WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONRESTRICTED
G/C/M/73
3 May 2004
(04-1949)
Council for Trade in Goods
27 April 2004
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS
27 APRIL 2004
Chairman: H.E. Ambassador Hovorka (Czech Republic)
The meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods, convened by airgram WTO/AIR/2298/Rev.1,
proceeded on the basis of the proposed agenda contained in document G/C/W/490.
I. REVIEW OF THE OPERATION OF THE TRIMS AGREEMENT UNDER
ARTICLE 9 ...............................................................................................................................2
II. SENEGAL – REQUEST FOR A WAIVER ON MINIMUM VALUES IN
REGARD TO THE AGREEMENT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
ARTICLE VII OF THE GATT 1994 (G/C/W/390, G/C/W/488)..........................................4
III. QUESTIONS BY ECUADOR CONCERNING EUROPEAN COMMISSION
REGULATION (EC) NO. 414/2004 (G/C/W/486).................................................................4
IV. MARKET ACCESS MATTERS:............................................................................................6
A. COMMITTEE ONMARKET ACCESS –PERIODIC REPORT OFTHE
COMMITTEE (G/MA/153)........................................................................................................6
B. INTRODUCTION OFHARMONIZED SYSTEM 1996 CHANGES INTO WTO
SCHEDULES OFTARIFF CONCESSIONS –REQUESTS FOR AWAIVER:
ISRAEL (G/L/670, G/C/W/482); MALAYSIA (G/L/676, G/C/W/485); PANAMA
(G/L/672, G/C/W/483); PAKISTAN (G/L/673, G/C/W/484)....................................................6
V. REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS: .................................................................................7
A. EC-CHILE INTERIM AGREEMENT –NOTIFICATION FROM THE PARTIES TO
THE AGREEMENT (WT/REG164/N/1, WT/REG164/1, WT/REG164/2) ..............................7
B. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CHILE AND ELSALVADOR –
NOTIFICATION FROM THE PARTIES TOTHE AGREEMENT (WT/REG165/N/1
AND CORR.1,WT/REG165/1, WT/REG165/2)...........................................................................7
C. CENTRAL EUROPEAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT –ACCESSION OFTHE
REPUBLIC OFCROATIA –NOTIFICATION FROM THE PARTIES TOTHE
AGREEMENT (WT/REG11/N/6, WT/REG11/12)...................................................................7
D. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CROATIA AND ALBANIA –
NOTIFICATION FROM THE PARTIES TOTHE AGREEMENT
(WT/REG166/N/1, WT/REG166/1) ...........................................................................................7
E. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ALBANIA AND BULGARIA –
NOTIFICATION FROM THE PARTIES TOTHE AGREEMENT
(WT/REG167/N/1, WT/REG167/1) ...........................................................................................7G/C/M/73
Page 2
F. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ALBANIA AND THE UNITED
NATIONS INTERIM ADMINISTRATION MISSION INKOSOVO (UNMIK) –
NOTIFICATION FROM ALBANIA (WT/REG168/N/1, WT/REG168/1)...............................7
VI. APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS TO CTG SUBSIDIARY BODIES.................................8
VII. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN
GOODS......................................................................................................................................8
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS..................................................................................................................9
A. PAKISTAN 'S REQUEST FOR TRIM S EXTENSION ...........................................................................9
B. NOTIFICATIONS UPDATE DOCUMENT ..........................................................................................9
I. REVIEW OF THE OPERATION OF THE TRIMS AGREEMENT UNDER
ARTICLE 9
The Chairman opened the discussion and requested Members to avoid repeating well-known
positions.
The representative of Brazil recalled that in June 2003, the delegation of Colombia had
introduced the possibility of having an additional study or technical note based on the TRIMs
notifications presented. The study would evalutate how such notified TRIMs might have impacted
world trade and development. Following on the Colombian suggestion, his delegation offered a few
preliminary ideas on elements that could be taken up by such a study. The objective of the proposed
study would be to work on notifications made since 1995 to assess the development impact of the
respective measures and of their elimination. It was known that the bulk of the notifications were
related to the automotive and the agri-food industries. Hence, particular attention could be paid to
these two industries. The study should seek to address the following questions:
1.What industries and activities were mainly affected by the TRIMs?
