《亞洲開發銀行（ADB）：2024亞洲自由貿易協定簽證操作程序：實施貿易便利化改革的深入分析報告（英文版）（80頁）.pdf》由會員分享，可在線閱讀，更多相關《亞洲開發銀行（ADB）：2024亞洲自由貿易協定簽證操作程序：實施貿易便利化改革的深入分析報告（英文版）（80頁）.pdf（80頁珍藏版）》請在三個皮匠報告上搜索。

1、ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANKOPERATIONAL CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES OF FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS IN ASIA AN IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS FOR IMPLEMENTING TRADE FACILITATION REFORMS Pramila Crivelli,Stefano Inama,and Mark PearsonDECEMBER 2024ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANKOPERATIONAL CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES OF FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS

2、 IN ASIA AN IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS FOR IMPLEMENTING TRADE FACILITATION REFORMS Pramila Crivelli,Stefano Inama,and Mark PearsonDECEMBER 2024Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 IGO license(CC BY 3.0 IGO)2024 Asian Development Bank6 ADB Avenue,Mandaluyong City,1550 Metro Manila,PhilippinesTel+63 2 8632 4444;Fa

3、x+63 2 8636 2444www.adb.orgSome rights reserved.Published in 2024.ISBN 978-92-9277-065-5(print);978-92-9277-066-2(PDF);978-92-9277-067-9(ebook)Publication Stock No.TCS240574-2DOI:http:/dx.doi.org/10.22617/TCS240574-2The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessar

4、ily reflect the views and policies ofthe Asian Development Bank(ADB)or its Board of Governors or the governments they represent.ADB does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility for any consequence of their use.The mention of specific companie

5、s or products of manufacturers does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by ADB in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.By making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area inthis document,ADB does not intend to make any judgmen

6、ts as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.This publication is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 IGO license(CC BY 3.0 IGO)https:/creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/.By using the content of this publication,you agree to be bound bytheterms of this license.For

7、 attribution,translations,adaptations,and permissions,please read the provisions andterms of use at https:/www.adb.org/terms-use#openaccess.This CC license does not apply to non-ADB copyright materials in this publication.If the material is attributed toanother source,please contact the copyright ow

8、ner or publisher of that source for permission to reproduce it.ADB cannot be held liable for any claims that arise as a result of your use of the material.Please contact pubsmarketingadb.org if you have questions or comments with respect to content,or if you wish toobtain copyright permission for yo

9、ur intended use that does not fall within these terms,or for permission to use theADB logo.Corrigenda to ADB publications may be found at http:/www.adb.org/publications/corrigenda.Notes:In this publication,refers to the euro,to the Japanese yen,and$”refers to United States dollar.ADB recognizes Chin

10、a as the Peoples Republic of China,Korea as the Republic of Korea,and Vietnam as Viet Nam.Cover design by Michael Cortes.iiiTables,Figures,and Boxes ivAcknowledgments vAbbreviations vi1 Introduction 12 Multilateral Rules on Proof of Origin:Annex K of the Revised Kyoto Convention and Generalized Syst

11、em of Preferences Form A 33 Recent Developments and Challenges on Identifying Best Practices on Operational Certification Procedures 64 Different Forms of Proof of Origin in Atiga,Asean+1,and Selected Asian Free Trade Agreements 11 4.1 Forms of Certificate of Origin in ATIGA,ASEAN+1,and RCEP 12 4.2

12、Approved Exporters 37 4.3 Registered Exporter 39 4.4 Self-Certification by Any Exporter/Importer 405 Electronic Certificates of Origin 426 The Evolution of ATIGA Form D:From Self-Certification to ASEAN Single Window 437 Lessons Learned from Free Trade Agreements with the European Union and the Unite

13、d States 488 Survey of Firms in Viet Nam on Best Method of Proof of Origin 499 Coding Operational Certification Procedures 55 9.1 The Rationale for Coding 55 9.2 The Coding Methodology 55 9.3 Results of the Coding 5910 Findings and Recommendations 63References 67Appendix:Detailed Breakdown of Origin

14、 Certification,Exporter Registration,and Related Procedures 69ContentsivTables1 Main Methodologies Used Worldwide to Prove Origin of Goods 72 Issuance of Certificates of Origin and Notification in ATIGA,ASEAN+1 Free Trade Agreements,and RCEP 133 Certificates of Origin,Format and Distribution of Copi

15、es,ASEAN+1 FTAs,and RCEP 184 Origin Criteria:Entries Required in Box 8 225 Layout and Entries of Certificates of Origin in Canada FTAs 246 Options to Tick Box 13 Under ASEAN+1 FTAs and RCEP 257 Comparison of Back-to-Back Certificate of Origin Conditions 278 Third-Country and Third-Party Invoicing Pr

16、ovisions in ASEAN+1 FTAs,RCEP,and CPTPP 329 Comparison of Third-Country Invoicing Provisions in ASEAN+1 FTAs,RCEP,and CPTPP 3410 Comparison of Provisions on Waiver of Prooof of Origin for Small Consigments in ASEAN+1 FTAs,RCEP,and CPTPP 3511 Utilization Rates of Viet Nam FTA,20202022 5312 Viet Nams

17、Utilization Rate and Import Distribution by Tariff Treatment in the European Union Market,20202022 5413 Overall Ranking Based on Cumulative Calculation of Methods of Proof of Origin 6014 Ranking Grand Total Calculating Method of Proof of Origin and Single Provisions 6115 FTAs Ranking by the Complexi

18、ty of Each Method of Proof of Origin Used 6116 FTAs Ranking by Single Provision 62Tables,Figures,and BoxesBoxes1 Unilateral and/or Bilateral Initiatives of Electronic Certificates of Origin in Asia and the Pacific 82 ATIGA Implementation Difficulties with Cumulation Provisions 253 Inconsistent Imple

19、mentation of Back-to-Back Provisions and Related Difficulties in the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area 294 Implementation of Approved Exporter Status Under RCEP in the Peoples Republic of China 385 A Way Forward Toward Simplifying OCPsPerspectives from the Private Sector 65Figures1 Certify

20、ing Authority Aministration of Proof of Origin versus Digitalization(EODES)102 Recurrent Issues Discussed in Subcommittee on ATIGA Rules of Origin or Similar Meetings 173 Specimen Certificate of Origin for ATIGA(Form D)214 Back-to-Back Certificates of Origin 265 Third-Party Invoicing with Three Part

21、ies 306 Third-Party Invoicing with Four or More Parties 317 The Easiest and Business-Friendly System 508 Degree of Easiness of Certification Procedures 509 Survey Responses on Key Trade Facilitation MeasuresFirms Agreement with Statements on Compliance Cost Reduction and Certification Procedures 51v

22、AcknowledgmentsThis report was prepared by the Regional Cooperation and Integration Division(ERCI)of the Economic Research and Development Impact Department(ERDI)of the Asian Development Bank(ADB).It was supported by the ADB technical assistance project,TA 6740:Raising the Value of Regional Trade Ag

23、reementsKey Factors for Successful Implementation and Positive Economic Impact,financed by ADBs Technical Assistance Special Fund and the Regional Cooperation and Integration Fund.The report was authored by Pramila Crivelli,economist in ERCI;Stefano Inama,chief at the United Nations Conference on Tr

24、ade and Development;and Mark Pearson,ADB consultant.Authors are grateful for the specific contributions and expert peer review provided by representatives from the private sector and customs officials in Asia and the Pacific,including Massimo Trabucco(Nestl),Kit Hickey(Fonterra),Michel Anliker(Schin

25、dler),former New Zealand customs official Saba Vallipuram,Roberto Soprano(Aramco),Lilia Lopez(Ingredion),and Pier Paolo Ghetti(Deloitte).Paulo Rodelio Halili and Pramila Crivelli coordinated the production of this report under the supervision of Jong Woo Kang,director,ERCI.James Unwin edited the man

26、uscript,and Michael Cortes created the cover design and implemented the typesetting and layout.Lawrence Casiraya proofread the report.Amiel Bryan Esperanza assisted in the coordination of peer review sessions.The Printing Services Unit of ADBs Corporate Services Department and the Publishing Team of

27、 the Department of Communications and Knowledge Management provided printing and publishing support.viAbbreviationsAANZFTA ASEANAustraliaNew Zealand Free Trade AreaACFTA ASEANChina Free Trade AreaADB Asian Development BankAFTA ASEAN Free Trade AreaAJCEP ASEANJapan Comprehensive Economic PartnershipA

28、KFTA ASEANKorea Free Trade AreaARO Agreement on Rules of OriginASEAN Association of Southeast Asian NationsATIGA ASEAN Trade in Goods AgreementB/L bill of ladingCEP Closer Economic PartnershipCETA Comprehensive Economic and Trade AgreementCO certificate of origin CPTPP Comprehensive and Progressive

29、Agreement for Trans-Pacific PartnershipCTC Change in Tariff Classificatione-CO electronic certificate of originEODES Electronic Origin Data Exchange SystemEU European UnionFOB free on board FTA free trade agreementGSP Generalized System of PreferencesLao PDR Lao Peoples Democratic RepublicLDC least

30、developed country OCP operational certification procedures PSRO product-specific rules of originRCEP Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership REX Registered ExporterRKC Revised Kyoto ConventionRVC regional value contentSCAROO Subcommittee on ATIGA Rules of OriginSCPP Self-Certification Pilot Proj

31、ectUNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and DevelopmentWCO World Customs Organization WTO World Trade Organization1This study is part of a systemic research program focusing on rules of origin in Asia and the Pacific,which stems from the expectations raised by the entry into force of the Region

32、al Comprehensive Economic Partnership(RCEP).RCEPs common rules of origin platform was expected to unravel the“noodle bowl”effect of overlapping free trade agreements(FTAs).In an initial Asian Development Bank(ADB)study of RCEP product-specific rules of origin(PSRO),Crivelli,Inama,and Pearson(2022)fo

33、und RCEP PSRO not to be the most liberal compared with the PSRO of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations(ASEAN)Trade in Goods Agreement(ATIGA)and of the mega-regional Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership(CPTPP).This analysis was complemented by comparing the PSR

34、Os of RCEP with those of the ASEAN Plus One free trade agreements(ASEAN+1 FTAs),1 since RCEP can be considered the natural evolution of initiatives between ASEAN and its dialogue partners.Once again,RCEP PSRO were found not to be the most liberal.The ASEANAustraliaNew Zealand Free Trade Agreement(AA

35、NZFTA),for instance,contained more liberal PSRO than RCEP(Crivelli,Inama,and Pearson 2023).Importantly,both studies found significant scope for convergence since many of the examined FTAs contained similar PSRO requirements.PSROs were examined according to their substantive requirements,rather than

36、on the form in which they are expressed.Accordingly,wide scope exists for progressively advocating the alignment and convergence of PSROs in different FTAs for sectors where convergence has been identified.However,complexity over rules of origin and the intricacy of the noodle bowl are not limited t

37、o PSROs.This study covers another element of rules of origin,known in jargon of the Asia and Pacific region as operational certification procedures(OCPs).These are commonly referred to as“proof of origin”in many other administrations and FTAs.Each FTA in Asia and the Pacific not only has a different

38、 set of PSROs but also different OCPs.Compliance generates costs for firms.As an illustration of such complexity,the website of the RCEP Secretariat lists2 two methods of CO issuance paper-based original copy or digital format CO3 and four different ways of presenting a certificate of origin(CO)to c

