RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONS/C/W/150
16 June 2000
(00-2415)
Council for Trade in Services Original:  English
COMMUNICATION FROM HONG KONG, CHINA
Review of Article II Exemptions
Questionnaire on the List of MFN Exemptions
(from Financial Services to Transport Services)
The attached paper has been received from the delegation of Hong Kong, China with the
request that it be circulated to Members of the Council for Trade in Services.
_______________
Hong Kong, China would appreciate if written replies could be provided to the questions
below in advance of the CTS special session, in order to facilitate discussion.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of Hong Kong, China (HKC) for the review of MFN exemptions are four-fold
(a) to improve the clarity  of the existing exemptions;
(b) to enhance their transparency ;
(c) to consider their necessity ; and
(d) to review their consistency with the WTO/GATS obligations .
I. GENERAL QUESTIONS
1. It is noted in the list compiled by the Secretariat (Job no. 1551) that some Members have
listed MFN exemptions which appear to allow them to grant less favourable treatment than that
inscribed in their respective schedules of specific commitments.  It is our understanding that this is not
in accordance with the scheduling convention.  We would appreciate the Members concerned to
apprise us of the rational behind such exemptions.  Such exemptions include:
- Peru (Financial Services, page 84 and 85); Slovak Republic (Financial Services, page 87);
Turkey (Financial Services, page 89 and page 112, 3rd entry); USA (Financial Services,
page 90); Bulgaria (Air Transport Services, page 117)S/C/W/150
Page 2
2. It is noted that some Members have left the 5th column on “Conditions creating the need for
the exemption” blank.  For transparency sake, would appreciate if the Members concerned could
provide the necessary information.  Such exemptions include:
− Venezuela (maritime transport services, page 113); Costa Rica (road transport services,
page 130, 5th entry)
3. We note that some Members have formed regional agreements with neighbouring countries
under which MFN exemption measures are maintained.  We are interested to know whether an RTA
has been formed in such cases, and if so, whether the exemptions concerned can be covered by GATS
Article V.
- Honduras (page 81, 2nd entry)
II. QUESTIONS ON SECTORS
A. FINANCIAL SERVICES
General Question
4. For transparency purpose, would the Members concerned provide the description of the
preferential measures taken in accordance with the respective bilateral/regional agreements.
− Côte d’Ivoire (page 78, 3rd entry; page 79, 5th entry and page 80, 1st entry); Senegal
(page 85 and 86)
Specific Questions
5. Austria (page 75) :  For transparency purpose, please elaborate on the list of countries to
which the requirement of an economic interest test can be waived - which was “subject to further
consideration”.  Are any Members which have scheduled according to the Understanding on
Commitments in Financial Services included?
6. Côte d’Ivoire  (page 79, 3rd entry) :  It is noted that deposits made with a bank by a resident
require an authorisation from the Minister for Finance except for WAEMU members states.  Wewould like to know the thinking behind this requirement and whether the conditions which created the
need for this exemption still prevail?
7. Singapore (page 86) :  It would be useful to know whether ASEAN Re has yet achieved the
minimum paid up capital of US$ 10 million - in which case the exemption would no longer be
required.
8. Slovak Republic (page 87, footnote) :  Would like to know if the new Act on Banks been
adopted and hence this exemption can be removed?
B. R
ECREATIONAL , CULTURAL AND SPORTING SERVICES
9. EC (page 93, 1st entry) :  For transparency sake, please explain what the reciprocity is.  Does
it concern publication in French in other Members - or in the national language(s)?  Are other EC
member states affected by this exemption?S/C/W/150
Page 3
C. TRANSPORT SERVICES
(a) Maritime Transport Services
10. Several Members from Africa have made identical,  or near identical entries regarding coastal
shipping (cabotage trade), maritime transport in general, bulk and specialised cargoes.  These are
extremely broad in their scope.  It would be useful to know whether the Members concerned are ableto define the scope of the exemptions deemed necessary.  Such Members include:
− Angola, Benin, Cameroon, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Gabon, Mali, Niger and Senegal
11. It is found that some Members have not specified the countries to which the exemptions apply
(3rd column).  For transparency purpose, we would appreciate Members concerned to provide such
information.
− Angola (page 94); Benin (page 94-95); Cameroon (page 96-97); Congo (page 99); Côte
d’Ivoire (page 100); Gabon (page 101-102); Mali (page 103); Niger (page 104-105) and
Senegal (page 106)
12. We would appreciate if Bolivia  would provide the description of the exemption measures
(2nd column).
13. It is noted that a number of Members has put in similar description in the duration column
(4th column), viz. “near future, while the objectives pursued takes root” .  We would like to know if
the objectives have been achieved and hence if the exemptions can be removed.
− Cameroon (page 96, 3rd entry); Congo (page 98); Côte d’Ivoire (page 99); Gabon
(page 101); Mali (page 102); Niger (page 104, 2nd entry); Senegal (page 106, 1st entry)
(b) Air Transport Services
14. For transparency purpose, we encourage Members to list in the 3rd column the countries with
which bilateral air services agreements are concluded.
(c) Road Transport Services
15. Thailand (page 139) :  For transparency sake, would Thailand provide the description of the
exemption measures concerned?
__________