RESTRICTED  
  
S/C/M/153  
 
28 July 2023 
(23-5169) Page: 1/16 
Council for Trade in Services    
 
  
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 12 JUNE 2023 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
The Council for Trade in Services held a meeting dedicated on the review of Article II (MFN) 
Exemptions on 12 June 2023, chaired by Mrs Tsvetelina  Dimitrova of Bulgaria . The agenda was 
contained in document WTO/AIR/CTS/3 4. 
The Chairperson  suggested that the agen da be adopted as circulated.  
 
The Council so agreed . 
 
The Chairperson  reminded  delegations attending in virtual mode, when taking the floor, to allow a 
few seconds of streaming before starting their intervention, in order to ensure that the ir statement 
was heard in full. Additionally, for the benefit of the interpreters, she urged them to speak at a 
reasonable, moderate pace and, if possible, to provide to the interpreters, via the Secretariat, an 
advance copy of any written statements they intended to deliver. That would help to ensure that 
interventions were properly conveyed and understood when translated into the other two official 
languages.  
1  ITEM A - REVIEW OF THE MFN EXEMPTIONS  
1.1.  The Chairperson  reminded that that was the Council's fifth r eview of MFN exemptions. 
Paragraph 4 of the Annex on Article II Exemptions call ed upon the Council, in a review, to examine 
whether the conditions which created the need for the exemptions still prevail ed and to determine 
the date of any further review.  
1.2.  The Council had formally started its fifth review of MFN exemptions at its meeting held on 
8 December 2022, when organisational issues were discussed.  The procedural arrangements agreed 
for the fifth review , as outlined in the Secretariat  Note, circulated a s JOB/SERV/CTS/7 , stipulated 
that the review would be conducted in a dedicated meeting to be held in June 2023, b ased on a 
question -and-answer process, and organised on a sectoral basis.  
1.3.   Members also agreed that questions for the review would be submitted in writing by the end 
of March 2023, in order to provide the Members concerned with sufficient time to prepare t heir 
answers. It was also decided that, to facilitate the preparation of responses, the Secretariat would 
collect and consolidate the questions addressed to the same Member on the same exemption. 
Delegations having received questions were expected to circu late their answers in writing, in advance 
of the dedicated meeting.  
1.4.  As a basis for the review, the Secretariat had prepared three background documents: two 
updated compilations of MFN exemptions, one organised by sector (document JOB/SERV/29/Rev.2 ), 
one organised by Member (document JOB/SERV/30/Rev.2 ) and a document providin g updated 
statistical information on the number of MFN exemptions listed (document JOB/SERV/31/Rev.2 ). 
1.5.  A number o f delegations ha d submitted written questions for the purpose of the review. As 
agreed by the Council, th ose questions had been collected and consolidated in the compilation of 
questions raised for the review (document S/C/W/431  and S/C/W/431/Corr.1 ). The compilation 
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat 's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  S/C/M/153  
 
- 2 - 
 
  include d questions submitted by Australia; Hong Kong, China; Japan; the Republic of Korea, and 
Switzerland.  
1.6.  In addition, thirteen delegations ha d submitted in advance of the meeting written answers  to 
the questions received , namely: the Seychelles (document S/C/W/432 ); Liechtenstein (document 
S/C/W/434 ); Mauritius (document S/C/W/435 ); Türkiye (document S/C/W/436 ); Australia 
(document S/C/W/437 ); the  Philippines (document S/C/W/438 ); Honduras (document S/C/W/439 ); 
Chile (document S/C/W/440 ); the United Kingdom (document S/C/W/441 ); Canada ( S/C/W/442 ); 
Argentina ( S/C/W/443 ); Singapore ( S/C/W/444 ); and  Tunisia  (S/C/W/ 445). 
1.7.  The Chairperson express ed appreciation to th ose delegations who had submitted questions for 
the MFN review, as well as to those delegations who had made their answers available in writing . As 
the Council  continue d receiving  written answers from delegations , the Secretariat would continue 
circulat ing them after the dedicated meeting . 
1.8.  As outlined in the annotated agenda (document JOB/SERV/CTS/12 ), the Chairperson  invite d 
those delegations who ha d submitted questions and wish ed to provide an o verview of their questions 
or make any introductory remarks, to take the floor.  She also  invite d any other delegations wishing 
to take the floor for comments on issues of general nature to do so .  
1.9.  The representative  of the Republic of Korea  congratulated M rs. Dimitrova for her first official 
opening of the Council  meeting as the Chairperson . He also appreciated the Secretariat for its 
preparatory work for that important meeting, including the compilation s of MFN exemptions  and 
questions submitted by Members .  
1.10.   The drafters of the GATS allowed extensive exceptions with the aim to harmoni se the new 
rules with the practice in service s trade at that time. From the structure and relevant rules , such as 
Article II of the GATS  and the Annex on Article II Exemption s, which  clearly show ed Members ' 
responsibility to review the exemptions, it was understood that Members should aim to eventually 
reduce th ose exemptions in line with the spirit of trade facilitation and liberali sation.  
1.11.   It was obvious that the global trade environment ha d significantly changed since 1994. Now, 
Members were keen to seek the relevance of the WTO and its reform. At that important juncture, 
Korea was not fully convinced that the GATS should still have a collection of 578 exceptions , after 
28 years of its inception. It was in that vein that Korea attache d great importance to the MFN review 
process.  
1.12.   Korea believe d that the Council did  not only implement  its mandate but also contribute d to 
the WTO reform process if it successfully conduct ed the review with substantial and practical 
outcome s. Against that backdrop, Korea had listed 97 questions on selected MFN exemption s. Those  
questions could be grouped into five categories, as follows:  
1.13.   First, for MFN exemptions  in all sectors, and in particula r regarding mode 4, Korea  had asked 
the Members concerned to confirm if th ose measures pertain ed to natural persons seeking access 
to the employment market, which were carved out in paragraph 2 of the Annex on Movement of 
Natural Persons, irrespective of the period of stay. If so, Korea was  of the view that th ose measures 
should not necessarily be listed as  MFN exemptions and the Council  could consider streamlining th e 
list by deleting those  measures.  
1.14.   Second, since Korea was also concerned that the maintenance of an MFN exemption on the 
basis of reciprocity would preclude the negotiation s of specific commitments, it had asked the 
Members concerned whether the reciproc ity-based MFN exemptions were based on international 
agreements. Korea believe d that MFN exemptions not base d on internationally acknowledged  
commitment s could give room for more arbitrary exemptions to be born. Indeed, the number of MFN 
exemptions ha d increased from 566 to 578 since the last review in 2017.  
1.15.   Third, for certain MFN exemption s based on the need to ensure effective market access for 
service suppliers of the Members concerned, Korea had asked th ose Members whether the conditions 
which created t he need for th e relevant exemptions still prevail ed and if so, to specify them. Some 
Members had already sent written responses that there was a change in the relevant circumstances S/C/M/153  
 
