RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/C/M/36
29 October 1998
(98-4218)
Council for Trade in Goods
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 1 October 1998
Chairperson: Ambassador R. Saborio Soto
The meeting was convened by WTO/AIR/ 920.  The proposed agenda contained in
document G/C/W/124 was adopted, with  the inclusion of items 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 under “Other business.”
_______________
I. MARKET ACCESS MATTERS .........................................................................................2
A. C OMMITTEE ON MARKET ACCESS ..........................................................................................2
B. H ARMONIZED SYSTEM – REQUESTS FOR EXTENSIONS OF WAIVERS .....................................7
(a) Bangladesh (G/L/255, G/C/W/118)........................................................................................7
(b) Nicaragua (G/L /256, G/C/W/119) ..........................................................................................8
(c) Sri Lanka (G/L/257, G/C/W/120)...........................................................................................8
C. Z AMBIA - RENEGOTIATION OF SCHEDULE  XXVIII ................................................................8
D. D ECISION ON THE INTRODUCTION OF HARMONIZED SYSTEM CHANGES INTO WTO
SCHEDULES OF TARIFF CONCESSIONS ON 1 JANUARY  1996 ..................................................8
II. STATUS OF NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
AGREEMENT IN ANNEX 1 A OF THE WTO AGREEMENT
(G/L/223/REV.1) ................................................................................................................ ...9
III. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETW EEN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND
THE REPUBLIC OF  ESTONIA.........................................................................................9
IV. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC AND
THE REPUBLIC OF  ESTONIA.......................................................................................10
V. USA – WORK ON DATA ISSUES IN THE MARKET ACCESS
COMMI TTEE.....................................................................................................................1 1
VI. CZECH REPUBLIC – FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE
CZECH REPUBLIC AND TURKEY, AND THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC AND
TURKEY ......................................................................................................................... ....11G/C/M/36
Page 2
VII. KOREA – MEXICO’S PRIC E MONITORING  SYSTEM ............................................11
VIII. WORK PROGRAMME ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE.........................................12
IX. DATE OF THE NE XT MEETING...................................................................................12
_______________
I. MARKET ACCESS MATTERS
A. COMMITTEE ON MARKET ACCESS
- Periodic Report of the Committee (G/MA/60)
1.1 On behalf of Mr. Lundby, Chairman of the Committee on Market Access, the representative
from Norway introduced the periodic report of the Committee, contained in document G/MA/60.  He
stated that in accordance with the agreed procedures of the Committee on Market Access regarding the
transmission of factual data related to requests for extension of waivers, a draft report to this Council
had been circulated in document G/MA/Spec/8 and had been examined by the Market Access
Committee at its meeting of 22 September 1998.  Following that meeting, the report had been revisedtaking into account the discussions that had taken place at that meeting.
1.2 The report summarized the activities of the Committee since its last report to the Council,
made in April this year, and reflected in Annexe s I and II the reasons why certain Members whose
waivers would expire on 31 October 1998 had to reque st a further extension for a new period of six
months, i.e. until 30 April 1999, mainly to conclude ongoing consultations or to finalize the
preparation of the required documentation.  To date, out of the 41 Members under waivers (37 in
relation to HS96 changes and four with regard to the transposition or renegotiation of their schedules),
ten Members had not yet submitted the required documentation and the submissions of 31 Members
were still pending approval by the other Members.  He encouraged the delegations concerned topursue their efforts in order to settle the pending issues as soon as possible.
1.3 The report also gave a summary of the activities carried out in the context of the modalities
and operation of the Integrated Data Base (IDB) and indicated that to date only 36 Members and three
acceding countries had provided IDB submissions although by Decision of the General CouncilMembers were under the obligation to submit annually information on tariff rates and on imports.  In
this context, the Committee had agreed that the Chairman would send a letter to the countries that had
not yet provided their IDB submissions, drawing thei r attention to the importance for all countries to
participate in this exercise and requesting the governments concerned to advise the Chairman of the
problems encountered and possible technical assistance needed.
