WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/MA/M/56 
8 January 2013 
 (13-0052) 
Committee on Market Access  
  
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 16 OCTOBER 2012 
 
Chairman: Mr. Bipin Menon (India) 
 
  
Subjects discussed                      Page 
 
1.  Periodic report of the Committee to the Council for Trade in Goods ................................. 2  
2.  Extension of the Harmonized System 2002 waiver ................................................................ 3  
3.  Extension of the Harmonized System 2007 waiver ................................................................ 3  
4.  Extension of the Harmonized System 2012 waiver ................................................................ 3  
5.  Introduction of Harmonized System 1996 (HS96) changes to schedules of 
concessions - Status report ................................................................................................... .... 4 
6.  Introduction of Harmonized System 2002 changes to schedules of concessions 
using the Consolidated Tariff Schedules (CTS) Database (WT/L/605) - Status 
report ........................................................................................................................ .................. 4  
7.  Introduction of Harmonized System 2007 changes to schedules of concessions 
using the Consolidated Tariff Schedules (CTS) database (WT/L/673) – Status report ........................................................................................................................ .................. 5  
8.  Operation of the Integrated Data Ba se (IDB) and the CTS database - Status 
report ........................................................................................................................ .................. 5  
9.  Notifications pursuant to the decision on  notification procedures for quantitative 
restrictions (G/L/59/Rev.1) ................................................................................................... .... 6 
10.  Proposed procedures for the derestrictio n of the negotiating material of the 
Dillon Round and some negotiating material of the four earlier GATT Round ................. 7  
11.  Ukraine's Article XXVIII notification (G/SECRET/34) - Statements by Canada, 
EU and the United States ...................................................................................................... ... 8 
12.  Draft report (2012) of the Committee to the Council for Trade in Goods 
(G/MA/SPEC/52) ................................................................................................................ .... 14 
13.  Election of the Vi ce-Chairperson .......................................................................................... 15  
14.  Other Busi ness ................................................................................................................ ......... 15 
 
  The Committee adopted the agenda as reproduced in WTO/AIR/4010 with the inclusion of the 
following item under Other Business:  "Date of the next meeting."  An annotated agenda was circulated in document JOB/MA/103. G/MA/M/56 
Page 2  
 
  1. Periodic report of the Committee to the Council for Trade in Goods  
1.1 The Chairman drew attention to document G/MA/SPEC/51 which contained the draft periodic 
report of this Committee.  He noted that this re port which would be finalized in the light of the 
discussion that would take place at this meeting w ould be submitted to the Council for Trade in Goods 
(CTG) for examination.  He noted that there were no requests for extensions of waivers so no factual 
information on this issue had been provided in the annex.   
 1.2 The Committee took note of the periodic report and agreed to forward the finalized report
1 to 
the CTG for its consideration. 
 
1.3 In relation to periodic reports, the Chairman wished to put an idea before the Committee for 
its consideration.  The two periodic reports whic h were sent to the CTG every year seemed to be 
redundant in light of the fact that the Committee se nt an annual report to the CTG which repeated the 
information contained in those periodic reports.    
1.4 The background to the periodic report was that  in 1993, Sweden, on behalf of the Nordic 
countries, had put forward a proposal in the GATT Council (TAR/W/88).  The proposal attempted to 
address concerns that Sweden had with the almost automatic renewal (the word they actually used 
was "semi-automaticity") of a substantial number of  waivers related to the implementation of the 
Harmonized System.  The proposal suggested that an  extension of the waiver should be based on an 
understanding that the countries involved would give  a full and detailed report in writing to the GATT 
Committee on Tariff Concessions on the steps that ha d been taken toward finalizing the Harmonized 
System implementation during the period covered by  the respective waivers.  Furthermore, the 
proposal suggested that the Committee on Tariff Concessions should hold, in due course, a full 
discussion on the basis of these reports and that it shou ld be asked to report back to the Council on the 
matter in advance of any requests to the Council fo r additional extensions.  This report would then 
constitute a basis for any further discussions of this  kind.  Following this meeting of the Council, the 
Chairman of the Committee on Tariff Concessions ha d held consultations a nd at a meeting of the 
Committee held on 6 December 1993 (TAR/M/36) the Chairman had submitted to the Committee the 
following proposal which derived from those consultations:     "The Committee shall report twice a year on its ac tivities to the Council.  Under the item related 
 to "On-going negotiations and submission of HS documentation by contracting parties under 
 waivers", the following factual information shall be included [in an annex to the report]:    Date of original waiver; Date of submission of  documents relevant to the HS implementation (if 
 no documents have been circulat ed, reasons therefor);  Number of extensions and dates when 
 granted; Number of countries with which Article XXVIII negotiations have been initiated; 
 Number of countries with whic h Article XXVIII negotiations have  been concluded; Status of 
 outstanding Article XXVIII negotiations as well as  a general outline of relevant problems, if 
 any; Outlook for concluding the process."  1.5 The GATT Committee on Tariff Concessions had agreed to this proposal, and the WTO 
Committee on Market Access at its first meeting (G/MA/ M/1) had agreed to continue this practice.  
At the time there were twelve countries under individual waivers.   1.6 However, in light of the fact that the pro cedures had changed in respect of the introduction of 
HS changes to schedules of concessions (that is to say they were more expe ditious) and that waivers 
in respect of HS implementation were "collective"  in nature, the question arose as to the need and 
                                                      
 1 Issued as G/MA/286.  G/MA/M/56 
 Page 3 
 
 
  usefulness of these periodic reports.   He drew atten tion to the fact that in the last three periodic 
reports, there had been no annexes listing f actual information on individual waivers.  
 1.7 So, in short the question was whether it was necessary to maintain a procedure which had 
been developed more than a decade ago in order to address a particular situation, which in his view, 
no longer existed.  He submitted this for the Committee's  consideration.  Further, in order to facilitate 
consideration of this issue he requested the Secret ariat to prepare a background note to be circulated 
as a JOB document
2 on this subject.  He proposed holding informal consultations on the basis of that 
document by the end of the month.  It was also important to note that doing away with this report would cut down on the paper work which would go towards meeting the recommendations issued by 
the Budget Committee and from that point of view might also be a useful proposal to examine.  
 1.8 The Committee agreed to  the Chairman's proposal. 
 
