RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/MA/M/31
26 June 2002
(02-3559)
Committee on Market Access
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 15 MARCH 2002 AND
THE RESUMED MEETING OF 12 JUNE 2002
Chairperson: Mrs. Lourdes Berrig (Philippines)
Agenda of the meeting Page
1. Periodic report of the Committee to the Council for Trade in Goods including
factual information on waiver s expiring on 31 April 2002....................................................2
2. Submission of HS96 documentation........................................................................................33. Submission of HS2002 Documentation ...................................................................................4
4. HS2002 Draft Waiver Decision (G/MA/W/29) .......................................................................4
5. Modalities and operation of the Integrated Data Base..........................................................5
(a) Status of submission of the requir ed documentation (G/M A/IDB/2/Rev.13).............................5
(b) Progress Report on the Work done by the Secretariat ................................................................7
6. Consolidated Tariff Schedules Database Project  – Report by the Secretariat.................10
7. Implementation-Related Issues and Co ncerns:  Meaning to be given to the
phrase "substantial interest" in paragraph 2 (d) of Article XIII of GATT 1994
(paragraph 1.2 of WT/MIN(01)17)........................................................................................15
8. Notification of Quantitative Re strictions (G/MA/NTM/QR/1/Add.8)................................16
9. Notifications under the Decision on Reverse Notification of Non-Tariff Measures
(G/MA/NTM/W/3/Rev.1)........................................................................................................16
10. Other Business.............................................................................................................. ...........16
(a) United States -  Egypt's use of specific duties on imports of textile and clothing items,
and China's tariff rate quota administration as well as application of the VAT to
fertilizer  impor ts ............................................................................................................. ..........16
(b) Submission of nati onal tariff s in 2002...................................................................................... 17
(c) Letter from the Chairman of the Co mmittee on Trade and Development ................................18
(d) Date of the next meeting.................................................................................................... .......18
The above agenda as reproduced in document WTO/AIR/1726 was adopted with the addition
of items under 10.  An annotated agenda was circulated in an informal document (Job No.(02)/19)dated 8 March 2002.  The Committee also agreed that, in light of the informal consultations that were
still ongoing on the slate of chairpersons for subsidiary bodies of the Council for Trade in Goods,
consideration of the item on "Election of Chairperson" be postponed to its next meeting.  Discussion
on item 6 was suspended and resumed on 12 June 2002.G/MA/M/31
Page 2
1. Periodic report of the Committee to the Council for Trade in Goods including factual
information on waivers expiring on 31 April 2002
1.1 The Chairperson drew the Committee's atte ntion to document G/MA/SPEC/20 which
contained the draft periodic report of this Committee.   She noted that this report, which would be
finalized in the light of the discussions at this meeting would be submitted to the Council for Trade inGoods for examination at its meeting of 2 May 2002.  The report contained in its Annexes I and II
tables summarizing factual information on the waivers under process submitted by the Members
concerned.  In this context, she requested the Committee to take note of the requests that had been
presented by these Members concerning their respective waivers and of the reasons for doing so.
1.2 As could be noted in this document, the waivers were divided into two different groups: (1)
the waivers granted in connection with the  introduction of HS96 changes into the WTO schedules;and (2) the waivers related to the transposition of pre-Uruguay Round schedules into the Harmonized
System (Nicaragua and Sri Lanka).  All the waivers expired on 30 April 2002.
1.3 As far as the first group of waivers was concerned, She recalled that the Committee had
agreed the previous year that no further extension of the waiver, on a collective basis, would be granted.However, that this would not preclude Members fro m requesting waivers on an individual basis.  She
noted from Annex I of the documen t G/MA/SPEC/20,  that to date 13 Members had forwarded to the
Secretariat requests for waivers in connection with the introduction of HS96 changes to their
schedules of concessions. Factual information had been provided by these Members concerning their
request and in most cases a draft decision had also already been circulated.  In two cases (Argentinaand Pakistan) the draft decisions were forthcoming.
1.4 The representative of the United States referred to the request by Panama for a waiver.  He
recalled that in 2001 when the last "collective" waiver was issued for 12 months, one of the conditions
for granting that waiver to several Members in cluding Panama was that they would provide full
documentation.  In the case of Panama, that documentation had not been submitted, so his delegation
was not in a position to support Panama's waiver request.
1.5 The representative of Panama stated that her delegation had made a partial submission. The
remaining documentation would be submitted once certain internal procedures relating to the adoption
of certain executive decrees had been completed in Panama.  She hoped that these decrees would be
enacted in the very near future.
1.6  The representative of Malaysia wished to signal the fact that his delegation might need to
request a waiver in the future. His delegation was still evaluating whether there was a need for
Malaysia to request a waiver because all that was required of Malaysia was to notify corrections
which had been identified by its trading partners.  He hoped that when the corrections were circulated,Canada would lift its reservation on Malaysia's HS96 submission. He informed the Committee that
Malaysia had lifted its long-standing reservation on the EC schedule.  This was largely due to the  EC
representative, Mr. J. Graminsky who had been so forthcoming in explaining the issue to Malaysia.
1.7 The representative of the European Commun ities thanked Malaysia for having lifted its
reservation. There was one remaining reservation on the EC schedule, but his delegation had high
hopes in the discussions that were going to take place with the Member concerned in the very near
future. In addition, his delegation was now in a position to lift its reservation on Brazil's and
Paraguay's documentation, and this would be confirmed in writing early next week. His delegation
had also lifted its reservation on Iceland's documentation, and a letter to this effect was sent theprevious day to Iceland and to the Secretariat.G/MA/M/31
Page 3
1.8 The representative of Canada stated that his delegation would welcome Malaysia's
notification of corrections, and if everything was in order would lift unconditionally the reservation.
1.9 The representative of Brazil thanked the Euro pean Communities for the information.  The fact
that the last reservation had been lifted would allow Brazil to conclude expeditiously the process of
transposition.
1.10 The representative of Paraguay thanked the European Communities for the information.
Paraguay hoped to conclude discussions in a very short period of time with the remaining Member
who had a reservation on Paraguay's proposed HS96 changes, in which case Paraguay would be able
to withdraw its waiver request.
1.11 The representative of Iceland thanked the EC for lifting its reservation.  She informed the
Committee that in the light of the aforementioned, Iceland could withdraw its request for a waiver.
Additionally, her delegation would be shortly submitting some modifications to its schedule.
1.12 The Committee took note of the statements and agreed  to forward the waiver requests and
accompanying draft decisions set out in Annex I of document G/MA/SPEC/20, with the exception of
Iceland's and Panama's, to the Council for Trade in Goods for approval.
1.13 The Chairperson stated that details concerning the Members which had requested an
extension of their respective waivers for the tran sposition of their schedules in the Harmonized
System following the introduction of the Harmonized System were contained in Annex II of
document G/MA/SPEC/20.  These extensions concerned Nicaragua and Sri Lanka. The requests and
the draft decisions related to these extensions had been circulated in documents G/L/515 and
G/C/W/351 for Nicaragua,  and  G/L/516 and G/C/W/352  for Sri Lanka.
