Integrated
Logistics Under RA 9280
CASE STUDY 1. A local manufacturer,
Santa Barbara Company (SBC), imports various
articles on a Delivered Duty Paid (DDU) terms
of trade. The foreign supplier hires a logistics
company, ABC Express, to ship the goods to the
Port of Manila. ABC Express has a local subsidiary
- ABC Express Philippines. ABC Express Philippines
hired licensed customs brokers as full-time
employees to "prepare, sign, file and process"
import declarations with customs. ABC likewise
paid for the duties and taxes, arrastre, wharfage
and other port charges. Can ABC Express hire
licensed customs brokers as full-time and regular
employees to "prepare, sign, file and process"
the import declarations? Can ABC Express advertise
their customs broker services? Can the company's
employees, who are not licensed customs brokers,
assist the customs brokers in processing the
import entries with customs? Can the logistics
company pay the duties and taxes, arrastre,
wharfage, and other port charges? Can SBC hire
licensed customs brokers as its full-time employees
to "prepare, sign, file and process"
import declarations with customs? Is the importer
required to deal directly with the customs broker?
Can an importer authorize the logistics company
to hire a customs broker to provide customs
clearance services?
CASE STUDY 2. SBC likewise imports raw materials
for its manufacturing facilities. The raw materials
are imported from offshore suppliers mostly
on CIF terms of trade. PanPacificGlobal (PPG),
a multinational forwarder, is the accredited
forwarder of SBC. PPG hires a licensed customs
broker to "prepare, sign, file and process"
import declarations with customs. Upon release
from customs custody, the raw materials are
delivered to SBC warehouse using PPG transport
facilities. Can an integrated logistics provider
hire an independent customs broker to "prepare,
sign, file and process" import declarations
with customs?
Discussion on the Case Studies. Can ABC Express
hire licensed customs brokers as full time and
regular employees to "prepare, sign, file
and process" the import declarations? RA
9280 prohibits corporations from engaging in
the customs brokerage business. While there
is no express prohibition with regard to the
hiring of full-time licensed customs brokers,
the arrangement here raises issues on the independence
and arms' length nature of the customs broker
service provided and as such, there is a high
risk that such arrangement may be considered
as a dummy operation or may be found to violate
the prohibition on corporate practice. Can SBC
hire licensed customs broker as its full-time
employees to "prepare, sign, file and process"
import declarations with customs? The same argument
here applies in regard to the independence and
arms' length nature of the service provided.
To manage the risk of non-compliance, SBC should
instead hire the licensed customs brokers as
independent contractors, not as full-time employees.
Can ABC Express advertise their customs broker
services? RA 9280 expressly prohibits entities
or individuals who are not licensed customs
brokers from advertising or offering themselves
as customs brokers. As discussed above, the
risk of non-compliance is high in case the company
hires full-time licensed customs brokers. Advertising
as a customs broker is clearly prohibited as
far as ABC Express is concerned. To manage this
concern, the company may provide that customs
clearance services are done by professional
customs brokers. Can the company's employees,
who are not licensed customs brokers, assist
the customs brokers in processing the import
entries with customs? While this is not expressly
prohibited under RA 9280, customs rules however
provide that customs representatives must be
full-time and regular employees of the individual
customs broker duly accredited by the Bureau
of Customs. Can the logistics company pay the
duties and taxes, arrastre, wharfage, and other
port charges? Yes, logistics companies can pay
or advance the duties and taxes, arrastre, wharfage,
and other port charges. More so in the case
of DDP shipments where the importer has already
paid in advance such costs to the supplier.
What is expressly prohibited by law is for the
customs brokers to pay or advance such costs.
While companies can no longer engage in the
customs broker service, they are not however
prohibited from such financing activities. Is
the importer required to deal directly with
the customs broker? Can an importer authorize
the logistics company to hire a customs broker
to provide customs clearance services? There
is nothing in the law or the implementing rules
that require importers to deal only and directly
with customs brokers. Importers may authorize
their integrated logistics providers to hire
a customs broker, who is an independent service
provider, to provide customs clearance services.
Can an integrated logistics provider hire an
independent customs broker to "prepare,
sign, file and process" import declarations
with customs? So long as the independence and
arms' length nature of the customs broker service
is maintained, logistics companies may continue
to manage its importer-clients and outsource
customs clearance services to an independent
service provider - an individual customs broker
or a professional partnership.