2. Extension of the Harmonized System 2002 waiver  
2.1 The Chairman recalled that a number of Me mbers had been given a waiver extension - 
through the form of a "collective decision" -  in  order to introduce HS2002 changes domestically and 
to subsequently introduce these cha nges to their respective schedules of concessions and to undertake 
negotiations if required.  This waiver decisi on was contained in document WT/L/832 and would 
expire on 31 December 2012.    
2.2 He proposed that the Committee agree to exte nd the waiver for another year as the Members 
concerned had yet to complete the HS2002 procedures.   In this connection, he noted that Mexico and 
Thailand had completed their HS2002 procedur es and had certified schedules in the HS2002 
nomenclature and therefore no longer needed to be c overed by the waiver.   The Secretariat would be 
issuing a revised version of the draft decision to take this factor into consideration.  
 
2.3 The Committee agreed to forward a revised  version of the draft decision (issued as 
G/C/W/672/Rev.1) granting such an extension to the CTG for appropriate action. 
 
3. Extension of the Harmonized System 2007 waiver 
3.1  The Chairman recalled that a number of Me mbers had been given a waiver extension  - 
through the form of a "collective" decision -  in  order to introduce HS2007 changes domestically and 
to subsequently introduce these cha nges to their respective schedules of concessions and to undertake 
negotiations if required.  This waiver decisi on was contained in document WT/L/833 and would 
expire on 31 December 2012.   He proposed that  the Committee agree to extend the waiver for 
another year.   
 
3.2 The Committee agreed to forward the draf t waiver decision granting such an extension 
(G/C/W/673) to the CTG for appropriate action.     
 
4. Extension of the Harmonized System 2012 waiver 
4.1  The Chairman recalled that a number of Memb ers were granted a waiver  - through the form 
of a "collective" decision - in order to introdu ce HS2012 changes domestically and to subsequently 
introduce these changes to their r espective schedule of concessions a nd to undertake negotiations if 
required. This decision was contained in  document WT/L/834 and would expire on 
31 December 2012.   He proposed that the Comm ittee agree to extend the waiver for a year.   
 
                                                      
 2 The note was circulated as JOB/MA/105. G/MA/M/56 
Page 4  
 
  4.2 The Committee agreed to forward the draf t waiver decision granting such an extension 
(G/C/W/674) to the CTG for appropriate action.   
 
5. Introduction of Harmonized System 1996 (H S96) changes to schedules of concessions - 
Status report 
5.1 The Chairman 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 8 October 1991 and the speci fic one contained in WTO document WT/L/756 
dated 29 May 2009.   He further recalled that under the first one, Members had to transpose their own 
schedules, whereas under the second one the Secretaria t transposed the schedules of 64 developing 
countries and LDCs. 
 5.2 There were five Members whose schedules we re pending under either one or the other of 
these procedures:  Australia and Venezuela under the first one and Bangladesh; Ecuador and South 
Africa under the second one.  
 
5.3 He informed the Committee that he had met with the represen tatives from Australia; 
Bangladesh; South Africa and Venezuela.  The purpo se of these meetings was to find out whether 
there was anything that the Secretariat could do to assist these delegations in moving their HS96 process to a successful conclusion.   The situa tion was the following: Australia had an approved 
HS2002 schedule, but had requested that certification not take place until domestic approval had been 
secured.  Australia had indicated that they were l ooking at this matter more closely to see what could 
be done.  Bangladesh needed to notify certain bilateral agreements arising from their past 
Article XXVIII renegotiations in order for those r esults to be incorporated in their schedule. 
Bangladesh indicated that it would be making that notif ication.  In the case of South Africa, questions 
had been raised by a delegation concerning the ch anges in the binding status of some tariff lines. 
These basically encompassed HS chap ters 4, 33 and 35.  He believed that South Africa was seriously 
looking into the issue and was engaged in bilaterals  with the concerned delegation.   In the case of 
Venezuela, some errors had been detected by the Secretariat in th e schedule that in fact had been 
approved by Members. The source of the errors was the absence of some Uruguay Round commitments in the schedule. The revised documenta tion and a record of the several interactions 
between the Secretariat and the Venezuelan delegati on had been sent to the Venezuelan delegate in 
July of this year.  The next step would be to  set up a meeting or a video conference between the 
Secretariat and the relevant Venezuelan authoriti es so that they could go through the revised 
documentation in more detail.   He had not met w ith Ecuador because their issue would be resolved 
once their HS2002 file was finalized and the prospects looked good.   
5.4 The Committee took note of the Chairman's report of his consultations.  
 
6. Introduction of Harmonized System 2002 chan ges to schedules of concessions using the 
Consolidated Tariff Schedules (CTS) Database (WT/L/605) - Status report 
6.1 A member of the Secretariat (Mr Jurgen Richte ring) noted that a revised full report was issued 
as JOB/MA/42/Rev.5 on 25 June 2012.  The status of the HS02 transposition after the multilateral 
review held on 2 July 2012 was the following:  99 HS02 files had been certified and 4 HS02 file were 
in the process of being certified; twelve HS02 fil es had been released for multilateral review and had 
received comments from other Members; one draft HS02 file had been completed and sent to the Member concerned for review; two draft HS02 files remained to be prepared.  Three revised HS02 files would be reviewed at the next multilateral review meeting to be held in late November. 
 
