The Agreement on Customs Valuation

  • Ian Forrester
  • Omar E. Odarda

Abstract

Customs officials assess the amount of duties to be levied on imported products in light of the economic origin of the products, their nature or classification and, normally, their value.1 Origin for preferential purposes is governed by fairly stringent criteria.2 Classification offers some limited opportunity for the exercise of discretion.3 Valuation is the most plastic of the three determinations and the one most prone to fraud, administrative arbitrariness and prolonged error.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 6.
    Vinod Rege, Customs Valuation and Customs Reform, in Development, Trade Andwto. A Handbook 128 (Bernard Hoekman, Aaditya Mattoo, and Philip English eds. 2002); Edmond Mcgovern, International Trade Regulation. Gatt, The United States and the European Community 150–151 (1986); Saul L. Sherman and Hinrich Glasshoff, Commentary on the Gatt Customs Valuation Code 54 (1998).Google Scholar
  2. 7.
    Luc DeWulf, Implementing the WTO Valuation Agreement in Developing Countries, paper,WCO Seminar on Capacity Building and the WTO Valuation Agreement, Brussels, October 25, 2002, at 3.Google Scholar
  3. 8.
    Vinod Rege, supra note 6, at 129.Google Scholar
  4. 11.
    Sherman and Glasshoff, supra HINRICH GLASSHOFF, Commentary on the Gatt Customs Valuation Code 54 (1998) note 6, at 54.Google Scholar
  5. 12.
    Vinod Rege, supra note 6, at 129, Luc De Wulf, supra note 7, at 3.Google Scholar
  6. 13.
    Vinod Rege, supra note 6, at 129; Luc De Wulf, supra note 7, at 3.Google Scholar
  7. 14.
    Sherman and Glasshoff, supra HINRICH GLASSHOFF, Commentary on the Gatt Customs Valuation Code 54 (1998) note 6 at 54.Google Scholar
  8. 16.
    The Tokyo Round Agreements or “Codes” were open to all GATT contracting parties, but a GATT contracting party was not required to become a signatory to any of these agreements as a condition of continued GATT membership. At the same time, unless a contracting party became a Code signatory, it could not benefit from any of the Code provisions. The Tokyo Round Codes were not core GATT obligations applicable to all GATT contracting parties, but rather were stand-alone legal instruments negotiated under GATT auspices and existing side by side, but not fully integrated into GATT. See Raj Bhala and Kevin Kennedy, World Trade Law 3–4 (1998).Google Scholar
  9. 18.
    Decision Regarding Cases Where Customs Administrations Have Reasons to Doubt the Truth or Accuracy of the Declared Value and Decision on Texts Relating to Minimum Values and Imports by Sole Agents, Sole Distri butors and Sole Concessionaires, inThe Legal Texts: The Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations 398 (1999).Google Scholar
  10. 20.
    Luc DeWulf, supra note 7, at 4.Google Scholar
  11. 27.
    Bhala and Kennedy, supra KEVIN KENNEDY, World Trade Law (1998) note 16, at 317.Google Scholar
  12. 28.
  13. 30.
    Sherman and Glasshoff, supra HINRICH GLASSHOFF, Commentary on the Gatt Customs Valuation Code 54 (1998) note 6 at 59.Google Scholar
  14. 31.
    Sherman and Glasshoff, supra HINRICH GLASSHOFF, Commentary on the Gatt Customs Valuation Code 54 (1998) note 6, at 61.Google Scholar
  15. 33.
    Sherman and Glasshoff, supra HINRICH GLASSHOFF, Commentary on the Gatt Customs Valuation Code 54 (1998) note 6, at 52, 61.Google Scholar
  16. 34.
    Carmen Luz Guarda, The Pivotal Role of Customs Valuation in Trade Facilitation, WCO Seminar on Capacity Building and the WTO Valuation Agreement, Brussels, October 17–18, 2002.Google Scholar
  17. 35.
    In a 1962 case against Canada, the United States argued that Canada’s “value for duty” on imported potatoes was “arbitrary or fictitious” in contravention of Article VII:2 (a). In effect, Canada applied an anti-dumping duty to the amount by which the actual export price fell below a notional “value for duty”, the average value of potatoes imported into-Canada during the previous 36 months. The Canadian regime almost guaranteed the levying of anti-dumping duty whenever prices went below their notional average price. The GATT panel’s report found that “value for duty” was a concept different from valuation for customs purposes. Canada’s anti-dumping technique did not meet GATT anti-dumping standards. Report of the GATT Panel (adopted), Exports of Potatoes to Canada, BISD, 11th Supp., at 88 (1963). See Bhala and Kennedy, supra note 16, at 317–318.Google Scholar
  18. 39.
