RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/RO/M/30
27 July 2000
(00-3100)
Committee on Rules of Origin
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 23 JUNE 2000
Chairman:  Mr. A.R. Moroz
The agenda proposed for the meeting, contained in WTO/AIR/1312, was adopted by the
Committee on Rules of Origin (CRO) as follows:
I. OVERALL ARCHITECTURE OF THE HARMONIZED RULES OF ORIGIN
(G/RO/41) ...................................................................................................................... ............1
II. PRODUCT-SPECIFIC RULES OF  ORIGIN (G/RO/41).....................................................5
A. C HAPTERS 1-24 (A GRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND FISH )............................................................5
B. C HAPTERS 84-85 AND 90 (M ACHINERY ) ..................................................................................12
III. ENDORSEMENT OF PROPOSALS ON HARMONIZED RULES (G/RO/W/54) .........14
IV. IMPLICATIONS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HARMONIZED
RULES OF ORIGIN ON OTHER WTO AGREEMENTS (G/RO/W/28/REV.1,G/RO/W/30-34, 38, 42, 48 AND 50).......................................................................................14
V. DEADLINE FOR COMPLETION OF THE WORK PROGRAMME ON
HARMONIZING RULES OF ORIGIN ...............................................................................15
VI. NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 5 AND PARAGRAPH 4 OF ANNEX II
OF THE AGREEMENT ON RULES OF ORIGIN (G/RO/N/28)......................................15
VII. ELECTION OF  OFFICE RS..................................................................................................15
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS............................................................................................................ ....16
(i) Agreement between the European Communities and the United States on rules of
origin ......................................................................................................................... ...............16
(ii) Date of the next meeting ................................................................................................... ........16
I. OVERALL ARCHITECTURE OF THE HARMONIZED RULES OF ORIGIN
(G/RO/41)
1.1 The representative of the European Communitie s, facilitator for the informal plurilateral
discussions on Appendix 2 of the overall architecture, stated as follows:
"1. Introduction
On 21 and 22 June 2000 plurilateral meetings on overall architecture were devoted to the
following sections:G/RO/M/30
Page 2
- Definitions;
- General Rules;
- Appendix 1 – Wholly Obtained Goods;
- Rules 1 and 2 of Appendix 2 – Product-specific Rules.
2. Results of discussions
2.1 Definitions
There was a general preference for definitions to be placed at the beginning of the overall
architecture.  Participating Members agreed to:
- move the definition of "essential character" to the "Observations" section of the text,
as such definition appears unnecessary and could eventually be deleted;
- include in the "Observations" section th e need for a definition of "primary" and
"residual" rules.  The texts on page 14B of document G/RO/41 (third and fourth bullets)
might be a useful starting-point.
One delegation requested that the word "collecting" be inserted in the second paragraph of the
definitions ("Methods of obtaining goods include […] capturing.")  Otherwise, the definitions
included in G/RO/41 appeared to be acceptable.
2.2 General Rules
2.2.1 General Rule 1 – Scope of Application
Consensus on the text appearing in G/RO/41 was reiterated without any
discussion.
2.2.2 General Rule 2 – Harmonized System- Paragraph 1 – Consensus had already been reached at a previous meeting.
- Paragraph 2 – All delegations agreed on the obligation to adapt harmonized
origin rules to the amendments of the Harmonized System.  Doubts remainedon whether the above-mentioned rule was the appropriate provision for any
such statement.  One delegation suggested revisiting Article 6 of the
Agreement on Rules of Origin (the Agreement) to insert such a provision.
2.2.3 General Rule 3 – Definitions
Deleted.
2.2.4 General Rule 4 – Determination of Origin
Consensus had already been reached at a previous session.
2.2.5 General Rule 5 (proposed) – De Minimis
Although participants were still divided on the actual need for such a rule,
there was growing consensus on its application being limited to Appendix 2.
As a result the rule should be moved from the General Rules to Appendix 2.G/RO/M/30
Page 3
The most debated issue concerned the "mandatory" nature of such a provision
(uniform and mandatory application vs. facilitation").
2.2.6 General Rule 5 – Minimal Operations
There was growing consensus on the application of such a provision to
Appendix 1; on the contrary, a number of delegations remained hesitating to
apply this provision also to Appendix 2.