6.2 The Committee took note of the report. 
  G/MA/M/56 
 Page 5 
 
 
  7. Introduction of Harmonized System 2007 chan ges to schedules of concessions using the 
Consolidated Tariff Schedules (CTS) database (WT/L/673) – Status report 
7.1  A member of the Secretar iat (Mr Jurgen Richtering) noted that the work on the HS2007 had 
progressed since the last meeting of the Committee.   He intended to give a brief summary of the 
status of work on the HS2007 files, but noted that a full report would be issued for the first 
multilateral review meeting of HS2007 files to be held in late November.  As of October 2012: 
21 HS07 files had been released for multilateral revi ew; 26  draft HS07 file had been completed and 
sent to Members for their first review;  and eight Members had made submissions.  In addition, the document on the methodology for the HS2007 transp osition JOB/MA/97 was re-issued as G/MA/283 
dated 22 May 2012.  The Secretariat had also  received the first HS2012 submission from the 
United States on 3 October 2012.  
 7.2 The Committee took note of the report. 
 
8. Operation of the Integrated Data Base (I DB) and the CTS database - Status report 
8.1 The Chairman drew attention to document G/MA/IDB/2/Rev.36 which contained information 
on the status of submissions to the IDB.   
 8.2 A member of the Secretariat (Mr Jurgen Rich tering) reported that regarding submissions to 
the IDB, since the circulation of document G/MA/I DB/2/Rev.36, the Secretariat had received the 
following submissions:  Burkina Faso imports for 2011; Burundi tariffs for 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 
and imports for 2010; Ecuador tariffs for 2010; Ge orgia tariffs for 2012 and imports for 2010, 2011; 
Haiti imports for 2010; Malawi tariffs for 1996, 1 997, 1998, 2001, 2006; Mauritius tariffs for 2012; 
Mexico imports for 2011; Pakistan tariffs for 2012; Thailand imports for 2011; and the former 
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia tari ffs for 2012 and imports for 2010. 
 
8.3 On IDB dissemination, 1434 country-periods covering 127 out of 129 WTO Members3 and 
seven acceding countries (Algeria; Bahamas; Bela rus; Iran; Lao People's Democratic Republic; 
Liberia and Serbia), were now available on the ID B websites.  Montenegro had not yet submitted any 
information to the IDB. The Secretariat would li ke to remind recently acceded Members to submit 
recent years' tariff and import information to the IDB.   
8.4 The Secretariat intended to integrate into the IDB, 'historical' tariff and import information for 
29 countries, official notifications made during the Uruguay Round and covering the years 1988 to 1995.  These data had been previously disseminate d in form of a CD-ROM which had, however, 
never been re-issued. 
 8.5 At present, the IDB files were disseminated to Members via the IDB/CTS File Transfer 
Facility (FTF) and the Tariff Analysis Online (TAO) web site.  The Secretariat would discontinue by 
the end of 2012 the dissemination of IDB files thr ough the FTF website mainly because the size of the 
IDB database was growing fast and this applica tion based on an outdated technology might not be 
able to cope with the increasing IDB data load in  the future. The Secretariat would upload all IDB 
approved and provisional files as of 2013 only to the TAO website. The FTF website would remain 
available to Members to download CTS files and all HS transposition related files.  It would also 
continue to be available for submitting files to th e Secretariat and exchanging restricted information 
with Members.   
 
                                                      
 3 No data submission has been r eceived from Montenegro; the data received from Samoa were under 
processing. G/MA/M/56 
Page 6  
 
  8.6 For ease of reference of delegations, the S ecretariat intended to propose to the Committee a 
consolidated document on the IDB notification requi rements.  Following the General Council decision 
in July 1997 a number of documents had been issued, including revisions and corrigenda which 
specified in detail the data coverage, data format s and deadlines.  A consolidation of these various 
documents in one comprehensive text, taking into  account also the experience gained in data 
collection appeared sensible.  It would also make it easier to convey to Members, in particular to 
recently acceded Members, all the required informati on in one single document.  A draft would soon 
be circulated.  
 
8.7 On the CTS database, the Secretariat currently had files for 116 Members in the new CTS formats (described in G/MA/244) available on the FTF site.  Out of these 116 Members: for 
99 Members certified HS02 schedules were shown, six Members had acceded in the HS02 nomenclature and 5 Members had acceded in the HS07 nomenclature.   For six more Members, the 
HS02 versions of their schedules were already s hown in the CTS but the HS02 changes had not yet 
been certified.  The remaining 13 Members were s till in HS96 nomenclature using the previous CTS 
format.   They would be updated to the new form at as their HS02 changes were certified.  The CTS 
database had been updated with the CTS files for the newly acceded Members:  Montenegro; Samoa; 
the Russian Federation; and Vanuatu. 
 
8.8 A new release of the CTS files was issued on DVD in July 2012.  It included for most 
Members their CTS file in HS02 nomenclature w ith certified HS02 changes.  In addition, the 
Secretariat had included a compilation of the elect ronic version of relevant GATT and WTO legal 
instruments for all Members.  This compilation wo uld be updated once a year and would be provided 
to Members together with the CTS files.   
 
8.9 Concerning technical assistance, since the last meeting of the Committee in April 2012, IDB and CTS were presented at the following workshops :   regional Market Access workshop for Asian 
economies in Korea; regional Mark et Access workshop in Chile fo r Latin America; and national 
workshop in Malaysia. 
 
8.10 The IDB and CTS had also been presented in  several Geneva based Trade Policy Courses and 
other training events.  8.11 The Committee took note of the report.  
 