1.14 The Committee took note of the statements and agreed  to forward the waiver requests and
accompanying draft decisions set out in Annex II of document G/MA/SPEC/20 to the Council for
Trade in Goods for approval.
2. Submission of HS96 documentation
2.1 The Chairperson stated that according to the provisions contained in the General Council
Decision of 8 May 2001, extending the time-limit of the waivers granted to Members that had
requested it until 30 April 2002 (reference to document WT/L/400), it was envisaged that the
Members concerned would submit by this date the complete documentation related to the introduction
of HS96 changes in their WTO schedules, and that in special circumstances they could request
technical assistance from the Secretariat.  Document G/MA/TAR/2/Rev.27 reflected the present
situation concerning the submission of the required  documentation.  From the document, it could be
noted that the submissions of seventeen Members, whether they had requested an extension of
waivers or not, remained pending due to ongoing consultations and/or negotiations.
2.2 She also reported on the informal consultations that had been taking place on the subject of
the HS96 transposition exercise.  Since the last formal meeting on 26 September 2001, furtherinformal meetings of the Committee were held on 11 December 2001 and 18 February 2002 to review
the status of HS96 submissions.  Informal lists entitled Revision 10 and Revision 11 detailing the
situation of HS96 submissions were faxed to all Members when these informal meetings were
convened.   This process had been useful in achieving progress and she proposed that another meeting
of this kind be held in the near future. A Revision 12 of the informal list detailing the situation ofHS96 submissions would be issued along with the fax convening this meeting.G/MA/M/31
Page 4
2.3 The representative of Sri Lanka wished to obtain technical assistance from the Secretariat for
the preparation of the documentation required to be submitted in connection with this exercise.
2.4 The Committee took note of the statements and agreed  to the Chairperson's proposal.
3. Submission of HS2002 Documentation
3.1 The Chairperson referred to document G/MA /TAR/4 which reflected the situation with
respect to the circulation of HS2002 documentation.  Since the issuance of  this document, the
verification sheet of Australia had also been circulated.
3.2 In accordance with the procedures for the incorporation of HS2002 changes into schedules of
concessions, adopted by the General Council on 18 July 2001 and contained in document WT/L/407the Committee needed to meet in an informal dedicated session to undertake a multilateral review of
the proposed changes and the first such session of the Committee was expected to be held around the
middle of April 2002.  This would be subject to the availability of meeting rooms, interpreters and
more importantly compliance with the guidelines concerning the scheduling of meetings.
3.3 The representative of Canada stated that his authorities were reviewing the comments made
by the Secretariat and welcomed a mid-April 2002 meeting.  He encouraged other Members to make
their submissions as quickly as possible so as to avoid the HS2002 exercise taking as much time as
the HS96 exercise.
3.4 The representative of the United States stated that there were a number of issues that his
delegation had not considered in the transposition exercise that were raised in the Secretariat
verification sheet.  His authorities were looking at these elements and would expect to submit
responses to the Secretariat before the mid-April  2002 meeting so that there could be a useful
discussion at the time of the meeting.
3.5 The representative of Malaysia stated that the HS2002 changes should have been gazetted on
1 March 2002 in Malaysia.   His delegation intended to submit the documentation by April 2002 so
that Malaysia could be part of the first batch of waivers.  In such a case, it was Malaysia's hope that
that its documentation could also be subject to that multilateral review envisaged for the middle of
April 2002.
3.6 The representative of New Zealand informed the Committee that New Zealand intended to
submit the relevant HS2002 documentation in April 2002.
3.7 The representative of China informed the Co mmittee that her authorities were preparing fully
for the HS2002 exercise.
3.8 The Committee took note of the statements.
4. HS2002 Draft Waiver Decision (G/MA/W/29)
4.1 The Chairperson recalled that the subject of this waiver was first discussed at the Committee's
informal meeting of 11 December 2001.   There had been an exchange of views on the question of a
waiver for Members implementing HS2002 changes domestically on 1 January 2002, but not having
undertaken the procedures to introduce such changes to their WTO schedules of concessions.  It was
agreed that the Chairperson would undertake consultations on this subject, specifically on whether an
individual or "collective" waiver would be  the best way to proceed for such Members.G/MA/M/31
Page 5
4.2 An informal meeting was convened on 14 January 2002 to pursue discussions on this matter.
To assist in the discussions the Chairperson had requested the Secretariat to draft a possible HS2002
waiver decision using the initial "collective" HS96 waiver decision contained in documents
WT/L/124 and Corr.1 as a basis.  A document containing a draft HS2002 waiver decision was faxed
to all Members along with the notice convening the informal meeting of 14 January 2002.
4.3 An additional informal meeting was held on 31 January 2002 on this subject.  A revised draft
HS2002 waiver decision, which had been amended in light of the discussions held at the informal
meeting on 14 January 2002 and further consultations, was circulated to all Members along with the
fax convening the informal meeting of 31 January 2002.
4.4 Members present at that meeting approved the revised draft HS2002 waiver decision.  In
addition, in order to ensure parity of treatment for all Members it was agreed that Members which
implemented the HS2002 changes and made the required submission to the WTO after 30 April 2002
would be given treatment no less favourable than Members having submitted the requireddocumentation prior to 30 April 2002.  Accordingly, a waiver requested by such a Member (i.e. a
Member having submitted the required documentation after 30 April 2002) would be recommendedfor approval by the Committee on Market Access at a subsequent formal meeting following the
submission of documentation by this Member, a nd the waiver would be valid for twelve months
starting from the date of implementation of the HS2002 changes for this Member.
4.5 The Chairperson proposed that the Committee approve the decision contained in document
G/MA/W/29 as well as her statement concerning the parity of treatment for all Members.4.6 The Committee so approved.
4.7 In terms of procedure, the Chairperson proposed that she send a letter to all Members
requesting those who would like to be covered by the draft waiver decision contained in document
G/MA/W/29 to indicate this to the Secretariat by a certain date.  The Secretariat in turn would include
their names in the annex to this draft decision.  It being understood that if the required documentation
had not been submitted by 30 April 2002, then at the time of adoption of this draft decision by the
General Council, the Members concerned would not be considered part of this waiver decision.
4.8 The Committee so agreed.
5. Modalities and operation of the Integrated Data Base
(a) Status of submission of the requir ed documentation (G/MA/IDB/2/Rev.13)
5.1 The Chairperson stated that document G/MA/I DB/2/Rev.13 which had been circulated to all
Members presented the situation of PC IDB submissions  as of 25 February 2002.   The Secretariat had
informed her that, since the document had been circulated, a submission had been received from
Singapore relating to imports for 2001,  and from Oman  relating to tariffs for 2001, its first
contribution to the IDB.
