RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/VAL/M/30
22 July 2002
(02-4043)
Committee on Customs Valuation
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 7 MAY 2002
Chairman:  Mr. Raimundas Karoblis (Lithuania)
The agenda proposed for the meeting, circulated in WTO/AIR/1783 and Add.1 was adopted
as follows:
Table of Contents
I. TECHNICAL ASSIST ANCE ..................................................................................................1
II. PREPARATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE
PROTOCOL ON THE ACCESSION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF
CHINA .......................................................................................................................... .............4
III. PARAGRAPH 12 OF THE DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION
(WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1):  IMPLEM ENTATION-RELA TED ISSU ES..................................4
IV. OTHER BUSINESS.............................................................................................................. ..10
_______________
I. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
1.1 The Chairman noted that under this agenda item, he wished to continue discussion of the
seminar on technical assistance which was scheduled for 6-7 November 2002.  He recalled that at the
meeting in May, the Secretariat had explained orally its idea for an interactive mode to this seminar,
namely breaking up into working groups for in-depth discussion of specific issues.  The Committee
had requested the Secretariat to prepare an informal background paper explaining in more detail its
proposal for these interactive sessions.  This paper was faxed to Members in advance on this meeting.
1.2 The representative of Senegal asked if funding would be provided for developing country
Members to bring experts from their capitals to participate in the seminar?  He noted that  this was a
sensitive issue for his country.  This occasion should be used to enable delegates to come from
capitals to learn about the experiences of other countries and to experience, first-hand, the realities of
international organizations.
1.3 The Secretariat informed Members that a request had been made to the WTO administration
for funding for developing countries to attend this seminar.  This request was not included in the 2002
Technical Assistance Programme but the Secretariat was hopeful of a favourable response.
1.4 The representative of the European Communities considered that the overall direction of the
seminar was correct. On the structure, he questioned having the emphasis on deciding
recommendations by voting.  This would put a lot of pressure on an event which should be looking at
issues in a measured way;  it was perhaps not ideal to reach quick opinions in voting mode.  Secondly,
he asked what would be the result of the seminar?  The seminar was intended to achieve tangibleG/VAL/M/30
Page 2
results, to keep the focus on technical assistance and, in the broader sense, capacity-building.  His
delegation thought that the objective was probably not reports, suggestions, or recommendations.  In
addition, the WTO could not really make recommendations to inter-governmental organizations or
donor Members.  The emphasis should be on up-dating technical assistance approaches and matching
them with the Committee's work programme on technical assistance that it adopted last year.
1.5 On the structure, incorporating break-out sessions might create logistical problems so should
be limited at this seminar.  On the themes, hi s delegation would like to focus on one or two in
particular.  He considered that the theme "capacity-building," mentioned in the second session, could
be further emphasized because increasingly technical assistance is coming under the umbrella theme
of capacity-building.  It went further than technical assistance because it would examine the overall
competence of administrations that benefit from technical assistance and that advance the technicalassistance programmes.
1.6 The representative of Canada shared the view s expressed by the EC, particularly with regard
to the breakout sessions, the idea of voting and of trying to get recommendations at the seminar's
conclusion. His delegation considered the agenda ambitious and suggested that focus could beprovided in the first two sessio ns, overview of technical assistance by donor Members and overview
of experiences by recipient Members, by identifying three or four key areas.  The theme of capacity-
building, suggested by the EC, was a good idea.  He also suggested incorporating issues like risk
assessment, necessary changes in management stru cture, etc.  It was necessary to pinpoint more
specifically issues which would also result in identifying the gaps, one of his delegation's objectivesof the seminar.  His delegation also supported the i ssue of follow-up to technical assistance, but again
the issue needed more definition.
1.7 The representative of India noted that the time allocated for the presentations was much more
than that for the breakout sessions.  She doubted whether the participants would be able to accomplish
much in the breakout sessions if they were so short, given the vast range of issues to discuss.  She
suggested providing a background note to the participan ts in order to facilitate faster assimilation of
the issues and shorten the overview part.  She agreed with the EC regarding the suggestion for voting.
She would study the paper in more detail and revert to the Secretariat with suggestions on issues to be
included.
