Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

REGULATIONS – GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE (GATT 1947 )

Article 1: General Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment

1. With respect to customs duties and charges of any kind imposed on or in connection with importation or exportation or imposed on the international transfer of payments for imports or exports, and with respect to the method of levying such duties and charges, and with respect to all rules and formalities in connection with importation and exportation, and with respect to all matters referred to in paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article III,* any advantage, favour, privilege or immunity granted by any contracting party to any product originating in or destined for any other country shall be accorded immediately and unconditionally to the like product originating in or destined for the territories of all other contracting parties.

2. The provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article shall not require the elimination of any preferences in respect of import duties or charges which do not exceed the levels provided for in paragraph 4 of this Article and which fall within the following descriptions:

    I. preferences in force exclusively between two or more of the territories listed in Annex A, subject to the conditions set forth therein;
    II. preferences in force exclusively between two or more territories which on July 1, 1939, were connected by common sovereignty or relations of protection or suzerainty and which are listed in Annexes B, C and D, subject to the conditions set forth therein;
    III. preferences in force exclusively between the United States of America and the Republic of Cuba;
    IV. preferences in force exclusively between neighbouring countries listed in Annexes E and F.

3. The provisions of paragraph 1 shall not apply to preferences between the countries formerly a part of the Ottoman Empire and detached from it on 24 July, 1923, provided such preferences are approved under paragraph 5 of Article XXV which shall be applied in this respect in the light of paragraph 1 of Article XXIX.

4. The margin of preference* on any product in respect of which a preference is permitted under paragraph 2 of this Article but is not specifically set forth as a maximum margin of preference in the appropriate Schedule annexed to this Agreement shall not exceed:

    I. in respect of duties or charges on any product described in such Schedule, the difference between the most-favoured-nation and preferential rates provided for therein;
    II. in respect of duties or charges on any product not described in the appropriate Schedule, the difference between the most-favoured-nation and preferential rates existing on April 10, 1947.

In the case of the contracting parties named in Annex G, the date of April 10, 1947, referred to in subparagraphs (I) and (II) of this paragraph shall be replaced by the respective dates set forth in that Annex.

Article II – Schedules of Concessions

1(a). Each contracting party shall accord to the commerce of the other contracting parties treatment no less favourable than that provided for in the appropriate Part of the appropriate Schedule annexed to this Agreement.

1(b). The products described in Part I of the Schedule relating to any contracting party, which are the products of territories of other contracting parties, shall, on their importation into the territory to which the Schedule relates, and subject to the terms, conditions or qualifications set forth in that Schedule, be exempt from ordinary customs duties in excess of those set forth and provided therein. Such products shall also be exempt from all other duties or charges of any kind imposed on or in connection with importation in excess of those imposed on the date of this Agreement or those directly and mandatorily required to be imposed thereafter by legislation in force in the importing territory on that date.

2. Nothing in this Article shall prevent any contracting party from imposing at any time on the importation of any product:

    (a) a charge equivalent to an internal tax imposed consistently with the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article III*;
    (b) any anti-dumping or countervailing duty applied consistently with Article VI*;
    (c) fees or other charges commensurate with the cost of services rendered.

3. No contracting party shall alter its method of determining dutiable value or of converting currencies so as to impair the value of any of the concessions provided for in the appropriate Schedule annexed to this Agreement.

4. If any contracting party establishes or authorizes a monopoly of the importation of any product described in the Schedule, such monopoly shall not operate so as to afford protection in excess of the amount provided for in that Schedule.

5. If any contracting party considers that a product is not receiving the treatment contemplated by a concession, it shall bring the matter directly to the attention of the other contracting party and renegotiation shall follow if required.

Article XX – General Exceptions

Subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in a manner constituting arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade, nothing shall prevent the adoption of measures:

a. necessary to protect public morals;
b. necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health;
c. relating to the importation or exportation of gold or silver;
d. necessary to secure compliance with laws not inconsistent with this Agreement;
e. relating to products of prison labour;
f. imposed for the protection of national treasures;
g. relating to conservation of exhaustible natural resources;
h. undertaken under an intergovernmental commodity agreement;
i. involving restrictions on exports of domestic materials;
j. essential to the acquisition or distribution of products in short supply.