  
5.2 She noted that with the recent contribution of Oman 90 Members and 4   acceding countries
had provided IDB submissions.  Since the last re vision of the Status of Submissions, 3 additional
Members had submitted documentation for the first time to the IDB.   She reminded Members that the
deadline for furnishing the 2002 tariff information was 30 March 2002.
5.3 The representative of Australia welcomed the new submissions that had been made especially
by the Members that were referred to as first-tim ers.  His delegation encouraged all efforts in this
respect. His delegation wanted to emphasize the importance for Members to make regularG/MA/M/31
Page 6
submissions to the IDB particularly in view of its importance as a valuable negotiating tool. The
impetus for providing submissions was the greatest now as there was a round of negotiations and all
Members, especially developing country Members would benefit greatly from the analytical tools in
conjunction with the data in the database.  In compliance with the 31 March 2002 deadline for the
submission of 2002 tariff information, Australia intended to provide its 2002 applied tariffs shortly.He noted that in document G/MA/TAR/3/Rev.7 which listed national tariffs available in the
Secretariat, Australia's 2002 tariffs were included, and he enquired as to the source of this data.
5.4 The Secretariat clarified that they were amendments to Australia's 2001 tariffs which had
been notified to the Secretariat.5.5 The representative of Brazil stated that do cument G/MA/IDB/2/Rev.13 on the status of IDB
submissions reflected accurately the fact that Brazil had submitted its 2002 applied tariffs. However,
in document G/MA/TAR/3/Rev.7, it was indicated that only Brazil's 2000 tariff information was
available.  He enquired as to the discrepancy between the two documents.
5.6 The Secretariat indicated that the tariff information submitted to the IDB and to the Tariff
Library was different in terms of form, content and dissemination.  The IDB was a notification in an
electronic form containing inter alia information on trade import data, applied and bound duty rates,
while the Tariff Library contained hard copies of national tariff schedules. The IDB had a
dissemination policy which was restrictive, while information submitted to the Tariff Library was
open to the public.  However, if the Member so wish ed to make available in the Tariff Library its IDB
submission, it should so notify the Secretariat.
5.7 The representative of the United States stated that submissions to the IDB were crucial for
countries wanting to participate in the forthcoming tariff negotiations.  It would be impossible for
them to do the necessary analysis, to know what their interests were without this kind of information.Also, from a technical assistance standpoint, it would be impossible for the Secretariat or other
multilateral organizations to do the analysis for them if this information was unavailable. He urged
those Members that had not made recent submissions to the IDB to do so in order to be able to fully
participate in the forthcoming negotiations.
5.8 The representative of China pointed out that some IDB information was signalled as missing
in the column relating to China in document G/ MA/IDB/2/Rev.13.  However, China had joined the
WTO only last year and she wished to know if it was necessary to make this kind of a submission as
the Secretariat already had China's accession schedule.
5.9 The Secretariat stated that an IDB submission consisted of inter alia  applied duties while
China's accession schedule contained only its bound commitments.   So China would need to make a
submission to the IDB concerning its 2002 applied tariffs and 2001 import data.
5.10 The representative of New Zealand agreed with the general thrust of the US comments in
regard to the IDB.  The information in the IDB pertaining to New Zealand also contained gaps which
his delegation was keen to fill.  In this regard, New Zealand would be providing its 2001 import dataand 2002 applied tariffs which would enter into force on 1 July 2002. Additionally, he noted that
New Zealand had not yet supplied any bound tariff s to the IDB and New Zealand's customs people
were working on this matter, and intended to make a submission in this regard as well. New Zealand
was also currently working on a correlation in regard to the verification of its HS96 schedule and
would also be doing a correlation with regard to its HS2002 submission which it planned to notify inthe following month.
5.11 The representative from Uruguay stated that Uruguay's 2002 applied tariffs had been notified
to the Secretariat as reflected in document G/MA/IDB/2/Rev.13.G/MA/M/31
Page 7
5.12 The representative of Chile informed the Committee that his delegation would be submitting
its applied and bound tariffs for this year and also the import data as soon as possible. He highlighted
the importance of such a tool in the context of the market access negotiations, and urged all
delegations to supply their import and tariff data. In relation to tariffs, both applied and bound needed
to be submitted.
5.13 The representative of Canada shared the comments made by the representatives of Australia,
Chile, New Zealand and the United States in which they underlined the importance of the IDB.  He
urged Members who had gaps in their IDB to fill them in as soon as possible. As Australia had
pointed out the real value of the IDB as an analytical tool was in having regular submissions.
5.14 The representative of Malaysia shared the views expressed by Australia, Chile, Canada, New
Zealand and the United States on the importance of the IDB.  It was a very useful analytical tool and
he encouraged submissions to the IDB.  His de legation would endeavour to supply the 2001 imports,
and 2002 tariffs in the shortest possible time.
5.15 The representative of Hungary stated that Hungary had supplied its 2002 tariffs to both the
Statistics Division and to the Market Access Division separately.  He hoped that this would be
reflected in the document providing the status of submissions to the IDB and to the Tariff Library.  He
agreed with the statements made by many delegations about the importance of having updated
information in the IDB.  He urged all Members to supply the import data, even earlier than the
deadlines because without the import data it would not be possible to evaluate the different proposalsfor negotiating modalities in the agricultural and non-agricultural negotiations. It was in the interest of
each Member to provide the necessary information.
5.16 The representative of the European Communities supported all those who had underlined the
importance of the IDB for the upcoming negotiations. He encouraged those delegations who had not
yet done so to fill in the gaps in the IDB as quickly as possible  His delegation had submitted in
December 2001 the information on its 2002 tariff schedule, and was doing its best to submit the 2001
import data as soon as possible.
5.17 The representative of Lithuania stated that his authorities intended to make a submission to
the IDB in the near future.
5.18 The Committee took note of the statements.
(b) Progress Report on the Work done by the Secretariat
5.19 On IDB dissemination, The Secretariat  reported that it had continued to load information onto
the IDB Internet site on a monthly basis.  As of  15 March 2002, there were 318 country periods on the
site, of which 298 were in the approved area.  Seventy-six Members and four acceding countries or
territories were represented.
5.20 On use of IDB information since December 2001, the Statistics Division had forwarded to the
OECD detailed tariff line data on fisheries products for a number of WTO Members, also members of
the OECD, following their approval  to do so.  These data were used by the OECD to verify work
based on country submissions to the OECD.  In addition, the Division prepared a statistical note on 6
digit level tariffs and imports of fisheries products for the same number of Members for presentation
by the WTO representative at the OECD Fisheries Committee next week.