1.4 The representative of India stated that his delegation was concerned by the limiting of access
to the IDB to certain Members of this organization, according to the policy that was in this respect
under consideration in the Committee on Market Ac cess.  India had participated in the informal
meeting of the Committee on Market Access, held on 16 September 1998 at 3.00 p.m., to discuss an
informal note prepared by the Secretariat, at the request of Members, on Dissemination of the IDB
(circulated as Job No. 1483/Rev.1).  The informal session had been called due to the fact that opinionshad differed on the IDB dissemination policy to be adopted by this organization during meetings held
before the summer break.  During these discussions, India had conveyed its inability to accept the
proposal contained in paragraph 5 of Part IV of the informal note.  She reminded Members that theG/C/M/36
Page 3
proposal in paragraph 5 would provide that Members' access to tariff line level files of the IDB would
be contingent upon Members having provided their IDB submissions of tariffs and imports or having
requested technical assistance for the preparation of this information.  And by reference to this
proposal in paragraph 5, India had also conveyed its inability to accept any change in other
paragraphs, notably the addition of the words "that have already been granted access to the IDB" to
paragraph 6 of Part IV, as had been suggested by a Member.  She recalled that her delegation’sreservations had been repeated during the conclusions drawn at the close of the informal meeting, so
that there could not have been any room for ambiguity about India's position.  Denial of access to the
database would be tantamount to imposing a pena lty for delay in complying with notification
obligations, and such action might have wide ramifications for the functioning of the WTO.  Her
delegation had indicated that it might be too precipitate an action, especially as only 36 Members had
fulfilled their notification obligations, and that a more prudent course might be to give the concerned
Members a reasonable period of time to fulfil their notification obligation.  To encourage theconcerned Members, India had proposed that the Chairman of the Market Access Committee might
consider writing a letter to these Members, and that the response to such a request could be reviewed
again.  It was her understanding that the informal meeting concluded on the basis that another attempt
would be made to persuade Members to comply w ith their IDB notification requirements, and that a
draft letter to the concerned Members urging them to comply would be circulated for consideration,and also that the compliance status would be reviewed after a reasonable period of time.  From
paragraphs 5 and 7 of the Periodic Report of the Committee on Market Access , it was clear that a
revised informal note (Job No. 1483/Rev.2) had formed the basis of discussions in the Committee on
Market Access at its formal meeting held close on the heels of the informal meeting on 22 September
1998, and that the proposals for dissemination of the IDB as described in this revised note wereadopted at this meeting.  The revised informal note, as well as the draft letter to the Members, were
not circulated or discussed in advance, but were introduced at the formal meeting itself.
1.5 India’s concern stemmed from two aspects of this  matter.  First, the procedures that had been
adopted and were practised in the WTO envisaged the building up of consensus on proposals throughdiscussion, in a series of informal meetings, as may be necessary, so that concerns once expressed
could be dealt with in a manner satisfactory to all Members.  In the instance of the proposal on the
dissemination of the IDB, despite a clear indication that the proposal was unacceptable to India, no
attempt had been made to engender a further discussion on, or even to sensitise India of, the
impending consideration that proposal at the next formal session.  In parallel, a number of informalsessions were underway on the draft work programme on global electronic commerce in another
body, and the matter was not put up for adoption in formal session until the last dot and comma had
been agreed upon.  Since the agenda for the formal meeting of the Committee on Market Access was
circulated well in advance of the informal meeting itself, and on the clear understanding that a draft
letter would be circulated for consideration, it was not unreasonable by India to expect that the
proposals contained in paragraphs 5 and 6 would not be considered for summary adoption at the
formal session.
