RESTRICTED  
  
G/MA/M/65  
 
25 August  2017 
(17-4530) Page: 1/21 
Committee on Market Access    
 
 MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE ON MARKET ACCESS   
2 MAY 2017 
CHAIR PERSON : MS HANNA OLSEN BOD SBERG  (NORWAY ) 
Subjects discussed                    Pages  
 
A. INTRODUCTION OF HARM ONIZED SYSTEM 1996 C HANGES TO SCHEDUL ES 
OF CONCESSIONS (L/69 05 AND WT/L/756) – STATUS REPORT  ................................ ...... 2 
B. INTRODUCTION OF HARM ONIZED SYSTEM 2002 C HANGES TO SCHEDULES 
OF CONCESSIONS USING  THE CTS DATABASE (WT /L/605 AND 807) – STATUS 
REPOR T ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................  2 
C. INTRODUCTION OF HARM ONIZED SYSTEM 2007 C HANGES TO SCHEDULES 
OF CONCESSIONS USING  THE CTS DATABASE (WT /L/673 AND WT/L/830)  - 
STATUS REPORT  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  3 
D. INTRODUCTION OF HARM ONIZED SYSTEM 2012 C HANGES TO SCHEDULES 
OF CONCESSIONS USING  THE CTS DATABASE (WT /L/831 AND JOB/MA/13 0) - 
STATUS REPORT AND PR OPOSAL TO AMEND NOTE S ON METHODOLOGY  .........................  3 
E. INTRODUCTION OF HARM ONIZED SYSTEM 2017 C HANGES TO SCHEDULES 
OF CONCESSIONS (WT/L/995)  ................................ ................................ ........................  4 
F. OPERATION OF THE INT EGRATED DATA BASE (I DB), INCLUDING STATU S 
OF SUBMISSIONS (G/MA /IDB/2/REV.45), AND T HE CTS DATABASE - STATUS 
REPORT  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................  4 
G. NOTIFICATIONS PURSUA NT TO THE DECISION O N NOTIFICATION 
PROCEDURES FOR QUANT ITATIVE RESTRICTIONS  (G/L/59/REV.1 AND 
G/MA/W/114/REV.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 5 
(1)  2014-2016 Notifications  ................................ ................................ ..........................  5 
(2)  2016-2018 Notifications  ................................ ................................ ..........................  8 
(3)  Report "Quantitative Restrictions: Factual Information on Notifications 
Received", Update  ................................ ................................ ................................ 10 
H. SITUATION OF SCHEDUL ES OF WTO MEMBERS (G /MA/W/23/REV.13)  .................  13 
I. REPORT BY THE SECRET ARIAT ON THE STATUS OF RENEGOTIATIONS 
UNDER ARTICLE XXVIII  OF THE GATT 1994 (JO B/MA/123/REV.1)  ...............................  14 
J. PROPOSED PROCEDURES FOR THE DERESTRICT ION OF ADDITIONAL 
NEGOTIATING MATERIAL S (JOB/MA/128)  ................................ ................................ .... 14 
K. ANGOLA – CONSUMPTION TAX – STATEMENT BY THE EUR OPEAN UNION 
(G/MA/W/129)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  15 
L. ARGENTINA – LAW ON THE AUTO -PART SECTOR – STATEMENT BY THE 
EUROPEAN UNION  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  15 
M. CANADIAN GOVERNMENT ACTIONS TO UNILATERA LLY ELIMINATE 
CERTAIN MOST -FAVOURED -NATION APPLIED TARIF FS – COMMUNICATION 
FROM CANADA (G/MA/W/ 130)  ................................ ................................ .....................  16 G/MA/M/65  
 
- 2 - 
 
  N. CHINA - IMPORT TAX ON PERSON AL EFFECTS AT THE BO RDER – 
STATEMENT BY JAPAN  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 16 
O. INDIA - CUSTOMS DUTIES ON TE LECOMMUNICATION AND OTHER 
PRODUCTS - STATEMENTS BY THE EU ROPEAN UNION, JAPAN,  KOREA, AND THE 
UNITED STATES (G/MA/ W/120, G/MA/W/128)  ................................ ............................  17 
P. OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 20 
- OMAN  – MFN  CUSTOMS  DUTIES  ON CIGARRETTES  ................................ ......................... 20 
- DATE  OF THE NEXT  MEEETINGS  ................................ ................................ ................... 20 
Q. ELECTION OF THE CHAI RPERSON  ................................ ................................ ..........  20 
 
 
The Committee adopted  the agenda as reproduced in WTO/AIR/MA/ 5 with the inclusion of the 
following items under Other Business: " Oman  - MFN custom duties on cigarettes" and " date of the 
next meeting s". An annotated age nda was circulated in JOB/MA/ 131. 
 
A. INTRODUCTION OF HARM ONIZED SYSTEM 1996 C HANGES TO SCHEDULES OF 
CONCESSIONS (L/6905 AND WT/L/756) – STATUS REPORT  
1. The Chairperson  recalled that there were two procedures which had been used by Members 
to introduce HS96 changes to schedules of concessions. The general procedure contained in GATT 
document L/6905 , dated October  1991, and the specific one contained in WTO document 
WT/L/756 , dated 29 May 2009.  It might be recalled that under the f irst one, Members had to 
transpose their own schedules, whereas under the second one the Secretariat  had been requested 
to transpose the schedules of 64  developing countries and LDCs.  
2. The schedule of South Africa was the only one, of the 64 members covered  by the specific 
procedure, which  remained pending. T he Chairperson recalled that South Africa had announced a t 
the last informal meeting t hat an internal process had begun to solve the outstanding issues . 
3. The representative of South Africa  indicated that she did not have  an update from the last 
meeting , but requested that the statement made in the informal meeting be reflected in the 
minutes of this meeting. At the informal meeting,  South Africa had  indicated that t he preliminary 
submission regarding the r equest to adjust the applied rates had been submitted and considered 
on 7 March  2017 by the International Trade and Administrative Commission (ITAC). This had 
included a proposal to publish the request for comment s in the Government Gazette for a period of  
4 weeks. The Commis sion’s final recommendation would  then be forwarded to the Minister of 
Trade and Industry for approval, and forwarded to the Department of Finance to implement the 
amendment in the Customs & Excise Act. The representative of South Afric a noted that the 
internal process had  started , but it had not been possible to provide a specific timeframe regarding 
the finalization of this process.  
4. The Committee took note  of the statement made.  
B. INTRODUCTION OF HARM ONIZED SYSTEM 2002 C HANGES TO SCHE DULES OF 
CONCESSIONS USING TH E CTS DATABASE (WT/L /605 AND 807) – STATUS REPORT  
5. A member of the Secretariat  (Jurgen Richtering) reported on the status of work on the HS02 
transposition files. A revised full report had been issued as JOB/MA/42/Rev. 19 on 
22 February  2017. The status of the HS02 transposition exercise after th e multilate ral review held 
on 9 March  2017 was the following: 11 1 HS02 files had been certified; two HS02 files had been 
approved at the 9 March meeting; two HS02 files had been released f or multilateral review and 
had received comments from other Members; one HS02 file had been released for multilateral 
review; one draft HS02 file had been completed and sent to Member s for its  first review . Finally, 
he noted that  18 Members were not affect ed by the transposition , as eight Members had acceded 
in HS02 , eight had acceded in HS07 , and two had acceded in HS2012 . 
6. The Committee took note  of the Secretariat report.  G/MA/M/65  
 