    All TCCV instruments are contained in a compendium published by the World Customs Organization, Customs Valuation-Wto Agreement and Texts of the Technical Committee on Customs Valuation, 2ND Edition, (1997) (Loose-Leaf Publication Amending Supplements. Last Supplement was Published on September 2000).Google Scholar
  19. 41.
    DSU Article 1.2. See also David Palmeter and Petros C. Mavroidis, Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization 99 (1999).Google Scholar
  20. 44.
    See WTO Secretariat, Update of WTO Dispute Settlement Cases, WT/DS/OV/9, October 29, 2002.Google Scholar
  21. 45.
    Report of the Appellate Body, Korea—Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy Products, WT/DS98/AB/R, ¶¶ 74–75 (1999) (emphasis in original).Google Scholar
  22. 46.
    Id., ¶¶ 80–81 (emphasis in original).Google Scholar
  23. 51.
    A special situation may arise with regard to computer software, which may be of immense value not because of the physical characteristics of the imported goods, but because of what is electronically recorded thereon. Such electronic material could be transmitted by telephone, cable or satellite and recorded on the medium. How to value such items was decided by the decision on the valuation of carrier media bearing software for data processing equipment (VAL/8) adopted by the GATT Committee on Customs Valuation on September 24, 1984. It recommends that [...] “in determining the customs value of imported carrier media bearing data or instructions (software), only the cost or value of the carrier medium itself shall be taken into account. The customs value shall not, therefore, include the cost or value of the data or instructions, provided that this is distinguished from the cost or the value of the carrier medium. For the purpose of this Decision, the expression “carrier medium” shall not be taken to include integrated circuits, semiconductors and similar devices or articles incorporating such circuits or devices; the expression ‘data or instructions’ shall not be taken to include sound, cinematic or video recordings.” The rationale for this decision is that it is essentially the carrier media itself (i.e. the magnetic disk), which is liable for duty under the customs tariff. See Sherman and Glasshoff, supra Saul L. Sherman and Hinrich Glasshoff, Commentary on the Gatt Customs Valuation Code 54 (1998) note 6, at 86.Google Scholar
  24. 52.
    Sherman and Glasshoff, supra Saul L. Sherman and Hinrich Glasshoff, Commentary on the Gatt Customs Valuation Code 54 (1998) note 6, at 85.Google Scholar
  25. 54.
    Sherman and Glasshoff, supra Saul L. Sherman and Hinrich Glasshoff, Commentary on the Gatt Customs Valuation Code 54 (1998) note 6, at 78.Google Scholar
  26. 55.
    SeeCVAArticle 17, Annex III:6 to the Agreement and the Uruguay Round Ministerial Decision, Regarding Cases Where Customs Administrations Have Reasons to Doubt the Truth or Accuracy of the Declared Value. The powers of customs authorities are discussed in Part V.B of this Chapter.Google Scholar
  27. 56.
    Bhala and Kennedy, supra Raj BHALA and Kevin Kennedy, World Trade Law 3–4 (1998) note 16, at 324.Google Scholar
  28. 58.
    Sherman and Glasshoff, supra Saul L. Sherman and Hinrich Glasshoff, Commentary on the Gatt Customs Valuation Code 54 (1998) note 6, at 82.Google Scholar
  29. 60.
    Sherman and Glasshoff, supra Saul L. Sherman and Hinrich Glasshoff, Commentary on the Gatt Customs Valuation Code 54 (1998) note 6, at 83.Google Scholar
  30. 62.
    Sherman and Glasshoff, supra HINRICH GLASSHOFF, Commentary on the Gatt Customs Valuation Code 54(1998) note 6, at 84.Google Scholar
  31. 65.
    For example, Article 147 of the implementing EC Customs Code Regulation (Regulation 2454/93, as amended) provides that when the customs declarant wants to rely on an earlier sale to establish the TV, it must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the customs authorities that the sale in question took place contemplating export into the EU. See Hans-Joachim Priess and André Fiebig, Determining the Customs Value of Goods Subject to Successive Sales: Recent Developments in EU Customs Law, [1995] 4 International Trade Regulation, at 137.Google Scholar
  32. 69.
    Sherman and Glasshoff, supra note at 109.Google Scholar
  33. 70.