1.6 On the procedural aspect, the Indian representative drew the attention to the fact that a formal
meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body, which was scheduled to be held on 22 September 1998 itself
at 10.00 a.m., had been first postponed to 11.30 a.m., and later on to 3.00 p.m., possibly because of
differences between two major delegations in this organization.  Since the meeting of the DSB was to
consider an important item with a specific reference to India, it was not possible for India to be
represented at the formal meeting of the Committee on Market Access on that day, even if it would
ordinarily have been possible.  India had, time and again, brought to the attention of the WTO the
human resource constraints of developing countries like her own with regard to attending meetings of
various WTO bodies scheduled simultaneously.  The procedural aspects that had underpinned herdeliberations, and that had helped forge consensus in many instances, could in her view, have been
observed in the instance of the proposal on the access to IDB as well.G/C/M/36
Page 4
1.7 Returning to the substantive aspect, India conveyed its disagreement with the proposal in
paragraph 5, and the addition to paragraph 6 of Part IV of the informal note.  She reiterated that her
delegation’s reasons for disagreement were primarily systemic in nature.  The 10 November 1987
Decision of the GATT Council, that had launched the original IDB, had stipulated that all Contracting
Parties would have full access to the database.  There had been no review of this Decision by the
General Council thus far.  The proposal, in denying access to this very database to a large number ofWTO Members themselves, would seek to reverse a trend Members had established in allowing wider
access to this database to certain international organizations as well as certain countries that had
applied for accession to the WTO.  The proposal would seek to create a hierarchy of Members in the
organization.  These aspects required careful reflection before a penalty-driven system was instituted
that would fragment the WTO’s membership and ha d implications for other notification obligations
enshrined in various WTO agreements.  On the argument that restricted access was not a penalty, but
an incentive, she stated that incentives in her delegation’s view would seek to give, rather than takeaway.  Besides, time needed to be allowed to Me mbers to overcome the difficulties that they were
facing in providing the necessary information el ectronically, information that they had already
provided by way of printed copy.  She noted that  some of those Members whose electronic records
were deemed to be available, had benefitted from careful inputting of the data into the computer by
the WTO Secretariat.  The fact that many Members were not able to seize this measure of advantageshould in no way be held against them, now that the Secretariat was not able to furnish similar
assistance.  Persuasion and discussions had been the cornerstone in encouraging compliance of
notification obligations in the WTO, and a system of penalising defaulters, once initiated, would have
adverse consequences for the fundamental nature of the WTO.  India would therefore urge all
Members to rethink on the proposal.  Incidentally, India had provided to the Trade Policy ReviewBody the required information on electronic media many months ago, and its own technical default
was easily corrected.  India’s concern on this issue was essentially systemic.  Due to the procedural as
well as substantive concerns highlighted, India was thus not in a position to go along with paragraph 7
of the Periodic Report of the Market Access Committee.  She requested the Goods Council, under the
guidance of the Chairman, to take immediate steps to remedy the situation.
1.8 The representative of Australia expressed his concern that, despite numerous requests, most
WTO Members had still not provided the required data to the IDB in accordance with the decision
taken in 1997 by the General Council.  He strongly encouraged Members to submit quickly detailed
information on bound and applied tariffs and data on the most recent trade flows.  Unless Membersprovided this information to the IDB, it might be necessary to take the matter up in the General
Council and to look at alternatives in order to solve this problem.  Australia was at least in part
interested in this data with a view to possible new industrial tariff negotiations as part of a new round
of comprehensive trade negotiations.  Although the proposals for industrial tariff negotiations were
very far from being agreed, a number of delegations, including his own, had indicated an interest in
industrial tariff negotiations at recent WTO meetings.  It was thus likely that the proposal for
industrial tariff negotiations would be discussed ov er the next 12 months.  For these discussions, it
seemed logical to assume that delegations would want to be able to analyze what interest they might
have or might not have in the subject.  The lack of information in the IDB would disadvantage many
delegations in undertaking that analysis.  While Australia itself did have access to comprehensive
data, other WTO delegations might not be in a position to analyze what interest they might have in the
proposal for industrial tariff negotiations.
1.9 The representative of the United States stated that his delegation agreed with the decision that
was taken by the Market Access Committee on the question of dissemination of the IDB.
Commenting on the procedural issues that were raised  by India he stated that his own recollection of
the informal meeting that was held prior to th e formal meeting of the Market Access Committee
differed in some respects to what had been stated by India.  The proposal that was eventually adopted
at the formal meeting of the Market Access Committee had been put forward at the informal meeting
ahead of time.  There had been considerable support for that proposal at that time, and while India hadG/C/M/36
Page 5
put forward reservations, he remembered that the Chairman of the Committee on Market Access, in
summing up the results of the informal meeting, had stated clearly that he felt a consensus was
developing around the proposal that was eventually adopted.  There had been far greater support than
opposition for that proposal.  As often was the case in meetings of the WTO, there was a weighted
opinion developing towards adoption of the proposal.  The Chairman had urged Members to consult
with capitals and had made clear his intention to bring the issue up at the formal meeting of theMarket Access Committee.  The US delegate believed that it could not be implied that anything
inappropriate was done in terms of procedure.  The Chairman had been trying to act in a reasonable
and fair manner.  Moreover, it was not the task of the Council for Trade in  Goods to review the
substance of decisions that were taken by subordinate bodies.  It was the Council’s role to take note of
the decision by the Market Access Committee, but not to re-ignite the debate and take the substantive
issues up once more.  It would set a very damaging precedent for the organization, if the Goods
Council reopened the matter, because it meant that it was impossible for a subordinate body to takedecisions at formal meetings on agenda items that had been circulated and discussed in advance,
simply because a Member had not been present and wanted to challenge the decision that was taken.