As regards the definition, consensus was reached on the second version of the
text (in bold).  Although delegations remained largely divided on the need for
a list containing examples of such minimal operations, a majority of themwere in favour of deleting it.  In any event, such a list would not be a
comprehensive one.
2.2.7 General Rule 6 – Neutral Elements
As a number of delegations expressed their interest in the provision, which
had been temporarily deleted, its reintroduction shall be analyzed upon
completion of the examination of product-specific rules.
2.2.8 General Rule 7 – Packing and Packaging Materials and Containers
Consensus had already been reached at a previous session.
2.2.9 General Rule 8 – De Minimis
Deleted (see point 2.2.5).
2.2.10 General Rule 9 – (NEW) Accessories and Spare Parts
This provision was moved from Appendix 2 (Rule 5(a)) as it applies to both
Appendices.
There was growing consensus on the current wording of such provision, even
though one delegation suggested the word "imported" should be replaced by
"presented".
2.3 Appendix 1 – Wholly Obtained Goods
Further to the various requests for clarification, the Secretariat recalled the status of
the "Notes" appearing next to the "Definitions".  The CRO had decided that they were
legally binding.
"Definitions" 1(a) to (f) had already been adopted by the CRO.
There was growing consensus for definition (g ), pending the lifting of the reservations
expressed by one delegation.
Additionally, there was growing consensus for alternative 1 of definition (h).G/RO/M/30
Page 4
There was also growing consensus to delete the footnote concerning environmental
considerations.  Such a footnote was regarded as superfluous since there were other
instruments specifically dealing with environmental problems.
Definition 1(i) shall be discussed once a decision is reached on definitions (g) and (h).
As far as Definition 2 is concerned (products of sea-fishing), in the light of the new
proposals made by two delegations, any future discussion should focus on the
following substantive issues:
- the concepts of territorial sea and economic exclusive zone;
- "nationality" of the vessels:  flag as a single criterion to determine origin of fishery
products outside the territorial sea.
The proponent of the "alternative" text for Definition 2 withdrew his proposal.
2.4 Appendix 2 – Product-Specific Rules of Origin
2.4.1 Rule 1 – Scope of Application
Consensus had been reached at a previous session.
2.4.2 Rule 2
2.4.2.1 Rule 2(a)
No progress can be reported on this issue.  Delegations remained divided
concerning the deletion of this rule and its current wording.
2.4.2.2 Rule 2(b)
The rule was accepted, although one delegation expressed some concern on
the word "production", as it was not included amongst the Definitions.
2.4.2.3 Rule 2(c)
There was no progress on this issue.
2.4.2.4 Rule 2(d)
The rule appears to be acceptable.
2.4.2.5 Rule 2(e)
Some delegations indicated that the rule might be redundant as it referred to
instances already covered by rule 2(f).  On the other hand, some delegations
considered that the rule promoted clarity and should consequently be kept.
2.4.2.6 Rule 2(f)
Positions remain divided."G/RO/M/30
Page 5
1.2 The representative of Colombia stated that the footnote attached to Definition 1(h) should be
deleted.  The representative of Thailand stated that several delegations reserved their positions on the
footnote.
1.3 The representatives of Hong Kong China, Mexico  and the Philippines  expressed concern over
the suggested revisiting of Article 6 of the Agreement.1.4 The representative of Mexico stated that he had been unable to participate in the plurilateral
meetings for the overall architecture, and he reserved his country's position on any consensus reached
by Members at the plurilateral meeting.
1.5 The CRO took note of the statements made.
II. PRODUCT-SPECIFIC RULES OF ORIGIN (G/RO/41)
A. CHAPTERS 1-24 (A GRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND FISH )
2.1 The representative of Argentina, facilitator for the informal plurilateral discussions on
chapters 1-3 and 6 (meat products) and 24 and headings 22.04-22.08 (alcoholic beverages and
tobacco), stated as follows:
"Issue No. 1:  There was no consensus reached.  An important number of delegations are
actually supporting option B.  One delegation considered it would be useful to clarify or
define the raising process.  About this matter one delegation pointed out the importance oftaking into consideration geographical situations.  Some delegations indicated that they would
review their positions on this issue.