1.8 The representative of the Philippines shared some of the concerns expressed about the
innovative and ambitious approach proposed in the paper.  She particularly liked the suggested issues
for donor and recipient Members to discuss.  She hoped that this seminar would represent the first real
interaction between the donors and possible recipients.  Often in capitals, only the views of one donor
were heard which led to a lack of coordination in the approach to technical assistance.  The emphasis
on capacity building was important because developing countries which needed technical assistanceactually needed long-term capacity-building.  It was important for each donor to leave the seminar
with a clear idea of what the real needs of recipients were.
1.9 The representative of the United States had some general concerns with the approach set forth
in the paper on logistics and substance of the seminar.  On the former, his delegation considered that
the breakout session approach would be too ambitious in the limited time available for the seminar.
While not averse to the idea, reflection was needed as to how the approach might be effective as a tool
for increasing understanding and interaction among delegations and among capital-based officials in
this area.  He did not agree with the idea of a voting structure for the breakout sessions.  To the extent
that there might be breakout sessions or breakout groups, perhaps it would be more realistic to expectsome kind of reporting on the nature and dynamic of the discussions.  He cautioned against the focus
of the seminar being the actual breakout sessions or  groups.  He thought that more would be gained by
having a general discussion among all participants.  Therefore, he would not be in favour of allocating
more time to breakout sessions and less time for a group dynamic.G/VAL/M/30
Page 3
1.10 On the substance, he supported the idea of structuring the seminar on focus areas or themes.
It was essential to have perspectives from each group represented, intergovernmental organizations as
donors, individual Members as donors and recipient countries.  Perhaps sessions could be a mixture of
these groups to provide a real exchange in the presentations. He suggested that the Secretariat look at
the work programme in G/VAL/82/Rev.1 to draw elements from it into the seminar programme.  Theseminar programme proposed in the paper seemed too generic and could almost cover any WTO
subject.  He further suggested including the post-implementation challenges as an issue or theme.
Another possible theme could be the transfer of skills with regard to implementation of the Agreement
which would serve to advance overall modernization and reform in general customs procedures.
1.11 The Chairman asked Members to clarify if they wished to maintain the idea of breakout
sessions or revert to the traditional structure of WTO seminars such as was proposed in the draft
contained in G/VAL/W/96/Rev.1.  Of course that dr aft would be revised to take into account the
comments made on the substance and themes.
1.12 The representative of Canada considered the session on intergovernmental organizations was
not necessary at all. He suggested presentations by donors in the morning, a longer breakout session
in the  afternoon, returning to the Plenary for disc ussion on the issues raised.  On the second day the
seminar could hear from recipients with a breakout session, the afternoon would be devoted to
discussing emerging issues. He questioned who would compile the statements made and information
presented and how would consensus be reached on any recommendations.  He would prefer fewer
breakout sessions, making them a bit longer, followed by everybody going over the matters to identifyemerging common themes.  In this vein, more specific themes or issues should be identified for
donors to focus on;  recipients should focus on answering the questions proposed.  He agreed that the
programme was too generic and should focus on specific areas of technical assistance like review and
appeal, applying Article 1, etc.
1.13 The representative of the United States did not believe that the programme in
G/VAL/W/96/Rev.1 would solve the problems he had identified.  It was too generic and not specific
to customs valuation.  The first step would be to focus on drafting the themes associated with
implementation of the Agreement, then look at  capacity-building needs and technical assistance
opportunities associated with those specific themes.  The question of structure would then flow from
this.  He also suggested a mix in presentations by representatives of all groups - intergovernmental
organizations, bilateral donors and recipient countries, would provide a better dynamic.  He thoughtthat one breakout session would be sufficient, if necessary, with the opportunity for everyone to
regroup to discuss the highlights of their discussions.