1.10 The representative of Venezuela stated that his delegation concurred with most parts of the
report from the Market Access Committee.  Members should be invited to submit their data as rapidly
and as expeditiously as possible. Any cooperation which Members needed to comply with their
obligation to supply data should be provided.  In this regard, the letter to be sent by the Chairman of
the Market Access Committee was very important.  He stated that his delegation could not allow the
report of the Market Access Committee to be approved if there was any possibility therein that not all
Members may be able to receive access to the database.  Barring Members from access to the IDBwould be a punishment.  Such a restrictive meas ure would be inappropriate and did set a negative
precedent.  Particularly developing countries would suffer if use was made of repressive measures to
prevent them from access to information.  In the Committee on Market Access, the point was made
that there were Members which had difficulties in supplying data.  These difficulties were not based
on a lack of will by these Members.  Based on the statement of the Indian delegation, there weresufficient elements to permit reconsideration of the report, and his delegation wished that the report be
revised.
1.11 The representative of Mexico stated that due account should be taken of the situation of
delegations from developing countries which could not always cover several meetings
simultaneously, due to human resource restraints. There had been a proliferation of meetings as of
late, and his delegation would not like to find itself in a situation where, having voiced specific
concerns over a specific point in a given document such as India had just expressed, the text would
nevertheless be adopted, not allowing his delegation to make its statement at the meeting at which the
document was put up for adoption.
1.12 The representative of Pakistan shared the concerns expressed by India and stated that the
adoption of a punitive approach of limiting access to the IDB to certain Members would hamper the
abilities of certain WTO Members to contribute fully to the process.  Only 36 countries had fulfilled
their notification obligations so far.  A more prudent course would be to give Members who had not
yet done so a reasonable period of time to overcome the difficulties that they were facing in providing
the information they had already supplied in writing in electronic format.  He therefore urgedMembers to rethink on the proposal.
1.13 The representative of New Zealand urged Members to use restraint in the words they were
using to describe the proposal. Words that characterized the proposal as “repressive” and
“punishment” were not appropriate, as the proposal did not contain any repressive of punitivemeasure. It was a necessary incentive in order to get this new and very powerful tool off the ground
and to work.  Information was not being denied to Members, and it had been made very clear in the
meeting of the Market Access Committee that all information from the database would be available toG/C/M/36
Page 6
all Members.  It was merely the access to the full PC -based facility that was going to be granted on a
reciprocal basis.  On the contrary, a disincentive would be given to the provision and on-going
provision of information, if countries were not obliged to provide full information to that database
before they themselves had access to it.  He wondered if even his government would provide
information to a database that could be used by all Members in a very powerful way, while not having
corresponding access to that same information from other Members.  The proposal had to be seen inits historical context, namely as an effort to encourage full provision of the information to the
database as required.
1.14 The representative of the European Communities requested that the statement made by India
should be made available in writing to members of the CTG, as India had argued that important
systemic issues were involved.  Also his delegation had systemic concerns.  He suggested to think
very carefully about the implications of reversing a decision taken in conformity with the rules whichall Members had agreed.  In his view, delegations as members of the CTG were in a position to take
note of the report of the Committee on Market Access, and he suggested that the Council should do
so. He further stated that the 1987  Decision setting up the IDB was now of questionable relevance
given the technological and other changes which had taken place since that time.
1.15 The representative of Canada agreed with the statements by the United States, New Zealand,
and the European Communities concerning the procedural questions that had been raised by India.
All procedures had been followed properly, and prior notice was given as to the fact that the issue was
going to be discussed at the formal meeting of the Market Access Committee.  His delegation
supported fully the policy adopted at that meeting.  The first necessary principle of full access was foreveryone to provide data or to take steps to provide data. In that regard, only few Members had
provided the data and only 9 other members had soug ht technical assistance.  Therefore, the proposal
would provide a reasonable incentive for other Member s to provide the data in electronic form.  Many
Members in this organization had been able to provide electronic data to other organizations.
1.16 The representative of Malaysia, speaking on behalf of ASEAN
, stated that the IDB was an
important tool for the WTO’s future work.  In this regard, the call by Australia was appropriate;
however, there must be a reason, especially from the perspective of developing countries, why some
Members still had not submitted the required data.  As concerns the points raised by India, he stated
that it was appropriate, in light of the healthy functioning of the WTO, to grant due process to addressthe particular preoccupation of a delegation.