- 3 - 
 
  C. INTRODUCTION OF HARM ONIZED SYSTEM 2007 C HANGES TO SCHEDULES OF 
CONCESSIONS USING THE CTS DATABASE (WT /L/673 AND WT/L/830)  - STATUS 
REPORT  
7. A member of the Secretariat  (Jurgen Richtering) reported on  the status of work on the 
HS07  files. A revised full report had been issued as JOB/MA/104/Rev. 14 on 22 February  2017. The 
status of the HS0 7 transposition exercise after th e multilateral review held on 9  March  2017 was 
the following: 104 HS07 files had been certified; two HS07 files had their transposition approved in 
the multilateral review process; one HS07 file  had been  released for multil ateral review and had 
received comments from other Members; two HS07 files had been released for multilateral review; 
two draft HS07 files had been completed and sent to Members for their first review; 14 draft HS07 
files remained to be prepared; ten Membe rs were not af fected by the transposition as eight had 
acceded in HS07 , and two had acceded in HS2012 . 
8. The Committee took note  of the Secretariat report.  
D. INTRODUCTION OF HARM ONIZED SYSTEM 2012 C HANGES TO SCHEDULES OF 
CONCESSIONS USING TH E CTS DATABASE ( WT/L/831  AND JOB/MA/130 ) - STATUS 
REPORT  AND PROPOSAL TO AMEN D NOTES ON METHODOLO GY 
9. The Chairperson  noted  that two issues would be discussed under this agenda item.  
10. First, a member of the Secretariat  (Jurgen Richtering) reported o n the status of work on th e 
HS12  files. A full report had been issued as JOB/MA/1 29 on 22 February 2017.  The status of the 
HS07 transposition exercise after the multilateral review held on 9 March 2017 was the following: 
19 HS12 files had been released for multilateral review and h ad comments from other Members; 
35 HS12 files had been released for multilateral review; 26 draft HS12 file had been completed 
and sent to Members for their first review; 53 draft HS12 files remained to be prepared; two 
Members were not affected by th is transposition as they had acceded in HS12.  
11. The Committee took note  of the Secretariat report.  
12. Turning to the second issue, t he Chairperson  remarked that the Secretariat had become 
aware of a technical issue in the “Notes on Methodology” for the HS2012 transp osition that had 
been approved by the Committee on 11 October 2016, document G/MA/330 . She also noted that 
the Secretariat had proposed a minor modification to "Simplification 2" in such Notes on 
Methodology . 
13. A member of the Secretariat  (Alya Belkhodja) recalled that the Notes on Methodology, which 
had been circulated in document G/MA/330, had included a number of simplifications.  However, 
during the first multilateral review of HS12 files , almost all reservations had related to  the 
simplification methodolo gy applied to HS12 subheading 3002.10. After re -examining the issue, the 
Secretariat had realized that the proposed methodology could be improved and  had decided to  
propose to Members an amendment to the methodology of "simplification 2".  Document 
JOB/MA/1 30 sought to explain the problem that had been identified, as well as the proposed 
amendment.  Specifically, the HS2012 methodology that had been  adopted by Members for this HS 
subheading, simplification 2, had proposed to retain "the mode" as a way of simp lifying the 
transposition.  The mode refer red to the most frequent commitment of the candidate lines , which 
had the advantage of simplifying complex nomenclatures and of being  applied in a mechanical 
way. However, the proposal had inadvertently overlooked t he es sential character of 
HS12  subheading 3002.10, which originate d in HS07 subheading 3002.10, which remain ed the 
main component in the HS12 nomenclature.  For a limited number of Members, the simplification of 
the transposition based on the mode had resulted in a situation where concessions under HS07 
subheading 3002.10 were disregarded in the transposition.  As the main component of HS12 
subheading 3002.10 originate d from HS07 subheading  3002.10, the Secretariat propose d to 
amend the methodology by only re taining the concessions of HS07 subheading 3002.10 and 
disregarding the remaining pairs of the correlation.  In practice, this would result in commitments 
of HS12 subheading 3002.10 t hat were  identical to those of HS07 subheading 3002.10.  She 
invited the Co mmittee to consider the alternative methodology which had been proposed in the 
Annex of document JOB/MA/130 which , if adopted,  would fully replace " simplific ation 2" in 
document G/MA/330.  G/MA/M/65  
 
- 4 - 
 
  14. The Committee agreed  to the proposal by the S ecretariat.1  
E. INTROD UCTION OF HARMONIZED  SYSTEM 2017 CHANGES TO SCHEDULES OF 
CONCESSIONS (WT/L/995 ) 
15. A member of the Secretariat  (Jurgen Richtering) reported that the Secretariat had prepared 
the HS2017 reference nomenclature and correlation tables in a standardized  format , which would 
be available for download on the IDB File Exchange Facility (https://IDBFileExchange.wto.org) by 
the end of May  2017. 
16. The Committee took note  of the Secretariat report.  
F. OPERATION OF THE INT EGRATED DATA BASE (I DB), INCLUDING STATU S OF 
SUBMISSIO NS (G/MA/IDB/2/REV.4 5), AND THE CTS DATA BASE - STATUS REPORT   
17. The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to document G/MA/IDB/2/Rev.4 5, which 
contained the status of submissions to the IDB.   
18. A member of the Secretariat  (Jurgen Richtering) recalled that  the deadline for notificat ion of 
2017 tariffs had been 30 March 2017 , and h e thanked the delegations that had submitted the 
information within the deadline. Although the procedures did not require the notification of 
preferential tariff information, h e encouraged delegations to also notify them since they were given 
as much importance by users and Members themselves when they access ed the IDB.  The current 
format of the status of submissions include d the information on reported preferences. He also 
reminded  Members who ha d gaps in their submissions , as had been listed in the notification 
reminder email sent to delegations in early March, to kindly complete their time -series data in the 
IDB. The full status of submission reports, with all years from 1996, had  been uploaded and was 
available at the IDB File Exchange Facility. As of the cut -off date  of the report, which was on 
10 April 2017, the Secretariat had received the following additional submissions: Argentina (MFN 
tariff for 2017); Bolivia (MFN tariff , including preferential duties , for 2017 and imports for 1996, 
1997, 2001 to 2004, 2015 and 2016); Georgia (MFN tariff , including  preferential duties , for 2017); 
Iceland (MFN tariff , including  preferential duties for 2016 and 2017); Korea (MFN tariff , includ ing 
preferential duties , for 2017); Malaysia (MFN tariff for 2014, 2015 and 2016); Seychelles (MFN 
tariff, including  preferential duties , for 2017).  The Secretariat recalled  that certain Members that 
had been required to contribute to the PTA -Transparency Mechanism had been notifying their 
imports , by duty scheme , to the IDB. These data had been disseminated via the WTO TAO 
application, in the "Tariff Line" report , and they were only accessible for users with official 
identification . Concerning  the IDB diss emination, he indicated that the database now contained 
2194 country -periods covering all WTO Members  which were now available on the IDB website.  
This, with the exception of Afghanistan , whose official accession had been on 29  July 2016, and 
five acceding  countries, namely Algeria, Bahamas, Belarus, Iran and Serbia. He noted that Algeria 
had just notified its 2017 tariffs.  The Secretariat encouraged delegations that were not yet making 
use of the IDB File Exchange Facility to start notifying their tariffs and imports using this 
application.  Since April 2016, when the facility was first l aunched, 25 per cent of the 
218 notifications that had been sent electronically (e.g. excluding those that were handed over to 
Secretariat) had been received through this fa cility.    
19. Since the last meeting of the Committee in October 2016, the Secretariat had delivered the 
following technical assistance activities concerning the databases: Several Advanced Trade Policy 
Courses in Geneva ; Reference cent er missions to Tanzania,  Zambia and Cote d'Ivoire ; National 
workshop in Cuba on WTO statistics and databases ; RTPC for Central and Eastern Europe and 
Central Asian countries in Kazakhstan; RTPC for the Middle Eastern countries in Kuwait; and RTPC 
for Asia in Bangkok .  
20. On the Cons olidated Tariff Schedule (CTS) database, the Secretariat had made available 
through the website CTS files for all Members. Out of these 135 CTS files,  2 were in HS2012, 
113 in HS2007, 1 4 in HS2002, and 6 remained in HS96.  The last release of the CTS DVD  had been 
                                                
1 Following t he decision by the Committee, the document was circulated in document G/MA/330/Add.1.  G/MA/M/65  
 
- 5 - 
 
  sent to each delegation in September 2016 . This release included a compilation of all the orig inal 
legal instruments by Member.  
21. The representative of Canada  thanked the Secretariat on the status of submissions o f tariff 
and trade data. He indicated that Canada found that th ese data were very useful and regularly 
used it both for work  at the  WTO and for bilateral engagement purposes. He had noted from the  
latest report that several members were  lagging in the notifications of tariff and trade data . 
Following comments made by Canada at the last meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods, he 
underscored  the im portance of transparency and encourage d all Members to fulfil their notification 
commitments concerning  tariffs and trade.  
22. The Committee took note  of the report and of the statement made . 
G. NOTIFICATIONS PURSUA NT TO THE DECISION O N NOTIFICATION PROCE DURES 
FOR QUANTITATIVE RES TRICTIONS (G/L/59/RE V.1 AND G/MA/W/114/R EV.1)  
23. The Chairperson  recalled that there were two issues under this agenda item: the r eview of 
notifications received and a presentation from the  Secretariat on the paper titled "Quantitative 
Restrictions: Factual Information on Notifications Received" in document G/MA/W/114/Rev.1.  
24. On the first issue, t he Chairperson  indicated there were se ven notifications submitted by 
Members for the 2014 -2016 biennial period, and ten for the 2016 -2018 biennial period.  
(1)  2014-2016 Notifications  
- Brazil (G/MA/QR/N/BRA /1) 
 
25. The Chairperson  recalled that, at its last meeting, the Committee had agreed to re vert to 
this notification.  
26. The representative of the United States  reiterated her delegations concerns , which had been  
raised at the last meeting of the Committee . Her delegation was concerned about  the lack of 
completeness of Brazil’s notification , which claim ed that the government did  not maintain any 
import quantitative restriction. However, according to their  information, Brazil impose d certain 
restrictions in its market  which fell  under  the scope of the QR decision. For example, Brazil 
maintain ed a num ber of non -automatic import licenses , which were explicitly covered by the QR 
the decision . Therefore , those  measures should also  be included in Brazil’s QR notification. In her 
view, this could be done by cross -referencing Brazil’s notifications under the  Import Licensing  
Agreement, as had been provided in  the Quantitative Res triction Notification template. In addition, 
her delegation  underst ood that Brazil impose d prohibitions on the import of certain types of goods, 
such as certain used goods  and some  remanufactured goods, among others. These types of 
measures also fell within the scope of the QR Decision and should be notified thereunder. She 
requested Brazil to inform the Committee when it intended to submit a revised QR notification that 
include d all the relevant measures.  
27. The representative of Brazil  thanked the United States for its  comments, and reiterated 
Brazil's commitment to fulfil its notification obligations , as well as the importance that his 
delegation attached to transparency in the WTO . In the interest of transparency, h e informed the 
Committee that a governmental working group had been established in order to identify measures, 
particularly those deriving from environmental and security agreements , for example , that could 
be included in a revised notification. This process was still on -going , so he could not indicate when 
a revised  notification w ould be submitted. He indicated that this process could also require 
adjustments to Brazil's import licensing  notifications , but he was not in a pos ition to  give details on 
whether an  adjustment would be necessary. Regarding some of the specific points that had been 
raised by the U nited States , he referred to the issue of non -automatic import licensing and wanted 
to reiterate  the point he had made at the last meeting . Non-automatic import licensing  measures 
should be notified  under the QR procedures , to the extent that they were means to implement a ny 
kind of QR restriction. It was not Brazil's  understanding that any non -automatic import licensing 
meas ure had to  be notified under the QR procedures ado pted by this Committee . He recalled that 
the information on these measures had been made available in Brazil's notification submitted to 
the IL Committee.  G/MA/M/65  
 
