WT/REG372/2  
 
25 October 2016 
(16-5846) Page: 1/4 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements  Original: English  
 
AGREEMENT ON TRADE I N SERVICES BETWEEN I NDIA AND  
THE ASSOCIATION OF S OUTHEAST ASIAN NATIO NS 
QUESTIONS AND REPLIES  
 The following communication, dated 2 4 October  2016, is being circulated at the request of 
the delegations of India and ASEAN (Brunei Darussa lam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao People's 
Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand,  and Viet Nam).  
 
_______________  
 
Questions from the delegation of Japan  
 
Provisions on Trade in Services  
Liberalization c ommitments  
ASEAN Membe r States  
 
1.1.  Tables 3.5, 3.6, and 3.10 show that the level of some commitments dropped 
compared to that of GATS. Precisely, how did the level drop?  
Response from the delegation of the Lao People's Democratic Republic (re: Table 3.5)  
 
 Lao PDR negotiated in pa rallel for both forums (WTO and AITISA). So we could not compare 
at that time which forum is lower or higher commitment.  
 
Response from the delegation of Malaysia (re: Table 3.6)  
 
 Both India and Malaysia/ASEAN Member States mutually agreed on with the bal ance 
outcome derived from this agreement.  
 
Response from the delegation of Thailand  (re: Table 3.10)  
 
Thailand's commitments under AITISA dropped comparing to those of GATS only in terms of 
a coverage of sectors/sub -sectors committed. For example, under AI TISA, Thailand did not make 
commitment on sectors such as Telecommunication Services, Education Services, Environmental 
Services, Financial Services, etc.  
 
1.2.  Tables 3.5, 3.6, and 3.10 show that the level of some commitments dropped 
compared to that of GATS.  Is there any significance to making a commitment of GATS 
minus?  
Response from the delegation of the Lao People's Democratic Republic  (re: Table 3.5)  
 
 Lao PDR negotiated in parallel for both forums (WTO and AITISA). So we could not compare 
at that time wh ich forum is lower or higher commitment.  
 
Response from the delegation of Malaysia (re: Table 3.6)  
 
 Both India and Malaysia/ASEAN Member States mutually agreed on with the balance 
outcome derived from this agreement.  
 WT/REG372/2  
 
- 2 - 
 
  Response from the delegation of Thailand (re:  Table 3.10)  
 
 AITISA is a standalone Services Agreement between India and ASEAN. Services 
liberalization commitments were made with an aim for Parties to have mutual benefits and a 
balanced outcome. Although Thailand's commitments under AITISA dro pped in terms of sectors 
coverage comparing to those of GATS; however, when looking into Thailand's commitments on 
Mode 4, which was the area of interest of India, the types of natural persons covered were broader 
and the duration of stay was longer than T hailand's GATS commitments.  
 
1.3.  Tables 3.3 and 3.11 show that the commitments are the same as that of GATS. Is 
there any significance to making such commitment?  
Response from the delegation of Cambodia  (re: Table 3.3)  
 
 Cambodia's commitments under AITISA is the same as GATS.  
 
Response from the delegation of Viet Nam  (re: Table 3.11)  
 
 Viet Nam's services commitments contain horizontal commitments and specific 
commitments. The horizontal commitments related to Contractual Service Supplier (CSS) under 
AITISA ar e better than those under GATS while the specific commitments under AITISA are 
updated from those under GATS as of the conclusion of negotiations.  
 
Question from the delegation of the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, 
Kinmen and Matsu  
 
Provisio ns on trade in services  
Sector -specific commitments  
 
1.4.  There is comparison between the GATS and the Agreement specific commitments of 
ASEAN nations in trade in services. Table 3.5  (Lao PDR), 3.6  (Malaysia), 3.7  (Myanmar), 
3.8 (Philippines) and 3.10  (Thailand ) show lower coverages in some sectors and 
subsectors as compared to GATS.  
 Could Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines and Thailand explain their 
reasons, intentions and considerations for lowering the degree of liberalization in some 
sectors and su b-sectors as compared to their commitments in GATS?  
 
Response from the delegation of the Lao People's Democratic Republic (re: Table 3.5)  
 
 Lao PDR negotiated in parallel for both forums (WTO and AITISA). So we could not compare 
at that time which forum is  lower or higher commitment.  
 