39、ustoms authorities in member states(1)a paper-based 1 ASEAN+1 FTAs are agreements establishing free trade areas between ASEAN member economies as a group and individual non-ASEAN dialogue partners,including Australia;the Peoples Republic of China(PRC);Hong Kong,China;India;Japan;and New Zealand;and

40、the Republic of Korea.2 See RCEP Parties and Signatory States Status on CO Issuance and CO/DO Acceptance at the EIF(as of 15 July 2024)at https:/rcepsec.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/6-RCEP-Parties-and-Signatory-States-Status-on-electronic-CO-issuance-and-PO-acceptance_15-August-2024-rev.pdf.3 Digi

41、tal format CO means that the CO is issued in image file such as PDF and JPEG which complies with RCEP CO form including signature and official seal of the issuing body.1.IntroductionOCPs of FTAs in Asia2original copy,(2)a paper-based scanned copy,which is a printed hard copy of the scanned file,such

42、 as PDF and JPEG,from the paper-based original copy(3)a self-printed copy,which is a digital format CO printed in a paper by traders,and(4)a certificate of origin in electronic format(e-CO),which means that the CO/DO is accepted in electronic format at the customs.This may cover eCO and scanned file

43、(such as PDF and JPEG)of paper-based original copy(e-CO).According to the website,each of the 15 RCEP member states is found to have different practices for accepting or issuing the four types.In addition,various versions of the document describing the CO Issuance and CO/DO Acceptance have appeared

44、on the website since the RCEPs entry into force.Most importantly,these variations in the presentation of COs do not align with the legal text of the RCEP.OCPs may also be described as administrative procedures and documentary evidence to be presented at customs to prove the origin of goods.A CO is t

45、he most glaring and common example.In reality,OCPs cover many other provisions such as those proving how goods have been shipped and related to the required accompanying documents for customs clearance.Countries in Asia and the Pacific have been active in developing different OCPs.First,a number of

46、different CO forms have been developed together with ancillary requirementswhich means that each ASEAN+1 FTA has a different one.Lately,with the consequences of this complexity becoming progressively more apparent,initiatives have been undertaken to simplify OPCs by introducing IT and digital soluti

47、ons like electronic certificates of origin(e-COs).Such solutions are as diverse as the number of different COs previously developed and are overlapping.Different schools of thought are developing over the best solution or practice for addressing proof of origin and OCP issues.These are discussed in

48、this study with a view to identifying policy recommendations.This study complements the findings of previous ADB publications by comparing not only OCPs contained in the RCEP,the CPTPP,and ASEAN+1 FTAs,but also other best practices contained in FTAs that Asian countries have entered into with the Eu

49、ropean Union(EU)and the United States(US).This assessment compares the different OCP provisions in these agreements by assigning them a code related to the leniency and/or stringency of their compliance requirements.Whenever possible,the scope for convergence among OCPs used in FTAs is identified.To

50、gether with previous studies on PSROs,this study offers actionable policy options for ASEAN to make tangible progress toward trade-facilitating rules of origin and OCPs.It has been peer reviewed by private sector representatives and former customs officials in Asia and the Pacific.4 4 Massimo Trabuc

51、co of Nestl,Kit Hickey of Fonterra,Michel Anliker of Schindler,the former New Zealand customs official Saba Vallipuram,Roberto Soprano of Aramco,Lilia Lopez of Ingredion,and Pier Paolo Ghetti of Deloitte.3The only multilateral instrument providing definitions and containing related procedures relate

52、d to proof of origin is Annex K of the Revised Kyoto Convention(RKC).5 The World Trade Organization(WTO)Agreement on Rules of Origin(ARO)is in fact silent on administrative issues related to rules of origin,nor in recent years has any attempt been carried out to initiate discussions.Annex K of the R

53、evised Kyoto Convention of the World Customs Organization(WCO)contains three chapters:Chapter 1,Rules of Origin;Chapter 2,Documentary Evidence of Origin;and Chapter 3,Control of Documentary Evidence of Origin.The annex also contains a specimen form of a certificate of origin.The major limitation of

54、Annex K is that it dates from the 1970s and a revision made in 1999.The revision of 1999 offers a limited scope since the expectation was that the entry into force of the Harmonization Work Program(HWP)of non-preferential rules of origin under the ARO would have provided the opportunity to establish

55、 a multilateral framework.However,lack of consensus on finalizing the HWP resulted in a stalemate with implications on any attempt to set a multilateral framework on rules of origin.As a result,Annex K of the RKC is outdated and the ARO does not provide a multilateral framework on rules of origin(se

56、e Crivelli and Inama 2022).In May 2018,the RKC Management Committee approved a plan to update RKC and its annexes,recognizing the need to ensure that RKC maintains its relevance.Within this framework,a sponsoring group of countries has developed a proposal to update Annex K on rules of origin.6 Acco

57、rding to its proponents,the new Specific Annex K would provide a“toolbox,”building on the WCO Origin Compendium 2017 and other relevant literature and research.This plurilateral instrument will establish clear concepts and definitions of origin rules and procedures using a“common language”and a comm

58、on meaning.The instrument will be making it easier for customs,other competent authorities,and stakeholders to understand and apply the rules and procedures.Although the proponents have made progress in developing the revised text of Annex K,the overall pace of updating the RKC has been slow and the

59、 proponents are exploring possible avenues to finalize the new text of Annex K and its eventual adoption as a plurilateral agreement.5 World Customs Organization,Specific Annex K,17 April 2008.https:/www.wcoomd.org/en/topics/facilitation/instrument-and-tools/conventions/pf_revised_kyoto_conv/kyoto_n

60、ew/spank.aspx.6 The sponsoring group is composed of Australia,the EU,the Eurasian Economic Community,the PRC,Japan,New Zealand,Norway,Switzerland,the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development(UNCTAD),and private sector companies(Nissan,Renault,and Fonterra).2.Multilateral Rules on Proof of

61、Origin:Annex K of the Revised Kyoto Convention and Generalized System of Preferences Form AOCPs of FTAs in Asia4Besides the attempt of updating Annex K,the WCO has elaborated other multilateral reference materials such as the Guidelines on Certification(WCO 2018).Recent studies,namely,a study on the

62、 digitalization of the certificates of origin and a feasibility study for an interconnectivity framework for certificates of origin,were presented for discussion in February 2023 at the WCOs Technical Committee on Rules of Origin(WCO 2024a,2024b)Besides WCO efforts to establish a multilateral framew

63、ork for rules of origin,the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development(UNCTAD)intergovernmental machinery under the Generalized System of Preferences(GSP)initiative managed in 1968 to produce the first multilaterally agreed preferential certificate of origin:the GSP Form A.7 GSP Form A has b

64、een used for decades by the majority of preference-giving countries as the main documentary evidence to prove origin under the GSP,and is still used at present.As such,Form A may be considered to be a valid benchmark to measure the complexity of other existing certificate of origin forms elaborated

65、in different FTAs.8 While GSP Form A is a proof of origin in the context of unilateral trade preferences and not FTAs,it was the first multilaterally agreed form and has been in use since the 1970s,before the drive for FTAs began.Thus,Form A represents a legitimate comparison test for other forms us

66、ed in the context of FTAs since it has the same purpose:documentary proof of origin.The most recent other multilateral instruments setting best practices for encouraging self-certification of proof of origin are the WTO Bali and Nairobi ministerial Decisions on preferential rules of origin for Least

67、 Developed Countries(LDCs).Part B of the WTO Bali Decision on preferential rules of origin for LDCs is dedicated to documentary requirements that clearly outline desired best practices that could be adopted by preference-granting countries when implementing rules of origin for LDCs.Paragraph 1.8 rei

68、terates the preference for self-certification:“The documentary requirements regarding compliance with the rules of origin should be simple and transparent.For instance,the requirement to provide proof of non-manipulation or any other prescribed form for a certification of origin for products shipped

69、 from LDCs across other Members may be avoided.With regard to certification of rules of origin,whenever possible,self-certification may be recognized.Mutual customs cooperation and monitoring could complement compliance and risk-management measures.”The subsequent Nairobi Decision also reiterates th

70、e call to allow self-certification and the need for simplification for the documentary evidence related to direct consignment of goods for LDCs to the preference-granting countries:7 See Annex 1 for a specimen of the GSP Form A.8 Although GSP could be used as a benchmark,it should be noted that ther

71、e is a huge difference between GSP andFTAs.GSP is a nonreciprocal arrangement,whereas FTAs are agreements among or between parties.Differences in OCPs are negotiated outcomes.Multilateral Rules on Proof of Origin5“3.Documentary requirements3.1.With a view to reducing the administrative burden relate

72、d to documentary and procedural requirements related to origin,Preference-granting Members shall:a)As a general principle,refrain from requiring a certificate of non-manipulation for products originating in a LDC but shipped across other countries unless there are concerns regarding transshipment,ma

73、nipulation,or fraudulent documentation;andb)Consider other measures to further streamline customs procedures,such as minimizing documentation requirements for small consignments or allowing for self-certification.”Subsequent submissions by the LDC WTO group on the preferred modalities to implement t

74、he Bali and Nairobi ministerial Decisions pointed out that major preference-granting countries are moving toward allowing self-certification9 and moving forward on best practices to be adopted for documentary evidence of direct consignment.10 9 See the LDC WTO group submissions to the WTO Committee

75、on Rules of Origin:Examination of Existing Origin-Related Documentary Requirements,WTO document G/RO/W/211,25 March 2022;and Direct Consignment Rules and Low Utilization of Trade Preferences,WTO document G/RO/W/191,9 October 2019.10 See G/RO/W/187/Rev.1 Impact of Direct Consignment Requirements on P

76、reference Utilization by Least Developed Countries,October 2019.6During the implementation of the GSP rules of origin,the traditional format and elements of OCPs contained in Annex K of the RKC were further developed and made operational:(1)the definition and content of rules of origin,(2)documentar

77、y evidence of origin,and(3)control of documentary evidence of origin.Intergovernmental deliberations in the UNCTAD Special Committee on Preferences and related discussions on origin issues for the implementation of GSP and its rules of origin led to the adoption of the first multilaterally agreed mo

78、del of certificate of origin(Form A)at UNCTAD.11As FTA negotiations substantially increased in the past few decades,the traditional OCP format migrated progressively from a focus on unilateral trade preferences granted under GSP to more sophisticated and complete OCPs contained in FTAs.Most of the f

79、irst-generation FTAs adopted the GSP model of a certificate of origin stamped by a certifying authority,mostly a ministry of trade or customs.12 The ASEAN Free Trade Area adopted such a model as many other preferential trading arrangements when it came into force in 1992.Since the early days of GSP,

80、the US and Canada marked a distinction from the reliance on certifying authorities.Since the late 1970s,while recognizing that proof of origin could be provided by a GSP Form A,both the US and Canada have not required the GSP Form A to have been stamped and signed by certifying authorities.The flour

81、ishing of FTAs in the last decades,accompanied by(1)lack of a multilateral model/best practice of OCPs and(2)the emergence of information technology(IT)solutions to replace the hard-copy(paper)certificate of origin,has given rise to a variety of different models of OCPs.The absence of multilateral d

82、isciplines on OCPs and the increased proliferation of FTAs have generated complexities in managing the growing numbers of different OCPs contained in FTAs.This has pushed governments to find trade-facilitating solutions.Unfortunately,the lack of an intergovernmental fora where experiences and best p

83、ractices on OCPs can be exchanged has nurtured different school of thoughts on the best way to manage OCPs,including their variations.13The main methodologies available to manage OCP are summarized in Table 1.11 For a thorough review of the work carried out by UNCTAD working groups on rules of origi

84、n,see Inama(2022).12 Japan also recognized chambers of commerce in beneficiary countries as certifying authorities under the GSP.13 Recent meetings of the Technical Committee on Rules of Origin at the World Customs Organization(WCO)initiated discussion on the different options of digital solutions t

85、o manage e-COs.3.Recent Developments and Challenges on Identifying Best Practices on Operational Certification Procedures Recent Developments and Challenges on Identifying Best Practices on Operational Certification Procedures7Table 1:Main Methodologies Used Worldwide to Prove Origin of GoodsMain me

86、thodologies of proof of origin Examples and comments 1.Certifying authority This method of proof of origin is based on a certifying authority,normally a public body such customs,a ministry of trade,or single-window that delivers the proof of origin:a hard-copy or an electronic certificate of origin(

87、e-CO).a)Certificate of origin stamped and signed by certifying authoritiesThis is the most traditional,if not archaic,method to manage proof of origin based on the exchange of stamps and signatures.Despite the rapid evolution of alternatives,this method is still in use in the majority of ASEAN+1 fre

88、e trade agreements(FTAs),the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership(RCEP),and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership(CPTPP)for some member states.A variant was introduced by the European Union(EU)that does not require the exchange of specimen of signatures b)E

89、-COsE-COs are routinely issued by the International Chamber of Commerce(ICC)for non-preferential rules of origin.a In addition there is a proliferation of initiative in FTAs to establish electronic certificates of origin to different degrees of sophistication.In any case,the e-CO is delivered by a c

90、ertifying authority.c)E-COs via ASEAN Single WindowsE-COs exchanged through the ASEAN Single Window for the ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement(ATIGA)and increasingly other bilateral FTAs at the initiative of various ASEAN member states.2)Self-certification This method of proof of origin is based on the

91、principle that the individual,being a producer,exporter,or importer,self-certify the origin of the goods.Several variants of self-certification are listed below.a)Statement of origin by approved exportersUnder the approved exporter method,the certifying authority delegates to approved exporters who

92、meet a series of criteria the authority to self-certify origin through a declaration or statement of origin.This method is used by some EUASEAN FTAs,RCEP,CPTPP(Under Annex 3A),and in the ASEAN-wide Self-Certification process.b b)Statement of origin by registered exportersRegistered exporter is a rel

93、atively new method to administer proof of origin.It has been introduced by the EUc in the context of the EU GSP and is progressively used in some EU FTAs with Asian countries such as Japan,Singapore,and Viet Nam.c)Certificate of origin signed by any exporterThis is one of the most liberal methods to

94、 administer proof of origin since any exporter may certify the origin of the goods.It is expected to become the main method in several Asian FTAs,but is not yet in force as discussed in Sections 4.2 to 4.4.d)Importer declarationThe importer declaration has been used mainly by the United States,which

95、 has consistently refrained from accepting certificates of origin or other forms of certification issued by exporters or certifying authorities.Japan recently introduced the importer declaration in the JapanEU FTA and RCEP.CPTPP uses importer declaration as standard method of proof of origin,albeit

96、transitional periods are allowed.This option is discussed in Sections 4.2 to 4.4.a See ICC.Certificates of Origin.https:/iccwbo.org/world-chambers-federation/chamber-services/certificates-of-origin/#anchor-cos-digitalisation.b See the ASEAN-wide Self-Certification(AWSC)Guidebook,ASEAN Secretariat,Ja

97、karta,December 2020.The Peoples Republic of China(PRC)has introduced a new concept of approved exporter as discussed in Section 4.2.c See https:/taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/online-services/online-services-and-databases-customs/rex-registered-exporter-system_ene.Source:Compiled by the authors.As ou

98、tlined in Table 1,the main difference among the different forms of proof of origin relates to the role played by certifying authorities,in most cases government authorities(i.e.,customs departments or trade ministries)issue proof of origin and manage OCPs.OCPs of FTAs in Asia8The certifying authorit

99、ies oversee issuing and certifying the certificate of origin(CO).This certification procedure may be exercised by different modalities such as:(a)requiring to bring hard(in paper)evidence of compliance with rules of origin to issue a hard-copy CO to be stamped and signed by the competent certifying

100、authority;(b)by introducing in a portal,the required soft copy documentation to allow the issuance of a hard-copy certificate of origin or a soft-copy e-CO;and(c)by delivering a certificate of origin in hard copy that can be transformed into a PDF document to be sent electronically(by email)to the i

101、mporter;(d)by introducing in a portal(ASEAN single window)evidence of compliance with rules of origin to issue an e-CO that is transmitted to the corresponding ASEAN single window of destination member country.The diversity of the role played by the certifiying authorities in issuing COs or e-COs,an

102、d the corresponding acceptance by the importing certifying authorities is made increasingly complex by many countries in Asia and the Pacific undertaking bilateral initiatives to cover the legal implication of accepting various e-CO forms.Mega-regional FTAs such as RCEP and CPTPP do not create a com

103、mon platform as both allow long transitional periods and many options before the adoption of a common regime.Certifying authorities have increasingly developed what are known as Electronic Origin Data Exchange Systems(EODES)like Korea FTAPASS14 or the ASEAN Single Window.As discussed further,under t

104、hese IT systems,the user can access a website to upload electronically the necessary documents needed for issuance of a CO that will be electronically transmitted to the importing partner authority.In addition,the Korean FTAPASS provides a series of additional services and advice for firms.14 See ht

105、tps:/ftapass.or.kr/site/english/page/register/viewBasic.do.Box 1:Unilateral and/or Bilateral Initiatives of Electronic Certificates of Origin in Asia and the Pacific In December 2023,the Viet Nams Ministry of Industry and Trade,acting as the certifying authority,unilaterally announceda that from 1 J

106、anuary 2024,it would issue,sign,and stamp certificates of origin(COs)electronically for nearly all free trade agreements(FTAs).b Accordingly,an exporter in Viet Nam can now send an electronic CO(e-CO)to the importer to print that e-CO on paper in ISO-standard format,with a specific QR code for verif

107、ication.In practice,this type of EcoSys is aimed at facilitating the application and issuance of the CO form since all steps or procedures are done electronically.However,some countries raised concerns over the legal basis in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations FTAs with dialogue partners(ASE

108、AN+1 FTAs).Ultimately,Viet Nam had to reintroduce the certificate of origin Form AI in hard copy.Notes:a See:https:/lawnet.vn/vb/Thong-bao-1089-TB-XNK-2023-cap-Giay-chung-nhan-xuat-xu-hang-hoa-mau-E-AI-AJ-AANZ-AHK-90966.html.b With the exclusion of EVFTA,UKVFTA,VN-EAEU.Source:Authors findings.Recent

109、 Developments and Challenges on Identifying Best Practices on Operational Certification Procedures9In parallel to methods based on certifying authorities managing proof of origin,countries in Asia and the Pacific have introduced various forms of self-certification in FTAs.Presently,there is a wide v

110、ariety of self-certification methods contained in different FTAs such as:(a)approved exporters;or(b)registered exporters;or(c)any producer,exporter,or importer.Several variations relate to how the self-certification can be made:(a)prescribed statement on the commercial invoice,(b)minimum information

111、 requirements,or(c)any other document.For instance,CPTPP adopted the self-certification principle based on what is defined as minimum information requirements,15 even with a series of transitional periods for several contracting parties.The importer-based declaration is another example of self-certi

112、fication where the importer makes the original declaration at the time of customs clearance.It is the preferred option under CPTPP,albeit with a long transitional implementation period.While there are pros and cons in each of the method that may be used to prove origin,series of lessons learned and

113、best practices should be considered when discussing the differences among methods of proof of origin based on certifying authorities and methods of proof of origin based on self-certification.On one hand,various IT solutions are branded as the most trade-facilitating options to manage proof of origi

114、n and OCPs.On the other hand,self-certification is championed as the easiest and best solution,with the added benefit of no additional costs involved.The WCO Guidelines on Certification of Origin(July 2014,updated June 2018)are clear on this aspect,pointing to self-certification as the best option:“

115、Guideline:(FOSTERING THE USE OF SELF-CERTIFICATION OF ORIGIN)Considering the increasing volume of preferential trade and recognizing the need for the facilitation of origin-related procedures,self-certification of origin by a producer,manufacturer,exporter and/or importer shall be utilized to the ma

116、ximum extent possible while recognizing the specificities of domestic business environment.”Yet,it has to be recognized that many countries are reluctant to move toward self-certification.ASEAN has been moving from pilot projects to promote self-certification to the ASEAN-wide self-certification to

117、e-COs via the ASEAN Single Window as discussed further in Section 6.Figure 1 portrays the differences between the traditional method of proof of origin administration when COs are paper-based and when they are digitalized.Comparison reveals that aside from the increased speed resulting from digitali

118、zation,the procedures and the number of steps undertaken in an EODES transaction are much the same as those in the issuance and exchange of paper-based COs.In addition,15 The CPTPP does not have a prescribed format for a CO.A CO for the CPTPP can be provided on an invoice or any other document(in ei

119、ther hard copy or electronic format),but it must contain a set of minimum data requirements set out in Annex 3B ofChapter 3 of the agreementOCPs of FTAs in Asia10during the implementation phase of an EODES system,elaboration of the specifications for the exchange of CO data may take time,requiring m

120、utual agreements and a tested,shared IT environment.ASEAN has embraced the electronic route with e-CO Form D exchanged through the ASEAN Single Window that became officially operational in January 2024.16 Under the ASEAN Single Window,the e-CO Form D has digitalized paper-based COs and linked CAs to

121、 the ASEAN national single windows.Yet the role of certifying authorities in validating the information and documentation provided by the exporter remains the same as shown in Figure 1.RCEP adopts the traditional way of OCPs in ASEAN FTAs creating another layer of OPCs and CO.Yet RCEP provides for a

122、 built-in agenda to move to more trade-facilitating practices of OPCs,including self-certification.In short,the region is divided on the best solutions to manage proof of origin and OPCs.The next section aims to identify the differences in solutions,present the possible best practices,and then chart

123、 a way forward.16 See https:/asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Full-Implementation-of-e-Form-D-Final.pdf.Yet reports indicate that implementation of the Lao Peoples Democratic Republic e-CO has been delayed.Paper-based COExportCountry*PDF is acceptableExporterImporterImporterImport DeclarationImp

124、ort DeclarationApplyIssueIssuing authorityImportCountryImportCountryExportCountryApplyIssueExportExportCOCOCOCOCustomsJapanImporting CustomsExporterIssuing authority JapanCO Data ExchangeExportCountry*submission of paper-based COExporterImporterImporterImport DeclarationImport DeclarationApplyIssueI

125、ssuing authorityImportCountryImportCountryExportCountryApplyIssueExportExportCOdataCOdataCustomsJapanImporting CustomsExporterIssuing authority JapanExchange of Data(via Internet)Figure 1:Certifying Authority Aministration of Proof of Origin versus Digitalization(EODES)CO=certificate of origin,EODES

