RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONS/C/M/47
17 November 2000
(00-4916)
Council for Trade in Services
COUNCIL REVIEW OF MFN EXEMPTIONS
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 5 OCTOBER 2000
Note by the Secretariat
1. The Council for Trade in Services held a meeting on 5 October 2000.  The agenda for the
meeting is contained in document WTO/AIR/1394.  The Chairman proposed that the agenda be
adopted as circulated.
2. The Council so agreed.
A. OUTSTANDING POINTS ARISING FROM THE DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING
OF 5 JULY
3. The Chairman recalled that at the session in July the Council had addressed the MFN
exemptions listed in the Secretariat document, Job No. 1551 from Financial Services onwards and he
noted that the entire compilation had been review ed.  At that meeting it had been agreed that
Members could revert at the following meeting to questions as well as answers relating to sectorsalready covered for additional clarification.  He drew the Council's attention to the communications
containing answers to some of the questions posed during the review sessions submitted by the
following delegations: Poland (S/C/W/155/Add.1) , Morocco(S/C/W/157), Israel (S/C/W/158),
Slovak Republic (S/C/W/159 and Add.1), Trinidad and Tobago (S/C/W/161), Slovenia (S/C/W/162),
Pakistan (S/C/W/164), Bulgaria (S/C/W/169), Bolivia (S/C/W/170), Estonia (S/C/W/171), and
Colombia (S/C/W/172).
4. The representative of the United States recalled that there had been a number of questions
posed to the his delegation at the July meeting for which his delegation had not been able to provide
responses then.  Japan had asked with respect to the MFN exemption which the U.S. maintained on
insurance to specify the meaning of differential trea tment with concrete examples.  He said that the
language in the MFN exemption already was fairly explicit and his delegation was not in a position to
provide further detail.  With respect to four of  the transport sectors, his delegation had received
various written questions.  Regarding Pipeline transport, Australia had asked whether the original
justification for taking the MFN exemptions remained valid, and his delegation's response was yes,
the reciprocity clause of section 1 of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act remained in force.  Japan had
asked the U.S. to provide examples of the cases to which that measure had been applied over the past
five years.  The response was that while aliens and foreign corporations may not acquire rights of wayacross on-shore federal lands, they may acquire up to 100% interest in a domestic corporation that
acquires such right of way, unless their home country denied similar privileges to U.S. citizens or
corporations.  However, no nation had been found to  deny similar or like privileges to citizens or
corporations of the United States during the previous five years and the measure had not been applied
during that period.  Australia had asked the U.S. to list the countries with which reciprocal agreements
existed and the response was that Section 1 of the Mineral Land Leasing Act did not require the
ongoing identification of countries that provided for reciprocity nor did it require or provide for the
negotiation of reciprocal agreements.  In the early 1980s, prior to the entry into force of the WTOS/C/M/47
Page 2
Agreements, the U.S. Department of the Interior had made several determinations to the effect that
certain countries did not deny similar or like privileges to citizens or corporations of the U.S..  Those
countries were Canada, Sweden, Cyprus, Finland and Kuwait.  Those determinations did not,
however, constitute or result in the formation of reciprocal agreements.
5. Regarding space transport, Korea had asked "considering that the measure described in
column 2 appears to be a limitation please clarify the nature of the preferential treatment accorded to
countries in column 3".  The response was that the quantitative restrictions and price disciplines in the
bilateral agreements permitted suppliers of commercial space watch services in the trading partners
concerned to provide those services on a limited basis to customers utilising U.S. built satellites
subject to relevant U.S. export licensing laws and regulations.  Japan had asked "please explain in
concrete terms what is meant by quantitative restrictions and price disciplines?".  The response was
that under the terms of the bilateral commercial space launch agreements, the quantitative restrictionsallowed the party to the agreement to launch no more than a fixed number of principle pay loads to
geo-synchronic earth orbit or geo-synchronic transfer orbit for international customers during the term
of the agreement.  For example, the base quantitative restriction for China was 16 launches between
1 January 1995 and 31 December 2001.  The price discipline provision stated that providers of
commercial launch services "shall offer and conclude any contracts to provide commercial launchservices to international customers including sole-source or directive procurements at prices, terms
and conditions which are on a par with those prices, terms and conditions prevailing in the
international market for comparable commercial launch services offered by commercial launch
services providers for market economy countries, including the U.S.".  Japan had asked "please
explain what criteria the U.S. government applies to exercise such quantitative restrictions?".  Theresponse was that launches included in the quantitative restriction must be for principle pay loads and
owned by international customers.  Only launches  to geo-synchronic earth orbit or geo-synchronic
transfer orbit were under the restriction.  Launches of satellites owned or controlled by the launching
government were not included in a restriction.  Japan had asked "please provide a list of the countries
with which the U.S. has concluded a bilateral agreement".  The response was Russia, China, theUkraine – although the agreement with the Ukraine had been terminated, effective 5 June 2000.
