Abstract
Each contracting party shall accord to the products of the territories of other contracting parties treatment with regard to marking requirements no less favourable than the treatment accorded to like products of any third country.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Reciprocal trading agreements confer the same trade preferences on goods from any and all member countries. An example is an agreement creating a free-trade area, such as the North American Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the USA, Canada and Mexico. No reciprocal trading agreements give trade preferences to goods from the beneficiary country, but not to those from the country ‘donating’ the preference. The agreements are designed to promote the development of certain less developed countries, as to the Generalised System of Preference (GSP) and the Caribbean Basin Initiative. For GSP, See A.K. Koul, The Legal Framework of UNCTAD in World Trade (A.W. Sijthoff, N.M. Tripathi, 1977, Chap. IV).
- 2.
Examples of potentially restrictive trade practices that require the application of non-preferential rules of origin include most-favoured-nations treatment, quantitative restrictions, imposition of countervailing duties, voluntary export restraint agreements, national government procurement requirements, imposition of anti-dumping duties (including issues of third-country circumvention and complaints by domestic producers), country-or-origin marking requirements, drawback programme and economic sanctions.
- 3.
See, Koru N. Am. V. USA, 701F, 229, 223 (ct. In’t Trade 1988) stating that in ascertaining origin, the court must look to the purpose of the particular legislation involved. National Juice Prods. Ass’n, 628 F. Supp. at 988-89 n 14 (noting that although the language of the tests applied under the three statues tariff preferences, duty drawback, and country of origin marking) is similar, the results may differ where differences in statutory language and purpose are pertinent.
- 4.
The European Community uses the domestic content method as a test for non-preferential purposes and the USA uses it for preferential purposes. The parts value test is used by the European Community in some product-specific origin regulations as a subsidiary test when the 45% value-added test is not met.
- 5.
Article I (2).
- 6.
Article 9(2)(a).
- 7.
Article 9(3) and (2) (b).
- 8.
Annex I.
- 9.
Annex I, (6).
- 10.
Article 9(4).
- 11.
Article 9 (I) (b) and 9(2)(c)(i).
- 12.
Article 9 (1) (b) and 9(2)(c)(iii).
- 13.
Article 2(g) and Article 2(1).
- 14.
Article 2(a) states that the administrative determination must clearly specify the subheadings or heading, when using the criterion of change in tariff classification; must indicate the method of calculating the percentage when using the percentage criterion; and must ‘precisely specify’ the prescribed operation when using a technical criterion.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Koul, A.K. (2018). WTO Agreement on Rules of Origin, 1994. In: Guide to the WTO and GATT. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2089-7_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2089-7_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-2088-0
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-2089-7
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)