RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/C/M/47
25 April 2001
(01-2076)
Council for Trade in Goods
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard on 14 March 2001
Chairperson:  Ambassador Pérez del Castillo
The meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods was convened by WTO/AIR/1498.  The
proposed agenda contained in G/C/W/253 was adopted.
I. CUSTOMS VALUATION AGREEMENT: REQUEST FOR A WAIVER BY
CAMEROON UNDER ARTICLE IX OF THE WTO AGREEMENT
(G/C/W/245), (G/C/W/245/ADD.1)..........................................................................................2
II. TRIMS AGREEMENT:  REQUEST BY EGYPT FOR EXTENSION OF THE
TRANSITION PERIOD PURSUANT TO  ARTICLE 5.3 (G/C /W/249) .............................2
III. REVIEW OF THE OPERATION OF THE TRIMS AGREEMENT UNDER
ARTICLE 9 ...................................................................................................................... .........4
IV. NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS TAKEN UNDER THE 1999 WAIVER FOR
PREFERENTIAL TARIFF TREATMENT FOR LEAST-DEVELOPED
COUNTRIES (WT/L/304) .......................................................................................................5
V. REQUEST FOR A WTO WAIVER – NEW ACP-EC PARTNERSHIP
AGREEMENT (G/C/W/187, G/C/ W/187/ADD.2 AND G/ C/W/204) ...................................6
VI. FREE TRADE AGREEMEN TS............................................................................................12
VII. REQUEST BY INDIA, PAKISTAN AND HONG KONG, CHINA:  CTG'S
FUNCTIONS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IV OF THE MARRAKESH
AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION –
TRANSPARENCY REGARDING NEW RESTRICTIONS ON TEXTILES
AND CLOTHING PRODUCTS COMMENTED UPON BY THE TEXTILESMONITORING BODY ..........................................................................................................13
VIII. APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS FOR SUBSIDIARY BODIES OF THE
COUNCI L........................................................................................................................ ........16
IX. ELECTION OF CHAIRP ERSON OF TH E CTG...............................................................17
X. OTHER BU SINESS............................................................................................................... .17G/C/M/47
Page 2
I. CUSTOMS VALUATION AGREEMENT: REQUEST FOR A WAIVER BY
CAMEROON UNDER ARTICLE IX OF THE WTO AGREEMENT (G/C/W/245),
(G/C/W/245/ADD.1)
The Chairman drew the attention of  Members to documents G/C/W/245 and
G/C/W/245/ADD.1, which contained a request and related information for a waiver for Cameroon under
Article IX of the WTO Agreement concerning the Customs Valuation Agreement.  As the delegation of
Cameroon was not present, the Council agreed to revert to this item in the future.
II. TRIMS AGREEMENT:  REQUEST BY EGYPT FOR EXTENSION OF THE
TRANSITION PERIOD PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 5.3 (G/C/W/249)
The Chairman noted that the Council had before it in document G/C/W/249 dated 23 February
2001 a request by Egypt for an extension of the transition period under Article 5.3 of the TRIMs
Agreement.  The request referred to measures notified by Egypt in September 1995 in document
G/TRIMS/N/1/EGY/1.
The representative of Egypt introduced the request submitted by the Government of Egypt
pursuant to Article 5.3 of the Agreement on Trade-related  Investment Measures (TRIMs) for a five
year extension of the transition period for the elimination of the measure previously notified in 1995
in accordance with Article 5.1 of the TRIMs Agreement.  The request came after similar requests by a
number of developing countries and economies in transition and following a long and difficult debate
between all stakeholders in Egypt on whether the said measure fell precisely within a specific
category of the illustrative list annexed to the TRIMs Agreement.  This debate had not reached adecisive conclusion.  Nevertheless, the Government of Egypt had decided to go ahead and submit the
request.
The measure in place provided incentives to promote the establishment and development of
domestic industries.  These incentives took the form of reduction of customs duties levied on
imported components incorporated in the domestic process of production.  The reduction in customsduties increased with the increase of the percentage of locally produced components in the final
product.  The principal aim of this measure was to enhance the development of the industrial base, in
particular the feeding industries, through attracting foreign investment flows and encouraging transfer
of technology.  It also aimed at creating employment opportunities and addressing the chronic trade
deficit.  The said measure applied to enterprises that voluntarily chose to use this incentive scheme
and to foreign, local as well as joint ventures without discrimination and without being limited to any
particular industry.  A large number of enterprises benefitted from this measure.
The Government of Egypt was concerned that the termination of this measure could lead to
serious repercussions on the economy, particularly a sharp decline of long established industries and
related enterprises, decrease in investments, cons iderable increase in unemployment rates as a result
of closure of companies and jeopardizing the soci o-economic objectives of the far-reaching reform
program that Egypt had been implementing since 1991, as well as a set-back to the ambitious tradeliberalization program steps taken since that time.  The industrial sector in Egypt was currently
undergoing a period of structural adjustment.  A large industrial modernization program had been
prepared to increase the competitiveness of the industry.  The requested extension would allow the
industry to adjust, while reinforcing Egypt's efforts to continue its trade liberalization.  Taking into
account the outlined development, financial and tr ade needs, she looked forward to the positive
consideration of Egypt's request by the Council for Trade in Goods in accordance with the General
Council decision of 8 May 2000.  She recalled that the General Council decision noted:  "the concerns
of those Members who have not notified TRIMs or have not yet requested an extension, and the need
to preserve the multilateral character of this process".  Her delegation was ready to cooperate with allG/C/M/47
Page 3
interested members to ensure an accelerated and speedy consideration of the request.  She was
confident that the WTO Members would spare no e ffort to support Egypt's own efforts to further
liberalize its trade while enhancing its production capacities, in order to be in a position to take full
advantage of the opportunities and benefits of the multilateral trading system.
The representative of Japan's reading of Article 5.3 of the TRIMs Agreement was that such
requests should be made before the expiration of the original extension period.  It seemed difficult to
support this request, but his delegation was willing to engage in discussions with Egypt and other
interested parties.  The nature of the specific measures for which Egypt was seeking an extension was
not clear.  In the original notification, the reference to certain incentives in the form of customs duties
reduction to promote the establishment and development of industries in the country also required
clarification.
The representative of Colombia hoped due flexib ility would be shown with regard to Egypt's
extension request.  The request was within the rights under the Agreement granted to countries that
needed a transition period in order to adapt their economic and commercial realities to the
requirements of an increasingly globalized envir onment.  The benefits which the industry had
received from this measure had been outlined, and justified the request for an extension's transition
period.
The representative of the United States said that under the TRIMs Agreement WTO Members
were required to notify any measure not in complia nce with the TRIMs Agreement no later than three
months after the entry into force of the WTO Agreement.  For this reason, she questioned whether
Egypt received any transitional period under the TRIMs Agreement.  Even if the initial notification
had been timely, she rejected the notion that a country that had been in violation of its TRIMscommitment since at least January 2000, and possibly for over six years, should receive any
favourable treatment by this Council.  If the CTG decided positively on this request, Members would
not only be diminishing the terms of the TRIMs Ag reement but would also need to answer to those
countries that notified their measures properly and removed them as instructed under the Agreement.