Issue No. 2:  There was no consensus reached.  Some delegations indicated that they would
review their positions on this issue.Issue No. 3:  There was no consensus reached.
Issue No. 4:  There was no consensus reached.  An important number of delegations are
actually supporting option B.Issue No. 5 (ex 02.09(c)):  Consensus was reached for option B.
Issue No. 6(i) (ex 02.09(b) and (c)):  There was no consensus reached.  An important number
of delegations are actually supporting option B.Issue No. 7:  There was no consensus reached.
Issue No. 49:  There was no consensus reached.  For 16.01 and 16.02 several delegations
suggested eliminating indicative letters for the options to be replaced for rules of origin
options.
Issue No. 50:  There was no consensus reached.  There was substantial support for options B
and C.
Issue No. 98:  There was no consensus reached.
Issue No. 99:  There was no consensus reached.G/RO/M/30
Page 6
Issue No. 100:  There was no consensus reached.
Issue No. 101:  There was no consensus reached.
Issue No. 102:  There was growing consensus towards option A.
Issue No. 103:  There was no consensus reached.  An important number of delegations are
actually supporting option C.
Issue No. 104:  There was no consensus reached.
Issue No. 105:  There was no consensus reached.
Issue No. 106:  There was no consensus reached.
Issue No. 107:  There was no consensus reached.
Issue No. 108:  There was no consensus reached.  An important number of delegations are
actually supporting option A.Issue No. 111:  There was no consensus reached.  A question was raised as to whether this
issue requires terminology clarifications.Issue No. 125:  There was no consensus reached."
2.2 The representative of Norway, facilitator for the informal plurilateral discussions on
chapters 3 and 16 (fish products), stated as follows:
"Issues No. 4(ii):  Drying of fish;  fish livers, roes and fish fillets:  Both remaining options, A
and C, command broad support.
Option A:  11 delegations
Option B:  11 delegations
Issue No. 6(ii):  Smoking of fish;  fish livers, roes and fish fillets:  Both options command
support, the balance being in favour of option A.
Option A:  13 delegations
Option B:  8 delegations
Issue No. 7:  Obtaining edible meals and pellets of meat, offal, fish crustaceans or aquatic
invertebrates:  Close to consensus in favour of option A.  Two delegations support option B,
and one of these delegations indicated that the door was still open.
Option A:  18 delegations
Option B:  2 delegations
Issue No. 8:  Treatment, conditioning and/or raising of live ornamental fish:
Issue No. 8(i):  Treatment and conditioning:  Clearly emerging consensus in favour of
option B, as B received support from five new delegations and one delegation changed from
A to B.
Option A:  2 delegationsOption B:  12 delegations
Issue No. 8(ii):  Raising:  It was decided to deal with this under issue No. 9, since this was
considered substantially the same issue.G/RO/M/30
Page 7
Issue No. 9:  Raising fish:  Emerging consensus in favour of option A, i.e. raising fish is
origin-conferring, if raised from egg or fry.  Two other subpositions of A still remain, each
commanding support from one delegation.  Two delegations still support option B, of which
the only one present indicated that option A will be considered.
Option A: 14 delegations, if raised from eggs or fry
1 delegation, if raised for two months
1 delegation, if raised for four months
Option B: 2 delegations
Issue No. 10(i):  Chilling, freezing and other processing of products from the sea:  Emerging
consensus in favour of option B, which gain ed five new supporters, while one of the
supporters of option A indicated willingness to consider.Option A:  6 delegations
Option B:  15 delegations
Issue No. 11:  Obtaining fish surimi:  It was questioned whether surimi was to be considered a
separate issue.  Some delegations suggested th at the Secretariat, together with interested
delegations, could clarify this before the next meeting.  If surimi is to be maintained as a
separate issue, both options command some support.
Option A:  6 delegations
Option B:  7 delegations
Issue No. 12:  Obtaining fish fillets:  No significant change in balance.  Both options still
command considerable support.
Option A:  13 delegations
Option B:  10 delegations
Issue No. 13:  Obtaining fresh, chilled or frozen fish meat from fresh, chilled or frozen fish:
Increasing support in favour of option C, as two delegations changed from A to C and four
other delegations supported option C.  One delegation still indicated that it is considering
option B, while one delegation has yet to decide which option to support.