1.14 The representative of the European Communities agreed that presentations by the three
groups at interest would render the focus of the seminar on these groups and their activities.  Hence,
supported the suggestions by the US and Canada to move away from themes structured around groups
of presenters.  The seminar seemed to be giving a platform to, for example, intergovernmental
organisations to explain how decisions were made, how they coordinated, how the contributory roles
of each donor was established and defined, etc.  He suggested that instead of groups trying to come up
with recommendations for intergovernmental organisations, perhaps the pressure should be onintergovernmental organisations themselves to come already prepared with answers to these
questions.  It was difficult to get intergovernmental organisations to work together, so the onus should
be on them to have concrete ideas as to how their contributory roles could be better defined in the
future.  He agreed on the idea to have concrete themes related to valuation and implementation of the
Agreement, as well as post-implementation issues such as training, extra capacity, auditing, riskanalysis, etc.  He suggested having presentations by the groups on the first day, addressing the
specific themes on the second day.  A variation would be to integrate both on both days.  This would
be more complex because it would involve each pr esenter explaining what it was doing with respectG/VAL/M/30
Page 4
to each specific theme.  He also suggested building into the programme how donors and recipients
measure progress over time and the business/private sector component
1.15 The representative of Malaysia asked how, if the programme was based on the US suggested
structure, would the participants hear the views of  all groups, in particular the needs of recipient
Members?  She also asked how the breakout sessions  would allow for all participants of the seminar
to hear the specific needs of each recipient.  It w ould have to be ensured that all such needs reported
in break-out sessions would be shared with the plenary.  Perhaps it would be useful to breakup groups
by regions since similar needs often were reported in the same region.  She sought clarification as to
how the breakout sessions would work in the time allowed.  She also considered that concrete results
would only be possible if capital based experts from developing countries attended this seminar.
1.16 The representative of Canada suggested suspending this meeting on this agenda item so that
the Committee could further discuss the matter and agree on a programme before the end of July.
1.17 The Committee agreed to suspend the meeting on this item and to meet before the end of July.
In the meantime, the Secretariat would prepare a revised programme which would be circulated to all
Members.  The Secretariat would advise in due course the date of the resumed meeting.
II. PREPARATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE PROTOCOL
ON THE ACCESSION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
2.1 The Chairman reported on the consultations he had been carrying out following the mandate
given to him by the Committee at its last meeting on 6-7 May 2002. His contacts indicated that that
bilateral consultations were still continuing on the overall question of China's Transitional Review in
the appropriate WTO bodies.  Nevertheless, he considered that the Committee could agree on the date
for the paragraph 18 Review.   He proposed that it be carried out in the context of the last regular
meeting of the Committee for this year which would be held on 4-5 November 2002.  He drewMembers' attention to the recent circulation of China's notification of legislation and responses to the
Checklist of Issues in documents G/VAL/N/1/CHN/ 1 and G/VAL/N/2/CHN/1.  In order to carry out
and complete the review at the November meeting of the Committee, he urged Members to submit
any questions they may have on the Chinese notificatio n sufficiently in advance so as to allow China
the opportunity to respond.
2.2 The representative of China confirmed that her delegation had made a notification of the full
text of its legislation and the responses to the Checklist of Issues.  The legislation was authentic in
Chinese only and the notification in English was for reference only.  In order to facilitate the
Transitional Review Mechanism, she asked Members to pose questions as soon as possible.
2.3 The Committee agreed that the Review would take place at its 4-5 November 2002 meeting
and took note of the statements made.
III. PARAGRAPH 12 OF THE DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION
(WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1):  IMPLEMENTATION-RELATED ISSUES
3.1 The Chairman noted that the Committee had held an informal discussion on agenda item A at
this meeting.  He suggested that the statements made at the informal meeting be recorded in the
minutes of this formal meeting.
3.2 The Committee so agreed.  The following statements were made at the informal meeting of
the Committee on 3 July 2002.G/VAL/M/30
Page 5
3.3 The Chairman recalled that at the last meeting, the Committee had a detailed discussion of the
first three tirets in sub-item A.1 of the agenda as well as on sub-item A.2, namely Paragraph 8.3 of
Document WT/MIN/(01)/17.  He proposed beginning this meeting with a discussion of the first two
tirets which were not addressed at the last meeting due to lack of time.  He then suggested taking up
paragraph 8.3 and following-up with the first three tire ts in their respective order.  At the conclusion
of the discussion, and as was agreed at the last meeting, the Committee would carry out a stocktaking
of where it stood on the basis of which it would clar ify working procedures for the rest of the year.