    Bhala and Kennedy, supra note at 327.Google Scholar
  34. 74.
    A confirming commission is a fee charged by a bank acting for or on behalf of the seller in a transaction, in return for its guaranteeing payment of a letter of credit in the event the buyer’s bank is unable to fulfill the commitment. See Sherman and Glasshoff, supra HINRICH GLASSHOFF, Commentary on the Gatt Customs Valuation Code 54(1998) note 6, at 110. See also TCCV Explanatory Note 5.1 on “Confirming Commissions.”Google Scholar
  35. 77.
    Commercial containers are modes of transport which may be taken into account as an element in transportation costs in CIF countries. See Sherman and Glasshoff, supra, HINRICH GLASSHOFF, Commentary on the Gatt Customs Valuation Code 54(1998) note 6, at 111.Google Scholar
  36. 79.
    Decision on the Meaning of the Word “Undertaken” in Article 8:1 (b) (iv) of the English text of the Agreement, adopted by the Tokyo Round Committee on March 3 1983 (VAL/M/6, paragraph 18). See WTOGoogle Scholar
  37. 82.
    Sherman and Glasshoff, supra HINRICH GLASSHOFF, Commentary on the Gatt Customs Valuation Code 54(1998) note 6, at 125.Google Scholar
  38. 83.
    Bhala and Kennedy, supra KEVIN KENNEDY, World Trade Law 3–4 (1998) note 16, at 329. The TCCV illustrates the applicability or not of CVA Article 8:1 (c) with different examples in Advisory Opinions 4.1 to 4.13.Google Scholar
  39. 86.
    TCCV Case Study 2.2; Sherman and Glasshoff, supra HINRICH GLASSHOFF, Commentary on the Gatt Customs Valuation Code 54(1998) note 6, at 156–157.Google Scholar
  40. 88.
    Sherman and Glasshoff, supra HINRICH GLASSHOFF, Commentary on the Gatt Customs Valuation Code 54(1998) note 6, at 172.Google Scholar
  41. 89.
    Id. at 173.Google Scholar
  42. 92.
    For a complete account of the relative advantages and disadvantages of the CIF and FOB basis for customs valuation, see comparative table in Lux, Guide to Community Customs Legislation 200–202 (2002).Google Scholar
  43. 95.
    Bhala and Kemedy, supra KEVIN KENNEDY, World Trade Law 3–4 (1998) note 16, at 333.Google Scholar
  44. 98.
    Bhala and Kennedy, supra KEVIN KENNEDY, World Trade Law 3–4 (1998) note 16, at 333.Google Scholar
  45. 101.
    Sherman and Glasshoff supra HINRICH GLASSHOFF, Commentary on the Gatt Customs Valuation Code 54(1998) note 6, at 183.Google Scholar
  46. 102.
    Id. at 184.Google Scholar
  47. 106.
    Sherman and Glasshoff, supra HINRICH GLASSHOFF, Commentary on the Gatt Customs Valuation Code 54(1998) note 6, at 189.Google Scholar
  48. 108.
    McGovern, supra Edmond McGovern, International Trade Regulation. Gatt, The United States and the European Community 150–151 (1986) note 6, at 155.Google Scholar
  49. 112.
    Bhala and Kennedy, supra KEVIN KENNEDY, World Trade Law 3–4 (1998) note 16, at 325.Google Scholar
  50. 116.
    TCCV, Explanatory Note 1.1, Time Element in Relation to Articles 1, 2, and 3 of the Agreement.Google Scholar
  51. 117.
    CVA Article 15:2 (d). The determination of the country of production is subject to rules of origin of the country of importation. See Sherman and Glasshoff, supra HINRICH GLASSHOFF, Commentary on the Gatt Customs Valuation Code 54(1998) note 6, at 203.Google Scholar
  52. 119.
    McGovern, supra Edmond McGovern, International Trade Regulation. Gatt, The United States and the European Community 150–151 (1986) note 6 at 158.Google Scholar
  53. 124.
    Bhala and Kennedy, supra Raj Bhala and Kevin Kennedy, World Trade Law (1998) note 16, at 334.Google Scholar
  54. 125.
    Id. at 335. See also Interpretative Note to CVA Article 5 for examples of unit price at which goods are sold in the greatest aggregate quantity.Google Scholar
  55. 129.
    Interpretative Note to CVA Article 5, ¶ 12.Google Scholar
  56. 133.
    Bhala and Kennedy, supra Raj Bhala and Kevin Kennedy, World Trade Law (1998) note 16 at 339.Google Scholar
  57. 136.
