RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/RO/M/33 
29 November 2000 
 (00-5126) 
Committee on Rules of Origin  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 3 NOVEMBER 2000 
 
Chairman:  Mr. S. Simon  
 
 
 The agenda proposed for the meeting, contained in WTO/AIR/1418, was adopted by the 
Committee on Rules of Origin (CRO) as follows: 
 
1. Annual Report (2000) of the Commi ttee to the Council for Trade in Goods 
(G/RO/W/60) .................................................................................................................... .........1 
2. Deadline for completion of the work progra mme on harmonizing rules of origin .............1 
3. Responsibilities of the Technical Committee on Rules of Origin (G/RO/44) ............ ...........2 
4. Observer status for international intergovernmental organizations 
(G/RO/W/19/Rev.2).............................................................................................................. .....3 
5. Other business .............................................................................................................. .............4 
- D ATES AND AGENDA FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ............................................................................4 
 
 
1. Annual Report (2000) of the Committee to the Council for Trade in Goods (G/RO/W/60) 
1.1 The Chairman  noted that the Secretariat had circulated a draft of the Committee's report to the 
Council for Trade in Goods, as required by Article 6.1 of th e Agreement (G/RO/60). 
 
1.2 Based on the informal consultations the Chairman had held with Members on this issue, the 
CRO adopted  its revised annual report to the CTG (G/L/413). 
 
2. Deadline for completion of the work pr ogramme on harmonizing rules of origin 
2.1 Based on informal consultations the Chairman  had held with Members, the CRO, took note  of 
the communication of the Chairman of the Genera l Council to the Chairman of the CRO regarding 
discussions on implementation in the General Council Special Session of 18 October 2000 relating to rules of origin issues.  The communication mentio ned that the following elements had emerged which 
might form a basis on which to deal with this issue: 
 
- First, to consider as the new deadline the Fourth Session of the Ministerial 
Conference, or at the latest the end of 2001, as has been suggested by the Chairman 
of the Committee;    
 
- Second, to urge Members to exercise th e political will necessary to expedite the 
remaining work on harmonizing non-preferential rules of origin;  and 
 G/RO/M/33 
Page 2  
 
  - Third, to request the Chairman of the Co mmittee to report to the General Council, on 
his own responsibility, on the progress of work in the Committee;  the first such 
report would be submitted to the Council at  its first regular meeting next year, and 
subsequently at each regular meeting until the completion of the work programme. 
 
2.2 The CRO  agreed  that  informal consultations on this matter would continue, and to revert to 
this issue at the December meeting.   
 
3. Responsibilities of the Technical Comm ittee on Rules of Origin (G/RO/44) 
3.1 The Chairman  recalled that the Chairman of the Technical Committee on Rules of Origin 
(TCRO) had forwarded to the CRO a request for the CRO's advice on two matters relating to the 
ongoing responsibilities of the TCRO (G/RO/44).  The first matter on which the TCRO requested the 
CRO's advice concerned the two types of work pr ovided for in paragraph 3 of Article 6 of the 
Agreement:  (i)  technical rectifications provided for under General Rule 2 of the preliminary text of 
the harmonized non-preferential rules of origin relati ng to changes in the Harmonized System, and (ii) 
the other work relating to amendments to the resu lts of the Harmonization Work Programme (HWP).  
The second matter concerned whether the TCRO's on going responsibilities could include the technical 
aspects of preferential rules of origin (G/RO/M/29). 
 
3.2 The representative of Hong Kong China  stated that subparagraph 1(c) of Annex I to the 
Agreement which provides that periodic reports be produced by the TCRO to cover the technical aspects of the operation and status of "this agreement", should be able to cover Annex II as well because the term "this Agreement" meant the wh ole Agreement including the Annexes.  As for 
subparagraphs 1(a) and (b), they should also cover Annex II.  If they were intended to cover only 
limited parts of the Agreement, there would have been specific language to this effect, as in the case 
of subparagraph 1(b).  However, it was appreciate d that some Members migh t be concerned that any 
discussion/work on preferential rules of origin now might affect the progress of the HWP. With a 
view to supporting the timely completion of th e HWP, Hong Kong China was not opposed to the 
postponing of further discussions on preferential rules of origin to some time in the future.  In the 
meantime it had no objection that the TCRO, in de livering its ongoing responsibilities, should focus 
primarily on non-preferential rules of origin pe nding further mandate from the CRO.  Hong Kong 
China reserved the right to request the CRO/TCRO to  address issues about pref erential rules of origin 
in the future.  
3.3 The representative of Australia
 stated that, without prejudice to any future role that the TCRO 
might have on preferential rules of origin, the TCRO  should for the moment focus on non-preferential 
rules of origin.  It was not necessary, at this stage, for the CRO to take a definitive view on whether 
there was any scope under the Agr eement to do any work relating to  preferential rules of origin. 
 
3.4 The representative of India  supported the statements made by Hong Kong China and 
Australia. 
 
3.5 The representative of the Philippines  pointed out that the CRO was now putting all its efforts 
into finishing the HWP within the deadline and expr essed concern that if the TCRO started to work on 
the technical rectification of the Basket 1 decisions in connection with the HS2002, the CRO's work 
would be more complicated.  The TCRO should no t undertake any technical rectifications of any 
work that the CRO was doing under the HWP. 
 3.6 The representative of the European Communities
 stated that it would be useful for the TCRO 
to have the opportunity to consider the implications of the HS2002 for the Basket 1 decisions in 
accordance with the provisions of Article 6.3 of the Agreement.  As concerns the other work relating   G/RO/M/33 
 Page 3 
 
 
 to amendments to the results of the HWP, the EC was of  the view that it was not urgent at this stage to 
start the work.  With regard to the second matter,  the EC supported the statements made by Hong 
Kong China and Australia to the effect that the TCRO, at this stage, should focus only on non-
preferential rules of origin. 
 