Back to Top
Duties on Air
Freight Charges
IMPORTERS, customs brokers
and forwarders normally encounter problems clearing
air shipments with customs due to discrepancies
in the computation of duties and taxes arising
from variances in air freight charges provided
in the House Air Way Bill (HAWB) issued by the
freight forwarder/consolidator to the consignee/importer
as against charges provided in the Master Air
Way Bill (MAWB) issued by the air carrier to
a consolidator or freight forwarder.
The MAWB normally indicates higher charges
as against charges provided in the HAWB and
in many instances, customs will compute the
duties and taxes based on the air freight charges
in the MAWB.
The question for many is which air freight
charge is valid for purposes of computing the
taxes and duties on the imported article? What
are the relevant customs laws and rules on the
subject matter?
Background - Customs Valuation. The basis for
computing the taxes and duties is basically
the CIF (Cost, Insurance and Freight) or CIP
(Carriage and Insurance Paid ToÉ) invoice
value of the imported article. The CIF or CIP
terms of trade (INCOTERMS 2000) normally involve
the cost of the goods plus freight and insurance
charges. In other words, the dutiable value
is the transaction value, plus the cost of insurance
and freight, if not yet included in the price
paid or payable.
Under Section 201 of the Tariff and Customs
Code (TCCP), the dutiable value of an imported
article is the "transaction value, which
shall be the price actually paid or payable
for the goods when sold for export to the Philippines".
Stated otherwise, the primary basis for determining
the customs value is the price paid or payable
(Method 1 - Transaction Value).
RA 9135 and its implementing rules (CAO 5-2001
as amended by CAO 4-2004) provide that in determining
the transaction value, certain adjustments may
be made to the price actually paid or payable
for the imported goods being valued. These adjustments
are as follows: (a) commissions and brokerage
fees (except buying commissions); (b) cost of
containers; (c) cost of packing; (d) assists;
(e) royalties and license fees; (f) subsequent
proceeds that directly or indirectly accrue
to the supplier; (g) cost of transport to the
port of entry; (h) loading and handing charges
to the port of entry; and (i) cost of insurance.
Additions to the price paid or payable, however,
must be actually incurred before they could
be considered as part of the dutiable value.
Considering that among the additions mentioned
above, it is typically the insurance and freight
costs which are reflected in the invoice and
as such, customs has in practice considered
the CIF or CIP value as the basis for computing
the taxes and duties.
Tax and Duty Computation Technique. The general
formula for computing the taxes and duties on
an imported article is provided below.
|
Dutiable
Value (DV) |
|
(CIF
value plus other additions,
if applicable) |
| |
|
|
| Plus: |
|
|
| Customs
Duties |
|
DV x duty rate |
| Bank
Charges |
|
DV x .00125 |
| Brokerage
Fee |
|
Per CAO 1-2001 |
| Arrastre
Charge |
|
Per CMO 28-95 |
| Wharfage
Due |
|
Per CMO 28-95 |
| Documentary
Stamps |
|
Php265.00 |
| Import
Processing Fee |
|
Per CAO 2-2001 |
| Total |
|
Landed Cost |
| VAT
rate |
|
12% |
| VAT
Payable |
|
LC x VAT rate |
With the dutiable value generally based on
the CIF or CIP invoice value, what then is the
freight charge to be used in case there is a
variance in the charges reflected in the MAWB
and the HAWB?
Freight Charges as Actually Incurred. Under
Section 201, TCCP, additions to the transaction
value as incurred by the importer must be made
only "on the basis of objective and quantifiable
data". In principle therefore, the freight
charge to be used for arriving at the dutiable
value should be the actual charge paid by the
importer, which is in practice reflected in
HAWB and not in the MAWB.
To further clarify this issue, Customs Memorandum
Order (CMO) No. 21-2003 (Supplemental Guidelines
in the Determination of Air Freight Charges)
provides the guidelines in the determination
and application of air freight charges as a
component of the dutiable value for customs
purposes.
In particular and in case there is discrepancy
in the freight charges provided in the MAWB
and HAWB, CMO 21-2003 states that the air freight
charges to be applied shall be based on the
following:
a) The freight charges indicated in the Official
Receipt issued by the air carrier;
b) The freight charges paid as certified by
the carrier/consolidator on its stationery;
and
c) The amount indicated in the consolidated
manifest as freight charges, provided, however,
that the individual freight charges are indicated
in the different HAWBs.
