RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/VAL/M/22
4 October 2001
(01-4784)
Committee on Customs Valuation
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 2 OCTOBER 2001
Chairman: Mr. K.J. Weerasinghe (Sri Lanka)
The agenda proposed for the meeting, circulated in WTO/AIR/1632 , was adopted as follows:
I. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN
GOODS.......................................................................................................................... ............1
II. ELECTION OF VI CE-CHAIRMAN......................................................................................3
III. OTHER BUSINESS............................................................................................................. .....3
_______________
I. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS
1.1 The Chairman drew Members' attention to document G/VAL/W/88 which contained the draft
report.  Before asking for comments on the text, he proposed that the phrase "to the greatest extent
possible" be removed from the third to last line in the first paragraph.
1.2 The Committee so agreed.
1.3 The representative of Uruguay, with reference to the first sub-paragraph of paragraph 8, noted
that her delegation had submitted its legislation on time and that the reason that it was still under
examination had to do with reasons beyond its control, i.e. that translation of the document wasrequested by certain Members.  Therefore, she asked for deletion of the last line of this sub-paragraph.
1.4 The representative of Canada noted that, while it was clear that the reason for continued
examination of Uruguay's and Colombia's legisl ation was not these Members' faults, this line
contained important information that needed to be relayed to the Council for Trade in Goods.Namely, that the examination of other legislations was concluded.  He suggested addressing
Uruguay's concern in a more neutral manner, i.e. without naming the countries for which examination
was still pending.
1.5 The representative of India suggested reflecting the continued examination in a more positive
tone, i.e. by saying that the examination of the legislation of Uruguay and of Colombia was still
underway in the Committee.
1.6 The Committee agreed that the Secretariat should redraft the last line of the sub-paragraph
along the lines suggested by India.G/VAL/M/22
Page 2
1.7 On paragraph 9 of the draft, the representative of India noted that her delegation had agreed to
the adoption of the proposal by the European Communities on technical assistance
(G/VAL/W/82/Rev.1) subject to two understandings.  She considered that these two understandings
should be reiterated in the text of paragraph 9.  As contained in the minutes of the 24 July 2001
meeting (G/VAL/M/21), the first understanding was that there was no linkage between this proposaland the implementation-related proposals, and the second was that the increased information sharing
and coordination and cooperation with other internati onal agencies would be in accordance with the
WTO standing procedures.  She, therefore, suggested  adding at the end of the sentence in paragraph 9,
"on the understanding that this proposal had no linkage with other implementation-related proposals
of document JOB(01)/112, and that increased information sharing and coordination and cooperation
with other international agencies would be on the basis of standard procedures observed in
communications with the WCO, observers and other international organizations".
1.8 The representative of the European Communities stated that the adoption of this report to the
Council for Trade in Goods represented an entirely different exercise from that which was reflected in
the minutes of the July 2001 meeting.  The aim of the report to the CTG was to provide a factual
report of the Committee's activities.  Therefore, her delegation could not accept the Indian proposal toamend paragraph 9 of the report to the CTG.
1.9 The representative of India stated that she was being factual in proposing the amendment.
When the EC proposal on technical assistance was adopted by the Committee, it was done so on the
basis of the two understandings she mentioned which were reflected in the minutes G/VAL/M/21.Therefore, when reporting to the CTG, the two understandings should be reflected and her proposal
was designed to do so in a concise and accurate way.
1.10 The representative of Canada suggested a compromise whereby paragraph 9 would state at
the end, "and also took note of the statements in regard to this report made by Members during the
meeting of 24 July 2001, contained in G/VAL/M/21".  This would provide the link to the July 2001
meeting and also reflect India's present concern.
1.11 The representative of the European Communities stated that her delegation could accept the
Canadian compromise.1.12 The representative of India considered that "taking note" was quite different from adopting
the proposal "subject" to the two understandings.  It was important to note that there were two specific
understandings on the basis of which the EC proposal was adopted.
1.13 The representative of Canada noted that his suggestion was based on paragraph 1.11 of the
minutes in G/VAL/M/21 which noted that the Committee "took note" of the statements made.
1.14 The representative of Malaysia suggested another formulation.  She proposed adding at the
end of the sentence "based on the two understandings reached at the 24 July 2001 meeting of the
Committee".
1.15 The representative of India accepted the Malaysian suggestion as "based on the two
understandings referred to in paragraph 1.4 of the minutes of the 24 July 2001 meeting of the
Committee".
1.16 The representative of the European Communities stressed that she could accept only a
reference to all the statements made as contained in the minutes of the 24 July 2001 meeting.
1.17 The representative of India recalled that at the meeting of 24 July 2001, the Chairman
concluded that the adoption of the EC proposal wa s subject to the two understandings that she had
mentioned.  Further, her delegation had had long discussions with the EC delegation on the matter ofG/VAL/M/22
Page 3
linkage and that, as a result, specific language was deleted from the proposal to address her
delegation's concerns.  She added that her insistence on this matter was reflected in the fact that page
6 of JOB(01)139, the Draft Decision on Implementation-Related Concerns, endorsed the
comprehensive approach to technical assistance developed by the Committee, namely the EC
programme.  Therefore, her fears were not unreal.  She stressed that a particular agreement had beenreached in this Committee on this matter, and it was only fair that it be accurately reflected in the
Committee's report to the CTG.
1.18 The representative of the European Communities stressed that the discussions on
implementation taking place in other fora was distinct from the discussions related to the Committee's
report to the CTG.
1.19 The Committee agreed to add "on the basis of the statements made, including the two
important points made by India, reflected in the minutes G/VAL/M/21" at the end of the sentence in
paragraph 9.
1.20 The representative of Turkey noted that his delegation had notified its responses to the
Checklist of Issues and this should be accurately reflected in the table in Annex I.1.21 The Committee agreed to adopt the Report to the Council for Trade in Goods and that,
following revision by the Secretariat on the basis of the agreed amendments, it be submitted to the
Council for adoption.
II. ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIRMAN
2.1 The Chairman stated that at the April 2001 meeting of the Committee, it had been agreed
following his nomination to the Chair, that he w ould carry out informal consultations on the election
of a Vice-Chairman for the Committee.  On the basis of these consultations, he proposed that theCommittee elect Mr. Toshio Onishi (Japan) as Vice-Chairman of the Committee.
2.2 The Committee so agreed.
III. OTHER BUSINESS
3.1 The next meeting of the Committee would be held on 25 October 2001.
__________