Use Readable text for larger type, or zoom in on the pages.
Trade Council
Summary record of the ninth session of the Trade Council
Sittings: Asia-Pacific, 06:00 UTC; Europe/Africa/Americas, 16:00 UTC
Chair: Karina Luna Carballo, Chair of the Trade Council, Guadalajara, Mexico
Attendance: The Council register on the date of the session comprised 210 members from 45 countries. The published session record does not certify a separate live headcount for either sitting. Members participated in the sittings and through written contributions; the register figures are not presented as a count of people present.
Agenda: (a) opening and adoption of the agenda; (b) review of the TR-001 evidence and five-part pattern test; (c) discussion of the proposed Small Importer Standard; (d) decision on the next procedural stage; and (e) assignment of drafting and evidence tasks.
Summary of proceedings
Karina Luna Carballo opened the session and recalled that the Trade Council describes recurring practices affecting small traders rather than assessing the conduct of any single company. She stated that the Council’s task was to establish whether the reported difficulties formed a sufficiently consistent pattern to justify drafting a proposed fix. She reminded participants that the session was not an adoption ballot and that any later draft would require public consultation and an Assembly ballot under the Rules of Procedure.
The Chair presented the agenda. Participants agreed to consider the evidence in the order of the five-part pattern test: Volume, Frequency, Consistency, Spread and Corroboration. She noted that the test had been completed on 20 October and that the session would record its procedural consequence, not reopen individual reports or make findings about named firms.
For the Asia-Pacific sitting, Nguyen Minh Anh of Hanoi, Viet Nam, described the practical difficulty of estimating total import cost before a shipment was committed. She said that a small trader may receive separate figures for freight, customs handling and other charges, while the timing and basis of those figures can make comparison difficult. Her contribution supported the proposed focus on a usable landed-cost breakdown and on stating what remains uncertain at the time a quotation is provided.
Siti Nur Aisyah of Bandung, Indonesia, addressed the timing of changes to rules and tariff treatment. She observed that a small importer may have already agreed a purchase price or delivery date before learning how a new requirement will apply. She supported drafting language that distinguishes advance notice from guidance that is available only after a trader has encountered a compliance problem. She did not propose an exemption from applicable requirements.
Rohan Perera of Colombo, Sri Lanka, spoke about the cost of interpreting technical guidance. He said that references to a rule are not always enough for a small trader to determine what records to keep, which dates matter or where to ask a question. He recommended that the draft address plain-language explanations and provide a clear route to authoritative information, while avoiding any implication that the Council itself could interpret national law.
Mei Lin Tan of Singapore considered phase-in arrangements. She supported asking whether a reasonable transition period could be provided when a new trade rule or tariff changes the steps required of small traders. She emphasized that a phase-in should be framed as a practical design option for rule-makers, not as a claim that every measure can or should be delayed.
During the Europe/Africa/Americas sitting, Ana Lucía Gómez of Guatemala City, Guatemala, described how a trader can face uncertainty when a forwarder’s initial estimate does not identify which items are included or what may change before delivery. She supported a draft recommendation for a transparent landed-cost statement that itemizes known charges and marks estimates or exclusions. She said the language should remain practical for different shipment sizes and routes.
Kwame Boateng of Accra, Ghana, addressed the difference between a published threshold and the administrative work needed to understand it. He supported including a request that guidance explain, in plain language, who is within scope, what evidence is required and when a trader must act. He cautioned that thresholds should be described accurately and not treated as a guarantee that all small businesses are outside a rule.
Lucía Fernández of Montevideo, Uruguay, spoke to the spread of the reported issue across jurisdictions and types of trade. She supported a standard built around design principles rather than one country’s procedures. She recommended that the drafting group separate measures directed to governments or rule-makers from the proposed expectation for freight forwarders and customs brokers to explain landed costs.
Peter Mwangi of Nairobi, Kenya, addressed corroboration. He said that similar reports can be strengthened by comparing dated quotations, invoices, notices and the trader’s understanding of the charge, while taking care not to disclose commercially sensitive information. He supported keeping the evidence process voluntary and protecting the anonymity of members who had not chosen a public seat.
The Chair summarized the evidence record available to the Council. As of 20 October, the Trade Council had 210 members from 45 countries and had received 520 reports from 50 countries. The reports recorded 356 tariff situations and 164 supplier-terms situations. The median amount at stake was approximately US$4,112. The Chair noted that the categories describe reported situations and should not be interpreted as a verified estimate of the incidence of any practice across the whole trading economy.
The Chair also reviewed the recorded distribution of report origins: United States, 89; Canada, 76; Mexico, 27; United Kingdom, 20; India, 19; France, 15; Australia, 13; and Italy, 13. She noted that the distribution demonstrated geographic spread in the submitted evidence but did not establish prevalence within each country. The Council agreed that any draft should retain this distinction between the evidence received and broader claims about markets.
On the pattern-test element of Volume, the Council considered the number of reports and the diversity of situations recorded. Participants recognized that a count alone could not establish the case for a standard, but agreed that the evidence was sufficient to warrant a structured drafting stage. On Frequency, the Council considered repeated reports over time, including 116 reports filed in the preceding 30 days. Members emphasized that recurrence should be described without implying that every trader experiences the problem.
