RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/REG114/M/1
11 June 2002
(02-3216)
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements
Thirty-Second Session
EXAMINATION OF THE FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC AND ARMENIA
Note on the Meeting of 3 June 2002
Chairperson:  Dr. V. Notis (Greece)
1. The meeting was convened in document WTO/AIR/1805.
2. Under Agenda Item D.V of its Thirty-Second Session, the Committee on Regional Trade
Agreements (hereinafter CRTA or the Committee) t ook up the first round of examination of the Free
Trade Agreement (FTA) between the Kyrgyz Republic and Armenia.  The following topics were
discussed:
A. G ENERAL REMARKS
B. S ECTION I - B ACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE AGREEMENT
C.S ECTION II - TRADE PROVISIONS
D.S ECTION III - G ENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT
A. G ENERAL REMARKS
3. The Chairman said that the FTA between the Kyrgyz Republic and Armenia had been signed
on 4 July 1994 and had entered into force on 27 October 1995.  The notification of the Agreement
could be found in document WT/REG114/N/1, with the text of the Agreement appearing in document
WT/REG114/1 and Corr.1.  He proposed to use the Standard Format, document WT/REG114/3, to
guide the debate.  He recalled the terms of reference for the examination which had been adopted on
14 March 2001 and were contained in document WT/REG114/2 and Corr.1.
B. S ECTION I - B ACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE AGREEMENT
4. Referring to Section I.3 of the Standard Format, the representative of Canada noted that there
were currently no exceptions to the Agreement and sought clarification that this meant that all
commodities and all tariff lines were duty-free in trade between the Parties.  She also wondered if
there were plans to include exceptions in the future.  The representative of Australia added that
according to Section I.3 of the Standard Format , the exceptions to the free-trade regime were
governed by domestic legislation, and that the domestic legislation of the Kyrgyz Republic contained
no exceptions.  He asked whether the domestic le gislation of Armenia also contained no exceptions
and thus that 100 per cent of tariff lines were duty-free.  In reply, the representative of the Kyrgyz
Republic said that, to his knowledge, the Kyrgyz Republic had no intention to introduce exceptions in
trade with Armenia, and that, should that happen, it would be notified to the CRTA.  He added that all
the trade between the Parties was covered by the Agreement without exception and that the Kyrgyz
Republic applied no import or export restrictions in its trade with Armenia.  He was unable to providea reply on behalf of Armenia vis-à-vis  its currently applied domestic legislation.WT/REG114/M/1
Page 2
5. The representative of the United States referred to the statistics presented under Section I.4,
Trade Data, noting that the information provided was more unusual than he was used to seeing.  He
remarked that it did not appear that the FTA had done much for Armenia in terms of generating
exports, while the Kyrgyz Republic had increased its exports from $1,100 to $912,000.  He admitted
that perhaps the numbers were so small that trade statistics were fairly meaningless.  He wondered,however, if the Kyrgyz Republic could provide an explanation of why particular HS Chapters had
been singled out for presentation when there had been no trade at all in those Chapters in 2000.
Likewise, he was interested in knowing if there had been any change in how this trade had been
treated by policy instruments over the course of the period.  He noted that the Agreement had come
into effect in 1995, and that throughout this entire period all the trade between the Parties presumably
had been exempt from duties and other restrictive regulations of commerce.
6. The representative of Canada had a similar query regarding statistics.  She wondered if there
was a mistake in the data and, if not, why there was such a difference over the years.  In 1998, it
appeared that exports were in telecommunications, machinery and textiles, but these products were
not present at all in later years; she wondered if there was an explanation for this.  In addition, she
sought confirmation that the HS Chapter "Other" contained all agricultural products as well as all
other industrial goods.
7. The representative of the Kyrgyz Republic replied that the differences in the statistics
presented might be a consequence of the financial crisis in Asia and the Russian Federation.  He
agreed to provide more detailed statistics on trade before the next Session of the Committee.
8.  The Chairman pointed out a mistake in the trade data presented by the Kyrgyz Republic.
Imports for 1999 showed $17.6  plus $2.6 which should result in $20.2 (thousand US$) instead of the
$10.2 (thousand US$) shown in the document.
C. S ECTION II – T RADE PROVISIONS
9. The representative of Korea asked for clarification of the fact that the information submitted
for this examination made reference to rules of origin signed on 24 September 1993, while the
Standard Format presented in the context of the examination of the Ukraine-Georgia FTA referred to
rules of origin established by the Council of Heads of Government of CIS of 30 November 2000.  In
response, the representative of the Kyrgyz Republic said that the 1993 rules of origin had been
amended and that the new agreement on rules of origin would be notified once the translation fromRussian had been made.
10. The representative of the United States said that Section II.3 of the Standard Format made
reference to the fact that the rules of origin prov ided for the possibility of cumulation while applying
the criterion of substantial transformation.  The Kyrgyz Republic had made a similar statement in
relation to other examined RTAs, but had also indicated that this cumulation principle had never been
applied since detailed rules did not yet exis t (document WT/REG73-76/4 and WT/REG81/4).  He
wondered if the most recent revision of the rules of origin included such provisions.  In response, the
representative of the Kyrgyz Republic drew attention to the agreement on rules of origin applied
currently in all bilateral agreements, as well as in the CIS FTA (document WT/REG82/1).  If this did
not provide a satisfactory response, he asked that the United States representative submit his question
in writing.
D. S ECTION III - G ENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT
11. The representative of the United States asked whether the re-exportation provision was
limited solely to goods which had not been transformed or whether any restrictions applied to the
export of goods which had been substantially transformed.WT/REG114/M/1
Page 3
12. The representative of the European Communities said that if the re-export provision was
applied to goods of Armenian origin re-exported from the Kyrgyz Republic, there had to be some
communication regarding to which products such provisions applied.  He wondered if any products
had been subject to re-export controls from the territory of the Kyrgyz Republic pursuant to these
provisions.  The representative of the Kyrgyz Republic asked that the questions of the United States
and the European Communities be submitted in writing.
13. The Chairman said that the first round of  examination of the FTA between the Kyrgyz
Republic and Armenia had allowed the Committee to clarify a number of questions, but others were
pending.  He invited delegations to forward additional questions to the Secretariat by 21 June 2002
and the Parties to submit replies as soon as possible but not later than 26 July 2002.  The next round
of examination could then be scheduled for a forthcoming meeting.
14. The Committee took note of the comments made.
__________