2.To what extent did the TRIMs help to advance targeted objectives?
3.Has the elimination of the TRIMs affected the quality of FDI attracted? For example, to what
extent has the removal of local content requirements affected the level of local sourcing vis-à-
vis imports?
4.Has the removal of TRIMs affected the host country's ability to attract FDI in the relevant
industry?
5.To what extent have the effects of adoption and elimination of the TRIMs been affected by
other trade policies (level of import tariffs, rules of origin, etc.).
6.Do the effects differ among countries?
7.Do the effects differ between export-oriented and domestic-market-oriented production?
8.What has been the response from the private sector – local and foreign-owned?
The study should start out with an overview of all notifications made since 1995, including a
review of existing empirical studies as well as relevant communications to the WTO. The second part
of the study could consist of in-depth case studies of a number of countries (to be determined). He
insisted on the preliminary nature of these suggestions and underlined that Brazil was open to
consider ideas that Members might wish to incorporate in the present terms of reference.
The representative of India reminded Members of the substantive paper jointly submitted by
Brazil and India in October 2002, putting some concrete ideas that could be addressed in the course of
the review. Subsequently, there had been a constructive proposal from Members requesting the
WTO-UNCTAD Secretariats to compile a factual document showing TRIMs-related notificationsG/C/M/73
Page 3
reported, the sector scovered, some statistics of trade flows under the relevant measures, their
developmental impacts, as well as similar details on extensions granted. This had been discussed by
Members at the previous CTG meetings. He believed that the proposal was constructive and could
provide additional inputs to inform the debate as well as to help Members understand trade and
development aspects of TRIMs. This did not preclude any additional input by way of Members sharing
their own experience with the operation of TRIMs. The Brazilian delegation had shared some concrete
ideas defining broad parameters of a further study. He urged the Council to look at these ideas with an
open mind.
The representative of Colombia thanked the delegate from Brazil for his statement which was
designed to help Members move forward on the revision of the TRIMS Agreement. As Brazil had said,
Colombia suggested a complement to the study which was carried out by WTO and UNCTAD, with an
analysis of the TRIMs notifications, the different sectors covered, and statistics on the trade flows
involved. Today, given the proposal which had been made by Brazil, she stated that Members
continued to be willing to work constructively on this issue on the basis of the questions put by Brazil.
It was important that this study contain (i) factual aspects on the basis of the notifications which had
been made since the Uruguay Round, and (ii) an economic development impact aspect. She thought that
this study should be carried out taking into account all sectors without limiting it to one or another
particular sector.
The representative of Pakistan concurred with what had been stated by previous speakers and
reiterated the importance the Pakistan delegation attached to this agenda item. He believed that on the
basis of the previous joint study between UNCTAD and the WTO, good discussions had taken place and
Members had moved further in their examination and analysis of the impact of the TRIMS Agreement
on national economies as well as on the global economy. As regards the Colombian proposal, his
delegation was very supportive of what had been said and believed that the questions posed by Brazil
with regard to the Colombian proposal as terms of reference for further studies were a step in the right
direction.
The representative of Cuba said that her delegation also attached special importance to the
review of Article 9 and agreed with previous speakers that the Colombian proposal was important.
The representative of the United States said in reaction to the proposal made by Brazil and
Colombia that it seemed to go beyond the scope of what was intended in the Article 9 review. The
United States opposed amending TRIMs and he considered that it was clear that Members would be
unlikely to achieve consensus on possible amendments, even if the Article 9 review were to continue for
a fifth year. The intent of the review was not to decide whether or not trade-related investment measures
had harmful effects or whether the Agreement was fair. Members had reached consensus on those
issues when the Agreement was concluded in 1994. The United States remained opposed to amending
the TRIMs Agreement or its core disciplines, but was prepared to work with other Members to find
ways consistent with WTO rules to address specific problems that arose in the course of implementing
TRIMs obligations. It seemed that Brazil's proposal more properly belonged to the Working Group on
Trade and Investment or the TRIMs Committee, rather than the Council for Trade in Goods.