She suggested Egypt examine options outside of the 5.3 process and seek a waiver request underArticle IX of the WTO Agreement.
The representative of the European Communities said that he needed more information about
the scope and detail of the measures, including the practical modalities which would ensure an
effective oversight of a measure of this breadth and scope.  He considered that Article 5.3 was not the
appropriate way of looking at this particular request and said that the waiver process under Article IX
would be the appropriate way forward.
The representative of Malaysia supported the request made by Egypt, though it was perhaps
unclear whether it was a TRIM or not.  He had made clear at other meetings of this Council that
Article 5.3 did not have a deadline as to when such an application should be put forward  or when it
could not be considered.  That measure taken by Egypt was important for industrial development and
for addressing their chronic trade deficit situation.
The representative of Canada believed the deadline for requests pursuant to Article 5.3 had
passed.  Egypt had provided little information on the breadth of this measure and information on
which to assess the merits of this proposal which made the request problematic.
The representative of India said that in view of the fact that the 8 May 2000 General Council
Decision tried to capture all situations (presentation of requests at a later stage, or requests not
presented until now, or even non-notified TRIMs) the Chairman of the CTG should include Egypt'srequest for consideration until such time as Egypt ha d concluded its own internal debate as to whether
the concerned measure was a TRIM or not.G/C/M/47
Page 4
The representative of the Philippines wished to second the US proposal that there should be
further consultation on what options would be available in the context of the Marrakesh or GATT
1994 framework, so that Egypt could receive sympathetic consideration as far as these measures were
concerned.
The Chairman said that on the part of all Members there was the necessary goodwill to consider
the problem raised by Egypt through its request.  Some expressed concern for the late presentation of
the request, and others considered Egypt's request to be in conformity with its rights in paragraph 3 of
Article 5 of the TRIMs Agreement.  Some delegations thought the appropriate path was not through
Article 5.3, but rather via a request for extension a ccording to Article IX of the WTO Agreement, i.e.
through a waiver.  Finally, it was said by some delegations there was a lack of information which they
considered necessary for them to be able to make a decision on the scope of this request.  His
conclusion would be that the CTG invite delegations who needed more information to present toEgypt in writing their questions which would enable them to have further clarification, and then he
called on his successor to hold further consultations on the way in which the Council should proceed
in respect of this request without prejudging the final result.  The Council would have an opportunity
to come back to this subject in its next meeting in April.  He saw no objections and it was so agreed.
III. REVIEW OF THE OPERATION OF THE TRIMS AGREEMENT UNDER
ARTICLE 9
The Chairman recalled the Council had exchanged views on a proposal by Pakistan for a joint
study by the Secretariats of UNCTAD and the WTO to  assist developing countries in carrying out the
review of the TRIMs Agreement.  At the last meeting on 15 November 2000 he had informed theCouncil that the two Secretariats had consulted on this  matter and agreed to cooperate in the preparation
of such a study.  On that occasion, a request was made by one delegation for further consultations to
determine the terms of reference for the study.  The Secretariat had informed him that in its contacts
with  interested delegations on this issue the delega tion of Pakistan had indica ted that the study should
focus on the three specific elements which Pakistan had identified at the meeting of 5 April and 18 May
2000, when it first made its proposal for such a study.  As reflected in para. 3.2 of the minutes of that
meeting (G/C/M/43) these elements were:  (i) whet her TRIMs were helpful for development;  (ii) the
developmental implications of disciplining other pe rformance requirements;  and (iii) the importance of
local content requirements in developmental polic ies of developing countries.  Also at least one
delegation which had expressed an interest in this matter indicated that it was still reflecting on the terms
of reference of this study.
The representative of the United States sugge sted additional consultations.  She would not
object to a study on how the TRIMs Agreement related to development, but would need to ensure that
the recent work on this topic that had already been  done, in particular by the OECD, could also be
brought in.  It had been her experience that the OECD  Secretariat's work in this area had been useful in
understanding some of the complicated issues involv ed.  She suggested that the OECD Secretariat be
contacted by representatives from the WTO and UNCTAD to gauge whether the OECD would be
interested in participating in this study.  It was im portant to the US that this be a balanced study to
reflect concerns of investors and the difficulties they faced regarding TRIMs and how TRIMs might
hamper a successful investment c limate for developing countries.
The representative of Malaysia was apprehensive  as to whether the OECD Secretariat should be
involved, and he urged the Chair to continue cons ultations on this.  Prior to an agreement by the
membership of the CTG, the WTO Secretariat should  not contact the OECD Secretariat.  The original
proposal was a joint study by UNCTAD and WTO and this new proposal to bring in the OECD
Secretariat was something he wished to reflect further on.G/C/M/47
Page 5
The representative of India said that India supported Pakistan's proposal for a joint study
between UNCTAD and WTO.  The Chair had held consul tations on the terms of reference of that joint
study.  In light of what had alr eady been discussed and agreed upon, it was not appropriate to introduce
a new participant to that study.  She could go along with the US suggestion that further consultations be
held on the terms of reference of the study.
The representative of Pakistan reiterated the im portance Pakistan attached to the study because
of the socio-economic impact that this agreemen t had on the economies of developing countries.  He
confirmed that Pakistan had suggested a few parame ters, and was willing to consult on these with any
interested delegation, but at this late stage he did not like to accept the suggestion of involving another
participant.
The representative of Canada wanted to par ticipate in the consultations on the terms of
reference.  He supported a study being undertaken that covered the full gambit of Article 9 in the TRIMs
Agreement.  He was open to the question of who else might make contributions to such a study.
The representative of Mexico expressed the intere st of his delegation in participating in these
consultations.  The representative of Egypt supported the study and agreed with the terms of reference
that had been mentioned.  She would like to see th e study conducted as soon as possible and would like
to participate in any further consultations on the terms of reference.
The Chairman said there was agreement that  this study should include the development
dimension.  The participation of th e OECD was also suggested.  This was not shared by some Members
and he called on his successor to continue consultations on the specific terms of reference of this study.
No one was contesting the need for a study, but there was no question that there was interest in
continuing to discuss the terms of reference.  It was so agreed.
