Problems of the Rules of Origin in the EU and the NAFTA : the Need to Expedite Completion of WTO Work for Harmonization

柳炳云 법무부 2004 통상법률 Vol.- No.57

Today, determining "where a product comes from" is very difficult when raw materials and parts cross the globe to become components of goods that may become in turn the components of other goods that are manufactured in many plants in several different countries. Moreover, the different rules of origin around the world are really varied and complicated. Many of the major trading countries have more than one set of preferential rules, as well as more than one set of non-preferential rules. Present various and complicated rules of origin may provoke lots of unnecessary trade controversies and obstacles to international trade, as well as increased transaction costs. To date, the WTO has not implemented a uniform regime for the harmonized rules of origin, which was scheduled to be accomplished within three years after the initiation of the harmonization work program. Thus far, countries have used different rules with different criteria to determine the origin of certain goods. Accordingly, they have sometimes experienced severe incompatibility problems as well as the use of the rules as disguised barriers to international trade. The work program for the harmonized rules of origin was to be initiated as soon as the completion of the Uruguay Round. The work would be conducted by a Committee on Rules of Origin (CRO) in the WTO and a technical committee (TCRO) under the auspices of the Customs Cooperation Council in Brussels According to the schedule, the harmonized rules should have been completed by July 1998. While, some substantial progress has been achieved in the CRO and the TCRO, the work program for the harmonization could not be finalized within the estimated deadline. In December 2000, the General Council Special Session agreed to set, as the new deadline for the completion of the remained work, the Fourth Session of the Ministerial Conference at least by the end of 2001. The WTO, however, did not meet this deadline, even though it has by now largely completed the work with the exception of a few outstanding issues. The official reason for continued delay by the WTO was that the work was turned out to be more complicated than anticipated and several time extensions were required. However a look into the proceedings reveals a strong incentive for the established regional blocs, such as the EU and NAFTA, not to agree with the harmonized rules of origin. The established regional blocs enjoin advantages under the present regime of various and independent rules of origin. Sometimes, the use of rules of origin has a protectionist effect benefiting domestic industries. Thus although rules of origin may not be explicitly used for protectionist purposes, there is unavoidably a restrictive effect which discourages external source, and to a degree, free trade. Until the completion of the harmonization program, WTO members are required to ensure that their rules of origin are transparent that they do not have restricted, distorted or disruptive effects on international trade. Rules of origin must also be administered in a consistent and reasonable manner, and based on a positive standard. It is anticipated that rules of origin clearly define what criteria establish origin rather than what do not In reality, however, these guidelines are too weak to check the abuse of rules of origin as disguised protectionist measures. Because of the incentives not to agree to the harmonized rules of origin, the EU and the NAFTA member counties, especially the United States, are not actively pursuing completion of the work program for the harmonization. Even though the WTO Agreement on Rules of Origin seeks to have its members comply with neutrality and transparency principles in implementing their rules of origin, rules of origin (including changing criteria in the rules) could be used for raising barriers to international trade, especially for the policies of major regional blocs, such as the EU and NAFTA. The examples are 1) lack of transparency in implement of the rules; 2) discretionary interpretation of the criteria in the rules; 3) complexity of the rules; 4) sudden and significant change of a criteria in the rules; 5) presumption of circumvention 6) denial of standing to challenge decisions regarding origin and 7) restrictions and the increase of restrictions on third country inputs. The restrictive effects of rules of origin could be drastically reduced by the establishment of a world-wide harmonized system governing rules of origin. Therefore, rapid completion of the WTO Work for Harmonization is very important Harmonization will further the ultimate objectives of the WTO and neutralize the trade disadvantages of nations which are not members of significant RTAs.

