1. Two routes, different starting points
An exporter shipping to an RCEP member often has more than one preferential route available: the RCEP certificate, or a bilateral agreement certificate if one exists between China and that destination.
The comparison is not simply which rate is lower this year. It is which rate is lower for this product line across the shipment dates involved, against which origin rule the product can satisfy.
Those are two separate questions and both have to be answered.
2. Where bilateral agreements usually win
China has bilateral FTAs with most ASEAN members, with Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Chile, Peru and others.
For ASEAN destinations, the China-ASEAN FTA has been running since 2010 and many lines are already at zero. RCEP, starting in 2022, still has staging to complete on those same lines.
Result: for most ASEAN industrial goods, the bilateral Form E gives an equal or better rate.
For Korea and Australia, the bilateral agreements entered into force earlier than RCEP and are generally deeper.
The pattern is consistent: earlier agreements have run further down their schedules.
3. Where RCEP wins
Japan
No bilateral agreement exists. RCEP is the only preferential route between China and Japan, and it created one where none existed.
Lines excluded or restricted bilaterally
Some product lines are carved out of bilateral agreements and treated more generously under RCEP, or the reverse. The product-specific comparison is the only way to know.
Products that only qualify under RCEP cumulation
This is the commercially important case. A product that fails the bilateral origin rule may pass under RCEP because its non-Chinese inputs come from RCEP members whose material counts.
The rate may be identical. The difference is that under RCEP the claim is available at all.
Consolidated documentation
An exporter shipping to several RCEP markets can use one rule set and one compliance process rather than several. For a company with limited compliance capacity, that operational saving can outweigh a marginal rate difference.
4. The comparison method
Step one: identify the destination and the product’s HS code.
Step two: query the preferential rate under each available agreement for the current year.
Step three: for the agreement with the lower rate, check whether the product can satisfy its origin rule.
Step four: if it cannot, move to the next best rate and repeat.
Step five: confirm the rate will still be in effect on the expected shipment and import dates. January matters.
The step people skip is three. A lower rate attached to a rule the product cannot meet is not an available rate.
5. The January problem
Both RCEP and the bilateral agreements step down on 1 January.
A shipment quoted in November for delivery in February crosses a rate change. So does a shipment quoted in December against a January order.
Two practical consequences. Quotations should state the rate basis and date. And the filing agreement should be checked against the import date, not the shipment date.
6. Documentation differences
The certificate formats differ. The origin criterion codes differ between agreements. The valuation rules for regional value content are similar but the product-specific rules are not identical.
An exporter who moves between agreements should not copy criterion codes. The same code can mean different things in different agreements, or not exist.
Transport rules are broadly similar across agreements but differ in detail. Where goods transit a third country, confirm the evidence requirement for the specific agreement being claimed.
7. A note for importers
If your supplier files under one agreement by default, ask why.
Sometimes the answer is that they compared and it is the better route. Sometimes the answer is that it is the route they always use.
The second answer is not automatically wrong, but it is not a comparison, and the difference can be several percentage points of duty.
8. Closing view
The existence of multiple routes is a benefit only to exporters who actually run the comparison.
For most ASEAN and Korean trade, the bilateral certificate remains the right default. The exceptions are specific and worth finding, particularly where cumulation is the deciding factor and where Japan is involved.
*This article is based on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership and China’s bilateral free trade agreements as published by the Ministry of Commerce Free Trade Area Service Network. Rate queries should use current-year data.*