RESTRICTED  
  
WT/REG/M/73  
 
28 July 2014  
(14-4331)  Page: 1/7  
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements 
Seventy-third Session   
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 23 JUNE 2014 
Chairman: Ambassador Francisco Pirez Gordillo (Uruguay) 
1  ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 
1.1.  The 73rd Session of the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (hereinafter 'CRTA' or the 
'Committee') was convened in Airgram WTO/AIR/4299/REV.1 dated 13 June 2014. 
1.2.  The Chairman welcomed Members to the 73rd Session of the CRTA. He also welcomed 
participants from the Advanced Trade Policy Course  who were sitting in on the meeting. He then 
announced he would inform Members of two issues under Other Business: the date of a WTO 
Seminar on RTAs and the proposed schedule fo r CRTA meetings for the rest of the year. 
1.3.  The following Agenda was adopted: 
A. Adoption of the Agenda 
B. Consideration of Regional Trade Agreements 
I. Status Report on the Committee's Work - Non-notified RTAs   Implementation of the RTA Transparency Mechanism 
II. Free Trade Agreement between Costa Rica and Singapore, goods and 
services 
III. Free Trade Agreement between Costa Rica and Peru, goods and services IV. Free Trade Agreement between Peru and Mexico, goods and services  
V. Free Trade Agreement between El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and 
Colombia, goods and services 
VI. Free Trade Agreement between Uk raine and Montenegro, goods and 
services 
VII. Free Trade Agreement between the United States and Oman, goods and 
services 
VIII. Economic Integration Agreement – East African Community Common 
Market, services 
IX. Free Trade Agreement between Turkey and Mauritius, goods 
C. Autonomous Preferential Measures in Re spect of Ukraine – Requested by the Russian 
Federation 
D. Other Business  
1.4.  The Chairman recalled that the Latin Amer ican Integration Association (LAIA) had been 
granted observer status to the CRTA on an ad hoc basis and sought confirmation to extend an 
invitation to LAIA to attend the Committee's next session. It was so agreed. 
2  CONSIDERATION OF REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS 
ITEM B.I STATUS REPORT ON THE CO MMITTEE'S WORK - NON NOTIFIED RTAS 
(WT/REG/W/83) AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RTA TRANSPARENCY MECHANISM (WT/REG/W/82 
& 84). 
2.1.   The Chairman provided Members with an update on the Committee's work and the 
implementation of the Transparency Mechanism (TM). A total of 41 early announcements were 
currently on the WTO website (not counting those which would have had been subsequently WT/REG/M/73 
 
- 2 - 
 
  notified). He thanked Members who had submitted in formation in line with the requirements of the 
Transparency Mechanism and encouraged others to  do so. He also reminded Members to inform 
the Secretariat of any changes in the status of early announcements.  
2.2.   As regards the preparation of the factual presentations under the remit of the CRTA, in the 
case of RTAs involving WTO members only, there were currently 34 RTAs for which a factual 
presentation had to be prepared, counting goods and services separately. Members would recall that at the Committee's 52nd Session held on 4 March 2009, they had agreed to begin considering 
RTAs involving non-Members under the TM's procedures. Thus, factual presentations on a further 
35 RTAs involving non-Members were to be prepared. Members had agreed that those RTAs notified since 14 December 2006, including future notifications, should be taken up before the others. Data requests for RTAs notified since the adoption of the Transparency Mechanism had 
been sent to the relevant Parties.  
2.3.   Regarding the issue of non-notified RTAs, an updated list had been recently circulated as 
WT/REG/W/83 and contained 55 RTAs issued in factual presentations up to 10 June 2014.  
2.4.  The representative of Ecuador asked for the Secretariat to provide Members with a list of 
factual presentations currently being prepared, both those referring to agreements between 
Members as well as factual presenta tions on RTAs with non-Members.  
2.5.  Regarding document WTO/REG/W/83 of 13 June, he said that Ecuador was a member of the 
Latin American Integration Association - in other words, it was party to the 1980 Montevideo Treaty. This Treaty established an economic pr eference area among its members which included 
regional scope agreements and partial scope agreements. As a party to the 1980 Montevideo 
Treaty establishing the LAIA, Ecuador was also pa rty to the regional scope agreements, in which 
all members of the Association participated. The Secretariat document mentioned a number of regional scope agreements. Likewise, being part y to 1980 Montevideo Treaty, Ecuador could and 
indeed was party to many partial scope agreements. The partial scope agreements were those in 
which not all members of the Association participate but whose objective was nevertheless to create the necessary conditions for deeper integration in the framework of the LAIA. The 1980 
Montevideo Treaty had been notified in July  1982 under the Enabling Clause (document L/5342). 
The Enabling Clause contained provisions concerning  preferential treatment between and in favour 
of developing countries. The relevant provisions of the Enabling Clause constituted lex specialis  
under the WTO rules regarding RTAs on goods between developing countries. Detailed information 
on Ecuador's participation in intra-regional trade under the LAIA as well as on the implementation 
of its liberalization commitments under the regional and partial scope agreements to which it was party could be found in the following documents published by the WTO Secretariat: report covering 
the period January-December 2012 (WT/COMTD/84); January 2010 - December 2011 
(WT/COMTD/82), Report January 2008 - December 2009 (WT/COMTD/72); January 2006 -December 2007 (WT/COMTD/78); January - December 2005 (WT/COMTD/59); January 2001 - 
December 2003 (WT/COMTD/77); January 1999 - December 2001 (WT/COMTD/76); and January 
1997 - 31 August 1999 (WT/COMTD/81). 
2.6.  The representative of the United States, referring to document WTO/REG/83, said that 
Paragraph 20 of the Transparency Mechanism for Regional Trade Agreements stated that "[a]ny 
Member may, at any time, bring to the attention of the relevant WTO body information on any RTA 
that it considers ought to have been submitted to Members in the framework of this Transparency Mechanism." The United States placed great import ance on the notification requirements of the 
Transparency Mechanism, which were detailed in paragraph 3 of the Mechanism. It stated: "The 
r e q u i r e d  n o t i f i c a t i o n  o f  a n  R T A  b y  M e m b e r s  t h a t  a r e  p a r t y  t o  i t  s h a l l  t a k e  p l a c e  a s  e a r l y  a s  possible. As a rule, it will occur no later than directly following the parties' ratification of the RTA or 
any party's decision on application of the relevant parts of an agreement, and before the 
application of preferential treatment between the pa rties." The notification itself not only provided 
a great deal of information on any one RTA, but its receipt initiated the consideration of the RTA under the Transparency Mechanism, starting with the submission of Member information and data, 
followed by the preparation by the Secretaria t of an invaluable factual presentation.  
2.7.  Accordingly, pursuant to paragraph 20, he brought to the Committee's attention the fact that 
WTO Members had not received information on some RTAs that were already in force. Notifications 
of these in-force RTAs, as well as the required  accompanying information, should already have 
been submitted within the framework of the Transparency Mechanism. The Secretariat had WT/REG/M/73 
 
