WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED  
 G/C/M/44  
30 October 2000  
 (00-4535)  
  Council for Trade in Goods  
7 July and 16 October 2000  
  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING  
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard  
on 7 July and 16 October 2000  
 
Chairperson:  Ambassador  C. Pérez del Castillo  
 
 This meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods (CTG) was convened by Airgram 
WTO/AIR/1344.  The proposed agenda contained in document G/C/W/218 was adopted.    
 
I. TRIMS AGREEMENT: REQUESTS FOR EXTENSION OF THE  
TRA NSITION PERIOD PURSUANT TO ARTICLE  5.3 ................................ ....................  2 
II. REVIEW OF THE OPERATION OF THE TRIMS AGREEMENT UNDER 
ARTICLE  9 ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................  15 
III. REQUEST FOR A WAIVER FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE EU 
AUTONOMOUS PREFERENTIAL TREAT MENT TO THE COUNTRIES OF 
THE WESTERN BALKANS  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 17 
IV. REQUEST FOR A WTO WAIVER – NEW ACP -EC PARTNERSHIP 
AGREEMENT  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  18 
V. EC/FRANCE – TRADING ARRANGEMENTS WITH MOROCCO:  
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE W AIVER  ................................ ............................  23 
VI. REQUEST FOR A WTO WAIVER – TURKEY:  PREFERENTIAL 
TREATMENT FOR BOSNIA -HERZEGOVINA  ................................ ...............................  23 
VII. TRADE -RELATED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE:  CUSTOMS VALUATION 
MODEL WORK PROGRAMME (COMMUNICATION FR OM THE 
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES)  ................................ ................................ ............................  23 
VIII.  APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS FOR SUBSIDIARY BODIES OF THE 
COUNCIL – COMMITTEE ON SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY 
MEASURES  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................  24 
IX. OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  24 
 
_______________  
 
 The meeting was adjourned and resumed on 16 October 2000 in order to finalize Item I 
"TRIMs Agreement: Requests for extension of the  transition period pursuant to  Article  5.3".  
 G/C/M/44  
Page 2 
 
 
I. TRIMS AGREEMENT: REQUESTS FOR EXTENSION OF THE  TRANSITION 
PERIOD PURSUANT TO ARTICLE  5.3 
 Before opening the floor for discussion on this item, the Chairman  referred to the tabular 
summary of documents appearing in the footnote to Item 1 of the Agenda.  He said that the Secretariat 
had prepared this t able simply for information purposes, to indicate which documents referred to 
which country in the question and reply process relating to requests for extensions of the TRIMs 
transition period.   
 
 The representatives of Argentina  and Mexico  were grateful for the explanation, and the 
representative of Mexico said no agreement had ever been reached to the effect that the question and 
reply exercise was part of the procedures that Members had to follow.  The tabular summary did  not 
in any way validate any ty pe of procedure that had not been previously agreed.  
 
 The Chairman  said that the Council had before it requests for extensions of the transition 
period for the elimination of TRIMs which had been notified pursuant to Article 5.1.  These requests 
had been submitted by nine  Members pursuant to Article 5.3 of the TRIMs Agreement.   He recalled 
that the Philippines had formally submitted a request for an extension of this transition period at the 
CTG meeting of 15 October 1999, and that at its meeting of 24 J anuary 2000, the CTG had also 
considered requests from Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan and Romania.  The 
Council had recently received a request from Thailand for the extension of its transition period, and a 
communication had also b een submitted by Chile to modify its initial request for an extension of the 
transition period.  
 
 The Chairman then recalled that at its meeting on 5  April 2000 the CTG had agreed:  "That 
the Members, having made requests and wishing to hold consultations  with other Members might do 
so with the blessing of this Council;  any written exchange of questions and replies should be 
submitted for the information of all Members.  Second, the Chairman of the CTG would hold 
informal consultations of the CTG as appro priate, with the understanding that during informal 
meetings it would be in the hands of all Members to decide the breadth of the discussion.  At its next 
formal meeting the CTG would review progress in all respects of these requests." (G/C/M/43 
paragraph 2.16.).  
 
 Since the CTG meeting in April the Secretariat had circulated written replies from Chile, 
Colombia, the Philippines, Malaysia and Romania to questions that had been submitted by some 
delegations.  The matter of the transition period provided for in the TRIMs Agreement had also been 
the subject of consultations within the framework of the General Council, and, as a result of these 
consultations, the General Council had adopted on 8  May 2000 a decision which, inter -alia, called on 
the CTG to give po sitive consideration to the requests that had been made in conformity with 
Article  5.3 and had mandated the CTG Chairman to hold informal consultations in order to facilitate 
the process and strengthen its multilateral character.  Pursuant to this Decision , he had recently held 
several series of informal consultations.  To sum up, there had been a process of an exchange of 
information and consultations with regard to the requests that had been made pursuant to Article 5.3, 
and, as agreed at the last meeting , the task now was to review progress in this process.  However, 
before reporting on the consultations he had held, he asked the representatives of Thailand and Chile 
to introduce their  communications.  
 
 The representative of Thailand said that it had no tified the TRIMs Committee in 1995 of 
certain investment laws and regulations related to trade.  Since then the Thai Government had taken 
the necessary steps to ensure progressive structural adjustment by gradually bringing these measures 
into conformity w ith the TRIMs Agreement.  As a result, local content requirements for the assembly 
of motor vehicles and engines had been successfully eliminated on 1  January 2001. However, taking 
into account its development, financial and trade needs, Thailand had been facing difficulties in 
eliminating the local content requirement for the manufacture of ready -to-drink milk.  A number of  G/C/M/44  
 Page 3 
 
 
factors, both external and internal, had affected Thailand's transitional process for the elimination of 
TRIMs as notified.  During th e transition period, Thailand had suffered the worst economic crisis in 
its history, severely setting back its economic and development goals.  The crisis that began in 1997 
resulted in a serious setback, creating difficulties in implementing appropriate s tructural adjustment 
for the dairy sector within the timeframe envisaged in the TRIMs Agreement.  Notwithstanding the 
severity of the crisis and despite having to operate under such unfavourable conditions, Thailand had 
fully complied with the obligation r egarding the elimination of trade -related investment measures 
with respect to the automotive industry.  This underscored Thailand's  commitment to implement in 
good faith its obligations under the TRIMs Agreement. Such meaningful and significant progress 
should be duly recognized, and Thailand's continued efforts in working towards successful 
elimination on the remaining measure should be acknowledged.  This request for an extension of its 
only remaining trade -related  investment measure was based on the ne ed for more time to effectively 
carry out structural adjustment in order that Thailand could successfully bring the sector fully in line 
with the commitments under the TRIMs Agreement.   He  noted with satisfaction the recent progress 
on the issue of the T RIMs transition period under the Chairman's able guidance in his informal 
consultations.  He believed that developing countries should be provided with the necessary flexibility 
to implement their development policies to help reduce economic disparities wi th which they were 
faced.  The efforts and progress demonstrated by developing -country Members over the past five 
years in faithfully implementing their commitments under the TRIMs Agreement must be fully 
recognized and taken into account when considering their requests for extension.  He also wished to 
recall that in the 8  May Decision, the General Council had agreed to direct the CTG to give positive 
consideration to individual requests while  underscoring the need to preserve the multilateral character  
of the process.  No conditions over and beyond the existing obligations should be imposed upon those 
Members seeking extension.  He said that his delegation had been having bilateral consultations with 
Members interested in Thailand's request and that he  would be able to report on the result of these 
consultations in due course.  
 
 The representative of Chile  said that it had originally requested an extension of the transition 
period until 31 May 2000.  However, there had  been a delay with legislative proc eedings because of 
unforeseen internal difficulties and Chile had needed to amend its request to extend the period to 31 
December 2000.  
 
 The representative of the United States  appreciated Thailand's presentation concerning its 
dairy TRIM but had procedur al concerns due to the lateness of the request.  That said, she noted that 
the United States had consulted with Thailand and was examining the substance of its request in the 
hope that in continued consultations they would be able to have a positive approa ch to Thailand's 
needs with respect to the domestic dairy situation.  
 
 The representative of New Zealand  said that his delegation had had consultations with 
Thailand on a bilateral basis.  New Zealand also had some difficulties with the procedural issues 
involved but was looking at this request in a sympathetic manner.  It would continue its dialogue with 
Thailand.  
 
 The representative of Mexico  said his delegation had not had bilateral contacts with either 
Thailand or Chile.  It was concerned about holding  consultations, especially in one case, because it 
was not entirely sure that from a procedural point of view the requests corresponded to Mexico's 
interpretation of Article 5 of the TRIMs Agreement.  This was something it was hoping to be able to 
clarify bilaterally.  
 
 The representative of Canada  said that while Canada was looking positively at the substance 
of Thailand's request, it, too, had procedural questions as to whether or not this request could be 
considered through the CTG process in accordance with Article 5.3 of the TRIMs Agreement.  
 G/C/M/44  
Page 4 
 
 
 The representative of Australia  indicated that Australia had had consultations with Thailand 
and was prepared also to give its request sympathetic and positive consideration on a substantive 
basis;  however, Austr alia, too, had some procedural questions that probably should be answered as 
soon as possible.  
 
 The representative of Brazil  said that unlike other Members, Brazil had not had bilateral 
consultations with Thailand or Chile, or with any of the countries wh ich were requesting extension of 
the transition period.  Nevertheless, his delegation noted that Thailand had raised a very interesting 
procedural question.  
  
 The representative of Malaysia  questioned why Members were raising procedural concerns 
relating to Thailand's request for an extension of the transition period.  There was no deadline in 
Article  5.3 for submitting requests, and certainly no language saying that such a request should have 
been submitted before 31  December 1999.  Thailand had a genuine  problem in that more time had 
been needed for internal consultations.  Malaysia, therefore, could not accept debate over whether 
Thailand's application could be considered under the CTG's process or some other process.  
 
 The representative of Japan  said h is delegation, too, had had bilateral consultations with 
Thailand.  Japan fully sympathized with the problems Thailand was facing in the dairy sector, but, 
like some of the previous speakers, and contrary to Malaysia's position, Japan had some difficulty o n 
procedural grounds.  
 