The representative of the European Communities thought that while there had obviously been
some useful studies done, which shed light on the issue, he was not totally convinced that they had
brought the two sides of the discussion closer together. He agreed with the US that this was not really a
problem of substance, rather a problem of process. The idea that the US put forward of looking at these
matters in the Trade and Investment Group was interesting. For the EC, there was no real need for
further studies or further consultation on the matter, but he underlined that his delegation was ready to
discuss specific problems under the procedures provided for in the TRIMs Agreement. He cited
Pakistan as an example that Members were ready and willing to discuss TRIMs issues on a case-by-case
basis.G/C/M/73
Page 4
The representative of Canada said that the Council seemed to be coming back to the same
fundamental obstacles. Referring to the joint WTO/UNCTAD study that was undertaken not too long
ago, he thought that this brought some good material forward but he did not see the need to rehash the
same things. In terms of the review, he considered that the CTG had taken this as far as it could go. He
did not think a further study was the best way to proceed and if there were to be more detailed
discussions he would like to see that taking place in the TRIMS Committee.
The representative of Pakistan, referring to the point made that the discussion be moved to the
Working Group on Trade and Investment, said that as far as he understood, it was not even sure whether
there was a Working Group on Trade and Investment. In the sense that the Group did not exist, his
delegation did not see any harm in carrying on this work in this particular forum. The CTG was going
through an examination process and his delegation was willing to constructively engage on the basis of
studies and national experiences. The idea of having national experiences appeared to be a good way of
carrying out the examination and Pakistan had volunteered to be a case study. Pakistan's request for an
extension of the transition period was made under Article 5.3, whereas the CTG was discussing the
TRIMs Agreement under Article 9, which was a different mandate. Finally, he thought the proposal
from Colombia supplemented by the questions from Brazil would give impetus to the work of the
Council.
The Chairman said that as on previous occasions, it was clear that there was no consensus on
this issue. There were still divergences on whether and how to proceed with the Article 9 review. He
therefore proposed that the Council take note of the statements made and agree to revert to this item at
its next meeting.
It was so agreed.
II. SENEGAL – REQUEST FOR A WAIVER ON MINIMUM VALUES IN REGARD TO
THE AGREEMENT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE VII OF THE
GATT 1994 (G/C/W/390, G/C/W/488)
The Chairman drew Members' attention to two documents concerning the request by Senegal
for a waiver on minimum values under the Customs Valuation Agreement. The request was contained
in G/C/W/390, which was presented to the Council for Trade in Goods at an earlier meeting. The draft
decision was contained in G/C/W/488. He understood that consultations had taken place between
Senegal and interested Members, which had resulted in agreement on the text of the draft decision.
The representative of the United States welcomed the draft decision for Senegal and said that it
was her delegation's understanding that paragraph 6 of the decision included all WTO Agreements as
well as the DSU.
The Chairman proposed that the Council approve the waiver request and recommend that the
draft decision contained in document G/C/W/488 be forwarded to the General Council for adoption.
It was so agreed.