IV. NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS TAKEN UNDER THE 1999 WAIVER FOR
PREFERENTIAL TARIFF TREATMENT FOR LEAST-DEVELOPED COUNTRIES
(WT/L/304)
The Chairman reported on consultations he had had with the Chairman of the Committee on
Trade and Development since the last meeting regarding notifications of action taken under the 1999
waiver.  Steps taken by developing countries und er the 1999 Waiver on Preferential Tariff Treatment
for LDCs were to be notified to the Council on Trade in Goods.  On the other hand, information on
any actions taken by developed countries under their GSP schemes in favour of LDCs were to be sent
to the CTD under the provisions of the Enabling Clause.  Recognising these differing reportingprocedures, the Chairman of the CTD had proposed in November 2000 that any market access
measures taken specifically in favour of the least-developed countries, whether under the EnablingClause and notified to the CTD or the 1999 waiver and notified to the CTG be referred for advice by
either body to the CTD Sub-Committee on LDCs.  The Sub-Committee would report back to the CTD
or CTG, as appropriate, on its discussions.  The objective was to allow for a unified consideration in
one forum of measures taken in favour of the LDCs.  No modification to existing notification
procedures was proposed, nor would this request for advice interfere with the terms of waiver or thetreaty requirements.  Such an approach would not preclude the CTG from engaging in discussions of
any matter in regard to the waiver.
He proposed to the CTG the above method for handling notifications made under the waiver
and the Council so agreed.G/C/M/47
Page 6
V. REQUEST FOR A WTO WAIVER – NEW ACP-EC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT
(G/C/W/187, G/C/W/187/ADD.2 AND G/C/W/204)
The Chairman drew Members' attention to document G/C/W/254 from the EC on its banana
régime and requested the EC to introduce this document.
The representative of the European Communities said that he believed the situation was now
clear.  After the publication on 2 February 2001 of the latest EU Council regulation on the banana
régime which contained the new preferences for the ACP countries, all the elements requested by the
countries who had so far resisted or blocked the examination of the waiver request in the WTO were
now available in all three WTO languages.  The new banana régime was notified earlier this week to
the Dispute Settlement Body and was available also as a working document for the Council for Trade
in Goods.  There was no reason why the work of examination should not begin with immediate effect.When considering this request, apart from bananas and in a number of other but relatively small
number of cases, essentially the trading régime which the EC was proposing, and which would be
covered by the request for a waiver was essentially the same as the existing one.  He appealed to
delegations to engage with his delegation in the examination of the request.
The representative of Paraguay expressed once again Paraguay's opposition to this waiver
request because it was both discriminatory and inconsistent with WTO rules and principles.  It was
discriminatory because it granted international trade facilities to 71 countries, abolishing customs
duties and other charges in many areas and offering generous quotas for other products, while denying
both of these benefits to a smaller number of developing countries, some 38 by his calculation, whichconstituted an inversion of the multilateral/regional equation.  The WTO accepted waivers for small
groups which, for special reasons, shared common trade, but when most developing countries were
afforded these advantages and a small group was denied them, this constituted discrimination.
He welcomed the European Union's decision to liberalize trade for developing countries, but
this had to be extended to all of them.  It must not be confined to a majority, while denying the same
privileges to a minority of developing countries, for which this had a highly damaging impact since
their products failed to remain competitive in the liberalized context afforded to the other developing
countries.  This was neither fair nor equitable.  Whereas the WTO was created with a view to
achieving trade liberalization and multilateralism, the objective of the waiver request was contrary to
this principle and contradicted the European Union's own main spokesman on trade, Pascal Lamy,
who claimed to defend multilateralism in international trade.  This waiver, for historical reasons,sought to establish a privilege for one group of developing countries, while damaging another group,
including countries such as Paraguay, which had a lower income per capita than 15 of the ACP
countries.  This privilege liberalized products which were clearly Paraguayan, such as maté (llex
Paraguayensis), classified in the preferential tariff regime nomenclature in chapter 9 "coffee, tea, maté
and spices", for ACP countries and not for the countr y in which it was originally produced.  That was
the irony of this privilege.
He did not accept the idea that this was no more than a continuation of the Lomé
Conventions.  Nevertheless, the first of the Lomé Conventions was itself damaging to Paraguay, in
that it barred access to EU markets for several Paraguayan products, which could not be competitivebecause of the duties payable or the lack of quotas.  If a new Convention was accepted when the
WTO was established, taking it up to the year 2000, the objective was to abolish these facilities and
not, as the EU suggested, to continue extending them, while promoting multilateralism.  Although he
sympathized with the ACP countries, the discrimi nation that Paraguay and many other developing
countries suffered had forced him to oppose this waiver request.
Agriculture was of fundamental importance to Paraguay in economic and social terms.  Fifty
per cent of the population lived in rural areas and was employed in agriculture, producing 27 per centG/C/M/47
Page 7
of the gross domestic product and 85 per cent of foreign exchange through exports.  Agriculture also
constituted the basis of Paraguay's industries by providing raw materials.  According to the latest
statistics, for 1998, there were 310,000 agricultural production units in Paraguay, with an area of
33,500,000 hectares under cultivation.  This demonstrated the importance of precisely those
agricultural products which could no longer be competitive due to the privileges granted to ACPcountries.  He believed that historical grounds coul d not be applied to developing countries, for they
constituted a status quo which prevented countries in a vigorous stage of development from entering
international markets, either because access to developed countries was denied or because these
discriminatory agreements were created "for historical reasons" which eliminated competition from
international trade.  Unlike the generosity it showed in the field of technical cooperation, the
European Union did not show the necessary solidarity and political sensitivity in the trade arena to
open its markets to developing countries such as Paraguay.  Paraguay was seeking to consolidate itsdemocracy (a fundamental political principle, advocated by the European Union) and consequently,
needed to expand foreign trade, especially in  agriculture.  He hoped that the EU and the ACP
countries would be able to understand Paraguay's point of view.
The representative of Panama said the CTG had been told by the EU representative that in his
view Members had all the different elements needed to initiate consideration of the waiver request
made by the ACP countries and the EU.  There were still however procedural difficulties that stood in
the way.  The European Commission had still not presented a clear picture of the banana régime
which it intended to apply, nor of the preferences which would be granted to ACP countries.  The
régime had a Council regulation and also a Commission regulation which still needed to be published.It was necessary to have all elements of the régime to see which preferences would be given to the
ACP countries.  Therefore he did not agree with the appreciation made by the representative of the
EU and believed there were still difficulties which prevent the CTG from considering the régime.  The
discussion process on various aspects of the previous Lomé régime had been lengthy, and the EU had
time to establish a banana régime which was WTO compatible, but instead of doing this, and despitethe objections raised by Panama and other countries, the EU had sought solutions which were not
compatible with their obligations and with the re commendations and rulings of different panels and
the Appellate Body.  Panama was not in a position to give its support to a waiver extension.  It was
concerned at the possibility that this waiver mechanism could be used to sidestep obligations
stemming from recommendations and rulings put out by panels and the appellate body which had
been achieved at great cost drawing on the scarce res ources of developing countries.  In his view there
were procedural problems that prevented the CTG from considering this request and he wanted towait until it was clear which were the preferences which would be granted to the ACP countries.
The representative of Costa Rica said that as on previous occasions his delegation believed
that not all information had been put before the CTG, which would enable it to consider the request.