9. Notifications pursuant to the decision on  notification procedures for quantitative 
restrictions (G/L/59/Rev.1) 
9.1 The Chairman stated that as indicated at the informal meeting of the Committee held on 
17 September, the notifications which were subm itted prior to 30 September 2012 were included in 
the agenda of the meeting.  So notifications from the following Members had met the deadline: the 
Russian Federation; Hong Kong, China and Turkey.  He also noted that since 30 September, 
notifications had been received from the United St ates; Costa Rica; Canada; New Zealand; Ukraine; 
Korea and Australia.  These notifications along with  any others submitted in the future would be 
included in the agenda of next year's Committee mee ting.   He wished to place on record his sincere 
appreciation to the three delegations for having met the deadline.  Members when making their 
comments should also appreciate that these Members were  the first to make the QR notification and to 
meet the deadline. He proposed taking up the notification of Hong Kong, China (G/MA/QR/N/HKG/1) and the Russian Federation (G/MA/QR/N/RF/1) together.   9.2 The representative of Australia thanked th e Russian Federation; Hong Kong, China and 
Turkey for meeting the deadline. It was a challenge  for all Members and Australia appreciated their 
efforts and also acknowledged the thoroughness of th e notifications.  His delegation had two brief  G/MA/M/56 
 Page 7 
 
 
  comments on the notification from the Russian Fede ration and Hong Kong, China. On the Russian 
Federation, Australia noted that the Russian Fe deration had used Article XX(c) of GATT 1994 as a 
justification for the use of export licences for the expo rt of precious metals, gems which were listed as 
QR-16 and processed precious metals listed as QR -17.  From his dele gation's reading of 
Article XX(c), it related to the e xport of gold and silver whereas the restrictions here were wide and 
covered a range of precious meta ls. Regarding the submission from Hong Kong, China, Australia 
noted that Hong Kong, China had re ferred to Article XX of GATT 1994 at a very general level for the 
justification of the majority of their measur es.  He wondered whether Hong Kong, China could 
provide further specificity on the provisions in  Article XX which it was referring to in the 
"justification" column.  
 
9.3 The representative of Hong Kong, China stated that she would forward the question to capital.  
 
9.4 The representative of the Russian Federation stated that she had taken careful note of 
Australia's question and would send it back to cap ital.  She would also appreciate receiving the 
question in writing.  
 9.5 The Committee took note of the statements. 
 9.6 In respect of Turkey's notification circulated  in G/MA/QR/N/TUR/1, the Chairman noted that 
while the notification had been submitted before the deadline, it had been circulated only one day 
before the meeting and Members woul d not have had the time to review it.  The Committee agreed to 
the Chairman's proposal to keep this notification on  the agenda for the next meeting of the Committee 
along with all notifications s ubmitted after 30 September 2012.  
 9.7 Before concluding on this agenda item, the Ch airman wished to provide some information on 
the Quantitative Restriction (QR) database.  The da tabase had been finalized and the Secretariat had 
begun to input the information contained in these initial notifications into the database.  The 
Secretariat's IT experts had indicated that once the Secretariat had acquired some experience in inputting the database, there might be need to tweak  the programme.  After that process, delegations 
would be introduced to the datab ase and would have the opportunity to use it and provide feedback 
before it was made accessible to the public.  Th e idea was to make the database accessible to the 
public by early next year.  In connection with the QR  database and notifications  in general, he had a 
request to make to delegations.  Section 2 of the not ification related to cross-reference notifications.  
Based on the initial notifications received by the Secret ariat, it seemed that some of these notifications 
which had been cross-referenced in Section 2 of th e QR notification did not have all the information 
in terms of HS tariff lines and the WTO justificati on. In such cases, he requested Members to include, 
wherever they could, information on those parameters  in Section 2 of the QR notification. This would 
facilitate the Secretariat's work in inputting the database and make the database more useful to 
Members.   9.8 The Committee took note of the statement. 
 10. Proposed procedures for the derestriction of  the negotiating material of the Dillon 
Round and some negotiating material of the four earlier GATT Round  
10.1 The Chairman recalled that a first discussion on this subject had taken place at an informal 
meeting held on 17 September based on an informal document by the Secretariat circulated at the 
meeting.   Following that discussion, the Secret ariat had prepared a revised draft (JOB/MA/102) 
which was before the Committee.  The procedure provided for in the document was the following:  
(1) Once the document was adopted it would be issued as a G/MA/- doc ument; (2) Members who 
were responsible for having drawn up the negotiating records would have six months from the date of 
circulation of the G/MA/- document to notify the Secr etariat of any negotiating record that they would G/MA/M/56 
Page 8  
 
  like to keep restricted.  They would also be provi ded electronic versions of the relevant records upon 
request to the Secretariat.  Such requests should be made within one month of the date of circulation 
of the G/MA/- document; (3) After the six-month pe riod, open-ended informal consultations would be 
held sometime in May to decide on when the doc uments which could be derestricted should be 
derestricted and to decide on what to do with t hose documents which had been identified by Members 
as requiring restriction; and (4) Such a decision w ould be proposed for adoption at the Committee's 
next formal meeting after the May consultation.  
 
10.2 The representative of Australia stated that the Chairman and the Secretariat had done a good 
job in moving the discussions forward from the last meeting held in September. With the new 
procedures, Members were not actually taking a decision now on how to address documents that 
might need further restriction. So, today the Commi ttee was just starting a process. It would have six 
months from the date the document was issued, and would then see what exactly was needed in six or 
seven month. His delegation was happy to move forward on that basis.  
10.3 The Committee approved the procedur e as contained in document JOB/MA/102
4. 
 
10.4 Before concluding on this item, the Chairm an provided an additional piece of information in 
respect of the earlier four GATT Rounds' negotiating records.  He recalled that at the Committee's last 
informal meeting on 17 September, he had indicat ed that only Haiti and Myanmar had yet to submit 
their authorization letters.  Haiti had done so last week , so their material would be derestricted.  That 
left Myanmar.  He also wished to inform Memb ers that the authorized derestricted negotiating 
material of the four previous GATT rounds was being made available on the WTO's public website 
today, nicely timed to coincide with this formal m eeting of the Committee.   He wished to extend his 
gratitude to all Members who had cooperated in this exercise.  He extended special thanks to the 
WTO Secretariat in particular Miriam Rosaldo of the Market Access Division for the effort in 
compiling all these documents and making them availa ble to Members. He also wished to place on 
record his thanks to the Information Management  Services of the Languages, Documentation and 
Information Management Division and to the Web Te am of the Information and External Relations 
Division of the Secretariat who also worked to get this process through.  10.5 The Committee took note of the statement.  
 
