WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/TMB/R/54
28 June 1999
(99-2647)
Textiles Monitoring Body
REPORT OF THE FIFTY-FIFTH MEETING
1. The Textiles Monitoring Body held its fifty-fifth meeting on 19 May 1999.
2. Present at this meeting were the following members and/or alternates: Messrs. Babajide;
Chung/Kim; Grané/Valencia; Khalil; Kobayashi; Moroz; Nayyar/Ms Loi; Messrs. Urkan; Tagliani.
3. The TMB adopted the report of its fifty-fourth meeting (G/TMB/R/53).
United States/Turkey:  Introduction of a New Restriction
4. The TMB had a discussion on the TMB's performance in relation to the points raised in the
statement made on behalf of a number of WTO Members at the Informal Intersessional Meeting of
the General Council on 26 October 1998.  The TMB recalled that in the view of those Members
"concerns also remain[ed] in respect of measures adopted by an importing Member that [were] not
formally notified to the TMB, although these [were] published under the importing Member’s
domestic procedures and [were], thus, widely known".  In the TMB’s discussion, it was identified thatthis observation referred to the introduction of a new restriction on Turkey’s exports of certain
products by the United States, as part of a broader understanding reached between the two Members.
The TMB decided to seek clarification from both Turk ey and the United States as to whether or not
the measure was being applied pursuant  to the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing and, if this was
the case, under which provision of the ATC this restriction had been introduced.
Status of WTO Members’ Compliance with the Notification Requirements Defined in Articles 6.1,
2.6 and 2.7, as well as Articles 2.8(a) and 2.11
5. At the initiative of a TMB member, the TMB decided to take stock of the situation of WTO
Members’ compliance with the notification requirements contained in Articles 6.1, 2.6 and 2.7, as
well as Articles 2.8(a) and 2.11.  The purpose of this overview was limited to the issue of compliancewith the formal and technical requirements of the respective notification obligations.  It was not
designed to address the substantive or qualitative aspects of the notifications concerned.
1
6. The TMB decided to make the main findings of this stock-taking available to WTO Members,
for their information.
Article 6.1 notifications
7. Article 6.1 states, inter alia,  that "Members not maintaining restrictions falling under
Article 2 shall notify the TMB ... as to whether or not they wish to retain the right to use theprovisions of this Article".  This notification had to be made either "within 60 days" or, for those
                                                     
1 For the TMB's review of the notifications made pursuant to these Articles, see G/L/179,
paragraphs 11 to 77.G/TMB/R/54
Page 2
Members which had not accepted the Protocols extending the MFA since 1986 "within 6 months
following the entry into force of the WTO Agreement".
8. As at mid-May 1999, only 66 Members out of the 115 Members which were required to
submit a notification pursuant to Article 6.12 had done so.  Ten, out of these 66 Members, stated that
they did not wish to retain the right to use the provisions of Article 6 of the ATC.  Since theseMembers were deemed to have integrated all their textile and clothing products, as defined in the
Annex to the ATC, into the GATT 1994, they did not have to submit integration programmes
pursuant to Articles 2.7(b) and 2.8.
9. None of the 49 Members, which had not submitted a notification pursuant to Article 6.1, has
submitted any notification under Articles 2.7(b) and/or 2.8(a).
Articles 2.6 and 2.7 Notifications (Stage 1 Integration Programmes)
10. Notifications pursuant to Articles 2.6 and 2.7(a) were, in accordance with a decision taken by
Ministers at Marrakesh on 15 April 1994, received by the GATT Secretariat no later than
1 October 1994 from Canada, the European Community, Norway and the United States.  The GATT
Secretariat circulated such notifications to othe r participants in the Uruguay Round for information.
Subsequently, these notifications were made available to the TMB for the purposes of Article 2.21.
11. Notifications pursuant to Articles 2.6 and 2.7(b) were expected from the 56 Members that had
reserved their rights pursuant to Article 6.1.  Such notifications were received from 46 Members.  Ten
Members which had reserved their right to use the provisions of Article 6 have not submitted a
notification pursuant to Articles 2.6 and 2.7(b). Thes e ten Members are: Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire,
Ecuador, Jamaica, Kenya, Lesotho, Nigeria, Senegal, Trinidad and Tobago and the United Arab
Emirates.
12. The TMB has completed the review of all the notifications received, and taken note of them,
with the exception of those from Israel and Saint Kitts and Nevis.  In these latter cases, the TMB
cannot take further action unless the clarifications sought from these Members are provided.