- 6 - 
 
  28.  The Committee took note  of the statements , and agreed to revert to this notification at its 
next meeting.  
- China ( G/MA/QR/N/CHN /3) 
 
29. The Chairperson  recalled that, at its last meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert to 
this notification.  
30. The representative of China  took the floor to respond to a quest ion that had been raised by 
Canada at the last meeting concerning the tariff line codes, which had been sent to capital for 
consideration.  China  considered  that, according to the  contents of  QR notification procedures in 
G/L/59/Rev.1  concerning how to noti fy the tariff line codes , China ha d fulfilled the specific and 
procedural requirements . China's notification  reflected the exact situation of QRs implemented by 
China in the relevant period. In addition, the three QRs notifications of China that ha d report ed 
yearly from 2012 to 2014 were  more detailed in term s of notification frequency  than required . He 
recalled that the  third notification  in G/MA/QR/N/CHN/3 included QRs in force at the end of 2014  
and should therefore  be categorized  in the biannual period 2014-2016. For this reason, he 
requested the Secretariat to update accordingly the status repo rt of QR notifications,  adding China 
to the list of members that ha d fulfilled the requirements in 2014 -2016.  
31. The representative of Canada  thanked China for the i nformation that had been provided and 
recalled that Canada had asked at the last formal Committee meeting whether it would be possible 
for China to provide more detailed information on the national tariff lines covered by the notified 
measures. His delegat ion had taken note of the information provided by China and looked forward 
to further bilateral discussions on the notification.  For the moment, his delegation wanted to 
maintain a reservation on the notification . 
32. The Committee took note  of the statements , and agreed  to revert to this notification at its 
next meeting.  It also requested the Secretariat to amend the QR report as had been suggested by 
China.  
- Mauritius ( G/MA/QR/N/MUS/1, G/MA/QR/N/MUS/2 ) 
 
33. The Chairperson  recalled that, at its last meeting, the  Committee had agreed to revert to the 
notification  in G/MA/QR/N/MUS/1 . However, Mauritius had submitted a new notification in 
G/MA/QR/N/MUS/2 to take account of comments by Switzerland.  
34. The representative of Switzerland  indicated that her delegation was s till reviewing the 
revised notification of Mauritius and wanted  to have more time to make a final comment.  
35. The Committee took note  of the statement , and agreed  to revert to this notification at its 
next meeting.  
- Mexico ( G/MA/QR/N/MEX/1/REV.1, G/MA/W/126 ) 
 
36. The Chairperson  recalled that, at its last meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert to 
this notification, as well as questions which had been raised by the European Union in document 
G/MA/W/126 . 
37. The representative of the European Union  reiterated his delegation's interest in receiving a 
written reply to the questions that had been raised at the last meeting of the Committee and 
circulated as document G/MA/W/126. His delegation looked forward to receiv ing Mexico's replies.  
38. The representative of Mexico  indicated that his capital had continued  working on the 
responses . He hoped  to receive them shortly and to  submit them in writing to the Committee.  
39. The representative of Switzerland  noted that her delegation was  interested in knowing  more 
about the procedur es that were necessary to import medical equipment. She requested a copy of 
the written answers that would be sent by Mexico to the European Union . G/MA/M/65  
 
- 7 - 
 
  40. The Committee took note  of the statements, and agreed  to revert to this notification at its 
next meeting.  
- Russian Federation (G/MA/QR/N/RUS/2, G/MA/W/119)  
 
41. The Chairperson  recalled that, at its last meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert to 
this notification, as well as the questions which had been raised by the European Union in 
document G/MA/W/119.  
42. The representative of the European Union  reiterated the concern on th e measure that had 
been introduced by Government Decree No . 826 of 19 August 2014 , initially for six months. 
According to the last quantitative restrictions notification submitted by the Russ ian Federation, the 
measure should have expired in January 2017. However, the measure  had been extended , for the 
fourth time , and it would last until August 2017. In the view  of the European Union , this was no 
longer a temporary ban. His delegation had rai sed this issue several times in the Committee , as 
well as at the CTG. The replies received so far had not convince d them, and they would appreciate 
receiving further details and explanations regarding that ban. In particular, his delegation 
reiterated the request to explain how  the use of domestic raw materials could assure the 
implementation of the state defence procurement and how the ban was necessary to ensure such 
compliance. His delegation asked the Russian Federation to further  elaborate on this aspe ct and, in 
particular, on its compatibility with WTO rules.  The European Union would also like to know 
whether the Russian Federation ha d any plans to prolong furth er this measure after 
18 August  2017.  Should that be the case, the EU  asked the Russian Fede ration to clarify the 
current state of play with respect to the legislative and/or regulatory process . In case the  Russian 
Federation was planning to prolong this measure after August 2017, his delegation wanted  to 
receive an  expla nation of  the reasons for  such a decision and an indication of the provision s under 
WTO law justifying the imposition and prolongation of this ban.  
43. The representative of the Switzerland  recalled that her delegation had raised a question at 
the last Committee meeting, which had been sent in writing to the Russian Federation. Switzerland 
had taken note that the Russian Federation had  integrated some of their  comments in its new 
notification. However, her delegation required more time to review the notification and requested 
to revert  to it at the next Committee meeting.  
44. The representative of the United States  supported the European Union in raising concerns 
about Russia’s temporary ban on exports of raw hides and skins. The United States ha d often 
intervened in opposition to export ba ns which were contrary to the rules of the WTO, excep t under 
limited circumstances. In addition, her delegation wonder ed whether Russia had been  using export 
bans as another tool in its arsenal of import substitution measures.  By prohibiting exports, Russi a 
had depresse d domestic prices and encourage d consumption of the domestic product,  to the 
detriment of imports.  The United States wanted  to receive answers to the questions by the 
European Union , in particular with regard to Russia’s plans for removing th is export ban.  
45. The representative of the Russian Federation  thanked the E uropean Union  and the United 
States for their interest on the notification of the Russian Federation. She informed the Committee 
that the temporary export ban on leather semi products  had b een reintroduced from 
1 February  2017 until 1 August 2017 by Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation 
of 18  January  2017, No.12.  Her delegation  had carefully studied the question by the  European 
Union on this matter , and they were analy sing how the measure would ensure the implementation 
of national defence procurement.  
The Committee took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this notification at its next 
meeting.  
- Ukraine (G/MA/QR/N/UKR/3/Add.1 and G/MA/QR/N/UKR/3/Add.1/Corr.1 ) 
46. The Chairperson  recalled that the Committee had already taken note of the notification by 
Ukraine in G/MA/QR/N/UKR/3, but changes had been notified in G/MA/QR/N/UKR/3/Add.1 and 
G/MA/QR/N/UKR/3/Add.1/Corr.1.  
47. The Committee took note  of the notifications.  G/MA/M/65  
 
- 8 - 
 
  - United S tates ( G/MA/QR/N/USA/2, G/MA/W/116, G/MA/W/127 ) 
 
48. The Chairperson  recalled  that, at its last meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert to 
this notification, as well as the questions which had been raised by the European Union  in 
document s G/MA/W/ 116 and G/MA/W/127.  
49. The representative of the European Union  thanked the United State s for the on -going 
discussion on this issue , as well as for the replies received so far. Nevertheless, his delegation 
considered that further clarifications were needed. The United States  had confirmed that the five 
sturgeon species and their products, both wild and farmed, had been prohibited and that the 
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), in its analysis, had not taken  into account differences 
between wild and capt ive-bred farmed sturgeons. His delegation wanted to underline that wild and 
farmed sturgeons and their products needed to be treated as different categories , as captive -bred 
sturgeon and their products could not be considered to be detrimental to the survi val of wild 
stocks. The European Union had provided the United States with information on sturgeon 
aquaculture in the EU , which had illustrated the positive effects of captive breeding on the survival 
of wild stocks. Consequently, lacking a demonstration b y the United States that the ban could be 
justified for captive -bred sturgeon products, his delegation considered that this ban was an 
unjustified trade barrier . 
50. The representative of the United States  thanked the delegation of the European Union for its 
continued interest on this matter . Her delegation had provided a written response to the European 
Union's most recent questions on 27 April. The current status of the proceedings regarding ten 
species of sturgeon under review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife  was as follows . The U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service was conducting a status review on a petition to list ten species of sturgeon under 
the Endangered Species Act.  The Service had been collecting and evaluating information , and had 
not made a determination re garding the listing of these species.  A listing determination would be 
made on the best scientific and commercial information available.  At any time during the Service’s 
review, the E uropean Union , or any other Member, could provide additional information to help 
them make this determination.  Once the status review had been completed, and should the 
Service find that the listing was warranted, the Service would then prepare a proposed rule.  At 
that point, the public would be given 60 days to comment on the proposed listing.  This would give 
the EU and all other Members another opportunity to provide the Service with information.  
51. The Committee took note  of the statements, and agreed  to revert to this notification at its 
next meeting.  
(2)  2016-2018 Notificatio ns 
- Canada (G/MA/QR/N/CAN/3)  
 
