RESTRICTED  
  
WT/PCTF/W/18  
 
15 April 2014  
(14-2363)  Page: 1/3  
Preparatory Committee on Trade Facilitation  Original: English  
 
 COMMENTS ON THE TEXT OF THE TRADE FACILITATION AGREEMENT 
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE ACP 
  The following communication dated 4 April 2014 is  being circulated at the request of the ACP 
for consideration by the Preparatory Committee on Trade Facilitation.  
 
 
_______________ 
 
 
GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR THE LEGAL REVIEW 
 
1. The ACP Group can support suggestions for corrections of a purely grammatical nature, 
which do not have in any substantive impact. 
 
2. The principle of consensus is maintained. 
 3. The ACP Group prefers to remain with the existing text if any suggestion leads to a debate 
on intent, meaning and interpretation. 
 
4. Occasionally, the ACP Group may provide suggestions or comments with respect to Section 
I. Individual ACP Member States may also make their own interventions reflecting inputs 
from capitals on Section I. 
 5. With respect to Section II, the ACP Group will register their position as a Group through this 
submission and verbally during the course of PCTF meetings.   
 6. The ACP Group provides this submission withou t prejudice to the Group and its individual 
Member States right to react to positions of others and make proposals or suggestions from 
the floor in the PCTF or in written form as required. 
 Structural Changes 
1. The ACP Group prefers maintaining ‘Sections’ as  the main divider of the Agreement (Section 
I and Section II). 
 
2. The ACP Group supports the creation of a new Section III to contain the Final Provisions. 
 3. The ACP Group can support changing paragraphs in Section II to Articles and continuing the 
numberings from Section I and continuing to Section III. 
 
4. ACP supports the standardization of the numberi ng, capitalizations and layout of Sections, 
Preamble, Articles, paragraphs and subparagraphs with the existing WTO Agreements as 
follows: 
 WT/PCTF/W/18 
 
- 2 - 
 
  Preamble 
No need to have the word preamble as is the case in the other WTO Agreements. 
… 
 
SECTION I (UPPER CASE and centred) 
… 
SECTION II (UPPER CASE and centred)  
TITLE (UPPER CASE and centred) 
 
SECTION III (UPPER CA SE and centred) 
TITLE (UPPER CASE and centred) 
 
Article 1: TITLE (Centred, lower case, first letter capitalisation.) 
 
Paragraphs 
 
1. Title (Period after number; lower case, first letter capitalisation) 
1.1… 
1.2…  Subparagraphs 
1.3… 
(a)… (b)… 
(c)… 
(i)… (ii)… 
(iii)… 
 
 As per above, the ACP Group supports the numberi ng in the Agreement beginning with Articles, 
then paragraphs then subparagraphs.  Subparagraphs at the first level should be denoted by 
alphabetic numberings (a), (b), (c), etc.  Subparagraphs at the second level should be denoted by Roman numerals small caps (i), (ii), (iii), etc.   
 
References in the text should be written as paragraphs 1, 1.1, 2.1; subparagraphs 3(a), 4.1(a), 5.1(a)(i). 
 
In Article 11.11, the ACP Group supports the sugge stion of changing ‘11.11.1 – 11.11.5’ to ‘11.11 
– 11.15’.   
5. Section II, Paragraph 6 contains a title that was inserted in Bali.  The title does not appear 
to be consistent with the nature of the paragr aph.   Paragraph 4 deals with implementation 
of Categories B and C. The ACP Group, together  with G90, negotiated the substance of that 
paragraph to be a safeguard for the final implem entation of Category B and C, if needed.  
We propose the title be changed to: "Additional safeguard mechanism for the implementation of Category B and C." 
 
Horizontal and other proposed textual changes 
1. The ACP Group can support suggestions to change capitalisations of first letters.  For 
example ‘Customs’ to ‘customs’, ‘agreement’ to  ‘Agreement’; changing upper caps to lower 
caps of first words in subparagraph lists (a), (b), (c) and (i), (ii), (iii). 
 2. The ACP Group prefers   ‘subparagraphs’ with out a hyphen to ‘sub-paragraphs’ with a 
hyphen.  All WTO Agreements appear to contain the word without a hyphen. 
 WT/PCTF/W/18 
 
- 3 - 
 
  3. An example of ACP concerns about engaging in in terpretation, the insertion of ‘and’, ‘or’ or 
‘and/or’ in lists wherever they appear seem to be substantive changes impinging on interpretation as the choice of one or the other will substantially change the meaning of the lists.  Unless there is explicit consensus in the room to change, ACP suggests remaining with 
the existing text. 
 4. Another example is concerning the change propos ed in Article 1.2.1 from "these provisions" 
refers to all the provisions of the Agreement or  just the provisions in Article 1.   The ACP 
Group is not clear of what was intended and if the scope is expanded or was it intended by Members that "these provisions" was tantamount to the entire Agreement.  However, ACP can go along with the consensus on this proposal  if the view is that they are the same and 
the proposal does not change the scope of the provision.  
 
"1.2 Nothing in these provisions shall be construed as requiring the publication or provision 
of information other than in the language of the Member except as stated in paragraph 2.2." 
 5. On the change of word "within …" periods of time in Section II to "Not later than…", or "No 
later than…", the ACP Group is of the view that  there may not be any material difference in 
the two expressions. However, to support co nsistency and since the ACP Group does not 
attach any particular significance to one expression or the other, the ACP Group can go along with the change if there is consensus.  Otherwise the text should remain as is. 
 
6. Where a Member proposes to add at the end of  Section II 4.4 the phrase "whichever is the 
later", the ACP Group finds it unnecessary and the text should remain unchanged.   
 
7. Where proposals have been made to change references to "Members" to "Each Member…" 
the ACP Group asks if the expressions are used interchangeably in various existing WTO 
Agreements.  Nevertheless, the ACP Group can go along with the consensus.  
   
__________