RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/C/M/46
29 March 2001
(01-1567)
Council for Trade in Goods Original:  English
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard on 15 November 2000 and 14 March 2001
Chairperson:  Ambass ador Perez del Castillo
The meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods was convened by WTO/AIR/1433.  The
proposed agenda contained in document G/C/W/ 242 was adopted.  The meeting was suspended on
item 1 and resumed on 14 March 2001 to complete discussions of this item.
I. TRIMS AGREEMENT:  REQUESTS FOR EXTENSION OF THE
TRANSITION PERIOD PURS UANT TO ART ICLE 5.3 ....................................................2
II. REVIEW OF THE OPERATION OF THE TRIMS AGREEMENT UNDER
ARTICLE 9 ...................................................................................................................... .........8
III. REQUEST FOR A WTO WAIVER  - NEW ACP-EC PARTNERSHIP
AGREEM ENT ...................................................................................................................... ....9
IV. WORK PROGRAMME ON ELECTRONIC CO MMERCE...............................................9
V. REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN ON WORK CARRIED OUT ON TRADE
FACILITATION................................................................................................................... ....9
VI. REPORT BY URUGUAY ON THE STATUS OF ITS IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE DEROGATION ON MINIMUM VALUES UNDER THE AGREEMENT
ON CUSTOMS VALUATION ................................................................................................9
VII. STATUS OF NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
AGREEMENTS IN ANNEX 1A OF  THE WTO AG REEMENT......................................10
VIII. FREE TRADE AGREEMEN TS............................................................................................10
IX. CONSIDERATION OF ANNUAL REPORTS OF SUBSIDIARY BODIES OF
THE COUNCIL FOR T RADE IN GOODS .........................................................................11
X. ADOPTION OF THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE
IN GOODS TO THE GENERAL CO UNCIL......................................................................12
XI. OTHER BUSINESS.............................................................................................................. ..12G/C/M/46
Page 2
I. TRIMS AGREEMENT:  REQUESTS FOR EXTENSION OF THE TRANSITION
PERIOD PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 5.3
Based on the intensive and numerous consultations held in recent weeks, the Chairman
proposed the elements of an approach that would seem to take into account the various positions
conveyed and could serve as the basis for an appropriate solution.  In presenting it, he was not certain
that this proposal or some of its elements had the consensus of all Members, but as Chairperson it was
his duty to share it with Members at this formal se ssion of the Council for Trade in Goods so that they
were fully informed of the content of any consultations.  The proposal was as follows:  First, the CTG
would grant an extension of the transition period from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2001 to
Members who had submitted requests for extensions,  Second, Members wishing to request
extensions beyond 31 December 2001 had to present their requests to the CTG before 30 June 2001.Such extensions would not be granted automatically, but on a case-by-case basis for a period not
exceeding two years and would be subject to the following conditions:  (a) this would be the last
request for an extension;  and (b) the request for an extension had to be accompanied by an indication
of steps taken to move towards eliminating TRI Ms and a phase-out plan or a commitment to submit
periodic reports (according to each case) for the remainder of the transition period.
The representative of the United States said that, as mentioned at previous meetings, she
could support the Romanian request in the auto mobile sector and only had technical concerns
regarding the Chilean request.  Additionally, lookin g at Romania, her delegation planned to finalize
its position in regard to the request in the shipbuilding sector once it had received further details fromthe Romanian delegation.  Some of the remaining extension requests could be supported concerning
the two-year extension with the provision of looking sympathetically at an additional two-year period
under the defined conditions.  The second period would not be guaranteed and would be in no case
granted if a country failed to report on the status of their TRIMs and this reporting process would
need to address a very clear phase-out plan that would be initiated at the beginning of the secondperiod.  She would expect all requests that were included in this process to report to other Members
by 1 July 2001.  She believed that Argentina and Mexico could also be included in this framework.
Her delegation would support a similar procedure for Thailand, but did not believe it should be done
in the context of Article 5.3 of the TRIMs Agreement, and for this reason, it was looking at a method
that could be developed that would allow Thailand to address its concerns.  Another possible
candidate for inclusion in the Chairman's proposal was Pakistan.  Her delegation had not yet received
certain answers and remained unclear as to the full scope of the measures imposed by Pakistan, butonce it had received written answers to its questions, it planned to assess whether Pakistan would
merit this type of treatment;  but she had full conf idence that it would be possible to move forward in
a positive way with Pakistan.  Her delegation was currently reviewing the Colombian request and she
hoped soon to be able to provide a formal position on that request.