He had taken note of the explanations given by the EC, in particular the reference to the fact thatcertain countries might have blocked the consideration of this issue.  What had occurred so far was far
from a blockage of any sort.  Document G/C/ W/254 contained the EC's regulation which was an
integral part of the régime.  Until the CTG had the information to have a full picture of what the
preferences were made up of, he could not initiate any consideration of the case.  To comply with the
rulings of the panels and the Appellate Body woul d be the solution which he had constantly advocated
to the EU.  To force through a waiver was something which went against the spirit of the dispute
settlement system and very clearly went against the purpose of the waiver system.  The EU on this
occasion wished to extend the conflict, not only to the dispute settlement system, but also to the rules
which governed waivers in the WTO.  Returning to the procedural aspects, he awaited all the
necessary information to be supplied by the EU, so that the CTG could start considering the requestfor a waiver.
The representative of Guatemala gave full support to the points made by Panama and Costa
Rica.  Specifically, the EC had to comply with paragraph 1 of the Understanding in Respect ofG/C/M/47
Page 8
Waivers of Obligations under the GATT 1994.  His delegation considered that on this occasion there
had been no compliance with paragraph 1 of that text, since the request had not met the different
requirements set out there.  Guatemala could not begin to study or consider the request unless the
CTG had before it all the different elements involved, including the Commission's implementing
regulation.
The representative of Hungary recalled the first discussion on this subject on 5 April 2000.
No delegation per se  objected to granting a waiver;  the main problem was whether all information
was available or not;  as there were some delegations who said that they would like to have clear
information on the preferences accorded to bananas.   The CTG was informed that this information
was available and there was the necessary documentation to that effect.  The review of the waiver
request had to begin without delay in accordance with Article IX.3(b) of the WTO Agreement.  Toblock the examination of a waiver request might be dangerous for the future of the whole system and
should be avoided.  One could like or dislike the banana régime, but this should not hinder the review
of the waiver request.  The representative of the Czech Republic agreed with the position expressed
by Hungary.  All elements were on the table which should allow work to start on the review of thisrequest for a waiver, based on existing WTO rules and established practice.
The representative of the Philippines recalled the document circulated last year containing the
proposed draft decision on the waiver request in which the EC cited the 1956 GATT decision on the
requirement for the parties requesting a waiver to  engage in consultations with other contracting
parties whose trade concerns might be adversely af fected.  He was looking forward to engaging the
EC in such consultations.
The representative of Honduras referred to a subject of systemic importance which was  the
status of documentation which did not enable Memb ers to know what measures were being proposed
to be adopted by the EU on the subject of bananas.  This was a requirement under paragraph 1 of theUnderstanding in Respect of Waivers of Ob ligations under the GATT 1994.  The EC Council
regulation that had been referred contained insufficient elements for Members to know the measures
which the requesting Member wished to adopt. In particular the Commission's implementing
regulations was missing. It seemed to him that the measures in question were not WTO-compatible
and not directed to ending the discrimination which predominated at present.  Though it was true that
exemptions were by their nature designed to adapt solutions to certain special situations, it  was  also
true that these solutions had to be within the framework of the general spirit regulating the agreementsof the WTO.  This meant that his delegation could not accede to examining the request for this
waiver.  He repeated to all  ACP partners that H onduras was  not opposed in principle to waivers for
developing countries to help them improve conditions of trade.  When the documentary requirements
were fully met his delegation would be pleased  to examine the request for such a waiver.
The representative of Colombia  said that the EC had still not complied with the essential
requirement to present to the Council the full measures on the banana régime.  For this reason, he
shared the comments of Panama, Costa Rica, Guatemala and Honduras.
The representative of Jamaica said that it had been almost one year since the question of a
waiver for the trade provisions of the EU-ACP partnership agreement was first brought before this
body.  The historical record indicated that the request for a waiver was tabled on 5 April 2000, the
relevant draft decision was circulated on 14 April 2000, and the full text of the agreement, was
circulated on 18 April 2000.  The CTG had made no progress.  In the process, it had set an unhealthy
precedent for the consideration of waiver requests which every Member had the right to make and tohave considered under the procedures agreed by all Members in the Marrakesh Agreements.  There
were legal provisions for the assessment of the impact of any waiver that was granted on any Member
and all Members were well aware of those provisions.  The ACP countries had always held a view
that the existing documentation on the table was a sufficient basis for the CTG to proceed with aG/C/M/47
Page 9
substantive consideration of the waiver request.  Many of the positions heard today raised issues
which should be taken up during consideration of the request.  The banana issue had been raised most
prominently and he noted that the ACP countries accounted for 3% of world trade in this product.
The Ambassador of Paraguay had raised the question of discrimination and inconsistency with the
principles of the WTO, and asked for the understanding of the ACP countries.  There was a legalprocess for waivers in the WTO and for taking into account the impact of any waiver on any country.
Paraguay was a member of a preferential regional trading arrangement which accounted for more than
twice the share of world trade of the 71 ACP count ries referred to and certainly of the 55 ACP
countries that were WTO Members.
The representative of Zimbabwe thought that the representative of Hungary had made a
reasonable point.  When he heard interventions from Paraguay and other countries it appeared as if the
CTG was already in the process of examining the requ est for the waiver.  If they had that information
and they objected to the granting of the waiver, the process of examination should start.  Members of
the ACP had the right for the request to be put befo re the CTG and if that request was not agreeable to
Members, they had the right to object in the examination of that request.  By saying that the
information available was not sufficient, some Members wanted to delay the examination of therequest, for other purposes rather than the waiver itself.
The representative of Brazil said that his capital was focusing on some specific products
whose situation he would like to discuss with the EC as soon as the Members of this Council decided
that the examination of the request could start.
The representative of the United States was taken by surprise that some documents were
submitted to the CTG concerning the banana régime on the day of the meeting.  Her delegation was
not prepared today to consider commencing the examination on the basis of the documentation which
she had not seen but was prepared to continue efforts to see a swift commencement of theexamination at the appropriate time.  This item should remain on the agenda so that by the next
meeting an examination could commence.  Her dele gation could not accept any situation that would
undermine any litigation that the US had been in volved in regarding the matter of bananas.
The representative of Barbados endorsed the statement made by Jamaica that all of the
elements necessary for the start of the examination of  the waiver request were in place.  She reiterated
the call for the substantive examination of the waiver request to begin and stressed the importance fordeveloping countries, especially the smallest and weakest, for preferential access for the markets of
developed countries.
The representative of Cuba said that Cuba part icipated as an observer in signing the Cotonou
Agreement in Benin in June 2000 and considered this agreement a positive step in international
relations because it was directed towards supporting and fostering the economic and social
development of ACP countries which were among  the poorest of the world.  His delegation
considered that the proposals and objectives of this agreement were in line with the principles of the
WTO.  He deplored that developing countries were divided for reasons of specific interests and made
an appeal for solidarity between developing countries in favour of ACP countries.  Some of theexpressions had been quite frank today on the discriminatory nature of the Agreement.  There were
plurilateral trade agreements where, for various reasons, whether geographic, political or historical in
nature, benefits were generated for a group of developing countries and some of these agreements had
now been adopted and approved without difficulty, and others were currently being negotiated.  He
made an appeal for there to be greater flexibility and more understanding for this request.
