Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2010)31 - EU position within the Joint Committee EU-Palestinian Authority with regard to the amendment of Annex II of Protocol 3, concerning the list of working or processing required to be carried out on non-originating materials in order that the product manufactured can obtain originating status, pursuant to the entry into force of the Harmonised System 2007 - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2010)31 - EU position within the Joint Committee EU-Palestinian Authority with regard to the amendment of Annex II of Protocol 3, ... |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2010)31  |
| date | 09-02-2010 |
Grounds for and objectives of the proposal
The World Customs Organisation (WCO) released its latest amendment to the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System, generally referred to as 'Harmonised System' (HS). This amendment took effect from 1 January 2007.
The HS nomenclature is a goods classification system used by more than 190 countries, including the European Union and its Member States, as a basis for their Customs tariffs and for the collection of international trade statistics.
The WCO is responsible for the HS and revises the system at regular intervals, every five years, to ensure it reflects changes in technology or in patterns of international trade.
The list rules contained in Annex II to the protocol on the definition of the concept of originating products and methods of administrative co-operation (the origin protocol) included in the then Community agreements with third countries are based on the HS.
For the agreements in force, Annex II is based on the 2002 version of the HS. As some of the changes made at the 2007 version had an impact on the list rules, Annex II to the origin protocols has been amended in order to maintain the status quo in terms of rules of origin, since the revision of the HS is never intended to change the rules of origin.
The modifications concern seven chapters of the HS, namely 28 (chemicals), 30 (pharmaceutical products), 38 (miscellaneous), 65 (hats and other headgear), 84 and 85 (machinery) and 95 (toys).
These amendments were discussed by the experts of the Pan-Euro-Med Working Group, which is composed of representatives of the European Commission, of the Member States, the EFTA countries (Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland), the EFTA secretariat, Turkey, the Faeroe Islands, Andorra and San Marino and the countries which participate in the Euro-Mediterranean partnership, based on the Barcelona Declaration adopted in 1995.
General context
The 2007 revision of the HS had an impact on the preferential rules of origin. This lead to the amendment of the list rules contained in Annex II to the origin protocol of the then Community agreements with the following third countries: Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, the Faroe Islands, Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) for the benefit of the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey (for agricultural products and for coal and steel products) and within the European Economic Area.
Annex II is the same in each of the origin protocols to the fore-mentioned agreements. The draft decisions to amend Annex II are adopted by the relevant association council or equivalent foreseen in the various agreements. For this reason, there is one Annex II and fourteen draft decisions here attached.
As regards the Community agreement with Syria, the amendments of Annex II have recently been introduced in the framework of the overall adaptation of the association agreement.
As regards the Community agreement with Lebanon, the relevant decision for the amendment of Annex II to the origin protocol is here included because Annex II to the origin protocol in force is the same as Annex II to the pan-euro-med origin protocol, even if Lebanon has not yet adopted the pan-euro-med origin protocol.
Existing provisions in the area of the proposal
The origin protocols to the fore-mentioned Community agreements were last amended in order to extend the pan-European cumulation of origin to the Mediterranean countries. Lebanon has not yet adopted the pan-Euro-Med origin protocol.
Consistency with the other policies and objectives of the Union
The proposed decisions are consistent with the Union policies concerning the importation or exportation of goods.
consultation of interested parties and impact assessment
Consultation of interested parties
Interested parties were consulted in the framework of the Pan-Euro-Med Working Group and the final text of this proposal is the result of the discussions within this Group.
Collection and use of expertise
There was no need for external expertise.
Impact assessment
There is no need for an impact assessment insofar as the amendments proposed are merely technical and do not modify the substance of the current origin protocol.
Summary of the proposed action
Annex II to the origin protocol to the fore-mentioned Community agreements with third countries, pursuant to the entry into force of the Harmonised System 2007, is amended and here entirely reproduced.
Legal basis
Article 207 i first subparagraph, in conjunction with Article 218 i of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Subsidiarity principle
The proposal falls under the exclusive competence of the Union. The subsidiarity principle therefore does not apply.
Proportionality principle
The proposal complies with the proportionality principle for the following reason(s).
There is no other option in the present case. Therefore this is the simplest measure possible.
There is no extra financial and administrative burden.
Choice of in struments
Proposed instruments: Council decision
Other means would not be adequate for the following reason(s).
The entry into force of the Harmonised System 2007 implies an amendment of the origin protocol. The amendment of the list rules, like the origin protocol and its annexes, shall be done by a decision of the association council or equivalent foreseen in each agreement.
The proposal has no implication for the Union budget.
additional information
A review, revision or sunset clause is not foreseen.