특혜원산지규정에 대한 국제통상규범의 적용 범위

이진규(Lee, Jin-Kyu) 한양법학회 2018 漢陽法學 Vol.29 No.3

Preferential rules of origin aim to ensure that only goods produced by the parties to the FTA have the right to enjoy the benefits generated by the agreement and that the third parties cannot generate circumstances in which they benefit from the concession. Thus, in order to ensure that the FTA cannot grant any rights to non-member states, the preferential rules of origin system seeks for a purpose that is distinct from the non-preferential rules of origin system. In addition, the main scope of non-preferential rules of origin is to distinguish goods subject to trade restrictions through goods subject to the MFN treatment set out in Article 1 of GATT, whereas the focus of preferential rules of origin is that the preferential trade agreement does not grant specific rights or impose specific obligation to the third parties. As such, it is natural to assume that preferential rules of origin and non-preferential rules of origin can`t be harmonized with each other. `Common Declaration with Regard to Preferential Rules of Origin`, which constitutes Annex II to `the Agreement on Rules of Origin`, is not legally binding. However, provisions of the declaration may affect the interpretation of binding regulations under WTO agreements, such as art. 24 of GATT, concerning the rules of origin included in preferential trade agreements. In that the declaration reflects commitment among WTO members on appropriate standards of conduct, the rules of the declaration can be some kind of pressure on member states to match the action standards on it. The FTA system is based on the idea that all agreements are equal and exist independently of each other. This, however, requires all member states to recognize the territorial scope of other member states in implementing a set of common rules of origin and should be based on cooperation between various tariff authorities based on transparency. Although the related provisions of the WTO system are insufficient and the aspects of the regulation are very simple, it is not too doubtful that the multilateral international trade norms represented by the WTO agreements will apply to preferential rules of origin. If, on a macro level, symbolical regulations such as `Common Declaration with Regard to Preferential Rules of Origin` can be interpreted significantly and a general international trade norm, such as the principle of transparency, can be applied to preferential rules of origin, other norms can be applied step by step, thereby seeking harmony between the preferential and non-preferential rules of origin.

중국의 비특혜원산지규정에 관한 고찰

최송자 법무부 2010 통상법률 Vol.- No.93

원산지규정은 물품의 원산국 또는 원산지역을 확정하기 위해 사용하는 법률, 규정 및 일반적으로 적용되는 행정적 명령이다. 원산지규정은 적용범위에 따라 크게 비특혜 원산지규정과 특혜원산지규정으로 구분된다. 중국에서 비특혜원산지규정은 1986년부터 제정되었다. 초기에 중국은 수입물품과 수출물품에 대해 각기 다른 원산지규정을 제정하고 차별된 전략을 구사하였지만 WTO 가입 이후 수출품과 수입품에 공통으로 적용되는 통일원산지규정을 제정하였다. 이 논문에서는 중국의 비특혜원산지규정 전반에 대하여 분석하였다. 먼저 중국의 비특혜원산지규정의 변천과정에 대해서 살펴보고, 다음은 현행 비특혜원산지규정을 실체적 및 절차적 규정으로 나누어 살펴보았다. 마지막으로 중국의 현행 비특혜원산지규정을 긍정적 측면과 부정적 측면으로 나누어 평가하였다. 중국의 현행 비특혜원산지규정은 WTO 가입양허에 부합되고 국제관례에 부합된다. 그러나 아직 초기단계에 처해 있어 많은 문제점들이 존재하므로 개선이 필요하다. Rules of origins are law, regulation and general administration order to confirm the goods origin country, where goods are produced or processed. There are two kinds of the rules of origin, preferential rules of origin and non-preferential rules of origin. China's non-preferential rules of origin was established in 1986. They were divided into two categories: import and export rules of origin. However, after accession to the WTO, China established a single set of rules of origin for all import and export goods. This paper deals with overall analysis of China's non-preferential rules of origin. Firstly, it reviews the process of changes of the non-preferential rules of origin in China. Secondly, the substantial and procedural legal aspects of current non-preferential rules of origin are reviewed. Finally, the current non-preferential rules of origin are discussed from both the negative and positive view of point. China's non-preferential rules of origin are consistent with the WTO rules and international trade norms, which are still in developing stage, and have many problems to be addressed in the future.