The representative of Ecuador stated that document G/C/W/254 dated 12 March 2001 was not
distributed by the Secretariat together with the conv ening note for this meeting, as required by the
procedures for meetings of the council.  Therefore, he could not take a decision on this agenda item atG/C/M/47
Page 10
this time.  The notification presented by the EC a nd circulated today demonstrated two things:  first,
there was no blockage by WTO Member countries to analyse a waiver request, but rather there was a
lateness on the part of the EC in complying with  its obligations under the disciplines of the WTO.
Secondly, it also demonstrated that his delegation had every reason, having notified other members of
the Organization, that the documents delivered one year ago, in March 2000, by the EC, wereincomplete.  The dangerous precedent mentioned by the representative of Hungary was that of
obtaining a waiver without having distributed information to Members that would enable them to
consider its implications.  Despite efforts made by the EC to comply with the provisions of paragraph
1 of the Understanding on waivers under the GATT 1994, the documents were still incomplete and
therefore did not permit Members to begin examining the request.  The Community banana régime,
was still not defined completely, and this did not enable Members to determine the scope of the
preference for which the waiver was requested.  Referring to comments made by Jamaica related tothe participation in world trade of bananas by some of the ACP countries when compared to the
participation of Ecuador, he said that the ACP countries represented 3% of world trade and Ecuador
had a share of 36%.  The participation of ACP countries in world banana trade within the EU
represented 25%, whereas the participation of Ecuador, because of the discriminatory banana régime,
represented barely 18% of the volume of banana im ports of the EC.  Quoting the text of a statement
made by Jamaica in another body of this Organization, he said that Jamaica did not believe that the
EU proposal was consistent with its commitment under the Cotonou Agreement in ensuring the
continued viability of ACP banana export industries and a continuing outlet for their bananas on the
Community market.
The representative of Mauritius said that Members should be aware that the historical
dimension of ACP trade was an important factor in  the course of economic and social development.
Jamaica had clearly explained the serious reasons why the CTG could not procrastinate anymore and
he appealed for urgently commencing work on the review of the waiver.  It was about a year since
Members first took cognizance of the EC initiative for the request for the waiver.  With the latestdocuments from the EC, he trusted that Members were now past the stage of procedural imbroglio and
could set themselves to the task of substantive review of the request.  Systemic problems at the WTO
did not arise sheerly out of substantive issues:  Members could not defend the system when they did
not allow it the chance to come under examination.  Jamaica had drawn attention to the legal
disposition governing assessment of waiver operations.  All shared a collective responsibility in
permitting the process to function, which had been in suspense far too long.  It was time to contribute
towards the systemic balance by lifting the checks on the procedures and enabling Members to looktogether into the real substance of the request.  He appreciated the goodwill expressed by a number of
Members who were willing to engage in consultations.
The representative of St. Lucia was disappointed by the lack of recognition by some Members
of the importance of preferences to ACP states.  The position of ACP states in comparison to the rest
of the world was deteriorating.  When Members began deliberations on whether or not to begin the
examination of the ACP waiver request, there were 39 ACP LDCs;  now there were 41, making it the
only group that was moving backwards.  The history of the past 25 years had proven that preferences
to ACP countries had not distorted world trade;  all they had done was slowed down their
marginalization.  In the 25 years of Lomé benefits ACP share of world trade had actually declined.ACP countries did not have the goods to sell competitively and without the preferences would have
been worse off.  The gap continued to widen between ACP states and other countries.  Using bananas
as an example, over the past 10 years Ecuador's share of the EC market had doubled whilst that of the
Windward Islands had been halved.  The EC mark et was the only market where Windward Islands
were able to sell any supplies, because of the preferential arrangements.  The Partnership Agreementwas the product of long and difficult negotiations between the ACP and the EC.  Some Members were
seeking to preclude ACP states from benefitting from concessions which had been negotiated.  It
would be ironic if the fate of 77 ACP countries, 55 of which were WTO Members, was placed at risk
because of other developing countries in the name of non-discrimination.G/C/M/47
Page 11
The representative of the European Communities said that on further examination, some of
the statements made this morning, when read in the cold light of reason, might not stand close
scrutiny and some delegations might even wish to reformulate some of the observations made.  There
was no valid reason under the WTO Agreement why this request should not be examined inaccordance with the provisions of Article IX(3)b.  He was arguing only that Members begin the
examination of this waiver request and he had heard a number of delegations say that they refused to
do so.  One delegation had said that his delegation was seeking, through the acceptance of the ACP
waiver, to force through further illegalities in the new banana régime.  Even if it were true, it seemed
that the correct course open to that delegation would be the dispute settlement machinery.  That
reasoning could not be used in order to pre-empt the proper application of Article IX(3)b, which had
been frustrated for over 12 months.  He could not  allow that situation to prevail.  Waivers were
serious matters which involved a departure from the normal rules, and they had to be examined
closely.  He was surprised that some delegations themselves were surprised that a notification was
made to the CTG dated 12 March.  The regulation was published in all three WTO languages on 2
February 2001 and before that and afterwards, it had been the subject of consultation between his
delegation and other delegations across the spectrum of supplying countries, and countries with aninterest.  He had made the text available this week, thinking it was timely to do so;  perhaps this
should have been done slightly earlier, but no delegation in this room could be unaware of the content
of the regulation of the European Council.  The timing could have been improved, but in reality the
content was known, and sufficiently in advance and discussed at some length with many of the
delegations who had spoken today.  There was no valid reason under the WTO Agreement why theexamination of this request for a waiver should not now proceed.  Also, the potential beneficiary
countries themselves, including some of the world's poorest countries, but also other delegations who
had interest in other products and product areas and sectors than bananas, had the right, through the
examination of this waiver request, for their views to be heard.
The representative of Jamaica referred to comments by Ecuador that Jamaica believed that the
banana régime, notified by the EC, and known as a first come, first served régime, would have a
deleterious effect on the Jamaican banana indu stry.  CARICOM Ministers had expressed similar
sentiments regarding the likely impact on the region and the ACP Ministers meeting in Brussels last
December held that an FC-FS system could result in the rapid destruction of the ACP banana industry
because it would deprive ACP producers and exporters of security of access to the EU market.  The
sufficiency or insufficiency of data of documentation before the Council could not be determined bywhether one liked or did not like the documentation.  ACP countries took the view that the procedural
requirements were met several months ago.  He saw no reason for the examination not to proceed,
given the provisions set out in Marrakesh Agreement, including the provisions for Members to raise
and have issues relating to their interests taken into account and addressed as a part of the process.
