RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/RO/M/32
25 October 2000
(00-4424)
Committee on Rules of Origin
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 29 SEPTEMBER 2000
Chairman:  Mr. S. Simon
The agenda proposed for the meeting, contained in WTO/AIR/1371, was adopted by the
Committee on Rules of Origin (CRO) as follows:
I. OVERALL ARCHITECTURE OF THE HARMONIZED RULES OF ORIGIN
(G/RO/41) ...................................................................................................................... ............1
II. PRODUCT-SPECIFIC RULES OF  ORIGIN (G/RO/41).....................................................5
A. C HAPTERS 50-63 (T EXTILE PRODUCTS )......................................................................................5
B. C HAPTERS 64-67 (F OOTWEAR AND HEADGEAR ) ........................................................................8
III. ENDORSEMENT OF PROPOSALS ON HARMONIZED RULES OF ORIGIN
(G/RO/W/59/CORR.1) ............................................................................................................. 9
IV. IMPLICATIONS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HARMONIZED
RULES OF ORIGIN ON OTHER WTO AGREEMENTS (G/RO/W/28/REV.1,
G/RO/W/30-34, 38, 42, 48, 50 AND 52).................................................................................10
V. DEADLINE FOR COMPLETION OF THE WORK PROGRAMME ON
HARMONIZING RULES OF ORIGIN ...............................................................................10
VI. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON RULES OF
ORIGIN (G /RO/ 44) ............................................................................................................... .10
VII. NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 5 AND PARAGRAPH 4 OF ANNEX II
OF THE AGREEMENT ON RULES OF ORIGIN (G/RO/N/29)......................................10
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS............................................................................................................ ....11
-A GENDA FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ..............................................................................................11
I. OVERALL ARCHITECTURE OF THE HARMONIZED RULES OF ORIGIN
(G/RO/41)
1.1 The representative of the European Communitie s, facilitator for the informal plurilateral
discussions on the overall architecture, stated as follows:
"(1) INTRODUCTION
Between 25 and 29 September 2000 plurilateral meetings on overall architecture were
devoted to:
-  Definitions-  General rulesG/RO/M/32
Page 2
-  Appendix 1
-  Appendix 2
(2) RESULTS OF DISCUSSIONS
(2.1) Rule 3 of Appendix 2 – Rules of application
The delegations participating in the plurilateral meetings based their discussions on document
G/RO/41 as contained in Amending Supplement (5).
Discussions started on Rule 3 of Appendix 2 (Rul es of Application), in order to compact its
drafting.  In the course of the discussions delegations agreed to place the provision betweenRule 1 (Scope of Application) and Rule 2 (Determination of Origin), as it was more logical to
have rules of application preceding the determination of origin.  Consequently the rule has
been numbered as Rule 2 and its title changed into "Application of Rules".
Members of the plurilateral agreed that the new Rule 2 should contain the following elements:-  a link between the classification of the good in the HS and the corresponding product
description in the harmonized non-preferential rules of origin;
-  a provision stipulating that primary rules should apply only to non-originating materials,
even if some delegations felt they wanted to have some time to reflect further on this element;
-  the concept that all primary rules are co-equal, and that in their application account should
be taken of Chapter Notes.  In this respect, one delegation pointed out that the listing of
elements to be taken into consideration was not complete;
-  reconfirmation of the sequence of application of Rules 2(c) through (f) (now 3(c) through
(f)).
A drafting group worked out a new text (Alternative 1 of Rule 2, Appendix 2 in Amending
Supplement No. 6 of document G/RO/41) that wa s submitted to the plurilateral.  Delegations
participating in the plurilateral meeting discussed the text.  Rule 2(a) was in principle
acceptable.  Some delegations felt that the wording of Rules 2(b) and (c) could be improved
and needed further examination.
As regards Rule 2(d) one delegation remarked some inconsistency with respect to the Ottawa
language rules, which do not refer to the "last country of production".  The same delegation
submitted a draft substitute to new Rules 2(b), (c) and (d) (Alternative 2 of Rule 2,
Appendix 2 in Amending Supplement No. 6 of  document G/RO/41) to contribute to the
further improvement of the text.