III. QUESTIONS BY ECUADOR CONCERNING EUROPEAN COMMISSION
REGULATION (EC) NO. 414/2004 (G/C/W/486)
The Chairman drew attention to the questions raised by Ecuador concerning European
Commission Regulation (EC) No. 414/2004, which were contained in document G/C/W/486.G/C/M/73
Page 5
The representative of Ecuador referred to the above questions with regard to Regulation
EC 414/2004 concerning specific measures for adopting the arrangements for administering tariff quotas
on banana imports as a result of accession on 1 May 2004 of the new member States. His delegation,
with regard to the issue of this Regulation, had several concerns. One was that Ecuador and the EU had
signed an Understanding on Bananas (G/C/W/274), and he thought that Regulation 414 modified the
definition of traditional operators which was contained in Annex 1 of the Understanding. This change,
in his interpretation, could prevent operators from new member States from being able to register as
traditional operators, entailing nullification and impairment of benefits accruing directly or indirectly to
Ecuadorian exports under the GATT 1994 Understanding. There had been contacts between the
Mission of Ecuador and the Commission in Brussels; however, the EU still had not replied or clarified
this. On 14 April 2004 EC Regulation 689/2004 was issued; this reformed certain provisions of
Regulation 414 and alleviated certain difficulties, but as expressed in paragraph 3 of Article 1 of
Regulation 689, this alleviation would only come into force for two months, i.e. May and June, to
establish some stability during the transition period. The questions circulated in the document had not
been answered and his delegation wanted to know whether the EU could provide answers. These
questions had been submitted to the EU on 10 March 2004, and he took the opportunity to resubmit
these questions so that all WTO Members could share Ecuador's concerns with regard to this issue and
to ensure that there was the necessary transparency.
The representative of the United States said that Ecuador had submitted a series of questions to
the EC on its TRQ regime for bananas following the admission of new member States that would go
into effect on 1 May 2004. Ecuador was concerned that new entrants would cancel or reduce certain
advantages from previous trade agreements, and had asked the EC to clarify its TRQ regime. The US
shared Ecuador's concerns regarding insufficient information from the EC. In January, when the EC
notified the withdrawal of the EC and acceding country tariff schedules, it did not include any
information about how tariff rate quotas would be dealt with as part of enlargement. The notified tariff
and trade data did not include the bound in- and out-of-quota tariff rates for tariff lines where either the
EC or the acceding countries had a tariff rate quota. Nor had the EC notified any new contemplated
tariff rate quota amounts after expansion on 1 May 2004. It was of great concern that on the eve of
1 May, WTO Members did not have any information about what their market access was in the
expanded EC for hundreds of tariff lines, and whether WTO commitments would be upheld.
The representative of Canada also expressed concerns with regard to the lack of information on
the TRQs would be administered after 1 May 2004 with regard to the new member States of the EU.
Canada had tried to obtain further clarification from the Commission in Geneva after its enlargement
notification issued in January, and was still awaiting this information.
The representative of the European Communities, referring to the amended regulation, said that
went some way to answer Ecuador's concerns. The EC had adopted, in this regulation, transitional
measures for the import of bananas into the enlarged Community. Basically, an additional quantity of
bananas of 300,000 tons was established to supply the market of the enlarged Community for the period
May to December 2004. The duty applicable would be €75 per tonne with a zero duty for bananas
originating in ACP countries. This additional quantity was fixed on a transitional basis and should in no
way prejudge the outcome of the negotiations in the context of GATT Article XXIV:6 in which the EU
was to engage in the coming weeks. His delegation had already entered into consultation and
correspondence under Article XXIV:6 with a number of delegations, including the US and Canada. He
summarised by saying that the two regulations, i.e. 414/2004 and 689/2004, also defined the necessary
transitional measures for managing the additional quantity of banana imports as of 1 May 2004 into the
enlarged EU. Every effort had been made to ensure that the licensing arrangements during the
transitional period were in full conformity with the EU's obligations in this matter. His delegation was
open to further consultations in this matter.G/C/M/73
Page 6
The representative of Ecuador appreciated the preliminary responses of the Commission.
Referring to the quota of 300,000 tons that was going to be applied, his delegation wanted to know what
would be the quota for next year. What was the basis for calculating this quota? His delegation
reserved the right to put forward more questions to the EC on this issue at the appropriate time. He
asked for the sake of transparency that replies provided by the EC be circulated in writing to WTO
Members. The representative of the European Communities answered that on the last point, he would
like to defer to his authorities.
The Chairman proposed that the Council take note of the statements made.
It was so agreed.
