The trade rules small importers can’t absorb

RC/TR/2026/N.2

20 October 2026

Note — Circulated

Certification of the pattern test for TR-001

Thu Đinh
Rapporteur, Trade Council
Da Nang, Vietnam

1. Purpose and determination

1. This note records the method and findings of the Trade Council’s pattern review for TR-001, the proposed Small Importer Standard. The issue is whether the burden described by small traders when trade rules, tariffs or associated charges change is sufficiently repeated and distributed to justify drafting a common practice standard. The proposed response concerns size-based thresholds, plain-language guidance and phase-in for small traders when new trade rules or tariffs apply, together with landed-cost transparency from freight forwarders.

2. The Trade Council’s pattern review passed TR-001 on 20 October 2026. This note certifies that determination against five explicit tests: Volume, Frequency, Consistency, Spread and Corroboration. The numerical cut-offs below are the operational thresholds used to make this certification legible and reviewable. They are not represented as thresholds previously adopted in a separate instrument. The findings are based on Reseated records as of 20 October 2026 and records identified in the Council’s document history.

3. Passing a pattern test is a decision to proceed to drafting, not a finding that every report is accurate, that all small importers experience the same harm, or that a particular policy intervention is legally required. It does not establish the effect of any tariff, rule or fee in a particular transaction. Those questions require evidence at the relevant level and remain open to consultation and revision.

2. Scope and data used

1. The certified record covers 1,745 members in 49 countries and 5,344 reports filed from 50 countries across the Assembly. The Trade Council account contains 210 members from 45 countries and 520 reports from 50 countries. The Trade Council report total is the unit used for the volume test. The report-origin country count, rather than member residence, is used for the spread test because the two measures describe different populations.

2. Within the Trade Council dataset, the reported situations are supplier-terms, 164 reports, and tariffs, 356 reports. The reported team-size distribution is: 2–9, 46%; just me, 34%; 10–49, 13%; and 50–249, 7%. The reported median amount at stake is approximately US$4,112. There were 116 Trade Council reports in the last 30 days as of the record date.

3. The eight highest country counts are the United States, Canada, Mexico, the United Kingdom, India, France, Australia and Italy. Together those entries account for 272 reports. The other 248 reports form an aggregate for the remaining 42 report-origin countries, calculated by subtracting the eight listed counts from the total.

3. Method

1. The five tests are applied to the issue as framed in the Council’s evidence process: recurring difficulties for small importers in understanding and absorbing the consequences of tariff and trade-rule changes, including the inability to establish a reliable landed cost before committing to a transaction. The tests are separate checks. A large total alone does not establish geographic spread or corroboration; geographic spread alone does not establish recurrence.

2. For this certification, Volume is met at 300 or more reports concerning the Council agenda item. Frequency is met at 100 or more reports during the latest reported 30-day window. Consistency is met where at least two recorded situation categories each account for at least 20% of reports and the categories fit the defined issue. Spread is met where reports originate in at least 20 countries. Corroboration is met where the aggregate report pattern is accompanied by at least one distinct documentary or external corroborating channel, while the limits of that channel are stated.

3. These are screening thresholds, not statistical significance tests. The reports do not constitute a probability-based survey, include a comparison group, or use a uniform measure of the financial burden across reports. Percentages derived below are descriptive calculations from the recorded counts. They should be read as proportions of this Council’s recorded reports, not as estimates of the proportion of all small importers affected.

4. Evidence was considered at the level appropriate to the pattern decision. Relevant documentary records include the Trade Council call for evidence, interim pattern-review note, four evidence submissions, and Council correspondence concerning landed-cost transparency, the EU CBAM threshold, the UK Late Payments Bill import/export exemption, and MSME participation in trade. These records document consideration of the issue through more than a single aggregate count.

4. Results of the five tests

4.1 Volume — met

1. Threshold: At least 300 Trade Council reports relevant to the agenda item.

2. Finding: Council records show 520 Trade Council reports. This is 220 above the screening threshold and represents the largest single council report count after Platform and Cashflow in the council breakdown. The figure is a count of reports, not necessarily unique businesses or unique transactions.

3. Determination: Met. The count is sufficiently large for the Council to proceed to drafting, subject to the representativeness and duplication limitations set out below.

4.2 Frequency — met

1. Threshold: At least 100 reports during the latest reported 30-day window.

2. Finding: Council records show 116 reports in the last 30 days. This exceeds the threshold by 16. The figure is a rolling-window total.

3. Determination: Met. The continuing arrival of reports supports treating the issue as current for the purpose of a drafting decision. The finding does not establish whether reporting volume is increasing, declining or seasonally variable.

4.3 Consistency — met

1. Threshold: At least two recorded situation categories, each comprising at least 20% of reports, that fall within the defined issue.

2. Finding: Tariff situations account for 356 of 520 reports, approximately 68.5%. Supplier-terms situations account for 164 of 520, approximately 31.5%. Both exceed the 20% threshold. Together they account for all 520 reports in the two-category classification. The categories identify distinct points at which small traders may face uncertainty: tariff exposure and the terms or costs imposed along the supply and shipping chain. The categories do not establish a narrower common cause.

3. Determination: Met. Both categories are substantial and consistent with the TR-001 scope. This finding supports a standard addressing clarity and predictability across the transaction, while leaving the consultation to test whether the proposed measures should differ between tariff and supplier-terms cases.