원가족 규칙이 부부갈등에 미치는 영향에 관한 기술연구

조미라(Cho mi ra) 한국복지실천학회 2016 한국복지실천학회지 Vol.7 No.2

본 연구의 목적은 가족규칙과 부부갈등의 이론적 배경과 선행연구에 대하여 알아보고 부부의 원가족 규칙과 부부갈등과는 어떠한 관계가 있고 그 영향력은 어떠한지를 탐색하고자 하는 것이다. 본 연구의 대상은 경기도에 거주하며 교회, 병원, 학원 등 3개 기관을 임의 표집한 후 이들 기관과 관련된 기혼자 50명중 남자 20명, 여자 30명을 대상으로 하였다. 연구도구는 원가족의 가족규칙을 측정하기 위해 이종원(2002)이 제작한 원가족 가족규칙 척도를 수정하여 사용하였다. 생활규칙 1~3번(3문항), 성역할에 관한 규칙 4~6번(3문항), 위계에 관한 규칙7~8번(2문항), 감정 규칙9~10번(2문항)으로 총 10개 문항을 제시하여 주고 나머지 10개 문항은 빈칸으로 직접 기록하도록 개방형질문지 형태로 구성하였다. 또한 자신에게 해당되는 문항과 자신이 느끼는 배우자에게 해당되는 문항을 기록하도록 구성하였다. 자료수집 및 절차를 위해 본 설문은 2011년 4월 24일부터 5월 3일까지 실시하였다. 조사대상자는 기혼자를 대상으로 교회, 병원, 학원 등을 방문하여 실시하였으며, 총 60부의 설문지를 배포하였으나 그 중 53부, 88.3%만이 회수되었고 이 중 무응답이 많거나 조건에 맞지 않는 설문지 3부를 제외하고 50부만을 분석에 사용하였다. 본 연구의 결과를 요약하면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 남편, 부인이 지각하는 원가족의 가족규칙은 생활규칙, 위계규칙, 도덕적 관념에 관련된 규칙에서 높게 지각하는 것으로 나타났으며, 이는 위계가 강하고 예를 중요시하고 가부장적 문화의 한국사회에서 가족규칙을 더 의식해야 하는 역할에서 기인된 것으로 사료된다. 둘째, 원가족의 가족규칙 중 부부간 갈등을 갖게 한 규칙에서 남편들은 생활규칙에서 부인들은 성과 성역할 규칙에서 크게 기인하고 있는 것으로 서로 다르게 나타났으며, 이는 우리나라 가족구조상 권력우위에 있는 남성들의 영향력에 대한 여성으로서의 인식에서 비롯된 것으로 사료된다. 여성은 부부간에 성역할 고정관념에서 탈피한 양성평등적인 시각을 원하고 있음을 시사해 주는 것을 알 수 있다. 셋째, 자신의 삶과 다른 사람에게 지키도록 강요하고 있는 규칙에서 남편들과 부인들 모두 생활규칙영역에서 높게 지각하고 있었으며, 감정규칙영역과 위계규칙영역에서도 영향을 받고 있었음을 알 수 있었다. 본 연구를 통하여 원가족의 가족규칙이 부부갈등에 미치는 영향력이 있음을 보여주고 있다. 어린시절 부모가 요구해서 자연스럽게 받아들인 혹은 원하지 않았지만 받아들일 수 밖에 없었던 가족규칙들이 현재 우리 삶속에 여전히 깊이 잔존해 역동하고 있으며, 서로 다른 환경에서 살아온 부부에게는 부정적인 요인으로 작용함을 보여주고 있다. 따라서 본 연구에서 보여주고 있는 현재 우리나라의 가족구조와 가족의식에서 지각하고 있는 원가족의 가족규칙의 과도한 영향으로부터 독립적이며 동시에 친밀한 관계를 유지하여 부부간에 갈등을 극복하고 건강한 가정을 이루어 가야할 필요성이 있다는데 본 연구의 의의를 찾을 수 있다고 생각된다. The purpose of this study is to examine theoretical background and preceding re-searches on the rules from the family of origin and marital conflicts, and to explore what relationship there is between the rules from the married couple's families of ori-gin and their conflicts and what the influences are. The subjects of the study reside in Gyeonggi-do Province, and after random sampling of 3 institutions including a church, a hospital, and a private educational academy, 20 males and 30 females among 50 mar-ried people related to these institutions were investigated. The criterion of the family rules from the family of origin which Jong-Won Lee(2002) produced was modified and employed as a tool of the research to measure the family rules from the family of origin. Life rules question number 1~3(3 questions), gender role rules 4~6(3 questions), hierarchy rules 7~8(2 questions), emotion rules 9~10(2 questions), 10 questions in total were given along with 10 open-ended questions for them to write down on their own. Also, the questions were made up of the ones that are relevant to themselves, and the ones that are relevant to how they think of their spouses. As for profiling and procedure, the survey was conducted from April 24th, 2011 to May 3rd, 2011. The subjects were married people and the survey was done in a church, a hospital, and a private educational academy. The total number of the given out ques-tionnaires was 60 but only 53 of them, 88.3%, were given back, and among those, 3 too many non-responses or incorrect questionnaires were excluded, that is only 50 were used for the analysis. The summary of the research is as in the following: First, the family rules from the family of origin that the husband and wife perceive turned out to be highly perceived on the life rules, the hierarchy rules, and the amoral rules. It seems that it is caused by the roles of people being more conscious of family rules in Korean society, which can be marked by the strong family hierarchy, emphasiz-ing courtesy, and the patriarchal culture. Second, among the family rules from the family of origin, the rules that remarkably cause couples come into a conflict were the life rules for the husbands and the gender role rules for the wives. This is considered to be from the women's thought on men's influences who hold dominant positions in Korean families. This shows that women desire equal-gender point of view shedding the stereotype gender roles. Third, as for the rules that they impose him or herself and others, husbands and wives were both being aware of the life rules. That they were also being influenced by the emotion rules and the hierarchy rules could be seen. Through the study, it shows that the family rules from the family of origin do af-fect married couples' conflicts. The family rules that naturally or oppressively absorbed by the parents during the childhood still exist deeply in people's lives and negatively contribute to the couples who have grown up in different environments. Thus, the meanings of this study can be found on the necessity of being independent from the excessive influences from the family rules from the family of origin that Korean family structures and values perceive, overcoming marital conflicts by maintaining an intimate relation, and having a healthy family.