1.17 The representative of Japan stated that his delegation shared the views of the United States,
New Zealand, the European Communities, and Canada.  It was difficult to consider re-opening a
certain matter or a certain aspect of a decision taken in a subsidiary body.  The decision should be
implemented with a view to sharing of informat ion and for the preparation of possible future
negotiations, especially in the area of industrial tariffs.
1.18 The representative of Brazil expressed concern that many delegations had difficulties in
attending meetings all over the WTO.  He himself was only covering for the regular Brazilian
representative at the CTG, which made it more difficult for him to fully participate in the discussions.
Smaller delegations were thus often at a disadvantage.  It was therefore necessary to be very carefulwhen moving from informal to formal meetings and about the way and place of taking decisions.  The
present case was an example that a formal meeting apparently adopted something about which one
delegation had taken a contrary view in an informal meeting, and apparently was not duly consulted
before what they felt were changes in the substan ce of the informal conclusions were adopted in the
formal meeting.  The matter of participation was of systemic nature, and needed to be attended withthe utmost caution, as the example of India showed.G/C/M/36
Page 7
1.19 The representative of Argentina stated that while his delegation supported the policy relating
to the IDB, he would like to echo his awareness of the incapacity of certain delegations to ensure
blanket coverage of all meetings in the WTO. He therefore had sympathy for India’s position and
encouraged cooperation of members in enabling India to overcome the present situation.
1.20 The representative of India repeated that his delegation had not been able to be present at the
formal meeting of the Market Access Committee due to  special circumstances that had to do with the
postponement of a DSB meeting at the same day and had been beyond India’s control.  Any
insinuation that India had been deliberately absent, indifferent, or careless was very difficult to accept.
In spite of being a small delegation, India would very rarely miss a meeting it wanted to attend.  He
agreed that the normal way of procedure was for the CTG to take note of a report by a subordinate
body. However, in the present extraordinary circumstances, where India had a concern about the
report of a subordinate body, it needed to be possible to raise such a concern at a higher body.Otherwise it was not clear why reports of subordinate bodies were included in the CTG agenda at all.
It was very difficult to accept the view that a higher body could not look into the content of a report
made by a subordinate body, when a Member had raised an issue regarding the content of such a
report.  He recalled that a situation similar to the present one had existed in November 1996, just
before the Singapore Ministerial Conference, where one delegation had expressed concerns regardinga report that a subordinate body had adopted in the first few minutes of a meeting, before all
delegations had entered the room.  In that case, the Goods Council had taken some remedial action.
He reiterated that where a  concern was raised by a delegation in an informal meeting, the issue in
question should not be concluded in the formal meeting if the delegation was not present without
giving that delegation a chance to express its views in the formal meeting.  It was necessary tocontinue with the practice of enabling all Members who were concerned with a particular issue to
participate in formal meetings.  He therefore repeated that a solution to the present situation must be
found.
1.21 The Council took note of the report and all statements made, and agreed
 that the Chairman
initiate consultations with the Chairman of the Market Access Committee, and, as necessary, with
delegations concerned.
B. HARMONIZED SYSTEM – REQUESTS FOR EXTENSIONS OF WAIVERS
1.22 The Chairman drew attention to the co mmunications from Bangladesh, Nicaragua and
Sri Lanka, containing requests for extension of waivers which were going to expire on
31 October 1998.  These requests for waiver extensions had been made in the context of the
transposition of these Members' schedules into  the Harmonized System, and in accordance with
paragraph 1 of the Understanding in respect of Waivers of Obligations under the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade 1994.
1.23 These requests for waivers were before the Council for Trade in Goods for its consideration
pursuant to Article IX of the WTO Agreement.  Draft decisions had been circulated to assist theCouncil in its consideration of these requests.
(a) Bangladesh (G/L/255, G/C/W/118)
1.24 The Chairman stated that the request for a waiver extension from Bangladesh had been
circulated in document G/L/255 and a dr aft decision in document G/C/W/118.
1.25 The Council approved the extension of the waiver granted to Bangladesh until 30 April 1999,
and recommended that the draft decision be forwarded to the General Council for adoption.G/C/M/36
Page 8
(b) Nicaragua (G/L/256, G/C/W/119)
1.26 The Chairman stated that the request for a waiver extension from Nicaragua had been
circulated in document G/L/256 and a dr aft decision in document G/C/W/119.
1.27 The Council approved the extension of the waiver granted to Nicaragua until 30 April 1999,
and recommended that the draft decision be forwarded to the General Council for adoption.