- 3 - 
 
  and Korea believe d that there could be more such cases. The Council  could therefore take the next 
steps to update the exemption list.  
1.16.   Fourth, some Members indicated that MFN exemption s could be taken in order to respond to 
certain conditions, especially in audiovisual services,  such as "unfair pricing practices ", "adverse ", 
"unfair " or "unreasonable " measures . Korea had asked the Members concerned to elaborate on or 
specify such languag e. Korea noticed that th ose exemptions  particularly include d possible , future 
unfair measures and did not consist of a concrete case  for exemption. Korea wonder ed if those 
exemptions were still necessary even though WTO rules provide d general and other exceptions , as 
well as a dispute settlement mechanism.  
1.17.   Finally, for those measures based on the need to protect infant industries, Korea had asked 
the Members concerned whether there were any other measures i n effect which were in conformity 
with the GATS.  
1.18.   To conclude, Korea  reiterate d the importance of th e MFN review process in light of the WTO 
reform  and hoped that the review would help Members to test the validity of the current MFN 
exemption s, examine possibilit ies to streamline unnecessary measures, and thus eventually 
contribute to achieve Members'  common goal of promoting the facilitation of trade in services.  
1.19.   Korea appreciate d Lichtenstein, Mauritius, T ürkiye, Australia, the Philippines, Honduras, Chile, 
United Kingdom , Canada , and Singapore for their timely, written response s to Korea's  questions. It 
looked forward to hear ing from more delegations during the meeting as well as to more delegations 
submit ting their answers in writing afterwards.  
1.20.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  welcomed the opportunity to review the MFN 
exemptions and expressed her delegation's appreciation to the Secretariat for the updated 
compilations and the preparatory work done, including taking up the role of collating and 
consolidating the questions  submitted for the review . 
1.21.   As Members knew very well, the MFN principle was t he cornerstone of the multilateral trading 
system. While paragraph 2 of Article II of the GATS provided that Member s might maintain a 
measure inconsistent with the MFN obligation, such exemptions were never meant to be perpetual, 
and should be subject to a  time limit of no more than ten years. Her delegation believed that the 
ten-year limit was a collective undertaking of the broad membership and reflected the transitional 
and exceptional nature of MFN exemptions. Hong Kong, China  was disappointed to learn from the 
Secretariat's statistics that close to 600 exemptions were currently maintained or in force or filed, 
and nearly all of them with no definite end time, casting doubt on whether MFN exemptions had 
been misused as a blank -cheque exception.  
1.22.   Hong Kong , China believed that a regular and ongoing review of the exemptions was 
necessary for Members to critically examine whether the conditions that created such exemptions 
still existed as mandated by the GATS. The fact that there were still close to 600 MFN exemptions 
and the submission of 154 questions for the fifth review had proved that the ongoing review was 
well justified. Members should have the right to ask for relevant information, including and not 
limited to the scope, the administration and actual use of the scheduled MFN exemptions.  
1.23.   For that review, Hong Kong, China had drawn up 24 questions including a general question, 
questions on horizontal exemptions and sector -specific questions with a view to facilitating that 
review. Regarding the general question to all Members, she agreed with the Chairperson's approach 
for Members to respond to that question as proceeding by sector.  
1.24.   Hong Kong, China hoped that meaningful outcomes could be yielded in that fifth review , which 
would very much hinge on the a ctive participation and support of all Members through critical 
assessment and constructive responses. She thanked Members who  had submitted written 
responses prior to the meeting and looked forward to additional responses.  
1.25.   The representative  of Switzerlan d recalled that the review of MFN exemptions was a main 
task of the Council. His delegation  attached importance to the discussion s under that fifth review 
and had submitted questions in a constructive spirit. Switzerland had submitted a focused list of 
eleven questions in two sectors  and thanked those Members who had posed questions to S/C/M/153  
 
- 4 - 
 
  Switzerland , as well as those who  had answered Switzerland 's questions , including Mauritius and 
Canada for their written answers submitted prior to the meeting.  
1.26.   The represent ative of Japan  thanked the Secretariat for its efforts to compile relevant notes 
for th e review . It was needless to say that the MFN obligation was  one of the fundamental principles 
of the multilateral trading system. Paragraph 6 of the Annex on Article II Exemptions stipulated that 
exemptions in principle should not exceed a period of ten years. Japan  believe d that the  MFN 
exemptions should only be granted on specific conditions in exceptional circumstances and should 
not be utili sed in a disguised manner to impose restrictions on trade . 
1.27.   Under that review, Japan  had submitted questions on horizontal commitment s, 
telecommunication services and maritim e transport services. Japan  looked forward to hearing 
responses to th ose questions during that meeting  and hoped that the  review would  serve as an 
opportunity for Members to consider the actual necessity of the exemptions they maintain ed and go 
even furthe r by abandon ing exemptions that they deem ed no longer necessary.  
1.28.   The representative  of Australia  echoed  Members  that previously spoke in emphasis ing the 
role of the MFN principle as the cornerstone of the WTO. It was valuable for the Council to continue 
to examine MFN exemptions on a regular basis. An on -going process was well justified in order to 
examine whether certain exemptions and the measures falling under them remain ed necessary for 
Members. In that vein, Australia had submitted four questions. He thanked the Secretariat for 
compiling the questions and circulating the responses and looked forward to the outcome of that 
meeting.  
1.29.   The Chairperso n said that , as had been mentioned by several Members,  the MFN principle 
was the cornerstone of the multilateral trading system. The review offer ed the Council  an opportunity 
to enhance and update its understanding of existing MFN exemptions and the conditions that had 
created the need for those exemptions.  
1.30.   She explained that in order to have an orderly and structured discussion, as agreed, the 
Council w ould take each sector in turn, for delegations who ha d received questions in that particular 
sector to respond. It would be desirable if responding Members could structure their interventions 
as much as possible on the basis of the questions addressed to them.  
1.31.   Finally, she reminded the Council that the first general question, by Hong, Kong, China, was 
directed to all Members  that ha d listed MFN exemptions. The delegations of Australia, Honduras and 
Singapore ha d submitted written replies to th at question. She suggest ed that delegations respond 
to that first general question as  the Council  proceed ed by sector.  
1.1  All Sectors  
1.32.   The Chairperson  indicated that the first exemptions to be reviewed were those listed for "all 
sectors". A large number of MFN -inconsistent measures had been listed under that category. In 
total, the Council had  received 34 questions on MFN measures listed for "all sectors". The delegations 
of Liechtenstein, the Philippines, the Seychelles, Singapore,  and the United Kingdom had submitted 
written answers to the questions addressed to them on their MFN ex emptions f or all sectors in 
advance of the meeting.  
1.33.   The representative of Türkiye  thanked the countries that had asked questions for bringing 
those issues to the agenda. Her delegation found those reviews very valuable and appreciated the 
Secretariat's efforts for c ompiling the MFN exemptions as well as all the questions, which facilitated 
the analysis and the discussion at the Council.  
1.34.   In its question to the United Kingdom, Korea did not only ask questions, but also provided an 
interpretation of the Annex on Movemen t of Natural Persons. The United Kingdom's MFN exemptions 
were in relation to a waiver of work permit requirements for services suppliers who were citizens of 
Commonwealth countries and had at least one grandparent born in the United Kingdom. Korea 
mention ed that such issue was carved out in the Annex on Movement of Natural Persons and thus 
there was no need to inscribe that exemption.  S/C/M/153  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.35.   She emphasised that her delegation completely disagreed with that interpretation as work 
permits were important measures a ffecting the supply of services by natural persons covered by the 
GATS. It would be wrong to reflect that work permit requirement s fell outside of the scope of the 
GATS because it was related to "seeking access to the employment market". Considering the 
example of intra -corporate transferees (ICTs), which was the most committed natural person 
category among Members. ICTs were long -term services suppliers who might need more than a one -
year permit. Since they were hired by foreign companies established in th e home country, they were 
also required to get work permits.  
1.36.   In case of discrimination either between WTO Members or non -Members, MFN exemptions 
should also be taken in relation to work permits. In that regard, Türkiye did not agree with the 
judgement of K orea that the exemption by the United Kingdom was not necessary. Independent of 
the United Kingdom's necessity on that exemption, it was relevant within the context of the GATS.  
1.37.   Regarding that exemption, Türkiye also asked the United Kingdom whether there  was any 
reference point, international agreement or a list of states when referring to the "Commonwealth 
countries". When looking at the website of the Secretariat of the Commonwealth Countries, Türkiye 
noticed that 56 countries were member states of that  organisation, covering a population of 2.5 
billion people. That amounted to a large part of the world and the MFN exemption would turn into a 
huge one, eroding the legal certainty and predictability for services supplies. Thus, Türkiye wondered 
whether th e United Kingdom really needed such a huge carve -out from Article II which was the 
building block of the GATS.  
1.38.   The representative  of El Salvador  thanked the Chair person  and the Secretariat for organising 
the fifth review of MFN exemptions  and expressed her hope that it would be concluded to the 
satisfaction of all Members. As her delegation did not receive any specific question from Member s, 
she wished to answer  the question  posed by Hong Kong , China  which was of  a general nature  
addressed  to all Members maintaining MFN exemptions.  Given that the measures listed as MFN 
exemptions continued to be maintain ed to date, El Salvador  wished to answer the question in a 
single intervention, since th ose exemptions were based on the Central American E conomic 
Integration System.  
1.39.   El Salvador  had a waiver on measures provided for in the General Treaty on Central American 
Economic Integration, which covered all sectors, and a measure on financial services under the 
Agreement to Facilitate the Financial Int egration of the Countries of the Central American Isthmus. 
El Salvador , together with the other Central American countries, was participating in a process of 
economic integration that had begun in the 1960s. The main pillar of the Central American economic  
integration was precisely the General Treaty of Integration, whose basic objective was to establish 
and consolidate a Central American customs union with free mobility of goods and services in the 
region. That Treaty incorporated various provisions that a llowed preferential measures to be applied 
to the region's service s suppliers in all or some service s sectors . That preferential treatment was 
therefore reflected in El Salvador's  list of Article II (MFN) exemption s, with the aim of safeguarding 
those pref erences.  
1.40.   That instrument, which was the umbrella within the Central American economic system, was 
also the basis for the Agreement to Facilitate the Financial Integration of the Countries of the Central 
American Isthmus, which established preferential trea tment in that sector for Guatemala, Honduras 
and El Salvador. The main objective of that Agreement was to facilitate the process of financial 
integration through the harmonisation and opening of financial systems. It was important to mention 
that the Conve ntion was still in the ratification phase by the aforementioned countries.  
1.41.   Those measures remained valid and applicable as the Central American countries continued 
to make various efforts to foster integration and consolidate a future customs union, and fo r that 
reason , their duration, as indicated in the list of MFN exemptions , was indefinite.  Since the launch  
of the Central American economic integration process, the countries of the region had worked 
intensively on that process and were currently at the stage of elaboration and subsequent adoption 
of a regional regulatory framework for services and investment.  Finally, she reiterated that the 
measures included in El Salvador's list of MFN exemptions were covered by the G eneral Treaty on 
Central American Economic Integration and the Agreement to Facilitate the Financial Integration of 
the Countries of the Central American Isthmus.  S/C/M/153  
 
