_______________
* In English onlyCONFIDENTIALWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/TMB/W/155*
2 February 2001
(01-0768)
Textiles Monitoring Body
DRAFT REPORT OF THE SEVENTY-THIRD MEETING
1. The Textiles Monitoring Body held its seventy-third meeting on 22 and 23 January 2001.
2. Following the appointment of new members and alternates, the composition of the TMB at
the beginning of 2001 was as follows:
MEMBERS ALTERNATES SECOND ALTERNATES
Mr. Philip Fox-Drummond Gough (Brazil) Mr. Rodrigo Ugarriza (Paraguay) Mr. Carlos E. Rosas (Panama)
Mr. A. R. (Sandy) Moroz (Canada) Mr. Otto Wentzel (Norway)
Mr. John Richards (EC) Mr. Adebayo Babajide (EC)Mr. John C. Y. Leung (Hong Kong, China) Mr. Ho-Young Ahn (Korea) Mr. M. Abdul Mannan (Bangladesh)
Mr. Mohan Kumar (India) Mr. Magdi Farahat (Egypt)
Mr. Osamu Moriya (Japan)Mr. S.I.M Nayyar (Pakistan) Ms Loi Mei Ieng (Macau, China)
Mr. Christophe Kiener (Switzerland) Mr. Ersin Karapinar (Turkey)
Mr. Arnupab Tadpitakkul (Thailand) Mr. Johannes R. Bernabe
(Philippines)
Mr. William Tagliani (United States)
3. Present at this meeting were the following members and/or alternates: Messrs. Babajide;
Fox-Drummond Gough/Ugarriza/Rosas; Kiener /Karapinar; Kumar; Leung/Ahn; Moriya;
Moroz; Tadpitakkul/Bernabe; Tagliani.
4. The TMB adopted the report of its seventy-second meeting (G/TMB/R/71).
Notifications under Articles 2.8(b) and 2.11 of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC)
5. The TMB started its review, in accordance with Article 2.21, of the notifications received
under Articles 2.8(b) and 2.11 (integration programmes to be implemented on 1 January 2002).  AtG/TMB/W/155
Page 2
the start of its meeting, the TMB had received notifications from the following 25 Members:
Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, the Czech Republic, the Dominican Republic, theEuropean Communities, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Japan, Latvia, Mauritius, Nicaragua, Norway,Panama, Peru, the Philippines, Romania, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Sri Lanka, Switzerland,
Turkey and the United States.
6. The TMB recalled in this respect that 57 Members had notified, pursuant to Article 6.1, their
wish to retain the right to use the provisions of Article 6.  These were the following: Argentina,Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Colo mbia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cyprus, the
Czech Republic, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras,Hungary, India, Indonesia, Israel, Jamaica, Japa n, Kenya, Korea, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein,
Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama,Paraguay, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Senegal, theSlovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago,
Tunisia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Venezuela and Zambia.  As a consequence, the
ATC, inter alia , required those 57 Members, as well as Canada, the European Communities, Norway
and the United States, to submit notifications, in accordance with Articles 2.6 and 2.7(a) or (b), aswell as 2.8(a), 2.8(b) and 2.11 (integration programmes to be implemented, respectively, for Stages 1,2 and 3).  Out of these Members, 51 notified their programmeme of integration for the first stage,pursuant to Articles 2.6.and 2.7(a) or (b): Argentin a, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia,
Costa Rica, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, the EuropeanCommunities, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Korea, Latvia,
Liechtenstein, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Norway,
Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, the Philippines,  Poland, Romania, Saint Kitts and Nevis, the
Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, theUnited States, Uruguay, Venezuela and Zambia.  The following 49 Members, submitted a notificationpursuant to Articles 2.8(a) and 2.11 (Stage 2): Argentina, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada,Colombia, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Do minican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, the
European Communities, Guatemala, Honduras, H ungary, India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Korea,
Latvia, Liechtenstein, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan,Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Slovak Republic,
Slovenia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, the United States,
Uruguay and Venezuela.
7. The TMB reviewed under Article 2.21 the notifications made, pursuant to Articles 2.8(b) and
2.11 by Hungary (G/TMB/N /371/Rev.1), India (G/TMB/N/380) and Japan (G/TMB/N/377).  During
this review the TMB noted that, in accordance with Article 2.8(b) the volume of the productsG/TMB/W/155
Page 3
integrated amounted to the following percentages of 1990 imports of the products falling under the
coverage of the Agreement (unless otherwise specified): Hungary (18.08  per cent of the volume ofimports in 1992), India (18.04 per cent of imports from April 1990 to March 1991) and Japan(18.14 per cent).   The TMB also noted that in each notification, in accordance with Article 2.8(b), the
products integrated included products from each of the four groups: tops and yarns, fabrics, made-up
textile products and clothing.  With regard to those notifications mentioned above for which thecalculation of the share of the products integrated had been made on the basis of a different base yearthan that of 1990, the TMB ensured that no better data were available and that the Membersconcerned had followed the same approach as that for the notifications they had made pursuant toArticles 2.6 and 2.7(b), as well as 2.8(a).
8. The TMB began its review under Article 2.21 of the notifications made pursuant to
Article 2.8(b) and 2.11 by Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, the Czech Republic, theEuropean Communities, Guatemala, Latvia, Mauritius, Nicaragua, Norway, Peru, the Philippines,
Romania, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Turkey and the United States.  It
decided to seek information or clarification from them with respect to issues, where applicable, suchas (i) whether some of the products scheduled to be integrated fell under the coverage of the ATC, (ii)whether some of the products included in the respective programmes had already been integrated inStages 1 or 2, (iii) whether the programmes notified met the requirements of Article 2.8(b) in terms ofthe percentage of the Member’s 1990 imports of the products in the Annex to the ATC to beintegrated, (iv) whether products from each of the four groups specified in Article 2.8(b) (tops andyarns, fabrics, made-up textile products and clothing) were included in the respective integration
programmes, (v) whether in respect to products belonging to HS lines in the Annex to the ATC for
which only part of the respective line falls under the coverage of the Agreement ("ex-HS lines"), the
imports that had been counted corresponded precisel y to the product description contained in the ATC
Annex for the respective line, with information on the manner in which the relevant Member hadensured that this was the case and (vi) the extent to which the quantitative restrictions notifiedpursuant to Article 2.1 or subject to a phase-out programme under Article 3.2(b) would be affected bythe respective integration programmes.   The TMB decided to revert to its review of thesenotifications at a subsequent meeting, inter alia , on the basis of the information and clarification to be
received from the Members concerned.G/TMB/W/155
Page 4
Observations with Respect to Late Notifications
9. With respect to notifications addressed to the TMB after the relevant deadlines, the TMB
reiterated that its taking note of late notifications was without prejudice to the legal status of suchnotifications.
__________