6. Regarding air transport, Japan had asked "do all bilateral air services agreements concluded
by the U.S. contain such reciprocal provisions concerning three types of services as noted in column 2
if not, please provide the names of the countries that have concluded bilateral air services agreements
containing such provisions with the U.S.".  The re presentative of the U.S. said that the reference to
three types of services was not clearly understood by his delegation.  If the reference was to the three
services "directly related to traffic rights" in paragraph 3 of the Air Annex, he said that aircraft repairand maintenance were neither covered by the bilateral air services agreements, nor were they included
in the U.S. Article II exemptions.  However, all bilateral air services agreements contained reciprocity
provisions regarding the other two services covered in the Air Annex, that was CRS and most aspects
of selling and marketing of air transportation.  Se lling and marketing may be considered to include
sales, other than by airlines, of passenger charters and forwarding, other than by airlines, of air freight.If Japan's question meant to refer to those activities, the U.S. could state that they were governed by
"comity and reciprocity" rather than by provisions and written agreements.  Other of the measures
listed for transparency purposes in column 2 applied to the selling and marketing activities.
7. Regarding road transport, Japan had asked "does the United States government have no
discretion regarding the limit for issuing of trucki ng licences to foreign countries, except to Mexico
and Canada?, and also "please explain the standards or criteria for limiting the issuance of trucking
licenses mentioned in column 2".  The response to both of those questions was that the U.S.
government did not limit the issuance of trucking licences to foreign countries other than Mexico.
Japan had asked to explain in detail the "national interest" of the Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1982
for clarification purposes.  In response to that, he indicated that the national interest was to ensurereciprocal access for U.S. trucking companies and passenger carriers into and within the contiguousS/C/M/47
Page 3
foreign countries.  Japan had asked "please describe which area does the Inter-state Commerce
Commission commercial zone (ICC) refer to".  The response was that the former ICC possessed the
authority to exempt from its licensing requirements motor carrier transportation conducted entirely in
a municipality, in contiguous municipalities or in a zone adjacent to and commercially part of the
municipalities.  The ICC identified those zones either by the use of specific boundaries or by apopulation and mileage formula.  Because some of those zones were located at the U.S.-Mexico
border, Mexican motor carriers could conduct operations into those areas.
8.  The representative of Chile addressed the questions raised by Mexico in S/C/W/139/Rev.1 of
the 22 May 2000.  The first question, as regards the origin of the exemption, Mexico had asked for
precision as to the origin of the existing exemptions.  Chile had already responded to that question in
responding to some of the questions raised by other delegations.  He then refered to those points
which had not been responded previously.  Regarding the measures listed by Chile in relation to thesettlement of disputes arising in the context of bilateral agreements for the protection of investments,
the reason which led to those exemptions was that the agreements for the protection of investment
contained a mechanism for dispute settlement between investors and the recipient country, which
granted the investor the right to resort to internati onal court in order to solve the dispute.  Thus the
investor was not obliged to resort to the domestic courts, which was a possibility not available to aninvestor not covered by an agreement for the promotion and protection of investment.  In relation to
the exemption for reciprocity as regards to the cargo access on Chilean vessels, he indicated that
maritime transport was an open part of the Chilean economy.  There were no major restrictions for
foreign suppliers of the service, however, in orde r to ensure access to third country markets for
Chilean suppliers, the law allows for, on the basis of reciprocity, the adoption of cargo reservationmeasures between Chile and third countries.  With regard to cabotage over 900 tonnes, cabotage was
reserved to Chilean vessels but when it went above 900 tonnes foreign merchant vessels may have
access having responded to public tender.  The tendering contemplated the possibility for the
exclusion of certain foreign suppliers, if their country did not have an open market for Chilean vessels
due to reciprocity could be excluded from the tender.