- 6 - 
 
  1.42.   The representation  of Switzerland  wished to answer  to qu estions 30 under "all sectors" and  
80 under "distribution services " as those questions were identical. He refe rred as well to document  
S/C/W/434  from Liechte nstein indicating  that Switzerland would respond to q uestions 18 and 79. 
The answer provided by his delegation therefore also responded to th e questions addressed to 
Liechtenstein.  The wording of the exemption referred to in Korea's  questions was not linke d to a 
natural person seeking access to the employment market. Measures regulating the supply of services 
by natural persons continued to be applied and arrangements remained in place within the context 
of EFTA, including between Liechtenstein and Switzerl and. Its scope was therefore not identical with 
that of the carve -out referred to in paragraph 2 of the Annex on Movement of Natural Persons. 
Switzerland  was of the opinion that the exemption remained applicable.  
1.43.   In response to  question 31 by Hong Kong, China , Switzerland  noted  that ge nerally, the 
circumstances giving rise to the need for the MFN exemption still remained, however, some elements 
might no longer be needed. Switzerland remained open to discussing possible modifications in the 
context o f a broader revision exercise of MFN exemptions by Members.  
1.44.   The representative  of Singapore  had sent written responses and thanked Members for their 
engagement. Regarding the general questions by Hong Kong, China, the representative indicated 
that the MFN measures reflect ed current policy  (e.g. preference for traditional sources of supply, 
IGA partners, bilateral partners in maritime services) . In response to question 26  concerning its 
exemptions for all sectors , Singapore indicated that those  exemptions were still in place and 
continuously applied in its relationship with its trading partners.  Investment Guarantee Agreements 
(IGA) also commonly called "bilateral investment treaty " or, for multilateral treaties , "international 
investment agreement " set out s tandards of protection for investments made in one party by 
investors of the other party. The exception in Article V of the GATS applie d to agreements liberali sing 
trade in services which had substantial sectoral coverage and provide d for the absence or elimination 
of substantially all discrimination in the sectors covered. Thus, IGAs might  not meet the criteria spelt 
out in Article V  of the GATS . 
1.45.   In response to question 27, Singapore indicate  that the  MFN exemption a lso applied to the 
movement of natural persons supplying services under the GATS, and not solely to natural persons 
seeking access to the employment market.  
1.46.   The representative  of the Russian Federation  thanked all delegations who h ad submitted 
questions for that MFN review and to Russia. In reply to  question 24 on measures concerning  the 
investment activity and available protection , he indicated that Bilateral Investment Treaties ( BITs) 
traditionally did not conform to the requireme nts of Article V  of the GATS  as they covered only one 
mode of supply, namely mode  3 – the establishment of judicial persons, branches, and 
representative offices. Therefore, BITs excluded a priori  all other modes of supply and, consequently, 
did not fulfil  the requirements of footnote 1 to Article V of the GATS, i.e., "in  order to meet this 
condition, agreements should not provide for the a priori exclusion of any mode of supply ". If an 
agreement providing for investment  liberali sation d id not meet the requirements of Article V , the 
better treatment  provided for in such agreements, for instance with respect  to national treatment 
commitments , had to be granted by virtue of the MFN to the services suppliers of all WTO Members . 
1.47.   In response to the general qu estion by Hong Kong, China, he noted that all underlying 
measures under the exemption s still existed and the need for the exemption still prevailed. His 
delegation intended to retain its  exemptions in their current form because the respective policies 
that created the need for those exemptions remained. He further noted that that answer was 
common for all the exemptions listed by the Russian Federation and contained in document 
JOB/SERV/29/Rev.2 . 
1.48.   The representative of the European Union  welcomed the formal start of the fifth review of the 
MFN exemptions and thanked the Secretariat for all the preparatory work done and the compilations 
circulated. The European Union had received 31 questions from four Members and would reply to 
them orall y at that meeting , circulating the replies in writing thereafter.2 She recalled that the 
purpose of that review was clearly stated in the Annex on Article II Exemptions, and her delegation  
would thus respond to the questions received with that purpose in mind.  
 