Her delegation was still awaiting a response from Malaysia regarding the 28 August 2000
proposal by the US outlining some of the questions that it asked and what it would look at during the
extension period;  this proposal provided the Malaysians with the extension they themselves were
seeking.  It only required that they look at some issues that her delegation had asked for in the very
beginning.  Until these answers were received and discussed, it was going to be difficult for the US toinclude them in the group.  Regarding the Philippines, the US decision to request a panel did not mean
that its dialogue with the Philippine delegation had come to an end.  Her delegation had been working
with the Philippines, a very important trading partner of the United States, and it would be to
everyone's interest if this matter could be resolved on an mutually agreeable basis and she looked
forward to continuing discussions with the Philippines.  The US position on a "two plus" proposal wasof course without prejudice to its position on the meri ts of a request or to US rights under other WTO
agreements.G/C/M/46
Page 3
The representative of Japan said that the Chairman's formula was fully acceptable.  It met the
individual concerns of interested Members as well as the need to reinforce and preserve the
multilateral nature of this exercise.  If this was acceptable to all the requesting Members, his delegates
would go along this line in general.  It provided adequate time necessary for the requesting Members
to do the necessary work, as well as provide his delegation with the guarantee it was seeking.Although in substance he was sympathetic to the position expressed by Thailand, there was a
technical procedural aspect that had to be addressed .  His delegation had addressed a number of
questions to Pakistan, and the answers would provid e information necessary in that particular case.
The representative of Canada said that the process outlined offered a good way forward.  His
delegation was prepared to work constructively and give it its support.
The representative of the European Communities said that the outline presented was a basis
for a multilateral solution to the requests which had been made.  He did not wish to comment on the
requests individually or their status which varied from one to the other.  His delegation's position
remained that the CTG had to take decisions on an individual basis but he did see the outline of an
agreement of a multilateral nature as being the solution which would apply in each of the cases.  Hisdelegation was waiting for responses to some outstanding requests for information.
The representative of Thailand said that the two plus two formula might in fact not be
sufficient to meet the timeframe needed to effe ctively bring the remaining measure into conformity
with the TRIMs agreement.  Nevertheless, Thailand was willing to show necessary flexibility and was
prepared to make efforts at reaching a compromise multilateral solution based on the Chair's proposal.
He believed that additional details would be duly worked out with regards to the criteria and
procedures to be followed in the case where a Member needed to make a further extension request
beyond the initial two year period.  This was of course without prejudice to Members' rights and
obligations under the provisions of the TRIMs Agreement.  He urged other Members to showflexibility and give positive consideration to the pr oposal.  A multilateral solution to the request for
the extension of the transitional period needed broad-based support from all Members, the outcome of
which was important to the credibility of the confidence-building process in the WTO.
The representative of Australia said he would have to go back to capital before he could
express formal support for the proposal.  Like other delegations, Australia was still awaiting answers
to questions submitted verbally or in writing, particularly in the case of Thailand, where Australia wasthe main party affected by their request to extend their local content requirement, and he looked
forward to holding prompt consultations with Thailand as soon as possible.
The representative of the Philippines said that in the case of their application for extension, it
was recalled that his delegation had abided by the process and were the first to put in a request for
extension even before the Seattle ministerial meeting.  While he felt that the two plus two proposal
did not exactly address his delegation's financial, trade and development needs, he believed that it was
something that could be worked on; for this reas on, his delegation had scaled down its request for
extension from the original five years to three and a half years with substantive phase-down elements.
The Philippines was ready to discuss at all times the merits of its request in a multilateral or bilateral
process.  Regarding the Chair's proposal, and despite some misgivings, his delegation would be able
to possibly agree to it.  The Chair's efforts were intended to facilitate, and not to substitute for the
multilateral process, and while there had been some progress, no definitive results for his and other
delegations requests were in sight. If in the end the CTG could not reach consensus on all requests he
believed that the two plus two proposal should not  be applied in an arbitrary manner, meaning that
Members similarly situated must be treated similarly.  He hoped this was the principle under which
the proposal could advance.G/C/M/46
Page 4
The representative of New Zealand said that like other delegations, his delegation would
clearly need more time to study the proposal closely and seek instructions from capital.  The devil was
in the detail, but he did note that the proposal as outlined contained some useful elements that could
ease his concerns:  for instance, the issue of automaticity and an effective and reasonable phase-out
plan.  Like other delegations, New Zealand was awaiting answers from a number of Members, in
particular Thailand.  New Zealand was keen to reengage with Thailand on a number of issues with
respect to its request, including the handling of this matter under Article 5.3, and the relationship of
this article to the Chair's proposal.  At the last and only bilateral with Thailand, the Thai delegation
advised that, due to a translation error, their request  for an extension should have referred to drink
milk only, and not to all milk and milk products.  His delegation had encouraged them at the time to
submit a corrigendum to their notification as soon as possible.  That had not been done, and he hoped
that this was just an oversight on their part, and that a corrigendum would appear shortly.  Such acorrigendum would clearly be an important element in New Zealand's overall assessment of the
proposal.