126、=Electronic Origin Data Exchange Systems.Source:Excerpted and adapted from a presentation at the World Customs Organization 3rd Global conference by Mariko Haga of the International Cooperation Division Customs and Tariff Bureau,Ministry of Finance,Japan,8 November 2023.11Depicting the various forms

127、 of proof of origin and OCPs in ATIGA,ASEAN+1,and in the two Asian megaregional agreements,the CPTPP17 and RCEP,is like hitting a moving target and a major goal of this study.In a characteristic ASEAN way,for ATIGA and for each ASEAN+1 FTA,there is a proliferation of legal texts and annexes related

128、to proof of origin and OCPs that need to be reconciled.Also,countries in Asia and the Pacific have a wide disparity of views about the most appropriate methods of managing proof of origin and OCPs.The range is reflected in the two mega-regional agreements,the CPTPP and RCEP,providing different metho

129、ds for proof of origin and OCP among parties,while different timetables create another layer of complication.Lastly,individual countries in Asia and the Pacific are progressively introducing unilateral measures related to proof of origin and OCPs,or negotiating bilateral arrangements in the context

130、of ASEAN+1 FTAs or bilateral FTAs.18 Some CPTPP members have introduced a CO template even as the agreement does not provide for a CO,while,as shown in Box 1,Viet Nam has unilaterally introduced an e-CO in the sense that it is delivered electronically by the countrys issuing authority.This section a

131、nalyses the different proof of origin and OCPs used in ATIGA,ASEAN+1 FTAs,RCEP,and CPTPP.The objective is to identify deviations from a common pattern that should have informed the negotiating process of OCPs with a series of FTA with dialogue partners.Similarly,RCEP and CPTPP were expected to serve

132、 as unifying platform to put a lid on the Pandoras Box of different PSROs and OCP,which have proliferated across each new FTA established in Asia and the Pacific over the past few decades.The analysis covers the three main conditions to comply with the substance and procedural aspects of rules of or

133、igin common to all FTAs.First,the goods must comply with the rules of origin requirement under the applicable across-the-board criterion or the PSRO under the FTA.Second,they must comply with consignment conditions(documentary evidence of direct consignment may be required).Third,the goods have to b

134、e accompanied by proof of origin or declared as originating in accordance with FTA procedures.In addition,ancillary requirements that determine the granting of preferential treatment at the time of customs clearance will be contrasted.This will include,for instance,the retrospective issuance of proo

135、f of origin,third-country or third-party invoicing,back-to-back certificates of origin,and other requirements.17 CPTPP is different from ASEAN+1 and RECP.In ASEAN+1 and RCEP,ASEAN negotiated as a bloc.This was not the case in CPTPP.Only four ASEAN member states(Brunei Darussalam,Malaysia,Singapore,a

136、nd Viet Nam)are part of the CPTPP.18 See Box 1 for an example:Viet Nam has unilaterally introduced an e-CO procedure.4.Different Forms of Proof of Origin in ATIGA,ASEAN+1,and Selected Asian Free Trade AgreementsOCPs of FTAs in Asia124.1 Forms of Certificate of Origin in ATIGA,ASEAN+1,and RCEP The CO

137、 forms in ASEAN FTAs process has had a long and troubled history,starting from the ASEAN Free Trade Area(AFTA)in 1992.AFTA Rule 7 at that time best summarizes the difficult start by providing specific standards and colors for Form D as follows:“RULE 7:ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF ORIGIN(a)The Certific

138、ate of Origin must be on ISO A4 size paper in conformity to the specimen as shown in Appendix“A”.It shall be made in English.(b)The Certificate of Origin shall comprise one original and three(3)carbon copies of the following colours:(c)Original-light viole Duplicate orange Triplicate orange Quadrupl

139、icate orange(d)Each Certificate of Origin shall bear a reference number separately given by each place or office of issuance.”It is therefore not surprising that early reports and studies on AFTA implementation found Form D rejected for trivial reasons such as the size of a CO was 1 or 2 millimeters

140、 too big or too small,e.g.,as not being“A4”size;the paper was the wrong shade of color(e.g.,for not being sufficiently“violet”or being too“light”);the signature was slightly different from the specimen signature(e.g.,a dot was missing from an“i”)or in a slightly different location from specimen sign

141、ature);or the document used the wrong font type(Inama and Sim 2015).These initial difficulties remain a constant feature of AFTA and its successor ATIGA,as will be discussed.Table 2 compares administrative requirements related to the issuance of COs by certifying authoritiesunder ATIGA,selected ASEA

142、N FTAs,and RCEP.It shows the issuance modalities and whether notification to other ASEAN member states is required.CPTPP is not included since its importer-based method does not provide for COs issued by certifying authorities.CPTPP only allows certification by either certifying authorities or appro

143、ved exporters upon notification from the CPTPP party to derogate from the importer-based method for an initial period of 5 years(and allows this to be extended for another 5 years).19 Table 2 makes it clear that ATIGA and ASEAN+1 FTAs have adopted as starting points the methodology based on a CO iss

144、ued by certifying authorities with the exchange of seals and signatures of authorized certification officials.19 See paragraph 5 Annex 3A of CPTPP:An exporting Party may require that a certification of origin for a good exported from its territory be either:(a)issued by a competent authority or(b)co

145、mpleted by an approved exporter.Different Forms of Proof of Origin in ATIGA,ASEAN+1,and Selected Asian FTAs13Table 2:Issuance of Certificates of Origin and Notification in ATIGA,ASEAN+1 Free Trade Agreements,and RCEPAgreementCertificate of origin issued byDetails to be provided ATIGAIssuing authorit

146、y means the Government authority of the exporting Member State designated to issue a Certificate of Origin(Form D)and notified to all the other Member States in accordance with this AnnexaEach Member State shall provide a list of the names,addresses,specimen signatures,and specimen of official seals

147、 of its issuing authorities,in hard copy and soft copy format,through the ASEAN Secretariat for dissemination to other Member States in soft copy format.Any change in the said list shall be promptly provided in the same manner.The specimen signatures and official seals of the issuing authorities,com

148、piled by the ASEAN Secretariat,shall be updated annually.Any Certificate of Origin(Form D)issued by an official not included in the list referred to in paragraph 1 shall not be honored by the receiving Member State.bACFTAThe Certificate of Origin(Form E)shall be issued by the Issuing Authorities of

149、the exporting Party.c A Party shall inform all the other Parties of the names and addresses of its respective Issuing Authorities and shall provide specimen signatures and specimen of official seals,and correction stamps,if any,used by its Issuing Authorities.The above information and specimens shal

150、l be provided to all the other Parties to the Agreement and a copy furnished to the ASEAN Secretariat.A Party shall promptly inform all the other Parties of any changes in names,addresses,or official seals in the same manner.d AANZFTAeThe Certificate of Origin shall be issued by an Issuing Authority

151、/Body of the exporting Party.Details of the Issuing Authorities/Bodies shall be notified by each Party,through the ASEAN Secretariat,prior to the entry into force of this Agreement.Any subsequent changes shall be promptly notified by each Party,through the ASEAN Secretariat.fThe Issuing Authorities/

152、Bodies shall provide the names,addresses,specimen signatures,and specimens of the impressions of official seals of their respective Issuing Authorities/Bodies to the other Parties,through the ASEAN Secretariat.The Issuing Authorities/Bodies shall submit electronically to the ASEAN Secretariat the ab

153、ove information and specimens for dissemination to the other Parties.Any subsequent changes shall be promptly notified through the ASEAN Secretariat.Any Certificate of Origin issued by a person not included in the list may not be honored by the Customs Authority of the importing Party.gAJCEPThe comp

154、etent government authority of the exporting Party shall,upon request made in writing by the exporter or its authorized agent,issue a Certificate of Origin or,under the authorization given in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations of the exporting Party,may designate other entities or bo

155、dies(hereinafter referred to as“designees”)to issue a Certificate of Origin.hEach Party shall provide the other Parties with a list of names and addresses,and a list of specimen signatures and specimen of official seals or impressions of stamps for the issuance of a Certificate of Origin,of its comp

156、etent government authority and,if any,its designees.Any Certificate of Origin bearing a signature not included in the list referred to in paragraph 2 shall not be valid.icontinued on the next pageOCPs of FTAs in Asia14Table 2 continued.AgreementCertificate of origin issued byDetails to be provided A

157、KFTAIssuing authority means the competent authority designated by the government of the exporting Party to issue a Certificate of Origin and notified to all the other Parties in accordance with this Appendix.jEach Party shall provide the names,addresses,specimen signatures,and specimen of official s

158、eals of its issuing authorities to all the other Parties,through the ASEAN Secretariat.Any change in the said list shall be promptly provided in the same manner.kRCEPA Certificate of Origin shall be issued by the issuing body of an exporting Party upon an application by an exporter,a producer,or the

159、ir authorized representative.The exporter,producer,or their authorized representative shall apply in writing or by electronic means for a Certificate of Origin,to the issuing body of the exporting Party in accordance with the exporting Partys laws,regulations,and procedures.Each Party shall provide

160、the names,addresses,specimen signatures,and impressions of official seals of its issuing body to the other Parties.Such information shall be submitted electronically through the RCEP Secretariat established pursuant to subparagraph 1(i)of Article 18.3(Functions of the RCEP Joint Committee)(hereinaft

161、er referred to as“RCEP Secretariat”),for dissemination to the other Parties.Any subsequent changes shall be promptly submitted to the RCEP Secretariat in the same manner for dissemination to the other Parties.The Parties shall endeavor to establish a secure website to display such information from t

162、he last 3 years,and such website shall be accessible to the Parties.Notwithstanding paragraph 6,a Party shall not be required to provide the specimen signatures of its issuing body to the RCEP Secretariat for dissemination to the other Parties if it has established its own secured website,containing

163、 relevant information of the Certificates of Origin it issues,including their Certificate of Origin numbers,HS Codes,descriptions of goods,quantities,dates of issuance,and names of the exporters,that is accessible to the Parties.The Parties shall review the requirement to provide specimen signatures

164、 of the issuing bodies 3 years after the date of entry into force of this Agreement for all signatory States.AANZFTA=ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area,ACFTA=ASEANChina Free Trade Area,AJCEP=ASEANJapan Comprehensive Economic Partnership,AKFTA=ASEANKorea Free Trade,ASEAN=Association of South

165、east Asian Nations,ATIGA=ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement,RCEP=Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership.a ATIGA Annex 8 Rule 1.In addition,pilot programs for self-certification have been implemented,see:https:/www.asean.org/storage/images/2015/October/outreach-document/Edited%20ROO%20Self%20Certifi

166、cation.pdf.b ATIGA Annex 8 Rule 2.c ACFTA Appendix A Attachment A Rule 2.d ACFTA Appendix A Attachment A Rule 3.e This text refers to the first ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand FTA(AANZFTA)legal text.For updates of AANZA,see Section 4.1.f AANZFTA Appendix 2 Section B Rule 1.g AANZFTA Appendix 2 Section B

167、 Rule 2.h AJCEP Annex 2 Rule 2.j AJCEP Annex 4 Rule 2.j AKFTA Appendix 1 Rule 1.k AKFTA Appendix 1 Rule 2.Note:Adapted and updated from Crivelli,Inama,and Pearson.2023.An Assessment of Rules of Origin in RCEP and ASEAN+1 Free Trade Agreements.Asian Development Bank.Sources:The indicated free trade a