2 The written answers submitted by the European Union are contained in document S/C/W/451 , dated 
17 July 2023.  S/C/M/153  
 
- 7 - 
 
  1.49.   In reply to question 4 by the Republic of Korea on the exemption  of Cyprus , she noted that 
the exemption was conditioned on its accession to the European Union, to which Cyprus was  now a 
member state.  
1.50.   Questions 5, 7, 8 and 9 by the Republic of Korea were identical and concerned one Estonian 
and three EU exemptions. The European Union was asked to confirm if the exemption s pertained to 
measures affecting natural persons seeking access to the employment market in the form of 
emplo yment contracts, which were carved out by paragraph 2 of the Annex on Movement of Natural 
Persons. The reply was the same for all four questions , namely, t he measures underlying the 
exemption covered both situations relevant to the supply of services under  mode 4 and situations 
relating to  the access to the  employment market  in the EU . 
1.51.   In reply to question 10 by Hong Kong, China regarding the exemption of Finland, the European 
Union noted that the conditions which created the need for that exemption still p revailed. The main 
reason for the exemption was related to funding. The Nordic Investment Bank was a mandate -driven 
international financial institution. All its financing was provided with a view to promoting that 
mandate both within its member countries a nd outside. As an international financial institution, the 
decision whether to grant financing  or not was in the discretion of its governing bodies and for that 
reason , the exemption had been obtained and maintained.  
1.52.   Finally, regarding  question 29 by Hong Kong, China on the exemption of Sweden, the 
European Union replied  that the conditions which created the need for that exemption still prevail ed. 
Amongst other, th ose agreements include d provisions on maritime transport introducing non -
discriminatory treat ment for international maritime transport services.  
1.53.   The representative  of the United Kingdom  thanked Members for their questions and indicated 
that his delegation had submitted its replies in writing. He did not intend to repeat those replies but 
invited M embers that had further questions to meet bilaterally. In relation to Türkiye's  intervention 
on question 34 and its specific question in that regard , the United Kingdom was of the view that the 
MFN exemption was necessary at the outset and remained necessa ry and it  thus, intended to retain 
the exemption. He noted that on that specific question and all other questions, his delegation would 
remain at Members' disposal , and he invited the delegation of Türkiye to reach out to him bilaterally.  
1.54.   The representativ e of Ukraine  noted that his delegation wished to contribute to the review  of 
MFN exemptions . He replied to the general question by Hong Kong, China, that was addressed to all 
Members that had listed MFN exemptions. In its commitments, Ukraine had MFN exemptions for 
several subsectors , including internal waterways passenger and freight transport ation that covered 
"measures taken under existing or future agreements which govern access and /or traffic rights and 
the term s of conduct of the kind of economic activity in the territory of Ukraine or between the 
countries which are parties to the correspon ding agreements including agreements relating to the 
use of the Rhine  Main-Danube system. " 
1.55.   In that regard, Ukraine wished to inform  that the Law No. 1054 -IX on inland  water  transport 
entered into force on 1 January 2022 , except  for some articles. It define d the legal, economic,  and 
organisational principles of  the functioning of inland waterway transport and was aimed at creating 
favourable  conditions for Ukraine's  development , meeting the need of its citizens for affordable, high 
quality and safe transport ation. The Law stipulate d a further liberalisation of Ukraine's inland 
waterway transportation market  and c ertain bureaucratic procedures had be en cut. In particular, 
since 2022 , while entering into Ukrain ian rivers and  ports, there was no need to obtain  a one-time 
permit from the shipping administration for vessels under foreign flags. According to Article 27 of 
the Law, foreign ships were allowed to sail Ukraine's  internal waterways in the case of availability of 
inland navigation vess els, certificate and qualification  agreement  of the crew , issued in accordance 
with the legislation  of Ukraine and appropriate international standards. The licence  of inland 
waterways  for the navigation of vessels was free of charge. The Law abolished the canal fee  and 
inland navigation vessels were partly exempted from Ukrainian  marine -type port charges , regardless 
of the flag under which the vessel  sailed. The Law also clearly differentiate d administrative and 
economic functions and functions of state sup ervision and control. The application of function s 
between central executive bodies had been removed.  
1.56.   With a view to the above -mentioned measures, Ukraine wished to underline that the MFN 
exemption for internal waterways passenger and freight transportatio n had not been used in S/C/M/153  
 
- 8 - 
 
  practice. However, against the back ground of Russia 's military invasion of Ukraine and its severe 
repercussions in that point , relevant modifications to Ukraine's services schedule relating  to the 
removal of the mentioned MFN exempti on did not appear timely and possible. In conclusion, Ukraine 
wished to hold a productive fifth review of the MFN exemptions and to express its gratitude to the 
Secretariat and Members for the important work in that regard.  
1.2   Business Services  
1.57.   The Chair person  noted that the exemptions under business services  were grouped under two 
sub-sectors , professional services,  and other business services. A total of  18 questions on MFN 
exemptions listed for that sector  had been received . The delegations of Can ada, Honduras, 
Singapore , and Türkiye ha d submitted written answers to the questions addressed to them  in 
advance of the meeting . 
1.58.   The representative of the Dominican Republic  noted that in accordance with the Annex on 
Article II Exemptions, Members conside red the lists of exemptions devised by each of them. The 
Dominican Republic granted MFN treatment to all its trading partners, and to all Members. In 
services, the Dominican Republic's final list of exemptions established restrictions for the supply of 
some professional services, such as legal, medical, nursing, auditing, architectural and engineering 
services.  
1.59.   The provision of those professional services was mainly regulated by Law No. 11 -42 on 
professional exequatur, which created the national system that  regulated and organised the process 
of channelling or processing to obtain exequatur for the professional practice of persons who had 
attained higher education degrees in academic centres in the country or abroad. In conclusion, the 
referred exemptions we re based on the WTO principle of non -discrimination, applicable as long as 
Dominicans were not prohibited from practising in the jurisdiction where the foreign professional 
was licensed to practise.3 
1.60.   The representative  of Costa Rica  thanked the Chairperso n and the Secretariat for the 
preparation of the review as well as Members that had submitted questions in advance of the 
meeting. Unfortunately, due to the heavy workload in Capital, his delegation received the responses 
to the questions raised only durin g that morning but would submit them to the Secretariat shortly 
in order  to distribute them to Members.  
1.61.   Generally, Costa Rica 's legislation in some of the areas covered by the MFN exemptions had 
been modified since the previous review in 2016/17. Other  exemptions responded to measures in 
force and were therefore applied in Costa Rica's relationship with its trading partners.  
1.62.   In reply to the question by the Republic of Korea  on business services , he indicated that the 
exemption regarding the import of commercial shorts was not based on an international agreement. 
Its inclusion in a measure that was in force  in the Costa Rican legal framework followed the rationale 
of providing best treatment among Central American countries, given the ir long history of economic 
integration. Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras,  El Salvador, and Guatemala founded the Charter of 
the Organisation of Central American States, the C harter of San Salvador,  in 195 1, aimed  at 
coordinating efforts  to promote the economic, social,  and cultural de velopment of the regio n. Since 
then, Costa Rica had continuously reiterated its commitment s with the Central  American regio n 
through  the incorporation in its legal framework of various international instruments of economic 
integration.  
1.63.   The representative of Singapore  replied to question 44 by Australia and noted that the 
exemption was still necessary. Singapore had made commitments in legal services in a few of its 
bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs) . The establishment of foreign law practices in Singapore 
continue d to be based on case -by-case approval.  
1.64.   The representative of the European Union  provided a common reply to questions 50, 62, 68, 
70 and 71 by the Republic of Korea concerning exemptions of Austria, Italy, Poland,  and Slovenia. 
The exemptions were not directly based on any internat ional agreement, but in some instances , on 
 
