VZCZCXYZ0000
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHRB #1552/01 2290914
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 170914Z AUG 06
FM AMEMBASSY RABAT
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 4477
INFO RUEHCL/AMCONSUL CASABLANCA 2014
RUCPDOC/USDOC WASHDC
RUEHRC/USDA FAS WASHDC 0921

UNCLAS RABAT 001552 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR EB/TPP, NEA/MAG AND NEA/OFI, STATE PASS USTR FOR 
¶D. BELL, USDOC FOR ITA/MAC/ANE - DROTH 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ETRD BEXP MO
SUBJECT: PRESSING FOR CLARIFICATION OF MOROCCO'S 
TRANSHIPMENT RULES 
 
REF: RABAT 453 
 
Sensitive but unclassified - entire text.  Not for internet 
distribution. 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary and Action request; Commercial and Econ 
Counselors called on Ahmed Maani, Acting Director of 
International Cooperation of the Moroccan Customs 
Administration on August 10 to review the status of two 
recent cases where U.S. imports have been denied preferential 
entry into Morocco because they were transhipped via European 
ports, despite provisions in the bilateral Free Trade 
Agreement that appear to allow such transhipment.  Maani, who 
is also head of Custom's Taxation Division, stressed that he 
was not in a position to render a judgement on the case since 
he was only filling in on a temporary basis.  Nevertheless, 
he was aware of the two cases and said that Customs' intial 
determination was that the two shipments violated the "direct 
shipment" provisions of the accord as the relevant shipping 
documents did not indicate the original dispatcher, but 
instead the European subsidiaries transhipping the goods.  In 
general, he said that Morocco's interpretation of the accord 
is that preferential treatment should only be accorded those 
goods that are transhipped for "legitimate transportation 
reasons," and that documents must show that the shipment 
originated in the U.S. and was destined for Morocco. 
 
¶2. (SBU) Post notes that this interpretation differs to some 
degree from that applied in other Free Trade Agreements, and 
would appreciate Department and other agencies view of the 
matter, as well as information on how U.S. Customs is 
applying the provision.  End Summary and Action request. 
 
¶3. (SBU) Background: The first case involved shipment of 
chemicals from Du Pont DeNemours to Morocco via Du Pont's 
European subsidiary; the second a shipment of glass products 
from Solutia, Inc. to Morocco via its European subsidiary. 
In both cases, the companies indicate that the shipments were 
packaged with other shipments to other European and African 
destinations, and were transferred in Anvers to smaller 
containers and shipped on to Morocco.  Both shipments were 
accompanied by a certificate of origin indicating their 
American provenance.  For both shipments, however, the 
Moroccan bill of lading showed not the U.S. shipper but that 
shipper's European subsidiary as the originator. 
 
¶4. (SBU) Maani, who was clearly briefed on the cases, 
stressed that he is overseeing the International Cooperation 
division on an interim basis, and is not in a position to 
render a decision but only to convey USG concerns to his 
superiors.  He noted that the companies' appeals had been 
received and transmitted to the Casablanca port for its 
input.  Emphasizing the accord's three principles that goods 
must figure in the list of those benefitting from its 
provisions, must be of U.S. origin, and must be "directly 
shipped" to Morocco, he agreed that the final issue was the 
only one in question.  While indirect shipments are permitted 
by the agreement, he said they are examined more closely, 
given the potential for abuse.  In general, he said, Morocco 
understands that direct shipment may not be practical for 
logistical reasons.  If transhipment is undertaken for 
transportation reasons it is acceptable.  The shipping 
documents, he stressed, however, must show sourcing from the 
U.S. and a Moroccan final destination, and not European 
intermediaries.  Resale, he added, is not permitted, nor any 
treatment other than discharge and reloading under Customs' 
control.  He noted earlier discussions (reftel) regarding a 
shipment of California almonds that were shipped to Morocco 
soon after the Free Trade Agreement entered into force, that 
were also denied preferential treatment.  Those almonds, he 
noted, violated the direct shipment provision both because 
they were stored in Europe in anticipation of the agreement, 
and because they were "bought from an intermediary." 
 
¶5. (SBU) Asked whether the goods in these two cases should 
not benefit from the EU-Moroccan trade agreement, if Morocco 
is interpreting their origin as European, Maani said no, as 
the EU agreement stipulates a European certificate of origin, 
which could not be provided here.  He added that certificates 
of origin are not required under the U.S. accord, though they 
are usually provided.  Customs has the right to demand 
additional documents under the U.S. FTA, though it has not 
done so, since full enforcement of the allowed provisions 
would bring trade between the two countries to a standstill. 
He asked that we inquire about the way in which U.S. Customs 
is applying the provisions, but stressed that Morocco 
 
believes it is operating within the letter and spirit of the 
accord. 
 
¶6. (SBU) Comment: Post notes that other Free Trade Agreements 
(such as that between the U.S. and Jordan) have language 
covering situations where invoices and other documents do not 
show the final destination, as Morocco is insisting, and 
would appreciate Department and U.S. agencies view how the 
issue should be interpreted under the U.S.-Morocco agreement. 
 Particularly useful, both for guidance and to respond to 
Maani, would be information on how U.S. Customs is applying 
the agreement to transhipments.  End Comment. 
****************************************** 
Visit Embassy Rabat's Classified Website; 
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/nea/rabat 
****************************************** 
 
RILEY