You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

July 17, 2023

Made in Cambodia: New Law on Rules of Origin Brings Clarity to International Trade

Subscribe to Updates

Cambodia’s new Law on Rules of Origin, which was published on July 5, 2023, is an important legal development that will help the country become a more important trading, manufacturing, and processing hub in the ASEAN region.

This legal development accords with the government’s aims to increase consumer protection and clarity on product origin, encourage cross-border trade, position Cambodia as a source for quality manufacturing and processing, and push the “Made in Cambodia” quality label.

These new, much clearer rules of origin also bring Cambodia’s legal framework in line with trading obligations set by ASEAN and the WTO. Furthermore, the new rules help clarify the implementation of several multilateral and bilateral trade agreements that Cambodia has concluded in recent years, such as free trade agreements with China and South Korea and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership.

Rules of Origin and Cambodia’s Role

In international trade, products often make multiple trips before they end up with the consumer—the raw materials may be sourced in one country and processed in another, and then the product may be finished in a third country before the finished product is exported to a different country altogether.

Rules of origin determine which country in the production chain qualifies as the country of origin. This is important because the country of origin may be subject to a preferential trading scheme, or there may be legal requirements to declare the correct origin in the country of sale, for example, based on labeling and consumer protection rules.

Prior to the new Law on Rules of Origin, ad hoc rules of origin applied in Cambodia, often depending on bilateral agreements, multilateral agreements, or international preferential trading schemes.

For example, the EU, US, and Japan have individually adopted preferential trading schemes with selected countries through Generalized Scheme of Preferences (GSP) programs. These GSP programs often set their own rules of origin for products in a bid to regulate what types of products are eligible for preferential treatment.

The origin rules ideally ensure that the origin country is accurately and fairly attributed so that the exporting country benefits from the preferential treatment. When an exporting country receives preferential treatment, it often leads to higher investment in quality manufacturing and processing—which is the goal of the GSP programs.

The rules of origin may differ, depending on the export destination. For example, the GSP for the EU generally requires a minimum 40% input, meaning that at least 40% of the content of the product must come from the origin country. The US sets this at 35%, and permits qualifying ASEAN members to be treated as one country of origin for the calculations.

When an exporter does not seek preferential treatment, the importing country may still apply rules of origin under its own legal framework. In trade that involved Cambodia as the exporting country, different applications and interpretations of rules often applied. This meant that a gap in rules existed, creating uncertainties for exporters on how to declare origin in compliance with the law in both the exporting country and the importing country.

The new Law on Rules of Origin helps to remove some of these uncertainties, creating a clearer and fairer playing field for Cambodian exporters and other traders that rely on rules of origin.

Cambodian Perspectives on International Trade and Rules of Origin

Exporters of products from Cambodia are mainly interested in whether they qualify for preferential treatment using the rules of origin to determine that the source country of their product is indeed Cambodia.

Depending on the applicable preferential trading scheme or international agreement, the origin is usually determined using the raw material input and the level of processing or manufacturing taking place in Cambodia. Specifying Cambodia as the source country often leads to preferred access to markets, including a zero import duty rate in many cases.

Such preferred access greatly facilitates exports benefiting Cambodia and is intended to only apply to products that truly originate in Cambodia. This spurs investment in quality manufacturing and processing in Cambodia, as attaining the necessary level of raw material inputs or the sophistication of processing cannot be reached by merely rerouting goods through Cambodia.

Rules of origin have also been a concern to many Cambodian exporters that did not seek to qualify for preferential treatment, as these rules would determine their labeling obligations for shipments and final products.

In recent years, with the Cambodian government’s push to use the “Made in Cambodia” marking, authorities occasionally would not permit products marked as made in another country to be exported from a Cambodia facility. However, the basis for requiring this “Made in Cambodia” marking was not always clear, causing exporters to risk violating rules of origin in the importing country.

For example, if Cambodia had only a minor role in the production chain—such as the input of raw materials from Cambodia being only 10%, or only simple assembly taking place in Cambodia—a “Made in Cambodia” marking would not always be appropriate or compliant. Therefore, authorities’ insistence on the marking could cause issues for exporters.

Clarifying the rules of origin is thus essential to facilitating trade for Cambodia, both for preferential access to markets and for general exports.

Cambodia’s New Law on Rules of Origin

The new law sets out how to manage and apply rules of origin and provides guidance on the rules of origin themselves. Furthermore, the law appoints authorities to manage and enforce it and sets penalties for falsifying product origins and other violations.