3 The written answer submitted by the Dominican Republic is contained in document S/C/W/447 , dated 
15 June 2023.  S/C/M/153  
 
- 9 - 
 
  domestic legislation. Moreover, the European  cultural policy buil t on the commitments and principles 
set out in the 2005 UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural 
Expressions.  
1.65.   In reply to q uestion 63 by Hong Kong , China concerning  two exemptions  of Croatia, the 
European Union indicated that the conditions which created the need for those  exemptions still 
prevail ed after Croatia ha d become a member state of the European Union , in line with corresponding 
exemptions applying to the rest of the European Union . 
1.66.   In questions 64 and 67 by Japan, the European Union  was asked to explain which countries 
were included in "European countries" in the exemption  of the European Union. She noted that for 
the purpose of EU law, the definition of "European" in that context refer red to the parties to the 
European Convention on Transfrontier Television of the Council of Europe (Directive 2010/13/EU).  
1.67.   The reply of the European Union to questions 65 and 66 by the Republic of Korea was that 
there was no established definition in EU case law for the purpose of th ose exemptions.  
1.3  Communication Services  
1.68.   The Chair person  said that 23  questions on MFN exemptions had been submitted  for 
communication services. The delegations of Argentina, Australia, Liechtenstein, Türkiye and the 
United Kingdom ha d submitted written answers to the questions addressed to them in advance of 
the meeting.  
1.69.   The representative  of India indicated that she wished to reply orally to the questions raised 
but that she would submit the written responses thereafter.  Question 58 by Hong Kong, China, 
related to India's acknowledgement in the third review of MFN exemption s that policy reforms in the 
telecommunication sector was an ongoing process, and that it was examining the possibility of 
relaxing the exemptions in that sector. Hong Kong, China requested India to give an update of the 
review. In that regard, she replied  that the telecommunication sector was evolving very fast, and 
India was streamlining  supportive policies to promote the growth of the sector. India was open to 
consider relaxing the exemptions in the sector subject to the result s of the Doha Development  
Agenda and negotiations at an appropriate time.  
1.70.   The representative of Australia  indicated , in reply to the general questions by Hong Kong, 
China,  that his delegation  maintained two MFN exemptions in the audiovisual sector  for which it had 
received questions  from the Republic of Korea  (questions 6 1 and 6 2). The first  exemption , on co -
production, relate d to preferential treatment of screen productions produced under bilateral co -
production arrangements. Under its film co -production program, Austra lia ha d film co -production 
treaties with Canada, China, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, 
Singapore, South Africa and the United Kingdom, and memorandums of understanding (MoUs) with 
France and New Zealand. Since the previou s review in 2016/17, Australia ha d entered into a film 
co-production treaty with Malaysia and signed one with India in March 2023 , which was not yet in 
force. Australia was currently negotiating a film co -production treaty with Denmark and  was 
renegotiatin g its treaty with the United Kingdom and its MoU with France.  
1.71.   The second exemption concern ed measures taken to respond if another Member took 
unreasonable action in relation to Australia's  audiovisual services. No measures had been taken 
under the "unreaso nable action " exemption to date.  Australia interpret ed "any unreasonable 
measures" as measures which were inappropriate or unsuitable in the circumstances  or beyond the 
limits of what would be rational or sensible to expect from another Member with respect  to the 
treatment of Australia 's audiovisual services and service suppliers.  
1.72.   Australia intend ed to retain its audiovisual  exemptions in their current form because the 
cultural policy that created the need for th ose exemptions remain ed. The exemptions were not 
intended to prevent trade in audiovisual services and were not trade-restrictive . 
1.73.   The representative of the United St ates indicated , in response to the general question by 
Hong Kong, China, that the exemptions listed by the United States reflected measures that remained 
in force and therefore, were still "used" on an ongoing basis. For example, differential treatment 
resulting from double taxation treaties, bilateral investment treaties, or reciprocity requirements S/C/M/153  
 
- 10 - 
 
  contained in certain legislation was applied on an ongoing basis.  In response to question 60 by Hong 
Kong, China on telecommunication services , the representat ive of the United States  noted that f ull 
market access and national treatment could apply to both the de jure  and de facto  regimes.  
Furthermore, "c ertain markets " meant WTO Members ' markets.  The conditions still existed for that 
exemption and thus remain ed in the US  schedule of commitments.   
1.74.   The representative  of Argentina  thanked the Chairperson  and the Secretariat for the 
organi sation of the dedicated meeting and the compilation of questions, as well as  the delegations 
that had asked questions.  Argentina ha d received a question from Japan on telecommunication 
services  (question 55)  and had submitted its answer in writing . Argentina maintain ed the exemption 
in telecommunication services  since it continue d to be an essential element for the develop ment of 
the national satellite industry. Therefore, Argentina confirmed  the reasons that led to establish such  
an exemption.   
1.75.   Regarding the effectiveness of the reciprocity requirement measure, the instrument adopted 
had proven to be, since its implementat ion to date, the appropriate one to preserve the development 
of national satellite systems from the automatic adoption  of multilateral commitments of commercial 
openness that could harm its evolution.  Although Argentina was making permanent efforts in the 
search for alternatives in accordance with the principles governing international trade, to date, the 
aforementioned exemption continue d to be the most appropriate measure.  
1.76.   The representative of Brazil  thanked the Chairperson and the Secretariat for organi sing that 
review, as well as for the questions addressed to Brazil. Regarding the general question by Hong 
Kong, China, he indicated that the conditions which created the need for the MFN exemptions 
prevailed since Brazil had international agreements in force covering the audiovisual, land transport, 
and maritime transport sectors.   
1.77.   In response to question 56 by Hong Kong , China  on tele communication services, the 
representative noted that  the consultations with regulators were still ongoing,  and his delegation 
would endeavour to provide the requested answer bilaterally once the consultations were concluded.   
1.4  Construction and Related Engi neering Services, Distribution Services and Education 
Services  
1.78.   The Chairperson  suggested that  construction and related engineering services, distribution 
services and education services be considered together as there were only a few MFN exemptions 
listed and also fewer questions. She noted that  Liechtenstein ha d submitted written answers to the 
questions addressed to them in advance of the meeting . 
1.79.   Regarding the MFN exemption s on the  opening and activity of branches, the representative  
of the Russian Feder ation noted that his delegation intended to keep the exemptions in order to 
preserve and develop existing relations in the field of education.  
1.5  Financial Services  
1.80.   The Chairperson  noted that a large number of MFN exemptions ha d been listed  for financial 
services . Consequently, that sector was the one that ha d received the highest number of questions , 
44 in total.  The delegations of Canada, Chile, Honduras, Liechtenstein, Mauritius, the Philippi nes, 
Singapore and Türkiye had submitted written answers to the questions addressed to them in advance 
of the meeting .  
1.81.   The representative  of the United States  replied  to question s 121 to 124  by the Republic of 
Korea. He indicated  that it was unclear what was meant by "international agreements ". However, 
those exemptions were contained in all of the United States ' Free Trade Agreements  and the  MFN 
exemptions listed by the United States remained relevant . He added that for additional information 
on banking a nd other financial services regulations at the sub -federal level, all measures were 
available online : https://guides.loc.gov/us -states -territories . For example,  the current bank ing 
regulations  in Iowa  could be found at https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/ico/chapter/524.pdf . 
1.82.   The representative  of the European Union  provided a common reply to questions 82, 83 and 
84 by Switzerland; Hong Kong, China and the Republic of Korea on the same exemption of Austria. S/C/M/153  
 