한국의 주요 FTA별 원산지 결정기준의 비교와 시사점

정재우(Jae-Woo Jung),이길남(Kil-Nam Lee) 한국통상정보학회 2011 통상정보연구 Vol.13 No.3

현재 원산지 규정이 국제무역상 쟁점으로 등장하게 된 주된 이유는 원산지규정이 각 국가마다 상이할 뿐만 아니라 그 자체의 불명확성, 복잡성, 차별적 적용 가능성으로 인해 상당한 무역장벽으로 작용하고 있기 때문이다. 또한, 생산의 글로벌화 글로벌 기업 활동이 증가함에 따라 2개국 이상에 걸쳐 생산된 물품이 증가하여 해당품목으로 원산지가 어디인지 결정 문제가 발생하는 사례가 발생한다. 본 연구에서는 원산지규정에 관한 가장 기초적이고 기본적인 연구로 원산지 결정기준에 대해 연구하였다. 이를 위해 한·미국 FTA, 한·EU FTA, 한·ASEAN FTA 원산지규정을 연구 대상으로 하여 관련 사례를 구체적으로 분석하여, 상호 비교를 통해 시사점을 파악하고자 하였다. 분석 결과, 한·미 FTA, 한·EU FTA와 한·ASEAN별로 원산지결정은 부가가치기준(value percentage/content), HS 세번변경기준(change of tariff heading), 특정공정기준(specific process rule) 등이 이용되며 실질변형기준은 한·미 FTA에서는 역내에서 창출된 부가가치가 일정 수준 이상이면 그 국가를 원산지로 인정하는 방식(RVC : Regional Value Content)을 인정하고 있으며, 한편, 한·EU FTA에서는 역외산 부품 및 원재료의 금액이나 수량이 일정 기준 이하로 사용되는 경우 원산지자격을 부여하는 방식(MC : Import Content)을 인정하고 있다. This paper describes the characteristics and outline of rules of origin among Korea and USA, EU, ASEAN. The main focus of this paper is to conduct comparative analysis on rules of origin. Rules of origin are used to determine the country of origin of a product for purposes of international trade. There are two common types of rules of origin depending upon application, the preferential and non-preferential rules of origin Non-preferential rules of origin are used to determine the country of origin for certain purposes. The basis for the non-preferential rules originates from the Kyoto convention which states that if a product is wholly obtained or produced completely within one country the product shall be deemed having origin in that country. For a product which has been produced in more than one country, the product shall be determined to have origin in the country where the last substantial transformation took place. To determine exactly what was the last substantial transformation, three general rules are applied : Change of tariff classification(on any level, though 4-digit level is the most common), Value added-rule.(ad-valorem), and Specific process rule. While criteria of wholly obtained or produced in one country is almost similar to those of theses area and countries, in compliance with value percentages of Substantial Transformation, sufficient working or processing, Korea-US FTA adapts 'Regional Value Content', meanwhile Korea-EU FTA adapts 'Import Content' rule. Finally, Korea-US FTA and ASEAN FTA adapt FOB price for the calculation value added, on the other hand Korea-EU FTA adapts EXW price.

일본 원산지규정상의 원산지 판정기준

채형복 법무부 2009 통상법률 Vol.- No.86