The law contains several key rules of origin pertaining to products that are subject to a preferential trading scheme, those that are not subject to such schemes, and country-of-origin markings.

Products Seeking Preferential Trading Access

Under the new law, preferential trading access is still determined by the rules of origin of the preferential trading schemes and international trading agreements, which set their own rules of origin for access. The international schemes and agreements determine the rules, so all members follow and implement the same rules of origin.

The Law on Rules of Origin does not set its own rules for these types of products—it merely confirms that the rules of origin of the schemes and agreements apply. However, the law does provide guidance on how government institutions should apply the rules in order to facilitate Cambodian exporters’ access to preferential trading schemes. For example, the Law on Rules of Origin addresses certificates of origin (COs), appointing the Ministry of Commerce’s General Department of Trade Services as the authority regulating and issuing COs. The Cambodian authorities will need to apply the rules of origin of the relevant trading schemes and agreements when issuing a CO to confirm that the product has Cambodia as its origin and qualifies for the preferential treatment.

Products Not Seeking Preferential Trading Access

More interestingly, the new law provides rules of origin for products not seeking preferential treatment. This issue was particularly unclear prior to the new law.

Under the new Law on Rules of Origin, products wholly made or extracted in one country are considered to originate from that country. For example, mineral products (including petroleum), when extracted from land, water, or seabed, are deemed to originate from the country of extraction. Or a shirt made in Cambodia, using cotton harvested in Cambodia, is considered to originate from Cambodia.

If multiple countries are in the production chain, the determining factor is where the product underwent “essential processing.” One scenario that would amount to “essential processing” is product processing that changes the classification heading of the product under the Harmonized System of tariff nomenclature. The product would then be considered to originate in the country where it underwent this change—that is, where it underwent “essential processing” under the law.

Further rules on “essential processing” will need to be determined through an implementing joint regulation (i.e., an interministerial prakas) from the Ministry of Commerce and the Ministry of Economy and Finance.

It seems likely that this prakas will follow ASEAN regulations on the subject, requiring a minimum percentage of raw materials for a given country to be classified as the country of origin. It also remains to be seen whether the prakas will include a rule on “substantial transformation” as part of essential processing, as well as a value-added rule.

According to the Law on Rules of Origin, activities that would not be enough to change a product’s country of origin (that is, would not amount to “essential processing”) include storage, repacking, and simple assembly of products.

Country-of-Origin Markings: “Made in…”?

The Law on Rules of Origin states that rules on country-of-origin markings will be further determined by another implementing joint regulation from the Ministry of Commerce and the Ministry of Economy and Finance, leaving some uncertainty on the “Made in…” issue until then.

Nonetheless, the law does require that this joint regulation be made in accordance with the applicable preferential trading regime in the importing country, the international preferential trading schemes or agreements, or the rules of origin provided elsewhere in the law.

Therefore, although both joint regulations mentioned above are yet to be seen, the Law on Rules of Origin does provide guidance as it highlights the importance of the rules of the importing country, preferential trading schemes, and international agreements.

This guidance may also help authorities make a fair assessment if any “Made in…” issues arise before the joint regulations are issued, as the rules of origin of the importing country may be considered dominant unless stipulated otherwise.

Conclusion

The Law on Rules of Origin is a positive step forward for Cambodia’s aim to be a reliable trading partner. The new law clarifies rules of origin, authorities, and penalties, although implementing regulations still need to be adopted. This is, however, normal practice—the law sets out the main legal aspects and appoints authorities, and it then lets lower regulations deal with implementation on a more practical level.

The newly clarified rules of origin for products not seeking preferential trading access are especially welcome. This area was rather ambiguous, and this law clarifies the rules and sets a route for further beneficial regulations on this issue.