On Consistency, participants compared reports concerning unexpected or insufficiently itemized landed costs, difficulty identifying which charges were included, and limited time to adjust to new trade requirements. The Council considered whether those reports pointed to a common problem suitable for a shared recommendation. Members agreed that the proposed fix should address transparency, understandable guidance and transition planning as related but distinct elements.
On Spread, the Council considered reports from 50 countries and the range of team sizes represented in the evidence: 46 per cent of reporting members described teams of 2–9 people, 34 per cent were sole operators, 13 per cent had 10–49 people and 7 per cent had 50–249 people. The Chair stated that these figures applied to the reporting group, not to all small importers. On Corroboration, the Council reviewed the availability of member submissions and supporting materials, including the Landed Cost Diary and supplier-terms survey. Members agreed that the draft should distinguish corroborating material from anecdotal description without making disclosure a condition of participation.
The Council considered the European Union’s CBAM simplification as a case of a size-based threshold. Participants noted that the European Parliament described the 50-tonne annual mass threshold applying from 1 January 2026 as removing around 90 per cent of importers, mostly small and medium-sized enterprises, while keeping around 99 per cent of emissions in scope.1 Members agreed that the case could inform discussion of proportionality, but should not be presented as a universal template or as evidence that the same threshold would suit other rules or jurisdictions.
Members also reviewed the Council’s earlier engagement on landed-cost transparency and the import/export-contract exemption in the UK Late Payments Bill. They agreed that the proposed standard should identify the exemption as a relevant policy context, while keeping the TR-001 recommendations focused on small traders’ ability to understand costs and prepare for changes. No new position on the Bill was adopted at this session.
In summarizing the five-part test, the Chair recorded that the Council had found sufficient evidence across Volume, Frequency, Consistency, Spread and Corroboration to pass TR-001 to drafting. Participants supported that procedural conclusion. The Council did not vote on or adopt a Small Importer Standard. It did not determine the legal obligations of any public authority, forwarder, customs broker or trader.
The Council agreed that drafting should proceed on three linked elements: size-sensitive thresholds or other proportional approaches where appropriate; plain-language guidance explaining scope, evidence and timing; and reasonable phase-in arrangements when new trade rules or tariffs apply. A separate recommendation would address landed-cost transparency by freight forwarders, including a breakdown of known charges, estimates and exclusions. The text should preserve the distinction between a recommendation to rule-makers and a proposed practice for commercial service providers.
Members instructed the drafting group to use concrete, non-prescriptive language, identify the intended actor for each recommendation and explain that proportional design does not mean automatic exemption. The group was asked to test whether each proposed provision could be understood by a small trader without specialist terminology. It was also asked to avoid treating a quotation as a guaranteed final cost where charges remain dependent on later events.
The Chair confirmed that the next procedural stages would be preparation of a draft, internal review, and subsequent public consultation before any Assembly ballot. The Council would not describe a draft as an adopted standard. Consultation comments would be recorded and considered before a final text was placed before the Assembly.
Decisions and action items
Pattern test. The Council recorded that TR-001 passed the five-part pattern test on 20 October 2026 and authorized movement to drafting. This decision concerned the procedural threshold for developing a proposal; it did not constitute adoption of the proposed standard.
Drafting scope. The draft will address size-based thresholds or proportional approaches, plain-language guidance, phase-in arrangements, and transparent landed-cost information from freight forwarders. The drafting group will state the actor and intended application for each provision.
Drafting lead. Karina Luna Carballo will coordinate the first text and circulate it to the Council for review. She will ensure that the draft records the limits of the submitted evidence and does not imply that the Council has made findings about a named business.
Evidence note. Nguyen Minh Anh and Ana Lucía Gómez will prepare a short, anonymized note identifying cases of how traders distinguish confirmed charges, estimates and exclusions. They will use only material for which members have given permission and will not identify a member’s business.
Guidance and transition language. Rohan Perera and Mei Lin Tan will propose plain-language wording on scope, timing, record-keeping and possible phase-in approaches. Their text will make clear that any legal interpretation remains with the relevant authority.
Proportionality and evidence. Siti Nur Aisyah and Kwame Boateng will review wording on size-based approaches and the use of thresholds, including how to describe cases without presenting them as universally applicable. Peter Mwangi will advise the drafting group on privacy-conscious treatment of supporting evidence.
Consultation preparation. The Chair will return the draft to the Council before proposing a public consultation. The Secretariat will prepare a consultation plan only after the Council has reviewed the draft; no consultation date was set at this session.
Next session
The next monthly Open Table of the Trade Council was scheduled for 17 November 2026, with an Asia-Pacific sitting at 06:00 UTC and a Europe/Africa/Americas sitting at 16:00 UTC. The proposed agenda will include review of the first TR-001 draft, consideration of evidence-note methods, and confirmation of whether the text is ready for the next stage. The date and agenda do not imply that a consultation or Assembly ballot has been approved.
Source
European Parliament, “CBAM: Parliament adopts simplifications to the EU carbon leakage instrument.”
Notes and sources
Sources
This document has no standing until adopted under the Founders Charter. Reseated Councils is not affiliated with the United Nations.