He added that no new questions had been received since the May meeting and the previous questions
were contained in document series G/VAL/W/98 and Adds. 1 – 5.
3.4 The representative of India reiterated that the issues flagged by India as reflected in tirets
57-61 emanated from genuine difficulties experien ced by a number of customs administrations across
the developing countries, particularly in India.  The objective of highlighting these implementation
issues was to seek further elaboration of certai n provisions of the Agreement to enhance their
certainty and prevent their misuse.  She also sought to allay the apprehensions of some Members that
her delegation's proposals were aimed at fundamentally changing the Agreement.  Her delegation
remained committed to the primacy of acceptance of transaction value as the basis of the customsvalue of imported goods.  The proposals were aimed at addressing only certain concerns regarding the
misuse of some of these provisions which had come to light during the course of India's long
experience in implementing  the Agreement.  It was her delegation's belief that these proposals would
not fundamentally alter the delicate balance of rights and obligations of Members under this
Agreement, and at the same time would address areas of concern to India and some other developingcountries.  While her delegation appreciated the concerns and queries of some Members, she again
appealed to them to consider these proposals in a sp irit of constructive cooperation, designed to assist
developing country Members in overcoming the practical problems that they faced in implementing
the Agreement.  It should also be appreciated that her delegation's interest laid in achieving greater
consistency and transparency in the Agreement, which could only prove to be beneficial to allconcerned.  Her delegation had perused the questions posed by Members and noted their concerns.
These would be fully addressed to the Committee's satisfaction.  Her delegation would be able to
provide the Committee with the responses by the next meeting or perhaps even earlier.  She further
invited Members to provide any further questions that they may have so that all questions can be
responded to in a coordinated and composite fashion.
3.5 The representative of Canada asked what the Committee would do at this meeting since the
responses had not been received.  He hoped they would be forthcoming in advance of the next
meeting. He suggested proceeding with a discussion of a schedule for submissions.  At this stage, his
delegation did not have any additional questions but would wait to see the written responses to all the
questions.  He asked if it would be possible to receive the written responses to the first questions by
the end of July, and then Members could follow with follow-up questions some time by September.India could then have a month to consider those questions, and the Committee could have a
substantive discussion in November.
3.6 The Chairman indicated that he would take up timing and further procedures later.  If
Members agreed that discussion on the tirets would not be possible given the absence of written
responses, he suggested moving to paragraph 8.3 of WT/MIN(01)/17, and then having a short
stocktaking exercise.   He recalled that this paragraph was the result of negotiations on an
implementation-related proposal first made in document WT/CG/W/227 of 2 July 1999.  The initial
proposal was subject to extensive discussion in the Committee, contained in G/VAL/M/17, and two
reports by the Chairman of the Committee to the General Council in G/VAL/36 and WT/CGF/49.The relevant sections of these documents were compiled in document G/VAL/W/97 for reference.
3.7 The representative of India informed the Committee that her delegation was working on this
matter with its customs authorities as well as in the World Customs Organization.  She assuredG/VAL/M/30
Page 6
Members that  India would cooperate fully to enable the Committee to advance this work and adhere
to the overall timeframe foreseen in the mandate.
3.8 The representative of the European Communities, on the tirets as well as on paragraph 8.3,
cautioned that the Committee should be watchful of the calendar because it had mandate for the end
of the year and, while his delegation was prepared to work where necessary, this Committee was the
priority location for discussions of these issues.  Therefore, he urged delegations to focus on the issues
and to submit any plans or ongoing preparatory work being undertaken in capitals to the Committee
so that it could respect its timetable.   For the tirets, a work plan had been established based on a series
of dates and questions and answers and it should be respected.  It seemed to be functioning well but if
not, the Committee should rethink its procedures.  He added that the word "conclude" was a relative
term, but the Committee should at least make sure the debate, as foreseen at the start of the year, hadbeen concluded.