Related Professionals

Practices

Customs and International Trade

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

February 22, 2021
Following the recent imposition of sanctions on Myanmar individuals and companies by the US, the UK and Canada have now imposed new sanctions. As with the US sanctions, these new measures impact UK and Canadian citizens and companies, and non-UK and non-Canadian companies and citizens with interests in those jurisdictions. The EU has indicated that it is planning to issue similar sanctions in the near future. New UK Sanctions In addition to the 16 individuals already sanctioned by the UK government, on February 18, 2021, the UK government announced that three individuals have been sanctioned for serious human rights violations and are now subject to asset freezes and travel bans. The full list of Myanmar individuals and companies sanctioned by the UK is available on the website of the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation. Breaches of UK financial sanctions are criminal offences punishable in the UK by up to 7 years imprisonment and heavy fines. New Canadian Sanctions Also on February 18, timed to coincide with the UK sanctions, new Canadian sanctions were imposed on nine individuals. As with the UK, Canada already had a number of individuals in the Myanmar military on its sanctions list, and the new additions bring the total number of individuals sanctioned by Canada to 54. All assets of these individuals in Canada are now frozen, and they are banned from travelling to Canada. Canadian businesses or entities may not do business with any of the 54 individuals. Full details of the impact of the sanctions are available on the Government of Canada’s website, as is a database of the Myanmar individuals and companies subject to them. Breach of Canadian sanctions carries with it up to 5 years’ imprisonment in Canada and/or a large fine. Other Countries The EU is reportedly drawing up sanctions
Read More
February 18, 2021
As you will no doubt know, on February 1, 2021, the Myanmar military declared a state of emergency in Myanmar for a period of one year. State Counsellor Daw Aung Sang Su Kyi was detained, as were the president and various significant political and civil leaders. Min Aung Hlaing, commander-in-chief of the Tatmadaw (Myanmar armed forces) has installed himself as chairman of the State Administration Council, the current administration. New sanctions The reaction of the Biden administration has been swift. On February 10, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 14014, which provides bases to impose sanctions on individuals and companies deemed by the US to, among other things: operate in the defense sector of Myanmar; be responsible for policies that undermine democratic processes in Myanmar; have taken actions to undermine democratic processes or institutions, or prohibit, limit, or penalize the exercise of free speech, in Myanmar; or be a spouse or child of the foregoing. On the next day, February 11, the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), imposed sanctions under the new executive order on ten individuals—including General Min Aung Hlaing—and three companies, including Cancri Gems & Jewelry Co, Myanmar Imperial Jade Co, and Myanmar Ruby Enterprise.  All such individuals and companies have now been designated on the US list of specially designated nationals (SDNs). Effect of sanctions As a result of such sanctions, the property of these individuals or companies that is located in the US or is under the possession or control of US companies and citizens is frozen, and US companies and citizens are generally prohibited from dealing deal with any such property.  Reportedly, roughly USD 1 billion of funds belonging to the individuals and companies blocked on February 11 are located in the US and thus now frozen. The SDN list As many
Read More
December 9, 2020
Thailand’s Trade Competition Commission (TCC) has issued new rules governing business relations between food delivery platform operators and the restaurants operating through those platforms. The guidelines identify various arrangements, that are sometimes imposed upon restaurants by digital platforms, as unfair and damaging to restaurant operators, and restrict them accordingly. This is the fourth time that the TCC has deemed it necessary to intervene in a specific industry by restricting certain unfair trade practices in accordance with the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (TCA), and is indicative of the TCC’s greater drive to quell unfair practices using its powers under the TCA. It also shows their willingness to react quickly to new developments in the market—in this case, the substantial increase in restaurant operators selling their products through online platforms in recent months. The Guidelines on Unfair Trade Practices between Digital Platform Operators for Food Delivery and Restaurants were published in the Government Gazette on November 23, 2020, and take effect on December 23, 2020. Key Definitions Digital platforms mean online services which establish a trade linkage between restaurant businesses, food deliverers, and consumers—in other words, applications or websites that allow consumers to use restaurants via food deliverers. Digital platform operators for food delivery means the business operators that provide digital platform services, acting as an intermediary to accept the purchase order and deliver food between restaurant operators, food delivery service providers, and consumers; or between restaurant operators and consumers in accepting the purchase order for food. Put simply, they are the companies operating food delivery platforms. Unfair Conduct  The main principle set forth in the TCC’s food delivery guidelines is that business conduct between food delivery platform operators and restaurant operators must respect the freedom of each party; must be fair, noncompulsory, and nondiscriminatory; and must not obstruct another
Read More
September 21, 2020
The Myanmar Customs Department (MCD) organized another Intellectual Property Awareness and Product Identification Workshop at its Customs Training School in Yangon on August 6, 2020, for its frontline customs officers. Such workshops are held numerous times every year, serving as a platform for foreign brand owners and their local representatives to educate and update the enforcement officers on methods for differentiating their genuine products from counterfeits and imitations when inspecting suspicious shipments at ports of entry into the country.
Read More