    Bhala and Kennedy, supra Raj Bhala and Kevin Kennedy, World Trade Law (1998) note 16, at 339.Google Scholar
  58. 138.
    Vinod Rege, supra Vinod Rege, Customs Valuation and Customs Reform, in Development, Trade Andwto. A Handbook (Bernard Hoekman, Aaditya Mattoo, and Philip English eds. 2002) note 6, at 130.Google Scholar
  59. 141.
    Sherman and Glasshoff, supra Saul L. Sherman and Hinrich Glasshoff, Commentary on the Gatt Customs Valuation Code (1998) note 6, at 235.Google Scholar
  60. 142.
    Id. at 236–237.Google Scholar
  61. 149.
    McGovern, supra Edmond McGovern, International Trade Regulation. Gatt, the United States and the European Community (1986) note 6, at 150.Google Scholar
  62. 152.
    SeeThe Legal Texts: The Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations 398 (1999).Google Scholar
  63. 153.
    Panel Report, US—Import Measures on Certain Products from the European Communities, WTO/DS165/R, ¶¶ 6.77 (2000). It is worth noting that there was no disagreement in that dispute between the parties on the customs value of the EC listed imports. However, the panel discussed CVA Article 13 in response to a defense raised by the US. The panel finally concluded that CVA Article 13 was of no relevance to the present dispute.Google Scholar
  64. 154.
    The Decision and Checklist are contained in Decisions Concerning the Interpretation and Administration of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the GATT 1994 (Customs Valuation), WTO Doc. G/VAL/5 (1995), a compendium issued by the WTO Committee on Customs Valuation of decisions originally made by the Tokyo Round Committee on Customs Valuation and adopted by the WTO Committee.Google Scholar
  65. 155.
    These questions are contained in Decisions, supra note 153.Google Scholar
  66. 156.
    SeePeter Gallagher, Guide to the Wto and Developing Countries 160–162 (2000).Google Scholar
  67. 157.
    Annex III:1. According to the Report (2002) of the Committee on Customs Valuation to the Council for Trade in Goods, during the period under review (i.e. 2002), one Member (Sri Lanka) maintained an extension of the delay in accordance with the provisions of Annex III:1. At the time of writing three requests for extensions were still pending approval by Members. See Doc. G/L/590, November 12, 2002.Google Scholar
  68. 158.
    Bhala and Kennedy, supra Raj Bhala and Kevin Kennedy, World Trade Law (1998) note 16 at 322.Google Scholar
  69. 160.
    Annex III:2. According to the Report (2002) of the Committee on Customs Valuation to the Council for Trade in Goods (WTO Doc. G/L/590, November 12, 2002), during the period under review (i.e. 2002), six Members maintained reservations granted under Annex III:2 for minimum values (Colombia, Gabon, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Jamaica).Google Scholar
  70. 168.
    Fifty-six Members (of which one has an Article IX waiver from its obligations under the Agreement and three have requested extensions of the Article 20.1 delays) have not yet made any notification. Report (2002) of the Committee on Customs Valuation to the Council for Trade in Goods, Doc. G/L/590, November 12, 2002.Google Scholar
  71. 169.
    WT/MIN(01)/17, November 14, 2001.Google Scholar
  72. 173.
    The Doha Ministerial Declaration contains the “work program” for the Doha Development Round. WT/MIN/(01)/DEC/1, November 14, 2001. Paragraph 12 of the Declaration contains the mandate to the relevant WTO councils and committees to negotiate a list of outstanding implementation issues as a “matter of priority,” and to report on their progress to the Trade Negotiations Committee by the end of 2002 for “appropriate action.” The WTO document, Compilation of Outstanding Implementation Issues Raised by Members, JOB (01)/152/Rev.1, October 27, 2001, identifies these implementation-related issues.Google Scholar
  73. 177.
    Report of the Committee on Customs on Customs Valuation to the Trade Negotiations Committee on the Implementation-related Issues in Accordance with Paragraph 12 of the Ministerial Declaration, G/VAL/49, November 25, 2002, ¶¶ 10–13.Google Scholar
  74. 182.
    See Luc De Wulf, supra note 6, at 5; Vinod Rege, supra note 7, at 131.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ian Forrester
    • 1
    • 2
  • Omar E. Odarda
    • 3
  1. 1.University of GlasgowGlasgow
  2. 2.White & CaseLLPBrussels
  3. 3.White & CaseLLPGeneva

Personalised recommendations