The representative of the United States wished to see for purposes of precedent the
commencement as soon as possible of the examination of this waiver request.  She was concerned that
she was not aware until today that the EC intended to submit the régime in the CTG and therefore was
not prepared to opine specifically on whether the US could support at this time the commencement of
the examination in light of the intended régime.  She was hopeful that by the next CTG meetingMembers could proceed with the examination.   The US had its own waivers that might be coming to
this body soon.
The representative of Ecuador noted that St. Lucia had said that Ecuador had over the last ten
years been increasing its banana exports to the European market.  He wished to point out that this
growth had been in spite of the illegality of the ba nana régime of the EU established by several panels
over the last few years.  The question is what this  growth would have been without these illegalities.
Regarding the question from Jamaica as to why Ecuador quoted the text of Jamaica's declaration of
1 February in the DSB, he said it was to demonstrate that at least one ACP country had serious doubtsG/C/M/47
Page 12
about the new banana régime.  Jamaica also mentioned that the information submitted to the Council
at the time when the request was presented 11 months ago was sufficient and what was submitted on
12 March 2001 by the EU was not a determinant factor.  On the contrary, it was important enough to
enable Members to take into account the scope of the preferences to be received under the waiver.  If
something had to be notified in this Council, it had to be done in time.  Just because there was adiscussion of the banana régime in other fora, Members could not consider that this discussion was
sufficient and covered the requirements which needed to be addressed and complied with under the
rules of the CTG regarding the analysis of a waiver.
The representative of Jamaica said the question of whether Jamaica held doubts about the
consistency of the proposed régime with the Cotonou Agreement was a separate issue from the
examination and granting of a waiver under the provisions of the WTO.
The Chairman recalled that the CTG had been confronted with difficulties of procedure since
the beginning of this exercise, because of the position of some delegations as to the insufficient
information to enable them to start the examination, while other delegations thought that the
examination could take place on the basis of the material presented. Members had spent months inconsultations trying to seek a way forward. Initially a proposal was made by the Chairman to exclude
for the moment the banana regime and to start the examination on other aspects of the request.
Although the CTG was close to an agreement, there was finally no consensus. With the presentation
from the EC today, it could have been thought that  there was sufficient information to move forward.
During this examination Members could have incorporated other important aspects on the differentissues which today would not appear to be covered in the information submitted. In this phase of the
examination, Members could have also considered some other substantive aspects raised during the
discussions, such as the impact that preferential measures would have on third countries. However, a
series of new procedural difficulties had emerged in today’s meeting. Some of them connected with
lack of knowledge before this  meeting of the presentation of the regime of the EC and hence with the
non-compliance with the necessary timeframe that would allow a decision to be taken today, although
the representative of the EC had shown flexibility in this area.  Another concern related to the need for
further information by the EC’s Commission which certain delegations consider fundamental
regarding the banana regime before they could give their support to this examination being started.
Also a number of substantive issues regarding the waiver itself had been raised during the debate.  On
the other hand, he felt that many delegations have conveyed a sense of urgency in dealing with this
matter.  All these elements indicated that there was a need to keep this issue open until the nextmeeting in April.  A future effort should be made through additional consultations under the guidance
of the next Chairman so that by the next meeting Members could take a decision regarding the start of
the examination.  This seemed the most feasible approach and he submitted it to Members for their
consideration.
In the absence of objections, the CTG agreed to proceed in this way.
VI. FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS
The Chairman drew Members' attention to the 13 agreements listed under this item that had
been notified under Article XXIV.  The texts of the Agreements had been circulated in the documents
listed.
As there were no requests for the floor, he proposed that the Council submit the following
agreements to the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements to carry out the examination of theseagreements – Trade Development and Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and
South Africa (WT/REG113/N/1, WT/REG113/1);  Free Trade Agreement between the Kyrgyz
Republic and Armenia (WT/REG114/N/1, WT/REG114 /1, WT/REG114/1/Corr. 1 (English only));G/C/M/47
Page 13
Free Trade Agreement between Turkey and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
(WT/REG115/N/1, WT/REG /115/1);  Free Trade Agreement between Turkey and Latvia
(WT/REG116/N/1, WT/REG116/ 1);  Free Trade Area between the EFTA States and the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (WT/REG117/ N/1, WT/REG/117/1);  Free Trade Agreement
between Georgia and the Russian Federation (WT/REG118/N/1, WT/REG118/1);  Free Trade
Agreement between Georgia and Armenia (WT/ REG119/N/1, WT/REG119 /1);  Free Trade
Agreement between Georgia and Azerbaijan (WT/REG120/N/1, WT/REG120/1);  Free Trade
Agreement between Georgia and Ukraine (W T/REG121/N/1, WT/REG 121/1);  Free Trade
Agreement between Georgia and Turkmenistan (WT/REG122/N/1, WT/REG122/1);  Free Trade
Agreement between Georgia and Kazakhstan (WT/REG123/N/1, WT/REG 123/1);  Free Trade
Agreement between Israel and Mexico (WT/REG 124/N/1, WT/REG124/1);  Free Trade Agreement
between Chile and Mexico (WT/REG125/N/1, WT /REG125/1) - in accordance with the following
terms of reference:
"to examine, in light of the relevant provisions of the GATT 1994, the Free Trade
Agreements just referred to and to submit a re port to the Council for Trade in Goods". It was
understood that the understanding read out by the Ch airman of the Council for Trade in Goods under
item 7 of the agenda of the meeting of Council for Trade in Goods on 20 February 1995, as contained
in document WT/REG31/1, will apply mutatis mutandis to the examination of the agreements.  It was
also understood that, during the examination, due account would be taken of the intrinsic differences
between customs unions and free-trade areas.
The Council so agreed.
VII. REQUEST BY INDIA, PAKISTAN AND HONG KONG, CHINA:  CTG'S
FUNCTIONS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IV OF THE MARRAKESH AGREEMENT
ESTABLISHING THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION – TRANSPARENCYREGARDING NEW RESTRICTIONS ON TEXTILES AND CLOTHING PRODUCTS
COMMENTED UPON BY THE TEXTILES MONITORING BODY
The Chairman said at its meeting on 15 November 2000 the CTG considered, inter alia,   the
report of the Textiles Monitoring Body for 2000.  In this context, a discussion took place among some
Members regarding the bilateral restraint agreed between the US and Turkey on Turkey’s exports of
cotton and man-made fibre underwear to the US.  The CTG took note of the various statements made
and agreed that the Chairman would convene informal consultations with the Members who had
spoken, in an attempt to clarify the contents and scope of additional consultations on this particular
item.
Such consultations took place on 15 February and were not successful in clarifying the
contents and scope of additional consultations.  The Chairman understood that Item 7 had been
included in today’s Agenda at the request of India,  Pakistan and Hong Kong, China as a consequence
of the 15 February consultations.
