./.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/DSB/M/102
10 May 2001
(01-2412)
Dispute Settlement Body
20 March 2001
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 20 March 2001
Chairman:  Mr. R. Farrell (New Zealand)
Subjects discussed: Page
1. Turkey – Restrictions on imports of textile and clothing products......................................1
(a) Agreed procedures between India and Turkey under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU................1
2. Philippines – Measures affecting trade and investment in the motor vehicle
sector ......................................................................................................................... .................2
(a) Statements by the United States and the Philippines ..................................................................2
1. Turkey – Restrictions on imports of textile and clothing products
(a) Agreed procedures between India and Tu rkey under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU
(WT/DS34/13)
1. The Chairman drew attention to document  WT/DS34/13 which contained the agreed
procedures between India and Turkey under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU in the follow-up to the
case on "Turkey – Restrictions on Imports  of Textile and Clothing Products".
2. The representative of India said that his country and Turkey had requested a special meeting
in order for the DSB to take note of the agreement between India and Turkey on the procedures under
Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU in the follow-up to the case on "Turkey – Restrictions on Imports of
Textile and Clothing Products."  This agreement, which had been circulated on 8 March 2001 in
document WT/DS34/13, envisaged a 30-day period for further consultations to discuss Turkey'scompliance with the DSB's recommendations.  The agreement preserved India's rights under
Article 22.2 of the DSU beyond the time-period spec ified in Article 22.6 of the DSU.  It also
envisaged recourse by India to Article 21.5 of the DSU, if India, at any time, considered that the
situation described in Article 21.5 of the DSU had arisen.  He said that as soon as an agreement was
reached between India and Turkey, it would be notified to the DSB.
3. The representative of Turkey said that, at the 12 March DSB meeting, his delegation had
made a statement on this matter.  At the present m eeting, he did not have much more to add to the
statement already made by India.  It was his understanding that the relevant Turkish and Indian
authorities would meet shortly to discuss this matter.  He hoped that the parties would be able to
address this matter in a mutually satisfactory manner.WT/DSB/M/102
Page 2
4. The representative of Hong Kong, China said that his delegation remained concerned about
the systemic implications of ad hoc bilateral agreements on Articles 21.5 and 22 of the DSU, which
could circumvent the DSU provisions and undermine  the purpose of multilateral determinations on
compliance with the DSB's recommendations.  The pres ent situation pointed to the need to resolve the
current ambiguities arising from Articles 21.5 and 22 of the DSU.  Hong Kong, China believed that inorder to preserve the effectiveness of the dispute settlement system it was imperative to reach an
understanding on the sequence and time-frame for the determination on compliance with the DSB's
recommendations and for recourse to retaliatory actions.  In this regard, he recalled that a proposal to
amend certain provisions of the DSU pursuant  to Article X of the WTO Agreement had been
submitted to the General Council.  Hong Kong, China was prepared to continue discussions on
possible amendments to the DSU and looked forward to participating therein.
5. With regard to the case at hand, Hong Kong, China wished to make it clear that bilateral
agreements did not have any official or legal status in the DSB and were only ad hoc bilateral
arrangements between the parties to the dispute.  Hong Kong, China considered that it was not
appropriate for the DSB to give any official or legal recognition to such agreements.  At the present
meeting, the DSB could only take note of the bilateral agreement but could not endorse or give it any
legal status similar to the DSU provisions.  Hong Kong, China considered that it was not necessary toconvene a special DSB meeting for this purpose since the same result could have been achieved by
circulating a written notification.
6. The DSB took note of the statements and of the agreed procedures between India and Turkey
under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU contained in document WT/DS34/13.
2. Philippines – Measures affecting trade and investment in the motor vehicle sector
(a) Statements by the United States and the Philippines
7. The representative of the United States, speaking under "Other Business", said that her
delegation wished to report on progress in the case on "Philippines – Measures Affecting Trade and
Investment in the Motor Vehicle Sector" (WT/DS195).  She recalled that at the 17 November 2000
DSB meeting, following the establishment of the pane l to examine this matter, the United States had
agreed not to move forward with the selection of panelists because it had wished to continue its
discussions with the Philippines.  These discussion s were ongoing and progress was being made.  The
United States hoped to be able to end this dispute in the coming weeks.  The Philippines was working
with the United States towards achieving that objective.  The United States wished to revert to this
matter at the next DSB meeting scheduled for 5 April 2001 in order to report on the results of its
consultations with the Philippines.
8. The representative of the Philippines expressed his country's appreciation to the United States
for its readiness to continue to exercise due restra int.  During the period of the continued suspension
of the panel's composition, the Philippines would work  closely with the United States with a view to
resolving this matter in a mutually satisfactory manner.
9. The DSB took note of the statements.
__________