 The representative of Mexico  wished to clarify that his comments had not been referring to 
Thailand.  His delegation understood that when in May this year the General Council had adopted the 
Decision on the transition period for TRI Ms, it had taken into account the misgivings that certain 
delegations had had at the time regarding the date on which the request for the time extension had 
been submitted.  His delegation had participated in that Decision and had understood that the inter ests 
of Thailand were duly covered.  
 
 The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that the procedural question that some 
delegations had raised actually involved the interpretation of Article  5.3 and was a systemic one.  
Once bilateral consultations had b rought some conclusions, then perhaps the CTG or even the General 
Council should take an opportunity to look at this systemic matter at a later stage.  
 
 The representative of the Philippines  said that the 8  May Decision of the General Council 
divided Membe rs into two groups:  i.e., Members who had requested an extension, and Members who 
had not yet requested an extension.  The Decision had been taken on 8  May, so Members desiring an 
extension should be categorized according to which group they fell in as of  that date.  
 
 The representative of Switzerland  said that his delegation found Thailand's request to pose a 
procedural problem which Switzerland would be looking at as soon as possible.  
 
 The representative of Venezuela  informed Members that Venezuela had not had bilateral 
consultations with Thailand.  His delegation joined the countries that had adopted a flexible attitude 
vis-à-vis Thailand's request.  The CTG should adopt a positive approach to Thailand's request. If 
delegations had indicated a preferenc e for multilateral flexibility with regard to these requests, then 
Thailand's request should be treated positively.  
 
 The representative of Thailand  thanked Mexico for recalling the discussions held during the 
drafting of the 8  May General Council Decision .  In that consultation the problem had been discussed, 
and he believed the 8  May Decision had solved any ambiguity.  As pointed out by the Philippines, 
Thailand had followed the required procedure as set out in the TRIMs Agreement and his delegation 
consi dered that the Decision of the General Council on 8 May had clarified the situation.  He also 
thanked Venezuela for having expressed a flexibile attitude toward Thailand's request.  Without  G/C/M/44  
 Page 5 
 
 
prejudice to individual Members' views, Thailand was willing to si t down and discuss further its 
request.  His delegation very much hoped that Members would accord Thailand the opportunity to 
adequately address the substance rather than dwelling on the procedural aspect of the request.  
 
 With respect to the comment by th e Philippines on the two groups of Members treated in the 
8 May Decision, the representative of the United States  added that the first group involving those 
requesting extensions presupposed that the requests were consistent with the terms of the TRIMs 
Agreement.  Therefore, her delegation's interpretation would be consistent with the legal regime 
already existing in the Agreement itself.  That said, the United States was looking sympathetically at 
Thailand's request, and its sympathy toward their request w ould include its examination of the 
procedural question as well.  
 
 In response to the United States delegation, the representative of the Philippines  said there 
was certainly significance in the fourth bullet point of the 8  May Decision.  It referred to th ose 
Members who had not yet requested an extension as of the date 8  May.  The "yet" was significant in 
this respect.  If it were in accordance with interpretation of the United States, the word "yet" would 
not have been used.  The representative of the United States  said that her delegation was fully aware 
of the "yet" in paragraph  4, and that her previous comments still stood.  
 
 The Chairman  suggested that the Council take note of the requests made by Thailand and 
Chile and of the comments made by delegati ons.  He then went on to inform the Council about the 
consultations he had had in accordance with the 8  May Decision of the General Council on questions 
regarding the transition period provided for in the TRIMs Agreement.  Initially he had had 
consultation s with the group of Members which had submitted requests, and subsequently with a 
larger number of delegations.  Over this period there had been a series of consultations among 
interested parties, which had made it possible to shed light on a number of imp ortant points.  In his 
consultations, delegations had said that they were ready to take constructive positions in consonance 
with the Decision of the General Council, but they still had differing views, especially about the 
duration and the terms of the ex tension of the transition period.  Although some Members had 
suggested that the CTG could examine draft decisions on some of the requests, this suggestion had not 
met with any general support.  His impression was that the subject was not sufficiently matur e for the 
CTG to take specific action, so in these circumstances he felt he needed to continue with informal 
consultations, in conformity with the 8  May Decision of the General Council.  In these consultations 
he would retain the multilateral nature of the  exercise and would attempt to make progress so as to 
bring the process to a timely conclusion soon.  However, this new round of consultations could only 
be positive if delegations demonstrated greater flexibility.  He hoped that, as a result of such 
consu ltations, it would be possible in the very near future to submit draft decisions for adoption by the 
CTG. In this regard, from a procedural standpoint, his preference would be to leave the present 
meeting of the CTG open on this particular issue so as to b e able to reconvene it as soon as possible 
and as circumstances warranted.  Otherwise the CTG could close the present meeting and leave open 
the possibility of convening an extraordinary meeting for the purpose he had just described.  
Nevertheless, this la tter option would imply meeting certain deadlines and requirements which from a 
practical point of view would not help the CTG towards an early decision.  Therefore, he favoured the 
first option, i.e., that the CTG suspend the present meeting regarding thi s particular item.  He then 
asked for comments.  
 
 The representative of the United States  remained interested in resolving all the legitimate 
extension requests through the Article  5.3  process and felt that such an approach would ensure that 
all the indiv idual needs of the requesting Members could be addressed.  Her delegation had 
participated in the exchange of questions and answers and also had had bilateral meetings with 
countries eligible for an extension through the Article  5.3 process.  It was prepar ed to continue with 
these dialogues with the goal of finding a satisfactory solution.   She said the United States could 
support Romania's request for an extension in the automobile sector until November 2001 because it 
was limited with regard to the timefr ame as well as its application.  Additionally, the CTG had been G/C/M/44  
Page 6 
 
 
informed that the non -conforming measure was based on a contract that would expire and that 
Romania had repealed the law on which the contract was based.  For these reasons there was no need 
to require any form of expedited dispute settlement which might be a necessary component for some 
other requests.  There were additional issues which her delegation had talked to Romania about and 
that still needed to be resolved, in particular regarding th e shipbuilding sector.  Concerning Chile's 
request, Article 5.3 did not seem applicable.  Her delegation noted Chile's representation that it was 
merely requiring time to complete its domestic process to remove the TRIMs, and as such the United 
States supp orted Chile's expectation to complete its legislative process by 31  December 2000, which 
would bring Chile into conformity with its WTO obligations.  Her delegation remained open for 
further consultations with Chile.  Having had consultations with some oth er trading partners, she 
could report that these two specific cases were ripe, and the United States was working quickly on 
other cases to facilitate the Chairman's consultations and the work of the CTG.  Mexico's case also 
seemed close to resolution.  If other delegations were comfortable proceeding according to the 
Chairman's first option, the United States would as well.  
 
 The representative of Japan  expressed gratitude for the Chairman's initiative to find an early 
resolution to this question of the ext ended transition period on TRIMs based on Article  5.3 of the 
TRIMs Agreement.  Like some of the other interested parties, Japan also had had a series of bilateral 
– as well as plurilateral – consultations with those Members that had tabled their requests a nd that had 
responded to Japan's questions in order to find the earliest possible resolution of the matter.  His 
delegation encouraged the Chairman to continue with the consultation process.  For the purpose of 
information sharing on where Japan stood with  respect to specific requests, like the United States, 
Japan was in a position to accept the request for extension as far as Romania was concerned for its 
TRIMs in the automobile area.  It was a specifically time -bound request, and the conditions that Japa n 
had wanted to see had been fulfilled.  On Chile, Japan, too, had the impression that the Chilean 
Government had tried in earnest to abolish the TRIMs as early as possible.  Japan believed that the 
time-period the Chilean Government was requesting was a m atter of a technical nature in order to 
complete a legal process which took slightly more time than they had foreseen.  Japan was therefore 
viewing this sympathetically and should be able to agree on it.  As to other requests, Japan was 
looking at them ser iously to find solutions.  Regarding the Chairman's suggestion to suspend the 
meeting on item 1 of the Agenda, Japan would support his efforts to find an early solution to this 
problem.  
 
 The representative of Malaysia, on behalf of the ASEAN Member countr ies, reiterated that it 
was the legal and procedural right of all developing -country Members to seek recourse to Article  5.3 
of the TRIMs Agreement.  Several Members had had reason to do so.  Despite ASEAN's repeated 
calls not to do so and the multilateral ly-agreed criteria adopted by the General Council on 8  May 
2000, it was regrettable that bilateral conditionalities continued to be imposed on several Members as 
part of possible agreements on the requested extensions.  ASEAN urged all Members of the WTO t o 
exercise reason and understanding regarding the concerns of developing countries and to refrain from 
imposing any form of conditionalities.  It was important for WTO Members at this phase to look at 
requests of developing -country Members in a pragmatic a nd objective manner since this would 
contribute greatly to enhancing the confidence -building efforts.  This was a time for the WTO and its 
Members to show that the WTO was truly a multilateral institution, sensitive to the concerns of all 
Members, particul arly those of its developing -country Members.  The WTO could not have a system 
where some Members were being subjected to conditions for merely seeking justified extensions of 
their transition periods.  ASEAN urged the Chairman to continue consultations on  this matter and 
wished to place on record its appreciation for his untiring efforts thus far.  ASEAN also wished to 
reiterate the importance of the multilateral character of the exercise and the need to find multilateral 
solutions as soon as possible for the applicants.  ASEAN could agree with the proposal to suspend the 
discussion on item 1 until a future date.  
 
 The Chairman  said that he was suggesting to suspend the present meeting on this item alone 
because he felt that at this time the individual case s were not sufficiently ripe for decision.   G/C/M/44  
 Page 7 
 
 
Considerable progress had been made, and through some additional consultations the CTG could be in 
a position to reconvene in the present meeting in the near future, so as to take certain specific 
decisions.  
 
