1. The two regimes in force
The bilateral agreement
The China-ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement, with the Form E.
RCEP
In force for China from 1 January 2022, covering the ten ASEAN members plus Japan, Korea, Australia and New Zealand.
2. The rate comparison
Both agreements deliver preferential rates for most products, and the rates are not identical.
For some products the bilateral rate is lower. For others RCEP’s staged reductions have now overtaken it.
The comparison has to be made product by product, using the current schedules.
3. The origin comparison
The rules differ.
A product may satisfy the bilateral rule and fail RCEP’s, or the reverse.
The regional value content threshold, the tariff change requirement and the treatment of non-originating materials are all drafted differently.
4. The cumulative rules
RCEP allows cumulation across all fifteen members.
The bilateral agreement allows cumulation only between China and the ASEAN member concerned.
For a product using Japanese or Korean inputs, RCEP’s cumulation can be decisive.
5. The documentary burden
Two different certificates, and the exporter cannot hold both for the same consignment.
6. A scenario
A manufacturer used materials from Japan and Korea, plus domestic materials, and exported to Vietnam.
Under the bilateral agreement, the Japanese and Korean content counted as non-originating, and the value-content test failed.
Under RCEP, that content counted as originating, and the good qualified.
RCEP delivered the preference where the bilateral route did not.
7. What to do
Run both tests for each significant product.
Record the result and the reasoning.
Update annually, because RCEP’s schedules are still staging down.
8. Closing view
The existence of two routes is an advantage for exporters who can calculate.
For exporters who cannot, it is a decision made by default.
*This article is based on the China-ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement and RCEP. Exporters should confirm requirements with China Customs.*