개인구독
소속 기관이 없으신 경우, 개인 정기구독을 하시면 저렴하게
논문을 무제한 열람 이용할 수 있어요.
지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 연구보고서
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2007.6
- 수록면
- 1 - 129 (129page)
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
One of the differences between Customs Union(CU) and free trade agreement (FTA) is the authority to change tariffs on imports from non-member countries. CU member countries introduce common tariff rates against non-member countries, and they cannot change tariff rates voluntarily without prior consultation with other member countries. CU also needs ROO during the transitional period toward the implementation of common external tariffs. However, FTA member countries can set tariff rates (not higher than WTO bound rates) independently. Because tariff rates of the member countries of an FTA are different, trade deflection can occur. Trade deflection means that a good imported via a low tariff FTA member country is re-exported into a country with high tariff without paying tariffs. In order to prevent trade deflection, FTA member countries introduce specific rules, regulating that only the goods satisfying the rules be given preferential treatments in terms of tariffs. These rules are called rules of origin (ROO).
Stringent ROOcan discourage exporters not to take advantage of tariff preferences provided by FTAs, undercutting the economic gains of FTAs. As different ROOs are introduced by overlapping FTAs, the spaghetti-bowl problem may be present, enforcing dampening trade effects of the ROO. Because of the experimental operating difficulties of the ROO, there is alimited numbers of researches on the stringent ROO effects on trade. Examples are Cadet, et al (2002), Carrere and de Melo(2004), Kunimoto and Sawchuk(2005), Herin(1986) and Krueger (1995).
There are 3 criteria for defining ROO in FTAs. The first criterion is Change in Tariff Classification (CTC) or "tariff line shift." CTC is widely used in regional trading agreements (RTAs), and is preferred by the World Customs Organization (WCO), which promotes the simplification and harmonization of ROO. CTC is based on the Harmonized System (HS), classifying goods at a two-digit chapter level, a four-digit heading level, a six-digit subheading level or an eight (ten)-digit level. The second rule is the requirement of Regional (local) Value Contents (RVC), implying the requirement that the product should acquire a minimum regional value in exporting country or a region of a RTA. The rule of regional value contents can be considered in various ways such as export value, import value and value of parts included in an article. However, we do not consider these separately, regarding all methods as regional value contents. The third rule is the requirement of Technical Process (TP), which requires a specific production process for an item. Each criterion has merits as well as demerits, as shown in Table 1. The CTC approach is relatively simple in requiring the comparison between the tariff line of a final product and those of intermediate materials, but it bears an intrinsic problem in that the HS system does not follow industrial classifications for many products.
ROOs act like trade barriers, since they cause extra costs in production and management. Producers/exporters need to pay costs for calculating production costs and producing bookkeeping related documents. Regarding empirical research on administrative costs in a FTA and costs of preparing documents for preferential treatment, refer to Koskinen (1983) and Herin (1986), respectively. Also, extra costs will be incurred in complying with technical and specific process and regional value contents as specified in the ROO protocol, and these costs will be added to the prices of export goods. Several empirical researches on the costs of stringent ROO under NAFTA show substantial costs to intra-regional traders and producers. For example, Cadot et al (2002) found that theutilization rate of NAFTA preferences is as low as 64% due to stringent ROO in part. Regarding more information on the costs of ROO, refer to Estevadeordal (2003, pp.8-9).
East Asian countries have short history about FTAs, and politically strong agriculture sector, which interrupt discussion on the conclusion of FTAs in various ways. Governments in the region are not quite active in moving toward the bandwagon of global trend of economic integration, although getting involved with the negotiation of FTAs. Therefore, these countries tend to introduce restrictive ROO.
Korea is promoting a FTA with US, and it is known that both parties are supportive of restrictive ROO in the bilateral FTA. The FTAs by Korea with Chile, Singapore, and European Free Trade Association (EFTA) have similar ROOs, which are based on the NAFTA ROO. Therefore, it is highly possible that the two countries agree on a NAFTA ROO, which is one of most stringent ROO in FTAs. It is recommended that Korea and US should introduce a neutral and loose type of ROO in their FTA for the higher economic gains.
Stringent ROOcan discourage exporters not to take advantage of tariff preferences provided by FTAs, undercutting the economic gains of FTAs. As different ROOs are introduced by overlapping FTAs, the spaghetti-bowl problem may be present, enforcing dampening trade effects of the ROO. Because of the experimental operating difficulties of the ROO, there is alimited numbers of researches on the stringent ROO effects on trade. Examples are Cadet, et al (2002), Carrere and de Melo(2004), Kunimoto and Sawchuk(2005), Herin(1986) and Krueger (1995).
There are 3 criteria for defining ROO in FTAs. The first criterion is Change in Tariff Classification (CTC) or "tariff line shift." CTC is widely used in regional trading agreements (RTAs), and is preferred by the World Customs Organization (WCO), which promotes the simplification and harmonization of ROO. CTC is based on the Harmonized System (HS), classifying goods at a two-digit chapter level, a four-digit heading level, a six-digit subheading level or an eight (ten)-digit level. The second rule is the requirement of Regional (local) Value Contents (RVC), implying the requirement that the product should acquire a minimum regional value in exporting country or a region of a RTA. The rule of regional value contents can be considered in various ways such as export value, import value and value of parts included in an article. However, we do not consider these separately, regarding all methods as regional value contents. The third rule is the requirement of Technical Process (TP), which requires a specific production process for an item. Each criterion has merits as well as demerits, as shown in Table 1. The CTC approach is relatively simple in requiring the comparison between the tariff line of a final product and those of intermediate materials, but it bears an intrinsic problem in that the HS system does not follow industrial classifications for many products.
ROOs act like trade barriers, since they cause extra costs in production and management. Producers/exporters need to pay costs for calculating production costs and producing bookkeeping related documents. Regarding empirical research on administrative costs in a FTA and costs of preparing documents for preferential treatment, refer to Koskinen (1983) and Herin (1986), respectively. Also, extra costs will be incurred in complying with technical and specific process and regional value contents as specified in the ROO protocol, and these costs will be added to the prices of export goods. Several empirical researches on the costs of stringent ROO under NAFTA show substantial costs to intra-regional traders and producers. For example, Cadot et al (2002) found that theutilization rate of NAFTA preferences is as low as 64% due to stringent ROO in part. Regarding more information on the costs of ROO, refer to Estevadeordal (2003, pp.8-9).
East Asian countries have short history about FTAs, and politically strong agriculture sector, which interrupt discussion on the conclusion of FTAs in various ways. Governments in the region are not quite active in moving toward the bandwagon of global trend of economic integration, although getting involved with the negotiation of FTAs. Therefore, these countries tend to introduce restrictive ROO.
Korea is promoting a FTA with US, and it is known that both parties are supportive of restrictive ROO in the bilateral FTA. The FTAs by Korea with Chile, Singapore, and European Free Trade Association (EFTA) have similar ROOs, which are based on the NAFTA ROO. Therefore, it is highly possible that the two countries agree on a NAFTA ROO, which is one of most stringent ROO in FTAs. It is recommended that Korea and US should introduce a neutral and loose type of ROO in their FTA for the higher economic gains.
목차
제1장 서론
제2장 우리나라의 FTA 추진현황과 평가
제3장 FTA 원산지 기준의 내용
제4장 미국 FTA 원산지기준 분석
제5장 FTA 원산지기준 분석 방법론과 주요 연구결과
제6장 FTA 원산지기준의 파급영향
제7장 정책시사점
참고문헌
부록 [FTA 원산지기준 영문 및 국문]
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
우리나라의 FTA 원산지 제도운용 전략에 관한 연구
무역학회지
2007 .04
-
FTA 원산지규정 분석과 활용전략에 관한 연구
관세학회지
2009 .08
-
원사기준 원산지기준의 경제효과 추정 : 한-캐나다 FTA를 중심으로
관세학회지
2008 .05
-
중국의 FTA 원산지결정기준의 변화 및 한ㆍ중FTA 원산지협상에 대한 시사점
무역학자 전국대회 발표논문집
2008 .08
-
The Need for Green Sourcing in Free Trade Agreements
무역연구
2013 .01
-
한국 FTA 원산지규정의 비교와 국내기업의 FTA 활용현황에 관한 분석
무역학회지
2011 .06
-
한국과 일본의 FTA 원산지규정 비교분석 및 한일 FTA 원산지규정 시사점 연구
무역학회지
2010 .02
-
EU와의 FTA 체결협상에 따른 범유럽 원산지규정 운용의 특징 분석과 대응방안 연구
무역학회지
2007 .08
-
한·미 FTA의 원산지규정 준수비용 분석
무역상무연구
2020 .02
-
FTA 원산지규정 위반 판정사례와 시사점
무역상무연구
2011 .02
-
How to Strategize ROO Schemes for Korea-Indonesia CEPA
무역상무연구
2013 .12
-
국제무역환경 변화에 따른 대외무역법 원산지제도의 개선방안에 관한 연구
무역상무연구
2009 .02
-
A Study on the Dispute Settlement Procedure for the Preferential Rules of Origin
중재연구
2016 .01
-
한-중 FTA 활성화를 위한 관세사의 역할 제고 방안
무역연구
2016 .01
-
한국섬유업체의 FTA혜택 가능성에 대한 연구 : 한-EU FTA를 중심으로
관세학회지
2011 .05
-
FTA 이행관리에서 제기되는 문제점과 그 보완방안에 대한 연구
관세학회지
2012 .12
-
다양한 형태의 FTA 체결에 따른 Spaghetti Trap에 대한 효율적 대응방안
통상정보연구
2010 .12
-
Business Use of FTAs in Korea
인하대학교 정석물류통상연구원 학술대회
2010 .07
-
FTA 특혜관세 활용에 관한 연구
관세학회지
2012 .12
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2013-000-001446561