5.21 The Statistics Division had contributed to two documents that were issued on 8 March 2002
for the upcoming Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture.  They are respectively "Tariff
And Other Information On Agricultural Products " (TN/AG/S/2) and "IDB And CTS-based ReportsG/MA/M/31
Page 8
For Agricultural Products" (TN/AG/S3).  These were updates of earlier documents that were
circulated in September 2000.  The first document provided an up-to-date overview of the tariff and
other information on agricultural products available in the Secretariat, including, inter alia  in the IDB
and CTS.  The IDB and CTS sections provided Members with information on the current situation
regarding the two data bases; information on existing IDB software applications and indications ofsoftware development for the IDB and the CTS;  and information on how the IDB and the CTS
database could be linked.  The second document illustrated data selection that could be made and
reports that could be developed for agricult ural products based on IDB and CTS information.
5.22 On Trade Policy Review (TPR) information, since December 2001 two Members' TPR files
had been received for use in the IDB with the Members' approval.  Authorization to use the TPR files
of eleven Members was still outstanding.  It was intended to follow up with reminder letters to theseMembers under the signature of the Chairperson of the Committee.
5.23 On follow up actions stemming from the 2000/01 Multilateral Appraisal of the IDB and
related technical assistance activities, to the sugges tions for improving IDB participation listed in the
Secretariat report on the Multilateral Appraisal (G/MA/IDB/W/12 refers), and following discussion at
the September 2001 meeting of the Committee, Heads of Delegation were requested by the
Chairperson in December 2001 to supply, on a voluntary basis, IDB focal points in Geneva and the
capitals.  The objective was to enable the Secretariat to resolve technical problems directly with
national compilers, whilst at the same time keeping the WTO mission representatives informed.  So
far this exercise had netted focal points in 31 capitals.  Added to the focal points already established,the Secretariat now had the means to make direct contact with compilers in 60 capitals to resolve
technical problems as they arose.
5.24 On IDB technical assistance, the two last activities in 2001 took place in December, just after
the 11 December meeting of the Committee on Market Access.  They were a national mission to
Malta, and a Secretariat-financed one week Geneva based training course for a senior Sri Lankan
statistician.  Both activities netted improved IDB submissions.
5.25 So far in 2002,  IDB statisticians had conducted a national seminar in Djibouti, back to back
with participation in a WTO regional seminar for 35 French speaking LDC officials;  and two IDB
statisticians had just come back from a two day seminar for non resident delegations in Brussels.
5.26 The results from these last two activities bore witness to some of the difficulties encountered
in delivering technical assistance.  For example, all Brussels-based WTO delegations were invited to
the Brussels seminar, but only half turned up.  Participants were encouraged to consult the IDB
statisticians on country specific problems.  Only one did.  Bilateral consultations were however, held
with three other participants.  An offer of a dedi cated afternoon session to the Member whose request
for technical assistance had triggered off the seminar was not taken up.  Participating countries were
invited to bring their national tariffs and trade data, but no information was received that could be
used for the IDB.  The seminar did, however, raise awareness to the existence and importance of the
IDB and the CTS database for trade policy purposes.  Participants from Gambia, Saint Lucia and
Suriname expressed interest in future regional technical assistance programmes to be held in Africaand the Caribbean during the course of 2002.  The Djibouti experience netted some data that could
possibly be used for the IDB, but the IDB statistician noted that they had great difficulty in collecting
and compiling trade data at the customs level according to the HS.
5.27 As for 2002 as a whole, the Statistics Division submitted to the Technical Cooperation
Division a plan for IDB related technical assistance activities.  This plan took into account the
discussions during the 2001 'Multilateral Review of the IDB and related Technical Assistance
Activities' and the availability of staff resources.  It focused on regions and individual Member
countries that were not well represented in the IDB and/or have put forward a specific request forG/MA/M/31
Page 9
technical assistance.  The plan was included in the 'Coordinated WTO Secretariat Technical
Assistance Plan 2002' (WT/COMTD/37 dated 7 Ma rch 2002) and covered the following activities
(excluding the two 2002 activities already mentioned). Regional seminars for Arab Member countries
in Oman (planned for 13-17 April).  In this connection only three Members have indicated their
participation out of the 15 Members and acceding countries that had been invited; French speakingAfrican Members; and Caribbean Member countries. National IDB activities in Bangladesh, Burundi,
Chile (video-conferencing), the Dominican Republic, India (planned for 13-17 May), Lithuania,
Mongolia, and  Pakistan (planned for 15-19 April).  In addition, it was planned to provide IDB
training during Geneva Week and for the Trade Policy Courses and to continue to provide IDB
workshops and presentations for delegations in Geneva on request.
5.28 To improve the IDB submission rate it was planned to contact directly all participants in
IDB national and regional workshops that had not yet made submissions to the IDB or were very
much delayed in their IDB notifications.  It should be mentioned that delegations were notified via the
Central Registry of Notifications every six mont hs if IDB submissions had not been forthcoming.
5.29 Lastly, during a recent session of the UN Statistical Commission session in New York
possible joint Technical Assistance activities with respect to trade and tariff statistics with other lead
agencies were discussed.  Representatives  from UNSD, UNCTAD and the World Customs
Organization were very interested.  It was hoped that other players would be engaged, particularly
EUROSTAT which delivered technical assistance for EUROTRACE (the software that compiled
trade statistics and which could operate off UNCTAD's ASYCUDA customs data collection software)during the next inter-agency Task Force meeting to be held in Rome in April 2002.
5.30 On software development, the Committee wa s informed that the IDB Internet Analysis
Facility (IAF) prototype was now operational on the WTO Intranet.  This software allowed users to
browse the IDB information on-line.  It contained facilities for selection of products and applyingtariff and trade criteria, similar to those available for the IDB CD-ROM.  Currently two reports could
be compiled - a detail tariff line report and a report showing tariff averages, imports and other
statistical indicators.  Feed back from users in the Secretariat was being actively sought.  The next
step was to make the IAF prototype available to Members for testing via the Internet, in early
April 2002.  Members would be able to access the prototype using the same user-ids and passwords as
were used for the IDB Internet File Transfer Facil ity.  Heads of Delegations would be informed of the
application's availability and the Internet address of the site (foreseen to be: http://iaf.wto.org/). TheSecretariat would appreciate receiving Members' feedback and information on any problems that
might arise in using the Internet facility, via the IDB e-mail account (idb@wto.org).  With Members'
assistance the Secretariat intended to develop, on an incremental basis, the IAF as a powerful
analytical tool that would assist all Members to fully exploit the information in the IDB. A
demonstration of the IAF was planned for delegations in the near future.
5.31 The representative of Chile reported that the scheduled video conferencing seminar in Chile
had not taken place due to a lack of available resources in Chile to organize such a seminar.
However, his delegation hoped that it would be possible to hold the seminar in the second half of
2002.  On another matter, one of the mandates from Doha concerning market access negotiations onnon-agricultural product was to assess the impact of trade liberalization for least-developed countries.