 The representative of the European Communities  stated that, on the specific cases, his 
delegation believed there were three that were ready for decision or nearly so.  If the CTG had to 
suspend its meeting because of the general situation, his delegation wo uld put on record that it was 
perfectly willing to reach agreement on extensions of time for three cases.  The first was Chile, whose 
case involved a very short -term extension to cover the legislative process.  The second was Romania, 
where, like others, t he EC had no difficulty in agreeing to extend the transition period regarding the 
automobile sector for a more limited period.  In fact, in both this and the ship -building sector, there 
had been major industrial developments that really had changed the nat ure of this request and its 
significance. The third case that the EC would be ready to agree upon was the request by the 
Philippines.  The EC was willing to have an extension of that transition period up to the end of 2001.  
His comments were the result of  the bilateral and plurilateral consultations the EC had had with 
countries in all three cases.  
 
 The representative of Romania  thanked the United States, Japan and the EC for judging in a 
clear and positive manner its request for an extension of the trans ition period for its TRIMs. His 
delegation was satisfied that the request for the automobile industry had not had any condition 
imposed upon it and that what Romania was requesting had been well understood.  He emphasized 
that the measures that Romania was  still maintaining for its ship -building industry had the same 
character as the ones regarding its car industry.  In fact, Romania had changed its legislation for the 
investment regime from 1996, and the two investment objectives in question had been pursu ed 
through old legislation which had been in force prior to 1995.  Romania also had a very precise 
deadline for the ship -building industry, and the measures that were subject to conditionality that had 
been allowed through legislation would end at a very s pecific time.  At the same time, the new 
legislation gave no room for any new or further TRIMs as it contained no TRIMs.  He expressed 
appreciation to the countries that had accepted to enter into consultations with his delegation and 
stressed that Romania  was open to further consultations.  His delegation was confident that special 
attention would be given to the second part of Romania's request.  Most of the investment had made 
significant changes to the shape of Romania's industry, and Romania relied on the support of WTO 
Members to allow it to continue its process of transition to a market economy and to make reforms 
not only in these two sectors but in others too.  
 
 The representative of the Philippines  thanked the delegation of the EC for its willingne ss to 
accede to the Philippine request.  He noted that the EC had said that it was willing to accept the 
request provided that the extension would be until the end of 2001.  In that regard, he wished to 
remind the CTG that the Philippine request was for fi ve years, and whilst expressing its gratitude to 
the EC, his delegation had to express its view that the Philippines needed five years.  His delegation 
considered that the purpose of the CTG processes from here on should be to give effect to the 8 May 
Deci sion of the General Council.  The Decision unequivocally directed the CTG to take into account 
any kind of particular difficulties, including internal and external, encountered by developing 
countries in implementing the provisions of the TRIMs Agreement a nd the development, financial 
and trade needs of the country in question.  In this regard, the Philippines, like others, had formally 
explained its particular difficulties and had expressed its legitimate development, financial and trade 
needs.  Those expl anations and expressions were on record.  The Decision likewise unequivocally 
directed the CTG to take into account such elements and "to give positive consideration to individual 
requests".  The word "positive" qualified the word "consideration".  There w as a significant 
distinction between just giving consideration and giving positive consideration.  He noted that some 
Members had expressed a willingness to grant the extensions subject to what they called a 
"reasonable" time -limit.  Whatever that so -calle d reasonable time -limit might be, the imposition of 
pre-established criteria was in complete disregard of the respective particular difficulties and needs of 
each applicant, and it was therefore contrary to the letter and spirit of the General Council's De cision.  G/C/M/44  
Page 8 
 
 
Other conditions had been imposed in the course of bilaterals but had not actually been proposed 
formally as multilateral conditions.  As far as he could recall, no single delegation had put forward a 
proposal in the CTG regarding such conditions.   If a proposal containing conditions should be made, 
that proposal would have to be assessed and decided upon collectively.  The Decision stressed the 
multilateral character of the process.  The situation therefore was as follows:  the Philippines had 
explained its particular difficulties and had elaborated on its needs.  The CTG had not agreed on any 
condition for the granting of the requests.  On the other hand, the CTG had instructions from the 
General Council to give positive consideration to them.  He  reiterated his delegation's view that the 
CTG had no choice but to give such requests positive consideration.  Nevertheless, should the CTG in 
the future still be unable for any reason to decide on the requests by consensus, Rule 33 of the Rules 
of Proced ure of the CTG itself provided "where a decision cannot be arrived at by consensus, the 
matter at issue shall be referred to the General Council for decision".  The General Council had 
already decided and that Decision stood unless the General Council itse lf decided otherwise.  
 
 The representative of Pakistan  expressed appreciation for the Chairman's efforts in trying to 
amicably resolve this issue.  He wished to comment on the state of play.  Questions had been posed to 
Pakistan by the EC, the United State s and Japan, and its capital was engaged in preparing its 
responses to the questions, which would be made available as and when they were ready.  Pakistan 
would fully support the Chairman's proposal for suspending the meeting on this particular item as for  
some cases the decisions were not yet ripe.  Pakistan would be willing to engage in further 
consultations in this regard.  
 
 The representative of Canada  thanked the Chairman for his work in trying to move this issue 
forward.  Canada concurred on the impor tance of moving forward on the legitimate TRIMs requests 
and also shared the hope of finding early solutions and taking early decisions on as many of these 
requests as possible.  In that regard, Canada could indicate at the present meeting that, for the re asons 
set out by the United States and Japan, Canada, too, could support the request by Romania with regard 
to an extension until November 2001 in the case of automotive goods.  Likewise, with regard to Chile, 
Canada understood the circumstances Chile foun d itself in trying to finalize its legislation process for 
the removal of TRIMs, and could support providing some time to allow Chile to complete that 
process.  Otherwise, Canada was prepared to engage with others to see if the CTG could move 
forward on th e other requests.  
 
 The representative of Cuba  congratulated the Chairman for his constructive efforts in trying to 
find an overall solution to this important matter.  Cuba's position was simple to express:  Cuba gave 
its full endorsement to the statement by ASEAN because it would be just for extensions to be granted 
to any such countries requesting them for development reasons, and there should not be any 
procedural issues or matters of substance which would delay a solution to this problem.  
 
 The represen tative of India  joined other delegations in expressing gratitude to the Chairman 
for his efforts to find a meaningful and satisfactory solution for this difficult TRIMs issue.  India 
could support the Chairman's proposal to suspend the present CTG meeting enabling him to complete 
the consultations regarding the TRIMs issue and coming back to it when the CTG would be resumed.  
This would give him additional time to have further consultations and to find a solution.  Having said 
that, he wished to mention tha t the 8  May Decision of the General Council envisaged various types of 
situations.  At present the Chairman was dealing with only one particular type of situation.  It was 
India's expectation that in due course the CTG would deal with the other types of si tuations 
contemplated by the 8 May General Council Decision.  India supported the statement by Malaysia on 
behalf of ASEAN on this important issue.  His delegation had always said since 1996 that this 
organization could not divorce itself from the concept of equity.  The ASEAN statement highlighted 
the need for the CTG's keeping in view equity considerations so that the developing countries who 
had some problems would be enabled to overcome their problems and meet their developmental 
aspirations.  
  G/C/M/44  
 Page 9 
 
 
 The repr esentative of Chile  thanked the Chairman for his hard work on this issue.  Chile 
welcomed the consultations which he intended to continue to find a solution which would satisfy all 
Members.  He pointed out that it was July, and the CTG still had not reache d any consensus on this 
issue.  This pointed to the fact that there was something happening in the WTO in the way in which 
the Membership handled business and took decisions, which obviously was not the Chairman's 
responsibility because he had done everyth ing possible to push this through.  Therefore Chile hoped 
that these new consultations would give greater speed to the process and end the uncertainty for 
governments, and for the business operators concerned.  Chile thus supported the Chairman's proposal 
that the CTG suspend the present meeting on this item.  He thanked all the delegations who had 
expressed views on Chile's request, and he reiterated that his Government was making all necessary 
efforts to put itself into conformity with its obligations und er the TRIMs Agreement.  On the point 
raised by the United States regarding conformity with Article  5.3, he reserved his delegation's right on 
this and said he would continue holding bilateral consultations with those delegations that considered 
it necessa ry. 
 
 The representative of Mexico  added his thanks to the Chairman for his efforts in handling this 
matter which in itself was rather sensitive and complex.  Mexico had had some contacts with its 
counterparts as a Member having requested an extension of t he original transition period under the 
TRIMs Agreement.  It had not initiated contacts nor had it been contacted by any other Member 
making such a request for an extension. On this latter point, Mexico, as a Member which might or 
might not give its agreem ent to other Members for an extension, had noted that at least two of these 
requests did not concern trade -related investment measures which seemed to meet the requirements 
contained in Article  5, in particular paragraphs 1 and 4.  Therefore, such requests  required a different 
type of procedure, one that was distinct from the requests that had been made in the appropriate time 
and in the appropriate way under Article 5, particularly paragraphs 1 and 4.  In his delegation's view, 
such requests would fall und er the provisions of paragraph  4 of the General Council Decision, and 
pursuant to the terms of that paragraph, under the auspices of the General Council, the Chairman 
should hold consultations to see how to proceed.  That, in particular, seemed to be the c ase of the 
request made by Chile.  Mexico did not have any problem in terms of the substance of that request.  
There had been delays and there was a need to find a prompt solution in order for that country's 
Government as well as its business operators not  to have further uncertainty.  This additional time 
should be granted.  Mexico's concerns related to the procedure to be followed, which seemed not to 
fall so much to the CTG but rather to the General Council, which was the only body empowered to 
grant exe mptions or waivers.  Mexico was still considering the other requests that had been submitted 
by other Members.  Regarding its request for an extension, Mexico had on repeated occasions 
indicated both in bilateral contacts as well as multilaterally, that it  was willing to assume 
commitments such as those that were discussed in some of the draft guidelines, which never actually 
saw the light of day.  Mexico's case involved only one TRIM.  This TRIM had existed prior to the 
entry into force of the TRIMs Agreem ent.  It was a TRIM which Mexico intended to eliminate on 31 
December 2003 and which since the date of its establishment had contained a gradual dismantling 
mechanism.  Mexico had no interest in extending the transition period any further than 31 December 
2003.  He thanked the United States for its comments and said that it was unfortunate that other 
important trading partners of Mexico had not yet taken a position on this request.  Finally, Mexico 
could support the idea of suspending this meeting of the CT G  so long as there would be no meeting 
during the summer break when it would be difficult for there to be the necessary quorum to take 
important decisions.  
 