- 11 - 
 
  The exemption had been taken because it was not possible to conclude the financial services 
negotiations i n 1993. The original aim was to ensure competitive opportunities for Austrian financial 
services providers equivalent to those offered to foreign suppliers by Austrian law  (reciprocity ). In 
the meantime, and after the conclusion of the post -Uruguay Round n egotiations on financial services 
in 1997 and the entry into force of the Fifth Protocol to the GATS in 1999, the exemption had ceased 
to have any practical relevance.  
1.83.   On question 94 by Hong Kong, China on direct insurance other than life insurance, she re plied 
that the agreement between the European Union and Switzerland was in force. The conditions which 
created the need for that exemption still prevailed.  
1.84.   Concerning question 9 6 by the Republic of Korea  and question 97 by Switzerland  on the same 
exemption  of Hungary, the European Union would need to revert to them in its written replies.4 In 
the meantime, she noted that on the ground, open market policies were applied, and the exemption 
reflected the general interest for other countries to be equally open . Such reciprocity exemptions 
still appeared in the exemption lists of a number of Members.  
1.85.   Finally, concerning question 118 by Japan on the exemption of the Slovak Republic, the 
European Union informed Members  that th e measure was no longer in force and that the new Act 
on Banks entered into force in January 2002.  
1.86.   The representative  of Singapore  replied to question 117 by Hong Ko ng, China on whether the 
conditions which created the need for the exemption prevail ed. Singapore  continue d to maintain an 
MFN exemption as ASEAN cooperation, including in reinsurance, remain ed an interest.  
1.87.   The representative of the Philippines  replied to question 116 by the Republic of Korea relating 
to the MFN exemption under Investment Houses. His delegation  wished to revert to the Republic of 
Korea with a detailed written response, and, at that stage, would refer to Republic Act No. 10881 of 
2016, which allowed Investment Houses to be owned up to 100% by foreign nationals.  
1.88.   The representative of Colombia  appreciated the interest shown in the MFN review by some 
countries. In particular, he referred to the general question by Hong Kong, China (question 1) and 
to the specific questions for Colombia, one on the telecommunications sector by Japan (question 57) 
and the other on the financial sector by the Republic of Korea (question 92).  
1.89.   In that regard, Colombia had undertaken consultations with Capital and provided preliminary 
and general explanations highlighting that the MFN exemptions were still in force because the 
conditions that created the need for them and that were defined for each of the sectors prevailed. 
Notwithstanding, his delegation would be officially sharing the specific responses for each case, once 
received from Capital.5 
1.6  Health -related and Social  Services, Tourism and Travel -related Services, and 
Recreational, Cultural and Sporting Services  
1.90.   The Chairperson  indicated  that there were only a few measures listed under health -related 
and social services , tourism and travel -related services , and recreat ional, cultural and sporting 
services. She therefore  suggest ed that they be consider ed together.  
1.91.   The representative  of the European Union  replied  to questions  126 and 127 by the Republic 
of Korea on foreign participation in companies in France publishing publications in French language . 
She noted that the exemption was not directly based on any international agreement. However, the 
European  cultural policy buil t on the commitments and principles set out in the 2005 UNESCO 
Convention on the Prote ction and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.  
1.92.   The representative of India replied to question 128 by Hong Kong, China and indicated that 
an agreement on trade and commerce between India and Bhutan was first signed in 1972. Since 
 
4 The written answers submitted by the European Union are contained in document S/C/W/451 , dated 
17 July 2023 . 
5 The written answers submitted by Colombia  are contained in document S/C/W/448 , dated 
19 June 2023.  S/C/M/153  
 
- 12 - 
 
  then, the a greement had been renewed or revised five times, including the agreement signed in 
2016. The waiver on the prohibition of the sale of lottery tickets by Bhutan in India had been 
permitted as per the Protocol to the India -Bhutan Agreement on Trade, Commerce , and Transit, 
which had been signed in 2016. The agreement was valid for a period of ten years, i.e., until 2026. 
Hence, the agreement was still valid. As Article V of the GATS imposed certain conditions, the waiver 
on the prohibition of the sale of lotte ry tickets by Bhutan was continued as an  MFN exemption in 
India's  list of Article II (MFN) exemptions . The Government of India continue d to engage proactively 
with Bhutan to strengthen trade and economic relations.  
1.7  Transport Services  
1.93.   The Chairperson  indicated that transport services was  the sector with the largest number of 
MFN-inconsistent measures listed. A total of 25 questions had been received: 19  questions on MFN 
exemptions listed for maritime; one question on MFN exemptions for air transport; and five for road 
transport.  The delegations of  Chile, Honduras, Singapore and Türkiye had submitted written answers 
to the questions addressed to them in advance of the meeting.  
1.94.   In response to question 130 by Japan concerning a list of bilateral cargo -sharing agreements 
to which Brazil was a party, the representative of Brazil  noted that there were bilateral agreements 
with provisions relating to cargo -sharing arrangements with Bulgaria, China, France, Germany, 
Poland, Portugal, and Russia. Since the previous M FN review in 2017, the bilateral cargo -sharing 
agreements with Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay had been denounced and were no longer in force.  
1.95.   The representative  of Costa Rica  replied to question 151 by the Republic of Korea. The two 
exemptions relating to international passenger transportation were no longer applied due to the 
repeal of the regulation that contained the reciprocity requirement and exceptions for Central 
American companies. In that regard, Costa Rica was willing to consider withd rawing both exemptions 
from the list, where appropriate.  
1.96.   The representative  of the United States  replied  to question 154 by the Republic of Korea  and 
explained that that  MFN exemption was based on US law. Grants of authority to supply trucking 
services thr ough a commercial presence in the United States was subject to reciprocity.  
1.97.   The representative  of Tunisia  thanked the Chairperson and the Secretariat for the compilation 
and for its responsiveness  in replying  to requests . He indicated  that his delegation h ad submitted 
written answer s that same morning . He thanked the Republic of Korea for its question and specified 
that international maritime transport services to and from Tunisia had been totally free and open 
since 1998. Indeed, foreign ships were accepte d in all Tunisian commercial maritime ports and 
benefited from all port services available, in accordance with current international safety, security 
and environmental standards protection.  
1.98.   However, and within the framework of the consecration of the principle of reciprocity, the 
Tunisian state reserved the right to control and undertake all necessary and appropriate measures 
with regard to foreign maritime carriers, whose countries could aff ect maritime transport and 
Tunisian shipowners through the implementation of restrictions and discriminatory measures, such 
as: the prohibition of access of ships managed by Tunisian maritime carriers to their port terminals; 
the imposition of tariff and n on-tariff barriers on goods of Tunisian origin (for example by applying 
port fees, excessive documentary, technical and health checks, etc.); or the limitation of access of 
Tunisian maritime carriers to their markets so as to prevent the transport of part of their trade.  
Finally, he pointed out that to date, no retaliatory measure had been taken or initiated by the 
Tunisian authorities. His delegation remained available for further explanations, if necessary.  
1.99.   The representative  of the Philippines  replied to  question 142 by Hong Kong, China on domestic 
shipping. His delegation wished to revert to Hong Kong, China with a detailed written response, and, 
at that stage, would refer to Philippines' Republic Act No. 10668 of 2015 or the "Act Allowing Foreign 
Vessel s to Transport and Co -Load Foreign Cargoes for Domestic Transhipment and for Other 
Purposes." The Philippines noted that Section 4 allowed foreign vessels to engage in limited 
cabotage. It also noted that the Republic Act No. 11659 of 2022, which amended t he Commonwealth 
Act No. 146 or the Public Service Act, allowed for 100% foreign equity ownership in domestic 
shipping.  S/C/M/153  
 