CVCRRC –
Valuation and Classification Disputes
In a previous article (PortCalls,
April 10, 2006), we wrote about CMO 7-2007 which
provides for new rules governing assessment
disputes (valuation and classification issues)
brought before the Valuation and Classification
Review Committee (VCRC). With the establishment
of a review and ruling body known as Central
Valuation and Classification Review and Ruling
Committee (CVCRRC), what is now the impact of
the new rules on the existing VRCR procedures?
Doubt as to Value or Classification. Under
present customs rules and procedures, customs
has the right to satisfy itself as to the truth
or accuracy of any statement, document or declaration
presented for customs valuation purposes. The
documentary requirements to support the declarations
to customs normally include the commercial invoice,
packing list, bill of lading (or air way bill)
and other transport documents. When there is
an issue as to the value declared, additional
submissions may be required to support the following
position: (a) that there is a sale for export
and (b) that the declared price is the price
actually paid for the imported article covered
by the sale.
To answer the question of whether there is
a “sale for export”, the following
basic questions must first be addressed: (a)
who are the parties; (b) is there property involved;
(b) is there a transfer of ownership involving
a financial consideration; and (c) is there
exportation from one country to another. As
previously mentioned, a sale requires a “buyer”
who agrees to obtain certain goods for a certain
amount and a “seller” who agrees
to transfer ownership of those goods for the
said amount. And when parties agree, there is
a sale.
From a commercial perspective, a sale should
start with a tender offer or a purchase order,
followed by a confirmation or contract of sale.
The sale contract itself may contain the provisions
for payment. Normally, international sale transactions
are executed through banking institutions.
Sale for Export. Financial consideration in
a “sale for export” usually refers
to the payment. Payment may be made directly
or indirectly, may be made to a third party
if the supplier provides so, or may be made
in cash or in kind. Commercial transactions
usually involve the use of banking instruments
such as letters of credit, cable transfers,
negotiable instruments, etc. The submission
of the documentary evidence of the “sale
for export” and “price paid”
should serve as one of the bases for the acceptability
of the declared price to customs.
When customs rejects the declared price or
classification of importers in the import entry,
it is the burden of the importer to prove the
acceptability of the declarations to customs.
In such a case, the importer normally has two
options: (a) pay under protest and (b) request
for release under tentative liquidation.
Protest vs. Tentative Release. Customs rules
provide that when there is a dispute as to the
assessment of the collector of customs on the
liability of the importer for taxes and duties
payable on the imported goods, the importer
may file a written protest within 15 days from
payment of taxes and duties (Section 2308, TCCP).
The protest is normally filed with the law division
of the port concerned. In case of a favorable
ruling, the same shall be automatically reviewed
by the Commissioner of Customs and the Secretary
of Finance. A final ruling favorable to the
importer should result in the issuance of a
Tax Credit Certificate.
In case customs rejects the value or classification
declared for the imported article, another option
for the importer is to raise the issue before
the Valuation and Classification Review Committee
(VCRC) of the port (collection district) concerned.
A payment under protest is a tedious process.
In contrast and as provided in the old rules,
the procedure in the VCRC is summary in nature,
and in case of a favorable ruling, a tax refund
may immediately be issued to the importer. With
the issuance of CMO 7-2007, a decision favorable
to the importer is now subject to automatic
review of the CVRRC.
Review of VCRC Rulings. The general procedures
at the VCRC of the various collection districts
should still remain even with the issuance of
the CMO 7-2007. With regard to the old procedure
allowing the immediate issuance of the refund
check upon a favorable VCRC ruling, the new
rules will now require a ruling by the CVCRRC
affirming the VCRC ruling to allow the issuance
of the refund check.
As specifically provided in the new rules,
CVCRRC, headed by the Commissioner, shall now
automatically review or take cognizance of the
following: (a) VCRC cases pending for three
calendar months from filing; (b) VCRC rulings
favorable to the importer or adverse to the
government; (c) appeals from the VCRC rulings
filed within 15 days; and (d) review of the
Commissioner of Customs, motu propio or upon
written request by any office or unit of the
customs organization.
The new rules also empower the Office of the
Commissioner to review any VCRC decision, with
or without any appeal filed before the CVCRRC.
With this issuance, the procedures for valuation
and classification disputes under the VCRC system
have now become similar to the “Payment
under Protest” system. The major difference
though is that a CVCRRC ruling favorable to
the importer or adverse to the government is
not subject to automatic review by the Secretary
of Finance and a refund check, instead of a
tax credit certificate, is issued in case of
a favorable CVCRRC ruling to the importer.
