country of
origin. However, costs not directly related to manufacturing or
processing may be included for purposes of the application of an ad
valorem percentage criterion;
(e) rules of origin should be administrable in a consistent, uniform,
impartial and reasonable manner;
(f) rules of origin should be coherent;
(g) rules of origin should be based on a positive standard. Negative
standards may be used to clarify a positive standard.
Work Programme
2. (a)
The work programme shall be initiated as soon after the entry
into force of the WTO Agreement as possible and will be completed within
three years of initiation.
(b) The Committee and the Technical Committee provided for in
Article
4 shall be the appropriate bodies to conduct this work.
(c) To provide for detailed input by the CCC, the Committee shall
request the Technical Committee to provide its interpretations and
opinions resulting from the work described below on the basis of the
principles listed in paragraph 1. To ensure timely completion of the
work programme for harmonization, such work shall be conducted on a
product sector basis, as represented by various chapters or sections of
the harmonized System (HS) nomenclature.
(i) Wholly Obtained and Minimal Operations or Processes
The Technical Committee shall develop harmonized definitions of:
- the goods that are to be considered as being wholly obtained in one
country. This work shall be as detailed as possible;
- minimal operations or processes that do not by themselves confer
origin to a good.
The results of this work shall be submitted to the Committee within
three months of receipt of the request from the Committee.
(ii) Substantial Transformation
— Change in Tariff Classification
- The Technical Committee shall consider and elaborate upon, on the
basis of the criterion of substantial transformation, the use of change
in tariff subheading or heading when developing rules of origin for
particular products or a product sector and, if appropriate, the minimum
change within the nomenclature that meets this criterion.
- The Technical Committee shall divide the above work on a product
basis taking into account the chapters or sections of the HS
nomenclature, so as to submit results of its work to the Committee at
least on a quarterly basis. The Technical Committee shall complete the
above work within one year and three months from receipt of the request
of the Committee.
(iii) Substantial Transformation
— Supplementary Criteria
Upon completion of the work under subparagraph (ii) for each product
sector or individual product category where the exclusive use of the HS
nomenclature does not allow for the expression of substantial
transformation, the Technical Committee:
- shall consider and elaborate upon, on the basis of the criterion of
substantial transformation, the use, in a supplementary or exclusive
manner, of other requirements, including ad valorem percentages(4) and/or
manufacturing or processing operations(5), when developing rules of origin
for particuslar products or a product sector;
(footnote original)
4 If the ad valorem criterion is prescribed, the
method for calculating this percentage shall also be indicated in the
rules of origin.
(footnote original)
5 If the criterion of manufacturing or
processing operation is prescribed, the operation that confers origin on
the product concerned shall be precisely specified.
- may provide explanations for its proposals;
- shall divide the above work on a product basis taking into account
the chapters or sections of the HS nomenclature, so as to submit results
of its work to the Committee at least on a quarterly basis. The
Technical Committee shall complete the above work within two years and
three months of receipt of the request from the Committee.
Role of the Committee
3. On the basis of the principles listed in
paragraph 1:
(a) the Committee shall consider the interpretations and opinions of
the Technical Committee periodically in accordance with the time-frames
provided in subparagraphs (i), (ii) and
(iii) of paragraph 2(c) with a
view to endorsing such interpretations and opinions. The Committee may
request the Technical Committee to refine or elaborate its work and/or
to develop new approaches. To assist the Technical Committee, the
Committee should provide its reasons for requests for additional work
and, as appropriate, suggest alternative approaches;
(b) upon completion of all the work identified in
subparagraphs (i),
(ii) and (iii) of paragraph 2(c), the Committee shall consider the
results in terms of their overall coherence.
Results of the harmonization Work Programme and Subsequent Work
4. The Ministerial Conference shall establish the results of the
harmonization work programme in an annex as an integral part of this
Agreement.(6) The Ministerial Conference shall establish a time-frame for
the entry into force of this annex.
(footnote original)
6 At the same time, consideration shall be given
to arrangements concerning the settlement of disputes relating to
customs classification.