3.9 The Chairman reminded Members that, both regarding the tirets and paragraph 8.3, the
Committee would need to report to the TNC and the General Council at the end of this year.  Time
was pressing so he urged delegates to make appropriate submissions in order for the further work tobe efficient.  On the dates, he asked India if it would be possible to have the responses to the questions
by the end of July and then receiv e follow-up questions two weeks after?
3.10 The representative of India confirmed that her delegation was in the process of finalizing the
responses, but the exact date could only be confirmed after checking with her capital.  However, she
hoped to be able to adhere to the end of the month deadline.
3.11 The Chairman proposed that the indicative date for India would be the end of July.  After that,
Members could provide additional follow-up ques tions during the foll owing two-week period.
3.12 The representative of Brazil underlined the importance to his delegation of this work and the
way that it fit into the overall work programme of the Organization.  His delegation believed that the
discussions this year had been extremely constructive and productive and the agreed methodology of
questions and answers seemed appropriate.  His delegation appreciated India's difficulty in responding
to all the questions.  The volume of questions posed more than explained the slippage in the agreed
schedule.  He suggested deciding on the date of the next meeting before finalizing a new deadline.
3.13 The representative of the United States considered that, in the expectation that India provided
responses by the end of August, and adding two w eeks for follow-up questions, a meeting towards the
end of September was preferable.
3.14 The representative of Canada thought a feasib le date would be 30 September if India could
provide responses by the end of July, and follow-up questions could be provided by 1 September.  He
added that the objective should be to cover all the tirets plus paragraph 8.3.
3.15 The representative of Brazil thought Canada's  suggestion was constructive.  However, with
the sheer volume of material to cover,  he asked if a two-day meeting would be possible?
3.16 The Chairman stated that the Secretariat would look into the possibility of a two-day or one
and a half day meeting.  The Committee agreed that India would provide responses to the questions
by the end of July and any follow-up questions would be posed by 9 September.  He repeated that it
was urgent that Members prepare submissions on paragraph 8.3.
3.17 The Chairman moved to the stocktaking exercise.  He made some general observations
regarding the Committee's work on implementation-related issues over the first half of this year.  The
Committee had held three meetings, in March, May and July, to discuss the tirets and the matter inG/VAL/M/30
Page 7
paragraph 8.3.  Further, in February, a first explanatory statement was provided by the delegation of
India.  Granted that the issues raised in the tirets and paragraph 8.3 were complicated, he considered
that the discussions over the past three meetings had covered considerable ground, had highlighted the
main areas of concern, had posed the relevant questions, and had offered delegations the necessary
opportunity to make their views know n.  With this said, he also noted that many Members who raised
questions and concerns with regard to the proposals in the tirets did not consider the responses
received satisfactory or sufficient to enable them to move forward in this work.  Some questions
remain unanswered and others, for which responses had been provided, had raised further questions.
In addition, very little had been said in the Committee's meeting on paragraph 8.3.  Therefore, he
considered that the Committee was still in an examination phase of its work on the tirets and on
paragraph 8.3.  As was mentioned early on in the work, Ministers at Doha directed the Committee to
address these proposals, and he agreed that it was not necessarily the responsibility of one delegationto respond to the numerous questions posed.  Therefore, one question that needed consideration in the
stocktaking was how these questions, often technical in nature, would be answered?  Similarly, in the
case of diverging interpretations of provisions of the Agreement, which had been the case in the
context of some of the tirets, how could different interpretations be clarified and reconciled?
3.18 With these general observations, he thought that the Committee would benefit from an
organization of the concerns, questions and issues raised and the responses provided.  That way, the
gaps in information and any unanswered questions w ould be more obvious and could orient the rest of
the Committee's work in this examination phase.  He reminded Members about his proposal for the
Secretariat to prepare an issues paper along the lines outlined above.  However, given that there hadbeen very little discussion of paragraph 8.3, he suggested that any issues paper be limited to the tirets.
Preparation of this paper would be a time-intensive effort, so he proposed having it by the end of the
summer for study by Members in September.  In addition, if any Member wished to provide responses
or comments on the questions posed in the document series G/VAL/W/98 and Adds.1-5, they were
more than welcome and this information would be incorporated into Members' consideration of theissues and identification of the information gaps.  The Committee could aim for an informal and
formal meeting in late September in order to fill the information gaps to complete the examination
phase of our work, and to determine what the next stage of work might be.  In addition, at this
meeting, he would like to have an exchange of views on the two reports that the Committee was
required to submit to the General Council and to the TNC.