The question was whether it would be complicated to carry out this type of analysis and to help those
Members if their import and tariff, both applied and bound, data could not be obtained.  Some
measures needed to be taken to help these Members submit their statistics which in turn would enable
the required analysis  to be carried out.  On this point, and on the importance of the two databases fornegotiations, he wondered whether the Chairperson could send a letter to delegations urging them to
update their data submissions.  In the past, this type of a letter had resulted in increased submissions
to the IDB.G/MA/M/31
Page 10
5.32 The Committee took note of the Secretariat report and the statements.
6. Consolidated Tariff Schedules Database Project  – Report by the Secretariat
6.1 The Secretariat reported that it had completed the processing of all developing Members' CTS
tariff and agricultural commitments files, with the exception of the two latest Members, China and
Chinese Taipei.  The CTS files of these latest two Members were being finalised and would soon be
sent to them for approval.  In all, 111 tariff files and 31 agricultural commitments files had been
finalised thus far.  Comments had been received from five Members – Bulgaria, Czech Republic,
India, Lithuania and Singapore.  These comments would be incorporated in the database as soon as
possible.  The delegation of Venezuela had informed the Secretariat that their draft agricultural
commitments were being reviewed with the intention of completing the approval process as soon as
possible.  With respect to the eleven Members who had committed to preparing their CTS databasefiles themselves, the CTS tariff and agricultural commitments files of five Members were finalised.
They were Canada, the EU, Hungary, Norway and Switzerland.  The final Norwegian CTS file was
submitted to the Secretariat on Wednesday this week, and it could be incorporated into the database.
6.2 Japan had recently forwarded comments on its fi le to the Secretariat for incorporation in the
database.  The tariff and agricultural files of Australia, the tariff files of New Zealand and of Iceland,
and the agricultural files of the United States remained to be finalized.  And lastly, the tariff and
agricultural commitments of Poland had yet to be submitted to the Secretariat.  The Secretariat had
been, and was continuing, to provide technical guidance to the compilers in the capitals whenever it
could.  In terms of  resources, the Budget Committee had approved one additional post for theStatistics Division in 2002.  It would be used to support the CTS database.  The vacancy notice for
this post had already gone out and it was expected that a new statistician would join the Division by
June 2002.
6.3 The representative of the United States informed the Committee that his authorities were
reviewing the Secretariat's comments on the agricultural portion of the US file and they expected to
provide final responses to the Secretariat within the next week.
6.4 The representative of Australia informed the Committee that while his delegation had
submitted the tariff and agricultural commitments files to the Secretariat, the files remained in draft
form.  Australia needed to reply to the Secretariat's questions on Australia's database files and to re-
examine and resolve the issues with the concordance between Australia's schedule of concessions andits national tariffs.  The major difficulties to date had been with respect to the concordances. Australia
also needed to submit its draft consolidated Loose Leaf Schedule for examination. His delegation
recognized the importance of this exercise, and intended to submit these elements very soon.
6.5 The representative of New Zealand assured Members that his delegation was working
diligently to complete the process of verification on New Zealand's tariff files. The Secretariat had
pointed out some gaps and mistakes in the files, but the main work to be done now was a concordance
table.  He had been assured by his customs authorities that they hoped to table this document in
April 2002.
6.6 The representative of Japan stated that his authorities had provided comments on Japan's CTS
file, but were still checking its accuracy.   As a result, his delegation might provide additional
comments to the Secretariat at a later stage.
6.7 The representative of Uruguay stated that in view of the importance which all Members
attached to the CTS database it was essential that this database be finalized as quickly as possible.
Delegations which still had to supply information should do so as quickly as possible in order that allG/MA/M/31
Page 11
Members could benefit from this important tool especially in the context of the ongoing negotiations
within this organization.
6.8 The Chairperson recalled that in view of the importance of this work it had been proposed to
have a discussion on the dissemination policy of the CTS database. A fax dated 6 March 2002 had
been sent by her advising Members that she intended to take up the matter of the dissemination policy
of the CTS Database under this agenda item.
6.9 The representative of the United States stated that there were three separate points that he
wished to make with respect to the dissemination of the CTS database. One was that there were some
preliminary steps that needed to be taken by the Se cretariat in order to load all of the files to the
internet file transfer facility so that Members could have access to the database.  The question he hadwas whether this process of loading files onto the internet file transfer facility was taking place and if
so when would this exercise be expected to be completed?  Such information would give Members
some idea on the urgency and the deadlines with which they were working.  His second point related
to the understanding that the CTS database would not be switched on unless all the files had been
submitted and finalized. One thing that the Committee needed to think about was what it would do if,for whatever reason, all files were not finalized at the time the CTS database could theoretically be
switched on.  He drew attention to the fact that Members needed this information in order to proceed
with tariff negotiations.  Also, numerous enquiries had been received from the World Bank asking for
access to this information so that it could undertake analysis for developing countries. Additionally,
the WTO Development and Research Division would find access to these files useful in order toundertake similar types of analysis.  So while it might not be possible for the Committee to take a
decision on this matter at this meeting, it needed to  keep in mind the fact that such a situation could
emerge and what to do in such a case.  In this c onnection, he had high expectations that by the end of
March 2002 the US file would be finalized. The final issue he wished to raise was that the Secretariat
had submitted for Members' consideration at this meeting the dissemination policy that was adoptedwith respect to the IDB.  He believed that the CTS information should be supplied, for example, to the
World Bank and the International Monetary Fund on the same basis as the IDB.  He did not think that
this was controversial. The Secretariat could be authorized to, at the time the CTS became
operational, to inform those organizations that had full access to the IDB that they had the same
access to the CTS database.
6.10 The representative of Uruguay stated that in relation to what the US representative had said
about the contents of the CTS database being made available to the World Bank and the IMF, he had
understood that the UNCTAD had on some occasions also requested this information. He wished to
know the status of this request from UNCTAD.
6.11 The representative of Argentina stated that her delegation shared the concerns raised by
Uruguay about UNCTAD not having the same level of access as the other organizations.  In fact, her
delegation did not understand why such a distinction had been made. UNCTAD had technical
assistance programmes with developing countries on WTO negotiations and the only way it could do
a useful job in that respect was to have all the necessary information. There were formal agreements
between the WTO and the World Bank and the IMF, and was such an agreement required withUNCTAD for it to have access to this information? If so, how could it be done?
6.12 The representative of Switzerland stated that it was crucial that the CTS database be finalized
and made accessible to all those who needed to use it. The IDB and the CTS database used together
would provide information which was essential to Members' preparation for these negotiations. Asregarded the dissemination policy of the CTS database, Switzerland had no objections to following
the model which applied to the IDB at the present time.G/MA/M/31
Page 12
6.13 The representative of Malaysia stated that he was surprised that the UNCTAD did not have
the same level of access to information in the IDB as the World Bank and the IMF. In this regard, he
shared the concerns expressed by Uruguay and Argentina. As for the question raised by the US,
Malaysia held the view that the CTS database should not be operational until all the information was
there. In this regard, he urged that the remaining work on the CTS database be completed in theshortest time possible.  He could agree to the Secretariat doing the necessary background work in
preparation for the eventual launch of the database, and  was of the view that the dissemination policy
of the IDB could be adopted for the CTS database.