Option A:  6 delegations
Option B:  1 delegation
Option C:  13 delegations
Issue No. 14:  Obtaining shark's fin cake:  At the previous plurilateral meeting there had been
consensus in favour of option C, but this had later been changed by one delegation, who could
not support the consensus.  This delegation was not present at the plurilateral meeting on
13 June 2000.  The consensus was reconfirmed at this plurilateral meeting.
Issue No. 15:  Obtaining salted fish:  For salte d fish without specifications of process, both
options command broad support.  To facilitate consensus, one delegation had previously
suggested making a distinction between "heavy salted" fish on the one hand, and salted fish
and putting fish in brine on the other, keeping in mind that there are internationallyrecognized definitions of "heavy salted" fish.  Practically, this distinction could be made by
creating a separate ex-position for "heavy salted" fish.  A proposed reformulation of the
template to this effect received support from an increasing number of delegations, most of
whom could support option A, origin-conferring, for "heavy salted" fish.  Only three
delegations were opposed.  These three delegations would support option B, nonorigin-conferring, regardless of the degrees of salting.  It appears, however, that a split
heading would be a fruitful approach, as there is an emerging consensus in favour of
option A, origin-conferring, for "heavy salted" fish.
Salted fish (no split):G/RO/M/30
Page 8
Option A:  9 delegations
Option B:  11 delegations
"Heavy salted" fish:
Option A:  12 delegationsOption B:  3 delegations
Issue Nos. 49 and 50 (16.03-16.05):  Obtaining products classified in chapter 16 from
chapters 2 or 3 or from other headings in the same chapter:  There was still strong support in
favour of a CTH rule for both issues, but no consensus was reached.  Previously it had been
decided to deal with the two issues together, but this was now reversed.  There was still some
support for chapter Notes.
A specific list of support for the various options on each tariff line was not obtained."
2.3 The representative of Mexico, facilitator for the informal plurilateral discussions on chapter 4
(dairy products), stated as follows:
"Issues Nos. 4(iii), 16, 17 & 18:  There was no consensus reached.
Issue No. 19:  There was no consensus reached.  One delegation made a new proposal
"CTHS" for subheading ex 04.02(d) and stated that obtaining milk powder from reconstituted
milk should be substantial transformation.  Another delegation pointed out that reconstitutedmilk was made from milk powder;  it was unlikely to obtain milk powder from reconstituted
milk.
Issue No. 20:  There was no consensus reached.
Issue No. 21:  There was an emerging consensus towards option A.
Issue Nos. 22 & 23:  There was no consensus reached.  One delegation supporting option B
indicated its intention to join option A if there was consensus on option A.  Another
delegation supporting option B also indicated that they would review their position.
Issue No. 25:  It was pointed out that this issue was the same as Issue No. 4(iii).  Delegations
supporting option A indicated that they woul d review their positions in light of the
discussion."
2.4 The representative of the Czech Republic, facilitator for the informal plurilateral discussions
on chapters 6 and 9 and heading 21.01 (coffee, spices and flowers), stated as follows:
"Issue No. 26:  Consensus was reached for option A in the meeting of the CRO on
27 March 1998 (G/RO/M/14, paragraph 5.1(1)).Issue No. 27:  Consensus was reached for option B (subject to verification by the Philippines).
Issue No. 28:  There was no consensus reached.
Issue No. 30:  There was no consensus reached.  It was pointed out that the decaffeination
process normally took place before the roasting process;  therefore, one delegation indicated
that it would study the possibility of shorteni ng the rule from "CTSH, except from subheading
0901.21" to merely "CTSH".G/RO/M/30
Page 9
Issue No. 31:  There was no consensus reached.  One Member supporting option A stated that
blending of coffees normally took place before roasting, and therefore the option A position
was intended to address both the blending and roasting issues.
Issue No. 32:  There was no consensus reached.
Issue No. 33:  There was growing support for option A.
Issue No. 34:  Consensus was reached for option B in the meeting of the CRO on
27 March 1998 (G/RO/M/14, paragraph 5.1(1)).
Issue Nos. 35 & 36:  There was no consensus reached.
Issue Nos. 79-82:  There was no consensus reached.
Issue No. 83:  There was growing support for option A.