 The representative of Venezuela  cautioned that expectations should be tempered while 
consultation s were still pending.  There were different opinions with regard to the terms and the 
duration of transition periods.  It was premature to draw any conclusions and it therefore would be 
appropriate to suspend the present meeting regarding the treatment of this item so as to avoid 
prejudging the results of the consultations.  G/C/M/44  
Page 10 
 
 
 
 The representative of Colombia  wished to draw the Council's attention to the fact that his 
delegation had responded to the questions of three delegations, and was about to meet with on e of 
these delegations and hoped to do so as soon as possible with the two other delegations.  Colombia's 
request had no procedural complications and was consistent with what was set out in Article 5.3 of the 
TRIMs Agreement.  Colombia's request related to  the essential development of its agricultural sector 
in the programme of substituting for illegal crops, upon which would depend its progress in its 
movement towards peace.  He thanked the Chairman for his efforts and supported the proposal to 
suspend the  present meeting on this particular item until the appropriate time.  
 
 Regarding the discussion on how to proceed, the representative of the United States  said her 
delegation could not support a suspension of all issues until some future date.  The process  in the CTG 
should not be such that there would be indefinite delays and the CTG would not address those issues 
that needed to be addressed very expeditiously.  Therefore, similar to the interventions by Mexico and 
Venezuela, the United States supported th e Chairman's continued consultations in order to enable the 
CTG to reconvene at short notice to move on ripe cases as they evolved.  The United States did so 
without prejudice to its rights under the TRIMs Agreement and other WTO Agreements.  Regarding 
some earlier comments concerning views on the process, the United States wished to reassert its right 
to examine each request in accordance with Article  5.3, and it did not see the Decision as suggesting 
in any way that the Membership was to operate outside o f Article  5.3.  Article  5.3 did not require 
Members to refrain from having assurances that TRIMs would indeed be eliminated.  The United 
States had shown, and would continue to show, sympathetic and positive consideration to all 
legitimate requests so lon g as concerns about assurances were met.  She thanked those delegations 
with whom her delegation had consulted and who had given the United States confidence by way of 
their assurances that there was a specific programme to come into conformity with not on ly the 
TRIMs Agreement but also GATT 1994.  Her delegation looked forward to any next steps that would 
quickly resolve some of the issues.  Her delegation took note of Colombia's intervention concerning 
its procedural complication and noted that the United  States was working in a positive way and had 
received information from Colombia that would help it to resolve its procedural concerns with respect 
to that country.  
 
 The representative of Brazil  indicated his delegation's satisfaction that Members were at  last 
in a multilateral framework discussing this subject.  However, it seemed everyone had different 
readings of what was taking place and under what legal cover.  It seemed appropriate to suspend the 
meeting until further consultations could take place.  Some delegations were saying that some 
requests were ripe for decision.  Since his delegation had not been involved in any bilateral 
discussions with the requesting country Members, it was difficult to gauge what the degree of ripeness 
was and to what ext ent a decision would necessarily have to be a multilateral one.  Until his 
delegation was fully briefed on what was ripe or not, and what was included under this rather vague 
definition, he had to reserve Brazil's position.  
 
 The representative of Argenti na said continued consultations appeared to be the best route at 
this time.  For the purpose of transparency, his delegation wished to report that it had continued its 
contacts with delegations which had put forward questions at the last formal session of the CTG. 
Consequently, he believed there was progress in assessing Argentina's request.  His delegation had 
also taken note of the procedural points which had been raised by delegations and would be reflecting 
on them.  He supported the Chairman's proposal  to leave this item open.  He reiterated his delegation's 
position that this process was a multilateral one in the context of the CTG, and similarly, that the 
decision the CTG would take on these requirements would also have to be of a multilateral nature.  
 
 The representative of Korea  thanked Romania for explaining that its request was specific, 
with a time -limit.  His delegation supported giving this request favourable and positive consideration, 
particularly as the request came out of the need to honour a private contract.  Turning to the Chilean  G/C/M/44  
 Page 11 
 
 
request, he noted that the request was simply to accommodate domestic legal procedures which might 
justify favourable consideration by the CTG.  
 
 The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that Hong Kong, China was not a major 
exporter of automobiles nor of agricultural products, but the process had indeed created certain 
systemic concerns for his delegation which it felt obliged to raise at the present meeting.  As the 
delegate of Brazil had mentioned, the CTG h ad heard some new information at the present meeting 
that delegations had not yet been able to consider.  For example, the Philippines had mentioned some 
bilateral conditions.  He underlined the concern that the process throughout should be multilateral in  
character.  That was the wording in the 8  May General Council Decision, but his delegation's 
impression was that the multilateral process had been somehow held hostage to the bilateral process, 
and the bulk of the Membership had not been involved in those  bilateral consultations;   at the same 
time, the CTG had heard feedback from those consultations to the effect that there were some 
concerns that should be of interest to the wider Membership.  His delegation would have tremendous 
difficulty endorsing any  position by the CTG with respect to any conditions that were not envisaged 
in Article  5.3 of the TRIMs Agreement nor the intention of the process.  He urged the CTG Chairman 
to ensure the process' multilateral character, and that if he discovered certain matters that were not 
envisaged in Article  5.3, he should bring them to the attention of the CTG at an early, rather than 
later, stage.  Another systemic concern was the legal certainty of the process.  It seemed that most, if 
not all, of the applications had been submitted in accordance with the procedures set out in the TRIMs 
Agreement.  However, there had been consultations under the DSU requested by a major delegation 
with one of the applicants during the period when its application was still being cons idered by the 
CTG.  That created a big problem in legal certainty.  There was no guarantee that before the approval 
of other applications similar procedures would not be initiated, and if that should happen, it would be 
a further drain on the system.  With  respect to the Chilean application which now requested an 
extension until the end of 2000, he cautioned that if the CTG process of considering the request 
should continue beyond that particular time, the Council was actually giving a de facto extension, b ut 
the legal conformity questions would still be unanswered.  The CTG had to give a sense of urgency to 
the process.  The Chairman's proposal to adjourn this agenda item with a view to arriving at some 
concrete results in the near future was a good suggest ion.  His delegation was pleased to hear at least 
some positive indications with respect to some of the applications, even though it was not involved in 
the bilateral consultations.  From what had been said during the meeting, it seemed that at least a few  
applications had reached a stage of maturity for possible positive decisions in the near future.  In this 
regard, his delegation wondered whether it would be helpful, during the period where this agenda item 
would be adjourned, either for those delegation s or for the Secretariat to produce some draft decisions 
so that this Council might have speedy decisions on those applications when it resumed on this 
agenda item.  
 
 The representative of the United States  said that Article 5.3 of the TRIMs Agreement coul d 
not have envisioned de facto  extension on these requests and that this process should not in any way 
facilitate de facto  extensions.  Therefore she reiterated interest in seeing the Chairman proceed with 
consultations that the CTG might reconvene as nece ssary to quickly address some of these issues.  
Again, the United States' position was without prejudice to its rights under all WTO Agreements.  
 
 The representative of Switzerland  said that, like other delegations, his welcomed a 
multilateral debate on th is matter.  This enabled the Members who had not had any bilateral 
consultations with requesting countries to be kept abreast of the situation.  Solutions to the requests 
submitted should be found on an individual basis in the light of Article  5.3 of the T RIMs Agreement.  
Switzerland supported the Chairman's proposal to suspend the present meeting so as to reach an 
agreement as quickly as possible in the context of his ongoing consultations.  
 
 The representative of Mexico  referred to the suggestions to the effect that the Secretariat 
might prepare some draft decisions in cases where it was felt that ripeness had been achieved.  
Mexico was of the view that draft decisions for extensions should come from the interested parties G/C/M/44  
Page 12 
 
 
themselves and certainly not from  the Secretariat or from the Chair of this Council unless prior to the 
preparation of such drafts there were a CTG decision to the effect that one was dealing with a 
sufficiently ripe case that the Council collectively requested the Chairman to prepare a d raft.  This 
was where the multilateral nature of the approach adopted in the General Council Decision in May 
should be imposed.  At this point, it did not seem appropriate for there to be any draft decision for any 
request.  
 
 The Chairman  said that the dis cussion had been fruitful.  First, it had asserted the multilateral 
nature of this process and had brought transparency to bear so that all Members could be clear as to 
what the situation was and as to what had transpired in bilateral consultations.  Secon d, there was 
support for the Chairman to continue consulting so as to make progress with this process.  Third, the 
option to suspend the meeting for this purpose also had the Council's support.  At this particular 
juncture there was a willingness on the pa rt of most countries to grant the requests, though there were 
still certain differences regarding terms, procedures, and time limits, which would be the subject of 
his ongoing consultations.  The issue as to whether cases were ripe or not or when they woul d be right 
for submission to the CTG would also be dealt with in consultations.  He suggested that the Council 
take note of all the statements and that those statements should be used to guide the Chairman in his 
ongoing consultations.  He would reconvene this Council at the appropriate time.  It was so agreed . 
 
