WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED  
 G/C/M/45  
13 November 2000  
 (00-4784)  
  Council for Trade in Goods  
16 October 2000   
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING  
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard on 16 October 2000  
 
Chairperson:  Ambassador Carlos Pérez del Casti llo 
 
 
 The meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods (CTG) was convened by Airgram 
WTO/AIR/1405.  The proposed agenda contained in G/C/W/229 was adopted.  
 
I. TRIMS AGREEMENT:  REQUESTS FOR EXTENSION OF THE 
TRANSITION PERIOD PURSUANT TO ARTI CLE 5.3  ................................ ....................  1 
II. REVIEW OF THE OPERATION OF THE TRIMS AGREEMENT UNDER 
ARTICLE  9 ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............................  2 
III. MARKET ACCESS MATTERS  ................................ ................................ .............................  2 
A. SUB-ITEM (A):  COMMITTEE ON MARKET ACCESS - PERIODIC RE PORT OF THE 
COMMITTEE  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 2 
B. SUB-ITEM (B):  HARMONIZED SYSTEM – REQUESTS FOR EXTENSIONS OF WAIVERS  ....................  3 
C. SUB-ITEM (C):  ZAMBIA – RENEGOTIATION OF SCHEDULE LXXVIII – REQUEST FOR AN 
EXTENSION OF THE WA IVER ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  3 
D. SUB-ITEM (D):  DECISION ON THE INTRODUCTION OF THE HARMONIZED SYSTEM 
CHANGES IN WTO SCHEDULES OF TARIFF CONCESSIONS ON 1 JANUARY 1996  – 
EXTENSION OF THE TIME LIMIT  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 3 
IV. REQUEST FOR A WA IVER FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE EU 
AUTONOMOUS PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT TO COUNTRIES OF THE 
WESTERN BALKANS.  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  5 
V. REQUEST FOR A WTO WAIVER NEW ACP -EC PARTNERSHIP 
AGREEMENT.  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  6 
VI. REQUEST FOR A WTO WA IVER - TURKEY:  PREFERENTIAL 
TREATMENT FOR BOSNIA -HERZEGOVINA  ................................ ................................ . 8 
VII. FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS  ................................ ................................ .............................  9 
VIII.  OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  9 
 
_______________  
 
I. TRIMS AGREEMENT:  REQUESTS FOR EXTENSION OF THE TRANSITION 
PERIOD PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 5.3  
 The Chairman  noted that this item had been discussed in detail in the context of the resumed 
previous meeting of the CTG which took place immediately before this meeting of the CTG and as a 
conseq uence, no further discussion was necessary at this meeting.  G/C/M/45  
Page 2 
 
 
 
II. REVIEW OF THE OPERATION OF THE TRIMS AGREEMENT UNDER 
ARTICLE  9 
 The Chairman  said at the CTG meetings in January, April and July, Members had been 
invited to submit papers regarding the scope and  format of the review.  To date, no submissions had 
been received.  
 
 The representative of Pakistan  recalled a proposal which Pakistan had formally submitted 
regarding the conduct of a joint exercise by the UNCTAD and WTO Secretariats to help the 
developin g countries carry out the review.  He noted that the Chairman had indicated his intention to 
hold informal consultations on this proposal and was wondering about the progress made in this 
regard.   The representative of India  joined Pakistan in its enquiry .  She also stated that India was  
considering making a submission in due course on the scope and form of the review.  
 
 The Chairman  said that as yet he had not had the opportunity to discuss this matter with the 
UNCTAD authorities.  He did, however, inte nd to do this in the immediate future.  He suggested 
maintaining the invitation that Members send in submissions on the scope of the review and the CTG 
revert to this issue at the next meeting.  It was so agreed .  
 
