   
  
G/VAL/W/337  
 
10 October  2019 
(19-6538) Page: 1/2 
Committee on Customs Valuation  Original: English  
 
NOTIFICATION UNDER ARTICLE 22 OF THE AGREEMENT ON  
IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE VII OF THE GENERAL  
AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE 1994  
NIGERIA  
Questions from the United States to Nigeria  regarding document G/VAL/ W/321 
The following communication, dated 26 September 2019, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of the United States.  
 
_______________  
 
Question 1  
In response to the first question from the United States, which concerns the language in 
Article  1.2(a) of the CVA clarifying that "the fact that the buyer and seller are related within the 
meaning of Article 15 shall not in itself be grounds for regarding transaction value as unacceptable, " 
Nigeria states that language to this effect is included in th e Nigeria Customs Service Act, 2013, which 
is not yet in effect.   
Nigeria further notes that "it may appear that Article 1(d) of the current Act omits the language from 
Article 1.2(a) of the CVA as stated above, but nonetheless, Article 1(d) of the Act pr ovides for fair 
hearing for the buyer to prove to the Customs that the relationship has not influenced the price. " 
In relation to Nigeria 's second point, would Nigeria please clarify whether Nigeria ensures that the 
fact that the buyer and seller are relat ed is not in itself grounds for regarding transaction value as 
unacceptable, as required by Article 1.2(a) of the CVA?  
Question 2  
Further responding to the first question, Nigeria suggests that for purposes of its customs 
administration, "the test is, whet her the buyer and seller are related?  And if related, that buyer has 
proved to the satisfaction of the Board that the relationship has not influenced the price of the 
goods. " 
Paragraph 2(2) of Interpretative Note to Article 1 of the CVA states, in part, t hat "[i]t is not intended 
that there should be an examination of the circumstances in all cases where the buyer and the seller 
are related. Such examination will only be required where there are doubts about the acceptability 
of the price. Where the custom s administration have no doubts about the acceptability of the price, 
it should be accepted without requesting further information from the importer. " 
Nigeria 's response appears to indicate that the buyer is required to prove that transaction value is 
acceptable in every related -party import transaction. Will Nigeria please explain whether this is the 
case, or whether it implements the language from Paragraph 2(2) of Interpretative Note to Article 1 
of the CVA, which provides that the declared price should be accepted without requesting further 
information from the importer unless the customs administration has doubts about the acceptability 
of the price.  G/VAL/W/337  
 
- 2 - 
 
  Question 3  
In response to the second question from the United States, which concerns Articles 2.3 and 3. 3 of 
the CVA, Nigeria responded that its current customs legislation does not provide that "where more 
than one transaction value of identical or similar goods is found, the lowest value shall be used to 
determine the Customs value. " 
However, Nigeria state d that language to this effect is included in the Nigeria Customs Service Act, 
2013, which is not yet in effect. Nigeria cites to provisions in that Act stating that "[w]here more 
than one transaction value of identical goods is found, the lowest of such v alue shall be used to 
determine the Customs value of the imported goods. " 
Would Nigeria please confirm whether that is also the case with similar goods (i.e., that when one 
or more transaction values of similar goods is found, the lowest of such value is u sed to determine 
the Customs value)?  
Question 4  
In response to the third question from the United States, which concerns the importer 's right to 
reverse the order of application of Articles 5 and 6 of the CVA, Nigeria states that it has not made a 
reservat ion under Annex III.3 concerning the reversal of sequential order of Article s 5 and 6. 
Nigeria  further notes that, under Article 8(4) of the Act, "every buyer has a right, on request to the 
Board, to have a written explanation from the Board as to how the Customs Value of goods imported 
by him into Nigeria was determined …" 
Given that Nigeria has not made a reservation under Annex III.3, would Nigeria please explain why 
an importer is required to seek approval from the Board for the sequence of Articles 5 and 6 to be 
reversed? Does Nigeria plan to provide for the order to be reversed at the request of the importer, 
given that Article 4 of the CVA provides that "at the request of the importer, the order of application 
of Articles 5 and 6 shall be reversed "? 
Question 5  
In response to the fifth question from the United States, which concerns the incorporation of the 
Interpretative Notes of the CVA into Nigeria 's legislation, Nigeria indicates that "the revised 
legislation titled "Nigeria Customs Service Act, 2013" yet to be applied appears to have taken care 
of this under Section 64 of the Act …" 
Would Nigeria please explain how Section 64 of the Act addresses the Interpretative Notes to the 
CVA and confirm that each Interpretative Note is incorporated into the legislation?   
__________  