(c) Sri Lanka (G/L/257, G/C/W/120)
1.28 The Chairman stated that the request for a waiver extension from Sri Lanka had been
circulated in document G/L/257and a dr aft decision in document G/C/W/120.
1.29 The Council approved the extension of the waiver granted to Sri Lanka until 30 April 1999,
and recommended that the draft decision be forwarded to the General Council for adoption.
C. ZAMBIA - RENEGOTIATION OF SCHEDULE  XXVIII
- Request for an extension of the waiver (G/L/258, G/C/W/121)
1.30 The Chairman drew attention to the request by Zambia circulated in document G/L/258 for an
extension of a waiver granted to it in connection with the renegotiation of its schedule, and to a draft
decision in document G/C/W/121.
1.31 The representative of Zambia stated that his government had received a detailed response on
its proposed changes from the EC and was expecting a similar response from the United States in the
near future. His delegation was anxious to conclude its renegotiations with the EC and the
United States before the end of the waiver extension.
1.32 The Council took note of the statement, approved  the extension of the waiver granted to
Zambia until 30 April 1999, and recommended that the draft decision be forwarded to the General
Council for adoption.
D. DECISION ON THE INTRODUCTION OF HARMONIZED SYSTEM CHANGES INTO WTO
SCHEDULES OF TARIFF CONCESSIONS ON 1 JANUARY  1996
- Extension of the Time-Limit (G/MA/W/17/Rev.1)
1.33 The Chairman recalled that the General Council had adopted five decisions, thereby
suspending the application of the provisions of Article II of GATT 1994 until 31 October 1998, for
the purpose of enabling Members to implement the 1996 recommended amendments to the
Harmonized System nomenclature.  He drew the Council's attention to the draft decision, contained in
document G/MA/W/17/Rev.1 which now proposed to extend this time-limit until   30 April 1999.The annex to this draft decision listed Members who had requested an extension of their waivers.  The
purpose was to give Members more time to proceed with consultations or possible Article XXVIII
negotiations.G/C/M/36
Page 9
1.34 The representative of Japan noted that until now only 3 Members had finished the process of
rectifications and modifications to schedules for introducing the HS96 changes.  Since the collective
waivers were granted in January 1996, almost 3 years had passed, but regretfully no significant
progress had been made.  In view of the next tariff negotiations, it was rather problematic that the
only firm legal basis for the schedules would lie in the HS92 schedules.  If the present HS96
schedules could not be used as the legal basis, one had to compare the tariff rates of items with newtechnology by using the old classification technology.  It was therefore indispensable to establish
schedules based on HS96 as soon as possible.  If no action was taken in this matter, Members were
forced to request the Goods Council to extend waiv ers over and over again, every April and October
respectively at the end of every extension period.  To counteract this kind of situation, he requested all
Members to consider the extension as being the last and to conduct bilateral negotiations actively.
1.35 For such bilateral negotiations, the following measures should be taken:  first, it was
necessary for members to submit concordance tables.  Since many Members would submit their draft
schedules without a concordance table, others who had only received a draft were unable to confirm
the contents.  This led to the situation that obje ctions were raised without any specific reasons.
Concordance tables should therefore be submitted as soon as possible.  Secondly, a list should be
provided which showed the situation of the objections : the list circulated by the Secretariat contained
no information about which particular Members had raised objections, nor on the reasons and the
status of bilateral negotiations.  To ensure active bilateral negotiations, the Secretariat should prepare
a list which included such kinds of information.  Thirdly, on the issue of conclusion of bilateral
negotiations, he stated that before the expiry date of the extension of the waiver presently under
consideration, that was at the end of next April, Members who still had not finished the processshould conduct bilateral negotiations with those who had raised objections.  After the negotiations, the
results should be conveyed to the Secretariat, wh ich should then revise the list described under the
second point raised.  It was the view of his delegation that the proposed measures would expedite the
process of finishing the HS96 modifications as soon as possible.
1.36 The Council took note of the statement, approved the extension of the waiver until
30 April 1999, and recommended that the draft decision be transmitted to the General Council for
adoption.
II. STATUS OF NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT
IN ANNEX 1 A OF THE WTO AGREEMENT (G/L/223/REV.1)
2.1 The Chairman stated that as indicated in the cover page to document G/L/223/Rev.1, the
Council had adopted, at its meeting of 15 October 1996, a recommendation by the Working Group on
Notification Obligations and Procedures to maintain on an ongoing basis the comprehensive listing of
notification obligations under the provisions of Ag reements in Annex 1A of the WTO Agreement and
the compliance therewith.  It was also agreed to update and circulate this listing semi-annually.  This
comprehensive listing which was included in Anne x III of the Working Group's report to the Council
contained in document G/L/112 had been updated three times already.  The fourth update wascontained in document G/L/223/Rev.1, and included all notifications made up to and on 30 June 1998.