The representative of Hong Kong, China said his delegation together with the delegations of
India and Pakistan had requested this agenda item to be discussed because of a serious systemic concern
about certain new restraints on textiles and clothing products being implemented by certain Members.
The new restraint was, after the Textiles Monitori ng Body (TMB)'s examination, clearly inconsistent
with the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC).  He was even more concerned with the difficulty
that the TMB encountered during the examination process – where this body, mandated by the ATC tomonitor the faithful implementation of the ATC, was refused essential information from the two parties
concerned.  He believed that this Council had a responsibility for overseeing the functioning of the
Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC).  At the Council meeting on 15 November 2000, in theG/C/M/47
Page 14
context of discussing the TMB's report for the year  2000 (G/L/398), Hong Kong, China raised the issue
of a new restraint introduced by the US on impor ts of category 352/652 produc ts (i.e. cotton and man-
made fibre underwear) from Turkey for the period 1 June 1998 to 31 December 2002.  His delegation
was not disputing the contents of the report.  Indeed he commended the TMB for its meticulous work in
the absence of certain essential information from the Members concerned.  Rather, he had expressed aserious systemic concern that a new restraint measur e identified by the TMB as not in conformity with
the provisions of the ATC still remained in forc e one year after the TMB had reached its conclusion.
The Chairman had arranged an informal consultation with certain WTO Members but he was
disappointed that the consultation did not produce any result because some Members were not willing to
discuss any substantive issues.  The new restraint was not a single isolated incident.  The TMB was
reviewing a new restriction introduced by a restra ining country on imports of certain textile products
from a developing country Member.  So far, appropria te explanation or justification of such a measure
had not been forthcoming.
The purpose of the ATC was to fully integrat e the T&C sector into the normal rules and
disciplines of the GATT.  It had eliminated bilate ral arrangements under the Multi-fibre Agreement and
provided for strengthened multilate ral disciplines, including through stricter oversight by the TMB.
These new restrictions had significant systemic impli cations for the functioning of the ATC.  If these
measures were not clarified and rectified promptly, the objective of liberalization of textiles and clothing
sector and its full and faithful re-integration into GATT rules would be defeated and the confidence in
the multilateral trading system seriously undermined.  Moreover, the effective functioning of the TMB
would be hampered.  Article 8.1 of the ATC provided for the TMB's supervisory role, and for
examination of all measures taken under the Ag reement and their conformity therewith.  This
supervisory role had already been impaired by the failure of the parties concerned to notify the Body
properly and to provide essential information for its review.  Despite the TMB's efforts, the questionable
measures remained to be clarified or rectified.  He  believed the CTG had a crucial role to play in this
respect.  The TMB was an expert body and could not  claim to represent the whole WTO membership.
Under Article IV:5 of the Marrakesh Agreement, this Council "shall oversee the functioning of the
Multilateral Trade Agreements in Annex 1A."  AT C was one such agreement.  Moreover, in the
Singapore Ministerial Declaration, Ministers declared that "We emphasize the responsibility of the
Goods Council in overseeing, in accordance with Arti cle IV:5 of the WTO Agreement and Article 8 of
the ATC, the functioning of the ATC, whose implem entation is being supervised by the TMB."  While
this issue might be raised towards the end of this  year when this Council conducted the second major
review of the implementation of the ATC under Article  8 of that Agreement, the systemic concern was
so serious that he saw the urgency to address it as soon as possible.  To restore confidence in multilateral
disciplines, he asked this Council to request all Members, particularly the restraining countries, to
promptly provide detailed information to the TMB of  any new restraints which has not been properly
notified and to take necessary steps to bring them into  conformity with the provisions of the ATC.  The
item should be kept on the agenda until it had been resolved.
The representative of India associated herself with the statement of Hong Kong China, adding
that India was not disputing the contents of the report of the TMB on the new restrictions on textiles
and clothing under  question. Second, no notification was made by the parties concerned to the TMB,
until a much later stage. In this context, she recalled that under an important debate on the EC’srequest for a waiver for the new ACP-EC Partnership Agreement this morning, one of the parties, the
United States had highlighted the importance of pr oper and timely notification in order for the
relevant WTO body to discharge its responsibility in examining the matter. She hoped that this
principle would be followed by the US in the matter of the textiles restrictions as well. Third, even
after the
 non-notification was pointed out to the concerned parties, and despite repeated requests by the
TMB to provide essential information, this information was denied for more than seven months, and per
force the TMB had to examine the restraint basing its examination on the limited information available
to it.  Following the examination by the TMB, th e TMB concluded that it had not been demonstrated
that the measure was in conformity with the provisions of the ATC.  Had the conclusion of the TMBG/C/M/47
Page 15
been heeded by the parties and had the new restraint, which was found to be not in conformity, been
removed?  That was evidently not so, unless the CTG heard to the contrary today.  Full cooperation
from Members was indispensable in facilitating th e TMB's task, not only under Article 8.1 of the ATC,
but also in order for us at a multilateral level, to  ensure full and faithful implementation of the ATC by
all concerned Members.  The systemic aspects for the ATC, i.e. full and faithful integration of textiles
and clothing products into the GATT, had already been highlighted by Hong Kong, China, and she
reiterated the importance in ensuring that that s ector which had been out of the normal GATT rules,
should be integrated as soon as possible and should not at any time be shackled by bilateral restraints.
She had raised this issue to remind the CTG that  it had a function to oversee the multilateral trade
agreements of which the ATC was one.  The Chair' s report on the informal consultations pointed out
that the parties to the restraint had not taken full cogn izance of this aspect of the CTG's role.  She urged
them to do so, to eliminate this measure, which the TMB had already concluded was not in conformitywith the ATC.  She also urged the CTG to keep th is matter on its agenda until the issue was successfully
resolved.
The representative of Pakistan said that Pakistan shared the systemic concern on the issue
voiced by Hong Kong, China and India and that Paki stan had expressed these concerns in the previous
meeting of the CTG and in informal consulta tions.  Pakistan's concerns remained valid.
The representative of the United States said th at if this item remained on the agenda, as a
request by these delegations, and not be dealt with  in a manner that would require action by this body
inconsistent with the results of any other consulta tions concerning this issue, her delegation did not
object to this item being on the agenda as drafted.  The US had systemic concerns about how the process
in the WTO should be conducted, and considering the f act that there were rules dealing with discussion
items, she noted that notwithstanding her position on th e merits of the issue, Rule 28 of the General
Council Rules which applied here, in the sense that proposals should normally be introduced in writing
no later than 12 hours before the commencement of the meeting, and also Rule 27 which exhortedMembers to avoid repetition of a full debate on any issu e that had already been fully debated in the past.
She noted that there would be in 2001 a review, as  provided for under Article 8 of the ATC, on the
implementation of the ATC.  Article 8 referenced th e fact that the TMB was to prepare a comprehensive
report which included its work in its oversight of the integration process and other parts of the ATC.