일본의 원산지 관련법은 크게 통상법 분야와 경쟁법 분야로 나눌 수 있으나 대외무역과 관련하여 중요성은 가지는 것은 전자이다. 그 가운데서도 특히 관세법과 그 관련법에서 원산지에 대해 규율하고 있다. 우리나라와 마찬가지로 일본도 특혜원산지규칙과 비특혜원산지규칙으로 나뉘어 규정되어 있다. 전자에 속하는 대표적인 것으로는 일반특혜관세제도(GSP)와 경제협력협정(EPA) 그리고 자유무역협정(FTA)이다. 최근 일본에서도 개방적인 대외무역정책의 일환으로 특혜원산지규칙이 확대·적용되고 있는 추세이다. 원산지 판정기준은 크게 완전생산기준과 실질적 변형기준으로 나눌 수 있다. 완전생산기준이란 상품이 한 국가 내에서 완전하게 생산된 경우에 그 국가를 원산지로 간주하는 판정방식을 말한다. 이 기준에 의하면, 살아있는 가축, 수확된 농산물, 채굴된 광물 등 그 생산이 일개국(一個國)에서 완결되어 있을 것을 직접적인 조건으로 한다. 그리고 실질적 변형기준이란 물품이 2개국 이상에 걸쳐 생산된 경우, 그 물품에 실질적 변화를 가져오는 행위를 최종적으로 행한 국가를 원산지로 판정하는 것을 말한다. 이 기준에는 세번변경기준, 주요공정기준 및 부가가치기준이 사용되고 있다. 원산지 판정기준에 있어서 일본은 우리나라와 마찬가지로 세번변경기준을 원칙적인 기준으로 하고 필요에 따라 가공공정기준과 부가가치기준을 보충적으로 적용하고 있다. 또한 관세법과 관세법 관련 법령뿐만 아니라 관세법기본통달을 통해 원산지 판정에 관한 세부 적용 원칙을 정하고 있는 점은 주의를 요한다. 다양한 기본통달 가운데 관세법기본통달 68-3-5는 원산지 판정에 있어 가장 핵심적인 내용에 해당한다. 일본의 원산지제도는 관세법규에서 규정되고 있는데, 이는 우리나라의 제도에 시사하는 바가 적지 않다. 우리의 경우, 대외무역법과 관세법에서 각각 원산지에 관한 규정을 둠으로써 그 해석과 적용의 통일성을 기하기 어렵고, 주무 기관도 지식경제부와 관세청으로 이원화됨으로써 효율적인 원산지정책을 수립하기 어렵다는 문제점이 있다. 따라서 우리나라도 원산지 주무 기관을 일원화시킬 필요가 있으리라 판단된다. The rules of origin in Japan are divided with two parts, trade and competition section, but the former is more important in the foreign trade relationships. In particular, it is the Customs Law which regulates the country of origin in Japan. There are two types of rules of origin, that is, the preferential and the non-preferential rules of origin. The former contains General Systems of Preferences(GSP), Economic Partnership Agreement(EPA) and Free Trade Agreement(FTA). It seems that the preferential rules of origin are recently developing and applying in Japan for open foreign trade policy. The criterion for country of origin contains Wholly Obtained Criterion(WOC) and Substantial Transformation Criterion(STC). According to the WOC, a goods which is wholly obtained or proceeded in the territory of one country, for example, the living animals, agricultural and mineral products, considers as a country of origin. And the STC is applied to the goods whose substantial transformation is determined by change in tariff schedule, process criteria and value added criteria. In determining the criteria of origin, the japanese rules refer to basically the change in tariff schedule, but use complementary the process criteria and value added criteria, if necessary. And we should pay attention to understanding that the japanese rules of origin are based on not only the Customs Law and the related laws but also the Basic Mastery of Customs Law. Among the Basic Mastery of Customs law, the number of '68-3-5' is a core instrument in order to determine the country of origin. The japanese model, which regulates the rules of origin in the Customs Law, implies our country's system in rules of origin. In Korea, the Foreign Trade Act and the Customs Law provide have separately the rules of origin. But this type of provisions has not efficiency and consistency in performing foreign policy of origin. Therefore it needs that the korean rules of origin must be speculated in a unified act with regard to the japanese model.