11. Ukraine's Article XXVIII notification (G/SEC RET/34) - Statements by Canada, EU and 
the United States 
11.1 The Chairman noted that Ukraine had ci rculated an Article XXVIII notification on 
12 September 2012.  The notification was containe d in G/SECRET/34.   Canada; the EU and the 
United States had requested inclusion of this item on the agenda of this Committee meeting.  
 11.2 The representative of Canada stated that this  was an issue that Canada had been following 
with great interest and one that Canada had spoke n to in other fora previously. Canada had just 
wanted to take the opportunity today to put its th oughts on the record here as well. Canada continued 
to have the view that Ukraine's intention to m odify 361 tariff lines raised important, systemic and 
transparency-related concerns.  From a systemic pe rspective, it was Canada's view that Ukraine's 
notification went well beyond the intended use of Artic le XXVIII. From a transp arency perspective, it 
was Canada's understanding that a country seeking to modify its tariff schedule should indicate the 
nature of the proposed modification in its communica tion to Members. To date that had not been done 
and Canada therefore asked that Ukraine clearly identify how it intended to modify each of the 361 
tariff lines that had been identified in the communica tion circulated in September. Canada encouraged 
Ukraine to provide this and other relevant inform ation to the WTO Membership collectively and any 
                                                      
 4 Approved document was issued as G/MA/285.  G/MA/M/56 
 Page 9 
 
 
  other relevant documentation concerni ng its intention on how it intended to proceed with this exercise 
in a timely manner.  11.3 The representative of the Europ ean Union, speaking also on behalf of Croatia, stated that the 
EU and Croatia expressed their very serious c oncern about Ukraine's recent announcement of its 
intention to renegotiate a significant part of its WTO commitments. This re quest for renegotiation was 
one of the biggest made since the WTO was cr eated, affecting trade and key agricultural and 
industrial goods. The EU and Cr oatia were of the opinion that the procedures set out in 
Article XXVIII of the GATT were not meant for re negotiating such a large part of the accession 
commitments of WTO Members. The EU and Croatia feared that this request had the potential of 
undermining the credibility of Ukraine's broade r commitment to its WTO accession obligation as it 
came after only four years of WTO Membership. Th e EU and Croatia believed that the mere size of 
the tariff changes envisaged could make it extremely difficult for Ukraine to ma intain a general level 
of reciprocal and mutually advantageous conces sions not less favourable to trade as required by 
Article XXVIII of the GATT. The EU and Croatia we re worried about the lack of transparency 
surrounding the proposal and would continue seeking to  receive from Ukraine sound explanations of 
the reasons underlining this action and urged Ukraine to inform a ll Members in a transparent way 
about the planned tariff changes. The EU and Croa tia feared that Ukraine's proposed action raised 
very serious systemic concerns for the multilatera l trading system. Therefore, the EU and Croatia 
hoped that Ukraine would reconsider its position on this overall issue.   
11.4 The representative of the United States stated th at like others the US remained strongly of the 
view that Ukraine should reconsider its request to renegotiate more than 350 tariff bindings under 
GATT Article XXVIII. Ukraine's proposed action had serious and systemic implications and the US, 
like others, was concerned about the precedent that it created. The broad scope of Ukraine's proposal 
and the significant trade effects across a range of key products was highly unusual for an 
Article XXVIII notification.  Importantly it was unclear  the extent to which Ukraine would be able to 
compensate Members for the concessions that it sou ght to modify.  Moreover,  her delegation had not 
seen a sufficiently transparent process to involve all affected Members and this only exacerbated their 
concerns.  Four weeks after Ukraine had tabled its notification, Members still did not know what 
Ukraine's really objectives were; what proposed new rates Ukraine was seeking; how it contemplated 
compensating Members; and whether Members had the correct data to analyse the situation.  Her 
delegation therefore supported Canada's and the EU's  call for a collective submission of information, 
especially given the magnitude and the systemic concerns that this notification presented.  
 11.5 The representative of Brazil joined previous delegations in expressing concerns on Ukraine's 
intention to modify concessions under Article XX VIII of GATT.  The modifications proposed by 
Ukraine would cover more than 350 tariff lines from  a wide range of agricultural and industrial 
sectors including many products that were key expor t priorities for Brazil.  According to data 
provided by Ukraine in its notification, 4.6 billion dollars of imports might be affected by this 
initiative.  That represented more than 10% of Ukraine's imports from countries outside of the 
Commonwealth of Independent States. In the specifi c case of Brazil, around 15% of all its exports to 
Ukraine could be affected.  Ukraine's wide-ranging initiatives raised not only systemic concerns but 
also legal issues regarding their conformity with th e spirit and letter of WTO disciplines.  Given its 
magnitude, the proposed rebinding would most likel y fail to obtain the level of reciprocal and 
mutually advantageous concessions negotiated dur ing Ukraine's accession which was key tenant of 
Article XXVIII of GATT.  In view of that, Braz il invited Ukraine to reconsider its decision. 
 
11.6 The representative of Guatemala joined ot her Members that had expressed concern about 
Ukraine's notification of its intention to modify a significant number of tariff concessions.  In 
particular, Guatemala was worried about the effects of  this exercise on its trade interests and about the 
serious implications it would have at the multilate ral level.  While Guatemala did not question the 
right of Members, in this case Ukraine, to make use of the flexibilities and rights established in the G/MA/M/56 
Page 10  
 
  WTO Agreements, these flexibilities a nd rights should be exercised with restraint so as to maintain 
the spirit of cooperation within and commitment to the multilateral trading system that had existed 
since the GATT 1947.  Given the considerable numbe r of tariff headings that Ukraine intended to 
modify, Guatemala feared that Ukraine might not be able to offer compensation with equivalent effect 
to all Members that were entitled to it, and that there would be no other solution but to withdraw 
concessions, as provided for in Article XXVIII of th e GATT 1994.  In Guatemala's view, this would 
establish a highly negative precedent and could set the multilateral system back to a pre-GATT 1947 
situation.  In view of the above, Guatemala urge d Ukraine to be more transparent as regarded its 
intentions to modify tariff concessions and to recons ider the serious implications this would have for 
the multilateral system. 
 