- 13 - 
 
  1.100.   The representative of the European Union  replied to question 131 by Hong Kong, China on 
the exemption of Bulgaria in maritime transport. She informed Members that the position on that 
matter remained unchanged. Bulgaria had scheduled an exemption to guarantee "equality in freight 
liftings originating in the ports of partners to the agreement and equality in freight earnings". The 
exemption was listed to apply to "India and other countries with which bilateral cargo sharing 
agreements are or will be concluded".  
1.101.   Regarding  question 132 by Switzerland on the same exemption, she replied that Bulgaria 's 
relation to that treaty ha d not changed sinc e 2009. The conditions which created the need for that 
exemption still prevail ed. 
1.102.   Regarding question 136 by the Republic of Korea on the exemption  of the European Union  
on chartering foreign ships, that exemption was based on German domestic legislation , for which 
the specific reference would  be provided in the written replies.6 
1.103.   Turning to road transport , question 150 by the Republic of Korea concern ed the exemption 
of Austria on vehicle tax ation. The Austrian Motor Vehicle Tax Law stated that  "Exempt are … motor 
vehicles belonging to persons who are granted tax exemption on the basis of international treaties, 
declarations of reciprocity or otherwise in accordance with the principles of intergovernmental tax 
law or who are granted tax exemption on the basis of reciprocity actually granted. " There were 
treaties  such as the Convention on the Taxation of Road Vehicles for Private Use in International 
Traffic, the Convention on the Taxation of Road Vehicles Engaged in International Goods Transport  
as well as  EU law, from which specific exemptions arose . Those legal instruments were still in place.  
1.104.   Finally, on question 152 by the Republic of Korea on the authori sation for the establishment 
of a commercial presence in Spain, the conditions for that exem ption still prevail ed and were based 
on Spanish domestic legislation , for which the specific reference would  be provided in the written 
replies.7 
1.105.   The representative of Singapore  replied to question 144 by Hong Kong, China. She indicated 
that Singapore mai ntained an MFN exemption in maritime transport services relating to certain 
maritime auxiliary services such as storage, warehousing, freight forwarding, inland trucking, 
container station and depot services in light of unsatisfactory access for Singaporea n companies in 
those sectors in some countries. Singapore had not signed other bilateral shipping agreements since 
the previous  review.  
1.106.   The representative  of the Russian Federation  replied to question 143 by Hong Kong, China 
and provided information on the preferential measures under the special regime of shipping in the 
Caspian Sea . According to the Declaration of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the Islamic Republic of Iran, 
the Republi c of Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation and Turkmenistan , dated 16 October 2007 , 
shipping was done exclusively under the flags of the Caspian countries on the basis of the reali sation 
of their sovereign rights until the new legal status of the Caspian Sea was determined.  
1.107.   The representative  of India responded to question 138 by Hong Kong, China and indicated 
that India did not have any cargo -sharing  agreement with any country as of that time. However, 
that did not rule out the possibility and the requirement  of having any such agreement in the future. 
Hence, India wished to maintain that measure.  
1.108.   In reply to question 139 by Switzerland, she indicated  that the exemption on bilateral 
shipping with India's trading partners pertained to equality in freight liftin gs originating in the port s 
of partners to the agreement, and equality in freight earnings. As a sovereign part, India was free 
to sign bilateral shipping agreements with any country. India had taken that exemption measure in 
order to avoid inconsistencies  with the MFN obligation in Article II of the GATS. Equality in freight 
lifting s and equality in freight earnings were dynamic in nature and to be decided in the context of 
overall trade relations. Therefore, it might not be appropriate to assess whether t he equality targets 
 
6 The written answers submitted by the European Union are contained in document S/C/W/451 , dated 
17 July 2023 . 
7 The written answers submitted by the European Union are contained in document S/C/W/451 , dated 
17 July 2023 . S/C/M/153  
 
- 14 - 
 
  in terms of liftings and revenues had been reached or not in the context of that exemption.  Hence, 
that exemption was still required.   
1.109.   As mentioned earlier, India would also submit its written responses to the questions 
received. The re sponse to the general question by Hong Kong, China was also contained in India's 
sectoral responses , and her delegation would submit a response to that question in writing as well.  
1.110.   The representative  of Chile thanked the Secretariat for preparing that meeting, as well as 
the delegation of the Republic of Korea for question 134. In that regard, and as explained  in 
document S/C/W/440 , at the time of entry into force of the GATS, Chile had a Convention o n 
Maritime Transport with Brazil, which was in force since 1974. However, that Convention was 
denounced in 2017 , and as of 8 Jan uary 2020 , it was no longer in force.  
1.111.   However , the Chilean regulations governing international maritime transport, Ley de 
Fomento a la Marina Mercante, Decree -Law 3059, provided that for the purpose of transporting 
cargo by sea to or from Chile, the princi ple of reciprocity should apply, so that the proportion of 
access that foreign merchant vessels had to maritime cargo  to or from the country,  was regulated 
according to the proportion of access that, in their corresponding traffics, was allowed to Chilean 
vessels by the respective country.  Chile therefore wished to maintain the exemption.  
1.112.   The representative  of Thailand  expressed its appreciation for the documents prepared by the 
Secretariat and the questions raised by Hong Kong , China ; Japan and the Republic of Korea 
regarding Thailand 's MFN exemptions in that fifth review which aim ed to examine whether the 
conditions which created the need for the exemptions still prevail ed. Her delegation  was currently in 
the process of conducting the review of the MFN exemptions with relevant authorities. Once that 
process was finished, Thailand would  be providing  the written replies to the questions received as 
soon as possible.  
1.113.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  took note of the responses from Members and  
would appreciate written responses  for further review in Capital. Korea had also heard from some 
Members that they were willing to discuss possible modifications  and would thus be  grateful if the 
Secretariat could inform the Council  of the relevant proced ure. Since the Republic of Korea had not 
received answers to some of its questions, it encouraged Members to submit those replies as soon 
as possible.   
1.114.   The Republic of Korea hoped that through the MFN review, Members had achieved a broader 
and richer under standing  of listed MFN exemptions . It was Korea's aspiration that that review 
process had increased clarity and comprehension among all participants and contributed to a greater 
sense of shared understanding and cooperation.  
1.115.   The representative  of Switzerla nd thanked the E uropean Union and India for their answers. 
Switzerland encouraged those  Members  that had not  yet responded to do so in writing. Switzerland 
also thanked Tunisia for its answer and noted that the response might  suggest a link between trade 
in goods and maritime services and a reference to retaliatory measures. His delegation might  in the 
future take that up bilaterally with Tunisia.  
1.116.   The representative of  Hong Kong, China  expressed her delegation's appreciation f or 
Members' participation and responses in enhancing their understanding of the scopes and purposes 
of the exemptions. Hong Kong, China thanked a few Members that indicated their willingness to 
remove their exemptions and looked forward to receiving outsta nding written responses from 
Members who updated their positions and might follow up with them bilaterally if needed.  
1.117.   Her delegation was still disappointed that some answers had not been fully elaborated or 
provided the grounds  for maintaining the exemptio ns. Taking that opportunity, Hong Kong, China  
wished to remind Members that it was set out in the procedural arrangement that "delegations 
having received questions are expected to circulate their answers in writing and submit them by May 
or June, in advan ce of the dedicated meeting ". The lack of written responses would make it difficult 
for Members to prepare follow -up questions prior to the review.  
1.118.   Hong Kong, China  called for Members to keep their listed  exemptions under continuous 
review with a view to e liminating them altogether as soon as possible, or at least set a reasonable S/C/M/153  
 