3.19 The representative of Colombia considered the Chairman's assessment going in the right
direction.   Her delegation could agree with the proposal to hold the meeting on 30 September which
would allow time to conclude the information gathering exercise to evaluate the proposals.  However,
she asked how the Committee would analyse para 8.3 of WT/MIN(01)/17.  There had been no debate
on this matter as yet.  She asked India if it also intended to include information on paragraph 8.3 with
the responses at the end of the month because her delegation needed more elements to be able to workon this matter.  She did not consider that it was for the Committee to identify measures and practical
manners for dealing with the problems and concerns which arose when there were doubts on exported
values. Her delegation wanted to know whether there would be proposals as to how the Committee
was going to draw up practical measures to deal with the concerns including the exchange of
information on exported values between customs auth orities.  Her delegation needed more elements to
determine how to identify the measures and questions to guide her national authorities in their
evaluation or assessment exercise and in determining whether they had the adequate infrastructure,
and physical and human resources.
3.20 The representative of India stated that her authorities were working on the matter and should
have an input in short time which she would share with the Committee.3.21 The representative of Canada stated his under standing that India would endeavour to provide
responses on all the questions to tirets 57 to 61 plus information on paragraph 8.3 by the end of July.G/VAL/M/30
Page 8
Any follow-up questions or comments would be pr ovided by 9 September.  The Committee would
then meet on 30 September, starting in formal mode, to deal with all the issues as well as take up the
question of how to structure the reports.  The Secretariat would look into having an additional day for
this work.  Presumably sometime during October, the Committee could hold informal meetings on the
draft reports because they would have to be agreed at the 5 November meeting.
3.22 The Chairman concurred with Canada on the dates.  He added that he would like to have a
general discussion on the elements of the draft reports at the September meeting.  Immediately
afterwards, the Secretariat would prepare draft reports to be issued before the November meeting.  He
would consult with Members on the reports and the Committee could have a substantial discussion on
them in November. If the Committee would not be able to adopt the reports at the November meeting,
it could examine the possibility of having another meeting towards the end of November.
3.23 The representative of Canada appreciated the clarification.  He asked if the Secretariat issue
paper would focus on tiret 57 through 60 and whether it should not wait until the first round of written
responses from India were received?
3.24 The Chairman suggested that the issue paper could be on tirets 57 to 60 bearing in mind that
the Secretariat would incorporate the responses received.  He suggested that it be prepared for the
beginning of September so that Members could study it in advance of the meeting.
3..25 The representative of Brazil considered that this issue paper could be helpful in the
discussions. He suggested incorporating the discussions on all the tirets as well as the responses from
India in the paper.  He recognized that there was little to incorporate on paragraph 8.3 but the
Committee had extensive discussions on this prior to Doha. There may be something useful in those
discussions which the Secretariat could pick up.  He considered early September would be an
appropriate time to have the issues paper circulated but he was concerned that there would not besufficient time at the September meeting to tackle all the issues.  It did not seem feasible to conclude
any meaningful work with only one meeting at the end of September and a formal meeting in early
November to adopt reports or to discuss them and the regular business of the Committee.
3.26 The representative of the United States did not consider that the Committee had much to take
stock of since the procedures and deadlines had not been respected.  The Committee could only be
hopeful that the September meeting would be more productive.  His delegation had expected moresubstance at today's meeting and had agreed to the schedule of meetings at the beginning of the year
with the expectation that each meeting would be worthwhile, with substantial discussion.  He added
that he did not see much benefit associated with an issues paper.  Perhaps it would have been useful
earlier but in light of the lack of substantive discussion or work at this meeting, he was concerned that
the Committee would not have sufficient time to work on the reports.  Under these circumstances, anissues paper had been overtaken by events.  He did not think that the Secretariat could produce
anything productive given the material and the discussion today.  He considered that it would be more
productive to look ahead to the meeting on 30 September to have a discussion on the interim
developments and to focus on how to proceed after that on the reports.  An issues paper would
provide little value added in terms of the ultimate objective of drafting the reports.