The representative of Argentina said that this proposal had many positive elements that could
satisfy his country's needs for an additional period and he recalled that Argentina had asked for a
period of seven years.  His delegation still needed a definitive reply from Buenos Aires, but in
principle, he could say that he had a cautious optimism about the reply to be received.
The representative of Malaysia said that he was puzzled when the US representative stated
that she had not received any response from Malaysia in request for some information.  The
information that the United States requested from Malaysia was to agree to Article 25 of the DSU.  In
relation to that request, he had on September 6 officially responded to the USTR.  If the US had not
received the information sent, he would be pleased to send her a copy of the reply.  The representative
of the United States said that regarding Malaysia her delegation had not received anything officially
and looked forward to receiving the information.
The representative of Brazil said his delegation needed some time to analyze the elements of
the possible solution that had been outlined and hoped to come back to it at a later stage.  The
representative of Egypt noted the approach outlined and said he would report back to capital on this
approach.  He wanted to know the roadmap the Chairman had in mind for the future.
The representative of Colombia said that the proposed solution contained positive and
interesting elements which should help solve the problem concerning TRIMs overall.  His capital was
studying the details of the proposal and shortly he would be able to make final comments.
The representative of Romania said that in the spirit of flexibility, Romania supported the
elements described and noted that some additional information was expected.  Technical difficulties
lay behind the delay in presenting this information.  His delegation would remain in contact with the
United States delegation in order to see what solutions could be found.
The representative of Pakistan said that Pakistan looked at this as a confidence-building
exercise and looked towards a constructive and positive multilateral solution.  Coming to the two plus
two formula proposed today, his preliminary reaction pertained to the issue of conditionalities, the
most important being the condition that Members would not ask for another extension on expiry of
the second two year period.  To his delegation, this raised systemic concerns.  This condition was
tantamount to impinging on the rights conferred by Article 5.3.  Pakistan would need to examine
whether the conditions proposed were consistent with the multilateral rights and obligations ofMembers.  In response to the concern raised by the United States and Japan, his delegation reaffirmed
its commitment that it would be responding as soon as possible to the questions as and when it
received the answers from capital.G/C/M/46
Page 5
The representative of Japan supported the remarks made by the Philippines, namely that the
CTG should apply the same treatment when the same conditions are fulfilled by the requesting
Members.  So far, he had heard from Members who had taken the floor that they were favourably
responding to the formula and, given a specific time-frame contained in the proposal, he believed that
it was important to move swiftly towards a solution.
The representative of Venezuela recalled that his delegation had always supported the idea
that a solution to the problem of extending the transition period should be done multilaterally.  He
supported the Chairman's appeal that flexibility in considering this proposal must be shown on all
sides to achieve a definitive multilateral solution.
The representative of Chile was in agreement with the Chair's proposal and approach.
The representative of Hong Kong, China found the proposal practical and, from the
interventions which had been heard, it seemed that it commanded a good degree of support from the
membership.  Like Egypt, he was also interested  in knowing the proposed roadmap the Chair had in
mind from now on, bearing in mind the need to preserve and reinforce the multilateral character of theprocess.
Following the discussion, the Council agreed that the Chairman would hold further
consultations on his approach with a view to prep aring (a) draft decision(s) for consideration by the
CTG.  The meeting was suspended on this item and then resumed on 14 March 2001.