Back to Top
CMO 20-2006:
Rules for Alcohol and Tobacco products
IN a previous column (January
30, 2006, Port-Calls), we wrote about the new
law passed last year governing alcohol and to-bacco
products. The Bureau of Customs (BoC) has recently
issued its guidelines to implement RA 9334 and
the implementing rules issued by the Bureau
of Internal Revenue (BIR), specifically RR 3-2006
and RMC 26-2006.
CMO 20-2006 was also issued to address the
specific implementation and operational issues
regarding importation of alcohol and tobacco
products especially those bound for duty-free
zones and those imported by international air
carriers and vessels.
RA 9334 and BIR RR-2006. Republic Act No. 9334,
entitled "An Act increasing the specific
tax rates imposed on alcohol and tobacco products
amending for the purpose Sections 141, 142,
143, 144, and 145 of the National Internal Revenue
Code of 1997, as amended", effectively
amended the provisions of the National Internal
Revenue Code (NIRC) pertaining to alcohol and
tobacco products. To most people, RA 9334 was
known for increasing the excise tax rates of
alcohol and tobacco products. The increase in
the excise tax rates resulted in higher retail
prices for these products.
To clarify the provisions of RA 9334, the Bureau
of Internal Revenue (BIR) recently issued Revenue
Regulation No. 3-2006 "Prescribing
the Implementing Guidelines on the Revised Tax
Rates on Alcohol and Tobacco Products Pursuant
to the Provisions of Republic Act No. 9334,
and Clarifying Certain Provisions of Existing
Revenue Regulations Relative Thereto".
Other than the increase in excise tax rates,
there are many other provisions in the new law
which now impact on how companies trade in alcohol
and tobacco products. RR 3-2006 and CMO 20-2006
have now highlighted many of these seemingly
unimportant provisions.
Tax and Duty on All Products. Under the CMO,
importation into the duly chartered economic
and free port zones and duty free shops shall
be governed by the customs order and any alcohol
or tobacco products entering through a free
port and special economic zone shall be deemed
to have entered Philippine customs territory
"upon unloading thereof from the carrying
vessel".
Before the passage of RA 9334, imported tobacco
or alcohol products bound for free trade or
export processing zones were exempted from all
kinds of duties and taxes. The new law and the
CMO have now withdrawn such exemption. Specifically,
Section 12 (Importation of an alcohol or tobacco
product by Duty-Free Shops, or into Economic
Zones and Freeport Zones) of RR 3-2006 expressly
provide that importation of alcohol or tobacco
products, even if destined for tax and duty-free
shops or legislated free ports, shall be subject
to all applicable taxes, duties, charges, including
excise taxes thereon.
As provided in Section II.C of the CMO, importations
of government-owned and operated duty-free shops,
excise and value added taxes shall likewise
be paid even if the exemption on customs duties
remains.
Labels on Alcohol and Tobacco Products. Section
II.C of the CMO expressly provides that appropriate
phrases such as "For Domestic Sale Only",
"For Export Only", "For Export
to the Philippines: Tax and Duty Paid"
and "Duty Free and Not for Resale"
shall be prominently placed on the face of the
label and all sides of secondary containers
of the imported alcohol and tobacco products.
Cigars and cigarettes, distilled spirits and
wines and similar products sold in the domestic
market or found within the premises of free
trade zones or duty-free shops without the proper
labels or markings shall be subject to seizure
and forfeiture proceedings and the subsequent
destruction of such imported articles.
Transshipment of Imported Products. In addition
to the new rules governing importation of alcohol
and tobacco products into export processing
and free trade zones, RR 3-2006 and CMO 20-2006
likewise provide new procedures for transshipment
of such goods. Under the CMO, alcohol or tobacco
products intended for transshipment shall not
be subject to the imposition and payment of
duty, excise and value added taxes under the
following conditions:
a) Foreign port of destination clearly indicated
in cargo manifest;
b) Alcohol and tobacco shipment must remain
at all times at port of arrival and must not
be transferred/transported to any other port
of entry;
c) The products must be transported abroad within
15 days;
d) If the products for transshipment are unloaded
at the port of arrival prior to transport to
the foreign port of destination, a guaranty
(bond, letter of credit, bank guaranty or cash)
must be posted in an amount equivalent to the
duties and taxes otherwise due on the shipment;
and
e) Submission within 6 months of any document
showing that the products have been transshipped.