6.14 The representative of Chile stated that with respect to the issue raised by the US about
turning on the CTS database, it would be helpful if the Secretariat could provide: 1) an idea of the
technical viability of access through the internet to the CTS database; 2) how much time such anexercise would take; and 3) whether there would be  a possibility of having a link between the IDB
and the CTS database.  As regarded the dissemination of the information in the CTS database, it was
an important point. In this regard he wished to  thank the Secretariat and the United Kingdom for
having provided technical assistance to developing countries. Such assistance had enabled Chile to
finalize its consolidated schedule. However, the CTS database would not be a useful instrument if the
information pertaining to important trading partners was not present. Any study undertaken on the
basis of this partial information would be distorted.  It was a very important instrument for
negotiations and in this respect, he urged those Members which had not yet completed their schedules
to do so as quickly as possible.  As regarded dissemination, and on this matter he spoke also on behalf
of Colombia, he supported the idea that this information should be disseminated to internationalorganizations in the same way as the information in the IDB.
6.15 The representative of New Zealand shared the views of other speakers that the CTS database
should be completed and go online as soon as possi ble. His delegation would support any steps taken
by the Secretariat to assist Members to finalize their submissions to the CTS database.  His delegationwould also support the Secretariat  preparing the ground technically in order for the CTS database to
go online at a moment's notice. In this connectio n, he wondered how much time it would take the
Secretariat to complete such a task. At the same time he noted that the decision for the database to go
online would be a decision by the Committee.   From the Secretariat report, it appeared to him that the
CTS database was 95 per cent complete.  He agreed with Uruguay, Malaysia and Chile that Members
should endeavour to complete the remaining 5 per cent of the database as soon as possible.  He felt
reasonably confident that the CTS database would be 98 to 99 per cent complete by the end ofApril 2002.  The real question was whether Members should wait until the stage of 100 per cent
completion of the database before switching it on even if time-frames were extended.  Or should the
Committee agree to open it in a shorter time-frame without lessening the burden on the Members
concerned to complete any pending submissions.  The representative of Malaysia had expressed the
view that the CTS database should not be made operational until all the information was in andNew Zealand tended to agree with that position in  principle.  But he wondered whether Members
might not have to take a more pragmatic position if the time-frames began to move further out in the
future. For example, his delegation would not be pleased if access to the CTS database was blocked
this year because this information would be useful in the context of the market access negotiations.
His delegation needed some more time to reflect on the issue. On the subject of dissemination,New Zealand's preliminary reaction was that the IDB dissemination policy provided an excellent basis
for the CTS dissemination policy.
6.16 The representative of Hungary agreed that the Secretariat should begin the technical work
required in order for the CTS database to be switched on when the decision was taken in the
Committee to do so.  He was also of the view that UNCTAD should have the same treatment as other
international organizations.  The dissemination of the CTS database was important in terms of
preparations for the agricultural and non-agricultural negotiations and also because Members needed a
tool to evaluate proposals submitted on negotiating modalities. It was quite clear that the CTSG/MA/M/31
Page 13
database combined with the IDB would be essential for that purpose. So this information had to be
available before the summer break which is why he proposed that: a) the Committee should authorize
the Secretariat to begin its technical work; and b) the Committee should suspend the meeting on this
point and authorize the Chairperson to hold informal  consultations on this question.  The Chairperson
would then have the flexibility to reconvene the Committee at short notice in order for it to take a
decision on whether this information should be disseminated or not.  Additionally, by that time the
situation would be more clear and Members would be in a better position to take a decision.
6.17 The representative of the European Communities noted the statements made by a number of
Members and looked forward to moving the CTS data base towards its full completion in the very near
future. His delegation would support all efforts to achieve this goal.  His delegation had already
invested an enormous amount of time, effort and money in the CTS  database and it was now the
moment to use this tool. He supported the proposal made by Hungary. With regard to the
dissemination policy, his delegation was of the opinion that the same dissemination policy used for
the IDB could be used for the CTS database.
6.18 The representative of India stated that her delegation attached importance to switching on the
CTS database as soon as possible. The Committee had heard of the very good progress made on the
submissions to the CTS database but it might be necessary, as New Zealand had stated, for Members
to review the situation in a month's time before deciding on how and in what manner the CTS should
be made operational.  One would need to consider elements such as: when to switch it on; when to
make it available to Members;  and to which Members it should be made available to.  Herdelegation's preference was that all Members should have access to a facility which was of extreme
importance and relevance to the work that was ongoing in this Committee.  Another aspect of the
making this database operational would be the dissemination policy vis-à-vis other international
organizations. There were also technical aspects of such a procedure which she felt Members would
need to consider. When she looked at the IDB dissemination policy there were issues such aspasswords and interim review.  Access to the IDB by the IMF and the World Bank had explicit
reference to agreements with the IMF and the World Bank, respectively.  However,  those agreements
referred to access to the final schedules of commitments of Members which in her delegation's view
referred to the legal documents which were the Loose-Leaf Schedules and not the CTS database.
However her delegation was quite favourable to providing these organizations with access to the
electronic version of the CTS schedules.  However, it needed to be made clear that these schedules did
not have the legal status of the final schedules of commitments which were actually refered to in theagreements between the WTO and th ese two organizations.  In this connection, she felt that it might
be appropriate for the Committee to use the time that was available between now and the time it did
the review of the status of submissions to the CTS database to also fine tune some aspects of the
dissemination policy.  She shared the view that the IDB policy did provide an excellent basis for the
CTS database, but Members needed to go through the fine print.  She agreed that it would be useful ifthe Chairperson were to hold informal consultations and suspend the meeting on this item so that the
Committee could revisit it at short notice.  She was in favour of having a meeting convened in the
month of April  2002.  However, she recalled that some of the "do-it-yourself" delegations had
indicated that they would be making submissions  in mid-April 2002. It would be useful for the
Chairperson to coordinate with those delegations so that the Chairperson's consultations and theCommittee's next meeting would be a productive one. Her delegation would have no objections to
providing the Secretariat with the mandate to load th e files on to the internet file transfer facility,
provided that technically the loading was unaffected  by the dissemination policy that the Committee
had yet to agree on.
6.19 The representative of Canada stated that it wo uld be useful to know how long it would take
the Secretariat to do the preparatory technical work in order to reach the stage where the CTS
database could be turned on at a moment's notice. If the time-frame was one month, for example, then
he could agree to the Secretariat starting the preparatory work on the understanding that nothingG/MA/M/31
Page 14
would get turned on until the Committee had made a decision on the other aspects.  However, he did
not want a discussion on dissemination if it was going to take six months for the Secretariat to do the
necessary technical work. He could support India's statement with regard to suspending the meeting
and having informal consultations with regard to issues such as dissemination policy, the status of the
outstanding submissions and so forth.