52. The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to Canada's new notification.  
53. The Committee took note  of this notification.  
- Cuba ( G/MA/QR/N/CUB /3) 
 
54. The Chairperson  recalled that, at its last meeting, the Committee had agreed  to revert to 
this notification.  
55. The representative of Canada  recalled  that, at the last formal meeting , his delegation had 
asked Cuba a question . His delegation  appreciated Cuba's bilateral engagement with Canada since 
the last meeting.  On the basis of those discussion s, he was pleased to announce that his 
delegation  had no further questions or comments on Cuba's notification.  
56. The representative of Cuba informed the Committee that her  Capital had identified some 
minor errors in the notific ation, which woul d be corrected through a new notification that would be 
submitted  in the coming days . She would  be in touch with the Secretariat in order to submit a 
corrigendum.  G/MA/M/65  
 
- 9 - 
 
  57. The Committee took note  of the statements made , and agreed  to revert to the corrected  
notific ation at its next meeting.  
- European Union (G/MA/QR/N/EU/3)  
 
58. The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to the European Union's new notification.  
59. The Committee took note  of this notification.  
- Hong Kong, China (G/MA/QR/N/HKG/3)  
 
60. The Chairperson  recalled that, at its last meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert to 
this notification.  
61. The representative of Canada  recalled that his delegation  had asked a question on 
Hong Kong, China's notification . Since then, his delegation had  appreciated Hong Kong,  China's 
bilateral engagement. On that basis, he was pleased to announce that Canada did not have further 
questions or concerns regarding the notification.  
62. The Committee took note  of the statement  made  and took note  of this notification.  
- Japan  (G/MA/QR/N /JPN/3 ) 
 
63. The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to Japan's new notification.  
64. The Committee took note  of this notification.  
- Mauritius (G/MA/QR/N/MUS/3)  
 
65. The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to Mauritius' new notification.  
66. The Committee took note  of this notification.  
- Nicaragua (G/MA/QR/N/NIC/2)  
 
67. The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to Nicaragua's new notification.  
68. The Committee took note  of this notification.  
- Russian Federation  (G/MA/QR/N/RUS /3) 
 
69. The Chairperson  recalled tha t, at its last meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert to 
this notification.  
70. The representative from Switzerland  indicated that her delegation would need more time to 
examine the notification.  
71. The Committee took note  of the statement made, and agreed  to revert to this notification at 
its next meeting.  
- United States (G/MA/QR/N/USA/3)  
 
72. The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to the United States' notification.  
73. The Committee took note  of this notification.  
- Uruguay  (G/MA/QR/N/URY/2 ) 
 
74. The Chairper son drew the Committee's attention to Uruguay's  new notification.  G/MA/M/65  
 
- 10 - 
 
  75. The Committee took note  of this notification.  
(3)  Report "Quantitative Restrictions: Factual Information on Notifications Received", Update   
76. The Chairperson  drew the Committee's  attention t o document G/MA/W/114/Rev.1, entitled 
"Quantitative Restrictions: Factual Information on Notifications Received", which provide d 
Members with the most recent data on the types of measures that had been notified by Members 
as quantitative restrictions. The document had taken account o f information received up to 
21 April 2017 . 
77. A member of the Secretariat  (William Castro) began his  presentation2 by noting that the 
document was an update to a report which had been prepared in 2 015. He recalled that 
Paragraph  1 of the QR Decision provided that Members shall no tify all the QRs in force by 
30 September 2012 and at two yearly intervals thereafter. Counting the European Union as one, 
only 32 Members had submitted notifications of all QRs in force for the three bienn ial periods (i.e. 
2012-2014, 2014 -2016, and/or 2016 -2018), which represented an increase of only five Members 
since the last report two years ago. To avoid duplication, the Secretariat had only taken into 
account the information for the latest biennial per iod for each of the 32 Members that had notified 
QRs pursuant to the QR Decision, meaning that if a Member had  notified for the biennial 
2014-2016 and 2016 -2018, only the most recent one had been taken into account. The QR 
Decision also allowed Members to notify changes to their measures. However, to date, only four 
Members had done so and no "reverse" notification had been received. Overall, the 32 notifying 
Members maintained a total of 886 QRs, which accounted for 1029 measures. He recalled that one 
QR m ight be enforced through more than one measure and that it might target imports, exports, 
or both of them. The compilation of the QRs also included, to the extent possible, information that 
Members had included in section 2 of the notification template whi ch related to WTO notifications 
under other Committees, such as the Committee on Import Licensing Procedures. He recalled that 
Paragraph 2 of the QR Decision provided that Members shall provide a precise indication of the 
type of restriction imposed using the symbols in Annex 2.  
78. According to the information in the relevant dataset of the 1029 measures, the number of 
measures on imports was two times higher than the number targeting exports. In both trade 
flows, non -automatic licensing and prohibitions were  the most common type of restriction notified.  
These two types represented more than 80% of the measures. There had been 10 measures that 
Members had notified without using the relevant symbols in Annex 2 of the Decision as well as 
cases where the descript ion and the symbol used did not seem to match.  However, it had been 
possible to identify the type of measure and the affected flow based on the general description of 
the QR provided by the Member. He recalled that Members were also required to  provide a 
detailed description of the tariff line(s) or parts affected by the measure, together with an 
indication of the version of the (HS) nomenclature. The products most frequently subject to these 
types of measures included chemical products, machinery and mecha nical appliances, hazardous 
waste, and pharmaceutical products. There had been notifications that did not specify all tariff 
lines covered by the QR, or sometimes provided only an indicative coverage.  For example, they 
made reference to “various” products" . This had been the case for 22% of QRs notified.  Some 
Members had provided a link to websites, some of which had not seemed to work or referred to a 
product list or an annex of an international convention .  
79. He recalled that Paragraph 2.v  of the QR Decisio n provided that Members shall specify the  
WTO provision justifying  the measure. In terms of the WTO provisions cited as justification, the 
GATT 1994 was by far the most frequently cited one, with 89.1% of the QRs in the dataset. In 
fact, Article XX(b) of t he GATT 1994, measures necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or 
health, w as the most frequently cited provision covering  40% of cases.  It was followed by 
Article  XXI(b), which related to actions considered necessary for the protection of nationa l 
security.  In terms of problems with this element of the notifications, t here had been cases where 
the Member had not cited a specific provision, but had rather cited the GATT in general, or had 
included the description of a justification that resembled o ne of the general exceptions in the GATT  
without making reference to the specific provision . Other WTO justifications made reference , to a 
lesser extent, to the "Kimberly Process" w aiver (nine QRs), the TRIPS Agreement (one QR), and 
provisions in a Protoco l of Accession (two QRs). There had been 85 QRs with no information on the 
                                                
2 Document RD/MA/44.  G/MA/M/65  
 
- 11 - 
 
  WTO justification provided by the Member, the majority of which had come from Section 2 of the 
notification template where some Members had only provided the document symbol . The 
notification which was cross-referenced  did not contain all the information required by the QR 
Decision. He recalled that Paragraph 2.v also allowed Members to provide information on  "any 
relevant international commitment where appropriate". In this regard, Members had notified the 
imposition of measures that had resulted from international agreements such as  the Montreal 
Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, the Convention on International Trade in 
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (C ITES), the Rotterdam Convention on Hazardous 
Chemicals and Pesticides, and the Basel Convention on Hazardous Wastes. The Secretariat had 
noticed that there was a big difference between WTO Members that were signatories to a specific 
convention when compare d to the number of Members that had made reference to the Convention 
in their QR notifications.  The last column of the notification template allowed  Members to provide 
additional information on the QRs they maintained.  For example, almost half of the QRs i n the 
dataset (429 out of 886) included information on the institution(s) that administered the 
restriction.  The QR Decision allowed Members to make cross -references to other notifications on 
Agreements on Agriculture, Balance of Payments , Safeguards, Non -Automatic Import Licensing 
Procedures , etc . However, of the 32 notifications in the data set, only 13 had included 
cross-references to other WTO notifications , and even less had ma de use of the format in 
Section  2 to add the additional information not found  in those other notifications.  
80. The Chairperson  reminded  the Committee  that the Decision on Notification Procedures for 
Quantitative Restrictions (G/L/59/Rev.1 ) provide d that: "Members shall make complete 
notifications of all quantitative restrictions in f orce by 30 September 2012 and at two yearly 
intervals thereafter."  She noted that only 12 notifications for the 2016 -2018 biennial period had 
been received by the deadline of 30 September . Furthermore, the report by the Secretariat 
showed that only  22 Memb ers had notified QRs for the 2012 –2014 period, and 25 Members had 
notified for the 2014 –2016 period.  Several Members had notified once and never done so  again.  
Out of all the regular notification requirements under the subsidiary bodies of the CTG, 
quantit ative restrictions seemed to be the one with the lowest compliance rate , as reflected  in 
document G/L/223 /Rev.24.   She invited Members to share ideas on how to improve compliance 
with this notification requirement.  
81. The representative of Hong Kong, China  noted that her delegation had  long been interested 
to improve the compliance with the notification requirements , and had shared the difficulties faced 
in preparing the notification under the QR Decision during the informal meeting of the Committee 
that took place on 15 December 2014.  Her delegation  wanted to  put forward some ideas on how to 
improve the process based on their experience. She thanked the Secretariat for the factual report 
that had been presented, and recalled item M of the "Practical Guide on Q R notifications ", 
document  JOB/MA/101 , which  stated that the “WTO Secretariat sh all assist developing and 
least-developed countries in the preparation of their notification at their request”.  Therefore , she 
encouraged Members to approach the Secretariat if needed, in particular for the very first 
submission.  If needed, they considered that the Secretariat could enrich the practical guide. One 
possibility was updating item J of the practical guide on how Members c ould compile the mock -up 
for consultation wit h other regulatory agencies. In conclusion, Hong Kong, China was of the view 
that improving compliance with the notifications requirements was vital to enhancing 
transparency, which was crucial to the work in the WTO.  
82. The representative of Switzerland  thanked the Secretariat for the compilation and the 
analysis that had been presented . The presentation had been very useful in that it showed that 
there was a potential for improvement both on the quantity and the quality of the notifications. 
She pointed out that there were only 32 notifications which accounted for approximately  20% of 
the membershi p, a share that  was quite low. She considered that the figure could be improved.  
She considered that Members could add WTO justific ations where the y were lacking . In addition, 
Members could specify the tariff codes affected, even if it was not self -evident in some cases , like 
in the case of CITES. In those cases where the Secretariat had identified lack of consistency 
between the tariff lines and the described produc ts, Members could revise their notifications  in 
order to improve the information provided. They could also specify which HS nomenclature had 
been used.  A more detailed reference to the GATT Articles mentioned as justification for QRs would 
also be helpful.  Switzerland was interested to know the reason why some Members ha d not 
provided information on the non -WTO agreements although they were parties to those 
international conventions.  In terms of suggestions, she asked whether it would be possible for the 
Secretariat to take one QR as an example and then compare the way other WTO members had G/MA/M/65  
 