Any notifications made after this date would be included in the next update, which would be
circulated at the beginning of ne xt year as document G/L/223/Rev.2.
2.2 The Council took note of the informati on provided in document G/L/223/Rev.1.
III. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND THE
REPUBLIC OF ESTONIA
- Notification by the Czech Republic (WT/REG62/N/1 and WT/REG62/1)G/C/M/36
Page 10
3.1 The Chairman drew  attention to the notification from the Czech Republic circulated in
document WT/REG62/N/1.  The text of the Agreement had been circulated in
documents WT/REG62/1.
3.2 The Chairman proposed that the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements carry out the
examination of the Agreement in accordance with the following terms of reference:
"to examine, in light of the relevant provi sions of the GATT 1994, the Free Trade Agreement
between the Czech Republic and the Republic of Estonia and to submit a report to the Councilfor Trade in Goods".
3.3 It was 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 on 20 February 1995, as contained in
document WT/REG3/1, would apply mutatis mutandis  to the examination.  It was also understood
that, during the examination, due account would be taken of the intrinsic differences between customsunions and free-trade areas.
3.4 The Council so agreed.
IV. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC AND THE
REPUBLIC OF ESTONIA
- Notification by the Slovak Republ ic (WT/REG63/N/1 and WT/REG63/1)
4.1 The Chairman drew attention to the notification from the Slovak Republic circulated in
document WT/REG63/N/1.  The text of the Agreement had been circulated in
document WT/REG63/1.
4.2 The representative of the Slovak Republic, speaking also on behalf of the Czech Republic  and
relating his comments to agenda items 3 and 4, informed Members that information following
guidelines setting a standard format had already been submitted to the Secretariat and was beingprepared for distribution.  The delegations of the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic hadspeeded up that work in order to give Members enough time for preparation of the next meeting of theCommittee on Regional Trade Agreements where all Free Trade Agreements between the CzechRepublic and the Slovak Republic on one hand and the Baltic States on the other hand would be on theagenda as one package.
4.3 The Chairman proposed that the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements carry out the
examination of the Agreement in accordance with the following terms of reference:
"to examine, in light of the relevant provi sions of the GATT 1994, the Free Trade Agreement
between the Slovak Republic and the Republic of Estonia and to submit a report to theCouncil for Trade in Goods".
4.4 It was 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 on 20 February 1995, as contained in
document WT/REG3/1, would apply mutatis mutandis  to the examination.  It was also understood
that, during the examination, due account would be taken of the intrinsic differences between customsunions and free-trade areas.
4.5 The Council took note of the statement and agreed 
to the proposal by the Chairman.G/C/M/36
Page 11
V. USA – WORK ON DATA ISSUES IN THE MARKET ACCESS COMMITTEE
5.1 The representative of the United States stated that by decision of the General Council last
summer, WTO Members were obliged to notify trade and tariff data electronically on an annual basis.
The Secretariat would store that data in the Integrated Database (IDB).  The Market Access
Committee had worked very hard to develop a user-friendly system for supplying and distributing this
information on current technologies and software.  However, the majority of WTO Members had notprovided data on applied tariff rates and/or imports.  The Market Access Committee was also working
on methods for Members to supply schedules of WTO bindings in current Harmonized System
nomenclature electronically, as required by the IDB.  These activities were vital for two reasons: the
first, and probably most important reason was implementation.  Assessing implementation of market
access commitments required information on current applied rates and bindings from all WTO
Members.  This notification obligation was no different than the notification obligations contained in
other Agreements under the purview of this body.  The second reason, that was preparing formandated future negotiations, e.g. on agriculture, had already been discussed in the Special Session of
the General Council.  He urged that all Members notify current applied tariff and trade data as soon as
possible, and that the work to develop electronic schedules of WTO bindings be accelerated.  He
requested that the Secretariat be in a position to apprise the Goods Council on a regular basis of the
status of countries complying with this important obligation.