In resuming the meeting on 14 March 2001 the Chairman said he had given at the meeting of
15 November 2000 a short outline of an approach which was the result of the intensive consultations
which he had conducted in accordance with the General Council decision of 8 May 2000 on TRIMs
transition period issues and which could serve as an approach for an initial extension of the transitionperiod.  In essence this called for an initial extension of the transition period until 31 December 2001
with the possibility of further extensions of not more than 2 years to be decided on a case by case
basis and subject to certain conditions.  This could be for Members who would request such an
extension before 30 June 2001.  Although comments made on these elements at the meeting of 15
November were encouraging and it seemed that there was a considerable degree of consensus on this
approach, nonetheless there was no consensus on the part of all Members.  On that occasion divergent
views were expressed concerning whether this approach could be applicable to all nine requests forconsideration for the Council.  In addition some delegations voiced doubts as to the conditions
attached to the possible further extension of the transition period after the expiry of the initial 2 year
period.  Some delegations also indicated that they wished to receive further information on certain
requests.  In this connection he drew attention to two communications from Thailand that contained
responses to questions raised by several Members on Thailand's request.  These communications hadbeen distributed in documents G/C/W/243 and 244 dated 23 November 2000.
In suspending the meeting on this agenda item, it had been his intention to see whether in
additional consultations and on the basis of the aforementioned elements it would be possible to
advance the process to the point that it would be possible to submit draft decisions to the Council.  Incarrying out the mandate he had received from the General Council, he had taken into consideration
the need for safeguarding and strengthening the multila teral nature of the process.  However, he still
perceived certain difficulties in ensuring a uniform treatment for all the requests made and therefore
felt that it would be counter-productive to put forward draft decisions at this time, as had originally
been his intention.  Bearing in mind the amount of time that has elapsed since the presentation of therequests for these extensions, it was obvious that the CTG should very carefully consider the new
steps which could be taken in seeking a solution to this situation.  Evidently the Council could request
that its new Chairman hold new or additional consultations on this issue.  In this regard he wanted toG/C/M/46
Page 6
hear the views of delegations as to whether they consider that this approach was still valid or whether
Members should consider alternative possibilities.
He recalled that at the meeting of 15 November he had informed the Council of the
consultations which he had held in conformity with the decision of 8 May 2000 of the GeneralCouncil and consultations held with Members which had not notified TRIMs or had not yet requested
an extension.  As stated on that occasion, while he had given priority to the consultations on the
requests made under Article 5:3 this was based on the belief that a solution to these requests might
make it easier to find a way to address the other cases covered by the General Council decision and he
had thus kept all Members informed
 on how this process had advanced.
The representative of Argentina said that from his delegation's perspective the Chairman's
proposal to seek a general solution to the requests made by various Members was still appropriate.
Until now there had not been a better idea that de served being explored.  Likewise, there was no other
solution than to continue holding additional consultations with a view to trying to find an appropriate
solution for the requests.  The representative of Colombia endorsed the statement made by Argentina
and hoped that Members could solve this issue as quickly as possible.
The representative of the United States said that as mentioned at previous meetings the US
could accept the two year extension with a possibility  of up to an additional two year period for total
of a four-year extension for specific cases.  The separate period would not be guaranteed and it would
be in no case granted if a country failed to report on the status of their TRIMs, which would need tobe addressed in a phase-out plan that would be initiated at the beginning of the second period.  She
would expect all Members included in this process to report to other Members by 1 July 2001.  At this
time she believed that Argentina and Mexico could be included in this framework.  Additionally they
could support a similar procedure for Thailand but she did not believe it could be done in the context
of Article 5:3 of the TRIMs Agreement;  perhaps Thailand could be encouraged to request a waiverunder Article 9 of the Marrakesh Agreement, which the US could support.  Pakistan was another
possible candidate for inclusion into this group, but her delegation had repeatedly stressed that it was
still waiting for answers to questions to clarify the full scope of the measures imposed by Pakistan.
She expected an update from Pakistan regarding the responses to their questions which were first
presented to them in February 2000, a year ago.  Romania also had not fully answered the US
questions on the ship-building request even though her delegation had held many bilateral meetings
on the issue.  Her delegation was still reviewing Colombia's request and it was her hope that the USwould be able to provide a positive formal position soon.  Regarding its legislative process, it might
be helpful if Chile could provide a clear and precise declaration that explained their intentions to have
the legislative process complete by the end of the year.  Malaysia should provide a clear and precise
understanding that explained their commitment to remove the measures in question by the end of the
year and then her delegation could support their re quest for two years.  The declaration would also
provide details of the phase-out plan.  In addition her delegation would be talking to Malaysia to
receive copies of these measures in order to increase the transparency surrounding these TRIMs.  Her
delegation had been working with the Philippines and continued to seek a response from the
Philippines regarding the latest proposal from the US.  She announced that the points raised in her
statement would be circulated in the form of a letter to the new CTG Chairman [which wassubsequently done on 20 March 2001].