9. With regard to the second question from Mexico, asking to explain in detail whether the
conditions that led to those exemptions still existe d, Chile's answer was that for the time being the
conditions still prevailed.  Regarding question 2(a) asking to clarify and describe whether those
conditions had been created by domestic or external considerations, Chile's response was that the
reason justifying those exemptions was to ensure that Chilean service suppliers be granted access to
third markets.  In the case of dispute settlement, for example, the reason was to grant certain rights to
foreign investors to promote and protect investments given that normally Chilean legislation did notenable a foreign investor to resort to foreign cour ts.  Similarly, in the case of cinematographic co-
production agreements Chile wished to reserve its right to promote those agreements with countries
that had greater affinities with Chile.  Regarding question 2:a(ii), asking whether the measure had
been established by an act of legislation or by a statutory administrative or discretionary instrument
and if the same procedure must be followed for the exemptions to be phased out, he pointed out thatin general the establishment of the measure was based on a legislative act and for its dismantling it
was necessary to follow the same administrative procedure.  With regard to question 3 of Mexico, he
said that his delegation had answered to the main thrust of the question already.  In relation to
question 4 as to the possibility of limiting the exemptions in view of the fact that they were
inconsistent with the multilateral trading system, he said that Chile subjected the exemptions to
Article II of the General Agreement on Trade in Services to an on-going review and should the
conditions which led to such exemptions disappear, then obviously Chile would remove them from
the list.  Chile was in fact reviewing its exemptions  to Article II but for the time being the conditions
which led to their establishment still existed and therefore the exemptions would be  maintained.
10. With regard to questions 6 and 7 relating to the duration of the exemptions, his delegations
was of the view that the duration as set out in paragraph 6 in Article II was in principle 10 years.  TheS/C/M/47
Page 4
same Article stated that in any event the exemptio ns shall be subject to negotiations in subsequent
trade liberalizing rounds.  Regarding question 8, asking to describe in detail any plans that have been
considered for the phasing out of the exemptions, as previously stated by his delegation the principle
of the most-favoured-nation treatment was the very basis of the multilateral trading system and the
exemptions which were maintained by Members on exceptional basis must respond to specialsituations because of sensitive areas of their economies.  It was in that spirit that the conditions which
lead to the maintaining of Chile's exemptions had been reviewed.
11. The representative of New Zealand said that his delegation had approached the MFN review
with the mandate of paragraph 4 of the Annex on MFN exemptions in mind.  In doing so, they had
focused on whether it might be possible for New Zealand to reduce or refine any of its MFN
exemptions.  With that in mind, his delegation was pleased to advise the Council that after careful
consideration it had been concluded that it was not necessary to maintain two of the exemptions,namely the Kiribati and Tuvalu's work schemes that had been inscribed for all sectors.  New Zealand
concluded that it was not necessary to maintain those exemptions in order to continue the work
schemes which remained an important part of the development assistance effort for New Zealand's
small Pacific island neighbours.  While the schemes did accord more favourable entry conditions for a
specified number of Kiribati and Tuvalu's nationals for employment purposes, it was clear from anexamination of the original nature and objective of the schemes, and of the industries in which
Kiribati and Tuvalu's nationals accessing the work schemes were employed, that the schemes were
being used for general employment rather than the supply of services.  Accordingly, pursuant to the
Annex on the Movement of Natural Persons Supplying Services, New Zealand considered that the
schemes were not in fact covered by the GATS and thus the exemptions could be safely removedwithout prejudicing the continuation of the schemes.  His delegation would notify formally the
Council of the removal of those exemptions in due course.
12.  The representative of Hong Kong, China th anked the Members who had spoken for their
detailed responses and particularly New Zeala nd for informing the Council of its intention to
eliminate two MFN exemptions.  He wondered whet her there were other Members who had promised
in meetings that they would come up with either written or oral replies and had not yet done so.
13. The representative of Colombia addressed the questions from Chile, Australia, and Japan.  In
relation to the question from Chile concerning integration agreements and their coverage by Article V,
the response was that those exemptions had been incl uded within the ambits of Article II at the time
because the Cartagena Agreement  did not have any decision relating to services.  Decision 439 which
defines the principles and rules for the liberalization of trade in services in the Andean Community
had been only adopted in 1998 and was at present being implemented.  With regards to the questionraised by Australia on the reciprocity required by Colombia in the area of banking and insurance, she
said that although the original offer of Colombia had included the reciprocity clause, that had been
eliminated at the end of 1997, just before the end of the financial services negotiations.  The document
which contained the list of specific commitments of Colombia did not include such a clause.
