proposal for amended GSP rules of origin, especially with the list of registered exporters.

In its shape laid down in the Draft Regulation tabled by the European Commission this list will act as a strong invitation to discontinue imports under the GSP in the future.

Our proposal for compromise: 

Permit the application of the traditional certification system together with the self-certification approach, in order to ensure that those exporters so requesting it may have access in any case to a certificate issued by the customs administration of the beneficiary country. 

This paper highlights how a compromise solution along these lines could look like.


Acknowledge the reality: how importers work


Most European importers are not linked to suppliers in third countries (i.e. not belonging to an international group operating with subsidiaries in exporting countries). They will only use preferential regimes if they can rely on the full respect of the rules of origin. Otherwise the financial risk borne by importers in case of retroactive recovery of duties by customs authorities largely outweighs the short-term benefits of lower import tariffs.


These guarantees need to be obtained before the shipping of the goods in the exporting country. This is currently achieved by including a certificate of origin to the list of documents that the supplier must present to obtain payment for his cargo.


Should a problem arise, it is practically impossible for the importers having already paid their merchandise to take legal action against the supplier in order to recover the debt. Moreover, experience has shown that in many cases the exporting company does no longer exist if the legal action is taken years after the signing of the contact. Due to their very nature, this is a particularly serious problem for SMEs.


In practice, importers buy documents, not products - in international trade transactions between exporters and importers the irrevocable payment is normally made upon presentation of the documents reliably representing the merchandise, not upon physical presentation of the merchandise itself.


Hence, the exporter (even if registered) should always be able and legally obliged to provide a Form A issued by a competent and independent authority if the importer so wishes.


In return for the preferences granted to the GSP beneficiary countries it would only be fair to expect from them to provide the administrative structures necessary to enable orderly and legally certain trade transactions.


A solution that would duly respond to traders’ need for legal certainty could be inspired by the double-checking system as it worked successfully in the textiles and clothing area. The procedure could be as follows:

A procedure along these lines would limit the scope for fraudulent indications by the exporter as it would enable possible cases of fraud to be discovered when the original GSP Form A is presented to the national customs authority.

Accept the feasible


To facilitate the identification of a possible compromise solution in the Origin Committee, EuroCommerce could also consider the following:


The new Commission proposal already provides for a transitional period during which two different systems would be co-existing simultaneously: whereas some beneficiary countries would be subject to the new rules right away, others would continue to apply the current rules. If such a solution based on two simultaneous sets of rules is acceptable to the Commission and the Member States, EuroCommerce would assume that a similar solution could be agreeable to all parties:


Countries who see an advantage in the registered exporters system could apply the latter, provided that they entitle all importers wishing so to request from the exporter a shipment certification issued by public authorities.


Reject the impossible


It would be unacceptable to European importers if they were deprived of the possibility to request reliable certificates of origin issued by competent and independent authorities.