Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
  • Legal Updates from YHA Law Firm

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

ADMIRALTY IN REM – WRONGFUL ARREST – POSSESORY RIGHT – ARREST GONE WRONG: WHEN A SHIP ARREST BACKFIRES WITH DAMAGES

In Eletson Holdings Inc & Ors v The Vessel “Paros” [2026] 8 MLJ 80, the High Court set aside an arrest after finding that the plaintiffs had no proprietary or possessory right to the vessel at the time of the writ, as the bareboat charter had already been terminated. The Court held that the claim was in substance a corporate control dispute dressed up as an admiralty action, and emphasised that such disputes do not fall within admiralty jurisdiction. Critically, the plaintiffs’ failure to disclose the termination of the charter when obtaining the arrest warrant amounted to a serious breach, leading the Court to find mala fides or gross negligence and order damages for wrongful arrest. The decision reinforces that ship arrest is a powerful remedy that must be exercised with full disclosure and a proper maritime foundation.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 尚無留言

GUARANTEE – PERSONAL GUARANTEE ≠ PAY ON DEMAND: COURT DRAWS THE LINE BETWEEN SURETYSHIP AND DEMAND GUARANTEES

In CE Energy DMCC v Bashar [2026] Lloyds’s Rep 267, the Commercial Court clarified that not all guarantees labelled “on demand” will be treated as demand guarantees. On a proper construction, the court held that the personal guarantee in question was a contract of suretyship, requiring proof of the principal debtor’s liability rather than automatic payment upon demand. Crucially, the court found that the debtor’s “irrevocable” admissions of debt in a payment agreement created a binding contractual estoppel, which the guarantor could not challenge. The decision also confirms that, where payment is due on a “day certain”, a seller may still claim the price notwithstanding retention of title. The case underscores the importance of precise drafting and the risks of entering into settlement agreements that conclusively fix liability.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 尚無留言

MARITIME NEGLIGENCE – PLAINTIFF CLAIMED FOR DAMAGES CAUSED DURING ANCHOR DEPLOYMENT OPERATION – CALDERBANK OFFERS

In Tom Eastwind 365 Sdn Bhd v The Owners of the Vessel “Icon Sophia” [2025] 9 MLJ 397, the High Court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied in a maritime collision during an anchor deployment operation, allowing an inference of negligence against the tug owner. The Court clarified that the doctrine is not defeated merely because the defendant adduces evidence explaining the accident – such evidence goes to rebutting the inference, not preventing it. While liability was established due to the tug master’s error of judgment in manoeuvring too close to a stationary barge, the plaintiff failed to properly prove its damages and was awarded only RM50,000. Notably, despite succeeding on liability, the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs after rejecting reasonable Calderbank offers, underscoring the risks of pursuing litigation without properly substantiated claims.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 尚無留言

JURISDICTION – BILLS OF LADING – BREACH OF HIMALAYA CLAUSE – BREACH OF EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION CLAUSE – ONEROUS OR UNUSUAL TERMS

In Maersk Guinéa-Bissau SARL v Almar-Hum Bubacar Baldé SARL [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 215, the English Commercial Court held that a shipper was liable for breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause and a Himalaya clause after commencing proceedings in Guinea-Bissau instead of England. The Court confirmed that such clauses are standard and enforceable, and that commencing foreign proceedings in breach of them can give rise to a claim for damages. Notably, the Court also recognised that Himalaya clauses may be used offensively, allowing subcontractors to recover losses caused by wrongful litigation. The foreign judgment was not recognised due to lack of jurisdiction and denial of natural justice.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 尚無留言

DELIVERY WITHOUT PRESENTATION OF BILL OF LADING – LOI WON’T SAVE YOU: SHIPOWNER LIABLE FOR MISDELIVERY DESPITE INDEMNITY

In United Overseas Bank Ltd v The “Maersk Katalin” [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 18, the Singapore High Court reaffirmed that delivery of cargo without presentation of original bills of lading remains a fundamental breach, even where carried out against letters of indemnity. The Court held that LOIs merely shift commercial risk but do not authorise misdelivery, and rejected arguments of consent, ratification and causation. Significantly, the Court emphasised that the burden lies on the carrier to prove that the loss would have occurred in any event – a burden not easily discharged. The decision underscores the continued strict liability regime in misdelivery cases, particularly where banks as bill holders are involved.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 尚無留言

CONTRACT LAW – ‘UK COURTS’ MEANS ENGLAND: COURT UPHOLDS JURISDICTION DESPITE VAGUE CLAUSE

In SMT Global Logistics Ltd v Georgian Airlines LLC [2025] Lloyd’s Rep. Plus 89, the Commercial Court held that a clause referring disputes to “the court in accordance with current legislation of the United Kingdom” was a valid jurisdiction clause in favour of the High Court of England and Wales. The Court also confirmed that the Montreal Convention does not apply to pure contractual claims for non-performance, such as repayment and loss of profits. Emphasising a broad and commercially sensible interpretation, the Court enforced the parties’ choice of forum and refused to stay proceedings, reaffirming that jurisdiction clauses will be upheld unless there are overwhelming reasons to depart.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 尚無留言
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH