WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/TMB/R/85
25 February 2002
(02-0907)
Textiles Monitoring Body
REPORT OF THE EIGHTY-SIXTH MEETING
1. The Textiles Monitoring Body held its eighty-sixth meeting on 22 January 2002.
2. Following the decision adopted by the General Council on 20 December 20011 on the
composition of the TMB for the period 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2004, and the appointment of
new members and alternates, the composition of the TMB at the beginning of 2002 was as follows:
MEMBERS ALTERNATES SECOND ALTERNATES
Mr. A. R. (Sandy) Moroz (Canada) Mr. Otto Wentzel (Norway)
Ms Liping Zhang (China) Mr. S.I.M Nayyar (Pakistan) Ms My Yen Lu (Macao, China)
Mr. Magdi Farahat (Egypt) Mr. Sudhakar Dalela (India)
Mr. Benny Berg Sorensen (EC) Ms Liana Simopoulos (EC)
Mr. Evelio Alvarado Romero (Guatemala) Ms Milagros Miranda (Peru) Mr. Philip Fox-Drummond Gough (Brazil)Mr. Shingo Yamagami (Japan) Mr. Hiromi Yano (Japan)
Mr. Gil-Sou Shin (Korea) Mr. Ivan Lee (Hong Kong, China) Mr. Badrul Hassan (Bangladesh)
Mr. Johannes R. Bernabe (Philippines) Mr. Krisda Ekawat (Thailand)
Mrs. Liliana Mangeac (Romania) Mr. Ersin Kara pinar (Turkey) Mrs. Sarah Huber (Switzerland)
Mr. William Tagliani (United States)
3. Present at this meeting were the following members and/or alternates: Mr. Alvarado/
Ms Miranda; Messrs. Ekawat; Farahat/Dalela; Mrs. Mangeac/Mr. Karapinar; Messrs. Moroz; 
Shin/Lee; Ms Simopoulos; Messrs. Tagliani; Yamagami; Ms Zhang/Ms Lu.
4. The TMB adopted the report of its eighty-fifth meeting (G/TMB/R/84).
Notifications under Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC)
5. The TMB started its examination of a notification received pursuant to Article 2.1 from the
European Communities following the accession of the People's Republic of China to the WTO
(G/TMB/N/60/Add.5).  It appeared  to the TMB that the European Communities had notified the
quantitative restrictions in force on 11 December 2001 (i.e. not on the day prior to the date of entry
into force of the WTO Agreement in respect of China, which was 10 December 2001).  The TMBdecided to seek clarification from the European Communities regarding some aspects of this
notification, inter alia , on the extent to which the restrictions maintained had been affected by the
ATC integration process and the manner in whic h the growth-on-growth provisions had been
implemented.
6. The TMB started its examination of a notification received pursuant to Article 2.1 from the
European Communities following the accession of the separate customs territory of Taiwan, Penghu,
Kinmen and Matsu (Chinese Taipei) to the WTO (G /TMB/N/60/Add.6).  It appeared to the TMB that
the European Communities had notified the quantitative restrictions in force on 1 January 2002, (and
not those in force on the day prior to the date of entry into force of the WTO Agreement in respect of
Chinese Taipei, which was 31 December 2001).  The TMB decided to seek clarification from the
                                                     
1 See WT/L/443.G/TMB/R/85
Page 2
European Communities regarding some aspects of this notification, inter alia , on the extent to which
the restrictions maintained had been affected by th e ATC integration process, the limit that seemed to
exist on the cumulative use of flexibility and the manner in which the growth-on-growth provisions
had been implemented.
Notifications under Articles 2 and 3 of the ATC
7. The TMB started its examination of a notification received pursuant to Articles 2 and 3 from
Canada, following the accession of China to the WTO (G/TMB/N/62/Add.3).  It decided to seek
clarification from Canada concerning some aspects of the notification, including whether the
quantitative restrictions notified fell under Article 2.1 or 3.1 of the ATC, the manner in which Canada
had implemented the growth-on-growth provisions with  respect to the restrictions notified, the extent
to which these restrictions had been affected by the ATC integration process, the limitation which
appeared to exist on the cumulative use of flexibility prior to China's accession, and the status underthe ATC of consultation levels contained in the notification.
8. The TMB started its examination of a notification received pursuant to Articles 2 and 3 from
Canada, following the accession of Chinese Taipei to the WTO (G/TMB/N/62/Add.4).  It decided to
seek clarification from Canada concerning some aspects of the notification, including whether the
quantitative restrictions notified fell under Article 2.1 or 3.1 of the ATC, the manner in which Canadahad implemented the growth-on-growth provisions with  respect to the restrictions notified, the extent
to which these restrictions had been affected by the ATC integration process and the limitation which
appeared to exist on the cumulative use of flexibility prior to Chinese Taipei's accession.