 At the resumed meeting on 16 October 2000, the Chairman  said that since the General 
Council last May entrusted him with the task of facilitating the process leading to a solution 
acceptable to all on the question of requests for extensions of the TRIMs transition periods, he had 
spent a great deal of time in bilateral and plurilateral consultation with groups of interested countries.  
Throughout this process, and in keeping with the mandate received , he had taken particular account of 
the need to preserve and reinforce the multilateral nature of this process.  Throughout his 
consultations he had found a willingness on all sides to find a solution which would be acceptable and 
thus enable the process to move forward.  It was on the basis of this willingness, and the progress 
noted in consultations that he had decided not to close, but to suspend, the meeting of the Council on 
7 July, so that the meeting could be reconvened at an appropriate time when t here was a glimpse of a 
solution to the question of requests for extensions.  Despite the efforts deployed throughout the month 
of July, and the additional progress made, it had not been possible to reach a solution to re -convene 
the Council before the sum mer recess.  At the beginning of September, he had resumed the 
consultation process and, contrary to his expectations, some elements that were agreed or were in the 
process of being agreed before the summer, had been reopened or challenged.  This had not m ade any 
major progress possible in this process.  He felt that certain difficulties that had appeared in the 
bilateral meetings, if they were not properly resolved, could paralyse this entire exercise.  Despite 
these difficulties, he continued to think tha t there was political will to resolve this problem at a 
multilateral level.  In the last few days informal discussions had taken place about certain proposals of 
a general nature that introduced additional elements that might make progress possible.  He ap pealed 
to all parties involved to continue to persevere in a constructive and flexible frame of mind which 
would be a valuable input to the process of confidence -building at the WTO.  He was ready to 
continue with his good offices and ready to renew the co nsultation process if Members considered it 
appropriate in order to reach a consensus that took account of the interests of all parties.  
 
 The representative of the European Communities supported the Chairman's willingness to 
continue the consultations.  He deplored the fact that Members had not yet reached the point of taking 
decisions on individual cases.  He believed that solutions were within reach and in the informal 
consultations some progress had been made in recent days.  His delegation would conti nue to consult 
to find mutually acceptable solutions for all cases which were on the table and hoped that this would 
be possible within a matter of weeks and not months.  
 
 The representative of Japan  shared the Chair's assessment of the issues.  His delega tion had 
been discussing informally with the interested parties and had been looking at each case with the  G/C/M/44  
 Page 13 
 
 
pragmatism and flexibility required to solve this problem.  There had been certain progress on some 
of the cases and he was of the impression that a solution to a certain number of requests was in sight.  
 
 The representative of Mexico  said that his authorities had been very clear with respect to the 
security that this exercise could provide so that the extension of the time -limit could be a guarantee 
not only for Mexico, but also for other parties, in keeping with the provision of the TRIMs 
Agreement.  His delegation was prepared to continue with its efforts.  He looked favourably at the 
prospect of the Chairman continuing to work on this matter in sear ch of solutions acceptable to all 
concerned.  He believed it was important to obtain results in the near future because, as other 
delegations had already said, this was a very important element within the framework of confidence 
building in the multilatera l system.  
 
 The representative of Chile  supported the idea of continuing informal consultations so as to 
reach a mutually satisfactory solution.  
 
 The representative of Malaysia  supported the Chairman's approach and his delegation was 
ready to consult with  him  Malaysia had said many times that it was totally opposed to any kind of 
conditionalities being imposed to the TRIMs issue.  
 
 The representative of Canada  said that his delegation was continuing to engage in the 
informal discussions and wished to indi cate at this stage that Canada would continue to attempt to be 
as flexible as possible in the interests of advancing a resolution of the requests for these extensions.  
Therefore, he encouraged the Chairman to continue his consultations.  
 
 The representati ve of Colombia  recalled that Colombia's request was fully in compliance with 
the conditions in the TRIMs Agreement.  His country was facing particular difficulties in immediately 
dismantling the TRIM that had been notified and he appealed to Members that i n the consultations 
underway a satisfactory solution be reached on a multilateral basis.  
 
 The representative of Argentina  shared the Chair's assessment of this process, which had two 
very important elements:  confidence building and the efforts to find a multilateral solution to the 
problem of the extension of TRIMs.  He supported continued efforts in holding consultations and 
informed Members that his delegation had participated in all sorts of meetings in Geneva - bilateral, 
multilateral and plurilateral  – and at the same time Argentina had also been visiting capitals of those 
countries which had submitted questions.  
 
 The representative of India  said that India's position on this issue was well known to all 
Members.  She reiterated the importance that In dia attached to finding a multilateral solution to the 
problems underlying the TRIMs Agreement that many developing country Members had put forth, 
not just in this body, but in other bodies as well.  She regretted the delay that had been taking place in 
finding solutions, particularly in the light of certain developments in other bodies of the WTO.  
 
 The representative of the United States  said that her delegation remained interested in 
resolving all the legitimate TRIMs extension requests through the Artic le 5.3 process.  Such an 
approach would ensure that individual needs of those countries which had made a request could be 
addressed.  Her delegation would continue the dialogue with the goal of finding what she considered a 
satisfactory solution.  The Unit ed States expected, as with any transition issues, that assurances would 
be provided that these requests, if granted, would not harm the interests of other trading partners.  
While quite clearly Article  5.3 was a right, it did embrace also the right of oth er Members to have 
such assurances and not be required to just accept requests without assurances.  This had been a long 
process and she was hopeful in the future that some of these requests could be addressed in a manner 
that would be acceptable to a numb er of the requesting Members.  
 G/C/M/44  
Page 14 
 
 
 The representative of the Philippines  said that in their original submission embodying a 
request for an extension, the Philippines had sufficiently demonstrated through real and objective 
evidence its particular difficulties  in implementing at this point the provisions of the TRIMs 
Agreement.  The Philippines had continuously pursued bilateral consultations with interested 
Members and would continue this process, particularly in light of the previous statements made by 
some i nterested trading partners.  However, there had as yet been no substantive deliberations on the 
merits of the Philippine case, as required under Article 5.3.  As reiterated in the 8th May Decision of 
the General Council, Members had the obligation to exami ne the Philippines' request in accordance 
with the mandate given to the Goods Council under that decision.  He emphasized this in light of the 
fact that the United States had formally requested the Dispute Settlement Body for the establishment 
of a panel u nder Article 7.1 of the DSU.  In this light, and mindful of the expressed provisions of 
Article 5.3 of the TRIMS Agreement, he earnestly looked forward to the CTG's consideration of the 
Philippine request.  
 
 The representative of Brazil  reiterated his inte rest in a solution based on multilaterally agreed 
criteria satisfactory to all Members.  He also encouraged and supported the Chairman, to continue 
informal consultations with all the Members that had expressed an interest in this issue.  
 
 The representati ve of Hong Kong China  supported continued efforts to conduct consultations 
on this matter.  Although Hong Kong China did not have any direct trade interest in regard of the 
applications in hand, it did find significant systemic interest - multilateralism - as arising from the 
examination to date.  His delegation would also monitor closely developments in the Dispute 
Settlement Body.  
 
 The representative of Pakistan  looked towards a multilateral solution to the problem in the 
light of the 8th May Decision o f the General Council and his delegation would be willing to engage in 
any sort of consultations, be it bilateral, plurilateral or multilateral.  He was hopeful that under the 
Chairman's leadership the CTG would be able to come to a mutually acceptable sol ution at a 
multilateral basis.  
 
 The representative of Romania  said that his delegation lent its support to the Chair's efforts 
and willingness to continue in consultations, with a view to finding multilateral solutions.  He was 
confident that a solution c ould be found which would take into account Romania's particular needs, 
which had been well -demonstrated in bilateral contacts.  
 
 The representative of Thailand  referred to Thailand's request made under Article 5.3 of the 
Agreement.  He hoped that with con sultations and with the Chair's good efforts in this area, Members 
would be guided by the 8th May Decision which provided that positive consideration should be given 
to those Members who had made a request.  Thailand was actively pursuing consultations wit h other 
Members, and was actively working on questions received.  
 
 The representative of the United States , referring to the comments made by the delegation of 
the Philippines, said that her delegation had held many consultations with individual countries , and in 
particular with the Philippines.  In those consultations she had been hopeful for a solution, but instead 
there had been delays that had shown that no real solution was in sight.  She personally had held these 
consultations and tried to work with the delegation under difficult circumstances.  The Article 5.3 
process was not indefinite with respect to individual cases as the transitions had long expired.  Her 
delegation had exercised due restraint for nearly a year, and she hoped the 5.3 process wou ld not be 
used as a de facto  extension.  In the case of the Philippines, or any other country, her delegation was 
holding consultations to find a solution before a panel was established.  
 
 The representative of Mexico  reiterated the importance of reaching a solution acceptable to 
all, and in particular to those directly involved.  Otherwise, Members would be in a situation of 
uncertainty which was not good for anyone.  His delegation's understanding was that Members did  G/C/M/44  
 Page 15 
 
 
have the right to make such a request  and this was clearly established in Article 5 of the TRIMs 
Agreement.  While there was no reply either one way or the other from the Council for Trade in 
Goods to these requests which were submitted at the appropriate time and in the appropriate 
condition s, he did not know what status the transition period was in.  He did not want to leave the 
impression that Mexico, having made its request appropriately, was now in breach of its obligations.  
If there was any mistake in the system, it was that the Council  for Trade in Goods had been unable to 
give a reply up to the present as to the status of Members' requests.  Ways to obtain a reply were 
clearly set out in the WTO Agreement.  In his delegation's view, any country having made a request in 
the appropriate way and time was exercising a right and complying with its obligations.  He wanted 
this to be clearly understood and would hold a debate on this if necessary  
 
 The representative of the Philippines , in response to the intervention of the United States, sai d 
it was only proper to put in perspective the relationship between formal proceedings in the Council for 
Trade in Goods, and the various bilateral, plurilateral or informal multilateral discussions that had 
been going on.  Those discussions were not meant  as substitutes to the process in the CTG.  Those 
bilateral discussions were intended to facilitate the multilateral discussion of each individual case in 
the Council for Trade in Goods.  Delays could be perceived as intended or unintended, but any so -
called delays in the bilateral process had no effect on this multilateral process.  His delegation had 
been the first to make a request, answer all the questions promptly and at each meeting of the Council 
for Trade in Goods, expressed its readiness to discuss  the particular trade, financial and development 
needs of the Philippines.  No single delegation had ever questioned the figures and evidence 
presented;  a good case had been made for an extension of five years, and there was no intervention 
on the record which rebutted the assertion of the Philippines.  Finally, the rules of procedure of the 
Council of Trade in Goods stated that if a matter could not be resolved in the CTG by consensus, it 
had to be elevated to the General Council.  He was not asserting th at now, but it was food for thought 
for future processes.  
 