- 12 - 
 
  notified the same QR . Delegations could be contacted to describe the difficulties that had been 
faced for that particular case, which could be helpful to other delegation s.  
83. The representative of the United States  noted that there was  no sub stitute for transparency  
as all the work done  in the WTO relie d upon it.  Yet, there continued to be a number of countries 
which had failed to  make a notification at all, did not do so i n a timely fashion, or submit ted 
notifications that appear ed to be  significantly incomplete. She indicated that the compliance rate 
for the QR Decision was particularly bad, and the quality of those no tifications was spotty. Only 
32 WTO Members ha d submitt ed notifications pursuant to the 2012 Decision . Of those, her 
delegation  had raised concerns in the past about lack of completeness for some Members’ 
submissions. She urged Members that had not yet submitted a notification under the QR decision, 
or Members  that had submitted incomplete notifications, to reach out to the WTO Secretariat in 
case they had questions or needed assistance in order to comply with their obligations.   
84. The representative of Singapore  thanked the Secretariat for the presentation and 
emphasized the importance that her delegation  attache d to WTO notification obligations . They 
made a  significant contribution to the predictability and transparency of the international trading 
system.  She noted that Singapore was still working on the 2016 –2018 notification and hoped to 
notify very soon. She also wanted to share the two main difficulties or challeng es that had been 
faced in complying Singapore's notification.  The first was  consolidating measures and details of 
those measures from a large numb er of Ministries and agencies . The second was  the lack of 
technical  understanding of what needed  to be notified . That being said, s he highlight ed that the 
Secretariat’s practical guide contained in JOB/MA/101 ha d been useful for the Singapore 
delegation . They would welcome a review of the practical guide  and would be interested to explore 
ways to do so with interested Members, the Chair and the Secretariat.  
85. The representative of Canada  thanked the Secretariat for a clear and comprehensive report, 
including the emerging trends, and echoed the comments that had been made by previous 
speakers on the importance of transparency . Canada was a firm believer that greater transparency 
could, on the one hand, help other members with an interest in  a certain  market and it could  also 
be of help for that Member's own producers, exporters and the overall economy. Like others, 
Canada had taken note that only 32 Members ha d submitted QR notifications to date. As 
Switzerland had noted , that was only  about 20% of Members . This underscored  the room for 
improvement in the area. He acknowledged that there could be various reasons for the lack of 
notification, and h e supported exploring the reasons for lack of compliance thus far, and welcomed  
the suggestions from Hong Kong, China  and Singapore on sharing experiences and updating the 
guide as necessary.  
86. The representative of the European Union  regretted that only a few WTO Members were in 
compliance with this notification requirement  as had been shown by the very useful report by th e 
Secretariat . He recalled that transparency was a key aspect of the WTO and the European Union 
had been raising notification compliance issues in several other WTO Committees by urging those 
Members who had not done so to submit their notifications in due  time. The EU stood ready to 
discuss any matter of compliance with notification obligations and  the manner in which  
transparency could be improved . 
87. The representative of Australia  stressed the importance of transparency and encouraged 
Members to share thei r experiences.  
88. The Chairperson  thanked delegations  for the good suggestions that had been made.  She 
suggested to continue th ese discussions in informal mode , and to let the Secretariat have more 
information on the parts of the report to be updated.  It woul d be up to the next Chairperson to 
follow -up. She noted that Members’ T rade Policy Review  (TPR) reports contain ed a dedicated 
section on quantitative restrictions , which  was a good starting point to draft the notification. To 
further assist Members in draf ting the notifications , a room document had been prepared by the 
Secretariat with a  compilation of several resources on how to notify quantitative restrictions3. She 
remind ed Members that the Secretariat stood ready to assist all Members in preparing their 
notifications . Finally, she  pointed out  to the informative video on quantitative restrictions on the 
                                                
3 Document RD/MA/43 . G/MA/M/65  
 
- 13 - 
 
  WTO web page that g ave a good introduction to the QR D ecision and to the obligation to notify 
quantitative restrictions.  
89. The Committee took note  of the st atement s, the presentation  and d ocument 
G/MA/W/114/Rev.1 . 
H. SITUATION OF SCHEDUL ES OF WTO MEMBERS (G /MA/W/23/REV.13)  
90. The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to document G/MA/W/23/R ev.13 entitled 
"Situation of Schedules of WTO Members".  
91. A member of the Secretariat  (Roy Santana) noted that  the current situation of the Schedules 
of concessions had improved considerably over the past years . This was largely  thanks to a 
number of specific Decisions that had been adopted by Members, and in particular thos e relating 
to HS amendments.  Since 1995, Members had initiated a large number of procedures, including 
almost 460 rectifications and modifications under the 1980 Procedures, the overwhelming majority 
of which ha d resulted in a certification. However, he cautioned  that it was not to say that 
Schedules were  fully up to date.  Some Members curr ently applying HS2017 still had  pre-Uruguay 
Round  or even concessions that had been  scheduled in a different nomenclature  and were not 
directly comparable . There were also procedures that remain ed inconclusive, and the transposition 
work continue d to lag behind despite the best efforts from the Secretariat team.  The delays had 
sometimes taken place because Members had not assigned  sufficient resources back in capital in 
order to review the work that had been done in Geneva. Schedules play ed a critical role in allowing 
Members to monitor compliance with tariff and other concessions which were reflec ted in the 
Schedules , as they were  the cornerstone of security, transparency and predictability in the 
multilateral trading system.  However, such a task could  be severely complicated if schedules were 
not periodically updated, if they kep t reflecting errors that were never fixed, or if there were 
procedures that were initiated but then remain ed inconclusive for years.  The Secretariat team was 
constantly working with Members throughout the year with a view to solving issue s as they were 
identified. The  Secretariat  stood ready to keep assisting Members in this task  and, for this reaso n, 
he invited Members to get in contact in case they bec ame aware of any problem with their  
schedule, or if any clarification was needed. He recalled that , during the spring  2016 meeting of 
the Committee, the Secretariat had noted t hat the Annex of this re port had been  growing 
considerably and that the column format did not seem to be as user -friendly as it had been in the 
past. Schedules of concessions had kept changing at a rapid pace, which mean t that the annex, 
which simply list ed the documents with the  procedures, was  now almost 80 pages long.  Last year , 
the Secretariat had  begun  exploring the possibility of changing the format and had invited 
Members to  get in contact  in case they had an idea or  preference on how best to adjust it . 
However, the Secreta riat had not  receive d any comment.  Moreover, after considering different 
options, the Secretariat  had realized that changing the format m ight result in losing some of its 
functionality.  Therefore , instead of following this route , he asked Members whether  they would be 
interested in developing a web -based application which would allow them to identify the relevant 
procedures and legal documents concerning changes to their schedules.  He invited Members to 
contact the Secretariat in case they h ad ideas or wanted to provide input  on how this could be 
done.  
92. The representative of South Africa  noted that the report by the  Secretar iat listed several 
pre-Uruguay Round renegotiations with an unknown status  in the case of South Africa . However, 
after discussing the is sue with the Secretariat, South Africa considered that these renegotiations 
were known and that they had been  concluded.  In this regard, s he drew Members' attention to 
paragraph  7 of the Marrakesh Protocol to the GATT 1994 , which acknowledge d that special 
procedures had been followed by South Africa and three  other members during the U ruguay 
Round . According to this paragraph, South Africa's Uruguay Round  schedule had replaced all 
previous concessions made during the GATT and had concluded all renegotiation s under 
Article  XXVIII. In this sense, she requested the Secretariat to include a note in the report making 
reference to this provision in a future version of this report.  
93. The Committee took note  of the statements.  G/MA/M/65  
 