III. MARKET ACCESS MATTERS  
A. SUB-ITEM (A):  COMMITTEE ON MARKET ACCESS - PERIODIC REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE  
 Before giving the floor to the Chairman of the Committee on Market Access to introduce the 
Committee's Periodic Report, contained in document G/MA/111, the Chairman pointed out that in 
paragraph 8  of this report, the Committee indicated that the review of paragraph 1 of the 
Understanding on the Interpretation of Article XXVIII of the GATT 1994 (as mandated by the CTG 
on the 24 January 2000) had been carried out.  
 
 The Chairman  of the Market Access  Committee said that, in keeping with the agreed 
procedures of the Committee on Market Access concerning communication of information on 
requests for extensions of waivers, a draft periodic report (G/MA/SPEC/15) had been examined by the 
Committee at its me eting on 12 October 2000.  The report was then revised to take account of the 
discussions that took place at that meeting and was published subsequently as G/MA/111.  This report 
indicated in annexes 1 and 2 the reasons why certain Members, whose waivers w ere to expire on 31 
October 2000, had requested a further extension of their waivers.  Principally, it was a question of 
concluding consultations already underway or completing documentation requested. The Committee 
had also noted the contents of document G/MA/TAR/2/Rev.23, which described the situation 
concerning submission of the documentation relating to the Harmonized System 1996.  He had given 
an oral report to the Committee of the informal consultations held on the exercise of transposition to 
HS96, a nd on future amendments or modifications to the Harmonized System 2002.  Furthermore, the 
report summed up the activities carried out in the context of the Integrated Data Base (IDB).   At the 
meeting of 12 October 2000, the Secretariat presented a report on the processing of communications 
for the IDB, the software and the technical assistance activities already underway.  The Committee 
had also heard a report presented by the Secretariat on the work concerning the database for 
consolidated tariff schedule s (CTS).   
 
 At its meeting on the 24 January this year, the CTG had asked the Committee to consider 
paragraph 1 of the Agreement on the Interpretation of Article XXVIII of GATT 94.  This item was 
placed on the agenda of four formal meetings of the Committ ee, and at its meeting on the 12 October, 
the Committee agreed to inform the Council that this consideration had been carried out and that at 
this stage there was no justification for changing the criteria laid down in paragraph 1 of the  G/C/M/45  
 Page 3 
 
 
Understanding.   T he Committee considered that the Members so wishing could at a subsequent stage 
raise this question of a further examination by the Council.   
 
 On the question of observership, in the light of consultations underway in the General Council 
on this subject,  the Committee agreed to revert at a subsequent date to the request for observer status 
presented by the Organization of Engineers of the Gulf Industries.  The Committee had also 
considered the situation of notification of quantitative restrictions in keep ing with the decision on the 
procedures of notifications of quantitative restrictions appearing in document G/L/59.  Members were 
invited to comply with their obligation to notify with respect to this decision.  The Committee agreed 
that at its next meetin g it would take up the situation of reverse notifications of non -tariff measures, in 
keeping with a decision reproduced in document G/L/60.  Lastly, the delegation of Hong Kong, China 
had informed the Committee that it undertook to bind a further 10 per ce nt of its imports to zero per 
cent during the year 2000, and that this would be duly notified to the WTO.    
 
B. SUB-ITEM (B):  HARMONIZED SYSTEM – REQUESTS FOR EXTENSIONS OF WAIVERS  
 The Chairman  noted that Nicaragua and Sri Lanka had made requests for exten sions of 
waivers which were going to expire on 31 October 2000.  These requests had been made in the 
context of the transposition of these Members' schedules into the Harmonized System.  Pursuant to 
Article 9 of the WTO Agreement, these requests for waiver s were before the Council for Trade in 
Goods and draft decisions had been circulated to assist the Council in its consideration of these 
requests.  The request from Nicaragua had been circulated in document G/L/394 and a corresponding 
draft decision in doc ument G/C/W/227.  The Chairman  proposed that the Council approve an 
extension of the waiver for Nicaragua until 30 April 2001 and recommend that the draft decision 
contained in document G/C/W/227 be forwarded to General Council for adoption.  It was so agreed. 
 