(2.2) Rule 4 of Appendix 2:  Intermediate materials
Delegations participating in the plurilateral meetings then went on to discuss the above-
mentioned Rule.  Most delegations were in fav our of this provision, even though a few still
requested some time for study.  The text was on the whole acceptable.  As regards its current
drafting, two delegations requested to maintain the bracketed text with a view to
reconsidering it.G/RO/M/32
Page 3
(2.3) Rule 5 of Appendix 2:  Special provisions
(2.3.1) (b)  Fungible goods and materials
A large majority of delegations were in favour of this provision as it fitted the current reality
of trade.  During the intensive debate, however, the differing interpretations on the nature of
the provision became apparent – while some delegations felt that this was an origin-conferring
rule, others interpreted it as a mere trade-facilitating tool.  One delegation indicated that the
application of this provision should be subject to strict requirements and the text should be
amended accordingly.
(2.3.2) (c)  Putting into sets and kits
Given the perplexing number of alternatives contained in the text, delegations participating in
the plurilateral meetings decided to compact the text, clarifying the distinctions between the
options on the table.  A drafting group submitted a non-paper (facilitator's proposal for Rule
5(b), Appendix 2 in Amending Supplement N o. 6 of document G/RO/41) summarizing the
different types of sets and listing their appropriate origin rules and the various alternatives.
(2.3.3) (d)  Collection of parts
With the exception of the proponent, all delegations present were against this provision.
(2.4) Rule 6 of Appendix 2:  De minimis
Interest in the proposal is increasing amongst delegations, despite the inadequate wording of
the earlier proposal by the facilitator.  Given this interest and the fact that one delegationattracted to the provision dropped its proposal, the facilitator produced two new alternatives
(facilitator's proposal for Rule 6, Appendix 2 in Amending Supplement No. 6 of document
G/RO/41) which shall be discussed at the forthcoming meeting.
(Issues still to be addressed:  general vs. chapter-specific rule, mandatory v. discretionary
character.)
(2.5) Definitions
The delegations participating in the plurilateral meetings expressed support for the addition of
the terms "processing", "producing" and "collecting" in the definition of methods of obtaining
goods.  Further to the tentative drafting of a definition of "primary" and "residual" rules, somedelegations questioned the need for such definitions, especially in view of a future re-labelling
of origin criteria at Chapter level (e.g. Chapter Notes v. Chapter Primary Rules).
(3) GENERAL RULES
General Rule 1:  Scope of application
Consensus on this rule was reiterated.
General Rule 2:  HS
Paragraph 1 was acceptable.  On the other hand, no consensus was reached on paragraph 2
and one delegation submitted during the debate a new proposal (paragraph 2 of GeneralG/RO/M/32
Page 4
Rule 2 in Amending Supplement No. 6 of do cument G/RO/41) for discussion at the next
meeting.
General Rule 5:  Minimal operations or processes
The current drafting is acceptable.  The discussion on the bracketed text (application to both
Appendices v. application to Appendix I only) is to be continued.  The definitive decision on
the deletion of the list of examples in brackets should also be taken at the next meeting.
General Rule 6:  Neutral elements
Situation unchanged.General Rule 7: Packing and packaging materials and containers
Consensus had already been reached at a previous session.
General Rule 9:  Accessories
Subject to the deletion of the words "imported [presented]" all delegations agreed on the
current drafting of the rule.
APPENDIX I – WHOLLY OBTAINED GOODS
1. Scope of application
Consensus had already been reached at a previous session.2. Minimal operations
Consensus had already been reached at a previous session.3. Definitions
Consensus on definition 1(a) through (f) and (i) had been reached at a previous meeting.  As
regards definition 1(f) the remaining reservation was lifted further to the addition of the word
"there".  The added word guarantees that the goods can non longer perform their original
purpose in the country where the articles are collected.  As regards definition (h) no
delegation expressed support for alternative two, whose deletion should be decided at the nextmeeting.
As regards definition 2, concerning products from the sea, sea bed or subsoil, proponents
illustrated their alternative drafts, based on the terminology and concepts contained in the
1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.  Differences between positions became apparentand the discussion is to be continued at the next meeting.