Issue No. 122:  There was no consensus reached.  One delegation pointed out that this issue
was already considered under Issue No. 31."
2.5 The representative of Brazil, facilitator for the informal plurilateral discussions on chapters 7,
8 and 20 and headings 21.02-22.07 and 23.08 (vegetable, fruit and nut products), stated as follows:
"The plurilateral discussions on vegetables and fruits reviewed the positions of the
Members on several issues included in chapters 7, 8, 20, 21, 22, 23 and also clarified some
production processes related to drying and freezing vegetables and fruits, the classification of
different tomato products and the production of protein concentrates.
Issue No. 4-IV:  Some Members informed different positions for drying vegetables and for
drying fruits.  There is only one Member supporting option B.  There are more Members in
favour of option C than option A.
Issue No. 10-II:  Some Members had different positions for freezing vegetables and for
freezing fruits.  There are more Members supporting option B than option A.Issue No. 29:  No consensus was reached.
Issue No. 69:  Some Members asked for the introduction of the option WO.  There was a
discussion on the meaning of option CC except chapters 7 and 8 and the option WO.
Issue No. 70:  Some Members asked for the introduction of the option WO.  There was a
discussion on the meaning of option CC except chapters 7 and 8 and the option WO.
Issue No. 71:  No consensus was reached.
Issue No. 72:  There was a discussion on the classification of the product concerned between
chapter 20 or 21.  No consensus was reached.Issue No. 73:  No consensus was reached.
Issue No. 74:  No consensus was reached.
Issue No. 75:  No consensus was reached.G/RO/M/30
Page 10
Issue No. 76:  No consensus was reached.
Issue No. 77:  No consensus was reached.
Issue No. 78:  No consensus was reached.
Issue No. 84:  No consensus was reached.
Issue No. 85:  No consensus was reached.
Issue No. 86:  There is only one Member supporting option B.  No consensus was reached.
Issue No. 87:  No consensus was reached.
Issue No. 88:  No consensus was reached.
Issue No. 89:  No consensus was reached.
Issue No. 90:  One Member asked for the introduction of the option CTH except chapter 17.
No consensus was reached.
Issue No. 91:  Only one Member is supporting option B.  No consensus was reached.
Issue No. 92:  No consensus was reached.
Issue No. 93:  Only one Member is supporting option C.  No consensus was reached.
Issue No. 94:  No consensus was reached.
Issue No. 95:  Option B was merged in option C.  Only one Member supported option D.
Issue No. 96:  Option C was deleted.  No consensus was reached.
Issue No. 97:  Only one Member supported option D and only one supported option E.  No
consensus was reached.
Issue No. 109:  No consensus was reached.
Issue No. 110:  No consensus was reached."
2.6 The representative of the United States, facilitator for the informal plurilateral discussions on
chapter 15 (animal and vegetable oils), stated as follows:
"Issue No. 43:  There was no consensus reached.  One delegation supporting option A stated
that fats of heading 15.01 were obtained by rendering of fats classified in heading 02.09, and
that the rendering process was a simple extraction, not a refining of crude fats.  Other
delegations supporting option B stated that the rendering process was a time-consuming
process, and that fats of heading 15.01 included refined ones.
Issue No. 44:  There was no consensus reached.G/RO/M/30
Page 11
Issue No. 45:  There was no consensus reached.  It was agreed that the following footnote
should be added to the proposed Chapter Note 2:  "Some delegations do not see the need for
this Chapter Note considering that they do not recognize refining as substantial
transformation".
Issue Nos. 46 & 115:  There was no consensus reached.
Issue Nos. 116-120 & 122:  There was no consensus reached.  There was agreement to delete
paragraphs 458 and 459 of G/RO/41, Issues for Decision:  Chapters 1-24."
2.7 The representative of New Zealand, facilitator for the informal plurilateral discussions on
chapters 17 and 18 (sugar and cocoa products), stated as follows:
"Issue No. 51:  There was no consensus reached.  One delegation stated that since the beet
sugar was not raw sugar, splitting this issue in two (i.e. cane sugar and beet sugar) might be
helpful for further examination of this issue.  A number of delegations also questioned
whether this issue was relevant to ex 17.02(d) and ex 17.02(e).