 The request for Sri Lanka had been circulated in document G/L/391 and the corresponding 
draft decision in document G/C/W/225.  The representative of the United States  noted that her 
delegation would be meeting with Sri Lanka later this month to disc uss some other items related to 
this waiver request.  The Chairman  proposed that the Council approve an extension of the waiver for 
Sri Lanka until 30 April 2001 and recommend that the draft decision contained in document 
G/C/W/225 be forwarded to General Council for adoption.  It was so agreed . 
 
C. SUB-ITEM (C):  ZAMBIA – RENEGOTIATION OF SCHEDULE LXXVIII – REQUEST FOR AN 
EXTENSION OF THE WAIVER  
The Chairman  drew the attention of Members to the request by Zambia circulated in 
document G/L/393 for an extension  of a waiver granted to it in connection with the renegotiation of 
its schedule,  and to a corresponding draft decision in document G/C/W/226.  He suggested that the 
Council approve an extension of the waiver for Zambia until the 30 April 2001 and recommen d that 
the draft decision contained in document G/C/W/226 be forwarded to the General Council for 
adoption.  It was so agreed . 
 
D. SUB-ITEM (D):  DECISION ON THE INTRODUCTION OF THE HARMONIZED SYSTEM CHANGES IN 
WTO SCHEDULES OF TARIFF CONCESSIONS ON 1 JANUARY  1996  – EXTENSION OF THE TIME 
LIMIT  
The Chairman  recalled that the General Council had adopted successive decisions suspending 
the application of the provisions of Article 2 of GATT 1994 until 31 October 2000 for the purpose of 
enabling Members to implemen t the amendments of 1996 to the Harmonized System nomenclature.  
The draft decision contained in document G/C/W/228 now proposed to extend this time -limit until 
30 April 2001, the purpose being to give Members more time to proceed with consultations or 
possible negotiations under Article XXVIII.   
 G/C/M/45  
Page 4 
 
 
 The representative of Japan  could go along with the extension of a time -limit but was 
concerned about the slow progress of the HS96 transposition exercise as five years have passed since 
the introduction of HS96  changes.  The Market Access Committee was now starting procedures to 
introduce HS2002 changes and he asked every Member, who had not yet done so, to expedite the 
process and complete the HS96 work.  
 
 The representative of the United States  shared the view s expressed by Japan and added that 
the rationale for collective waivers was to be a method to expedite the HS 96 process.  As the 
Committee was nearing the end of the HS96 exercise and beginning to discuss procedures for 
implementing and verifying HS2002,  it made sense to revert to normal WTO procedures for granting 
waivers for HS96.  He rejected the view that, once having agreed to grant collective waivers, 
countries had acquired a right under the WTO  that could not be taken away.  In particular, he was 
concerned that some countries, six years after this process was started, continued to be part of this 
collective waiver, without providing any of the required HS96 documentation.  His government did 
not believe collective waivers should be granted after th is extension;  countries should apply for HS96 
waivers if they needed to individually, and each request would be judged on its own merits.  That 
said, he could go along with the current proposal for extension.  
 
 The representative of Canada  could go along with the decision on the current waiver 
extension but shared the concerns expressed by the United States with regard to the need to finish the 
process of HS96 transposition and to the continuation after this decision of collective waivers.  
 
 The representa tive of India  said that India was not one of the countries under this waiver.  She 
did not believe that the grant of a waiver in this instance could in any way be conditioned by what 
Members might do in April 2001 when, and in case, a continuation of the w aiver in respect of some 
Members was still required.  She appreciated the efforts made by the Chairman of the Market Access 
Committee to hold informal consultations in a multilateral setting where each Member's reservations 
had been discussed at length.   Since this process was initiated, interesting facts had come to light on 
the state of the progress, one of which related directly to the nature of reservations that Members had 
placed on specific Members' draft schedules.  She believed that that was a more  appropriate way to 
proceed, and her delegation would have difficulty in supporting any conditionalities associated with 
this particular decision.  She accepted the continuation of the waivers but without any conditionality.  
 