The representative of Japan said that for the nine countries who had requested extensions, his
delegation had had very extensive and detailed bilateral consultations, and he thought that the
resolution was not too far.  Without getting into the specifics of each country, he thought that theformula of 2+2 was valid and should be applied to all requesting Members in the same way.  It would
be useful in the case of Chile to be updated as to where they were, and as for Pakistan, like the United
States, his delegation was still waiting for the written answers to their questions.G/C/M/46
Page 7
The representative of Romania said that based on the constructive approach presented by the
Chairman in the suspended CTG meeting in November last year, his delegation agreed to proceed
further with the approach proposed at that time.  At this moment it seemed clear that the consultation
process should continue and he was asking the new Chairman of the CTG to conduct further
consultations with interested Members in order to settle this pending issue and to begin work ondrafting the decision.  As regards the suggestions made today by the US, they would be considered in
capital and probably in the next few weeks he looked forward to resolving the issues concerning their
ship building sector.
The representative of Mexico said the CTG was not far from finding a multilateral solution.
His delegation was open to hear other proposals or options but the Chair's approach was still valid.
The representative of Canada said his delegation continued to be supportive of the Chair's approach
and would also support the idea that the new Chair continue the consultations on the basis of this
approach.
The representative of Malaysia continued to support the proposal made by the Chairman on
15 November 2000 and urged that the Council adopt that approach on the basis that no Member
should be discriminated against.  Under the proposal  if there were any Members wishing to request a
further two years, the request had to be made subject to certain conditions.  Although Malaysia was
committed to terminate existing TRIMs by the end of this year, in the event that Malaysia or any
Member wished to avail itself of a further extension, the option should be open to all Members and
not just to some of the nine requesting Members.  Regarding a point by the US delegation, he was notaware of any phase-out plan but perhaps the US representative was talking about some internal
document for internal planning purposes that had been prepared by his colleagues in capital in
preparation for the termination of the existing TRIMs.
The representative of the European Communities was grateful to delegations for giving such a
clear and comprehensive statement of their positions which provided some justification for the belief
that the CTG might be on the right track and be working towards a solution of this longstanding
problem.  He hoped that Members could reach an early conclusion of this matter.  It was also
important in its contribution to the debate on the question of implementation of the Uruguay Round
Agreements.  His delegation was ready to work, and had been ready to work for some time, on the
Chairman's formula and he repeated that Members should act quickly and bring this matter to closure.
The representative of Brazil said that the issue of TRIMs extensions did not only involve
investing countries and countries that were receivers of those investments, but also third countries.
He sought a solution that was satisfactory in terms of the balance of rights and obligations among all
the membership of the organization.  Consultations should continue and should address not only the
current requests on the table but also the cases of Members who had not notified TRIMs or who hadnot yet requested an extension.  Consultations about these two issues should proceed in tandem.
The representative of the Philippines said that the Philippines were willing to participate in
any further consultations with the aim of resolvin g this matter to the satisfaction of all.  Her
delegation had made out the case for the legitimacy of their request and why that request ought to begranted.
The representative of Hong Kong, China said that the formula suggested at the last Council
meeting was valid and had a good prospect of solving this problem, and he trusted that the new
Chairman could solve it.  Consultations had identified the specific elements which caused concernsand difficulties with some Members and he trusted the CTG would be able to find practical means to
address these concerns.G/C/M/46
Page 8
The representative of Thailand said the Chairman's approach was valid and urged the new
Chairman to continue the consultations to reach a multilateral solution to the problem based on the
8 May decision of the General Council.
The representative of Egypt expressed support for the Chair's approach towards finding a
multilateral solution to this important issue.  She was confident that the new Chairman of the Council
would continue the consultations on the current cases as well as cases of those Members who had not
notified TRIMs or had not yet requested extensions or had presented their request at a later stage in
the framework of the 8 May decision.