3.7 The representative of New Zealand  stated that it would be useful for the TCRO to begin its 
work on the technical rectifications of Basket 1 decisions in connection with the HS2002.  The 
TCRO's work on this matter would have only mi nor technical implications for CRO's ongoing work 
under the HWP and would not directly impact on the negotiating process.  However, to accommodate 
some Members' concerns she suggested to convey a message to the TCRO that it should ensure that its work should not disrupt CRO's work under the HWP.  As concerns the second matter, there was some legal ambiguity in paragraph 1(a) of Annex I to the Agreement.  However, from a practical 
point of view, the CRO, at this stage, should encourage the TCRO to focus only on non-preferential 
rules.   
 
3.8 The representative of Switzerland
 stated that the TCRO, at this stage, should not get involved 
in the work concerning preferential rules of orig in.  After the completion of the HWP, the TCRO 
could start the work.  As concerns the HS2002 rectifications, the work would best be done in a single 
exercise when all outstanding i ssues would have been resolved. 
 
3.9 The representative of Japan  supported the statements made by the Philippines and 
Switzerland with regard to the HS2002 rectifications.  
3.10 The representative of Canada
 stated that it would be useful for the TCRO to start the work on 
HS2002 rectifications.  She also supported the compromise approach suggested by New Zealand on 
this matter.  As concerns the work on preferential ru les of origin Canada supported the views reflected 
in paragraph 2(a) of the TCRO Chairman's letter.  However, she could support Australia's practical 
approach on this matter at this stage. 
 
3.11 The representative of Norway  stated that the TCRO should focus on non-preferential rules of 
origin. 
 
3.12 The representative of Mexico  stated that he supported the views reflected in paragraph 2(a) of 
TCRO Chairman's letter. 
 
3.13 The CRO took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this issue at its next meeting. 
 
4. Observer status for international intergovernmental organizations (G/RO/W/19/Rev.2)  
4.1 The Chairman  drew the attention of the CRO to do cument G/RO/W/19/Rev.2 which set out 
the situation with respect to observer status of international intergovernmental organizations.  The 
Committee had received one new request for observ er status in the Committee from the Gulf 
Organization for Industrial Consulting.  The Gene ral Council had adopted procedures for observer 
status for international intergovernmental organizatio ns in July 1996, which was contained in Annex 3 
of document WT/L/161.  According to those procedures, requests for observer status were to be 
considered on a case-by-case basis by each WTO body  to which a request had been addressed, taking 
into account such criteria as the nature of the work  of the organization concerned, the nature of its 
membership, the number of WTO Members in the organization, reciprocity with respect to access to 
proceedings, documents and other aspects of obse rvership, and whether the organization had been 
involved in the past with the work of the GATT/WTO.   At its meeting on 7 February 1997, the 
General Council agreed, with regard to internatio nal intergovernmental organizations, (a) that the 
organizations which already had observer status in the General Council on an ad hoc basis be granted 
observer status immediately;  (b) that for inte rnational intergovernmen tal organizations whose G/RO/M/33 
Page 4  
 
 requests had not yet been considered, the Chairman would conduct consultations;  (c) to invite the 
other WTO bodies to proceed in a similar way. 
 
4.2 The CRO agreed
 to revert to the matter at an appropriate time in the future, in light of the fact 
that consultations were still going on in the Ge neral Council on the question of observer status for 
international intergovernm ental organizations.   
 5. Other business 
- D
ATES AND AGENDA FOR FUTURE MEETINGS  
5.1 The CRO agreed  to hold its next meeting from 20 November to 1 December 2000, on the 
basis of the following agenda: 
 
20-22 November 2000 Informal meeting to discuss chapters 25-27 (mineral 
products);  chapters 41-43 (leather);  chapters 44-49 (wood 
and paper);  and chapters 92- 97 (musical instruments and 
other articles) 
 
23-24 November 2000 Informal meeting to discuss the following cross-sectoral 
issues: 
  -  mixture-blending (ch. 8, 9, 22) 
  -  assembly (ch. 61-62, 91)   -  value-added rules (ch. 92) 
  -  residual rules (ch. 1) 
  -  sets and kits (ch. 82, heading 6308) 
 
27-30 November 2000 Plurilateral meetin g to discuss the overall architecture 
(facilitator:  EC) 
 
1 December 2000 (a.m.) Informal meeting to discuss: 
  -  reporting of the plurilateral and informal meetings; 
  -  stocktaking of progress made in the HWP;   
  -  annual review of the implementation and operation of the 
Agreement on Rules of Origin; 
  -  implication of the implem entation of the harmonized rules 
of origin or other WTO Agreements;  
  -  deadline for completion of the work programme on 
harmonizing rules of origin; 
  -  responsibilities of the Technical Committee on Rules of 
Origin;   
  -  other business 
 
1 December 2000 (after the informal) Formal meeting 
__________