IV. MARKET ACCESS MATTERS:
A. COMMITTEE ON MARKET ACCESS –PERIODIC REPORT OFTHE COMMITTEE
(G/MA/153)
The Chairman noted that the Market Access Committee had forwarded four waivers,
accompanied by the periodic report of the Committee. As the report was factual in nature, and
reflected the work undertaken in that body, he suggested the Council take note of it and take up the
issue of the waivers.
It was so agreed.
B. INTRODUCTION OF HARMONIZED SYSTEM 1996 CHANGES INTO WTO
SCHEDULES OFTARIFF CONCESSIONS –REQUESTS FOR AWAIVER: ISRAEL
(G/L/670, G/C/W/482); MALAYSIA (G/L/676, G/C/W/485); PANAMA (G/L/672,
G/C/W/483); PAKISTAN (G/L/673, G/C/W/484)
The Chairman said that this item concerned requests for four waivers in connection with the
introduction of HS96 changes into WTO schedules. Members would recall that the Market Access
Committee had agreed some time ago that extensions of the waiver on a collective basis would no
longer be granted. However, this would not preclude members from requesting waiver extensions on
an individual basis. Four Members had forwarded to the Secretariat requests for waivers in
connection with the introduction of HS96 changes to their schedules. Pursuant to Article IX of the
WTO Agreement, these requests for waivers were before the Council for Trade in Goods for its
consideration. In each case, draft decisions had been circulated in the G/C/W/ documents to assist the
Council in its consideration of these requests.
The representative of Pakistan informed the Council that the last reservation on their HS96
documentation had been lifted and that they would therefore no longer need the proposed waiver. The
representative of the United States confirmed that his delegation had completed negotiations with
Pakistan on this issue.
In the light of the statement made by Pakistan, the Chairman proposed that the Council
approve the waiver requests for Israel, Malaysia and Panama and recommend that the draft decisions
contained in G/C/W/ documents 482, 483 and 485 be forwarded to the General Council for adoption.
It was so agreed.G/C/M/73
Page 7
V. REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS:
A. EC-CHILE INTERIM AGREEMENT –NOTIFICATION FROM THE PARTIES TOTHE
AGREEMENT (WT/REG164/N/1, WT/REG164/1, WT/REG164/2)
B. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CHILE AND EL SALVADOR –
NOTIFICATION FROM THE PARTIES TOTHE AGREEMENT (WT/REG165/N/1 AND
CORR.1,WT/REG165/1, WT/REG165/2)
C. CENTRAL EUROPEAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT –ACCESSION OF THE
REPUBLIC OF CROATIA –NOTIFICATION FROM THE PARTIES TO THE
AGREEMENT (WT/REG11/N/6, WT/REG11/12)
D. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CROATIA AND ALBANIA –NOTIFICATION
FROM THE PARTIES TOTHE AGREEMENT (WT/REG166/N/1, WT/REG166/1)
E. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ALBANIA AND BULGARIA –NOTIFICATION
FROM THE PARTIES TOTHE AGREEMENT (WT/REG167/N/1, WT/REG167/1)
F. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ALBANIA AND THE UNITED NATIONS
INTERIM ADMINISTRATION MISSION INKOSOVO (UNMIK) –NOTIFICATION
FROM ALBANIA (WT/REG168/N/1, WT/REG168/1)
The Chairman drew Members' attention to the six Agreements listed under this item that had
been notified under GATT Article XXIV. The texts of the Agreements and their notifications had
been circulated in the documents listed. Regarding how to proceed, the Chairman asked for
comments on the individual Agreements and then proposed that the Council adopt the terms of
reference for all six Agreements. There were no comments on five of the Agreements, but regarding
the sixth, the Free Trade Agreement between Albania and the United Nations Interim Administration
Mission in Kosovo, the representative of Serbia and Montenegro, speaking as an Observer, reserved
the right to express its point of view with regard to this FTA in the relevant WTO body at a later
stage.