한ㆍ중ㆍ일 FTA체결에 대비한 원산지 관련법 통일화 방안 연구

김석철(Suk-Chul Kim) 한국관세학회 2009 관세학회지 Vol.10 No.4

In this study, main tasks for the standardization of the related raw of origin will be described like below. First of all, in case of non preferential items, according to the Foreign-trade-law, Ministry of Knowledge Economy in Korea is the main ministry is currently leading the negotiation with other relevant ministries and making the comprehensive framework. In case of the preferential items, according to the Customs-law, Korea Customs Service is managing the origin of items. However, in case of China, the director legislated the ordinance of the origin of export cargo and the relevant ministries are managing them In case of Japan, Customs service is managing the rule of origin according to the Customs-law. The thing is that the two foreign countries are not comprehensively managing the rule of origin and therefore, they urgently have to build up the framework for the rule of origin like Korea. Second of all, the main purpose of the rule of origin in Korea is to manage, to prohibit the import and export, to keep the fair trade and to protect the customers. However, China aims to confirm the origin country in order to carry out the rule of origin. Japan aims to manage standard of origin decision for management of preferential origin. Each country has different purpose for the rule of origin. To pursue the common market among three countries, each of us manages the rule of origin, aiming comprehensively to manage non preferential items and preferential items, to keep the fair trade and to protect the customers. Third of all, Korea, Japan and China differently defined items for the management of origin. It's because they have different manageable purposes. We have to unify the purpose and defined items of the rule of origin. Fourth of all, when we consider the table 3 of standard of origin for judgement, Korea, Japan and China have different criteria. Therefore, we have to set up the same criteria for the actual operation. Fifth of all, Korea, Japan and China differently manage to indicate the origin. It's mainly because Japan and China are insufficient to keep the fair trade and to protect the customers. To make the common market among three countries is the core goal for Korea, Japan and China FTA. That's why we have to hurry up to establish the standard for the management of the rule of origin. Sixth of all, the punishment level for the rule is the key indicator to express the achievement of common missions. Comparing with Korea, Japan and China relatively have the weak punishment regulations and have to improve these rules. Beyond what I listed up, there would be a lot of tasks to improve the standardization. However, I summarized the priority tasks. Korea, Japan and China will have bigger portion in the world wide economy if free trade deal among three countries is contracted. As the necessity of this FTA is important, I hope that this thesis would help. There are a lot of improvement opportunities to strengthen the standardization and I win keep going it.