 The representative of Argenti na said that the way to speed up this process was for those 
countries that had questions, or replies pending, or those that had reservations, to clarify them all  as 
soon as possible.  
 
 The representative of Panama  was grateful for the efforts made by the Chairman of the 
Market Access Committee holding informal plurilaterals in an attempt to move this review process 
forward.  Regarding the concerns expressed that six years after having begun this process, some 
Members had not submitted their documentation, he said that some of these delegations which had not 
submitted documentation, had been barely involved in this exercise for two and a half years and had 
encountered real problems.  He lent his support to this decision and his view was that decisions at any  
future meetings should not have any conditions placed on them.  
 
 The representative of Brazil said that an important point of this process was the need for 
countries with general reservations on the lists of other countries to specify them as soon as poss ible 
in order that the process could be completed.  The decision to be taken at this meeting should not 
prejudice any future decisions regarding waivers and waiver extensions, a view reiterated by the 
representatives of Uruguay  and Honduras . 
 
 The Chairman  proposed that the Council take note  of the statements made and that the 
Council approve the extension of the waivers until 30 April 2001, and recommend that the draft  G/C/M/45  
 Page 5 
 
 
decision granting an extension of these waivers, contained in document G/C/W/228, be tra nsmitted to 
the General Council for adoption.  It was so agreed . 
 
IV. REQUEST FOR A WAIVER FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE EU 
AUTONOMOUS PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT TO COUNTRIES OF THE 
WESTERN BALKANS.   
 The Chairman  referred to the communication from the European Comm unities in document 
G/C/W/178 which contained a request for a waiver;  a draft decision granting the waiver had been 
circulated in the same document to assist the Council in its consideration of this request.  This request 
for a waiver had been before the Council for its consideration at its April and July meetings.  At the 
meeting in July, there was no consensus on the request and it was agreed that the Council for Trade in 
Goods would revert to this item.   
 
 The representative of the European Communities  said that his delegation had replied to the 
requests for information.  He hoped that this matter could be sent to the General Council in order to 
send a clear and positive signal in particular to the beneficiaries of these measures.  
 
 The representative of the United States  believed that after having consulted with the 
Community, her delegation could support the request.  It was important that countries in the region 
had opportunities to enable their economies to recover following years of devastating con flict in the 
region.  She put to the Community a number of questions.  First, could the EC to clarify whether the 
proposed duty -free and reduced duty quotas could be created by including the beneficiary countries 
within existing quotas for WTO Members or b y creating completely new quotas specifically for the 
beneficiary countries?  Second, would the proposal  improve access to the EC market for some of the 
beneficiary countries' agricultural products with the admirable goal of contributing to political 
stability and economic development in the region?  Third, at the same time the EC continued to use 
export subsidies to ship EC agricultural products to the region which constrained regional agricultural 
development and disrupted the creation of a functioning m arket economy for agricultural product;  did 
the EC's regional approach, of which the proposal was one component, also include elimination of EC 
export subsidies for agricultural products to the region?   Fourth, could the EC clarify whether or not 
Slovenia  was included as one of the beneficiary countries to the Agreement and the subsequent waiver 
request.  Fifth, in the section entitled 'General Characteristics of the Trade Regime applied to the 
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia', the document indicated  that the Republic could have the 
right to grant preferential treatment to imports originating in other states of the Republic or in adjacent 
countries;  could the EC  clarify whether countries of the Republic and adjacent countries would 
receive preferent ial import treatment from the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia?  Sixth, why 
was the EC seeking a waiver until only 31 December 2006?  Last, could the EC provide a copy of 
Annex D in which the specific agricultural products subject to the specific tari ff concessions were 
listed?   
 
 The representative of the European Communities  replied to the first and second question that 
the quotas indicated in the waiver request were those originally and specifically created for 
Yugoslavia and then divided among the successor states. They were based on traditional flows but as 
most of the products listed in the annexes covering agricultural products enjoy unlimited duty -free 
access to the EC market, they indeed improved the access for the beneficiaries.   
 