 The Chairman  noted there had been a very broad -ranging and useful exchange of views which 
showed that there did exist a willingness to find solutions which took into account the interests of all 
parties and a sense of urgency to continue work in that direction.  He intended to renew consultations 
immediately and continue to work towards a solution.  He proposed that the Council note all the 
statements made and revert to this issue in its November meeting.   
 
 It was so agreed . 
 
II. REVIEW OF THE OPERATION OF THE TRIMS AGREEMENT UNDER 
ARTICLE  9 
 Turning to Item 2 of the Agenda:  "Review of the Operation of the TRIMs Agreement", the 
Chairman  read out Article  9 of the TRIMs Agreement. He recalled that at t he CTG's meetings in 
January and April, Members had been invited to submit papers regarding the scope and format of the 
review at such time as they deemed appropriate.  To date no submissions had been received.  
 
 The representative of India  noted that the CTG had formally launched this review at the 
meeting held on 15 October 1999.  His delegation expected to submit a paper for the consideration of 
this Council as early as possible.  
 
 The representative of the United States  said the Article  9 review process  was a part of the 
balance struck at the end of the Uruguay Round and therefore it was important that it take place.  The 
United States, too, might be submitting a paper for further discussion.  One possible topic for the 
review to address was the utility of additional disciplines on performance requirements.  A study of 
this issue might prove useful.  
 G/C/M/44  
Page 16 
 
 
 The representative of the European Communities  said that to his knowledge his delegation did 
not intend to submit a paper.  Effectively the major issue unde r review was what the CTG had 
discussed extensively at the present meeting, in other words the question of how difficult it was for 
some parties to respect obligations and the need for extensions of time.  He had been surprised to hear 
some of the discussi on in terms of what exactly Article  5 said because this was secondary.  The 
substantive obligations of this Agreement had existed for many years in the form of Articles  III and XI 
of the GATT and the TRIMs Agreement was an elaboration of those basic provis ions with slightly 
more detail regarding the process.  It was somewhat paradoxical that three countries who had 
requested extensions had been told by some Members that they were quite willing to agree to this, but 
that their developing -country colleagues s eemed to have put a halt on that process.  Members should 
reflect on what exactly they were trying to achieve.  
 
 The representative of  Pakistan  said that at the CTG's last meeting his delegation had made a 
proposal which had not seemed to elicit any objec tion.  Developing countries, due to capacity 
constraints, had had a problem in carrying out this review, which for them was an extremely important 
one.  A good deal of their social and economic development was linked to this review, but due to their 
constr aints they were having problems.  In the light of this situation, Pakistan had made a suggestion 
that the CTG might request the UNCTAD Secretariat to help developing countries in particular to 
carry out this review.  It could be a joint UNCTAD/WTO study.  A precedent for such a study had 
been set in the Council for Trade in Services where the UNCTAD Secretariat had been requested to 
carry out a joint study with the WTO to assess trade in services.  That joint study had proved to be 
quite helpful for Members , especially for developed -countries, and it was on those same lines that 
Pakistan was making this particular proposal.  
 
 The representative of Malaysia  supported the views expressed by Pakistan.  If there was no 
objection at this meeting, the CTG should t ake the decision to proceed with this study, rather than to 
have it discussed again at its next meeting.  The representative of India  also supported the suggestion 
made by Pakistan.  He had thought that a decision on this had been made at the last meeting and that 
there would be a communication to UNCTAD from the Members requesting that secretariat to prepare 
a paper.  
 
 The representative of the United States  said her delegation expected that Members would 
engage in a study of this issue, but it was not abl e at the present meeting to concur with 
commissioning a paper from UNCTAD.  The CTG might explore – perhaps in an informal meeting – 
whether a joint UNCTAD/WTO study should be done and what the parameters of such a study might 
be.  It was important to note  that the CTG had not seen any papers or suggestions coming from the 
Members, and that the WTO was a member -driven Organization.  That said, her delegation was open 
to perhaps an informal meeting that the Chairman might hold to discuss how the CTG might go  about 
doing this study in line with the proposal from Pakistan and others.  
 
 The representative of Venezuela  said that although Pakistan's suggestion seemed a good one, 
his delegation would like to add that the CTG should be open not only to the possibili ty of an 
UNCTAD paper but also to a paper by any other organization that might assist the CTG's analysis of 
this topic.  His recommendation was to leave this open for UNCTAD plus any other organization that 
had been working on or studying these issues and that could make an input to help the CTG in its 
collective review.  
 
 The representative of the European Communities  said that the notion that Members required 
the CTG to endorse a request to the UNCTAD Secretariat to carry out a study was novel since the 
CTG was not actually required to endorse an idea.  Pakistan, with the support of India and others, 
could simply make this request if they so wished.  Then, one of those delegations could circulate it for 
the Council's information.  To his knowledge, in the previous meeting, the idea of a "joint" study had 
not been mentioned.  He would have thought the effective way for delegations to have this study 
would be to go directly to UNCTAD and request them to do it.   G/C/M/44  
 Page 17 
 
 
 
 The Chairman  said he did not see any difficulty , in terms of substance, in having UNCTAD 
conduct such a study.  However, at least one delegation had requested further information regarding 
what type of parameters or terms of reference this study would have, before it would be able to give 
the go -ahead to such an idea.  That delegation had suggested that the Chairman hold consultations 
with any interested delegations.  He therefore suggested that he meet with interested delegations to try 
to reach an understanding on the terms of reference of this study.   As had been stated by the EC the 
other track to follow would be for any interested delegation to contact UNCTAD directly.  This had 
been done in the past and he did not see any difficulties in that.  Considering some comments that had 
been made in this r espect, it would be difficult to take a formal decision at the present meeting.  
 
 The representative of Cuba  said his delegation also supported Pakistan's proposal.  The 
representative of Egypt  said his delegation, too, supported Pakistan on having a study  done.  The 
Chairman might perhaps conduct informal consultations so the CTG could agree on the parameters or 
the terms of reference for such a study.  That, of course, would help the CTG Members in its further 
consideration of this suggestion.  In respons e to the delegation of the EC, the representative of 
Pakistan  said the idea behind the joint study was primarily to share resources.  UNCTAD had been 
extremely helpful in the past and had always been willing to carry out such studies for the WTO.  The 
UNCT AD Secretariat also had immense experience in the field of TRIMs.  They had been involved in 
the TRIMs negotiations, and as an implementation topic, TRIMs had been discussed in the General 
Council.  
 
 The representative of the United States  reiterated that her delegation would entertain an 
information meeting under the Chairman's good offices to explore what exactly was being suggested 
concerning a joint UNCTAD/WTO study.  Her delegation would then be able to ascertain as to 
whether or not it could support t he idea, and it would also like to see what had been done in the 
Council for Trade in Services.  The United States supported Pakistan's concerns regarding resources 
and said that it had been a big promoter of doing more work with other institutions in the area of 
capacity -building and technical assistance.  Her delegation hoped that the discussions the Chairman 
would hold would bring about a happy medium for such a joint study.  
 
 The Chairman  proposed that the Council take note of the statements and keep on  the table the 
invitation to Members to submit papers regarding the scope and format of the review.  This issue 
would be on the agenda for the CTG's next meeting.  As to the proposal by Pakistan, the CTG would 
revert to this item at its next meting, and in formal consultations would be held by interested 
delegations in the intervening period.  
 
 It was so agreed . 
 
III. REQUEST FOR A WAIVER FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE EU 
AUTONOMOUS PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT TO THE COUNTRIES OF THE 
WESTERN BALKANS  
 The Chairman drew the  Council's attention to the communication from the European 
Communities contained in document G/C/W/178 containing a request for a waiver.  This request for a 
waiver had been before the Council for its consideration at its April meeting.  A draft decision 
granting this waiver extension has been circulated in the same document to assist the Council in its 
consideration of this request.  
 
 The representative of the EC said that the political background to this was well known and he 
had the impression that it w as well understood.  Free and open trade in this particular region would 
help more general reconstruction after the events of recent years.  It is also well known that this was 
really the continuation of special arrangements the EC had had with countries i n this region for some G/C/M/44  
Page 18 
 
 
time, so it was not new.  His delegation had had requests from two partners for information and it had 
been provided but he had been led to believe that in one case that information had gone astray.  
 
 The representative of the United  States  apologised because his delegation did have some 
difficulties with the information supplied in its transmission between Geneva and Washington.   He 
was hoping that the EC would help recreate the material so that his delegation could come back to thi s 
matter at the next meeting and have its response.   
 
 The Chairman  said that there was no consensus on the request and it was agreed that the CTG 
would revert to this item at its next meeting and that informal consultations be held by interested 
delegati ons in the intervening period.  
 
IV. REQUEST FOR A WTO WAIVER – NEW ACP -EC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT  
 The Chairman  reported on his consultations on the ACP -EC waiver request.  Since the first 
discussion of the subject in the CTG meeting of 5 April, he had held an o pen-ended informal meeting 
on 18 April.  His summary of the discussion of that meeting was circulated in a written report (dated 
26 April 2000) which he had made as Chairman on his own responsibility.  He had convened another 
open -ended informal meeting on  18 May in order to hear views on the outstanding procedural issues.  
Also, during the whole of the intervening period since the beginning of April he had held intensive 
consultations with a broad range of interested parties.  
 
 His impression from these me etings and consultations was on the one hand positive;  in the 
sense that no Member objected to the granting of tariff preferences for ACP countries and all 
delegations with whom he had consulted were, in principle, ready to grant a waiver at the appropria te 
time.  
 