Therefore, she considered that those delegations shoul d have raised this in the context of rules already
provided for under the ATC.
Noting that reference had been made to Article IV of the WTO Agreement, she said that under
customary international law, agreements with a sp ecific provision would have precedence over a general
provision.  Here, the ATC had a speci fic provision related to its role in overseeing the implementation of
the ATC.  Notwithstanding the fact that the WT O Agreement included in Article IV the oversight
provided of the TMB in the context of the ATC as an Annex Ia Agreement, there was also a specific
provision in Article 8 of the ATC dealing with the CTG's role in overseeing the implementation of the
ATC.  The US did not support the premise or context for the request, nor the request.  She believed that
the measure as notified was consistent with the ATC and that there were grounds under the ATC for
such a measure. She contended that if the item came  up again she considered the discussion to have been
exhausted.  With respect to the second measure referenced by Hong Kong, China, she noted that theparticular mutually agreed understanding involved a dispute under Article 5 of the ATC, which involved
trans-shipment.  Article 5 of the ATC, in additi on to providing the elasticity required for Members to
reach mutually satisfactory solutions in any way th at they saw fit, also provided for a specific
introduction of a new restraint in accordance with t hose terms.  She hoped that the passing reference to
the second restraint did not require the US to engage in a more in-depth legal analysis.
The representative of India had stated that she did not agree with the United States on at least
two of her assertions. First, under the Rules of Procedure, it is open to any Member to propose an item
on the agenda. Rule 28 dealt with proposals and amendments to proposals, while Rule 27 dealt withG/C/M/47
Page 16
the need to avoid repetition of a full debate. In the current matter, neither of these rules was being
contravened by India, Hong Kong China and Pakistan who had raised specific concerns. As had
already been stated by Hong Kong China, a serious systemic concern had arisen out of the
deliberations of the TMB, which had been raised by some Members in the CTG for the first time.
India was not opening the debate on the conformity of the measure, but to highlight in the CTG,which was the relevant WTO body with full Membership for the consideration of textiles and clothing
issues, its systemic concerns. Further, since no substantive discussion had taken place on it, it could
not be said that a full debate had already taken place on the issue. Second, the US had merely notified
to the TMB that it had introduced the measure "pursuant to a provision" of the ATC, which did not
require notification. It would be useful for the CTG to hear which provision this is, and to hear the
intentions of the parties with respect to a measure that the TMB has already found not to be in
conformity with the ATC.
The representative of the United States reiterated that she considered that the item had been
fully discussed and if raised again the delegations would respect Rules 27 and 28.
The representative of Brazil said the much-expected normalisation of trade in textiles in 2005
was a positive result of the Uruguay Round, especially in regard to developing countries.  It represented
a correction of an unfair situation that dated back many years.  Until 2005, this transition would be
monitored by the TMB and it would be essential that  that body be granted the elements it needed to
perform this task.  He shared the concerns of Indi a, Hong Kong, China and Pakistan as to the need for
enhanced transparency in notifications in the textiles area.
The representative of Turkey shared the views of the US on the subject of the trade agreement
between Turkey and the US on certain textile products.  This issue should be taken into consideration
under Article 8 of the ATC Agreement.  This agr eement was jointly submitted to the TMB and it was in
conformity with the Textile and Clothing Agreement of the WTO.
The representative of the EC said at the heart of this matter was Article 8.6 of the ATC, where
there were provisions in case the examinations at th e request of a Member did not lead to a satisfactory
result.  These pointed at the review and not at the individual case-by-case examination of the CTG.  He
agreed with those who saw Article 8.11 where the over sight of the implementation of the agreement was
meant, would be the more appropriate course to address this matter.
The Chairman suggested that the Council take not e of all interventions.  He said that on the
request of several delegations, this issue would be kept on the agenda of the next meeting as a request
from India, Pakistan and Hong Kong, China.
The Council took note of the statements made and agreed to proceed in the manner suggested
by the Chairman.
VIII.  APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS FOR SUBSIDIARY BODIES OF THE COUNCIL
The Chairman said that guidelines for the a ppointment of officers to  WTO bodies contained in
document WT/L/31 and approved by the General Council on 31 January 1995 provide that the
Chairperson of the Council for Trade in Goods  conduct consultations on the appointment of the
Chairpersons of the subsidiary bodies of the Council for Trade in Goods.  He had carried out
consultations and was in a position to propose to this Council an agreed slate of names for the Chairs of
the subsidiary bodies as follows:
Committee on Agriculture:  Chairman:  Amb. Ap iradi Tantraporn (Thailand), Vice-Chairman:
Mr. Yoichi Suzuki (Japan);  Committee on Anti-Dumping:  Mrs. Sahar Hosni Abdelaziz (Egypt);
Committee on Customs Valuation:   Mr. K. Weerasinghe (Sri Lanka);  Committee on ImportG/C/M/47
Page 17
Licensing:  Ms. Simone Rudder (Barbados);  Committee on Market Access:  Mr. Y. Shiran (Israel);
Committee on Rules of Origin:  Mr. Ho Young Ahn (Korea);  Committee on Safeguards:  Mr. Martin
Pospisil (Czech Republic);  Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures:  Mr. William Ehlers
(Uruguay);  Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures:  Mr. Remo Moretta (Australia);
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade:  Mr. Joshua Phoho (Lesotho);  Committee on Trade-Related Investment Measures:  Mr. Paul Bennett (Ireland);  Working Party on State Trading
Enterprises:  Ms. Maija Manika (Latvia).
The Council agreed with the nominations read out.  The Chairman said that while all the other
subsidiary bodies of the Council had provisions in their respective Agreement or rules of procedure
requiring them to elect Chairpersons, Working Parties did not have any procedural rules on electing
Chairpersons.  As a result, in the case of the Working Party on State Trading Enterprises, he proposedthat the Council appoint the nominated Chairperson.  In the case of all the other subsidiary bodies, he
proposed that the Council take note of his proposals.
It was so agreed.
It was also agreed that on the question of Vi ce-Chairpersons, it would be for the subsidiary
bodies to decide if they needed a Vice-Chairperson in cases where the option exists under the
Agreement or rules of procedure and for the respective Chairperson to hold the necessary consultations.
He took the opportunity to warmly thank the outgoin g Chairpersons of the various subsidiary bodies of
the Goods Council for their excellen t performance during the year 2000.
IX. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON OF THE CTG
The Chairman said that the Chairman of the Ge neral Council had carried out consultations on a
slate of names for Chairpersons to the different WT O standing bodies in accordance with the established
guidelines for appointment of officers.  These pr oposed nominations were approved by the General
Council at its meeting in February 2001.  The C ouncil for Trade in Goods elected H.E. Ambassador
Major of Hungary as Chairpers on of this body by acclamation.
X. OTHER BUSINESS
The Chairman proposed that the next meeting of the Council to take place on 18 April 2001.
The agenda would close on Friday, 6 April 2001.
__________