5.2. The Council took note of the statement made.
VI. CZECH REPUBLIC – FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE CZECH
REPUBLIC AND TURKEY, AND THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC AND TURKEY
6.1 The representative of the Czech Republic, speaking on behalf also of the Slovak Republic ,
stated that the Free Trade Agreement between the Czech Republic and Turkey had been ratified on
14 July 1998 and, in accordance with its Article 38, the Agreement had entered into force on
1 September 1998.  The Free Trade Agreement between the Slovak Republic and Turkey had been
ratified on 24 July 1998 and, in accordance with its Article 38, the Agreement entered into force on1 September 1998.
6.2 The two Agreements aimed at the progressive establishment of a free-trade area between the
parties in the sense of Article XXIV of the General Agreement.  The free-trade area would be
established over a transitional period ending on 1 January 2001, when duties and other restrictiveregulations of commerce would have been abolished on substantially all the trade between the
signatories.  Both Agreements also contained provisions dealing with, inter alia , state aid,
competition, public procurement and intellectual property rights.  An evolutionary clause offered the
possibility of extending the Agreement to areas not covered by it.  A copy of the Agreement,
including all annexes would be duly notified to the WTO and submitted to this body for consideration.
6.3 The Council took note of the statement made.
VII. KOREA – MEXICO’S PRICE MONITORING SYSTEM
7.1 The representative of Korea stated that his delegation was concerned about the Automatic
Import Advice System or Prior-to-import Notification System which Mexico had put into operation
on 27 August 1998.  This system would currently apply to 12 items including textiles, clothing andsteel imported from certain countries and its application would be extended to additional 62 items
soon.  Mexico had argued that the system was put into place for statistical purposes.  However, since
this price monitoring system required only those importers of certain products originating from certain
countries to declare the import price and to submit a price verification report if the price was lower
than the reference price, Korea believed that it might violate provisions of  WTO Agreements,G/C/M/36
Page 12
inter alia , Article 1 of GATT 1994 (MFN principle), Article 11.1(b) of the Safeguards Agreement
(elimination of grey measures) and Article 2.2(a) of the Import Licensing Agreement (prohibition of
automatic licensing procedures restricting import).  His delegation hoped that the system would not be
operated in a manner restricting imports or discriminating against imports from certain countries and
reserved his right under the WTO Agreements on this matter.
7.2 The representative of Thailand, speaking in behalf of ASEAN , supported the concerns raised
by Korea regarding the Automatic Import Advice System introduced by Mexico.  His authorities were
still carefully examining the issue in order to determine its consistency with WTO rules.  He hoped
that the system did not discriminate against imports from certain countries, or did create unwarranted
and unnecessary obstacles to trade.  The Mexican authorities had assured that the system presented a
temporary measure.  For the benefit of transparency and certainty to the trade environment, he
requested Mexico to indicate before the CTG the length of the time-period that Mexico foresaw forthis measure.  In view of the global economic si tuation, ASEAN wished to appeal to all Members to
refrain from employing trade measures that would unnecessarily undermine the confidence and
observance of the multilateral rules and disciplines under the WTO.
7.3 The representative of Mexico took note of the statements and said that he would refer them to
his capital.7.4 The Council took note of the statements made.
VIII.  WORK PROGRAMME ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE
8.1 The Chairman recalled that, in fulfilment of the Ministerial Declaration on Global Electronic
Commerce adopted by Ministers at the second session of the Ministerial Conference, the General
Council at its special session on 24 and 25 September 1998 had established a comprehensive work
programme to examine all trade-related issues relating to global electronic commerce, taking into
account the economic, financial, and development needs of developing countries, and to report on theprogress of the work programme, with any recommendations for action, to the third session of the
Ministerial Conference.  In this connection, the Ge neral Council had instructed the Council for Trade
in Goods to examine and report on aspects of electronic commerce relevant to the provisions of
GATT 1994, the multilateral trade ag reements covered under Annex 1A of the WTO Agreement, and
the approved work programme.  The issues to be examined would include: market access for andaccess to products related to  the electronic commerce; valuation issues arising from the application of
the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the GATT 1994; issues arising from the
application of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures; customs duties and other duties and
charges as defined under Article II of GATT 1994; standards in relation to electronic commerce; rules
of origin issues; and classification issues.
8.2 The Goods Council would soon have to consider how to fulfill the mandated work
programme.  He proposed to hold in the near future open-ended informal consultations on the way to
proceed with regard to the work mandate on electronic commerce.
8.3 The Council took note of the statement by the Chairman.
IX. DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING
9.1 The Council took note that the next meeting was scheduled for 30 November 1998, and that
the agenda would close by close-of-business 18 November 1998.
__________