11.7 The representative of Chile expressed concern regarding Ukraine's intention to renegotiate its 
schedule of concessions.  The commitments which w ould be affected, the lack of clarity and the 
impact that such a renegotiation raised a question of  the real capacity that Ukraine would have to 
compensate its trading partners in a fair fashion.   This was particularly sensitive for developing 
countries and therefore Chile was appealing to Ukraine to consider the impact that such modifications 
could have on developing countri es.  This would involve uncertainty for the WTO with serious 
systemic implications and would call into question th e principle of transparency.  Chile appealed to 
Ukraine to stick to these principles in the procedures that they were applying in the context of these 
negotiations.  Finally, Chile asked Ukraine to rec onsider their request and to assess the systemic and 
economic impact that such a measure could have. 
 
11.8 The representative of Malaysia, speaking also on  behalf of ASEAN members, joined others in 
expressing their concern about the systemic imp lications which could potentially arise from the 
notification circulated by Ukraine to modify its schedule pursuant to GATT Article XXVIII in 
G/SECRET/34.  ASEAN Members had export interest in some of these notified lines.  Given that 
there were a significant number of lines affected, it was difficult especially for developing country 
Members to assess the impact of such a move wit hout clarity on the intended modified bound rates or 
the rationale and objective behind it. ASEAN Memb ers believed that all Members needed to fully 
understand the implication that such a move could have on their own interest and on the WTO and the 
multilateral trading system and thus stressed the importance of discussing and explaining this implication fully in the Committee on Market Access in a structured and transparent and inclusive 
manner.  
 11.9 The representative of Malaysia, speaking on beha lf of Malaysia, joined others in expressing 
Malaysia's serious concerns about the recent notific ation by Ukraine of its intention to modify its 
schedule pursuant to GATT Article XXVIII affecting mo re than 350 tariff lines.  Given the extensive 
coverage of tariff lines that would be impacted, th is proposed action by Ukraine would have serious 
consequences on the future trade of Ukraine's trad ing partners, particularly developing countries like 
Malaysia.  Further, the lack of clarity and unders tanding on the process and procedure involved in the 
invocation of this provision raised factual and systemic concern to those Members who would be 
affected.  Members were part of an organizati on that thrived on transparency, inclusiveness and 
predictability.  Thus Malaysia strongly urged Ukrain e to subject this proposal to a discussion in this 
Committee which would provide an avenue for Member s to seek clarification and to engage with 
affected parties not only on the technical aspects but  also the economic and trade repercussions that 
would entail from such an action.   11.10 The representative of Colombia stated that a month had gone by since Ukraine had submitted 
its notification under Article XXVIII of the GATT w ith the view to changing concessions on more 
than 360 tariffs lines.  Colombia emphasized the need for this process to take place in full 
transparency which would imply inter alia  that Ukraine should provide information as soon as 
possible to all those involved regarding the cha nges they intended to make to their schedule of 
concessions.  Colombia stressed that it was important for this process to respect the balance that was  G/MA/M/56 
 Page 11 
 
 
  reached in the negotiations setting the condition for Ukraine's accession to the WTO and that it 
preserved trade flows which for developing countri es such as Colombia, were focused on a limited 
number of products.  Once again, Colombia asked Ukra ine to reconsider its position on this matter. 
 11.11 The representative of Uruguay stated that Uruguay shared the systemic and trade concerns 
expressed by Members regarding Ukraine's notificati on of its intention to modify a considerable 
number of concessions included in its Schedule CLXII.   If this were to ha ppen, it could seriously 
affect the balance of rights and obligations wh ich Members had agreed upon not long ago when 
Ukraine had joined this Organization, as well as the multilateral trading system's basic objectives of 
stability and predictability of market access conditions .  It was therefore with a feeling of serious 
concern that Uruguay stressed its interest, should Ukra ine persist in its intentions, in participating 
actively in the negotiating process once Uruguay had r eceived Ukraine's concrete proposals for tariff 
modifications and its offers for compensation in the sectors in which Uruguay held initial negotiating 
rights.  At the same time, Uruguay wished to make it clear that Uruguay reserved all its rights to defend, in this negotiating process, the balance of rights and obligations inherent in the bilateral 
agreements. 
 11.12 The representative of Turkey wished to underlin e that since Ukraine wa s an important trading 
partner and good neighbour of Turk ey, Turkey took Ukraine's Ar ticle XXVIII tariff re-negotiation 
initiative very seriously. It seemed to Turkey th at Ukraine's request had created systemic and 
commercial concerns among many Members since the number of tariff lines that were put forward in 
this case were unprecedented in GATT history.  Turkey  also had some concerns about the practicality 
of having so many tariff lines in an Article XXV III re-negotiation request.  Turkey was wondering 
how it would be possible to re-nego tiate all the give-and-ta ke individually and at the same time with 
so many Members. Turkey urged Ukraine to reconsider its proposal.  
11.13 The representative of Argentin a shared the concern that many other delegations had already 
expressed.  Argentina wished to th ank Ukraine for the information provided bilaterally. His capital 
was looking at the notification G/SECRET/34 and would also analyse any further information provided by Ukraine so that in due course Ar gentina could submit its claim of interest. 
 11.14 The representative of New Zealand stated th at like other Members New Zealand wished to 
again express its concerns regarding Ukraine's extensive Article XXVIII request.  Like others, 
New Zealand was concerned with the systemic imp lications of an Article XXVIII request of this 
scale. It was without precedent in the WTO system.  A renegotiation of over 350 tariff lines covering 
such a range of products also raised commercial concerns. Yet Ukraine had still not provided the 
information concerning the magnitude of such cha nges or the rationale behind them. New Zealand 
joined others in requesting Ukraine to pr ovide as soon as possible the necessary additional 
information on its proposed modification to these tariffs  to all Members and to ensure that all affected 
Members were able to participate in a transparen t multilateral process as the discussion continued.  
 11.15 The representative of Korea stated that his capital had been carefully reviewing the request 
and wished to reserve the right to revert back to it at a later time if necessary. Taking this opportunity, 
Korea wished to underline that any concerns relati ng to the request should be reserved in a transparent 
manner as soon as possible in accordance with the spirit of the relevant rules an d regulations of WTO. 
In this regard, Korea looked forward to co-operating closely with Ukraine  and other Members. 
 11.16 The representative of Japan stated that his delegation was shocked by the broad scope of 
Ukraine's proposal.  At the General Council th is month, many Members including Japan had 
expressed their concerns to Ukraine and requested Ukraine to present background information and its 
intentions.  However, to date the proposed modifi cations had not been provided.  Regarding Ukraine's 
intention to modify concessions on more than 350 items, Japan had strong concerns not only from a G/MA/M/56 
Page 12  
 