13. With respect to the "ex HS lines" issue3, all those Members whose notifications had been
identified by the TMB as containing potential problems received a letter from the TMB to that effect.They, in turn, submitted answers which the TMB considered to be technically satisfactory, and which
it took note of. The only exception is Mexico, for which no final answer has been received.  The
notification by Saint Kitts and Nevis, inter alia,  contains "ex HS line" products.
Articles 2.8(a) and 2.11 Notifications (Stage 2 Integration Programmes)
14. Notifications pursuant to Articles 2.8(a) and 2.11 have been received from 48 Members (the
four Members which maintained restrictions falling under Article 2 of the ATC, and 44 other
                                                     
2 The 134 WTO Members minus 19 WTO Members, i.e. the Members that maintained restrictions
falling under Article 2 of the ATC (Canada, the European Community and its 15 member States, Norway andthe United States).
3 During its review pursuant to Article 2.21 of the notification made by Colombia, also on behalf a
number of other WTO Members that are also members of the ITCB, regarding certain discrepancies in theprogramme of integration notified by the European Community under Article 2.6 and 2.7(a) of the ATC, theTMB had noted that several other WTO Members had also included in the list of products to be integrated in thefirst and/or second stages of implementation of the ATC products of those HS lines in the Annex for which onlypart of the line fell under the coverage of the ATC (indicated as "ex" HS lines in the Annex). The TMB,
therefore, decided to verify with the Members concerne d whether the volume of imports they had notified for
the "ex HS lines" related precisely to the products described in the Annex (G/TMB/R/29, paragraphs 43 to 45).G/TMB/R/54
Page 3
Members).  Two Members, in addition to the ten that had not submitted a notification for Stage 1,
have not submitted a notification for Stage 2.  These are Myanmar and Zambia.
15. The TMB has completed the review of all the notifications received, and taken note of them,
with the exception of the notifications from Saint Kitts and Nevis, Mexico, Israel and Paraguay.  In
these latter cases, the TMB cannot take further action unless the clarifications sought from suchMembers are provided.
16. With respect to the "ex HS lines" issue, all the Members whose notifications had been
identified as containing potential problems received a letter from the TMB to that effect.  They, in
turn, submitted answers which the TMB considered to be technically satisfactory, and which  it took
note of.
Clarifications Sought and Observations Made by the TMB
17. On a number of occasions the TMB decided to seek further clarifications from the respective
Members, which resulted in corrections/revisions, ensuring that the technical requirements contained
in the ATC were in essence4 being met.
18. 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.
Reminders by the WTO Secretariat
19. The WTO Secretariat sent several reminders to Members with respect to their notification
obligations under the ATC.  In June 1995, a reminder was sent with reference, inter alia,  to
Article 6.1 (WTO/AIR/109).   In November 1995, a reminder was sent with reference to Articles 2.6
and 2.7(b) (WTO/AIR/224).   In October 1996, a reminder was sent with reference to Articles 2.8(a)and 2.11.   In addition, this Airgram stated that "[f]or sake of order and without prejudice to the rights
and obligations of any WTO Member it might be noted that a number of Members did not, by the
required 1995 deadlines, notify whether or not they wished to retain [the right to use Article 6], and
that some Members which did reserve the right to use the transitional safeguard have not complied
with the corresponding notification requirement re garding the first stage (16 per cent) integration"
(WTO/AIR/457).  Lastly, in December 1996, Members were again reminded of their notification
obligations under Articles 2.6, 2.7(b), 2.8(a) and 2.11 of the ATC (WTO/AIR/497).
Supervision by the TMB and Subsequent Actions by the Council for Trade in Goods
20. Over the past four years the TMB secretariat has made several informal reminders to a
number of those Members that had not submitted a notification pursuant to Articles 2.6 and 2.7(b), or
to Articles 2.8(a) and 2.11, or to those which had not provided answers to the clarifications sought by
the TMB.