The representative of Chile informed the CTG of the present situation relating to the measures
applied to the automobile sector and covered by TRIMs.  More than a year and a half ago a draft law
was submitted to the national congress, which covered, among other things, the derogation of the
TRIMs applied to the automobile sector.  The draft law had been adopted by two Commissions of the
Chamber of Deputies and was now being considered by the floor.  However the Commissions of the
Chamber of Deputies rejected the derogation of the measure applied in the automobile sector because
of the domestic treatment accorded to the two autom obile assembly factories in Chile.  This debate
involved domestic discussions and in no way challenged the question as to whether or not Chile
should comply with its international obligations.  Th erefore the executive is now dealing on this issue
with Parliament in order to find a means to expe dite adoption of the amendment to the law.  Chile
needed a time-period which should not go beyond this year in order to terminate the measure under
the TRIMs.
The representative of the United States welcomed Malaysia's assurance that they would
remove their TRIMs by the end of this year.  With  regard to applying an additional possible two
years, her delegation's approach was that only timely and legally sound requests would be considered
and accepted on a case by case basis.
The Chairman said the CTG had made considerable progress and was heading in the right
direction.  His approach which encompassed the multilateral nature of this exercise remained valid as
reflected in comments made today by Members, although there were certain aspects to be clarified or
perhaps it might be necessary to introduce further elements to make it more viable.  He noted the
sense of urgency flagged by many delegations pointing to the fact that the Council should take this
opportunity to try and find a solution.  Members were close to such a solution which would strengthenthe confidence building process towards the Ministerial Meeting in Qatar.  He was confident that his
successor would be able to wind up this task in a fairly short period of time and he thought that the
general feeling was that the next Chairman should continue this consultation process both as regards
the requests made in conformity with Article 5:3 as  well as the views of those countries that had not
presented notifications or requests.
II. REVIEW OF THE OPERATION OF THE TRIMS AGREEMENT UNDER
ARTICLE 9
The Chairman recalled that Members had been invited to submit papers regarding the scope
and format of the review.  While some delegations had indicated that they might submit such papers,
no submissions had been received to date.  He proposed that the Council reiterate this invitation to
Members to present such submissions.  He also recalled that at recent meetings there had been
discussion of a proposal by Pakistan for a joint study by the Secretariats of UNCTAD and the WTO toassist developing countries in carrying out this review.  The two Secretariats had consulted on this
matter and agreed to cooperate in the preparation of such a study.G/C/M/46
Page 9
Following remarks by Pakistan, India  and the United States  on how to launch such a study,
the Chairman undertook to hold informal consultati ons with interested delegations to determine the
terms of reference for the study.
III. REQUEST FOR A WTO WAIVER  - NEW ACP-EC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT
No discussion took place on this item.
IV. WORK PROGRAMME ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE
The Chairman said that the Council had met in  two informal meetings following the mandate
which the General Council had given the subsidiary bodi es at its July meeting, i.e. to identify cross-
sectoral issues and report back to the General Council at its regular meeting in December 2000.  Upon
request by delegations, the Secretariat updated its background note on work carried out by other
intergovernmental organizations on subjects that relate to the work programme of the CTG (documentG/C/W/128/Add.1).  Members reaffirmed the continui ng relevance of the earlier contribution of the
Council for Trade in Goods to the General Council which was submitted by the Chairman of the CTG
in July 1999 (document G/C/W/158).  He would be making a factual report on the state play to the
General Council at its December meeting.  This factual report, which he would make on my own
responsibility, had been circulated to delegations for comments.  As there were no comments, theCouncil took note of the Chair's comments.
V. REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN ON WORK CARRIED OUT ON TRADE
FACILITATION
The Chairman recalled that trade facilitation work originated from paragraph 21 of the 1996
Ministerial Declaration under which the CTG was mandated:  "to undertake exploratory and
analytical work, drawing on the work of other rele vant organizations, on the simplification of trade
procedures in order to assess the scope for WTO rules in this area."  In the year 2000, the CTG held
three informal meetings on 7 June, 13 July, and 26 October.  Participation in these meetings had been
very good, reflected in the sixteen written contributions that were received by delegations.  Inaddition, the WTO Secretariat updated its background note on work carried out in other international
organizations [document G/C/W/80/Rev.1].  A numbe r of Members had shared their national, and in
part regional, experiences and problems experienced by landlocked countries were also examined.
Further, Members were exploring and analyzing trade facilitation principles and measures, and their
relationship with WTO principles.  A third cluster related to development and capacity buildingaspects of trade facilitation.  He intended to make a factual report of the work carried out in 2000 to
the General Council at its December meeting.  This factual report, which he would make his own
responsibility, would shortly be circulated to delegations for comments.
As there were no comments from the floor, the Council took note of the Chairman's
comments.