168、greements.Different Forms of Proof of Origin in ATIGA,ASEAN+1,and Selected Asian FTAs15In the case of ATIGA and the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area(AANZFTA),there have been significant changes mainly contained in the latest revision of ATIGA OCPs20 that have introduced the ASEAN-wide sel

169、f-certification and the e-Form D transmitted electronically through the ASEAN Single Window.21The second protocol to amend the agreement establishing the AAANZFTA(hereafter,the second protocol)introduced,as a replacement to the traditional Form AANZFTA,a simplified CO based on a list of data require

170、ments22 to be contained in a certificate of origin in addition to the provisions for a declaration of origin made by approved exporters according to a list of minimum data requirements.23 In addition,the second protocol introduced the notion of self-certification by any exporter or producer with the

171、 caveat that such self-certification should be implemented not later than 10 years for Australia,Brunei Darussalam,Indonesia,Malaysia,New Zealand,the Philippines,Singapore,Thailand,and Viet Nam,and not later than 20 years for Cambodia,the Lao Peoples Democratic Republic(Lao PDR),and,Myanmar,with a p

172、ossibility of extension for another 10 years.In addition,paragraph 4 of Rule 1 of Annex 3A on OCPs provides that:“The Parties shall commence a review of this Rule on the date of entry into force of the Second Protocol for all Parties.This review will consider the introduction of Declaration of Origi

173、n by an importer as a Proof of Origin.”The OCP of the remaining ASEAN+1 FTAsthe ASEANChina Free Trade Area ACFTA,the ASEANKorea Free Trade Area AKFTA,and the ASEANJapan Comprehensive Economic Partnership AJCEP were also revised,without marking a significant departure from the methodology based on CO

174、s issued through the exchange of seals and signatures of authorized officials.In particular,ACFTA underwent two revisions of OCP and rules of origin in 2010 and in 2019.24 AKFTA OCPs underwent an extended revision in 2014 and a more limited one in 2015.Yet,the 2015 revision set a new standard as a f

175、ootnote recognized that:“A printed format means a Certificate of Origin manually or electronically signed,stamped and issued directly by the issuing authorities of the exporting Party.”25 This opened the way to what can be defined as a primary form of an e-CO systemi.e.,the CO form may be issued ele

176、ctronically by the certifying authority and exchanged accordingly,or the exporter may send a PDF version of the paper-based CO to the importer.However,as emerged during consultations with stakeholders,use of this primary form of e-CO was made subject,in some instances,to the signing of a memorandum

177、of understanding concerning its application.The system of CO based on the exchange of seals and signatures reflects the most traditional,if not archaic,methodology from the early days of the GSP.At that time,UNCTAD was the repository of stamps of seals and signatures that had to be routinely distrib

178、uted to UNCTAD members states missions in Geneva,and in turn transmitted to capitals and regional customs offices.It emerged rapidly that such a 20 OCPs for the rules origin under Chapter 3 as endorsed by the 35th ASEAN Free Trade Area(AFTA)Council Meeting of September 2021.21 The ASEAN Single Windo

179、w was established by the Protocol on the Legal Framework,signed on 4 September 2014 in Viet Nam.22 See Rule 8“Issuance of certificate of origin“and Annex 3A.1 of the second protocol to amend the agreement establishing the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area(AANZFTA).23 See Annex 3A.2 of seco

180、nd Protocol to amend the agreement establishing the AANZFTA.24 See https:/www.enterprisesg.gov.sg/-/media/esg/files/non-financial-assistance/for-companies/free-trade-agreements/acfta/acfta_legal_text.pdf.25 See https:/www.enterprisesg.gov.sg/-/media/esg/files/non-financial-assistance/for-companies/f

181、ree-trade-agreements/ASEAN-Korea-FTA/AKFTA_Third_Protocol_to_Amend_the_ASEAN_Korea_Trade_in_Goods_Agreement_2015.pdf.OCPs of FTAs in Asia16system was not efficient as it caused several delays on transmission of the seals and signatures,entailing difficulties such that goods were stopped at time of c

182、ustoms clearance,awaiting transmission of the updated notified seal and signatures.Discussions within the UNCTAD intergovernmental machinery at that time addressed this problem by suggesting that notification of seals and stamps should be done directly to the preference-giving country and not just t

183、hrough the UNCTAD secretariat.Thus,the UNCTAD secretariat route became complementary to the direct notifications made among preference-granting and preference-receiving countries.Further discussions revealed that one of the main difficulties emerged from the rapid turnover of officials designated to

184、 sign the GSP Form and the need to notify new signatures.To address these difficulties,some preference-giving countries,starting with the EU,requested to notify only the seals and not to request the exchange of signatures.It seems that the ASEAN secretariat and member states have yet to acknowledge

185、these lessons since the centrality of ASEAN secretariat in disseminating seals and signatures has been maintained even in the latest revision of OPCs of ATIGA in 2021.On the contrary,the latest revision of ATIGA of 202126 expanded its traditional role of custodian of the seals and signatures to add

186、a position as custodian of the ASEAN-wide self-certification database,27 where certified exporters are registered.In the case of GSP Form A,progressively all main preference-giving countries started to adopt self-certification or adopted trade-facilitating practices(Japan adopting self-certification

187、 for certain products),and UNCTAD relinquished the role of disseminating seals and signature.The difficulties reported from using a system based on exchange of seals and signatures in the face of the lessons learned through the evolution of the international trading system may appear somewhat overst

188、ated or out of proportion.However,even a more recent reading of excerpts from reports of the Sub-committee on ATIGA Rules of Origin(SCAROO),the body responsible for rules of origin in ASEAN,reveals complexities that have existed for decades.The management of proof of origin in ATIGA remains rooted i

189、nto checking the form,particularly the documentary evidence,rather than verifying the actual origin of the goods.A recent document emerging from the ASEAN intergovernmental machinery shows that in the 14 years from 2008 to 2022,no less than 38 intergovernmental meetings were held,involving 97 issues

190、 raised over the difficulties arising from ATIGA proof of origin and related OCPs.28 Table 3 gives more detail on the issues that have repeatedly emerged.A closer look at the issues raised at SCAROO shows that most of them were recurring issues regarding the fine details related to the certificate o

191、f origin Form D and associated OCPs,such as rules on the size of ticks in Form D and the verification of stamps and signatures.In addition,it seems that parallel forms of certification,including the co-existence of a paper-based Form D and an e-CO,have caused confusion(see Figure 2).26 See https:/as

192、ean.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/ATIGA-08-Annex-8-Amended-OCP-endorsed-AFTAC35.pdf.27 See paragraph 5 of the OCPs for the rules origin under Chapter 3,as endorsed by the 35th AFTA Council Meeting in September 2021 28 Excerpt from the SCAROO meeting of August 2022.Different Forms of Proof of Origin

193、 in ATIGA,ASEAN+1,and Selected Asian FTAs17The ATIGA intergovernmental machinery made significant progress toward transparency by posting on the internet a summary of issues raised in SCAROO and how they have been addressed.However,the succinct nature of the reports and the quality of their wording

194、has significantly diminished their value since it is difficult to fully understand the issues raised and solutions found,if any.The overall impression given by the SCAROO summary is that some of issues raised have persisted over the years and many more may emerge.There are no available reports of si

195、milar meetings concerning ASEAN+1 FTAs,even if the same method of proof of origin suggests that difficulties may be even more pronounced as the level of integration may not be as deep as in ASEAN.Table 3 compares the different forms used in each ASEAN+1 FTA and RCEP.It is interesting that even with

196、minor issues such as the number of copies,there is no apparent sign of efforts to rationalize,if not standardize,procedure related to how COs are issued in various ASEAN+1 FTAs.2234236481752319173103024681012141618AICOSchemeASEAN-wideSelf-CertificationBack-to-BackBill of LadingCustoms ProceduresDoub

197、le Issuance ofForm D and e-Form DErrorneous COHS Code/AHTN CodeMinor DiscrepanciesOperational CertificationProceduresRejectionReplacement of CORetroactive CheckRetroactive IssuanceSpecimen SignaturesSunset ClauseThird-Country InvoicingThird-Party B/LTime Issuance of Form DTransparencyFigure 2:Recurr

198、ent Issues Discussed in Subcommittee on ATIGA Rules of Origin or Similar MeetingsAICO=ASEAN industrial cooperation,ASEAN=Association of Southeast Asian Nations,ATIGA=ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement,B/L=Bill of Lading,CO=certificate of origin,HS=Harmonized System,SCAROO=Subcommittee on ATIGA Rules of

199、Origin.Source:Authors,based on SCAROO documents.OCPs of FTAs in Asia18Table 3:Certificates of Origin,Format and Distribution of Copies,ASEAN+1 FTAs,and RCEPATIGAaAANZFTAbACFTAcAJCEPdAKFTAeRCEPfName of the formForm DForm AANZForm EForm AJForm AKForm RCEPSpecimen Annex 7 of ATIGAAttachment of AANZFT.M

200、inimum data requirements in Appendix 2Attachment Appendix 1 of 2015 Amendment to ACFTA Attachment to Annex 4 of AJCEP,revised version published 2014Attachment of AKFTAAs part of the implementation guidelines adopted by the RCEP joint Committee August 2022FormatISO A4 size white paperHardcopy;in Engl

201、ishISO A4 size paper;in EnglishIn EnglishA4 paper;in EnglishA4,EnglishCopies1 original;2 carbon copies1 original;2 copies1 original;2 copies In the case of a Party which is an ASEAN Member State:1 original,2 copies.In the case of Japan:original only1 original;2 copies.The colors of the original and

202、the copies shall be mutually agreed upon by the parties.Not specifiedDistribution of copiesOriginal forwarded by exporter to importer for the submission to customs authority.Duplicate retained by issuing authority.Triplicate retained by exporter.Original be forwarded by exporter to importer for subm

203、ission to the customs authority of the importing Party.Duplicate retained by the issuing authority.Triplicate retained by the exporter.Original forwarded,by exporter to importer for submission to the customs authority Duplicate retained by issuing authority.Triplicate retained by exporter.Original f

204、orwarded by the exporter to importer for submission to customs authority of importing Party.In the case of a Party which is an ASEAN Member State,a copy of the Certificate of Origin is to be retained by both the exporter and the competent governmental authority of the exporting Party or its designee

205、s,respectively.Original forwarded by the producer and/or exporter to importer for submission to the customs authority of the importing Party.The duplicate retained by issuing authority of the exporting Party.The triplicate retained by producer and/or exporter.Not specified AANZFTA=ASEAN-Australia-Ne

206、w Zealand Free Trade Area,ACFTA=ASEANChina Free Trade Area,AJCEP=ASEANJapan Comprehensive Economic Partnership,AKFTA=ASEANKorea Free Trade,ATIGA=ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement,RCEP=Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership.a Annex 8,http:/investasean.asean.org/files/upload/Annex%208.pdf.b Appendix

207、 2,http:/aanzfta.asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/AANZFTA-First-Protocol-Appendix-2B2.pdf.c http:/www.asean.org/storage/images/archive/documents/acfta/Appendix1-101125.pdf.d http:/www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/fta/asean/implement.pdf.e Appendix,http:/akfta.asean.org/uploads/docs/akfta-operationa

208、l-certification-procedures.pdf.f Appendix,http:/akfta.asean.org/uploads/docs/akfta-operational-certification-procedures.pdf.Source:Adapted and updated from Crivelli,Inama,and Pearson.2023.An Assessment of Rules of Origin in RCEP and ASEAN+1 Free Trade Agreements.Asian Development Bank.Different Form

209、s of Proof of Origin in ATIGA,ASEAN+1,and Selected Asian FTAs19Each ASEAN+1 FTA provides for a different number and distribution of copies,and they also differ in nature and color.The move to different e-CO methods,especially in ATIGA,or to self-certification,may have considerably eased such require

210、ments.It is worth noting that for many ASEAN+1 FTAs the hard-copy certificate of origin is still required.As example,the latest revision of ACFTA made in 2019 was based on the CO form with a series of strict definitions that echoed the AFTA of 1992 as follows:29“Rule 8 ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF ORI

211、GIN(FORM E)a)The Certificate of Origin(Form E)must be on ISO A4 size white paper in conformity to the specimen shown in Appendix 1 of this OCP.It shall be filled out in English.The Certificate of Origin(Form E)shall comprise one(1)original and two(2)copies,namely,the duplicate and triplicate copies.