Issue No. 52:  Consensus was reached for option B in the meeting of the CRO on
27 March 1998 (G/RO/M/14, para. 5.1(1)).  However, no consensus has yet been reached on a
specific rule for option B, with three proposals currently on the table.
Issue Nos. 53 and 54:  There was no consensus, with delegations remaining relatively evenly
split on whether or not the processes discussed constitute substantial transformation.
Issue No. 55:  There was no consensus reached.  Building on discussions at the CRO meeting
on 27 March 1998 (G/RO/M/14, para. 5.1(3)), one delegation supporting option B stated that
ex 17.02(b) and ex 17.02(c) could be merged.  This would focus the issue on whether or not
the manufacturing of invert sugar is substantial transformation.
Issue No. 56:  There was no consensus reached.  However, the majority supported a
non-origin conferring rule.Issue No. 57:  There was no consensus reached.
Issue No. 124:  One delegation only continued to support the application of this note to
chapter 18.Issue No. 58:  There was no consensus reached but the majority supported option A.
Issue No. 59:  The position of those delegations supporting option B was clarified and one
delegation undertook to consider further whether there was a difference between cocoa butter
and cocoa fat or oil.  The majority favoured option A.
Issue No. 60:  There was no consensus reached.  However a clear majority believed the
operation in question did confer origin.
Issue No. 61:  There was no consensus reached.  However, the majority supported option B.
Issue Nos. 62-64:  There was no consensus reached."G/RO/M/30
Page 12
2.8 The representative of Chile, facilitator for the informal plurilateral discussions on
chapters 12-14 and 19 (oil seeds, lac and gums, vegetable plaiting, cereal products) and notes of
chapters 5, 10 and 11, stated as follows:
"Issue No. 35:  There was no consensus reached.
Issue No. 37:  There was no consensus reached.  One delegation supporting option A stated
that obtaining flours or meals of agricultural products should be considered as substantial
transformation.  Its position on production of flours and meals was intended to be consistent
through all agricultural products.  Other delegations supporting option B stated that flours and
meals were obtained by a simple operation, i.e. grinding.
Issue No. 38:  Consensus was reached for option B in the meeting of the CRO on
27 March 1998 (G/RO/M/14, paragraph 5.1(1)).
Issue No. 112:  There was no consensus reached.
Issue No. 39:  There was no consensus reached.  A question was raised as to whether the
"CC" rule and the "wholly obtained" rule might lead to the same origin outcome.  However, it
was pointed out that some products of heading 13.01 could be obtained from imported
materials, resulting in different origin outcomes.
Issue No. 113:  There was no consensus reached.  One delegation stated that a chemical
reaction rule might be needed for split subheading 13.02(c);  another delegation stated that the
chemical rule was unnecessary for these items.
Issue No. 114:  There was no consensus reached.
Issue No. 40:  There was no consensus reached.  It was pointed out that the "CC" rule and the
"wholly obtained" rule led to different origin outcomes for some products covered by this
issue.
Issue No. 41:  Consensus was reached for option B in the meeting of the CRO on
27 March 1998 (G/RO/M14, paragraph 5.1(1)).
Issue No. 42:  Consensus was reached for option B.
Issue No. 124:  There was no consensus reached.
Issue No. 65:  There was a growing consensus towards option A.
Issue No. 66: There was no consensus reached.
Issue No. 67: There was a growing consensus towards option A.
Issue No. 68: There was no consensus reached."
B. CHAPTERS 84-85 AND 90 (M ACHINERY )
2.9 The representative of the United States, facilitator for the informal plurilateral discussions on
chapters 84, 85 and 90 (machinery), stated as follows:G/RO/M/30
Page 13
"Summary of plurilateral meeting: A plurilateral meeting was held June 20, 2000 to complete
discussion of chapters 85 and 90 . Discussion was limited to product-specific issues Nos. 59
through 67 (chapter 85) and Nos. 75 through 86 (chapter 90) identified by the TCRO.
Discussion of the issues provided insights to the intention of various Members' proposals and
served to further clarify differences and similarities among the various proposals.
During the discussion, some changes and clarifications in the positions of Members with
respect of  product specific issues were indicated. They will be reflected in the Integrated
Negotiated Text.
Issue No. 59:  There was no consensus reached.