Colombia was pleased to notify the elimination of su ch reciprocity clause.  It had been eliminated in
the list of financial services commitments and perhaps Colombia had not clearly stated the fact that it
was also eliminated from the MFN list.  Regarding Australia's question asking for clarification of
those cases in which only certain Members of a regional agreement had listed an exemption for the
agreement in question and asking for the reasons for such a listing when other Members had not felt it
necessary to do so in their own schedules, Colombia's response was that each country had actedindependently and therefore each country had scheduled or listed the exemptions as they felt
appropriate.  Colombia had listed those exemptions  under Article II given that there was no decision
in the area of services within the Cartagena Framework Agreement.  Regarding the question from
Japan on financial services, banking and insurance, asking whether there were cases where Colombia
had effectively refused access to foreign service providers due to reciprocity, she said that ColombiaS/C/M/47
Page 5
did not apply the reciprocity clause with regard to access.  Therefore, there had been no cases where
access of foreign service providers had been denied.
14. The representative of Japan thanked all those who had just given detailed replies orally and
echoed Hong Kong, China in respect of the statement by New Zealand, which was very encouraging.
Furthermore, he thanked all those Members who had responded to his delegation's questions in awritten manner, i.e. Poland, Slovak Republic, Pakistan, Czech Republic, Trinidad and Tobago,
Slovenia, Israel, Egypt, Colombia, Estonia, Bulgaria and Morocco.
15. The representative of Turkey referred to questions concerning the MFN exemption on
accounting rates posed by Australia; Hong Kong, China; Japan and Korea.  She said that the phrase
"including the application of different accounting ra tes" had been deleted from Turkey's exemption
and had been changed to read as followed: "measures for different operators/countries covered by
International Telecommunications Services Agreements between Government of Turkey orTelecommunication Company  and other Governments or various foreign operators".  Regarding the
question of Hong Kong, China, i.e. would Turkey please explain what the measure relating consulate
duties is intended to cover and why is it necessary to  have an exemption for it?, she said that the aim
of that measure was to provide for reciprocal collection of consulate duties from nationals of foreign
countries which collected consulate duties from Turkish nationals higher or lower than the amountwritten in the tariff lists of Duties Act, No. 492.  The amount of consulate duties collected from the
nationals of different countries may be increased or decreased reciprocally in order to apply the same
amount collected from the Turkish nationals by the country concerned.  Therefore, it was deemed
necessary to preserve the existing MFN exemption with regard to consulate duties for a period of
another five years.  Concerning the question of Japan about the acquisition of real estate in Turkey byforeign persons, she explained that Turkey maintain ed an exemption with regard to foreign natural
persons' acquisition of real estate, via acquisition or by inheritance, on the condition that legal
provisions were reserved and with the condition of reciprocity.  Real estate acquisition of foreign
national persons in Turkey had been arranged by Article 35 of the Land Registry Act, No. 2644.
Article 35 of the Land Registry Act stipulates that purchasing and acquiring real estate of foreignnatural persons via inheritance and other ways in Turkey must be de jure  and de facto  reciprocal.
Foreign natural persons may acquire real estate in Turkey, only if Turkish citizens were legally
permitted the same in the country concerned and those rights were actually carried out.  For instance,
the acquisition of real estate by foreign, natural or legal persons who were residents in Japan was
regulated by the Foreign Currency and Foreign Trade Control law.  However, the acquisition of real
estate by a non-resident was subject to the permission of the Minister of Finance.  Therefore, natural
persons with Japanese origin were treated similarly in Turkey in case they wanted to acquire realestate in Turkey.  On the other hand, there were no statistical data which compared the advantages
and/or disadvantages of countries which applied that reciprocal treatment regarding the acquisition of
real estate by foreigners and the countries which did not.