우리나라와 FTA 체결국간 원산지 규정의 검토와 향후 논의 방향에 관한 연구

정재우(Jae-woo Jung),이길남(Kil-nam Lee) 한국국제상학회 2012 國際商學 Vol.27 No.4

Rules of origin are used to determine the country of origin of a product for purposes of international trade. Rules of origin(ROOs) are used to define which products may qualify for preferential tariff rates under a trade agreement. Country of origin rulings can be quite complex. There are many rules about rules of origin, and including “substantially transformed”. The reason why the rules of origin is so complicate is many rules concerned and the different general guidance(Free Trade Agreement) on how to locate the relevant rules of origin under FTA’s countries. This paper provides a general overview of the USA and EU ROOs system, including its implementation as it applies to manufactured imports. Also, This paper is to conduct comparative analysis on rules of origin. In this paper, we are willing to provide the implications for the rules of origin against in Asia major countries s FTA(South Korea, China, Japan) in the future.

우리나라의 기체결 FTA 원산지규정의 문제점과 개선방안에 관한 연구

권순국(Soon-koog Kwon),오현석(Hyon-sok Oh) 한국국제상학회 2012 國際商學 Vol.27 No.4

This study have examined the descriptive and legal approaches to the comparison and analysis of major content of FTA rules of origin. The author suggest the problems caused by the comparison and analysis of previously made FTA rules of origin by agreement and the countermeasures as followings; First, the rigorousness of the rules of origin motivates to impose more expense on exporters and producers to compensate for the rigorousness. Second, with regard to the procedural complexity of determining the origin of items, the author examined previous FTAs. Finally, the absence of universal rules of origin in relation to FTA leads to alternatively the compliance to domestic regulation of each country, and the resulting distinctive rules of origin in each country might work as a substantial trading barrier itself. Therefore, the problems of using different rules of origin under the FTA are resolved form adopting unification or standardization of rules of origin.

비특혜원산지증명서 제도의 발전방안에 관한 연구

송선욱(Seon-Uk Song) 한국관세학회 2015 관세학회지 Vol.16 No.3

The rules of origin consist of criteria of the determination of origin, origin marking and certificate of origin, etc. The rules on criteria of the determination of origin and origin marking are very important and have been studying frequently. But certificate of origin is also important in international trading process. Origin is the “economic” nationality of goods in international trade. There are two kinds of certificate of origin, i.e. non-preferential and preferential certificate of origin. Non-preferential origin is used for determining the origin of products subject to all kinds of commercial policy measures (such as anti-dumping measures, countervailing duties, trade embargoes, safeguard and retaliation measures, quantitative restrictions) or tariff quotas, and statistical purposes. There are some problems of the non-preferential certificate of origin, i.e. origin laundering, issuance of false or fictitious certificate of origin. Therefore, it is necessary to improve management method of the non-preferential certificate of origin in order to overcome problems of the non-preferential certificate of origin. Through the analysis of the WCO Revised Kyoto Convention, Specific Annex K and the rules of the non-preferential certificate of origin in U.S., EU, Chana and Japan, improvement plans for non-preferential certificates of origin in Korea are suggested as follows. Firstly, it is necessary to establish the manufacturer database in order to identify origin of the product, the rules of origin in import country and accuracy of origin application information effectively. Secondly, authorities or bodies empowered to issue a non-preferential certificate of origin should have the field-verification authority in order to verify the accuracy of origin application information