APPENDIX 2:  PRODUCT-SPECIFIC RULES OF ORIGINRule 1:  Scope of application
Consensus had already been reached at a previous session.G/RO/M/32
Page 5
New Rule 2
New text (see point 2.1 supra).
Rule 2 (renumbered 3):  Determination of origin
Despite an intense exchange of views on the functioning of Rule 3(a) in conjunction with
Ottawa language rules, positions remained unchanged with regard to the deletion of the rule
and its current wording.  The two options for Rule 3(c) were amply discussed and illustrated
by means of examples that helped delegations to understand their respective views.  It
appears, however, that at this stage it is not possible to achieve a compromise solution."
II. PRODUCT-SPECIFIC RULES OF ORIGIN (G/RO/41)
A. CHAPTERS 50-63 (T EXTILE PRODUCTS )
2.1 The representative of India, facilitator for the informal plurilateral discussions on chapters
50-56 (textile products) and 58-60 (fibres, yarns and fabrics), stated as follows:
"Out of a total of 84 textile issues, 42 issues were discussed during the plurilaterals on
18 and 19 September 2000, for the first time after April 1998 after a gap of nearly two and a half
years.  Some Members changed their positions during discussions and these have been reflected in the
amended version of the non-paper.  Bilateral discussions between Members took place in the morningof 19 September and Members utilised this time very fruitfully.  After the plurilaterals, the facilitator
had also held discussions with several delegations to explore the possibility of narrowing down the
differences, the possibility of intersessional exchanges between delegations via e-mail and the
possibility of planning another session in the future and the format in which such discussions might
take place.  Delegations were of the view that although there were many issues pending to beresolved, the key issues might be much less.  For example, spinning was considered to be origin-
conferring by most delegations while some delegations who did not consider it to be origin-conferring
were prepared to join the consensus provided th eir concern regarding carding and combing was taken
on board.  Further negotiations and a spirit of accommodation could perhaps solve this issue.  As far
as weaving was concerned, there did not seem to be any differences.  However, as far as processing of
yarn and fabrics was concerned, there were some differences which needed to be addressed somewhat
boldly by all delegations.  For example, in the case of dyeing and printing, many delegationssupported dyeing and printing as origin-conferring.  It was also the common understanding amongst
them that such dyeing and printing had to be permanent and such dyeing and printing were usually
accompanied by some preparatory and finishing operations.  One delegation showed samples to
illustrate that for producing a finished fabric, either dyeing or printing was enough and there was no
technological necessity to carry out both together.  Some delegations, however, did not recognizedyeing and printing to be origin conferring at all and some would recognize the same if both were
done together with a few more accompanying processes.  Such differences needed to be narrowed
down and many delegations intended to consult their industry again and come back to the negotiating
table for formulating an agreed rule.
Issue No. 1:  There was emerging consensus towards option A.
Issue No. 2:  No consensus was reached.  The proponents of option B confirmed that the
products concerned were internationally traded.  It was noted that none of the proposed rules
for headings 55.06 and 55.07 indicated that carding or combing were origin-conferring.Further discussions would be continued in order to reach consensus on origin criteria for these
two headings.G/RO/M/32
Page 6
Issue No. 3:  No consensus was reached.  One delegation indicated that if consensus was
reached on option B of Issue No. 2 they could shift from option A to option B for issue No. 3.
Other delegations stated that they could not accept the compromise proposal because
"spinning" was more significant than "carding/combing".  A proponent of option A stated that"carding/combing" was the vital operation and "spinning" was only the last process of yarn
manufacturing.
Issue No. 4:  No consensus was reached.  Proponents of option A stated that "mercerising"
involved chemical treatments and changed the characteristics of yarn.  Proponents of option B
stated that mercerising was merely a finishing operation, and did not change the
characteristics of the yarn.
Issue Nos. 5-9:  No consensus was reached.
Issue No. 11:  Proponents of option A stated that "bleaching" was not only washing
operations but a chemically controlled process which transformed loom fabrics to clean
fabrics, and confirmed that the products concerned were internationally traded.  Proponents of
option B stated that "bleaching" was only a preparatory process.
Issue Nos 12-13:  Proponents of option A stated th at permanent dyeing or printing alone was
substantial transformation of yarn or fabrics.  Proponents of option A/1 stated that the
resulting product had new characteristics and was often traded as finished product.  One
delegation showed samples of products to illustrate the point that both dyeing and printing
need not be done together to obtain a finished fabric.