16. The representative of Venezuela said that her delegation was still preparing written replies to
questions with regard to professional services, di stribution and radio amateurs services.  Once those
responses were ready, her delegation would submit in writing all the different information requested
by Members.  Her delegation had received a question from Hong Kong, China and Japan relating to
audio visual services.  In that regard, the Natio nal Autonomous Cinema Centre had decided that the
3 exemptions registered in that sector should be ma intained as they related to international agreements
in the area which had been signed by Venezuela.  In order to fill column 5, the conditions creating theneed for the exemption were: the cultural devel opment of the region and its cultural identity; the
promotion of cinema and audio visual activities in the area, particularly for those countries that for the
time being had insufficient infrastructure; the effe ctive development of the cinema community of the
signatory members.  Regarding information on distri bution services, the representative referred to a
question posed by Japan relating to Central American Caribbean countries to which the measure wasapplied.  He indicated that the main countries involved were Nicaragua, Domincan Republic, Haiti,S/C/M/47
Page 6
Jamaica, Belize, Guatemala and Honduras.  A preliminary analysis had indicated that those
agreements did not grant any type of privileges with regard to petroleum related services and could
therefore possibly be removed.
17. The representative of South Africa recalled that at the end of the previous meeting South
Africa had five outstanding questions related to road transport exemptions; four of the questions had
come from Japan and one from Australia.  Unfortunately at that point ha was not in a position to
provide full answers but would do so as soon as possible.
18. The representative of Canada indicated  that her delegation had an outstanding question in the
area of financial services and she would be getting back to Japan as soon as the information was
gathered from the department of Finance.
19. The representative of Peru informed that cons ultations were still being held in Capital with
regard to the question raised by Japan on cultural and sports activities.  His delegation would be
providing an answer to that question as soon as possible.
B. DETERMINATION OF THE DATE OF ANY FURTHER REVIEW
20. The Chairman stated that paragraph 4(b) of the Annex on Article II Exemptions mandated the
Council for Trade in Services in th e review to determine "the date of any further review".  He recalled
that at the July meeting the Council had had a very preliminary discussions on the matter and decidedultimately to revert to it at this meeting.  He invited Members' views and/or recommendations on "the
date of any further review".
21. The representative of Mexico said that the proposal that Mexico had put forward at the
previous meeting, contained in paragraph 155 in the minutes of that meeting, was that the date for the
next review should be 6 months before the conclusion of negotiations on services, which were at thetime under way, or 6 months before the 31 December 2004, whichever comes earlier.
22. The representative of the European Communities stated that his delegation was still reflecting
on  the matter.  However, preliminarily, his delegation believed that it might be premature to set a date
for further review.  Paragraph 6 of the Annex on MFN exemption spelled out clearly that MFN
exemptions shall be subject to negotiations in subsequent trade liberalization rounds.  Members hadjust started one of those rounds.  One may presume that the outcome of the negotiations would be the
removal of some of the MFN exemptions, therefore the purpose of any future review was essentially
to review the situation at the end or after the negotiations.  As no date was set, for the time being, for
the end of the negotiations, it was premature to try to set at that stage a date for the second review of
the MFN exemptions.  His delegation would prefer to wait and suggested that the Council could
discuss again the issue of the date of the second re view of MFN exemptions at the stocktaking session
in March 2001.
23. The representative of Japan found the proposal from the EC interesting and worthy of
consideration.  However,  he noted that, as mentioned by the Chairman, the Annex on Article II
exemptions stated that within the review the Council would determine the date of the next review.
Thus, without that determination the review would not be concluded.  Secondly, the Annex on the
Article II exemptions also said that all of those MFN exemptions should not exceed a period of10 years in principle and the aim of the review was to examine whether the need for the exemption
was still there.  Although his delegation would consider further the proposal from the EC, it was clear
that the next review should take place any way at the latest before the end of year 2004.
24. The representative of Hong Kong, China echoed what Japan had noted about the Annex and
also the fact that in principle all MFN exemptions  should be removed within 10 years.  His delegationS/C/M/47
Page 7
would reflect on the EC suggestion in that contex t and their suggestion that the Council revisit the
matter in the stocktaking exercise.  In principle, he supported the position put forward by Mexico at
the previous meeting.
25. The representative of Korea supported the pr oposal made by Japan.  A close look at the
Annex on MFN exemption suggested 2004 as the natural candidate for the next review.  In light of the
fact that nobody knew when the negotiations would end, it was for the Council to decide that there
would be another review session no later than 2004.