  commercial point of view but also because of its systemic implications. Reconsideration of the 
proposal was strongly requested.  11.17 The representative of El Salvador stated that El Salvador was closely following the 
notification under Article XXVIII s ubmitted by Ukraine where it expr essed its intention to modify 
commitments for more than 360 tariff lines.  He r authorities were still assessing this request both from 
a trade perspective as well as from a systemic point of  view. In this respect, El Salvador reserved the 
right to revert with more specific comments on ce all necessary information in this process was 
available including the scope of  the changes in the concessions. 
 
11.18 The representative of Switzerland stated that like others, his delega tion wished to express 
systemic concern regarding Ukraine's inten tion to modify its bound rates as notified on 
12 September 2012.  The envisaged changes were unusual and of major significance that affected 
more than 350 tariff lines.  Switzerland attached gr eat importance to reaching a solution that would be 
in line with the value and spirit of the WTO multilateral trading system and rules. Switzerland 
therefore invited Ukraine to carefully reconsid er its position regarding this notification.  
 11.19  The representative of Hong Kong, China stat ed that Hong Kong, China joined others in 
reiterating serious concerns on Ukraine's intention to renegotiate its tariff concessions on more than 
350 tariff lines and the current lack of clarity on what was being proposed.  While Hong Kong, China's products did not constitute a major share of Ukraine's imports, like other 
Members, Hong Kong, China was very concerned a bout the far-reaching systemic implications of 
such a large scale modification of tariff concessi ons by a Member which had only joined the 
Organization four years ago.  As a staunc h supporter of the multilateral trading system, 
Hong Kong, China urged Members not only to refrain from raising new barriers to trade in goods and 
services, or implementing WTO-inconsistent measures in  all areas, but also to rollback protectionist 
measures and continue maximum restraint in implementing WTO-consistent measures with a 
significant protectionist effect.  In this connec tion, Hong Kong, China was mindful that Ukraine's 
proposal might send a very bad signal that amidst  the current unsatisfactory economic situation, 
Members might resort to backtracking from their curre nt commitments so as to protect their domestic 
industries.  Hong Kong, China, therefore sincerely hoped that Ukraine would reconsider its proposal.   
11.20 The representative of Australia supported the co ncerns raised by Canada; the EU; the US and 
other Members and registered Australia's system ic and commercial concerns with Ukraine's 
Article XXVIII request.  While Article XXVIII was an option available to all WTO Members, it was 
of concern that Ukraine's request covered such a large number of tariff lines and sectors.  This 
decision by Ukraine came at a ti me when the global leaders had called on all countries to resist 
increasing trade protectionism.  Australia urged Uk raine to be transparent with its Article XXVIII 
request and called for the multilateral circulation of  the proposed revised bound tariffs for each tariff 
line and further information to explain the rationa le for Ukraine's request as soon as possible.  The 
Article XXVIII process required Ukraine to "maintain a general level of reciprocal and mutually 
advantageous concessions not less favourable to tr ade."  Australia asked Uk raine to identify in a 
transparent manner how it would provide compensation across the rest of its schedule of concessions 
to maintain the balance required in Article XXVIII.  The number of interventions today and at the 
General Council showed the high level of interest a nd the serious concerns in this matter and could 
not be ignored.  Australia looked forward to Uk raine responding constructively as soon as possible. 
 11.21 The representative of Norway stated that th e Article XXVIII notification by Ukraine was of 
concern to Norway.  Norway thought that negotiations on such a large number of tariff lines would 
have strong systemic consequences for the WTO and th e multilateral trading system.  It could also set 
a very bad precedent.  Like others, Norway therefor e encouraged Ukraine to reconsider its intention. 
  G/MA/M/56 
 Page 13 
 