VI. REPORT BY URUGUAY ON THE STATUS OF ITS IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
DEROGATION ON MINIMUM VALUES UNDER THE AGREEMENT ONCUSTOMS VALUATION
The Chairman recalled the decision of the General Council of 3 May 2000 contained in
document WT/L/354 relating to Uruguay's use of officially established minimum values for certainG/C/M/46
Page 10
products for the valuation for customs purposes until 1 January 2001.  One of the conditions of that
decision was the reporting requirement to the CTG on the status of Uruguay's implementation of the
officially established minimum values.  The representative of Uruguay said that in compliance with
the General Council Decision in WT/L/354 of 3 May 2000, the delegation of Uruguay wished to
submit the following status report to this Council.  Through the aforementioned Decision, and inkeeping with paragraph 2 of Annex III of the Ag reement on Implementation of Article VII of the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, Uruguay was authorized to use, until no later than 1
January 2001, the officially established minimum values for the valuation for customs purposes of a
certain number of goods listed in Annex I of that Decision, subject to its terms and conditions.  On 31
July 2000, Decree 216/2000 was approved setting mini mum prices for some of the products appearing
in Annex I of the General Council Decision WT/L/354.  This Decree had not changed the already
existing minimum price levels.  Article 5 thereof prescribed that those minimum prices will remain inforce until 1 January 2001.  Since the date of approval of the Decision of the General Council,
minimum prices for 23 of the tariff items listed in Annex I of that Decision had been eliminated.
The CTG took note of the report.
VII. STATUS OF NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
AGREEMENTS IN ANNEX 1A OF THE WTO AGREEMENT
The Chairman said that as indicated in th e cover page to document G/L/223/Rev.5, the
Council adopted, at its meeting of 15 October 1996, a recommendation by the Working Party on
Notification Obligations and Procedures to maintain, on an ongoing basis, the comprehensive listing
of notification obligations under the provisions of the Agreements in Annex IA of the WTO
Agreement and the compliance therewith.  The update was contained in document G/L/223/Rev.5 and
included all notifications made up to and on 30 June 2000.
The Council took note of the information contained in document G/L/223/Rev.5.
VIII.  FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS
The Chairman drew Members' attention to two agreements listed under this item that had
been notified under Article XXIV.  The texts of the agreements had been circulated in the following
documents:  first, the Euro-Mediterranean Agr eement between the European Communities and Israel
– notification from the Parties to the Agreemen t (WT/REG110/N/1, WT/REG110/1);  and second, the
Euro-Mediterranean Agreement between the European Communities and Morocco – notification from
the Parties to the Agreement (WT/REG112/N/1, WT/REG112/1)
As there were no requests for the floor, he proposed that the Council submit these agreements
to the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements to car ry out an examination of these agreements in
accordance with the following terms of reference:  "t o examine, in the light of the relevant provisions
of the GATT 1994, the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement between the European Communities andIsrael and the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement between the European Communities and Morocco and
to submit a report to the Council for Trade in Goods.  It is understood that the Understanding read out
by the Chairman of the Council for Trade in Good s under item 7 of the agenda of the meeting of the
Council for Trade in Goods on 20 February 1995, as contained in document WT/Reg31/1 will apply
mutatis mutandis  to the examination of the agreements.  It is also understood that during the
examination, due account will be taken of the intrinsic differences between customs unions and free
trade areas".  It was so agreed.G/C/M/46
Page 11
The Chairman noted that the Agreement on the Accession of the Kyrgyz Republic to the
Customs Union between the Russian Federation, Belarus and Kazakhstan had been notified to the
WTO in April 1999.  That Agreement was presented to the CTG at its meeting on 2 July 1999, when
terms of reference for its examination were adopte d, and the examination itself transferred to the
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements.  The Ky rgyz Republic had informed the WTO of the
developments which have taken place since that time, including the accession of Tajikistan to the
customs union, as well as of the signature of a new agreement between the five parties, which
consolidated those developments.  The text of that new agreement, entitled Agreement on Customs
Union and Single Economic Area between the Kyrgyz Republic, the Russian Federation, the Republic
of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Republic of Tajikistan, had been circulated to
Members as document WT/REG71/5 on 11 October 2000.  In light of these developments, he
proposed that the CTG modify the relevant part of the terms of reference adopted on 2 July 1999 so asto read as follows:  "to examine, in light of the relevant provisions of the GATT 1994, the Agreement
on Customs Union and Single Economic Area between the Kyrgyz Republic, the Russian Federation,
the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Republic of Tajikistan and to submit a
report to the Council for Trade in Goods".  The Council so agreed.