Penalties for Non-Liquidation of Guaranty. With
regard to the requirements for the cancellation
or release of the guaranty, the last paragraph
of Section II.D of the CMO provides the bond
shall be liquidated by submission of proof of
actual shipment of the alcohol or tobacco products.
Non liquidation of the bond within the effective
life of the guaranty (e.g. bank guaranty, surety
bonds) shall be subject to sanctions and penalties
as provided under related customs rules and
regulations.
Back to Top
RP to Adopt
the Revised Kyoto Convention
THERE are at present two proposed
legislation pending in Congress which, if not
studied fully, may impact nega-tively on how
companies conduct their business across international
borders. One is the anti-smuggling bill which
accordingly will violate various Philippine
commitments under the WTO, the Harmonized System
and the AHTN protocol. In the guise of preventing
smuggling in the country, the proposed bill
has provisions that will not only cause delays
in the movement of goods but will also create
barriers to international trade.
Another pending legislation
is the proposed fiscal reforms bill which intends
to reduce certain incentives provided to the
exporting community.
Amidst the growing opposition to these proposed
legislation, the Philippine government recently
announced its plan to accede to the Revised
Kyoto Convention (RKC) by 2007 and adopt the
international best practices on customs procedures.
This announcement is very significant because
many provisions of the proposed anti-smuggling
bill are likewise contrary to the principles
of the RKC. In addition, many of the best practices
proposed in the RKC have yet to be adopted by
the Philippines. Thus, accession to RKC will
require a major overhaul of the present tariff
and customs code as well as existing customs
procedures and operating systems.
Revised Kyoto Convention. The Revised Kyoto
Convention is more formally known as the "International
Convention on the Simplification and Harmonization
of Customs procedures (Kyoto Convention)"
which entered into force in 1974. In order to
meet the demands of governments and international
trade, the original convention was revised and
updated. The WCO Council adopted the Revised
Kyoto Convention in June 1999 as the model for
efficient and modern customs procedures in the
21st century. To date, there are 46 countries
signatory to the convention.
Designed to standardize and harmonize customs
policies and procedures worldwide, the RKC also
serves to implement customs-related principles
developed by the WTO, such as the agreements
contained in Article V (Freedom of Transit),
Article VIII (Fees & Formalities Connected
with Importation and Exportation) and Article
X (Publication & Administration of Trade
Regulations) of the GATT 1994.
The RKC consists of the Body of the Convention,
the General Annex, and the Specific Annexes.
The Convention and the General Annex are obligatory
to all signatories while the Specific Annex,
which contains standards and recommended practices,
is not. Accession to the Specific Annex is therefore
optional.
The General Annex contains the core principles
of the RKC and provides standards and transitional
standards, all of which are mandatory to the
signatory country. As a whole, the convention
provides a comprehensive set of over 600 legal
and technical provisions outlining the basic
principles of modern customs procedures and
practices.
Principles of the RKC. Foremost among the governing
principles of the RKC is the commitment by customs
administrations to provide transparency and
predictability for those in the gateway community,
particularly the importing, exporting, logistics,
transport and forwarding industries. The convention
promotes trade facilitation and effective controls
through its legal provisions that detail the
application of simple yet efficient procedures.
The convention also contains new and obligatory
rules for its application which all contracting
parties must accept without reservation.
Specifically, the RKC provides core principles
for the following:
a) Predictability (standard principles for
customs processing of goods, conveyances and
persons moving across borders - clearance procedures)
b) Transparency (provides all information relating
to customs)
c) Legal (prevents arbitrary or unfair actions
by customs)
d) Use of Information Technology
Benefits to Stakeholders. While it may be quite
a while for the Philippines to accede to the
RKC and comply with its principles and standards,
many in the international trading community
are already anticipating the benefits that will
result from compliance and implementation of
the convention.
For those engaged in international trade, compliance
with the convention will result in the implementation
of new rules that will effectively reduce transaction
costs, avoid delays in the release and clearance
process, and simplify procedures for traders
with a good compliance record. For a government
with very limited resources and dealing with
an ever growing volume of trade transactions,
it will enhance revenue collection, increase
economic efficiency and, provide better security
and protection. Customs authorities will also
have a more effective and efficient deployment
of its scarce resources.
