. /.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/REG80/M/2
9 March 2001
(01-1170)
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements
Twenty-Eighth Session
EXAMINATION OF THE FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
 BETWEEN POLAND AND LATVIA
Note on the Meeting of 22 February 2001
Chairman:  Mr. Jae Gil LEE (Korea)
1. The meeting was convened in document WTO/AIR/1484.  Under Agenda Items D.XIII of its
Twenty-Eighth Session, the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (hereinafter CRTA or
the Committee) took up the second round of examination of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA)
between Poland and Latvia.
2. The Chairman stated that the minutes of the first round of examination, which had taken place
in July of the previous year, had been distributed as document WT/REG80/M/1.  Questions and
replies on the Agreement, which had been submitted following the last meeting, had been distributed
in document WT/REG80/4.
3. The representative of the United States said that document WT/REG/80/4 contained a chart
stating that 24.21 per cent of Poland's imports of agricultural products from Latvia were at
zero import duty.  She wondered if these statistics would apply at the end of the transitional period
from 1 January 2002.  In the last meeting the Parties had stated that all tariffs on industrial products
would be eliminated by the end of the transitional period.  As regards the rules of origin, she had
observed that the Agreement incorporated the rules of the pan-European system of cumulation of
origin:  her delegation wished to incorporate by reference its concerns about this system which had
been expressed in other meetings.  She clarified that the issue with the pan-European system of
cumulation of origin did not relate to the preferences accorded to the Parties to the Agreement, but,
rather, the preferences accorded to various non-Parties to the Agreement.
4. The representative of Poland replied that the statistics provided in document WT/REG/80/4
demonstrated progressive liberalization from year to year.  As far as the rules of origin were
concerned, this was a much broader question than the examination of this particular Agreement andfell under the discussion of systemic issues.
5. The representative of the United States responde d that given that the rules of origin question
was one of discrimination under Article I, it was always on the agenda.  In response to the Parties'
request for clarification of her question on statistics, she explained that in the last meeting
(paragraph 9 of the minutes) the representative of Latvia had stated that zero import duty would beapplied to all industrial products by 2002.  She wondered what the situation was with respect to
agricultural products and in what percentages, and if the charts which were set out in the Annex of
document WT/REG80/4 represented the final numbers  in terms of the percentage of trade in
agriculture which would be subject to zero duty rates as of 1 January 2002.  The representative of
Australia supported that request.  The representative of Poland
 asked the representative of the
United States to submit her question in writing.WT/REG80/M/2
Page 2
6. In reference to the comment made by the representative of the United States that the rules of
origin employed in the Agreement raised an Article I issue, the representative of the
European Communities replied that the products which fell under the system of pan-European
cumulation of origin originated in countries with which Poland or Latvia already had existingpreferential arrangements which were covered by Article XXIV.  It was more transparent to have asingle set of rules of origin to cover trading relationships between a substantial number of countries
which had preferential relationships between them.  A single system was easier for traders than a
network of individual rules which might be largely common, but which would vary from one to the
other, and which would complicate matters for a ll traders, including those outside the European
continent.
7. The Chairman proposed that any outstanding questions be submitted to the Secretariat by
23 March to which the Parties should provide written replies by 30 April.  If there were no further
questions, he proposed that the Secretariat begin drafting the examination report.
8. The Committee took note of the comments made.
__________