 
  11.22 The representative of Mexico stated that Mexi co was particularly struck and very concerned 
to see that Ukraine just four years after its accession intended to raise its bound tariff on some 
361 products.  Mexico was concerned to see a re cently acceded country invoking Article XXVIII 
which would undoubtedly set a very serious negativ e precedent in this organization. Furthermore, 
currently in a possible upsurge of a new world fi nancial crisis where the appeal to refrain from 
imposing trade restrictive measures had been reite rated in each and every one of these high level 
international fora, this decision went beyond raisi ng tariffs above bound rates; it was in fact an 
increase in bound rates to unknown levels.  Mexico  reiterated the appeal made to Ukraine to 
reconsider the intention of modifying its concessions.   
11.23 The representative of China noted that tariff binding was one of the fundamental principles of 
the WTO which preserved the value of market ac cess negotiated among Members and guaranteed the 
security and predictability of the multilateral tradin g system. Like other Members, China was paying 
close attention to this matter and hoped that this i ssue would be dealt with in  a manner consistent with 
WTO rules.  As such, his delegation expected Ukra ine to provide promptly detailed information in 
respect of its proposal.  
 11.24 The representative of Ecuador agreed with the statements made by certain Members regarding 
Ukraine's notification of the initiation of a renegotia tion process.  For Ecuador, Ukraine's failure to 
notify the tariff concession levels re quiring modification was of particular concern.  This notification 
was a vital requirement in renegotiation processes pursuant to Article XXVIII and the "Procedures for 
Negotiations of 1980", and also for assessing the tr ade status of the Ecuadorian products that would 
be affected by this process.  11.25 The representative of Ukraine thanked Member s for their interest, comments and statements. 
Ukraine, in compliance with the tr ansparency principle, had reserved its right under Article XXVIII of 
GATT 1994 and had accordingly notified it to the WTO.  Another notification, G/SECRET/34 of 
12 September 2012, provided information on trade st atistics including very detailed HS lines and list 
of INR holders.   11.26 Article XXVIII was a legitimate instrument in the multilateral system. It had been created to allow for modifications and adjustments to be ma de by Members, in case there was such a need 
dictated by the circumstances of evolving global and internal factors.  This flexibility was among not 
many that her country, as a Member, was entitled to today.  11.27 Ukraine intended to modify certain concessions  in its Schedule like some of the Members had 
been doing in previous years, and intended to do so this time, since around 20 Members had reserved 
the right and might decide to open negotiations.  E ach Member decided on its own how to modify its 
schedule, the scope and coverage.  Ukraine unde rstood that these decisions were individual and 
independent, taken under certain ec onomic circumstances for reasonable trade policy objectives.  This 
was Ukraine's understanding of Article XXVIII of GATT 1994.   11.28 Ukraine had taken into account the recomme nded Guidelines.  Ukraine considered it 
technically better to enter into bila teral negotiations with due  regard to country – specific interests, i.e. 
to negotiate with those who had the recognized rights and consultations with those Members who 
were entitled to consultations.  Ukraine's proposals w ould be circulated bilaterally.  She wished to 
underline that Ukraine's official notification did no t state the intention of Ukraine to raise the bound 
rates, as was the general perception of some Members. 
 
11.29 Ukraine had brought a lot to the WTO including a hundred per cent binding, a very liberalized market access for goods (simple av erage for NAMA products was about  5%, for agricultural products, 
it was about 11%), a quite attractive services sc hedule and no exemptions or prohibition lists.  G/MA/M/56 
Page 14  
 
  Another fact was that during these four years Ukraine had been doing its best to implement its 
commitments and had gradually lowered its tariffs according to its commitments.  
 11.30 The trade opening proposed by Ukraine was among the highest in the WTO.  Ukraine did not perceive Article XXVIII as a protectionist tool by its nature.  At the same time what Ukraine saw in 
the WTO was a completely stuck Doha negotiation with Members not able to reach a compromise on 
further trade liberalization.  There were no signs  that it was about to make a rapid headway. 
 11.31 Besides, there were WTO Members, whose bi nding coverage was 50% or even less.  There 
were also Members who were highly protected by applied rates due to hi gh levels of bound rates. 
Ukraine was not going to challenge this asymmetr y which had been existi ng for decades.   But 
Ukraine was saying that there was space and potentia l in the system to accommodate Ukraine's trade 
policy adjustments, which could be sustainable for both Ukraine and the WTO.     11.32 Having deep confidence in the ability of mu ltilateralism to take into account needs of its 
individual Members, Ukraine had turned to th e system through its legitimate instrument,  
Article XXVIII, and  expected the system to  give considerate reaction and cooperation.  
 11.33 Ukraine de facto  was a developing transition economy.  Its highly liberalized market access 
was a tangible contribution to this system.  Howeve r, in light of today’s reality, Ukraine recognized 
that adjustments were necessary to st rengthen Ukraine's trade policy.  
 
11.34 Negotiations under Article XXVIII were not simple.  They were time–consuming and 
demanded a lot of effort. She invited interested part ies to duly respond, so that they together with 
Ukraine could start coordination on preparations  and planning of bilate ral meetings. Ukraine 
welcomed some responses which had already come in. 
 
11.35 Beginning October Ukraine had already had an  informal technical meeting with a group of 
interested Members, where some questions were fo rmulated.  Written answers of a technical nature 
were provided by Ukrainian experts.  11.36 Ukraine was open to hearing the positions of  its counterparts and would like to propose a 
working atmosphere of good constructive spirit with in the existing system of rules, using its 
sustainable methods to create more predictability and transparency on the one hand, and allowing for 
policy adjustment as requested by Ukraine and e xpected by Ukraine from the multilateral system and 
the Members concerned.  
11.37 The Committee took note of the statements. 
 
12. Draft report (2012) of the Committee to the Council for Trade in Goods 
(G/MA/SPEC/52) 
12.1 The Chairman noted that the Committee w as required to submit annually a report on its 
activities to the CTG.  A draft report, covering th e activities of the Committee in 2012, was circulated 
in document G/MA/SPEC/52.  The report woul d be updated in light of the meeting.  
 12.2 He proposed that following the previous year's procedure, the updated draft report would be sent to Members by fax, and if no comments were forthcoming within a certain time period, the 
updated would be considered adopted.  If there we re minor changes, a revised report would be 
circulated with the changes mark ed clearly and if no comments were  submitted within a certain time 
frame, the revised report would be considered adopted.     G/MA/M/56 
 Page 15 
 
 
  12.3 The Committee took note of the comment and agreed to the Chairman's proposal5.     
  
13. Election of the Vice-Chairperson 
13.1 The Chairman noted that he had completed hi s informal consultations on a Vice-Chair, and on 
that basis, he proposed that the Committee el ect Ms Laurie Molnar (United States) as 
Vice-Chairperson of this Committee by acclamation.  
 13.2 The Committee elected Ms. Laurie Molnar as Vice-Chairperson.  
  
14. Other Business 
(i)  Date of the next meeting 
14.1 The Committee took note that its next meeting would take place in May 2013. 
 
__________  
                                                      
 5 The final report was issued as G/L/1010.