The Chairman proposed that the Council take note of the statements made and that the
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements carry out the examination of the above-quoted six
Agreements in accordance with the following terms of reference: "to examine, in light of the relevant
provisions of the GATT 1994, the six free trade agreements – the EC-Chile Interim Agreement, the
Free Trade Agreement between Chile and El Salvador, the Central European Free Trade Agreement –
Accession of the Republic of Croatia, the Free Trade Agreement between Croatia and Albania, the
Free Trade Agreement between Albania and Bulgaria and the Free Trade Agreement between Albania
and the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo – 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 Council for Trade in
Goods on 20 February 1995, as contained in document WT/REG3/1, 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/73
Page 8
VI. APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS TO CTG SUBSIDIARY BODIES
The Chairman noted that the Guidelines for the Appointment of Officers to WTO bodies
contained in document WT/L/510, adopted by the General Council on 10 December 2002, provided
that the Chairperson of the Council for Trade in Goods would conduct consultations on the
appointment of the Chairpersons of the subsidiary bodies of the Council for Trade in Goods. He had
carried out consultations and was now in a position to propose to this Council an agreed slate of
names for the Chairs of the subsidiary bodies. The names were as follows:
Committee on Agriculture Mr. R. Lapperre (Netherlands)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Mr. E. Fernández (Costa Rica)
Committee on Customs Valuation Mr. R. Twyman (United Kingdom)
Committee on Import Licensing Ms. V. Campeanu (Romania)
Committee on Market Access Dr. M. Farahat (Egypt)
Committee on Rules of Origin Ms. V. Thorstensen (Brazil)
Committee on Safeguards Mr. H. Drouet (France)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Mr. G. Young (United States)
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Mr. J. Hirose (Japan)
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade Mr. S. Dalela (India)
Committee on Trade-Related Investment Measures Mr. S. Palayathan (Mauritius)
Working Party on State Trading Enterprises Mr. R. Mosisili (Lesotho)
and for the ITA Committee Mr. F. Seppey (Canada)
The Council agreed with the nominations. The Chairman said that while all the other
subsidiary bodies of the Council had provisions in their respective Agreement or rules of procedure
requiring them to elect Chairpersons, Working Parties did not have any procedural rules on electing
Chairpersons. As a result, in the case of the Working Party on State Trading Enterprises, he proposed
that the Council appoint the nominated Chairperson. In the case of all the other subsidiary bodies, he
proposed that the Council take note of my proposals.
It was so agreed.
On the question of Vice-Chairpersons, it was his understanding that it would be for the
subsidiary bodies to decide if they needed a Vice-Chairperson in cases where the option existed under
the Agreement or rules of procedure and that it was for the respective Chairperson to hold the
necessary consultations. He took the opportunity to warmly thank the outgoing Chairpersons of the
various subsidiary bodies of the Council for Trade in Goods for their hard work and dedication during
the year 2003.
VII. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS
The Chairman said that the Chairman of the General Council had carried out consultations on
a slate of names for Chairpersons to the different WTO standing bodies in accordance with the
established Guidelines for Appointment of Officers. These proposed nominations were approved by
the General Council at its meeting on 11 February 2004. In line with the nominations, he proposed
that the Council for Trade in Goods elect H.E. Ambassador Alfredo Vicente Chiaradia of Argentina as
Chairperson of this body by acclamation.
It was so agreed.
The Chairman dealt with Other Business before handing the gavel over to Ambassador
Chiaradia. He thanked all delegations as well as the Secretariat, for their untiring efforts andG/C/M/73
Page 9
dedication to carrying out the work of the CTG in 2003. The representatives of the United States,
Pakistan, European Communities, Mauritius, Romania, Brazil, Canada, Paraguay, Slovak Republic,
China and Malaysia expressed their gratitude and appreciation to Ambassador Hovorka for his
diplomatic skill, leadership qualities and his untiring work as Chairman during 2003 and welcomed
the election of Ambassador Chiaradia. The incoming Chairman also paid warm tribute to the
achievements of Ambassador Hovorka and looked forward to carrying on the important work of the
Council in 2004.