- 15 - 
 
  and definite period of time in accordance with the requirement of the  GATS. Her delegation also 
urged Members who maintained exemptions to respect their WTO obligations and uphold  the MFN 
principle.   
1.119.   The representative  of Canada  thanked the Chairperson  and the Secretariat for the 
organisation of the review, as well as Members who submitted questions. She indicated that Canada 
had not taken the floor during that meeting given that its answers had been provided in writing in 
advance of the meeting. In that submission, however, there was one pending question, which was 
question 18 9. Canada would send the answer as soon as it became available since consultations 
were still underway , but she hoped that an answer could be submitted as soon as possible.  
1.120.   The representative of Brunei Darussalam  expressed her appreciation to the Secretari at for 
preparing that review and thanked Australia; Hong Kong, China; the Republic of Korea , and 
Switzerland for their questions. Brunei Darussalam was currently undergoing the review process and 
would submit the responses in due course.  
1.121.   The Chairperson  said that the Council had concluded its examination of the MFN exemptions 
listed  by Members . She thanked all delegations for their engagement and noted that Members had 
had a very useful discussion, which had provided rich and valuable information with regar d to 
Members' MFN exemptions. She suggested that the Council take note of the statements made.  
1.122.   It was so agreed . 
2  ITEM B  - DETERMINATION OF THE DATE OF ANY FURTHER REVIEW  
2.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that paragraph 4(b) of the Annex on Article II Exemptions mandated 
the Council, in the review, to determine "the date of any further review" . She invited delegations' 
comments in that regard.  
2.2.  The representative  of Hong Kong, China  reiterated  that a regular and ongoing review for the 
exemptions was necessary and well justified. Her delegation considered that the only situation in 
which another review might not be need ed would be when all exemptions had been  removed. In line 
with paragraph 3 of the Annex on Article II Exemptions and previous practices, Hong Kong, China  
was of the view that the next review could be held no later than five years from the current review, 
i.e., by 2028, and she was  interested to h ear Members ' views on that. 
2.3.  The representative  of Australia  echoed Hong Kong, China in conducting the next MFN review 
within five years, which was consistent with the previous intervals and with the initial review period 
provided in the Annex on Article II  Exemptions. His delegation also suggested that questions that 
remained unanswered be compiled by the Secretariat.  
2.4.  The representative of Japan  expressed his delegation's gratitude towards Members that 
provided responses to its questions. Japan echoed Hong Kong, China and Australia and believed that 
the next MFN review should be conducted within the next five years.  
2.5.  The representative  of Switzerland  noted the interesting discussion at the meeting. As the 
Chairperson  had said in her opening remarks, MFN remained a cornerstone of the multilateral 
system. For that reason, it was important to engage in a review from time to time. Switzerland could 
go along with organising the next review in line with the frequency of pas t reviews.  
2.6.  The representative  of the Republic of Korea  echoed Hong Kong, China and Australia that the 
MFN exemption review ensured that the exemptions were questioned, examined,  and addressed 
among the Membership according to the relevant rules of  the GATS . 
2.7.  The representative of the United States  suggested to determine the date for the next MFN 
review not at that time, but to revisit that question in five years, as had been done at the Council 
meeting in the previous year.  
2.8.  The Chairperson  further inquired to Australia whether it could elaborate more on  its suggestion 
that the Secretariat prepare a compilation of the unanswered questions.  S/C/M/153  
 
- 16 - 
 
  2.9.  The representative of Australia  replied that he was simply echoing the intervention by Hong 
Kong, China that the unanswere d questions remained a point for monitoring.  He did not have a view 
as to the precise form but suggested that the compilation document with the questions provided a 
solid basis for monitoring unanswered questions . 
2.10.   The representative of Canada  said that it would be useful to hear from the Secretariat on the 
past practice concerning unanswered questions.  
2.11.   A representative of the Secretariat  explained that in the past, those Members responding to 
any previously unanswered question did so under an agenda item at the regular Council meeting. 
Any question that had not been replied  to remained unanswered, but there was the possibility to 
complement  and respond under the agenda item that the Council had decided to add to its regular 
meeting.  
2.12.   The represe ntative of Türkiye  asked the Secretariat whether it could inform Members about 
the procedure for the removal of MFN exemptions , as some Members indicated that there was n o 
longer a need for certain MFN exemptions.  
2.13.   The representative of the Secretariat  explained that there were the "Procedures for the 
Certification of Terminations, Reductions and Rectifications of Article II (MFN) Exemptions"  
(document S/L/106 ). Any Member wishing to either terminate, reduce, or rectify its MFN exemption s 
could use the relevant procedure.  
2.14.   The Chairperson  invited Members to share their views on the two suggestions , i.e.,  to either 
conduct the next MFN review within five years or to have the Council decide later on the date.  
2.15.   The representative of India concurred with the suggestion of the United States that  that issue 
could be discussed in the Council meeting, when appropriate, as had been done for the fifth review 
of MFN exemption s. 
2.16.   The Chairperson  suggested  that, in light of the discussions and suggestions made, the Council 
agree  to discuss its next review  of MFN exemptions no later than 2028.    
2.17.   It was so agreed . 
2.18.   The Chairperson  asked Members whether they wished to revert to some of the items or issues  
at the next Council meeting, or if the Council agreed to consider the review closed.  
2.19.   The representative  of Switzerland  welcomed the advice from Brunei Darussalam that it would 
be submitting its answers in writing and thanked for the  advice . On the question of whether to 
include an item on the agenda of the next meeting, he asked  if the Council would be able to take 
note formally of submissions such as the one announced by Brunei Darussalam if the review was 
closed.  
2.20.   The Chairperson  replied that a separate agenda  item would be needed for any follow -up to 
the MFN review at the next Council meeting. She thus suggested that the Council take note of the 
statements made and that Members  revisit  the MFN review under a n item at the next Council 
meeting.  
2.21.   It was so agreed . 
2.22.   The meeting was adjourned . 
 
__________