B. Interpretation and Application of Article 9
23. The Committee on Rules of Origin has pursued work on the
harmonization of non-preferential rules of origin.(43) At its meeting of
10 May 1996, the Committee on Rules of Origin decided to establish an
Integrated Negotiating Text for the harmonization Work Programme.(44)
24. At its meeting of 15 December 2000, with respect to
implementation-related issues and concerns, the General Council made a
decision relating to several WTO Agreements.(45) Specifically, with
respect to the Agreement on Rules of Origin, the General Council
decided:
“Members undertake to expedite the remaining work on the
harmonization of non-preferential rules of origin, so as to complete it
by the time of the Fourth Ministerial Conference, or by the end of 2001
at the latest. The Chairman of the Committee on Rules of Origin shall
report regularly, on his own responsibility, to the General Council on
the progress being made. The first such report would be submitted to the
Council at its first regular meeting in 2001, and subsequently at each
regular meeting until the completion of the work programme.”(46)
25. The Chairman of the Committee on Rules of Origin submitted a
progress report on the harmonization work programme to the General
Council in December 2001.(47) Following the discussion on the report, the
General Council agreed that the Committee on Rules of Origin would hold
two additional sessions in the first half of 2002 to resolve remaining
issues, so that it might identify a limited number of core policy-level
issues that in its view needed to be reported to the General Council for
discussion and decision at that level. It also agreed that the outcome
of the Committee on Rules of Origin’s further work would be reported
by the Chairman of the Committee, on his own responsibility, to the
General Council at its first regular meeting after the end of June 2002,
at which point the matter would be in the hands of the General Council,
and that the deadline for completion of the harmonization work programme
would be extended to the end of 2002.(48)
26. At its meeting in July 2002, the General Council took note of a
report by the Chairman of the Committee on Rules of Origin and of the
recommendations contained therein(49), and agreed to hold a first meeting
on the 12 core policy-level issues identified in paragraph 5.1 of that
report.(50)
27. At its meeting in December 2002, the General Council considered a
report from its Chairman and the Chairman of the Committee on Rules of
Origin on the progress to date. Following the discussion, and taking
into account the importance of the issues to be resolved and the
implications to be considered, and in the full knowledge of the
consequences of a failure to meet another new deadline, the General
Council agreed to extend, to July 2003, the deadline for completion of
negotiations on the core policy issues identified in the Committee on
Rules of Origin Chair’s report to the General Council of 15 July 2002.
The General Council also agreed that following resolution of these core
policy issues, the Committee on Rules of Origin complete its remaining
technical work, including the work referred to in Article 9.3(b) of the
Agreement on Rules of Origin, by 31 December 2003.(51)
XI. Annex I
back to top
A. Text of Annex I
Annex I: Technical Committee on Rules of Origin
Responsibilities
1. The ongoing responsibilities of the Technical Committee shall
include the following:
(a) at the request of any member of the Technical Committee, to
examine specific technical problems arising in the day-to-day
administration of the rules of origin of Members and to give advisory
opinions on appropriate solutions based upon the facts presented;
(b) to furnish information and advice on any matters concerning the
origin determination of goods as may be requested by any Member or the
Committee;
(c) to prepare and circulate periodic reports on the technical
aspects of the operation and status of this Agreement; and
(d) to review annually the technical aspects of the implementation
and operation of Parts II and III.
2. The Technical Committee shall exercise such other responsibilities
as the Committee may request of it.
3. The Technical Committee shall attempt to conclude its work on
specific matters, especially those referred to it by Members or the
Committee, in a reasonably short period of time.
Representation
4. Each Member shall have the right to be represented on the
Technical Committee. Each Member may nominate one delegate and one or
more alternates to be its representatives on the Technical Committee.
Such a Member so represented on the Technical Committee is hereinafter
referred to as a “member” of the Technical Committee.
Representatives of members of the Technical Committee may be assisted by
advisers at meetings of the Technical Committee. The WTO Secretariat may
also attend such meetings with observer status.
5. Members of the CCC which are not Members of the WTO may be
represented at meetings of the Technical Committee by one delegate and
one or more alternates. Such representatives shall attend meetings of
the Technical Committee as observers.
6. Subject to the approval of the Chairman of the Technical
Committee, the Secretary-General of the CCC (referred to in this Annex
as “the Secretary-General”) may invite representatives of
governments which are neither Members of the WTO nor members of the CCC
and representatives of international governmental and trade
organizations to attend meetings of the Technical Committee as
observers.