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS
The representative of the European Communities recalled that his delegation had posed
questions to Egypt regarding its request for an extension pursuant to paragraph 5.3 of the TRIMs
Agreement, as contained in document G/C/W/284, circulated in July 2001. He noted that his delegation
was raising these questions again with the intention of asking Egypt whether they would be in a position
to answer them. The representative of Egypt said his delegation hoped to have the relevant answers in
due course.
Statements by the Chair
A. Pakistan's request for TRIMs extension
The Chairman informed Members on the current status of the request for extension of the
transition period under the TRIMs Agreement submitted by Pakistan at the end of last year and
circulated in document G/C/W/478. At its January meeting, the CTG had agreed that the Chairman
would conduct informal consultations in this regard. Subsequently, a communication containing
questions on Pakistan's request was received from the United States (document G/C/W/480). In order
to have a sound basis for discussions, the Chairman thought it would be appropriate to wait for the
replies from Pakistan before initiating consultations. The replies were distributed in document
G/C/W/487, dated 16 April 2004. On the basis of this additional information, he then convened a first
round of informal consultations on Pakistan's request with a number of interested delegations. The
atmosphere of the consultations was positive and appreciation was shown regarding the
comprehensiveness and level of detail of the replies provided by Pakistan. Yet, it was clear that
Members would need more time to analyse the information and that consultations should be pursued
to consider the request. Accordingly, his successor as Chair of the CTG had been informed of these
developments and had assured him that he was prepared to take over the process of consultations and
report back to this Council at the appropriate time.
B. Notifications update document
Members recalled that at the 26 November 2003 meeting of the CTG, the Chairman had
announced his intention to look into an issue raised by China as well as, more generally, into the
overall utility of the notifications document.
Since that meeting, there had been some developments. First of all, Members would receive a
draft text of the notifications document based on its latest version, contained in G/L/223/Rev.10. This
text was being circulated on the Chair's responsibility. It contained some suggested technical
amendments with the aim of improving the transparency function of the document. It also contained a
number of changes with respect to China's entries in the document, which had appeared in the form of
a corrigendum to Revision 10.
Since the November meeting, he had met with Secretariat officials involved in the regular
update of the notifications document and also with a number of delegations to hear their views on ifG/C/M/73
Page 10
and how the document could be improved. The overall message he had received from delegations
was that despite certain redundancies and inconsistencies, the document provided a useful compilation
of notification obligations and an overview of the situation regarding Members' compliance therewith.
He had the impression from his discussions that Members considered that changes of a technical
nature might be useful. He had therefore asked the Secretariat to suggest technical changes to the
document in order to improve its essential transparency function. The text contained changes
proposed by the various Secretariat Divisions responsible for compiling the notifications in their area.
In his view these suggested changes were purely of a technical nature and took account of
developments that had occurred since the notifications document was first circulated in January 1998.
In terms of next steps, he proposed that after circulation of the amended text, delegations be
given a certain time-period in which to submit comments on the proposed changes. He suggested that
if no comments were forthcoming by Friday, 21 May 2004, it would be reasonable to assume that
Members might be deemed to have approved the document. This approval could then be formalised
at the next meeting of the Council, scheduled for 5 July 2004. If comments were submitted, the
Council would have the opportunity to further review the document at that meeting. While Members
were examining the proposed technical changes, he understood that the Secretariat would update the
tables in the document to include all notifications up to 31 December 2003. Another question related
to the frequency of the document. According to the existing practice, the update was being circulated
semi-annually. It seemed to him that in the view of several Members the document might appear
once, rather than twice a year. Therefore Members were also invited to indicate, by the 21 May date,
whether they would disagree with an annual rather than a semi-annual circulation of the document.
Date of the next meeting
The next meeting of the CTG was scheduled for Monday, 5 July 2004. The agenda for the
meeting would close on Thursday, 24 June 2004.
__________