- 14 - 
 
  I. REPORT BY THE SECRET ARIAT ON THE STATU S OF RENEGOTIATIONS UNDER 
ARTICLE XXVIII OF TH E GATT 1994 (JOB/MA/ 123/REV.1)  
94. A member of the Secretariat  (Roy Santana) reported on the status of renegotiations under 
Article XXVIII of the GATT 1994. He informed Members that  there had been a few development s 
since the last report had been issued last year. For example, certain renegotiation procedures had 
been concluded for Bangladesh and the European Union, and Haiti had launched a new 
renegotiation. The overall picture of the 43 renegotiating procedures that had been imitated or 
concluded since the establishment of the WTO was the following . In a first category, there were  
21 renegotiations which had been concluded, with the ir results certified and incorporated into the 
Schedules pursuant to the 1980 Proced ures for Modification and Rectification of Schedules . In a 
second category, there were four  renegotiating procedures where the Member concerned had 
notified the conclusion of the procedures, but the proposed modifications had not been 
incorporated yet into the Schedules of concessions for various reasons, including because  the 
relevant Member had not followed the 1980 Procedures . In a third category,  eight renegotiating 
procedures had been withdrawn, including the case of three  Schedules that had been withd rawn in 
the context of EU enlargements . In a final and fourth category, there were  10 renegotiating 
procedures that seemed to remain ongoing, including, several procedures that had been initiated 
long time ago and that , according to the Secretariat's recor ds, had not been concluded. The 
Secretariat understood that at least one Member was working towards finalizing two of the se 
procedures , but it had no  information with respect to most of the others. The Secretariat stood  
ready to provide assistance to Membe rs in case they wanted  to either take the procedural steps to 
conclude the ongoing procedures or follow the 1980 Procedures to modify their schedule in order 
to incorporate the results  of these renegotiations .  
95. The Committee took note  of the statement  made . 
J. PROPOSED PROCEDURES FOR T HE DERESTRICTION OF ADDITIONAL NEGOTIATI NG 
MATERIALS (JOB/MA/12 8) 
96. The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to document JOB/MA/128, entitled 
"Proposed procedures for the derestriction of additional negotiating materials" , which proposed to 
derestrict additional negotiating materials from the Geneva (1947), Annecy (1949), Torquay 
(1950 -1951), and Geneva (1956) rounds of tariff negotiations.  
97. A member of the Secretariat  (Roy Santana) recalled that the draft procedures had alr eady 
been explained at the last informal meeting of the Committe e, and noted that they  were very 
similar to those that had  been previously approved by the Committee  in documents  G/MA/285, 
G/MA/287 and G/MA/301 . The difference was that the new draft procedu res proposed a slightly 
shorter time -frame of  three months for comments . This was because  many of the documents had 
already been derestricted by previous procedures, but had missing pages. He indicated that , 
according to the draft procedures,  Members would  have three months , count ing from the date of 
adoption,  to request and review electronic versions of the documents that relate d to them and that 
were listed in the annexes of th e document.  Three Members ha d already requested the documents 
relevant to them during March and April.  The Secretariat would  then prepare a draft Decision 
proposing the general derestriction of all documents listed in the annexes, as well as the automatic 
derestriction at a later date of those documents notified by delegations as war rantin g further 
restriction, that would  be circulated by the S ecretariat for consideration at  the next fo rmal meeting 
of the Committee. He noted that the draft procedures in JOB/MA/128 contained a mistake in the 
first page, second to last paragraph, as it stated that  such draft Decision  would  be circulated in 
September . However,  given t he three -month deadline, it would  in fact have to be circulated in 
early August.  
98. The Committee adopted  the procedures in JOB/MA/128. Me mbers were given until 
2 August  2017 to  review the documents drawn up by them that were listed in the annexes , and to 
notify the Secretariat of any document which they consider ed should remain restricted for a 
further period of time.  In addition, t he Secretariat was instructed to prepare and ci rculate a draft 
Decision so it could be considered at the next formal meeting of the Committee.  G/MA/M/65  
 
- 15 - 
 
  K. ANGOLA – CONSUMPTION TAX – STATEMENT BY THE EUR OPEAN UNION 
(G/MA/W/129)  
99. The Chairperson  recalled that this agenda item had been included at the request of th e 
European Union.  
100.  The representative of the European Union  expressed his delegation's concern, which had 
been explained  in document G/MA/W/129, concerning  provisions contained in the Presidential 
Legislative Decree No. 5-15. Angola had increased the consum ption tax on several products , 
including spirits, juices,  foodstuffs and certain industrial products.  It appeared to be discriminatory 
taxation between products imported into Angola and like domestically manufactured products since 
imported goods, listed i n the Decree's Annex I, had consumption tax rates  which were  higher than 
those for the same goods produced domestically , listed in the Decree's Annex II.  He asked Angola 
to clarify whethe r the decree was already applicable . He also asked  Angola to justify the new tax 
rates in the light of its WTO commitments and Article III of the GATT, which prohibit ed fiscal 
discrimination between d omestic and like imported goods . Finally, he asked  Angola  to clarify 
whether it was planning to revise the current system wit h a view to guarantee ing the equal 
treatment  of domestic and imported goods.  
101.  The Committee took note  of the statement.  
L. ARGENTINA – LAW ON  THE AUTO -PART SECTOR – STATEMENT BY THE EUR OPEAN 
UNION  
102.  The Chairperson  recalled that this agenda item had been incl uded at the request of the 
European Union.  
103.  The representative of the European Union  reiterated his  delegation's concern with respect to 
the Law No .27263 , "Régimen de desarrollo y fortalecimiento del autopartismo argentino, 
beneficios e incentivos ", which  entered into force on 2 August 2016. As had been stated at the  last 
meeting, o n the basis of this law, Argentina had been  using indirect taxes as a means of protecting 
and promoting  domestic manufacturing, notably  through the use of subsidies that depend ed on 
domestic content in the auto -part sector. As it stood, the law appeared to be in conflict with the 
basic requirements of WTO law , such as national treatment under  Article  III of the GATT,  and the 
prohibition of  import substitution subsidies under Articl e 3 of the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Me asures . The European Union regretted that, despite informal indications that 
Argentina was willing to address the EU concerns, the Implementing Regulations adopted in 
January 2017 had confirmed the WTO  incompatible aspects of the Law. In his delegation 's view , 
the Law was a step backwards in the positive path which had been taken by the current 
Administration in addressing key trade barriers aimed at import substitution. Therefore, the 
European Union  called on Argentina to review this law and to refrain from adopting or 
implementing provisions that would discriminate against imported goods with regard to indirect 
taxes , or that would support domestic manufacturing using local content requirements.  
104.  The re presentative of Mexico  thanked the European Union for including this agenda  item. His 
delegation fully shared  the concern s with respe ct to the entry into force of law No.27 .263 on the 
Regime for Development and Strengthening of Argentinean auto -parts secto r, on 2 August 2016.  
This law foresaw the provision of  an electronic bonus with a tax credit that could be transferred to 
third parties for the payment of other taxes. These were granted on an amount equal to the ex-
factory value of the national  auto parts  incorporated into final products . In other words, f or 
Argentinian  companies to have the right to receive these bonuses , they had  to buy  national inpu ts 
and/or Argentinean raw materials in order to increase the level of national content  of the final 
produc t. For example, v ehicles or auto -parts. He recalled that this kind of measures had the effect 
of reducing prices and limiting the export opportunities not only to the Argentinean market, but 
also to other markets buying those products benefitin g from artif icially low prices.  Although  law 
No. 27.263 was published in the Argentinean  gazette in August 2016 , it ha d not yet been notified 
to the WTO M embers.  His delegation  request ed Argentina to put its measures in conformity and to 
comply  with its WTO commitment s. 
105.  The representative of United States  shared the concerns raised by other Members and 
expressed that her delegation was closely monitoring this issue.  G/MA/M/65  
 
- 16 - 
 
  106.  The representative of Canada  also shared the concerns of a systemic nature that had been 
raised and looked forward to more information from Argentina on the matter . 
107.  The representative of Chinese Taipei  joined other Members in expressing concern and looked 
forward to receiving more information.  
108.  The representative of Japan  expressed his delegation's continued interest on the issue and 
noted that it would be closely monitored .  
109.  The representative of Turkey  noted  that his delegation  shared the concern that had been 
expressed  by Members and that the issue was  being closely  followed.  
110.  The representative of Argentina  thanked the interest that had been expressed by the 
delegations of the European Union, Mexico, United States, Canada, Japan, Turkey,  and Chinese 
Taipei.  He had taken note of all the statements, which would be transmitted back to capital to the 
competent a uthorities.  His delegation stood ready to engage  bilaterally with any interested 
Members with a view to  clarifying the relevant issues.  
111.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
M. CANADIAN GOVERNMENT ACTIONS TO UNILATERA LLY ELIMINATE CERTAI N MOST -
FAVOURED -NATION APPLIED TARIF FS – COMMUNICATION FROM C ANADA 
(G/MA/W/130)  
112.  The Chairperson  recalled that this agenda item had been  included at the request of Canada . 
113.  The representative of Canada  drew Members' attention to a communication which had been 
circula ted on 21  April 2017 (document  G/MA/W/130 ) which outline d a recent decision by the 
government of Canada regarding unilateral elimination of MFN applied tariffs. While recognizing 
that Members regularly adjust ed applied rate s and report ed these to the conso lidated tariff 
schedule database , Canada  believe d that all Members could benefit from a transparent, clear and 
comprehensive explanation of actions taken to liberalize trade and open -up Canada's  market on a 
mostly favoured nation basis. The communication built on Canada's previous communication in 
document G/MA/W/101 , in which it had notified previous  unilateral tariff elimination in an effort to 
create a tariff -free zone for industrial manufactures by eliminating all remaining import duties on 
industrial m anufacturing inputs and machinery equipment. He indicated that the communication 
outline d that, effective 16  January  2017, Canada had eliminated tariffs on a broad range of 
imported ingredients that were used in the agri-food processing industry , including  certain fruits 
and vegetables, cereals and grains, spices, fats and oils, food preparations and chocolates 
products covering approximately $700 million in annual dutiable imports. He pointed out that th is 
unilateral tariff elimination would  augment the competitiveness of Canadian agri -food processors in 
domestic a nd foreign markets by reducing the production costs , which would  support investment 
and create well -paying middle class jobs in an important sector. In addition, this action would  
reduce paper wor k as trader s would  no longer need to comply with any preferential rules of origin 
requirements , as was the case  under a bilateral  or regional  free trade agreement . Canada's 
forward looking policy choice was based on an experience that the expansion of trad e, both on 
exports and imports, created jobs and ultimately lead to a higher standard of living.  Canada 
remained  committed to maintaining open market s and making further progress to  create 
liberalization . He hoped that sharing Canada's experience would encourage other Members to 
examine similar ways to improve the com petitiveness of their economies  by pushing forward on 
trade liberalization either unilaterally or through trade negotiations . 
114.  The representative of Norway  thanked Canada for the information pro vided and welcomed 
this positive initiative.  
115.  The Committee took note  of the statements made . 
N. CHINA - IMPORT TAX ON PERSON AL EFFECTS AT THE BO RDER – STATEMENT BY 
JAPAN  
116.  The Chairperson  recalled that this agenda item had been included at the request of Japa n. G/MA/M/65  
 