Issue No. 60:  There was no consensus reached. One proponent explained the purpose of its
proposal was to provide for the origin of an electronic device obtained by mounting 2 or more
electronically active devices of the same heading to produce a single unit.
Issue No. 61:  There was no consensus reached. A question was raised as to whether the
goods involved in this issue, (85.41), were ever programmed. If they are not programmed, this
issue could be dropped.
Issue No. 62:  There was no consensus reached.
Issue No. 63: There is considerable support for not recognizing the solitary process of testing
as origin-conferring. Members favoring  testing as origin-conferring were invited to
reconsider their positions.
Issue No. 64: There was no consensus reached.
Issue No. 65: There was no consensus reached.
Issue No. 66:  There was no consensus reached. Question was raised as to whether optical
cables were incorporated into electrical conductors.Issue No. 67: There was no consensus reached. Members were requested to clarify the
application of the residual rules should the primary rule not be satisfied.Issue No. 75: There was a growing consensus for option A.
Issue No. 76: There was no consensus reached.
Issue No. 77:  There was no consensus reached. The facilitator suggested the possibility of the
Members accepting as origin-conferring the production of complex cables similar to those for
telecommunications.
Issue No. 78:  There was no consensus reached. Two observations were advanced. There may
be a lack of understanding regarding the meaning of the term “polishing” when used in the
context of preparing lens blanks for ultimate use. Some consider that the term might include
grinding processes. If that is the case, there may be a basis for agreement since the proponent
opposed to recognizing polishing alone would accept grinding and polishing as origin-conferring.
Interest was also expressed in considering a CTSH rule to accommodate working of polarized
sheets for optical purposes.G/RO/M/30
Page 14
Issue No. 79:  There was no consensus reached. Some Members indicated an interest in
re-examining option A.
Issue No. 80:  There was no consensus reached.
Issue No. 81:  There was no consensus reached. Some members indicated that it appeared the
issue of simple assembly might underlie the difference of views and that a horizontal rule
might help to achieve agreement.
A Member expressed interest in considering the residual rule proposal for this issue.
Issue No. 82:  There was growing consensu s for option B. Considerable support was
expressed for a single country of origin for the goods concerned, rather than separate origins
for the camera body and the lens. Concern was expressed regarding the attachment of an
interchangeable lens onto a camera backing as being a simple operation that should not be
considered origin-conferring.
Issue No. 83:  There was no consensus reached. This appears to be an issue of simple
assembly.Issue No. 84:  There was no consensus reached. Possibly another issue of simple assembly.
Issue No. 85:    There was no consensus reached. Possibly another issue of simple assembly.
Issue No. 86: There was no consensus reached ."
2.10 The CRO took note of the statements made.
III. ENDORSEMENT OF PROPOSALS ON HARMONIZED RULES (G/RO/W/54)
3.1 The Chairman recalled that consensus had been reached on Issue No. 8 of chapters 84, 85 and
90 at the last plurilateral meetings, and that the CRO, at its meeting on 14 April 2000, had agreed to
revert to Issue No.9 of chapters 44-49 and Issue N o. 1(c) of chapters 72-73.  These issues had been
forwarded to the CRO for endorsement in document G/RO/W/54.
3.2 The CRO endorsed option A of Issue No. 9 of chapters 44-49.  The origin rule of subheading
4808.10 should read:  "CTH".
3.3 The CRO agreed to delete Issue No. 8 of chapters 84, 85 and 90.
3.4 The representative of Malaysia stated that Malaysia supported option A and therefore could
not endorse option B of Issue No. 1(c) of chapters 72-73.3.5 The CRO took note of the statement.
IV. IMPLICATIONS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HARMONIZED RULES
OF ORIGIN ON OTHER WTO AGREEMEN TS (G/RO/W/28/REV.1, G/RO/W/30-34,
38, 42, 48 AND 50)
4.1 The Chairman recalled that, as concerned this agenda item, there had been submissions from
five Members on the table:  from India (G/RO/ W/28/Rev.1, G/RO/W/30, 42 and 50);  from the UnitedG/RO/M/30
Page 15
States (G/RO/W/32 and 48);  from the Dominican  Republic and Honduras (G/RO/W/33);  from El
Salvador (G/RO/W/34);  a nd from Korea (G/RO/W/38).