Issue Nos 14-15:  No consensus was reached.
Issue No. 16:  Proponents of option A stated that coating or impregnated textile material
involved not merely scotchguarding, but chemical treatments, and changed characteristics of
textile materials, giving a special finish like crease resistance, water-proofing, stiffening, etc.
Umbrella fabric was taken as an example, in which coating was invisible to the naked eye.
Proponents of option B stated that the HS did not recognize coating or impregnation of textile
materials which were invisible to the naked eye or were not wholly coated or impregnated ascoated or impregnated textile material.  A proponent of option A pointed out that coating or
impregnation were usually preceded by dyeing, and therefore indicated that if dyeing was
accepted as origin-conferring, they could be flexible on this issue.
Issue Nos. 17-23:  No consensus was reached.
Issue Nos. 24-25:  There was emerging consensus towards option B.  There was a consensus
to delete option A.  Proponents of option C will undertake further consultations to examine if
they can join option B.
Issue Nos. 29-33, 44 and 47:  No consensus was reached.
Issue No. 57:  No consensus was reached.  A proponent of option C stated that although
lamination, coating or impregnation of articles of felt did not frequently take place, there were
cases of lamination of articles of non-woven fabrics.
Issue Nos. 58 and 74-77:  No consensus was reached.G/RO/M/32
Page 7
One delegation felt very strongly that the Integrated Negotiating Text (INT) should be
updated after each meeting so that Members can refer to updated templates and matrices
during further negotiations.  Many delegations, however, appreciated the non-paper preparedby the Secretariat which was useful for discussions.  Some Members opined that the CRO in
its plenary session should discuss the matter further in order to give appropriate directions to
the Secretariat, as this issue is not confined to textile products alone."
2.2 The representative of Singapore, facilitator for the informal plurilateral discussions on
chapters 56-58 and 63 (carpets and made-ups), stated as follows:
"Issue No. 10:  No consensus was reached.
Issue Nos. 26 and 27:  It was agreed to delete a proposal "CTHS, except from 5804".  A
Member made a new proposal "changes from netting to make-up nets".Issue No. 28:  No consensus was reached.
Issue No. 30:  There was a consensus to delete option B.
Issue No. 31:  No consensus was reached.  Canada changed its position to "CTH".
Issue Nos. 32, 55 and 56:  No consensus was reached.
Issue No. 59:  One proponent of option B joined option C;  hence one proposal was deleted.
Issue Nos. 60-66:  No consensus was reached.
Issue No. 67:  One proponent of option B joined option C;  hence one proposal was deleted.
Issue No. 69:  No consensus was reached.
Issue No. 70:  A proponent of option A stated that the production of life jackets (HS 6307.20)
from their parts (HS 6307.90) should be a substantial transformation.  The facilitator
suggested that CTSH be a solution.  Members w ould reconsider this issue at a future meeting.
Issue 71:  One proponent of option B joined option C;  hence one proposal was deleted."
2.3 The representative of Switzerland, facilitator for the informal plurilateral discussions on
chapters 61-62 (apparel), stated as follows:
"A new option A2 was proposed by a Member for Issues Nos. 45, 46, 49, 50, 73, 74 and 78 on
the basis of Chapter Notes (option 5).
It was noted that a Member made a proposal for a chapter residual rule in connection with
Appendix 2, Rule 2(d).
Issue Nos. 2-4 of chapters 82-90 and Issue Nos. 1-4 of chapters 94-97 (see G/RO/23,
pp. 28-31) were renumbered as Issue Nos. 78-84.
Issue No. 45:  There was increasing support for option B1.G/RO/M/32
Page 8
Issue No. 46:  There was growing consensus towards option A1.  There was a consensus to
delete option B and chapter note 1/option 4 as well as Korea's proposal in option C.
Issue Nos. 48 and 49:  No consensus was reached.
Issue No. 50:  There was growing consensus towards option A1.  There was a consensus to
delete option B and chapter note 1/option 4 as well as Korea's proposal in option C.
