RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/RO/W/11
12February 1996
ORGANIZATION(96-0519)
Committee onRules ofOrigin
HARMONIZATION OFRULES OFORIGIN
Note bytheSecretariat
Thefollowing communication wassentbytheChairman oftheCommittee onRules ofOrigin
on1February 1996 totheChairman oftheTechnical Committee onRules ofOrigin, asagreed by
theCommittee onRules ofOrigin atitsmeeting on1February 1996.
_______________
Dear Sir,
Iwould liketoraisethree issues withyouregarding theHarmonization Work Programme.
These issues weredealtwithbytheCommittee onRules ofOrigin (theCommittee) atitsmeeting of
1February 1996. They areasfollows:
(i) theposition taken bytheCommittee onthequestion ofthelegal status ofthe
Explanatory Notes inAnnexes AandBoftheFirst Report ontheResults ofthe
Harmonization Work Programme;
(ii) theposition oftheCommittee concerning draftdefinitions 1(f)to(g)andinparticular,
theproblem ofparts indraftdefinition 1(f)(ii) ofAnnex AoftheFirstReport; and
(iii) theCanadian proposal concerning theannex which istocontain theresults ofthe
Harmonization Work Programme, asforeseen inArticle 9.4oftheAgreement onRules
ofOrigin, aswellastheviews expressed bymembers oftheCommittee onthat
proposal.
Asconcerns theissueofthelegalstatus oftheExplanatory Notes, theCommittee decided as
follows:
"Itwasagreed thattheExplanatory Notes should belegally binding. Itwasalsoagreed that
theCommittee shallrequest theTechnical Committee inBrussels torevisit theExplanatory
Notes onthebasis thattheyaretobelegally binding."
Onthesecond issue ofdraftdefinitions 1(f)to(g)concerning goods wholly obtained inone
country, theCommittee decided asfollows:
"There wasagreement todelete thebrackets indefinition 1(f),andtodelete 1(f)(i). There
wasalsoagreement torenumber draftdefinition 1(f)(ii) as1(g)andtheformer 1(g)as1(h).
Manydelegationssupporteddraftdefinition1(g);somestatedtheneedformoretimetoconsider
thefullscope ofthecontent oftheparagraph. They needed toreferbacktotheircapitals.
./.G/RO/W/11
Page2
Furthermore, theproblem ofpartsrecovered wasrecognized asbeing different fromtheproblem
ofarticles. Consequently, itwasagreed thattheproblem ofparts should beurgently first
addressed atatechnical levelinBrussels. Itwasdecided thattheCommittee should revisit
draftdefinition 1(g)atthenextmeeting."
Finally, theCommittee discussed aproposal byCanada regarding theAnnex foreseen under
Article 9.4oftheAgreement onRules ofOrigin which would contain theresults oftheHarmonization
Work Programme. Thisproposal, which wascirculated indocument G/RO/W/10, isenclosed herewith.
Following discussions, theCommittee concluded asfollows:
"The Canadian proposal waswelcomed asbeing avaluable contribution tothesubject. There
wasstrong support forthesequential approach inAppendix B-Presentation ofProduct-specific
Rules. Itwasrecognized thatthiswasanissue thatrequired urgent treatment. Itwasalso
agreed thattheCanadian proposal aswellastheviews expressed bymembers oftheCommittee
should betransmitted totheTechnical Committee onRules ofOrigin."
Ishould therefore begrateful ifyouwould kindly refertheforegoing positions, requests and
observations totheTechnical Committee onRules ofOrigin.
Please accept, Sir,theassurances ofmyhighest consideration.
Chiedu Osakwe
Chairman
Committee onRules ofOrigin