212、”ACFTA is being updated and it is hoped that more trade-facilitating methods can be agreed.In a similar fashion,other ASEAN member states have shown reservations in embracing self-certification.In spite of a provision in the EUViet Nam FTA allowing the adoption a system of registered exporters,Viet

213、Nam has yet to implement it.And since Viet Nam has very few approved exporters because the approval process is complex and lengthy,the hard copy of Form EUR I is the most-used CO for exports from Viet Nam to the EU.Form EUR I is relatively straightforward and can be completed without the complexitie

214、s of the ATIGA Form D,given that it does not contain comparable boxes 8 and 13.Yet,the color and quality of the paper standard required has created difficulties.30 It has to be noted that in the other direction of trade,from the EU to Viet Nam,the EU has taken advantage of the provisions in the EUVi

215、et Nam FTA to introduce the use of Registered Exporter(REX).Thus,the same FTA applies different methods of proof of origin,depending on the direction of trade.The reservations of member states regarding the acceptance of self-certification has been reported in several ways and is ultimately reflecte

216、d in the outcome of FTA negotiations.During negotiations for the Malaysia-New Zealand FTA,Malaysia was insistent on adopting the option of a CO issued by an authorized or government body.New Zealand s position was that self-certification of origin based on invoice declaration would be sufficient.The

217、 outcome was similar to the the EUViet Nam FTA situation:New Zealand exporters would provide self-issued invoice declarations,and Malaysian exporters would apply for a CO which New Zealand has little interest in looking at.As earlier pointed out,OCP implementation issues in ATIGA and ASEAN+1 FTAs ha

218、ve been reported.ATIGA and other ASEAN+1 FTAs provide that when there is an alternative in a PSRO between Regional Value Content(RVC)and Change in Tariff Classification(CTC),the exporter may choose the method as provided in Rule 28 of ATIGA as follows:“1.(a)For the purposes of Article 26(b),goods sh

219、all be deemed to be originating in the Member State where working or processing of the goods has taken place:(i)if the goods have a regional value content(hereinafter referred to as“ASEAN Value Content”or the“Regional Value Content(RVC)”)of not less than forty percent(40%)calculated using the formul

220、a set out in Article 29;or 29 Available at https:/www.enterprisesg.gov.sg/-/media/esg/files/non-financial-assistance/for-companies/free-trade-agreements/ASEAN-China-FTA/upgrade-protocol/Attachment-A-Revised-OCP.pdf.30 Interview with motorbike industry representatives in Viet Nam,November 2023.OCPs o

221、f FTAs in Asia20(ii)if all non-originating materials used in the production of the goods have undergone a change in tariff classification(hereinafter referred to as“CTC”)at four-digit level(i.e.,a change in tariff heading)of the Harmonized System.”(b)Each Member State shall permit the exporter of th

222、e good to decide whether to use paragraph 1(a)(i)or 1(a)(ii)of this Article when determining whether the goods qualify as originating goods of the Member State.2.(a)Notwithstanding paragraph 1 of this Article,goods listed in Annex 3 shall qualify as originating goods if the goods satisfy the product

223、 specific rules set out therein.(b)Each Member State shall permit the exporter of the good to decide whether to use paragraph 1(a)(i)or 1(a)(ii)of this Article when determining whether the goods qualify as originating goods of the Member State.”In spite of this clear legal provision in subparagraph

224、1(b)and repeated in subparagraph 2(b),in some ASEAN countries when an exporter chooses to use CTC rules,the application process for proof of origin requires RVC/costing data before an exporter can submit CTC data.This practice is not only illegal but is also the exact opposite of the very principle

225、of trade facilitation:(a)Requiring RVC data negates the advantages of CTC that provide administrative simplicity with respect to RVC as CTC removes the accounting calculations and foreign exchange fluctuations.(b)Noting that PSRO in ATIGA,ASEAN+1 FTAs,and ultimately RCEP are predominantly RVC or CTC

226、,this is a real stumbling block.(c)A ruling based on RVC/costing data increases business risk if a material cost changes.This is particularly so with commodity-based products or when foreign exchange fluctuations occur.A ruling based on CTC rules is more stable and reduces risk.These sentiments have

227、 been echoed in the Viet Nam survey discussed in Section 8,where 68%of more than 200 firms said they preferred CTC and only 11%opted for RVC.4.1.1.Content of Certificates of Origin in ATIGA,ASEAN+1,and RCEPAs discussed in Section 2,the Annex K of the Revised Kyoto Convention(RKC)includes a CO templa

228、te with nine boxes to be filled.GSP Form A,the only multilaterally agreed CO form used commercially,contains 12 boxes and may be considered a standard.Form D of ATIGA has 13,and the new RCEP form contains 17 boxes.From a trade facilitation standpoint,the fewer the boxes,the easier to fill out the fo

229、rm.The more boxes and“tick”entries needed for completing the CO,the more complicated,tedious,and prone to error the task becomes.Comparative analysis of the different forms used in ASEAN+1 FTAs shows that while the number of boxes remains at 13 boxes,the content of entries required for completion va

230、ries.In the ATIGA box 13,up to 7 different ticks may be selected depending on the different OCPs.By way of example,Figure 3 shows the ATIGA Certificate of Origin(Form D).Different Forms of Proof of Origin in ATIGA,ASEAN+1,and Selected Asian FTAs21 1.Goods consigned from(Exporters business name,addre

231、ss,country)2.Goods consigned to(Consignees name,address,country)5.Item number6.Marks and numbers on packages11.Declaration by the exporter13.Third Country InvoicingAccumulationBack-to-Back COPartial Cumulation7.Number and type of packages,description of goods(including quantity where appropriate and

232、 HS number of the importing country)8.Origin criterion(see Overleaf Notes)10.Number and date of invoices9.Gross weight or other quantity and value(FOB)Notes:Box 1 must contain the exporter details.The name,address and country of the exporter must be identified to specify from where the goods are con

233、signed.To indicate where goods are sent to,box 2 has to be filled with the consignees name,address and country.As far as is known,the shipment details,including the departure date,vessel name/aircraft,and the like,as well as port of discharge,must be given in box 3.Box 4 must contain the signature o

234、f the authorized signatory of the importing country.Whether preferential treatment is accorded under the specific agreement must be indicated in box 4.The item number must be inserted in box 5 and the marks and numbers on packages detailed in box 6.The number and type of packages,and a description o

235、f the goods,must be included in box 7.The HS number(of the importing Party)and quantity must be included where appropriate.The description of products must be sufciently detailed to enable the products to be identified by the customs ofcers examining them.The name of the manufacturer and any tradema

236、rk must also be specified.AANZFTA and AJCEP require indication at a six-digit level.*Box 8 concerns the relevant origin-conferring criteria and is one of the most important and complicated boxes to be filled in.An exporter must indicate the original criteria met,according to the requirements in the

237、relevant FTA.The gross weight or other quantity and value(free on board)must be indicated in box 9.Box 10 is for the number as well as the date of the invoices.In box 11,the exporter(including manufacturer or producer)must declare that the goods comply with the relevant origin requirements,and provi

238、de the place,date and signature of the authorized signatory.If after reviewing the supporting documentation the issuing authority is satisfied that the goods qualify for preferential treatment,it certifies in box 12 that the exporters declaration is correct by providing its signature and stamp and i

239、ndicating the place and date.Box 13 provides a number of options which may be ticked depending on their relevance to the particular certificate of origin.*AJCEP:With respect to subheading 2208.90 and 9404.90,in an exceptional case where the good is a specific product requiring a special description(

240、for example,“sake compound and cooking sake(Mirin)of subheading 2208.90”,“beverages with a basis of fruit,of an alcoholic strength by volume of less than 1 per cent of subheading 2208.90”,“quilts and eiderdowns of 9404.90”)such description of specific products should be indicated.Reference No.ASEAN

241、TRADE IN GOODS AGREEMENT/ASEAN INDUSTRIAL COOPERATION SCHEME CERTIFICATE OF ORIGIN(Combined Declaration and Certificate)FORM D(Country)See Overleaf NotesIt is hereby certified,on the basis of control carried out,that the declaration by the exporter is correct.Preferential Treatment Given Under ASEAN

242、 Trade in Goods AgreementPreferential Treatment Given Under ASEAN Industrial Cooperation SchemePreferential Treatment Not Given(Please state reason/s)The undersigned hereby declares that the above details and statement are correct;that all the goods were produced in(Country)and that they comply with

243、 the origin requirements specified for these goods in the ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement for the goods exported to(Importing Country)Place and date,signature of authorised signatory3.Means of transport and route(as far as known)Departure dateVessels name/Aircraft eto.Port of Discharge4.For Ofcial Us

244、e12.CertificationSignature of Authorised Signatory of the Importing CountryPlace and date,signature and stamp of certifying authorityExhibitionDe MinimisIssued RetroactivelyIssued inFigure 3:Specimen Certificate of Origin for ATIGA(Form D)AANZFTA=ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area,AJCEP=ASE

245、ANJapan Comprehensive Economic.Partnership,ATIGA=ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement,FOB=free on board,FTA=free trade agreement,HS=Harmonized System.Source:ATIGA,Annex 7;and UNCTAD.2021.Handbook on preferential market access for ASEAN least developed countries(Part III).OCPs of FTAs in Asia22Table 4 show

246、s how the entries in box 8 of each ASEAN+1 FTA and RCEP should be made.Table 4:Origin Criteria:Entries Required in Box 8ATIGAAANZFTAAIFTAACFTAAJCEPAKFTARCEPGoods wholly obtained or produced(WO)WOWO WOWOWOWOWOGoods entirely produced(PE)Not includedPENot includedNot includedPENot includedPERegional va

247、lue content(RVC)Percentage of regional value content,e.g.,40%RVCNot includedPercentage of single-country content,a e.g.,40%.Percentage of ACFTA cumulative content,b e.g.,40%RVCRVC 40%RVC Change in tariff classification(CTC)The actual CTC rule,e.g.,CC,CTH or CTSHCTC,whether on chapter,heading,or subh

248、eading level,no need to place actual tariff shift Not includedNot includedCTCCTHCTCSpecific processes(SP)SPNot includedNot includedNot includedSPSpecific Processes Chemical Reaction(CR)Combination criteriaActual combination criterion,e.g.,CTSH+35%CTSH+RVC,actual PSE needs to be insertedRVC percent+C