6.20 The representative of Brazil stated that as a general principal his delegation was in favour of
the Secretariat undertaking the technical work required in order to operationalize the database.  This
would include the question of the dissemination policy.  In this connection, Brazil could agree to
using the same dissemination policy for the CTS database as for the IDB. Once the technical work
was undertaken by the Secretariat, then the Committee could  evaluate the status of the submissions at
that point before taking a decision on whether or not to operationalize the CTS database.
6.21 The representative of Australia supported the suggestion to request the Secretariat to do the
necessary technical preparatory work to be in a position to switch on the database. In that respect, he
enquired as to how long that process would take and what it would entail? With respect to the
dissemination policy, Australia believed that the IDB dissemination policy was a good basis to workon.  With respect to what the Committee should do if by mid-April 2002 the submissions were not
finalized, he noted that there were a number of Members including Australia that had committed to
providing whatever they could by mid-April 2002.  Australia underscored the importance it attached
to this exercise.  However, being one of the "do-it-yourself" Members meant that necessary resources
had to be attributed to this exercise at a time when resources were stretched and the agenda was aburgeoning one in the WTO. Australia was committed to finalizing its files. However,  Australia was
working on the particularly difficult aspect of concordance tables.  His delegation believed that given
the elements that needed to be considered, it would be appropriate for the Committee to suspend on
this item and for the Chairperson to conduct informal consultations.
6.22 The Secretariat stated that it would take about four to five weeks to lo ad the files, in their
current state, onto the internet transfer file facil ity.  However, the issues raised in the Committee, such
as dissemination but also updating the CTS files could have an effect on the organization of the
internet transfer file facility.
6.23 The representative of Canada proposed that the Committee authorize the Secretariat to start
the necessary technical work on the CTS database immediately, and that the Chairperson hold
informal consultations over the course of April 2002 so that the other questions could be resolved. In
this manner, by the end of April 2002 the Committee would be in a position to decide on what to do.
6.24 The Chairperson proposed that the Committee authorize the Secretariat to do the necessary
preparatory work to enable the CTS database to be made operational when the Committee took the
decision. On dissemination itself, she proposed to hold informal consultations in April 2002, using the
document G/MA/IDB/3 containing the IDB dissemination policy as a basis. At the same time, she
indicated that it would be a good opportunity to clean up document G/MA/IDB/3 which contained a
lot of elements not belonging to dissemination poli cy as such.  During these informal consultations
the Committee also needed to look at why UNCTAD did not have the same access rights as the WorldBank and the IMF to the IDB. On that basis she proposed to suspend the meeting on this item.
6.25 The Committee so agreed.
6.26 At the reconvened meeting on 12 June 2002, the Chairperson  reported on the informal
consultations conducted by her on this matter.   The Committee had met five times informally to
discuss this issue (26 April, 16 May, 28 May, 6 June and 12 June 2002).  At its first informal meeting
on 26 April 2002, the Committee agreed  that the Secretariat should prepare a document on the IDB
and Consolidated Tariff Schedules database dissemination basing itself on document G/MA/IDB/3.G/MA/M/31
Page 15
The Secretariat prepared such a document which was circulated as Job 3866, dated 13 May 2002 and
entitled "Dissemination of the Consolidated Tariff Schedules (CTS) Database and the Integrated Data
Base (IDB)".  This document  was then discussed at an informal meeting of the Committee on
16 May 2002.   At this meeting, the Committee agreed that in order to move the process forward it
would be useful for the Secretariat to change the annex of this document, which contained the
elements of a  dissemination policy, into a draft decision.   Accordingly, the Secretariat prepared a
new draft and the Committee met a third time on 28 May 2002 to discuss this new draft which was
circulated as Job 4210 dated 24 May 2002.  At this meeting, the Committee agreed that the Secretariat
should revise this document taking into account the comments made by delegations and the
Committee met a fourth time on 6 June 2002 to discuss the revised Secretariat draft text which was
circulated as document Job 4210/Rev.1 dated 4 June 2002.    At that meeting, it was agreed that the
Secretariat should further adjust the document in light of the comments made.  The Secretariatamended the document in light of the comments made and further consultations by the Chairperson
and the revised version of this document was issued as G/MA/W/31 entitled "Dissemination of the
Integrated Data Base (IDB) and the Consolidated Tariff Schedules (CTS) database".  It was sent to all
Members along with the fax dated 10 June 2002 which had reconvened this meeting.
6.27 The Committee moved into informal mode to discuss document G/MA/W/31.
6.28 Following discussions, the Committee moved back into formal mode and agreed  that
document G/MA/W/31 entitled "Dissemination of the Integrated Data Base (IDB) and the
Consolidated Tariff Schedules (CTS) Database" be adopted with the changes agreed to at the
preceding informal meeting, and be adopted under agenda item G of the scheduled formal meeting ofthe Committee of 12 June 2002 convened by WTO/AIR/1820.
7. Implementation-Related Issues and Concer ns:  Meaning to be given to the phrase
"substantial interest" in paragraph 2 (d) of Article XIII of GATT 1994 (paragraph 1.2
of WT/MIN(01)17)
7.1 The Chairperson noted that prior to the Doha Ministerial Conference, and as requested by the
Chairman of the General Council she had undertaken consultations in her personal capacity on the
issue of "substantial interest" in Article XIII of GATT 1994.  The results of the consultations were
reported to the Chairman of the General Council and were contained in document WT/GC/50.  A
background paper by the Secretariat, a proposal by Korea, and a possible draft text of the issue of
"Substantial Interest" were also annexed to that document.  One of the outcomes at the Doha
Ministerial Meeting was paragraph 1.2 of the Ministerial Decision  on Implementation-Issues andConcerns  relating to this matter which read as follows:
7.2 "Noting the issues raised in the report of the Chairperson of the Committee on Market Access
(WT/GC/50) concerning the meaning to be given to the phrase "substantial interest" in paragraph 2(d)
of Article XIII of the GATT 1994, the Market Access Committee is directed to give furtherconsideration to the issue and make recommendations to the General Council as expeditiously as
possible but in any event not later than the end of 2002."
7.3 In order to start the process, and to assist the Committee in its consideration of this subject,
she proposed that the Committee request the Secretariat to prepare a paper using empirical data(nothing complicated) illustrating how "substantial interest" would be taken into account if the Korean
proposal were to be used.   Once this paper was ready, she proposed that the Committee come back to
a future informal meeting to look at the outcome of the Secretariat's work.  She stressed that this paper
was only meant to assist the Committee in its initial thinking of this subject-matter, and did not
prejudge the position of any delegation.G/MA/M/31
Page 16
7.4 The Committee agreed to the Chairperson's proposal.
8. Notification of Quantitative Restrictions (G/MA/NTM/QR/1/Add.8)
8.1 The Chairperson recalled that Members were required to make notifications of the
quantitative restrictions they maintained every two years pursuant to the "Decision on Notification
Procedures for Quantitative Restrictions" (G/L/59).  With respect to the 2002 notifications, she
referred to document G/MA/NTM/QR/1/Add.8 which prov ided an update of the situation.  In total the
PC database contained the notifications of 30 Members. Twenty-nine Members had notified the
Secretariat that they did not maintain quantitative restrictions.