7. Nominations of delegates, alternates and advisers to meetings of
the Technical Committee shall be made to the Secretary-General.
Meetings
8. The Technical Committee shall meet as necessary, but not less than
once a year.
Procedures
9. The Technical
Committee shall elect its own Chairman and shall establish its own
procedures.
B. Interpretation and Application of Annex I
No jurisprudence or decision of a competent WTO
body.
XII. Annex II
back to top
A. Text of Annex II
Annex II: Common Declaration With Regard to Preferential Rules of Origin
1. Recognizing that
some Members apply preferential rules of origin, distinct from
non-preferential rules of origin, the Members hereby agree as follows.
2. For the purposes
of this Common Declaration, preferential rules of origin shall be
defined as those laws, regulations and administrative determinations of
general application applied by any Member to determine whether goods
qualify for preferential treatment under contractual or autonomous trade
regimes leading to the granting of tariff preferences going beyond the
application of paragraph 1 of Article I of GATT
1994.
3. The Members
agree to ensure that:
(a) when they issue
administrative determinations of general application, the requirements
to be fulfilled are clearly defined. In particular:
(i) in cases where
the criterion of change of tariff classification is applied, such a
preferential rule of origin, and any exceptions to the rule, must
clearly specify the subheadings or headings within the tariff
nomenclature that are addressed by the rule;
(ii) in cases
where the ad valorem percentage criterion is applied, the method for
calculating this percentage shall also be indicated in the preferential
rules of origin;
(iii) in cases
where the criterion of manufacturing or processing operation is
prescribed, the operation that confers preferential origin shall be
precisely specified;
(b) their preferential rules of origin are based
on a positive standard. Preferential rules of origin that state what
does not confer preferential origin (negative standard) are permissible
as part of a clarification of a positive standard or in individual cases
where a positive determination of preferential origin is not necessary;
(c) their laws, regulations, judicial decisions
and administrative rulings of general application relating to
preferential rules of origin are published as if they were subject to,
and in accordance with, the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article X of
GATT 1994;
(d) upon request of an exporter, importer or any
person with a justifiable cause, assessments of the preferential origin
they would accord to a good are issued as soon as possible but no later
than 150 days(7) after a request for such an assessment provided
that all necessary elements have been submitted. Requests for such
assessments shall be accepted before trade in the good concerned begins
and may be accepted at any later point in time. Such assessments shall
remain valid for three years provided that the facts and conditions,
including the preferential rules of origin, under which they have been
made remain comparable. Provided that the parties concerned are informed
in advance, such assessments will no longer be valid when a decision
contrary to the assessment is made in a review as referred to in
subparagraph (f). Such assessments shall be made publicly available
subject to the provisions of subparagraph (g);
(footnote
original) 7 In respect of requests made during the first year
from entry into force of the WTO Agreement, Members shall only be
required to issue these assessments as soon as possible.
(e) when introducing changes to their preferential
rules of origin or new preferential rules of origin, they shall not
apply such changes retroactively as defined in, and without prejudice
to, their laws or regulations;
(f) any administrative action which they take in
relation to the determination of preferential origin is reviewable
promptly by judicial, arbitral or administrative tribunals or
procedures, independent of the authority issuing the determination,
which can effect the modification or reversal of the determination;
(g) all information that is by nature confidential
or that is provided on a confidential basis for the purpose of the
application of preferential rules of origin is treated as strictly
confidential by the authorities concerned, which shall not disclose it
without the specific permission of the person or government providing
such information, except to the extent that it may be required to be
disclosed in the context of judicial proceedings.
4. Members
agree to provide to the Secretariat promptly their
preferential rules of origin, including a listing of the preferential
arrangements to which they apply, judicial decisions, and administrative
rulings of general application relating to their preferential rules of
origin in effect on the date of entry into force of the WTO Agreement
for the Member concerned. Furthermore, Members agree to provide any
modifications to their preferential rules of origin or new preferential
rules of origin as soon as possible to the Secretariat. Lists of
information received and available with the Secretariat shall be
circulated to the Members by the Secretariat.
B. Interpretation and Application of Annex II
28. With respect to implementation of
paragraph 4 of Annex II, see
paragraph 19 above.