249、TSHNot includedCTH or RVCCTH or RVC 40%Not included Product-specific requirement(PSR)Not included“Other”for PSR included in Annex 2 Appropriate qualifying criteriaPSRNot includedCTCWO-AKc RVC,e.g.,RVC 45%Combination rule that needs to be met for good to qualify as originating,e.g.,CTH+RVC 40%Specifi

250、c processes Rule 6dNot included continued on the next pageDifferent Forms of Proof of Origin in ATIGA,ASEAN+1,and Selected Asian FTAs23ATIGAAANZFTAAIFTAACFTAAJCEPAKFTARCEPPartial cumulation(PC)PC X percent,where X would be the percentage of regional value content of less than 40%,e.g.,PC 25%Not incl

251、udedNot includedNot includedNot includedNot includedACUDe minimisAccumulation(DMI ACU)Not includedNot includedNot includedNot includedDMIACUNot includedDMIAANZFTA=ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area,ACFTA=ASEANChina Free Trade Area,AIFTA=ASEANIndia Free Trade Area,AJCEP=ASEANJapan Comprehens

252、ive Economic Partnership,AKFTA=ASEANKorea Free Trade,ATIGA=ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement,CC=Change in Chapter,CTH=Change in Tariff Heading,CTSH=Change in Tariff Subheading,DMI=de menemis,RCEP=Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership.Note:Adapted and updated from Crivelli,Inama,and Pearson.2023.A

253、n assessment of Rules of Origin in RCEP and ASEAN+1 Free Trade Agreements.a For the purpose of implementing the provisions of Rule 2(b)of the ACFTA rules of origin,products worked on and processed as a result of which the total value of the materials,parts or produce originating from non-ACFTA membe

254、r states or of undetermined origin used does not exceed 60%of the free-on-board value of the product produced or obtained and the final process of the manufacture is performed within the territory of the exporting Party.b Products which comply with origin requirements provided for in rule 2 of the A

255、CFTA rules of origin and which are used in a Party as inputs for a finished product eligible for preferential treatment in another/other Party/Parties shall be considered as a product originating in the member state where working or processing of the finished product has taken place,provided that th

256、e aggregate ACFTA content of the final product is not less than 40%.c Wholly obtained or produced in the territory of any Party.d Goods satisfying rule 6.Sources:Various free trade agreements.Such extremely detailed prescriptions can be compared with GSP Form A,which also contained different entries

257、 for box 8 depending on the requirement of preference-giving countries.On one hand,GSP users routinely quoted box 8 as one of the most challenging issues.On the other hand,preference-giving countries took the view that since different GSP schemes have different rules of origin,the dedicated entries

258、for box 8 were a safety issue to make sure that the GSP user correctly understood the RoO of the preference-giving country.However,this reasoning is not applicable to ASEAN+1 FTAs in the sense that the Form and entries could have been negotiated by ASEAN and Dialogue partners based on a shared desir

259、e to adopt and rationalize standard entries to facilitate trade.An example of best practice could have been drawn from Form EUR I,the standard used by the EU with FTAs partners.Even if the European FTAs contain different PSROs,Form EUR I does not contain a box 8 or an entry related to origin criteri

260、a.If such a practice was not possible for ASEAN and its trade partners,then efforts could have been made to limit the deviations from a standard format,drawing inspiration for Canada CO forms under different FTAs(Table 5).As can be observed,deviation from the standard format is limited,the layout is

261、 almost identical,and the specific information required in the different entries is more limited in scope.Table 4 continued.OCPs of FTAs in Asia24Table 5:Layout and Entries of Certificates of Origin in Canada FTAsCanadaIsraelCanadaChileCanadaCosta RicaCanadaPeruCanadaJordanCanadaColombiaCanadaRepubl

262、ic of PanamaCanadaThe Republic of HondurasCanadaRepublic of KoreaNumber of Entries101112131112101311HS Tariff Classification(Entry 6)YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesPreferenceCriterion(Entry 7)YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesProducer(Entry 8)YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesValue TestOn RVC(Entry 9)NoYesYesYesNoYes

263、NoYesYesCountry of Origin(Entry 10)NoYes NoYesYes(Entry 9)YesNoYesYesOtherYes.Gross weight or other quantity(Entry 9)NoYes.(Accu mulation,De minimis,Fungible goods and materials)NoNoNoNoYes.(Accu mulation,De minimis,Fungible goods and materials)NoFTA=free trade agreement,HS=Harmonized System,RVC=reg

264、ional value content.Source:Canada FTAs.Table 6 outlines the options for box 13 under ASEAN+1 FTAs and RCEP.This boxs existence in addition to box 8 is another anomaly.The variation in entries required for different FTAs shows once again that when the FTAs were negotiated no attempt was made to estab

265、lish a standard for the entries.In ATIGA,Box 13 has a special function related to cumulation.Form D can be used as the form for proving the origin of the goods that is going to be used for cumulation purposes.In short,Form D could be used as a kind of supplier declaration of origin when used to appl

266、y cumulation under ATIGA(article 30)as follows:“Article 30 Accumulation 1.Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement,goods originating in a Member State,which are used in another Member State as materials for finished goods eligible for preferential tariff treatment,shall be considered to be origin

267、ating in the latter Member State where working or processing of the finished goods has taken place.2.If the RVC of the material is less than forty percent(40%),the qualifying ASEAN Value Content to be cumulated using the RVC criterion shall be in direct proportion to the actual domestic content prov

268、ided that it is equal to or more than twenty percent(20%).The Implementing Guidelines are set out in Annex 6.”Different Forms of Proof of Origin in ATIGA,ASEAN+1,and Selected Asian FTAs25Table 6:Options to Tick Box 13 Under ASEAN+1 FTAs and RCEPATIGAAANZFTAACFTAAJCEP AKFTAAHKFTARCEPThird-country inv

269、oicingXXX XXXXExhibitionaXXXXAccumulationXXXDe minimisXXXBack-to-back COXXXXXIssued retroactivelybXXXXXPartial cumulationXAANZFTA=ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area,ACFTA=ASEANChina Free Trade Area,AHKFTA=ASEANHong Kong,China Free Trade Agreement;AJCEP=ASEANJapan Comprehensive Economic Part

270、nership,AKFTA=ASEANKorea Free Trade,ASEAN=Association of Southeast Asian Nations,ATIGA=ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement,CO=certificate origin,RCEP=Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership.a In cases where goods are sent from the exporting member economies for exhibition in another economy and sold

271、during or after the exhibition for importation into a member economy,indicate the name and address of the exhibition in Box 2.b In exceptional cases,due to involuntary errors or omissions or other valid causes,the certificate of origin may be issued retroactively.The practice of using a CO form for

272、cumulation purposes,in this case Form D,is rather unique to ATIGA and has not been explicitly replicated in any other ASEAN+1 FTA.Box 2:ATIGA Implementation Difficulties with Cumulation Provisions A persistent implementation issue has been observed in the implementation of the Association of Southea

273、st Asian Nations(ASEAN)Trade in Goods Agreement(ATIGA)provisions related to the allocation of origin when cumulation is used among different ASEAN Member States(AMS).Specifically,in the regional value content(RVC)40 requirement,the example below illustrates a scenario where the requirement is met by

274、 cumulating processes in three member states.However,the last member refuses to issue a certficate of origin(CO)because its own local content represents“only”5%.Example:a product complies with RVC requirement of 40%,with 35%of ingredients sourced from one ASEAN member state and the main manufacturin

275、g process contributing an additional 20%RVC carried out in another member state.The product is then sent as semi-finished good to a third member for finalization,which adds 5%of RVC.Despite the combined RVC meeting the 40%threshold,the third member is unwilling to issue CO Form D for exports to othe

276、r member states due to its own“only”5%local content.This approach defeats the concept of RVC.While provisions addressing this issue are contained in other free trade agreements,they are,at present,absent from ATIGA.Therefore,it would be advisable to insert a clear provision during the revision of AT

277、IGA operational certification procedures to establish a methodology for identifying the originating ASEAN member state when cumulation is used.Such clarification will help ensure that the RVC requirements are met and provide clarity to all stakeholders involved in the process.This is essential to pr

278、event misinterpretation or misunderstandings that could result in rejections or delays in the issuance of COs by the issuing authority in the final country of importation.Source:Authors own findings resulting from conversation with firms.OCPs of FTAs in Asia264.1.2 Back-to-Back Certificate of Origin

279、 A back-to-back CO is a new CO issued by an intermediate exporting FTA partner country.It is based on the original CO issued by the first exporting FTA partner country.The back-to-back CO enables a company to ship its goods to an intermediate FTA partner country for trading or logistical purposes be

280、fore re-exporting the goods to other FTA partner countries,while still retaining the origin status of the first exporting FTA partner country and the corresponding preferential tariff treatment of the goods.The back-to-back CO is a common practice that has also been used in the context of EU FTAs,wh

281、ere it is called a replacement certificate.Use of this OCP is rather self-explanatory in a world made of value chains relying on intermediate products stocked in different warehouses.However,the procedural requirements attached to this business reality may render it excessively costly or impracticab

282、le.Figure 4 shows the normal business practice where a manufacturer sells to the parent company located in another country and this company resells the goods with a markup price.The exporter makes the application for a back-to-back CO.If the applicable conditions under the relevant FTA are met,the i

283、ssuing authority of the intermediate party will agree to issue a back-to-back CO while the product is passing through that partys territory.Table 7 compares the conditions for the issuance of a back-to-back CO in the different FTAs.Figure 4:Back-to-Back Certificates of Origin B2B=back-to-back,CoO=ce

284、rtificate of origin,HQ=headquarters,PRC=Peoples Republic of China,RCEP=Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership,Source:Elaboration from Anliker(2023).PhilippinesSingapore3rd Party ManufacturerTrade AgreementRCEPFlow of goodsFlow of invoicesRegional HQGoods and CoOGoods and B2B CoOUSD$100USD$3003r

285、d Party ManufacturerPRCDifferent Forms of Proof of Origin in ATIGA,ASEAN+1,and Selected Asian FTAs27Table 7:Comparison of Back-to-Back Certificate of Origin ConditionsASEAN FTARule/ArticleBack-to-Back Certificate of OriginATIGAAnnex 8,Rule 10Upon application by an exporter,the issuing authority of a

286、n intermediate Member State may issue a back-to-back CO if the following conditions are met.(a)A valid original CO(Form D)or certified true copy is presented.(b)The back-to-back CO issued contains some of the same information as the original CO.Every column in the back-to-back CO should be completed

287、.(c)The FOB price of the intermediate Member State in Box 9 is reflected in the back-to-back CO.(d)For partial export shipments,the partial export value is shown instead of the full value of the original CO.The intermediate Member State will ensure that the total quantity re-exported under the parti

288、al shipment does not exceed the total quantity of the CO from the first Member State when approving the back-to-back CO to the exporters.(e)If information is not complete and/or circumvention is suspected,the final importing Member State(s)could request that the original CO is submitted to their res

289、pective customs authority.(f)Verification procedures(see Rules 18 and 19)are applied to the Member State issuing the back-to-back CO.AANZFTAAnnex to Chapter 3(Operational Certification Procedures),Rule 10(3)An Issuing Authority/Body of an intermediate Party shall issue a back-to-back Certificate of

290、Origin,if an application is made by the exporter while the good is passing through that intermediate Party,provided that:(i)A valid original CO or its certified true copy is presented.(ii)The period of validity of the back-to-back CO does not exceed the period of validity of the original CO.(iii)The

