. /.WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/TMB/R/69
17 November 2000
(00-4887)
Textiles Monitoring Body
REPORT OF THE SEVENTIETH MEETING
1. The Textiles Monitoring Body held its seventieth meeting on 10 October 2000.
2. Mr. Magdi A. Farahat (Egypt) was appointed member to replace Mr. Adel M. Khalil (Egypt).
Mr. Farahat appointed Mr. Mohan Kumar (India) as his alternate.
3. Present at this meeting were the following members and/or alternates: Messrs. Ahn/Leung;
Babajide; Karapinar/Pospís ˇil; Kumar; Kobayashi; Nayyar/Miss Loi; Messrs. Tadpitakkul; Tagliani;
Wentzel/Moroz.
4. The TMB adopted the report of its sixty-ninth meeting (G/TMB/R/68).
Notification under Articles 2.8(a) and 2.11 of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC)
5. The TMB reviewed, pursuant to Article 2.21, the correction of a notification made under
Articles 2.8(a) and 2.11 by Latvia (G/TMB/N/355/Co rr.1).  The TMB observed that the second stage
integration programme of Latvia had been corrected by the deletion of two 8-digit lines (i.e. 6211 42
10 and 6211 43 10), as the same lines had already been included in that integration programme under
the respective 6-digit HS lines 6211 42 and 6211 43.  The TMB, recalling the observations it hadmade when it had taken note of Latvia’s second stage integration programme
1, took note of the
correction.
Communication received by the TMB
Pakistan/United States
6. The TMB received a joint communication from Pakistan and the United States, in which the two
Members "refer to the request made by the TMB to our two governments contained in G/TMB/R/45
that we re-examine issues related to the Memorandum of Understanding signed by representatives ofour two governments on March 22, 1996".  According to the communication, a new Memorandum of
Understanding signed on 25 May 2000, attached to the communication, "reflects the results of this re-
examination and constitutes a mutually satisfactory solution of the issues related to Articles 4 and 5 of
the ATC contained in the MOU dated March 22, 1996".
7. The TMB recalled that two previous communications related to the present one had been referred
to the Body at its meetings in May and June 2000.
2  These communications had been made by
Pakistan following the review by the Body, in  1998, of the mutually satisfactory solution reached by
Pakistan and the United States on 22 March 1996.3  The TMB observed that the new Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) presented the recently held consultations as a continuation of the consultations
                                                     
1 See G/TMB/R/68, paragraph 6.
2 See G/TMB/R/65, paragraphs 4 to 7 and G/TMB/R/66, paragraph 6.
3 See G/TMB/R/45, paragraphs 5 to 52.G/TMB/R/69
Page 2
begun in March 1996 between Pakistan and the United States with regard to deductions made on
11 August 1995 by the United States to Pakistan’s category 361 quota under Article 5 of the ATC.
The recent consultations, according to the MOU, “a lso included related issues concerning bedsheet
and pillowcases categories in both cotton and man-made fibre raised under Articles 4 and 5 of the
ATC”.  Furthermore, the MOU also stated that “Pakistan […] withdraws its request dated5 April 2000 for Textiles Monitoring Body review pursuant to ATC Article 8, paragraph 5, of the
limits on [imports of] 666-P and 666-S [products]”.  The TMB observed that the new MOU amended
the MOU of 22 March 1996 in so far as it increased the base limits for categories 666-P and 666-S for
the year 2000, provided for increased growth rates for the period 2001 to 2004 and provided
additional flexibility for those categories.
8. In taking note of the withdrawal by Pakistan of its request for the TMB’s review pursuant
Article 8.5 of the ATC of the limits on imports of 666-P and 666-S products as stated in the MOUattached to the communication, the TMB observed that this communication, while reporting to
constitute a mutually satisfactory solution betwee n the two Members, did not contain explanation or
justification for the introduction of a restriction on imports of products of category 666-S and 666-P
and did not specify the particular provision of the ATC which would justify, in the view of the parties,
the application of such a measure.  The TMB recalled that, already in 1998, these had been the samereasons why it had not been in a position to take a definitive stand on the conformity, or lack thereof,
of this measure with the ATC.  Consequently, the TMB had recommended that the parties re-examine
the measure in question, in light of the Body’s detailed comments and considerations.
4  I n  t h e
continued absence of appropriate explanation a nd justification from the two Members, the TMB
reiterated that unless additional information in this regard was provided, the Body was not put in aposition to determine, as required, the conformity, or lack thereof, of this measure with the ATC.  It
was expected that this additional information would be received in the near future.
Report (2000) by the TMB
9. The TMB considered and adopted its report for 2000 (G/L/398).
__________
                                                     
4 See G/TMB/R/45, paragraphs 5 to 52.