Article XXI – Security Exceptions

Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed:

a) to require any contracting party to furnish information contrary to its essential security interests;
b) to prevent action necessary for protection of essential security interests relating to:
    (i) fissionable materials;
    (ii) arms, ammunition, implements of war;
    (iii) taken in time of war or emergency in international relations;
c) to prevent action under the UN Charter relating to peace and security.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

CIVIL PROCEDURE – STRIKE OUT UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 19(1)(A),(B) RULES OF COURT 2012 – EXTENSION OF TIME APPLICATION

In Badan Pengurusan Subang Parkhomes v Zen Estates Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 3591, the High Court reaffirmed that non-compliance with Order 37 Rule 1(5) of the Rules of Court 2012 does not automatically invalidate assessment of damages proceedings. The Court held that procedural rules must be read with the overriding objective of ensuring justice, and that the six-month time limit to file a Notice of Appointment is directory, not mandatory. Finding no prejudice to the defendant and noting active case management by the plaintiff, the Court dismissed the developer’s strike-out bid and allowed an extension of time for assessment to proceed. The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to substantive fairness over procedural rigidity in post-judgment proceedings.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

TORT – PURE ECONOMIC LOSS BAR REAFFIRMED: MMC LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE BUT PROTECTED FROM LOST PROFIT CLAIMS

In Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd v Majlis Perubatan Malaysia & Anor [2025] MLJU 3144, the High Court awarded over RM2 million in damages against the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) for negligence, breach of statutory duty, and misfeasance during its accreditation of Lincoln University College’s medical programmes. While the court allowed direct financial losses such as survey costs, it barred claims exceeding RM550 million for lost profits, reaffirming the Federal Court’s rulings in Steven Phoa and UDA Holdings that pure economic loss is not recoverable from public or statutory bodies. The second defendant was further ordered to pay RM100,000 in exemplary damages for acting with targeted malice, marking a rare personal liability finding against a regulatory officer.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

ERINFORD INJUNCTION – COURT OF APPEAL CLARIFIES: EX-PARTE ERINFORD INJUNCTIONS ARE THE EXCEPTION, NOT THE RULE

In Edisijuta Parking Sdn Bhd v TH Universal Builders Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] 5 MLJ 524, the Court of Appeal clarified that ex parte Erinford injunctions at the appellate stage should only be granted in truly exceptional circumstances where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the order. Wong Kian Kheong JCA held that, under rule 50 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, such applications should generally be heard inter partes to ensure fairness and prevent abuse. Exercising powers under section 44(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, the Court granted a conditional interim Erinford injunction pending appeal, fortified by a RM200,000 deposit and an undertaking to pay damages. The ruling provides clear guidance on balancing urgency, procedural fairness, and judicial efficiency in appellate injunctions.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

TOTAL FAILURE CONSIDERATION – FEDERAL COURT OVERRULES BERJAYA TIMES SQUARE: TOTAL FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION REDEFINED

In Lim Swee Choo & Anor v Ong Koh Hou @ Won Kok Fong [2025] 6 MLJ 327, the Federal Court unanimously overruled Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd v M Concept Sdn Bhd and clarified that the doctrine of total failure of consideration applies only to restitutionary relief, not to contractual termination. The Court held that the correct test is whether the promisor has performed any part of the contractual duties in respect of which payment is due, adopting Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co [1998] 1 WLR 574. Finding that the appellants had partly performed their obligations and the respondent had derived benefits, the Court rejected the respondent’s claim for restitution and restored the appellants’ contractual claim. The landmark decision restores clarity between contract and restitution, reinforcing commercial certainty in Malaysian law.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

CONTRACT (BILL OF LADING) – NO DUTY TO DETECT FRAUD: COURT CLEARS MAERSK OF LIABILITY FOR FALSE CONTAINER WEIGHTS

In Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE v Maersk A/S [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 323, the English Commercial Court held that carriers are not liable for fraudulent misdeclarations by shippers where bills of lading are issued for sealed containers. The Court ruled that Maersk had no duty to verify or cross-check declared weights against Verified Gross Mass (VGM) data under the SOLAS Convention, as its obligation under the Hague Rules extended only to the apparent external condition of cargo. However, the judgment signals that a limited duty of care could arise in future where a carrier is put on notice of fraud. For now, carriers may rely on shipper declarations, but consignees must exercise commercial vigilance and due diligence when relying on bills for payment.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES – STATUTORY BODY DUTY – DAMAGES – OBTAINING APPROVAL

In Big Man Management Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2025] 5 MLJ 290, the Federal Court reinstated nearly RM3.56 million in special damages and awarded RM100,000 in exemplary damages against TNB for wrongfully disconnecting electricity to an ice factory. The Court ruled that “strict proof” of special damages does not mean a higher burden beyond the civil standard of proof and affirmed that TNB, as a statutory monopoly, breached its statutory duty by using disconnection as leverage to collect payment. The judgment underscores that public utilities cannot misuse statutory powers, and consumers wrongfully deprived of essential services may be entitled to punitive remedies in exceptional cases.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us