291、 consignment which is to be re-exported using the back-to-back CO does not undergo any further processing in the intermediate Party.Exceptions are repacking or logistics activities such as unloading,reloading,storing,or any other operations necessary to preserve them in good condition or to transpor

292、t them to the importing Party.(iv)The back-to-back CO contains relevant information from the original CO in accordance with the minimum data requirements in Appendix 2 to the Annex on OCPs.(v)The FOB value is the FOB value of the goods exported from the intermediate Party.(vi)The verification proced

293、ures in Rules 17 and 18 of the Annex on OCPs also apply to the back-to-back CO.ACFTAN/AACFTA does not provide for back-to-back COs.AJCEPAnnex 4,Rule 3(4)An intermediate Party may issue a back-to-back CO upon request by the exporter in the importing Party or its authorized agent with presentation of

294、the valid original CO.Where a valid back-to-back CO is issued,“an originating good of the exporting Party”shall be construed as an originating good of the Party whose competent governmental authority or its designees has issued the original CO.continued on the next pageOCPs of FTAs in Asia28ASEAN FT

295、ARule/ArticleBack-to-Back Certificate of OriginAKFTAAnnex 3,Appendix 1,Rule 7The issuing authority of the intermediate Party may issue a back-to-back CO,if an application is made by the exporter while the good is passing through its territory,if the following conditions are met.(a)A valid original C

296、O is presented.(b)The importer of the intermediate Party and the exporter who applies for the back-to-back CO in the intermediate Party are the same.(c)Verification procedures as set out in Annex 3,Appendix 1,Rule 14,are applied.*CPTPPNot applicable Not applicable RCEP1.Subject to Article 3.16(Proof

297、 of Origin),an issuing body,approved exporter,or exporter of an intermediate Party may issue a back-to-back Proof of Origin provided that:(a)a valid original Proof of Origin or its certified true copy is presented;(b)the period of validity of the back-to-back Proof of Origin does not exceed the peri

298、od of validity of the original Proof of Origin;(c)the back-to-back Proof of Origin contains relevant information from the original Proof of Origin in accordance with Annex 3B(Minimum Information Requirements);(d)the consignment which is to be re-exported using the back-to-back Proof of Origin does n

299、ot undergo any further processing in the intermediate Party,except for repacking or logistics activities such as unloading,reloading,storing,splitting up of the consignment,or labelling only as required by the laws,regulations,procedures,administrative decisions,and policies of the importing Party,o

300、r any other operations necessary to preserve a good in good condition or to transport a good to the importing Party;(e)for partial export shipments,the partial export quantity shall be shown instead of the full quantity of the original Proof of Origin,and the total quantity re-exported under the par

301、tial shipment shall not exceed the total quantity of the original Proof of Origin;and(f)information on the back-to-back Proof of Origin includes the date of issuance and reference number of the original Proof of Origin.2.The verification procedures referred to in Article 3.24(Verification)shall also

302、 apply to the back-to-back Proof of Origin.AANZFTA=ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area,ACFTA=ASEANChina Free Trade Area,AJCEP=ASEANJapan Comprehensive Economic Partnership,AKFTA=ASEANKorea Free Trade,ASEAN=Association of Southeast Asian Nations,ATIGA=ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement,CCPTP=Comp

303、rehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership,CO=certificate origin,FOB=free on board,RCEP=Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership.*Note that the originating status of the goods can be retained for as long as 12 months with this specific arrangement;Original Form AK(6 months)

304、plus Back-to-back Form AK(6 months).Available from:http:/akfta.asean.org/uploads/docs/akfta-operational-certification-procedures.pdf,http:/akfta.asean.org/uploads/docs/akfta-certificate-of-origin-form.pdf.Sources:Free trade agreements legal texts.As is apparent from Table 7,requirements for back-to-

305、back CO procedures differ among FTAs.Some FTAs such as AKFTA require that the importer and exporter requesting the back-to-back CO are the same person.This puts an unnecessary limit to this OCP that otherwise is designed to allow flexibility in the management of COs.In addition,some FTAs describe in

306、 detail the operations that may be carried out on the goods while present in the intermediate country.Commercial reality militates for an ample interpretation of operations such as repackaging or logistical activities.Table 7 continued.Different Forms of Proof of Origin in ATIGA,ASEAN+1,and Selected

307、 Asian FTAs29RCEP text regulates this issue quite exhaustively,whereas the silence of other FTAs on this issue may be interpreted differently,either that no operation may be carried out(which would be unreasonable)or that such operations are tolerated at the discretion of the certifying authority of

308、 the intermediary country.As indicated in Table 2,issues related to back-to-back CO have been discussed in the ASEAN intergovernmental machinery dedicated to rules of origin and OCPs.For instance,the November 2009 ASEAN meeting in Malaysia confirmed that the back-to-back CO Form D issued beyond the

309、validity period of the original certificate could not be accepted.A back-to-back CO would need to be issued by the intermediate exporting member state and presented to the final importing member state within the validity period of the original certificate.Linked to the issue of back-to-back CO is th

310、e requirement to provide documentary evidence related to direct shipment,as discussed at the ASEAN 2010 meeting in Hoi An,where the following was reported:“Goods produced in Malaysia,sent to Viet Nam using multimodal transportation,e.g.,by train to Singapore and by vessel to Viet Nam.In this case,th

311、ere were two transportation documents,the first one issued to cover the transportation of the goods to Singapore,and a second B/L was be issued by a Singaporean company to ship the goods to Viet Nam.”The recommendation was to issue a single bill of lading(B/L)issued by the exporting country,describi

312、ng all transportation modes required at the time of exportation.Commercially speaking,such a recommendation is quite stringent and revealing of the amount of scrutiny that direct shipment comes under in trade within ASEAN member states.Box 3:Inconsistent Implementation of Back-to-Back Provisions and

313、 Related Difficulties in the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Certain practices within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations(ASEAN)appear to prohibit partial shipments for back-to-back certificates of origin.Additionally,requirements for non-manipulation certificates have been impose

314、d for shipments transiting through non-AANZ(ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand)economies,particularly when transit occurs in the Peoples Republic of China;Hong Kong,China;or Taipei,China,to ensure that no additional processes or items are introduced during transit.These requirements have posed challenges,a

315、s exporters in Australia and New Zealand typically do not provide such certificates,leading to inconsistencies in the implementation of the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area(AANZFTA).Source:Authors based on consultations with firms.OCPs of FTAs in Asia304.1.3 Third-Country and Third-Party

316、Invoicing Third-country invoicing is a common practice in todays international trade.It means that the exporter sells the goods to an intermediary that is reselling the goods to the final importer.Although the WCO guidelines recommend that this practice must be recognized(WCO 2018),the related proce

317、dures of ATIGA,ASEAN+1 FTAs,and RCEP are quite demanding and different.Figures 5 and 6 illustrate such third-party invoicing schemes.31 In Figure 5,goods from the production facility in the Philippines are directly sold and shipped to the PRC,accompanied by a CO from the Philippines.However,the invo

318、icing flow is going over through the headquarter in Singapore,adding a significant mark-up,and sold to the PRC for$300.The importing country will see a mismatch between a CO issued by Philippines and an invoice issued in Singapore and might be refusing the granting of preferential tariff treatment.A

319、 provision normally included in FTAs on third-country invoicing allows such practice subject to conditions that are now explained.31 Note that“third party”in that context means“more than two.Figure 5:Third-Party Invoicing with Three PartiesCoO=certificate of origin,HQ=headquarters,PRC=Peoples Republ

320、ic of China,RCEP=Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership.Source:Elaboration from Anliker(2023).PhilippinesSingapore3rd Party ManufacturerTrade AgreementRCEPFlow of goodsFlow of invoicesRegional HQGoods and CoOUSD$100USD$3003rd Party ManufacturerPRCDifferent Forms of Proof of Origin in ATIGA,ASEA

321、N+1,and Selected Asian FTAs31Article 3.20 of the RCEP foresees that in such situations,no authority should deny the preferential origin of the goods:“An importing Party shall not deny a claim for preferential tariff treatment for the sole reason that an invoice was not issued by the exporter or prod

322、ucer of a good provided that the good meets the requirements in this Chapter”(Article 3.20:Third-Party Invoicing of the RCEP).However,these mismatches have caused many importing countries and customs authorities to deny preferential importation of such goods.In some countries,bilateral discussions w

323、ith the authority were required to allow preferential importation.Some authorities interpreted the word“third”literally and did not allow preferential importation if more than three parties were involved in the entire transaction(Figure 5).32 Third-country or third-party invoicing procedure allows o

324、riginating goods exported to an FTA member country with a preferential CO to qualify for preferential tariff treatment even if the accompanying sales invoice is issued by:(a)a company located in a non-FTA member country(third-country invoicing);or(b)an exporter in an FTA member country for the accou

325、nt of the company(third-party invoicing).32 See Anliker(2023).https:/ 6:Third-Party Invoicing with Four or More PartiesCoO=certificate of origin,HQ=headquarters,PRC=Peoples Republic of China,RCEP=Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership.Source:Elaboration from Anliker(2023).PhilippinesSwitzerland

326、Singapore3rd Party ManufacturerPrincipal CompanyTrade AgreementRCEPFlow of goodsFlow of invoicesRegional HQGoods and CoOUSD$100USD$350USD$3003rd Party ManufacturerPRCOCPs of FTAs in Asia32In a number of cases,the wording of third-country invoicing has been interpreted as if the invoice had to be nec

327、essarily issued in a third country rather than in a member of the FTA.This misunderstanding is confirmed by the fact that the issue of third-country invoicing often arose in the context of the SCAROO(Table 3).There was also a requirement that the words“SUBJECT OF THIRD PARTY/COUNTRY INVOICE”and the

328、name of the company issuing the third-party invoicing should be indicated on the CO.This requirement created major practical difficulty for the exporters.While an exporter was able to indicate the name of the first company issuing the third-party invoicing,it was almost impossible for the exporter t

329、o identify the second or the third companies involved in issuing invoices.Hence,the exporter could not indicate on the certificate the name of the final third party.This resulted in importing FTA parties denying preferential access.A CO accompanied by a third-country invoice will only be approved if

330、 the exporter of the goods indicates“third-country invoicing”in the certificate,along with information such as the name and country of the company issuing the invoice.Table 8 sets out the third-party invoicing provisions in each ASEAN+1 FTA,RCEP,and CPTPP.Table 8:Third-Country and Third-Party Invoic

331、ing Provisions in ASEAN+1 FTAs,RCEP,and CPTPPASEAN FTARule/ArticleThird-Country InvoicingATIGAAnnex8,Rule231.Relevant Government authorities in the importing Member State shall accept Certificates of Origin(Form D)in cases where the sales invoice is issued either by a company located in a third coun

332、try or by an ASEAN exporter for the account of the said company,provided that the goods meet the requirements of Chapter 3 of this Agreement.2.The exporter shall indicate“third-country invoicing”and such information as name and country of the company issuing the invoice in the Certificate of Origin(

333、Form D).AANZFTAAnnex on OCPs to Chapter 3(rules of origin)as amended by the First Protocol,Rule 22THIRD-COUNTRY INVOICINGRule 131.An importing Party shall not deny a claim for preferential tariff treatment for the sole reason that the sales invoice was issued by a company located in a third country other than the AANZFTA exporting or importing country,provided that the good meets the requirements