 To the thir d question he replied that the regulation 70/97 did not affect the EC common 
agricultural policy.  As far as the inclusion or not of Slovenia among the beneficiary countries, the 
representative of the European Communities noted that commercial relations wi th Slovenia were 
regulated by a Europe Agreement concluded in 1997 which foresaw the establishment of a free -trade 
area in goods and services in accordance with the GATT and GATS rules. Consequently, Slovenia 
was not a beneficiary of the autonomous measure s indicated in the waiver request with the only 
exclusion of wine products as indicated in the note accompanying the request.  G/C/M/45  
Page 6 
 
 
 
 On the issue of whether the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia was granting 
preferential import treatment to other countries of former Yugoslavia or adjacent countries, he replied 
that an exhaustive reply could only be provided by the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the 
EC regime limiting itself to allowing such a possibility. He further explained that by the term adjacen t 
countries it should be intended those countries that were in the proximity of the former Yugoslav 
Republic of Macedonia and that were neither beneficiaries of the autonomous measures nor Members 
of the European Communities.  Concerning the reason why the  EC was requesting a waiver until end 
of 2006, he noted that the EC intended to cover a period of ten years from the entry into force of 
Regulation 70/97, which introduced the respect of political criteria for the granting of the autonomous 
measures by the  EC.  He also provided a copy of Annex D and E to that Regulation as requested.  
 
 The Chairman  proposed that the Council take note  of the statements made.  He proposed that 
the Council approve the request for a waiver by the European Communities and recomm end that the 
draft decision be transmitted to the General Council for adoption (contained in document 
G/C/W/178).  It was so agreed .  
 
V. REQUEST FOR A WTO WAIVER NEW ACP -EC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT.  
 The Chairman  recalled that on July 17, 2000, he made a statem ent on his own responsibility 
to the General Council on the state of play regarding the waiver requested for the ACP -EC 
Partnership Agreement.  At the end of the statement he had made the point that there remained in the 
Council for Trade in Goods a broad agreement that his role as Chairman was to facilitate the waiver 
examination process and he therefore would continue consultations as and when appropriate with the 
view to reaching a consensus which took account of the interests of all Members.  
 
 The repr esentative of Cuba  urged all interested parties to show flexibility with a view to 
finding an immediate solution rather than continuing to deprive the ACP countries of the benefit of 
special and differential treatment.  
 
 The representative of Paraguay  said that his delegation was opposed to the waiver, not so 
much because of bananas, but because it considered the agreement in question discriminatory. 
Preferences granted to the ACP countries, which could be beneficial for those countries, at the same 
time co nstituted discrimination on a series of products, particularly agricultural goods from other 
developing countries.  The preferences granted to 55 ACP states that were WTO Members left out 
38 other developing countries, amongst which was Paraguay, an agricu ltural and exporting country.  
When the Lomé text was approved in the first place, Paraguay experienced unpleasant consequences 
because several of its markets in European countries were closed.  With the existence of the WTO, he 
did not think that such dis crimination between developing countries and the ACP states should exist.  
Non-ACP developing countries should be granted the same benefits, and if this was not possible for 
the EU, then it should find other compensation.  While this issue was not resolved , the delegation of 
Paraguay would be opposed to the granting of the waiver.  
 
 The representative of the European Communities  said that he had heard until very recently 
little opposition to the fact that the EU and others had granted and continued to grant  tariff preferences 
to the poorest trading nations.  The waiver would benefit a group of countries, including some of the 
poorest members of the WTO, counting for less than one per cent of world trade.  He could not 
imagine that this waiver would not be su pported by all Members.  He knew the specific concerns 
which some of the banana -producing countries had voiced with regard to the future banana regime, 
but he had underlined that this was a different issue and he remained opposed to the linkage of the 
waiv er request with the new banana regime.  If the CTG could not reach a decision now, it would be 
unfortunate, not only for the countries concerned, but also for systemic reasons concerning the 
question of how to deal with other waivers in the near future.  
  G/C/M/45  
 Page 7 
 