4.2 The CRO took note of the statement.
V. DEADLINE FOR COMPLETION OF THE WORK PROGRAMME ON
HARMONIZING RULES OF ORIGIN
5.1 Based on informal consultations with Members, the Chairman summarized the discussion on
this issue as follows:
"There was a general recognition that while the CRO had developed good momentum under
the work programme for 2000, which it had adopted in January 2000, a deadline would be auseful and important facilitator for completing the Harmonization Work Programme (HWP).
However, a number of delegations stated that the deadline had to be realistic and that the
results of the HWP should be a quality product.  Delegations also discussed the question of
credibility of the WTO in terms of (a) setting a deadline and (b) missing a deadline.  One
delegation proposed a particular date as a deadline, and several delegations supported thatproposal.  Other delegations were of the view that the proposed date was too tight and not
likely to be achievable.  While a number of delegations suggested that the July stocktaking
meeting offered an opportunity to assess the state of progress, and to possibly set a deadline,
some other delegations suggested that December might be a more appropriate time to consider
the deadline.  Various delegations also indicated that informal consultations on this mattershould continue."
5.2 The representative of India reiterated the statements contained in paragraph 5.2 of document
G/RO/M/29.
5.3 The CRO took note of the statements made.
VI. NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 5 AND PARAGRAPH 4 OF ANNEX II OF THE
AGREEMENT ON RULES OF ORIGIN (G/RO/N/28)
6.1 The Chairman recalled that since the meeting in April 2000, the Secretariat had circulated a
document informing delegations of the new notifications received (G/RO/N/28).  To date, 72
Members had made notifications of non-preferential rules of origin and 75 Members had madenotifications of preferential rules of origin.
6.2 The Chairman expressed concern that a number of Members had not yet complied with the
notification requirements.  He urged Members who ha d not yet notified to do so as early as possible.
6.3 The CRO took note of the statement.
VII. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
7. The CRO elected Mr. Sándor Simon (Hungary) as Chairman, and Mr. Ho Young Ahn (Korea)
as Vice-Chairman of the CRO for 2000.G/RO/M/30
Page 16
VIII.  OTHER BUSINESS
(i) Agreement between the European Communities and the United States on rules of origin
9.1 The representative of India expressed regret that the mutually agreed solution between the EC
and the US concerning the dispute on changes in rules of origin by the US had not yet been circulated.
The US, at the last meeting, had indicated that they had already reached a mutually agreed solutionand that they intended to notify that solution to all the relevant WTO bodies.  The DSU obliged the
EC and the US to notify the mutually agreed soluti on in its full extent and not to negotiate with the
other party to the dispute as to what should be the contents of the notification.
9.2 The representatives of Hong Kong China and the Philippines
 (speaking on behalf of ASEAN)
supported India's request.
9.3 The representative of the United States stated that his delegation intended to fulfil its
obligation.  However, the substance of that negotiation was still under discussion.  The notification
would be made in the near future.
(ii) Date of the next meeting
9.4 The CRO agreed to hold its next meeting on 18 July 2000, on the basis of the following
agenda:
17 July 2000 (10 a.m.): Informal meeting
Agenda:
1. Assessment of status of negotiations on architecture by architecture facilitator
- Where are we
- What are the obstacles to progress
- What do we need to do to get decisions
2. Assessment of status of negotiations on product-specific rules by plurilateral
facilitators (in order of HS classification)
- Where are we
- What are the obstacles to progress
- What do we need to do to get decisions
3. Overall assessment:  Problems, conclusions, solutions
4. Adjustments to "Notional Work Programme for 2000" (G/RO/M/27)
- Any adjustments required to the September meeting
- What should be the focus and agenda of the meeting following the September
meeting, i.e. the meeting scheduled currently for November/December (e.g.
continuation of architecture and product-specific negotiations;  single focus
on architecture;  etc.)
- Should there be a second meeting before the end of the year and what would
be the agenda (e.g. stocktaking;  work programme for 2001;  etc.)
5. Finalization of agenda for September meeting6. Deadline for completion of the Work Programme on harmonizing rules of origin
7. Other businessG/RO/M/30
Page 17
18 July 2000 (10 a.m.): Formal meeting
__________