Issue No. 51:  No consensus was reached.  It was however questioned if a special rule on the
assembly of such small parts is really needed.  One Member noted that in comparison with the
end-product, here no distinction is made between knitted or crocheted to shape and cut to
shape products.
Issue No. 53:  No consensus was reached.  It was noted that products concerned did not
involve assembly operations.
Issue No. 54:  No consensus was reached.  It was noted that origin criteria of diapers
classified in chapters 48 and 56 had already been endorsed by the CRO as "CTH".  One
Member noted that diapers of this heading are flat products.
Issue No. 73:  A proponent of option A provided the following definition of "sub-assemblies":
"'Sub-assemblies' consists of two or more parts attached together but yet to be a finished
garment;  the term could cover any goods at a stage between finished textile parts and
finished garments;  further assembly has to be done on subassemblies before it becomes a
finished garment."  Another proponent of option A stated that their position was connected to
their proposal for chapter note concerning "Minor processing operations not affecting origin".
No consensus was reached however.
Issue Nos. 75-76:  No consensus was reached.
Issue No. 77:  There was agreement to defer discussion on this Issue until the issues
concerning Rule 2 and general residual rules had been resolved;  after their resolution it could
be decided whether or not chapter residual rules were needed.
Issue Nos. 78-82:  No consensus was reached.
Issue No. 83:  It was noted that this issue concerned disassembly and the disassembly issues
had been resolved by the TCRO as a Basket 1 decision.  Proponents of option A will
reconsider their position in the light of this development and see if they can join option B.
Issue Nos. 83 and 84:  No consensus was reached."
B. CHAPTERS 64-67 (F OOTWEAR AND HEADGEAR )
2.4 The representative of Canada, facilitator for the informal plurilateral discussions on chapters
64-67 (footwear and headgear), stated as follows:
"Issue Nos. 1-2:  No consensus was reached.  Proponents of option B stated that simple
addition of brims did not constitute, for example, substantial transformation; but blocking
should be considered as substantial transformation because this produced the final shape andfixed the size of the end products. A proponent of option B indicated their intention to
reconsider their proposal concerning "further finishing" with regard to Issue No. 2.G/RO/M/32
Page 9
Proponents of option A stated that CTH was a simpler rule and was sufficient to characterise
the substantial transformation.
Issue No. 3: No consensus was reached. Proponents of option B stated that the assembly of
parts in more than a single country did not constitute substantial transformation and drew
attention to the Chapter residual rule which they are proposing to deal with situations where
the good was not wholly assembled in a single country.
Issue No. 4:  No consensus was reached. A question was raised concerning the precise
meaning of "the most significant operations" in the proposed Chapter residual rule.Issue No. 5:  There was a growing consensus towards option A.
Issue No. 6:  There was a consensus on the "CTHS" rule for ex67.01(c).  There was growing
support for "CTH, except from heading 05.05" (option B) for ex67.01(a).  The one Member
supporting option B for ex67.01(b) agreed to review their position.
Issue No. 7:  No consensus was reached.  One Member made a new proposal for a residual
rule for Chapter 67.
Issue No. 8:  No consensus was reached.  Th e proponent of option B amended their proposal
for ex67.03(b) as follows:  "Change to this sp lit heading from yarn of any other heading".
Issue Nos. 9 and 10:  No consensus was reached.  It was noted that Chapter Note 2 in
Basket 1 addressed the problem of disassembl y;  therefore most proponents of option B
shifted to option A.  The proponents of option C in Issues Nos. 9 and 10, amended their
proposal as follows:  "CTSHS" for ex6406.10(a);  "CTSHS" for ex6406.10(b) and "CTSHS,provided...." for ex6406.99(a)".
Issue Nos. 11-14:  No consensus was reached.  Members indicated their intention to
reconsider their positions with a view to streamlining various options.  One Member made a
new proposal for a residual rule for Chapter 64."
2.5 The representative of the European Communities stated that the template and matrices of the
INT should be updated after each round of discussion.
2.6 The representative of Chile stated that the Secretariat should prepare the summary table for all
chapters.
2.5 The CRO took note of the statements made and requested  the Secretariat to update both the
template and matrices of the INT after each round discussion, and to prepare the summary table for all
chapters.