 On the other hand, however, the predominantly procedural problems that had been identified 
at the 18 April meeting had persisted.  Despite the intensive efforts of all concerned parties it had been 
very difficult to make any real progress on how  to carry out the examination of the waiver request 
under Article 9.3(b) of the WTO Agreement.  For some delegations, the key problem was that the 
waiver requested in the documents before the CTG (i.e. the request itself in G/C/W/187, the draft 
decision in  G/C/W/187/Add.2 and the full text of the Partnership Agreement in G/C/W/204) did not 
contain the necessary documentation with respect to the preferences accorded to bananas.  In his 
efforts to find a pragmatic way forward, he had attempted to seek agreeme nt that the CTG should 
conduct the examination of the waiver request on the understanding that any report to the General 
Council concerning the waiver request would only apply to bananas when delegations had examined 
the waiver request for the preferential  treatment to be granted to bananas based on a full description of 
that treatment.  However, consensus on this approach had not been possible.  At the informal meeting 
on 18 May he had said then that unless matters changed he would only be able to report t o the General 
Council at an appropriate time that there were procedural problems which had not allowed the CTG to 
enter in a substantive consideration of the waiver request.  Today he had to reiterate this view.  
 
 He did not think that it could be possible  to make a report on the substance of this matter to 
the General Council very soon.  On the other hand, the issue could not remain on the agenda 
indefinitely without informing the General Council on where matters stood.  In light of this situation, 
he sugg ested that it would be appropriate that he provide, on his own responsibility, to the General 
Council a factual description of the current situation.  
 
 The representative of  Paraguay  thanked the Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods for 
the way in w hich he was trying to find both procedural and substantive solutions.  The delegation of 
Paraguay objected to the Partnership Agreement because it considered it discriminatory:  by granting 
advantages to a group of 71 ACP countries, it was harming, through  this discrimination, 38 or 39 
WTO developing country Members.  He welcomed the fact that the EU granted advantages to  G/C/M/44  
 Page 19 
 
 
developing countries, and wished that other developed countries would give special and differential 
treatment to developing countries.  B ut this should not be discriminatory towards a smaller group of 
countries than those receiving advantages, many of which were more developed than Paraguay.  He 
accepted regional agreements or agreements among similar countries, but agreements such as this one 
of partnership between the EU and ACP countries, which was much bigger, ceased to be regional 
agreements within the meaning of the Marrakesh Treaties.  For this Agreement not to be 
discriminatory, the EU should grant other advantages to developing coun tries that were not covered 
by this arrangement.  In his view, this should happen before the delegation of Paraguay could agree to 
the requested waiver.  Finally, he noted that in its written replies relating to the review of its trade 
policy, the EU had s tated that it would evaluate the impact of the Partnership Agreement on third 
countries, especially developing countries, and he hoped that it would do so, in order that Paraguay 
might give its agreement to the Partnership Agreement.  
 
 The representative o f Ecuador  said that at the meeting of 5 April his delegation had made a 
clear statement to the effect that it did not agree with the way in which this request for a waiver had 
been put forward by the EC and the ACP countries.  His delegation had on that oc casion stated that it 
would not join the consensus in taking a decision which would make it possible to initiate the 
examination of the request for the waiver, because it felt that the documents at that point in time were 
not appropriately and duly present ed.  Above all, when his delegation subsequently received the 
information required, the documents did not meet one of the fundamental requirements established in 
paragraph 1 of the Understanding in Respect of Waivers and Obligations under the GATT  1994.  
Consequently his delegation was still waiting for this shortcoming to be remedied.  In his account of 
the situation regarding the waiver request, the Chairman should add this particular point, which was 
not only an issue of procedure but also a fundamental issue which could give rise to a systemic 
problem within WTO. With regard to the Chair's proposal made during the last informal meeting, he 
had ventured to raise a question in order to clarify within what framework Members would 
contemplate the Chairman's report to the General Council.   
 
 The Chairman  replied that that it would be a personal and a factual report and it would not be 
in accordance with what was laid down in Article 9.3(b) of the Marrakesh Agreement.  The 
representative of Ecuador's  position on that suggestion was that if this was the understanding, he 
could accept the suggestion but with the small addition that the factual report was not being made 
under Article 9.3(b) and would not necessarily have to be at the next General Council.  He felt  it was 
premature to speak to the next General Council to make this report;  it could be left for a General 
Council in the future.  
 
 The representative of the European Communities  said that he thought that in the informal 
discussions it had been effectivel y agreed on how to proceed.  As a factual matter, the CTG was at an 
impasse.  There had been efforts on all sides to find a compromise and they had not succeeded.  His 
delegation was willing to have this matter examined, discussed and questioned, and final ly decided at 
a later date when everyone was ready.  Without any hesitations he supported the Chairman's 
suggestion.  He did have to make two remarks:  one was that it was wrong for delegations to negotiate 
with the Chairman about a statement that he would  make on his own responsibility.  He did not 
believe that the Chairman could include any reference to the views of any delegation without causing 
difficulties.  He had every confidence that the Chairman would be fair, balanced and factual.  The 
representat ive of Ecuador had said that in his delegation's view the requirements of paragraph 1 of the 
Understanding on waivers had not been respected.  As it was clear that he did not share that view, it 
would be difficult for the Chairman to put one delegation's p oint and not to reflect others.   His 
delegation had provided 600 pages of information in the official languages, which was not strictly 
required by the provisions of the WTO. The Understanding required a description of the measures 
proposed which was to p rovide preferential access.  Secondly with respect to specific objectives, the 
EC aimed to bring this trade relationship progressively fully into line with the WTO given that the 
levels of development of the partners was varied.  The EC had made it clear t hat it needed, on a 
transitional basis, an extension of time for this to be realised which addressed the third requirement G/C/M/44  
Page 20 
 
 
which was to explain the reasons why the EC could not achieve the objectives in a way that was fully 
compatible with the WTO.  The Am bassador of Paraguay had referred to the Agreement as creating 
enormous discrimination.  He knew that this pattern of trade relationships had existed for twenty years 
and that in every waiver decision that had been taken since 1947 there was a clause which  allowed a 
country, notwithstanding the waiver, to use its rights under Article 22 and 23 of the Dispute 
Settlement Understanding.  This was the way in which specific adverse impacts on country x or  
product y  had been dealt with  and he suggested that th ere was no danger that Paraguay's interests 
would be harmed. Paraguay would still have those rights under any foreseeable waiver decision that 
would be taken in this matter.  
 
 The Chairman  requested that delegations try to avoid at this formal meeting ent ering into a 
lengthy debate, repeating positions of the various parties which were well known to all. Second, 
regarding the factual report he intended to send up to the General Council under his own 
responsibility, would describe the situation and the reas ons for being in such a situation.  It would be a 
balanced report and, as had been stated, he did not intend to negotiate the text with any delegation.   
 
 The representative of Honduras  stated that in the factual report there should be an explicit 
referen ce to the fact that the European Union had not fulfilled the request of paragraph 1 of the 
Understanding in Respect of Waivers and Obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade 1994, namely that the applicant should describe the measure in q uestion.  With regard to 
document G/C/M/43, containing the minutes of the Council meeting of 5  April 2000, he noted that the 
content of the minutes did not properly reflect what his delegation had said specifically when the 
delegation of Guatemala asked th e Chairman's predecessor for permission to revert to one of the 
agenda items adopted at that meeting.  He wished to place on record his disagreement with the 
Chairman's decision, which did not take into account the concerns voiced by his delegation during the 
discussion.  
 
 The representative of Guatemala  said that in the factual report reference should be made to 
the legal foundation of his delegation's objection, where in paragraph 1 of the Understanding on 
waivers, there was an obligation to describe the measure. This requirement to describe the measure 
could not be side -stepped;  consequently his delegation maintained that this matter should not be 
brought to the General Council until they had had a chance to see the complete request for the waiver.   
 
 The representative of Bolivia  stated that his concerns were virtually identical to those stated 
by Paraguay.  Bolivia was concerned at the systemic aspects in so far as the PA represented one of the  
discriminatory systems set up in parallel to this system due to the large number of countries that will 
be part of this new system.   
 
 The representative of Jamaica  said that in the circumstances, the most helpful course would 
be to allow the Chairman  to make a  factual report on his own responsibility to the next General 
Council and thereby allow some time for new developments and goodwill to help the process to move 
forward.  He emphasized that the ACP countries received with great sympathy the Chair's proposal 
made on 18  May as it had the merit of not prejud ging the process and just as importantly would have 
allowed the CTG to start consideration of a waiver request that would benefit a large number of 
countries, many of them least -developed countries.  Secondly, he noted that the ACP -EC Partnership 
Agreement  was signed in Cotonou on 23 June;  the delay in considering the waiver request did harm 
to the economic prospects of countries whose trade share on average was 0.02%, slightly above the 
trade share which the WTO considered as low enough to constitute the minimum threshold for 
assessing contributions.  ACP Ministers in Cotonou had expressed a deep concern at the delay in 
considering the waiver request.  Thirdly, ACP countries would not accept approaches or language that 
sought to stipulate at the outset and  to interpret unilaterally, without any firm basis in precedent, the 
information that needed to be provided in accordance with the Understanding in respect of waivers.  
Such efforts sought unreasonably to prejudge the process and to set parameters for the consideration 
of the request that departed from the stated legal requirements.  He believed that once documentation  G/C/M/44  
 Page 21 
 
 
relevant to preferential access for ACP bananas was considered, the Membership as a whole would be 
able to determine whether the legal requi rements of the WTO Agreements had been met and would be 
in a position to bring the process to a conclusion as appropriate.   
 
 The representative of  Ecuador  proposed that the CTG declare itself in informal session given 
the different nuances that existed . It might be better once several delegations had had the chance to 
check back with capitals and had received their instructions in the light of the Chairman's proposal to 
resume the formal meeting. The Chairman , however, saw no need to revert to an inform al session 
because his proposal had in general terms received a favourable welcome.  Up to now he had not seen 
any opinion expressed against proceeding in this way, with the exception that some delegations had 
made suggestions for the text that the Chairma n would submit to the General Council under his own 
responsibility.  After having heard all parties' positions, he would  be as careful as possible to avoid 
difficulties for one side or the other.  Going back to an informal session now to discuss a Chairma n's 
proposal did not seem to be the most appropriate avenue, although of course he remained in Members' 
hands for any decision.  The representative of Ecuador  reserved the right to revert to this topic and 
make further comments if necessary after having he ard the views of other Members on his proposal.  
  