4.4 Spread — met

1. Threshold: Reports originating in at least 20 countries.

2. Finding: The 520 reports are recorded as coming from 50 countries. The Council has 210 members from 45 countries. The report-origin count exceeds the threshold by 30 countries. Reports and members are separate measures.

3. Determination: Met. The reported distribution is international in scope. This finding does not mean the reports are evenly distributed among countries. The country counts show concentration in the eight listed countries, with the remaining reports aggregated.

4.5 Corroboration — met, with qualification

1. Threshold: In addition to the aggregate report count, at least one distinct documentary or external corroborating channel must exist and be relevant to the issue. Corroboration at this stage supports proceeding to consultation; it does not amount to independent verification of every report.

2. Finding: The documentary record includes four Trade Council evidence submissions dated 8 March, 6 May, 17 July and 12 September 2026, an interim pattern-review note dated 18 August, and Council records addressing landed-cost transparency and the treatment of small traders in trade policy. In addition, the European Parliament’s September 2025 account of the CBAM simplification reports a 50-tonne annual mass threshold from 1 January 2026, intended to remove approximately 90% of importers, mostly SMEs, while retaining approximately 99% of emissions in scope.¹ That policy case is relevant context for the feasibility of a size-based threshold. It is not evidence that the same threshold is suitable for other trade rules or that it resolves the reported landed-cost problems.

3. Determination: Met for the limited purpose of certifying a pattern-test pass. The documentary record and policy context provide corroboration that the issue warrants examination beyond a single count. This determination does not certify the factual accuracy of individual reports, the independence of every submission, or a causal connection between the cited policy case and any member’s experience.

5. Data tables

Table 1. Trade Council reports by country of report

Table 2. Trade Council reports by situation

Table 3. Trade Council reports by reported team size

6. Interpretation and limitations

1. The combined findings establish a sufficiently repeated, recent and geographically distributed signal for the Trade Council to draft a response. They do not establish a uniform experience. Tariff situations form the larger category, while supplier-terms reports remain substantial. The standard should therefore be tested against both kinds of circumstances, and consultation should establish whether one set of disclosures can work across them or whether separate provisions are necessary.

2. Country counts are incomplete at the individual-country level. The eight leading countries are listed, and the remaining 42 countries are reported as an aggregate. No country-level rate can be calculated because there are no denominators for the number of small importers or transactions in each country. The data support geographic breadth, but not a claim of equal incidence or equal burden.

3. The team-size figures sum to 100% and indicate that the recorded reports are concentrated among the smallest team categories. The percentages are descriptive and should not be read as a count of businesses in each band. The reported median amount at stake of approximately US$4,112 is likewise descriptive.

4. Corroboration is the most qualified finding. The existence of submissions, Council records and a relevant policy case provides documentary support for proceeding, but does not demonstrate that the records independently verify each other. The CBAM case is a public policy reference point, not proof that a particular threshold, exemption or phase-in is appropriate for the TR-001 proposal. Drafting and consultation must not convert this limited corroboration into a stronger claim.

5. The data are reports to a voluntary assembly, not a representative survey of all importers. Participation, awareness, ability to report and the Council’s evidence calls may affect which experiences appear. The figures should not be used to estimate the incidence of import-related difficulties in a national economy or to attribute conduct to a named business. Individual member accounts remain anonymous unless a member chooses a public seat.

7. Next steps

1. The Trade Council may proceed with the TR-001 draft. The draft should address size-based thresholds, plain-language guidance and a proportionate phase-in when new trade rules or tariffs apply to small traders. It should also consider landed-cost transparency from forwarders, including disclosure of the components that a small importer needs to understand before accepting a shipment or committing to a purchase. The draft should distinguish proposals from findings established by this note.

Before public consultation, the Council should identify the policy choices that remain open: how to define a small trader for different measures; what information should be supplied and at what stage; how phase-in should operate when rules change; and what minimum landed-cost information can reasonably be provided by forwarders. No specific numerical threshold for those proposed duties is determined by the pattern test.

Consultation should invite evidence on implementation costs, differences among product types and routes, the timing of charges, and the practical limits on a forwarder’s ability to provide a final cost before customs assessment. Respondents should be able to distinguish tariff-related experiences from supplier-terms experiences. The Council should publish a response summary that records both support and material objections without attributing anonymous accounts to named businesses.

For the next review, the Secretariat should seek a complete country table, a documented region classification, calendar-month counts, clearer definitions of report and member units, and an explanation of the team-size and amount-at-stake measures. A case-level review can be used to test coding and identify duplicate reports, subject to privacy safeguards. These improvements would strengthen subsequent monitoring; they do not alter the present five-test determination.

This note certifies the pattern-test result as of 20 October 2026. It does not prejudge consultation, Assembly ballot, adoption, or any later assessment of implementation. The next procedural step is drafting and public consultation under the Assembly process.

Certification: On the thresholds and evidence limits set out in this note, TR-001 meets the Volume, Frequency, Consistency, Spread and Corroboration tests. The pattern test is passed for the purpose of proceeding to draft a Small Importer Standard.

Thu Đinh
Rapporteur, Trade Council
20 October 2026

Source

1. European Parliament, “CBAM: Parliament adopts simplifications to the EU carbon leakage instrument.”^[1]