21. In addition, the TMB has on several occasions drawn the attention of Members to the
importance of the fulfilment of the notification obligations contained in the ATC.   In its report, made
in 1996, in the context of the preparation for the Singapore Ministerial
Conference (G/L/113, paragraph 19) the TMB noted  that it "… wishes to draw the attention of
                                                     
4 The TMB in some instances took note of integration programmes which, in certain respects, did not
fully meet the technical criteria established under Artic le 2.6 or 2.8(a). This concerned cases where the data
were not available in volume, or for the year 1990, or where the share of integration was calculated relative to
data for the textile and clothing sector as a whole since data for the exact  product coverage of the ATC were not
available.  Prior to taking note of such notifications, the TMB  was assured that no better data could be obtained.G/TMB/R/54
Page 4
Members to the fact that the Members which did not maintain restrictions falling under Article 2 had,
pursuant to paragraph 1 of Article 6, the obligation to notify within a specific time-frame whether or
not they wished to retain the right to use the provisions of Article 6.  The TMB noted with concern
that a significant number of such Members did not submit a notification under this paragraph".
Furthermore (in paragraph 102), the TMB observed that "[t]he implementation of the ATC cannot bemonitored fully unless Members comply with its notification requirements.  In this respect, the overall
picture is a mixed one.  On the one hand, the Members accounting for the majority of international
trade in textiles and clothing under the ATC complied with the essential notification requirements of
the ATC.  A number of notifications have, however, been addressed to the TMB after the respective
deadlines foreseen. In this respect the TMB observed that its taking note of late notifications was
without prejudice to the legal status of such notifications.  On the other hand, as indicated in the
context of some of the provisions discussed above [in the report], the TMB noted with concern that an
important number of Members had not provided any notification.  The TMB observed that the
Secretariat had sent reminders to Members on their notification obligations.  The TMB expressed its
serious concern that the absence of notifications or their late submission may have implications for the
implementation of the ATC".  Consequently (in paragraph 103), "[t]he TMB request[ed] the Council
for Trade in Goods (CTG) to take note of the above observations and concerns and to recall toMembers the particular importance of strictly adhering to the notification requirements under the
ATC".
22. In October 1996, the CTG took note of the observations and concerns contained in
paragraph 102 of the above-mentioned TMB report.  The Council also agreed to recall to Members
the particular importance of strictly adhering to the notification requirements under the ATC.
23. The Comprehensive Report of the TMB to the Council for Trade in Goods on the
implementation of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing during the first stage of the integration
process (G/L/179) contains a section on the compliance with notification requirements under the
ATC.  This section recalled the observations and recommendations noted above (contained in
G/L/113) and noted the following:
"As recommended by the TMB, the Council fo r Trade in Goods took note of the above
observations and concerns and recalled to Members the particular importance of strictly
adhering to the notification requirements under the ATC (G/C/M/14, paragraph 5.35).
[…]
It has to be observed that adherence to the notification obligations has not improved over
time.  While 49 Members submitted notifications pursuant to Articles 2.6 and 2.7,
by 24 July  1997 (more than six months after the expiration of the relevant deadline) only
40 Members had notified their second stage integration programme.  In addition, there has
been an increase in the number of late notifications.  This is regrettable as the non-compliance
with notification requirements, including the deadlines, may have serious implications on the
implementation of the ATC and on Members' rights and obligations arising therefrom.
The TMB suggests that the Council for Trade in Goods recall to Members the particular
importance, both legally and for transparency purposes, of strict compliance with the
notification requirements of the ATC."
24. As a result of its major review of the implementation of the ATC during Stage 1 of the
integration process, the CTG stated in its report (G/L/224, paragraph 61) that "[t]o ensure maximum
transparency in the implementation of the ATC and to facilitate the work of the Textiles MonitoringG/TMB/R/54
Page 5
Body, the Council called upon Members to comply, in a complete and timely manner, with all
notification obligations of the ATC."
Central Registry of Notifications and CTG
25. Since 1996, the Central Registry of Notifications (CRN) of the WTO Secretariat has issued
bi-annual reminders to those Members that have not fulfilled their notification obligations, includingthose contained in the ATC, and in particular those related to Articles 2.8(a) and 2.11.  Calls for
regular notifications due in the current year are also made by the CRN.   One such call was made in
June 1996 and referred to the obligation made to notify Stage 2 integration programmes by
31 December 1996.
26. In addition, in accordance with the decision taken by the CTG, at its meeting on
15 October 1996 (G/C/M/14, paragraph 4.7), the WTO Secretariat issues, every 6 months, a list of the
notification obligations contained in the WTO Mult ilateral Agreements on Trade in Goods, including
the ATC, and the compliance of Members therewith.  The latest list was updated on
31 December 1998 and circulated in January 1999 (G/L/223/Rev.2).
__________