IX. CONSIDERATION OF ANNUAL REPORTS OF SUBSIDIARY BODIES OF THE
COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS
The Chairman said that pursuant to the "Procedures for an annual overview of WTO
Activities and for reporting under the WTO" (WR/L/105) which were adopted by the General Council
on 15 November 1995, all bodies constituted under agreements in Annex 1A of the WTO Agreement
were required to submit annually a factual report  to the Council for Trade in Goods, and the Council
was to take note of these reports.
The Council took note of the reports of the following bodies:  Committee on Customs
Valuation (G/L/414);  Independent Entity (G/L/410);  Committee on Market Access (G/L/401);
Committee on Rules of Origin (G/L/413);  Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
(G/L/411);  Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade (G/L/412);  Committee on TRIMs (G/L/390);
Committee on Import Licensing (G/L/403);  Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices (G/L/404);
Committee on Safeguards (G/L/404);  Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
(G/L/408);  Committee on Agriculture (draft report in document Job No. 7061);  Working Party onState-Trading Enterprises (draft report in G/STR/W/37);   Committee of Participants on the Expansion
of Trade in Information Technology Products (draft report in G/IT/W/5);  and the Textiles Monitoring
Body (G/L/398).
Regarding the TMB report, the representative of Hong Kong, China noted that para. 20 of the
TMB report summarized the Body's review of a bilateral restraint agreed between the US and Turkey
on Turkey's exports of cotton and man-made fibr e underwear to the US.  The TMB had concluded
that the restraint measure agreed upon by Turkey and the US had not been demonstrated to be in
conformity with the provisions of the ATC.  He appreciated that the TMB had taken the initiative to
examine the measures concerned but he understood that the restrictive measure in question stillremained in force.  Under paragraph 5 of Article 4 of the Agreement establishing the WTO, the CTG
had the overall responsibility for overseeing the functioning of the multilateral trade agreements
pertaining to trade in goods.  He hoped that this Council would urge the US to take appropriate action
in the light of the conclusion of the TMB on this matter.  The representative of India associated her
delegation with the views expressed by Hong Kong, China.
The representative of Pakistan supported the proposal made by Hong Kong, China and India
and drew the CTG's attention to the fact that after having concluded that the measure was not in
accordance with the ATC, the TMB had failed to co me out with any recommendations to the partiesG/C/M/46
Page 12
concerned.  That issue had also to be looked into, and he urged through the CTG Chairman that the
TMB look at it again.  The representative of Hong Kong, China urged the Chairman to take up this
matter and conduct some informal consultations with interested delegations to see how to take thismatter forward and address the concerns expressed.  The request was supported by India and Pakistan
.
The representative of the United States did not share the opinion of those delegations with
respect to the items that were referenced.  She su ggested that the Chairman consult to clarify exactly
what was being asked, as she did not go along with  any type of examination in this body along the
lines that had been described for the first time in the Goods Council.
The Chairman proposed that the Council take note of the various statements made on this
item and said that he would initiate informal consultations with interested Members in an attempt to
clarify the contents and scope of additional consultations on this particular item.
The Council so agreed.
X. ADOPTION OF THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN
GOODS TO THE GENERAL COUNCIL
The Chairman said that in accordance with the "Procedures for an annual overview of WTO
Activities and for Reporting under the WTO" (WT/L/105) which was adopted by the General Council
on 15 November 1995, it was agreed that "The respective sectoral Councils should report in
November each year to the General Council on the activities in the Council as well as in the
subsidiary bodies" and that the reports of the sectoral Councils should be "factual in nature, containing
an indication of actions and decisions taken, with cross references to reports of subordinate bodies and
could follow the model of the GATT 1947 Council report to the CONTRACTING PARTIES".  Thedraft report contained in G/C/W/241 covered the period from 18 October 1999 to 15 November 2000
and would be updated in light of today's meeting.
Following suggestions for amendments to the dr aft, the Council adopted the report with the
amendments, subject to the updating required to ta ke account of the Council's work at this meeting.
The report was subsequently circulated as G/L/419.
XI. OTHER BUSINESS
The Chairman proposed that the date of the next meeting would be decided after this meeting
had been resumed.  [It was subsequently decided to hold the next meeting on 14 March 2001.]
__________