Footnotes:
1. With respect to preferential rules of
origin, see Annex II (Section XII). back to text
2. Panel
Report on
US — Textiles Rules of Origin, paras. 6.23-6.25.
back to text
3. Panel
Report on
US — Textiles Rules of Origin, paras. 6.43. See
also para. 6.84. back to text
4. Panel
Report on
US — Textiles Rules of Origin, para. 6.36. back to text
5. (footnote original) Appellate Body Report,
Chile — Taxes on Alcoholic
Beverages (“Chile — Alcoholic Beverages”), WT/DS87/AB/R,
WT/DS110/AB/R, adopted 12 January 2000, DSR 2000:I, 281, para. 62
(footnotes omitted). back to text
6. Panel
Report on
US — Textiles Rules of Origin, paras. 6.37-6.
38. back to text
7. Panel
Report on
US — Textiles Rules of Origin, para. 6.117.
back to text
8. (footnote original) It is worth
noting in this context that Article 3.2 of the
Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures on
non-automatic licensing contains provisions along these lines.
Specifically, it states that “[n]on-automatic licensing shall not have
trade-restrictive or distortive effects on imports additional to those
caused by the imposition of the restriction” (emphasis added). back to text
9. Panel
Report on
US — Textiles Rules of Origin, paras. 6.136-6.137. back to text
10. (footnote original) The New Shorter Oxford English
Dictionary,
L. Brown, ed., Clarendon Press, 1993, Vol. I, p. 198. back to text
11. (footnote original) It is relevant to point out here that the Appellate
Body has given a similar interpretation to the previously
mentioned Article 3.2 of the Agreement on Import Licensing
Procedures. Appellate Body Report,
European Communities — Measures Affecting the
Importation of Certain Poultry Products (“EC — Poultry”),
WT/DS69/AB/R, adopted 23 July 1998, DSR 1998:V, 2031,
paras. 126-127. back to text
12.
Panel
Report on
US — Textiles Rules of Origin, para. 6.140. back to text
13. (footnote original) The New Shorter Oxford English
Dictionary,
L. Brown, ed., Clarendon Press, 1993, Vol. II, p. 2569; Vol. I, pp. 707
and 702, respectively. back to text
14.
Panel
Report on
US — Textiles Rules of Origin, para. 6.141. back to text
15. (footnote original) Appellate Body Report,
EC Measures Concerning
Meat and Meat Products (hormones) (“EC —
hormones”), WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, adopted 13 February 1998, DSR
1998:I, 135, para. 165. back to text
16. (footnote original) In response to a question from the Panel,
India argues that the plural in Article 2(c) means that that provision
applies both to an individual rule of origin as well as to a Member’s
system of rules of origin. India’s reply to Panel question No. 48.
Since India, in developing its claim, does not rely on this
interpretation of the text of Article 2(c), it is sufficient to note
that we understand the plural in Article 2(c), first sentence, to refer
to a Member’s “rules of origin” taken individually, i.e., to
individual rules of origin as they apply to individual goods. Indeed,
provisions like the second sentence of Article
2(c), the first clause of
Article 2(d), Article 2(f) and Article 3(a) of the
RO Agreement cannot
reasonably be read to lay down disciplines for anything other than
individual rules of back to text
17. Panel
Report on
US — Textiles Rules of Origin, paras.
6.1466.147. See also para. 6.172. back to text
18. (footnote original) The French version of Article 2(c), second
sentence, reads as follows:
“[Les règles d’origine] n’imposeront pas
de prescriptions indûment rigoureuses ni n’exigeront, comme condition
préalable à la détermination du pays d’origine, le respect d’une
certaine condition non liée à la fabrication ou à l’ouvraison.”