Response from the delegation of Malaysia (re: Table 3.6)  
 
 Both India and Malaysia/ASEAN Member States mutually agreed on with the balance 
outcome derived from this agreement.  
 
Response from the delegation of Myanmar (re: Tabl e 3.7)  
 
We do not have any other reasons, intentions and considerations for lowering the degree of 
liberalization in some sectors and sub -sectors as compared to our commitments in GATS;  
We made our commitments based on the request and offer approach under AITISA.  
Response from the delegation of the Philippines (re: Table 3.8)  
 This is a negotiated outcome.  
 WT/REG372/2  
 
- 3 - 
 
  Response from the delegation of Thailand (re: Table 3.10)  
 
 AITISA is a standalone Services Agreement. Services liberalization commitments were made 
with an aim for Parties to have mutual benefits and a balanced outcome. Although Thailand's 
commitments under AITISA dropped in terms of sectors coverage comparing to those of GATS; 
however, when looking into Mode 4 commitments, which was the area of interest  of India, the 
types of natural persons covered were broader and the duration of stay was longer than Thailand's 
GATS commitments.  
 
Questions from the  delegation of the  United States to the delegation of India  
 
1.5.  We note that paragraph 3.21 of the Factual Pr esentation makes note that India 
made improvements under the Agreement in relation to professional services.  Could 
India please explain what type of improvements were made, and to which specific 
professional services (please include the CPC)?   
 India made improvements under the Schedule of Specific Commitments to ASEAN other 
than Indonesia and the Philippines under the Agreement in relation to professional services. Under 
Engineering Services (CPC 8672), limitations on Market Access and National Treatment w ere made 
'None' from 'Unbound ' under modes of supply 1 and 2.  
 
 Following additional sectors under the Professional Services were committed, which were not 
committed in GATS.  
 
(i) Accounting and Book Keeping Services (CPC 862**) (excluding Auditing 
 Services); 
(ii) Architectural Services (CPC 8671) ; 
(iii) Integrated engineering services (CPC 8673) ; 
(iv) Urban planning services (CPC 86741) ; 
(v) Medical  and Dental Services (CPC 9312);  
 (vi) Services provided by Midwives, Nurses, Physiotherapists and para -medical 
 personnel (CPC 93191) . 
1.6.  In addition to other types of professional services that may have been improved in 
terms of new market access, was any new market access provided for legal services?  
No new Market Access was provided for Legal Services.  
 
1.7.  With r espect to paragraph 3.22, the Factual Presentation notes that no 
commitments were made in distribution services or in education services.   
a. Given improvements that India has made since 1994 in terms of allowing 
foreign providers of distribution services to operate in India, including through 
India 's Consolidated FDI Policy of 7 June 2016, we are interested in why India 
has not made commitments in single brand retail, multi brand retail, or in 
e-commerce in its trade agreement with ASEAN that at least match o r improve 
upon its current policy?  
 The India -ASEAN Trade in Services Agreement was signed in November 2014, whereas, 
policy relaxation for FDI in distribution services were made subsequently. Therefore, making of 
commitment on the basis of latest policy g uidelines does not arise.  
 
b. In April 2016, India 's NITI Aayog submitted a report to the Prime Minister 's 
Office and Ministry of Human Resource Development which included 
recommendations regarding the establishment of foreign universities and entry 
of foreig n education providers in India.  Given this recognition for the need for WT/REG372/2  
 
- 4 - 
 
  foreign investment and participation in this sector, can India explain why 
education services was excluded from the Agreement?  
 The India -ASEAN Trade in Services Agreement was signed in November 2014, whereas, the 
report was submitted by NITI Aayog in April 2016. Therefore, undertaking these commitments 
does not arise.  
 
1.8.  Paragraph 3.2.2 also states that "India's partial GATS commitments in financial 
services are repeated, without impro vement, in the Agreement. " Given India 's new 
Insurance Bill of 2015, we request that India please explain why no improvements were 
made to its coverage of insurance services under the agreement?   
 The India -ASEAN Trade in Services Agreement was signed in N ovember 2014, whereas, the 
quoted policy relaxation for FDI in insurance sector were made subsequently. Therefore, making of 
commitment in insurance on the basis of latest policy guidelines does not arise.  
 
__________