8.2 The Committee took note of the statement and the document.
9. Notifications under the Decision on Reverse Notification of Non-Tariff Measures
(G/MA/NTM/W/3/Rev.1)
9.1 The Chairperson drew the Committee's attention to the "Decision on Reverse Notification of
Non-Tariff Measures" dated 1 December 1995 (G/L/60) which envisaged that "the Committee shall,
at two-yearly intervals on the occasion of the review of the notifications of quantitative restrictions,review the reverse notifications of non-tariff measures received on the basis of Secretariat analyses".
Pursuant to this paragraph, she invited the Committee to review the reverse notification of non-tariff
measures received on the basis of the document prepared by the Secretariat G/MA/NTM/W/3/Rev.1.
She noted that this document was circulated in 2001, but as no new notification had been received
since that date, a revision of the document had not been prepared.
9.2 The Committee took note of the statement and the document.
10. Other Business
(a) United States -  Egypt's use of specific duties on imports of textile and clothing items, and
China's tariff rate quota administration as well as application of the VAT to fertilizer imports
10.1 The representative of the United States stated that it was the US understanding that in 2002
Egypt had imposed a system of specific duties on many textile and clothing items imported into Egypt
which in the US view was in excess of its WTO bound obligations and therefore a violation of Article
II of GATT 1994.  His authorities had discussed this issue with Egypt on 28 February 2002, and it
was the expectation that bilateral consultations would continue.  The second issue he wished to raise
related to China's fertilizer tariff rate quotas and value added tax (VAT). He informed the Committeeof China's failure to issue quotas for fertilizer imports and of its continuing application of a
discriminatory 13% value added tax on imported fertilizers. His delegation also noted that under the
terms of accession which were agreed to, China was obliged to allocate its annual quota by 1 January
of each year.  His authorities were of the view that China should immediately issue its fertilizer quotas
and eliminate this WTO inconsistent VAT.  He wished to include these issues pertaining to Egypt andChina on the agenda of the next Market Access Committee meeting for the purpose of reporting on
the situation at that time.
10.2 The representative of Egypt took note of the statement.
10.3 The representative of China stated that on the allocation of the fertilizer tariff rate quota, this
was the first year for China to move from the management of absolute quotas to a system of tariff rate
quotas and the entities which had applied for the tariff rate quota numbered more than 300. Her
authorities were doing their best to allocate quickly and fully.  On the issue of the VAT, she intended
to obtain a response from her Capital and would inform the US and the Committee accordingly.G/MA/M/31
Page 17
10.4 The representative of Canada shared the disappointment of the US with regard to China not
having allocated the fertilizer tariff rate quota which it had committed to do by 31 December 2001.
His delegation requested China to proceed with the allocation as quickly as possible.  Canada
appreciated the publication of the draft tariff rate quota regulations in December 2001 and
January 2002 by the State Economic and Trade Commission, but his delegation had a number ofconcerns about their consistency with China's WTO commitments in particular with the obligation to
allocate quota on the basis of consumer preference and end-use demand.  In this regard, Canada
supported the US request to have this item on the agenda of the next formal Market Access
Committee meeting.
10.5 The representative of New Zealand stated that his delegation had a systemic interest in the
implementation of China's tariff rate quota system on a range of products.10.6 The Committee took note of the statements.
(b) Submission of national tariffs in 2002
10.7 The Chairperson drew the Committee's attention to document G/MA/TAR/3/Rev.7 which
contained a revised and updated list of tariffs available to the Secretariat.   She encouraged Members
to submit the most recent version of their customs tariffs if they had not already done so.  She stressed
the importance of having updated information in the Tariff Library.  It was consulted regularly by
delegations,  members of the Secretariat, the private sector, academics, students etc.   She noted that if
any Member felt that its national tariff information submitted in the TPRM or the IDB context mightbe used in the tariff library,  to inform the Secretariat in writing to this effect.
10.8 The representative of the United States informed the Committee that the US had submitted a
hard copy of its national tariffs to the Market Access Division. However, this situation raised the
question of how Members should handle on a longer term basis the interaction between IDBsubmissions and hard copies of national tariffs.  He  was not sure whether it made sense to have
separate IDB and hard copy submissions. The documents providing the status of submissions to the
IDB and the Tariff Library showed that the status of the former was better than the latter. So Members
might wish to think about eliminating this dual requirement at some point.
10.9 The representative of Chile enquired as to whether the Secretariat had received Chile's
national tariffs in hard copy or whether Chile was supposed to provide this information in electronic
form, i.e CD-ROM or in another form?  Like the US delegation, he did not understand the purpose of
supplying national tariffs to the Tariff Library in electronic form if they had already been submitted to
the IDB.
10.10 The Chair responded that the question of submissions in electronic form and hard copy was
something that the Committee coul d look into in the future.
10.11 The representative of Costa Rica enquired as to the difference between submissions to the
IDB and to the Tariff Library and the consultations to be carried out in this respect.  Was the
difference  that of dissemination policy?
10.12 The Chair responded that under this agenda item the Committee was discussing submissions
of hard copies of Members' national tariffs.  There was no direct agreement that Members' IDB
submissions should automatically be given to the Tariff Library which explained her earlier request to
those Members wishing to have their IDB submissions in the Tariff Library, to so inform theSecretariat.  She knew that for some delegations, this was a problem as the Tariff Library was open to
the public while the IDB had limited access.G/MA/M/31
Page 18
10.13 The Committee took note of the statements and the document.
(c) Letter from the Chairman of the Committee on Trade and Development
10.14 The Chairperson informed the Committee that she had received a letter from the Chairman of
the Committee on Trade and Development, Mr Irumba in which he requested her to inform him of
any discussions or other developments relating to special and differential treatment taking place in the
Committee during the first half of 2002.    This request had been made in connection with the work
the CTD is mandated to do pursuant to paragraph 12.1 of the Decision on Implementation-Related
Issues and Concerns, and in particular to avoid any duplication of work. It was her intention to inform
him that as of 18 December 2001 and to date the Market Access Committee had not examined any
issue pertaining to special and differential treatment.
10.15 The representative of the United States wondered if a more informative response might not be
appropriate, for example reference to the technical assistance being provided to developing countries
on issues before the Committee. In fact technical assistance was an item that came up at every
meeting.
10.16 The Committee took note of the statements.
(d) Date of the next meeting
10.17 The Committee noted that the next meeting of the Committee was scheduled for
12 June 2002,  subject to confirmation.
__________