In summary, traders will benefit from improved
facilitation and reduced costs while shippers
and transport providers will benefit from uniform
customs controls and faster movement of people
and goods. Customs will also benefit from modern
controls that will plug revenue leakage and
enhance border security.
Back to Top
WTO Review
of Free Trade Agreements
The continuing failure of WTO
members to enter into major agreements starting
three years ago has made many countries participate
in numerous regional and bilateral trade agreements.
Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs), which include
bilateral free trade agreements between countries
that are not in the same region, have become
so widespread that only one WTO member is not
party to any RTA, with the vast majority of
WTO members party to one or more RTAs.
In the Asia-Pacific region, many of the trade
negotiations involve the ASEAN member countries
and the major trading countries of Asia. Specifically,
the regional agreements between ASEAN and the
big three Asian countries (China, Japan and
Korea) are in various stages of negotiations
or implementation. Last January 12, 2006, the
Philippine government issued EO No. 487, which
effectively reduced the tariff rates of certain
imported articles from China and other ASEAN
countries as part of the normal track agreement
under the ASEAN-China Free Trade Area (ACFTA)
framework.
While RTAs are being negotiated by ASEAN with
its neighboring countries, the Philippines has
likewise entered into its own bilateral trade
agreement with China and this is now being implemented.
The RP-Japan agreement is still being negotiated.
WTO Review of RTAs. Last July 1, 2006, the
WTO Director-General officially announced the
formal approval of the new WTO Transparency
Agreement governing these RTAs. Accordingly,
the WTO Negotiating Group on Rules has forwarded
the decision to the Trade Negotiations Committee.
Current estimate is that more than half of world
trade is now conducted under RTAs.
Officially, 197 RTAs have been notified to
the WTO, with an additional 70 estimated to
be operational although not yet notified. By
2006, if RTAs reportedly planned or already
under negotiation are concluded, the total number
of RTAs in force will be approaching300.
Committee on RTAs. As a background, a Committee
on RTAs was created in 1996 to replace separate
working parties that have examined these agreements
since the establishment of the WTO. However,
differences among member countries on the interpretation
of the criteria for assessing the consistency
of RTAs with WTO rules have resulted in a huge
backlog of uncompleted reports in said committee.
In fact, only one case to date has reached consensus
on WTO consistency – the customs union
between the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic
after the break up of Czechoslovakia.
Transparency Mechanism. Among the major provisions
of the new transparency mechanism are as follows:
a) Early announcement of any RTA and notification
to the WTO;
b) WTO members will consider the notified RTAs
on the basis of a factual presentation by the
WTO Secretariat;
c) The Committee on Regional Trade Agreements
will conduct the review of RTAs falling under
Article XXIV of General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade (GATT) and Article V of the General
Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS);
d) The Committee on Trade and Development will
conduct the review of RTAs falling under the
Enabling Clause (trade arrangements between
developing countries);
e) The transparency mechanism is to be implemented
on a provisional basis (Members are to review
and, if necessary, modify the decision, and
replace it with a permanent mechanism adopted
as part of the overall results of the Doha Round);
Purpose of the Mechanism. Under the agreement,
WTO member countries like the Philippines have
the following specific obligations:
a) Members participating in new negotiations
aimed at the conclusion of an RTA shall endeavor
to inform the WTO; and
b) Member parties to a newly signed RTA shall
convey to the WTO, in so far as and when it
is publicly available, information on the RTA,
including its official name, scope and date
of signature, any foreseen timetable for its
entry into force or provisional application,
relevant contact points and/or website addresses,
and any other relevant unrestricted information.
The formal approval of the new transparency
mechanism on RTAs (which include the ASEAN agreements
and the Philippines’ own bilateral agreements),
will help prevent the continuing logjam in the
WTO on RTAs. The mechanism will also ensure
that RTAs promote international trade and not
become stumbling blocks to world trade.
For the Philippines, existing agreements with
other countries, including the ASEAN framework,
will have to be reviewed for consistency with
the trade rules under the WTO.
Back to Top
A
licensed customs broker, the writer is an international
trade, indirect tax and customs consultant.
He has a Certificate in Purchasing and Supply
Management from International Trade Centre (UNCTAD/WTO)
and is an accredited trainer of Ateneo Graduate
School of Business.
Please contact aouvero@customsadvocates.com
or (632) 4050021 / 29 for your comments or questions..
You are now viewing: Across
Borders Archives : 2006 Q2
Back to top |