- 17 - 
 
  117.  The representative of Japan  noted that, since the issue had been raised at the CTG in 
November 2016, his delegation had conducted several bilateral consultations on this matter with 
China. Firstly, he thank ed China  for the responses that had been provid ed in the ir bilateral 
consultations  with Japanese delegates . China ha d changed its import tax on personal effects in 
April last year, and tax rates of a certain number of goods appeared to be higher than the 
aggregate amount of the bound tariff rate, impor t value added tax, and consumption  tax. In this 
regard, his delegation was concern ed that the cu stoms duties for those goods might  exceed the 
bound rates of duties , and that hi gher rates of internal taxes might  have been imposed only on 
imported goods.  On these points, China ha d explained that personal effects were excluded from 
the application of the GATT, although the import tax covered goods that were in passengers’ hand 
baggage. However, the GATT did not stipulate that personal effects were excluded fro m its 
application.  Therefore , his delegation sought  clarification from China as to why it considered that 
hand baggage was  not covered by the WTO agreement, including the GATT. In addition, he 
reported that China had explained at the CTG that passengers were not prohibited from choosing 
MFN rates on those g oods. However, if passengers were  required to go through complicated import 
procedures , in reality, it substantially hindered  them from enjoying the MFN rates. In this regard,  
he sought an  expla nation on whether passengers could  make an import declaration without being 
burdened with excessive procedures.  Japan would continue communicating with China on this 
matter.  
118.  The representative of the European Union  thanked Japan for its statement. The same 
informati on had also been brought to their attention. The E uropean Union  shared Japan's concerns 
in this context, and was very interested in any further answers or explanation by China on these 
measures.  
119.  The representative of China  thanked Japan a nd the European Un ion for their interest  in the 
issue. Since April 2016, China had conducted  several bilateral consultations with Japan regarding 
this issue , both in Geneva and Beijing . Some questions had  been clarified and both parties had 
gained a better understanding of each other's concerns  and positions . After the CTG meeting that 
had been held in November 2016, China had made comments in response to Japan's questions on 
this issue , and encouraged the Japanese delegation to refer to that statement . Meanwhile , his 
delega tion had taken note of some further information that had been mentioned and asked the 
Japanese delegation to  share  the questions in  writing so that they could  be sent to Capital for 
consideration. He made use  of the opportunity to reiterate and further cla rify his delegation's 
position  on this issue . Firstly, according to the regulations of the P eople's Republic of China  on 
import and export duties , and other relevant domestic laws or regulations , generally speaking , the 
import or export of goods with tradi ng attributes were subject to impor t and export tariffs , while 
inward  articles for personal use , such as personal effects for travellers , were subject to "flat duty 
rates". There was no prohibition on the inward  articles to be subject to  the customs import  tariff.  
Secondly, w ith regard to the different trading attri butes between import ed goods and inward  
articles or p ersonal effect s, WTO Members had  different practices with respect to their  import 
taxes, based on their  domestic situations. He pointed out th at, in order to facilitate passenger's  
declaration and customs clearance, China had categorize d inward articles into three tariff lines, 
which corresponded to three  flat duty rates of 15%, 30% and 60%  respectively . The flat duty 
rates refer red to the compr ehensive tax rates on  import ed goods that could be classified in the 
relevant tariff lines and included the customs  duties, value added tax and exc ise tax. China 
believe d that its tax policy on inward articles was  consistent with WTO rules.  In addition, si nce 
there were  so many differences between the flat dut y rates  on inward articles and import tax on 
goods , in terms of customs clearance, custom eva luation and tax exemption, he considered that it 
was inappropriate to simply compare these two kinds of rate s. China would  continue the bilateral 
consultations with Japan and the European Union  to further clarif y the issue.  
120.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
O. INDIA - CUSTOMS DUTIES ON TE LECOMMUNICATION AND OTHER PRODUCTS - 
STATEMENTS BY THE EU ROPE AN UNION, JAPAN, KOR EA, AND THE UNITED S TATES  
(G/MA/W/120, G/MA/W/ 128)  
121.  The Chairperson  recalled that this agenda item had been included at the request of the 
European Union, Japan, Korea, and the United States.  These Members had submitted questions to 
India in document G/MA/W/120, which had been answered by India in document G/MA/W/128.  G/MA/M/65  
 
- 18 - 
 
  122.  The representative of the European Union  thanked India for the replies to the questions  that 
had been submitted in April 2016 . In its replies, India had noted that it did no t consider that the 
goods were covered by ITA commitments. As had been repeated several times in this Committee, 
in the ITA Committee and also at the CTG, the European Union  disagreed with India in considering 
that the goods in question were "new" products  and, therefore , were not covered  by the ITA. This 
argument did not hold in light of past WTO case -law, including  EC- IT products , and in light of the 
fact that the ITA cover ed all products which had been classified in the WTO Model List of items in 
JOB(07 )/96. He indicated that those products had been identified through their HS classification , 
which had been regularly updated to take into account the differen t HS revisions. In his view,  all 
fell within the scope of the agreement whatever their descr iption . Moreover, the 0% duty was  also 
bound in India's GATT commitments. On  top of these ICT items that had been detailed by the EU 
in previous meetings , as well as in the written questions to India, the E uropean Union  had found 
two additional ICT products  for which the applied tariff was  not in conformity with India's binding 
commitments at 0% in India's GATT Schedule and under the ITA -1 coverage . This included,  
namely "digital still video cameras" classified under 8525 .80.20 in the Indian tariff schedule, and 
"other electronic integrated circuits (EICs)" classified under 8542 .39.00. As requested by India , 
the EU had notified these two new products in addition to the ICT products that had  been identified 
as covered by the ITA -1. He expressed concern over reports  that India was planning  to impose 
customs duties on mobile phones in the context of its introduction of a Goods and Services Tax as 
of 1 July 2017 . The European Union  understood  that these devices were classified under 
HS 8517.12, which f ell under the sco pe of ITA -1, whatever their description. He regret ted that the 
issue had to be raised  again  following  several attempts to solve it in different committees and 
bilaterally. Given the importance of such products in international trade, he called again on Ind ia 
to rapidly proceed with the elimination of these tariffs, which not only constitute d a violation of 
India's WTO commitments , but also a barrier to trade in full contradiction with the G20 call to roll 
back protectionism. His delegation would  continue to  carefully monitor India's compliance with its 
commitments.  
123.  The representative of the United States  recalled that her delegation had very serious 
concern regarding apparent inconsistencies between India's WTO bound tariff commitments and its 
applied rates for certain products. In her delegation 's view, there was a continued cause for 
concern which had been raised together with other Members earlier this month in the CTG. In 
addition to telecommunications equipment, t he United States had highlighted several more 
examples of tariff subheadings  where there were apparent inconsistencies between India’s WTO 
bound commitments to provide duty -free access according to its certified bound schedule on the 
one hand, and the non -zero import duties reflected in India’s M FN tariff schedule on the other 
hand. She referred Members to the United States' statement at the CTG for the specific products 
that had been raised. She considered that it was a relatively st raightforward issue that did  not 
require interpretation . When co mparing India’s bound and applied rates for a given tariff line, and 
as provided in Article II of the GATT, the MFN rate applied to any product classified in that tariff 
line should be at or below the bound rate reflected in India’s WTO schedule . It should  not be 
higher. The United States also echoe d concerns regarding reports in the Indian press suggesti ng 
that the Indian government was planning to raise customs duties on imported mobile phones in a 
bid to boost its “Make in Ind ia” initiative. She  pointed out that India’s bound ta riff for mobile 
phones was zero. She asked India to provide more  information about its plans and to further 
explain  how a duty increase on mobile phones would be consistent with India’s WTO binding 
commitments.  
124.  The representative o f Japan  joined the United States and the European Union in expressing 
its concern about the issues of customs duties on ICT products.  While appreciating India's 
responses to the questions raised  and statements made at the CTG , his delegation's concerns 
remained unaddressed. Japan's  understanding was that the customs duties o n the four products in 
question we re bound at zero, with the exception of a certain type of receiver, and the imposition of 
10% basic customs duties on these four products was  inconsiste nt with GATT Article II.  In 
addition, Japan believed that the issue was not a matter of evolution of new technologies, but a 
matter of tariff classification . In this sense , he requested India to provide clarification on th e HS 
codes of the four products . Following the arguments expressed by  the European Union  and the 
United States on ITA covered products , Japan  asked India to provide  detailed information 
regarding the lines that it ha d shown interest at the previous CTG . Finally, he expressed interest in  
the reports  that India might  impose customs duties on importe d mobile phone s, and request ed 
India to provide detailed information on the  matter.  G/MA/M/65  
 