3.27 The representative of the European Communities supported the statement by the US.  He
considered a paper squeezed into the time between this meeting and September unnecessary.   It
would be important to follow the procedure as from this meeting regarding the questions and answers
because they represented the dialogue on these proposals.  He added that the discussions showedperhaps diverging interpretations of provisions of  the Agreement.  This was something that should
obviously be identified perhaps in the report as they could be confusing the issues and, if possible,
should be cleared up as soon as possible.G/VAL/M/30
Page 9
3.28 The representative of Brazil regretted the lack of agreement on the issues paper as he thought
it would be a useful tool to pull together the di scussions on the proposals.  He added that he was
concerned that focus of the autumn work would be the reports.  While an important element, it was
worth recalling that the reports were only a mechanism or a procedure for communicating the work
the Committee had done to the Trade Negotiations Committee and the General Council.. It should notbe the main objective of the Committee's work.  His delegation believed that there was still time and a
margin of room for substantive work and for seeking convergence on issues, such as the EC
mentioned, deriving from different interpretations of the provisions.  He concluded that the reports
were nothing more than a consequence of the substantive work.
3.29 The representative of the United States considered that the report was the Committee's
mandate.  His delegation had been fully ready to participate in a thorough discussion of the issues.
Without having received detailed responses to the questions or concerns raised, he did not see what an
issues paper would accomplish at this point in time.
3.30 The representative of Malaysia agreed with the Chairman's original proposal to continue the
discussion on the rest of the tiret 60 and 61 and perhaps on 8.3 and considered this would be for the
September meeting.  Since there would be another meeting in November, an issues paper could be
drawn up after the September meeting to list the points that had been raised under each tiret.  That
way, by November, the Committee would see if it was in a position to achieve something.  She agreed
with Brazil that the autumn work was not meant to only discuss the report, but it was to see how far
we could advance the issues before the work was co ncluded with the report at the end of the year.
Her delegation believed that the November meeting w ould be crucial in deciding how the issues could
be moved forward because, by then, most of the discussions on the tirets would have been concluded.
3.31 The representative of the United States saw merit in the statement by Malaysia.  His
delegation put emphasis on the September meeting to have some significant substantive discussion
and to see how to proceed and resolve some of the concerns on both sides of the issues.
3.32 The Chairman, noting the lack of consensus on the issues paper, suggested preparing it for the
November meeting.  The Secretariat could start to work on it before the November meeting based on
the questions received, the discussions, and the written responses which he hoped would be received
from India.  He also took note of the concern th at the Committee not focus only on the reports in the
autumn work because the discussions at the September meeting and any follow up questions would beimportant.  It could be possible to also have fruitf ul discussions at the November meeting as well.  On
the question of including paragraph 8.3 in any issues  paper, he considered that the Committee should
concentrate its work on the mandate from Ministers adopted at Doha and focus on discussions and
submissions from the post-Doha period.
3.33 The representative of the United States clarified that he suggested having a substantive
discussion at the September meeting followed by a discussion on the procedure which would flow
from the discussion on substance with respect to the tirets and paragraph 8.3.  At that time, the
Committee could agree on whether an issues pa per would the best way to move forward.
3.34 The representative of the European Communities agreed with the US on the question of the
issues paper.  Until the discussion in September was completed, there was no need for an issue paper.
After September, it may not be needed either because the Committee would have been fully
successful.  Options could be explored if there were outstanding questions to be clarified or the
Committee may be in a position to begin drafting the reports right away.
3.35 The Committee agreed to continue the substantive discussions on the tirets and on paragraph
8.3 at the 30 September – 1 October meeting and decide, in light of that meeting, the procedure to be
followed, keeping in mind that an issues paper was one of the options to be considered.G/VAL/M/30
Page 10
IV. OTHER BUSINESS
4.1 The Chairman stated that the next meeting of the Committee would be on 30 September and 1
October 2002.
4.2 The meeting was adjourned.
__________