26. Regarding the EC's proposal, the representative of Mexico argued that from looking at the
Annex it was clear that the purpose of the exercise was not to see how many exemptions still
remained, either through voluntary elimination or through a round.  The Annex stated that the purpose
of the exercise was to review whether the conditio ns which created the need for the exemptions still
prevailed, not so much how many exemptions still remained.  Thus, as long as the Council had notset a date for the next exercise, as was stated by Japan, the present exercise remained open, and it
remained open with the Council not yet having determined whether the conditions which created the
need for the exemptions still prevailed for all of those exemptions.   The situation was not very clear
and Members would be entitled to continue to raise questions, if they wished to do so, because the
exercise would still be open.   It was precisely with  a view to putting more order into the Council's
deliberations that Mexico, taking into account what the European Communities had stated, considered
that it was necessary to have two possibilities in mind but only one date.  One possibility was that
there would progress in the course of the negotiat ions, but it was not known how long those would
last; and the other possibility was closely tied up with paragraph 6 and the maximum period for those
exemptions which did not already have a date as requ ired by paragraph 5.  So alternatively, one could
say that the next exercise would be 6 months prior to the end of the negotiations on services, or at the
latest 6 months prior to the 10-year period mentioned in paragraph 6, or whichever came first.
27. The representative of Panama took note of the comments made by Japan and the suggestion
and comments made by the Ambassador of Mexico.  The proposal by Mexico seemed to fit in with
the provisions of the Annex and he had no difficulty in supporting it.  Although in relation to the firstalternative, supposing that the mandated negotiations ended before 31 December 2004, he wondered
how would the Council know when the 6 months before the end of those negotiations had been
reached in the absence of a definite deadline for the end of the negotiations.  One possible solution
would be that, as Mexico suggested, the review be done 6 months prior to 31 December 2004 or on
conclusion of the negotiations on services, if that happened before the 6 months prior to
31 December 2004.
28. The representative of Pakistan felt that Mexico had raised a very valid and interesting point
regarding the status of the review under way.  It was important to know the status, whether it was a
continuing exercise or whether the Council was formally ending the review without a further date.
Thus, it was necessary to answer that question.
29. The representative of Venezuela felt that the purpose of the exercise was clear, namely to see
whether the conditions which had created the need for the exemptions still prevailed.  Members also
had to bear in mind that paragraph 6 referred to a maximum period and also stated that in principle
such exemptions should not exceed a period of 10 years.  Some Members might have the need for
exemptions to remain in place for a period beyond those 10 years, of course that would not be an ideal
situation, but Members had to understand that the Annex did leave open that possibility when stating
that that period was in principle.  The Council should not lose sight of that little detail.
30. The representative of Mexico said that there may be MFN exemptions that went beyond the
10-year period, as mentioned in paragraph 6 and that was why he referred to those that had met theS/C/M/47
Page 8
requirement of having set a date as stated in paragraph 5.  There might be dates going beyond that 10-
year period and as paragraph 5 stated the Members were aware of them and had accepted that.
31. The Chairman observed that a number of delegations had indicated the preliminary nature of
their views.  Based on what had been said, the Council was not in a position to draw specific
conclusion from the debate.  The Council had heard the proposal by Mexico, which had been made atthe last meeting, of a 6-month period before either the end of 2004 or of the negotiations, and the EC
proposal suggesting that the review take place at the end or after the negotiations.  An additional
suggestion was that a further discussion be held at the March stocktaking exercise of March 2001.  In
view of that, it was necessary to have time for further consideration and discussions.  He  suggested to
place the matter on the agenda for the regular Council meeting in December and continue the
discussion with a view to reaching a consensus.
32. The representative of Mexico indicated that his delegation would not have any difficulty in
proceeding as the Chairman had suggested with the understanding that the item to be placed on the
agenda of the December meeting would not be restrict ed solely to the date of the next review, as it
concerned the entire review exercise covered in the Annex, which in his view remained open.
Limiting it simply to the date of the next review exercise might give the impression that the Council
had already completed the present exercise, without fulfilling the element of paragraph 4:b of theAnnex.  Thus, Mexico could accept the Chairman's proposal as long as it represented a continuation
of the full review exercise.
33. The Chairman confirmed that his proposal was consistent with Mexico's understanding.
34. The Council agreed to the Chairman's proposal. 
__________