 The representative of the Philippines   said that the CTG had heard expressions of regret from 
ACP countries on why the process was  taking long.  He noted that Members were in this impasse 
because what th e EC was  giving away to the ACP countries, it was taking away from other 
developing countries.  Preferences were  valuable only to the extent that other developing countries 
were being discriminated against. All he was  asking was also an equal understand ing from the ACP 
countries in respect of the plight of non -ACP developing countries.  
 
 The representative of Cuba was surprised that the discussion on this item had been reopened 
following the intensive consultations held two days before.  His delegation c onsidered  that the least 
that could be done was  to submit a factual report to the General Council in the Chairman's personal 
capacity.  Subsequently, he could resume consultations in September, according to the negotiating 
situation. Cuba attended, as an  observer, the signing of the Cotonou Agreement in Benin on 
23 June 2000, which was considered a positive step because it was aimed at furthering the economic 
and social development of the ACP countries.  He considered the comments of some delegations to 
the effect that the ACP/EU Partnership Agreement was discriminatory to be unjust.  In plurilateral 
trade agreements Members should apply the pragmatic principle of "variable geometry", because 
these agreements stemmed  from different causes, be it historica l, political,  or geographical.   What 
was  important was  that they should produce benefits for the developing countries concerned.   In this 
regard, a parallel might be drawn with other projected intraregional and subregional agreements, 
which included h ighly developed countries with a significant weight in world trade as well as 
developing countries.   Nevertheless, one view that might  be taken in this regard was  that although 
they were  clearly discriminatory, because they did not cover all the countr ies which should be 
included, they should not be prevented from being implemented because they may be considered to 
benefit the trade of many of them.  
 
 The representative of  Panama   could support the Chairman's proposal and said that  
recognizing that th e content of the report was  a matter for the Chairman's own discretion he wanted 
to see in it a reference to  the point about the failure to meet the requirements of the Understanding on 
waivers.  He was reassured that the report was not being made under Article 9 of the WTO Agreement 
and consequently could not in any way draw conclusions about this process, nor  prejudge the 
positions or legal arguments of any party to this dispute.   
 
 The representative of  St. Lucia  supported the Chairman's proposal. She said that the Central 
American and ANDEAN pact countries benefitted  overall from virtually identical preferences to 
those of the ACP in terms of tariff treatment under the EC's super -GSP.  The list of products was  
different but the overall benefit co nferred was basically the same.  
 G/C/M/44  
Page 22 
 
 
 The representative of Jamaica,   in response to the points raised by the Philippines,  said he  
would not wish it to be felt or imputed that the ACP countries lacked understanding of the costs and 
benefits involved in glob al trade, or indeed could conceivably be unsympathetic to the plight of 
developing countries as a whole.  As was well -known,  there were a large number of preferential and 
free-trade arrangements  currently in existence, and all had some impact on the trad e of developing 
countries and of developed countries.  More importantly, the process he was  seeking to engage in was 
one  set down in the Agreement in Marrakesh, and which provided quite clearly for the possibility of 
derogations from MFN treatment.  That  was not a gift but a  right to be sought.  It could of course be 
rejected which was the right of the membership. To seek that right should not in any way be 
conceived as somehow going contrary to the interests of other countries.  Having been denied the 
right to have that process start was what he was  unsympathetic to.  
 
 The representative of the United States  said  that it would be very unfortunate if the CTG 
could not proceed in a uniform way to meet  each concern  in the manner agreed recently at  an 
informal meeting.  
 
 The representative of  Colombia   expressed support for the proposal made as this was the 
most appropriate way of reflecting what was  happening currently.  His delegation was sure that the 
content of such a report would  be balanced and  adequately reflect what had transpired throughout this 
process.  
 
 The representative of  Mexico   also  supported the proposal  which, he had no doubt, would  
be judicious in reflecting the various positions and fully describing the problems with which Mem bers 
were faced.  He also agreed that this should take place under Other Business on the General Council's 
agenda which of course had its own significance.   The  most important thing was for the Chairman to 
continue the consultations on an informal basis  to help Members decide the terms and conditions that 
could be granted to a waiver which has been requested.  He was not questioning the fact that ACP 
countries could continue to enjoy preferences which was nothing new.  On previous occasions his 
delegatio n had always approved a waiver request.  But he felt that the CTG required a detailed 
technical exercise here because if it was not  careful in preparing the terms of this waiver then it could 
be faced with problems in the future.  To make  progress  it wa s necessary to have a waiver which 
should be sufficiently clear as to what was  being accepted.  
 
 The representative of  Canada  expressed her delegation's full support for the proposal.  The 
representative of Australia   said that her delegation had  comp lete faith in the Chairman's ability to 
present a factual report which would be balanced and would see the interests of all.  She did  not see 
that his proposal has been compromised or "nuanced" in any way, and therefore shared his view  that 
reversion to informal mode would not be necessary.   
 
 The representative of Ecuador  recalled that at the recent informal meeting the Chairman had 
confirmed that his report to the General Council would not be made  in the framework of what was  
set forth in Article 9.3 (b) of the Marrakesh Agreement.  If this was still  the case, he had  no objection 
in accepting  the Chairman's  proposal.  At no point had the Ecuadorian delegation been attempting to 
negotiate texts on factual reports or even suggest that the Chairman sh ould include certain points of  
importance such as the non -observance of paragraph 1 of the Understanding on Waivers.  This was 
the cause of the impasse.  In the waiver request  the measure was  not described, nor would it be 
described in respect of banana s.  The CTG was still faced with a systemic problem and this had to  be 
reflected in any report which the Chairman saw fit to make before the General Council.  
 
 The Chairman  proposed that the CTG take note of the statements made and confirmed that he 
woul d make a factual report to the General Council on his own responsibility.  
  G/C/M/44  
 Page 23 
 
 
V. EC/FRANCE – TRADING ARRANGEMENTS WITH MOROCCO:  REQUEST FOR 
EXTENSION OF THE WAIVER  
 The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from the European Communities 
contained in docu ment G/L/357 containing a request for an extension of a waiver.  Pursuant to Article 
IX.3(b) of the WTO Agreement, this request for a waiver extension was before the Council for its 
consideration;  a draft decision granting this waiver extension had been c irculated in document 
G/C/W/194 to assist the Council in its consideration of this request.  At the meeting in April, one 
delegation was not able to go along with the proposal as it needed more time to consult on this matter.  
 
 After the delegation concern ed had signalled its agreement, the Chairman  proposed that the 
Council approve the request for a waiver extension by the European Communities and recommend 
that the draft decision granting this waiver extension and contained in document G/C/W/194 be 
transm itted to the General Council for adoption.  
 
 It was so agreed . 
 
VI. REQUEST FOR A WTO WAIVER – TURKEY:  PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT 
FOR BOSNIA -HERZEGOVINA  
 The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from Turkey contained in document 
G/C/W217.  This contained a request for a waiver which is before the Council for its consideration.  A 
draft decision granting this waiver extension had been circulated in the same document to assist the 
Council in its consideration of this request.  
 
 The representative of Turkey  said that in the context of the commitment in applying EC 
policies, Turkey had applied autonomous trade measures for Bosnia -Herzegovina as from 13 June 
1999.  According to these measures and in general terms, industrial goods originating in B -H were 
introdu ced into Turkey without quantitative restrictions or equivalent measures and on a duty -free 
basis, as was the case in the EC.  Numbers 1 and 2 were an exception to the rule because the elements 
in Annex 1 also entered free within the quotas allocated and t here was no preferential treatment for 
those listed in Annex 2.  The textiles products were subject to quantitative restrictions.  Consequently 
it was necessary to request a waiver from the provisions of paragraph 1, Article 1 of GATT 1994 till 
31 December  2006.  In terms of the exceptional situation, the economic and social situation in B -H,  
such measures were justified in themselves.  Turkey intended to extend these measures to other 
countries such as Albania, Croatia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Former Yugoslav 
Republic of Macedonia.  Turkey was willing to hold consultations on this draft decision.  
  
 The representative of the United States  announced its interest in holding consultations on this.  
 
 The Chairman  suggested that the Council revert to this matter at its next meeting and that in 
the intervening time any interested delegations hold informal consultations.  
 
 It was so agreed . 
 
VII. TRADE -RELATED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE:  CUSTOMS VALUATION MODEL 
WORK PROGRAMME (COMMUNICATION FROM THE EURO PEAN 
COMMUNITIES)  
 In presenting the communication contained in G/VAL/W/71, the representative of the 
European Communities  said that the document constituted an oral statement made in the Customs 
Valuation Committee.  The purpose of having this on the agen da was simply that the CTG might be 
willing to take note of the idea of a model that might be usable in one or two other cases.  The purpose G/C/M/44  
Page 24 
 
 
of this was to make the provision of technical assistance more efficient, effective, coordinated and 
more integrate d.  
 
 The representative of the United States  noted that the Customs Valuation Committee was 
doing important work in the customs valuation area.  It supported the EC's point with respect to the 
need for an enhanced commitment from, and coordination with, i nternational organizations in the 
technical assistance area.  The level of resources was certainly important but so was the effective use 
of those resources and the avoidance of duplication.  
 
 The Council took note  of the statements made.  
 
VIII.  APPOINTMENT OF O FFICERS FOR SUBSIDIARY BODIES OF THE COUNCIL – 
COMMITTEE ON SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES  
 The Chairman   recalled that among the slate of Chairpersons announced by the General 
Council on 8 May 2000 Mr. Shishir Priyadarshi (India) was confirmed as Cha irperson of the SPS 
Committee.  Mr. Priyadarshi had unfortunately had to decline this assignment, due to his 
unavailability in Geneva.  Following informal consultations, he proposed the nomination of Mr. 
S.I.M. Nayyar (Pakistan) as Chairperson of the SPS C ommittee.   The proposal was informally 
approved by the Council for Trade in Goods on 19 June 2000.  On the basis of the understandings 
reached, Mr. Nayyar was elected as Chairman by the SPS Committee by acclamation.  It was 
mentioned at the informal meetin g that Mr. Nayyar's election would be formally confirmed today.  
The Council so agreed.  
 
IX. OTHER BUSINESS  
 The next meeting of the Council was scheduled to take place on 16  October  2000.  
 
__________