 
 The representative of Jamaica  recalled that the request for a waiver in respect of the trade 
provisions of the EC -ACP Partnership Agreement had been submitted on 5  April  2000, that the draft 
decision was circulated on 14  April, and that the full Partnershi p Agreement in all three WTO 
languages had become available on 4  May 2000.   He regretted that more than five months later this 
Council had yet to commence the substantive examination of this request.  The ACP countries 
continued to urge those that took th e position that consideration of the waiver request should await the 
conclusion of a new banana regime, to recognize that this was simply to make the interests of the ACP 
countries subject to a matter that should be addressed in a separate consultative and  judicial process.  
He urged partners who had not been willing to proceed with a substantive examination of the request 
to recognize that the interest of many of the poorest countries in the WTO would be adversely 
affected, and that a climate of uncertaint y and unpredictability was being created by this continued 
refusal.   
 
 The representative of Panama  said that  like Paraguay, his opinion was that bananas were not 
the only the problem in this ACP -EC Agreement.  The lack of a text on bananas was the initia l 
problem and if the CTG could reach a solution to this initial problem, he was certain that Members 
could tackle all the other issues.  
 
 The representative of the United States  recalled that extensive discussions had occurred to see 
if there was a way to proceed on this matter that would allow the waiver request to be examined 
without undermining WTO rulings.  The United States had presented some ideas during those 
discussions and was prepared to continue seeking a way forward.  However, the fact was that there 
could be no examination of documentation that did not exist and on a measure that had not been 
explained.   
 
 The representative of Honduras  reiterated the view that the waiver required contravened 
Article 1 of the Understanding on Exemptions and Wai vers of the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade of 1994.  This was a legal requirement for transparency and Honduras would continue to raise 
this issue until the documentation relevant to this matter had been submitted.  Even if this legal 
omission were  to be dealt with, it was a source of concern to his country that the level of tariffs 
included in the latest Commission proposal was excessive for developing countries;  this was an 
attempt to establish a regime which would exclude Honduras from this mark et.  The proposal 
contained a system which infringed interalia  Article 1 of GATT and would introduce distortions to 
the world banana market to the detriment of banana -producing countries   
 
 The representative of Guatemala  said that his government was not in agreement with the 
request by the EU with respect to extending the waiver.  The Understanding on waivers under GATT 
imposed on Members the obligation to explain why they were requesting a waiver;  in this case, the 
EU had not complied with this provisio n, as Members had not received the appropriate 
documentation.  
 
 The representative of Colombia  said that the Council for Trade in Goods agreed that 
consideration of the waiver for the ACP would be considered once the single banana regime of the 
European C ommunities had been determined and this had not taken place.  Concerning the latest EC 
proposal, Colombia could only express its surprise that the EC Commission was tending to focus on 
the existence of trade system referred to on a "first come -first served " basis because it would certainly 
have an impact on banana prices in a downward sense with negative implications on banana -exporting 
countries.  It would not be appropriate that bilateral consultations excluding the full participation of 
all parties invol ved be pursued.  
 
 The representative of Nicaragua  said that from the point of view of Nicaragua, it was not 
possible to grant this request because it was flawed bearing in mind the approach adopted by the EU 
with respect to bananas.  Regarding the last pro posal put forward by the EU on bananas, the 
Government of Nicaragua at its highest level had already expressed what it saw as the incompatibility G/C/M/45  
Page 8 
 
 
between that proposal and WTO rules.  The legal process required that anyone seeking a waiver had 
to lay down the reasons or underlying causes for the derogation being sought.  
 
 The representative of the Philippines  said that the European Communities was supposed to 
give favourable consideration to concerns expressed by other countries regarding certain products a nd 
encouraged the Chairman to hold informal consultations with the EC on products other than bananas 
and on concerns other than bananas.  
 