The Spanish text of Article 2(c), second
sentence, seems to track the French version rather than the English
version. It reads:
“[Las normas de origen] [n]o impondrán
condiciones indebidamente estrictas ni exigirán el cumplimiento de una
determinada condición no relacionada con la fabricación o elaboración
como requisito previo para la determinación del país de origen.” back to text
19. (footnote original) For the purposes of this dispute,
we need not decide whether the “requirements” mentioned in the
second sentence of Article 2(c) would also encompass the formal, or
administrative, requirements which may be imposed in order to assess
compliance with rules of origin (e.g., documentation requirements). back to text
20. (footnote original) The negotiating history of the RO Agreement tends to confirm that the term “requirements” refers to
the substantive origin requirements that must be met for a good to
obtain origin status. The first clause of Article 2(c), second sentence,
appears to originate in two provisions proposed by Japan. The first of
these proposed provisions states that “the requirements to be
fulfilled in the determination of origin shall be clearly defined. […]
Rules of origin which state only what does not confer origin […] or
state only abstract conditions or unduly strict conditions shall be
prohibited”. MTN.GNG/NG2/W/52, p. 5 (emphasis added). The other
provision proposed by Japan states that “[t]echnically excessive
requirements as a prerequisite for the determination of country of
origin shall be prohibited”. Ibid. back to text
21. (footnote original) Black’s Law Dictionary, B. A. Garner
(ed.), West Group, 1999, p. 1434. back to text
22. (footnote original) Merriam-Webster OnLine Thesaurus, http://www.m-w.com
(March 2003). We note that the French version of the second sentence of Article 2(c)
also uses the adjective “rigoureux”. back to text
23. (footnote original) In other words, we think that the “strictness”
of requirements is to be assessed from the perspective of countries
wanting to obtain origin status, rather than from the perspective of
countries wanting to lose origin status. back to text
24. (footnote original) The New Shorter Oxford English
Dictionary,
L. Brown (ed.), Clarendon Press, 1993, Vol. 2, p. 3480. back to text
25. Panel
Report on
US — Textiles Rules of Origin, paras. 6.204-6.206. back to text
26. (footnote original) We are aware that the third sentence of
Article 2(c)
states that “costs not directly related to manufacturing
or processing may be included for the purposes of the application of an
ad valorem percentage criterion consistent with subparagraph (a)”. But
the third sentence opens with the word “however”, which implies a
contrast between the second and third sentences. back to text
27. Panel
Report on
US — Textiles Rules of Origin, para. 6.208. back to text
28. (footnote original) For instance, Article
I of the GATT 1994 prohibits discrimination as between “like” products only. back to text
29. (footnote original) The Panel notes that this is consistent
with its view that Article 2 is intended to leave Members a considerable
measure of discretion in designing and applying their rules of origin. Supra, para. 6.25. back to text
30. Panel
Report on
US — Textiles Rules of Origin, paras. 6.245-6.248. back to text
31. See Section XI. back to text
32. G/RO/M/1, para. 11. In addition, Representatives of the ACP,
EFTA, IADB, IMF, ITCB, OECD, UNCTAD, WCO and the World Bank were invited
to attend meetings of the Committee on Rules of Origin in 2000 in an
observer capacity. See G/L/413, para. 1. back to text
33. G/RO/M/3. The adopted rules of procedure can be found in
G/L/149. back to text
34. G/C/M/7. back to text
35. The reports are contained in documents G/L/36, 36/Corr.1, 119,
210, 271, 326, 413, 656 and 704. back to text
36. G/RO/M/2,
paras. 10-16. back to text
37. G/RO/M/3,
paras. 3.1-3.2. back to text
38. The terms of reference of the Working Group can be found in G/RO/M/3, para. 4.3. back to text
39. G/RO/M/1, para. 44. For details on Members’ notifications
relating to preferential and non-preferential rules of origin, see
G/RO/47. para. 5 and Annex. back to text
40. G/L/656. back to text
41. G/RO/M/5, para. 1.3. back to text
42. See G/RO/3, G/RO/12, G/RO/21, G/RO/28, G/RO/43,
G/RO/47, G/RO/50
and G/RO/55. back to text
43. The General Council adopted to date recommendations by the
Committee on Rules of Origin to continue its work on this matter, in
July 1998 (WT/GC/M/29, Section 4(a)) and October 2000 (WT/GC/M/59,
Section 1(e)). back to text
44. G/RO/M/6, para.1 The Integrated Negotiating Text can be found in
G/RO/W/13. The text with the latest update can be found in G/RO/45. back to text
45. WT/GC/M/62, para. 17. The text of the decision can be found in
WT/L/384.
See also Chapter on WTO
Agreement, Section X.B on the powers
of the General Council more generally. back to text
46.
WT/L/384, para. 5. back to text
47. G/RO/49. back to text
48. WT/GC/M/72. back to text
49. G/RO/52. back to text
50. WT/GC/M/75. back to text
51. WT/GC/M/77. back to text
|