Notification under Article 3.1 of the ATC
9. The TMB started its examination of the notification received pursuant to Article 3.1 from the
European Communities, following the accession of China to the WTO (G/TMB/N/64/Add.2).  It
decided to seek clarification from the European Communities, inter alia , as regards the fact that it
appeared to the TMB that the European Communities had notified the quantitative restrictions in force
on 11 December 2001 (i.e. not on the day prior to the date of entry into force of the WTO Agreement
in respect of China).  The TMB also requested clarification and further relevant details regarding aphase-out programme in the sense of Article 3.2(b) of  the restrictions notified pursuant to Article 3.1.
Notifications under Articles 2.8(b) and 2.11 of the ATC
10. The TMB reviewed under Article 2.21 the notifications made, pursuant to Articles 2.8(b) and
2.11 by Honduras (G/TMB/N/419) and the Sl ovak Republic (G/TMB/N/378/Rev.1 and
G/TMB/N/378/Rev.1/Add.1).  During this review, the TMB noted that, in accordance with
Article 2.8(b), the volume of the products integrated amounted to the following percentages of 1990
imports of the products falling under the coverage of the Agreement (unless otherwise specified):Honduras (18.80 per cent); Slovak Republic (18.47 per cent of the volume of imports in 1993).  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.  As regards the notification of Honduras, the TMB observed that one product defined at the
HS 5-digit level appeared to include products that had already been integrated in part in the secondstage of the integration process at the HS 6-digit level, and that four products appeared to have been
counted twice in the integration programme for the third stage.  The TMB observed, however, that
even if the products that seemed to have been already integrated and those that seemed to have been
counted twice were to be discounted the integra tion programme of Honduras for the third stage would
still amount to not less than 18 per cent of the total volume of Honduras' 1990 imports of the productsin the Annex.  With respect to the notification of the Slovak Republic, the TMB observed that the
calculation of the share of the products integrated had been made on the basis of imports in 1993,
which was the first year for which data were available.  The TMB observed, furthermore, that the
integration programme contained several HS lines falling under an "ex HS line" in the Annex to theG/TMB/R/85
Page 3
ATC, and took note of the statement by the Slovak Republic that these products corresponded
precisely to the product description contained in the ATC Annex.
Notification under Article 6.1 of the ATC
11. The TMB took note of the notification made pursuant to Article 6.1 by China that it wished to
retain the right to use the transitional safeguar d mechanism during the transition period of the
Agreement (G/TMB/N/420).
Communication from Poland
12. The TMB considered a communication received from Poland following the TMB's request for
information.2  This communication stated that, following the recommendation by the TMB3, "Poland
is intending to implement [the] TMB recommendation […] relating to [the] transitional safeguard
measure introduced by Poland on imports of staple yarn from Romania.  This measure will be
rescinded on 1 March 2002".  The TMB recalled that it had examined this safeguard measure inSeptember 2001 pursuant to Article 6.10
4 and, that subsequently, in November 2001, it had
considered the reasons given by Poland for considering itself unable to conform with the
recommendation the TMB had made.5  Detailed information, together with the TMB's
recommendation had been provided to WTO Members with regard to the latter examination on
23 November 2001.6  In taking note of the communication of Poland, the TMB observed that, though
Article 8 contained no specific deadline for the implementation by the Member(s) concerned of the
TMB's recommendations, the measure would have been in place for more than seven months
(G/TMB/N/421).
Communication received from the Chairman of the Committee for Trade and Development
13. The TMB considered the communication received from the Chairman of the Committee on
Trade and Development, in pursuance of the CTD work programme stemming from paragraph 44 of
the Doha Ministerial Declaration and paragraph  12.1 of the Decision on Implementation-Related
Issues and Concerns, requesting information concerning any discussions or other developments taking
place in the TMB by July 2002 relating to the special and differential provisions contained in the
ATC.  The TMB adopted a response to this communication stating, inter alia , that since no such
request had been addressed to it, the TMB had not scheduled a general discussion relating to the
special and differential treatment provisions cont ained in the ATC.  It would, however, inform the
Committee on Trade and Development if there were to be developments that could be of interest to
the CTD for the purpose of its mandated review.  In addition, the TMB drew the attention of the CTD
to the Body's comprehensive report on the implementation of the ATC during the second stage of the
integration process (G/L/459), and in particular to those parts of the report which may be relevant in
the context of the consideration of provisions related to special and differential treatment.  The TMBauthorized its Chairman to transmit this response to the Chairman of the CTD.
Observations with Respect to Late Notifications
14. 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 such
notifications.
__________
                                                     
2 See G/TMB/R/84, paragraph 8.
3 See G/TMB/R/83, paragraph 41.
4 See G/TMB/R/81, paragraphs 7 to 34.
5 See G/TMB/R/83, paragraphs 16 to 41.
6 See G/TMB/26.