 The representative of Brazil  informed the CTG that it had sent last May to the European 
Commission questions related to tariff treatment in the Partnership Agreement in several chapters of 
the Harmonized System.  These questions had been answered by the EC, and they would be analysed 
in capital.  
 
 The representative of St. Lucia  said that the EC provided preferences, no t just to ACP 
countries, but to other developing countries.  The granting of the WTO waiver would contribute 
significantly to confidence -building measures which were required to reinstate the credibility of the 
multilateral trading system.   
 
 The represen tative of Senegal  said that under the Partnership Agreement the unilateral 
preferential approach was necessary for a transitional period in order to progressively reach a 
reciprocal regime fully compatible with the WTO.  He called on the flexibility and th e goodwill of the 
countries opposing the waiver to bear these elements in mind.  The representative of Burundi  
endorsed the statements made by Jamaica, St. Lucia and Senegal, particularly regarding the shared 
interest that developing and developed countrie s had as Members of the WTO.  
 
 The representative of Mauritius  said that when the Lomé waiver was approved in the 1970's, 
it was to integrate the ACP countries into the trading system.  From the 1970's to today, there had not 
been such integration, or if there had been, only to a very minor effect.  In this light it was necessary 
to show flexibility on all sides in order to be able to successfully complete the task of integration.  
 
 The Chairman  proposed that the Council take note of the statements made an d reiterated his 
intention to continue holding consultations with the view to reaching a consensus solution which took 
account of the interests of all.  The CTG would revert to this item at its next meeting.  It was so 
agreed . 
 
VI. REQUEST FOR A WTO WAIVER - TURKEY:  PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT 
FOR BOSNIA -HERZEGOVINA  
 The Chairman  said that the communication from Turkey in document G/C/W/217 contained a 
request for a waiver and a draft decision granting the waiver to assist the Council in its consideration 
of the ma tter.  
 
 The representative of the United States  was pleased to join a consensus to approve the waiver 
which extended only to an exemption from GATT Article 1.  She put one question to Turkey, the 
response to which could be received at a subsequent date.  On page 3 of the waiver request, Turkey 
had indicated, under (a) General rule:  industrial products shall be "subject to customs duties and 
charges having an equivalent effect";  the second paragraph under (b) Specific products, indicated 
products listed i n Annex II "shall be subject to customs duties and charges actually applied in respect 
of third countries".  She asked if Turkey could explain the difference in tariff treatment in these two 
situations.  The representative of Turkey  undertook to reply to t he question at a later date.  
 
 The Chairman  suggested that the Council take note  of the statements made and proposed that 
the Council agree to the request for a waiver by Turkey and recommend that the draft decision  G/C/M/45  
 Page 9 
 
 
granting this waiver extension, contain ed in document G/C/W/217 be transmitted to the General 
Council for adoption.  It was so agreed . 
 
VII. FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS  
The Chairman  drew Members' attention to three agreements listed under this item that had 
been notified under Article XXIV.  The texts of the agreements had been circulated in the documents 
listed.  
- Free Trade Agreement between Turkey and Poland;  notification by the parties in documents 
W/T/Reg107/N1 and W/T/Reg107/1.  
- Free Trade Agreement between Estonia and Ukraine;  notification from  Estonia in documents 
W/T/Reg108/N1 and W/T/Reg108/1.  
- Free Trade Agreement between the European Communities and Mexico;  notification by the 
parties in the documents W/T/Reg109/N1 and W/T/Reg109/1.  
 
 As there was no request for the floor, he proposed th at the Council submit these agreements to 
the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements to carry out an examination of these agreements in 
accordance with the following terms of reference: "to examine, in the light of the relevant provisions 
of the GATT 1994,  the Free Trade Agreements just referred to 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 Goods under item  7 of the agenda of the meeting of the Counc il 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 betw een customs unions and free trade areas".  It was so agreed .   
 
VIII.  OTHER BUSINESS  
 The Chairman  proposed that the next meeting of the Council take place on Wednesday, 
15 November  2000, the agenda to close on Thursday, 2  November  2000.  
__________