- 19 - 
 
  125.  The representative of Korea  thanked the United States, European Union and Japan for 
drawing attention to India's import duties on ITA products , including mobile phone s. His delegation 
shared the concerns that had been expressed and requested a more detailed explanation and 
clarification  on this issue from India . Korea would closely monitor this issue.  
126.  The representat ive of Chinese Taipei  shared the concerns which had been raised by other 
Members . His delegation had a strong commercial interest in this regard. Chinese Taipei would 
closely monitor this issue and looked forward to more detailed information.  
127.  The represent ative of Canada  thanked the co -sponsors o f this agenda item and reiterated 
the concerns that had been raised in this Committee, the ITA Committee and the CTG regarding 
India's customs notification No. 11/2014 . He encouraged India to meet its WTO bound 
comm itments.  
128.  The representative of Singapore  registered her delegation's continued interest in the issue 
which would be closely monitored by  her delegation.  
129.  The representative of Norway  indicated  that her delegation had been follow ing this issue 
with interest and, as had been expressed at previous formal meetings of the C ommittee on Market 
Access , Norway had systemic interests in this matter. Norway welcomed the responses from India 
and looked forward to examining  them in detail.  
130.  The representative of Switzerla nd noted  that her delegation had a systemic in terest in this 
issue, especially when they  heard  previou s speakers say that India was planning  to also levy 
duties on mobile phones. Switzerland urged India to comply with its WTO commitments and to 
address the  concerns which had been expressed by previous speakers.  
131.  The representative of Thailand  had taken note of India's Customs N otification number 
No. 11/2014 . Her delegation  shared the  concern s that had been raised  by previous speakers. 
Thailand  had a commerci al interest in the products under heading 85.17  and also on imported 
mobile phones . Her delegation also shared systemic concerns  on the issue . Thailand hoped that a 
mutually satisfactory  solution would be found and looked forward to more information from I ndia. 
132.  The representative of India thanked the European Union, United States, Japan, Korea,  
Chinese Taipei, Canada, Singapore, Norway, Switzerland , and Thailand  for their  interest  in the 
matter relating to customs duties on certain ICT products. He recalled  that the issue was under 
discussion in this Committee, as well as in the ITA Committee and the CTG since last year. 
Through document G/MA/W/128, India had already submitted written replies to the questions that 
had been jointly asked by European Union, United States,  Japan and Korea.  He pointed out that 
while Members had asked customs classification of the goods covered under Notification 
No. 11/2014 , dated 11  July 2014, India reiterated  its earlier s tand that the main issue was  not the 
classification but the tariff binding commitments. India believe d that the goods in question were 
not covered under the ITA commitments. India had signed the ITA -1 in the year 1997, and had 
presented its sc hedule of concession s, which was certified in document WT/Let/181. Su bsequently, 
IT and telecom technologies had evolved over the years and new technologies,  applications and 
equipment had  been developed which neither existe d nor were even conceived at the time of 
signing ITA -1. Therefore, th e new products in question could  not be considered as falling under  the 
scope of ITA -1 commitment s, as they did  not exist at the time of making concessions.  He noted 
that, at the time when ITA -1 had been  negotiated, HS Code 85 .17 for telecom equipment referred 
to telecommunication appara tus for “carrier -current line systems & digital line systems”. However, 
in the last few year s, several new technologies had  been developed . Subsequently, the said code 
had been expanded to include new techno logical developments.  Since India'  ITA-1 obligati ons 
were limited to those items that conf ormed  to the 1996 definition of products for “carrier current 
line systems & digital line systems”, new products that had lately been class ified under this 
category could not  be conside red as part of the ITA-1. He p ointed out that India was  not intending 
to take fresh commitm ents on goods for which India had  not sign ed in the ITA -1, and which had  
subsequently evolved. In fact , it was  evident that , to take care of new developments in 
technologies and new products, som e Participants had  concluded ITA -2, - and India was not a 
signatory  to it. India had observed that some delegations had been raising concerns relating to 
some additional specific tariff lines . These were  8529.10, 8529 .90, 8538 .90, 9030 .90, 8525 .80 
and 8542 .39. He recalled that these concerns had been brought to India's notice quite recently  G/MA/M/65  
 
- 20 - 
 
  and the matter was  presently under examination in capital . A response would be provided in due 
course.  With respect to other  concerns which had been raised in the presen t meeting, the y would 
be sent  to the capital for consideration and response.  
133.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
P. OTHER BUSINESS  
- OMAN  – MFN  CUSTOMS  DUTIES  ON CIGARRETTES  
134.  The Chairperson  recalled that the issue had been included at the re quest of Switzerland.  
135.  The representative of  Switzerland  recalled that, at the Committee on Market Access meeting 
of October 2016, several delegations including Switzerland had raised the issue of the modification 
of the MFN customs duties on cigarettes in Oma n. In September 2016, Oman had increased the 
specific part of its customs duties on cigarettes through the Customs Decree on Adjustment of the 
Minimum Specific for Tobacco and its Products in the Unified Customs Tariff for the GCC countries.  
Since then , Switzerland had had many bilateral contacts with Oman's authorities  in order to raise 
Switzerland's  concern on the consistency of that decree with Oman’s WTO bound rates o n 
cigarettes . Oman's bound rates were set at 150%. According to Switzerland's  calculati ons, the 
minimum specific duty on cigarettes appeared to rise to a rate that exceed ed Oman’s WTO bound 
rate when the value of the consig nment was below a certain level. According to Oman , the new 
minimum specific duty was  in line with its WTO commitments . However, her delegation had not 
come to the same  conclusion. Therefore, Switzerland  asked Oman to share its calculation 
methodology and to provide examples.  Even if the WTO did  not prescribe which kind of duties a 
Member should apply at the border, be it ad valorem , specific, compound, etc. Article II of the 
GATT require d that a Contracting Party accord a treatment that was not less favourable than that 
provide d in the appropriate part of the appropriate Schedule. Switzerland re quested  Oman to 
abide by Article II of the GATT  and not go above its bound rates . Switzerland also request ed 
clarification on how Oman perform ed its calculations and how it guarant eed that its MFN applied 
rates were levied in a manner consistent with its WTO bound tariff rate in the c ase of cigarettes. 
Switzerland would continue its bilateral dialogue with Oman in order to reach  a satisfactory 
conclusion o n this issue. V ery recently , her delegation had  obtained  informatio n that the Omani 
authorities were  examining the situation and tha t modifications could be adopted in the near 
future. Her delegation would welcome any positive development . 
136.  The representative of Oman  thanked the delegation of Switzerland for their interest in the 
modification of Oman's customs duties on cigarettes as we ll as the opportunity to coordinate with 
them earlier. His delegation had only been aware of this agenda item one day before this meeting,  
and he requested more time to consult with his capital on the specific questions that had been 
posed regarding the ca lculations and to what extent such calculations would be consistent with 
Oman's Article II obligations. He acknowledged  that the concerned authorities were  looking at this 
matter very carefully . He believed that they would soon be  able to come back to the delegation of 
Switzerland bilaterally with more on this matter.  
137.  The Committee took note  of the statement s made . 
- DATE OF THE NEXT  MEEETINGS  
138.  The Committee  took note that its informal multilateral review sessions for HS transpositions 
had been scheduled for  Friday , 23 June 2017. In addition, the next formal meeting had been 
provisionally scheduled for Friday , 22 September  2017 to take account of the preparatory work 
and busy period in the lead up to MC11 . 
Q. ELECTION OF THE CHAI RPERSON  
139.  The Chairperson  recall ed that the rules of procedure for this Committee stated that a 
Chairperson shall be elected at the end of the first meeting of the Committee every year. However, 
Members had not yet managed to agree on the new Chair person s for the subsidiary bodies of the  
Council for Trade in Goods. She proposed to follow the same procedure as the year before, where 
the name of the proposed candidate , according to the result of the CTG consultations , was sent by G/MA/M/65  
 
- 21 - 
 
  fax by the Secretariat to all Members with a deadline for obj ections. If no objection was received 
within the set deadline, the candidate would be considered elected.4 She stood ready to continue 
with her duties as Chair ad interim  until the time the new Chairperson was elected.  
140.  The Committee so agreed . 
141.  The Chairper son thanked the staff from the Market Access Division, the Market Access 
Intelligence Unit of the Economic Research and Statistics Division, and the interpreters for their 
dedication and professionalism.  
142.  The meeting was adjourned . 
__________  
                                                
4 In a fax dated 11 May 2017, the Secretariat informed Members that the Council for Trade in Goods 
had adopted, on 11 May 2017, a slate of names concerning the appointment of officers to the CTG subsidiary 
bodies, which nominated Mr Ahmed El Libedy (Egypt) to Chair the Committee on Market Access and gave a 
deadline for objections until Friday, 12  May 2017.  No objections were receiv ed, so he was elected Chairperson 
of the Committee on Market Access on that date.