III. ENDORSEMENT OF PROPOSALS ON HARMONIZED RULES OF ORIGIN
(G/RO/W/59/CORR.1)
3.1 The CRO endorsed the following proposals on harmonized rules of origin:
- Chapters 1-24 - Issue No. 5 (ex 02.09(c)):  option B
- Chapters 1-24 - Issue No. 14:  option C (split heading ex03.05(a) should be deleted)
- Chapters 1-24 - Issue No. 42: option B (split  subheading ex1401.20(b) should be deleted)G/RO/M/32
Page 10
IV. IMPLICATIONS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HARMONIZED RULES
OF ORIGIN ON OTHER WTO AGREEMEN TS (G/RO/W/28/REV.1, G/RO/W/30-34,
38, 42, 48, 50 AND 52)
4.1 The Chairman recalled that, as concerned this agenda item, there had been submissions from
five Members on the table:  from India (G/RO/W/ 28/Rev.1, G/RO/W/30, 42, 50 and 52);  from the
United States (G/RO/W/32 and 48);  from th e Dominican Republic and Honduras (G/RO/W/33);
from El Salvador (G/RO/W/34);  and from Korea (G/RO/W/38).
4.2 The CRO took note of the statement.
V. DEADLINE FOR COMPLETION OF THE WORK PROGRAMME ON
HARMONIZING RULES OF ORIGIN
5.1 Based on informal consultations with Members, the Chairman summarized the discussion on
this issue as follows:
"There is a growing view that the CRO should set as the new deadline the Fourth Session of
the Ministerial Conference or at the latest the end of 2001.  Some delegations, while not
objecting to setting a deadline per se , doubted whether, given the fact that a higher WTO
body was discussing this issue, the CRO would be an appropriate body for decision on this
issue.  The Chairman will continue his consultations with Members."
5.2 The Committee took note of the statement made and agreed  to revert to this issue at its next
meeting.
VI. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON RULES OF ORIGIN
(G/RO/44)
6.1 The Chairman recalled that the Chairman of the TCRO had forwarded to the CRO a request
for the CRO's advice on two matters relating to the ongoing responsibilities of the Technical
Committee (G/RO/44).  The first matter on which the Technical Committee requested the CRO's
advice concerned the two types of work provided 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 harmonizednon-preferential rules of origin relating to changes in the Harmonized System, and (ii) the other work
relating to amendments to the results of the Harmonization Work Programme.  The second matter
concerned whether the Technical Committee's ongoing responsibilities could include the technical
aspects of preferential rules of origin.  The CRO had discussed this issue at the meeting on
14 April 1999 (G/RO/M/29).
6.2 The CRO took note of the statement and agreed
 to revert to this issue at its next meeting.
VII. NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 5 AND PARAGRAPH 4 OF ANNEX II OF THE
AGREEMENT ON RULES OF ORIGIN (G/RO/N/29)
7.1 The Chairman recalled that since the last meeting the Secretariat had circulated a document
informing delegations of modifications to Slovenia's rules of origin (G/RO/N/29).  To date, 72
Members had made notifications of non-preferential rules of origin and 75 Members had made
notifications of preferential rules of origin.G/RO/M/32
Page 11
7.2 The Chairman expressed concern that a number of Members had not yet complied with the
notification requirements.  He urged Members who ha d not yet notified to do so as early as possible.
7.3 The Committee took note of the statement.
VIII.  OTHER BUSINESS
-A GENDA FOR FUTURE MEETINGS
8.1 The Chairman proposed the following dates and agenda for the future meetings of the CRO:
3 November 2000 (a.m.) Informal meeting to discuss:
-  report (2000) of the CRO to the CTG-  deadline for completion of the Harmonization Work
Programme
-  responsibilities of the TCRO
3 November 2000 (after informal) Formal meeting
__________
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 meeting to discuss the overall architecture
(facilitator:  EC)
1 December 2000 (a.m.) Informal meeting to discuss:
-  reporting of the plurilateral meeting;-  reporting of the informal meetings;
-  stocktaking of progress made in the HWP;
-  endorsement of the proposals on the harmonized rules of
origin;
-  annual review of the implementation and operation of theAgreement on Rules of Origin;
-  other business
1 December 2000 (after the informal) Formal meeting
__________