- 3 - 
 
  provided a partial list of agreements that had not been notified. Without these notifications, 
Members were deprived of some basic information and reference tools. He cited the example of the interim agreements between a number of Af rican Members and the EU, including Botswana, 
Burundi, Ghana, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, Swaziland, 
Tanzania and Uganda. Even though these agreemen ts had not been notified, past African country 
and EU TPR documentation acknowledged that application of preferential tariff treatment had already been occurring between the Parties to thes e agreements. Application of preferential tariff 
treatment had also been publicized on the EU's  w e b s i t e .  R e g r e t t a b l y ,  h o w e v e r ,  n o n e  o f  t h e  
information that would otherwise be included in a notification – including the full texts of the agreements and the related schedules, annexes and protocols – was readily available to the Membership.  
2.8.  For its African colleagues specifically, the United States asked how it was supposed to 
evaluate AGOA without knowing and understanding th e full extent of preferences that were being 
extended between some African countries and the EU through the interim EPAs. It was clear from 
the Secretariat's list of non-notified RTAs that there were dozens of RTAs for which consideration 
under the Transparency Mechanism could not begi n because of a lack of notifications. These 
agreements between a number of African Memb ers and the EU should be added to the 
Secretariat's list, as he had requested previously. 
2.9.  Overall the Transparency Mechanism was wo rking well, but all Members needed to do their 
part to ensure its continued success. He requested that the agreements mentioned – along with others not directly mentioned – be notified promptly as required under the Transparency 
Mechanism. As stated in paragraph 4 of the Transparency Mechanism, this entailed specifying 
under which provision(s) of the WTO agreements the agreement was notified; providing the full 
text of the RTA (or those parts the parties had decided to apply) and any related schedules, 
annexes and protocols in one of the WTO official languages; and supplying references to official 
Internet links.  
2.10.  The United States asked that the specific delegations involved did their best to consult their 
capitals so that this important information could be made available to the Membership and be 
publically available. From there, he looked forw ard to the consideration of the agreements under 
the Mechanism. 
2.11.  The representative of the European Union sh ared the principal position of the United States 
concerning how notifications should be run under the TM. He stressed that the EU had notified the 
African, Caribbean and Pacific Economic Partnershi ps Agreements (EPAs) that had been signed or 
ratified including, for instance, the ones with Cameroon, the CARIFORUM, Côte d'Ivoire and Papua 
New Guinea. These were available in the WTO's RTA database. The EU would follow the 
established practice on notifying the EPAs under negotiation as soon as they were signed. He recalled that the EPAs that provided for prefer ential duty-free, quota-free access were fully 
compatible with Article XXIV of the GATT. The text permitted application of the Agreement 
including preferential treatment before formal signature. The market access regulation was an 
implementing measure in this regard. 
2.12.  The Chairman, turning to RTAs for which the factual consideration was delayed due to lack 
of comments from parties, said that he had continued consultations with delegations to resolve 
this issue and to reduce the number of RTAs on the list (an updated list had been recently circulated as WT/REG/W/84). He hoped that outstanding comments would soon be made available 
and the factual consideration of these agreements could be undertaken.  
2.13.  During the Committee's Session in April, he had also indicated his intention to try and 
unblock the backlog in the receipt of data necessa ry for the preparation and drafting of factual 
presentations for certain RTAs. In this regard, he had consulted with a number of delegations who 
had expressed a willingness to provide the missing information as soon as possible. 
2.14.  Lastly, concerning the end of implementation reports, he said that at the last Session of the 
Committee the then Chairman had called on all Members to honour the obligation in paragraph 15 
of the Transparency Mechanism and to submit reports at the end of the implementation periods of 
their RTAs in the format they saw fit. The Secr etariat had updated the list of RTAs subject to 
implementation reports as of 14 April 2014 (recently circulated as document WT/REG/W/82). WT/REG/M/73 
 
- 4 - 
 
  Implementation reports were already due for 114 RTAs, and for 10 RTAs implementation ended in 
2014. The end of implementation for an additional 36 RTAs was within the next 5 years, while for 
68 other RTAs the end of implementation was after that. Finally, for one RTA the end of 
implementation year was not available. He urge d Members to comply with this obligation and 
looked forward to receiving end of implementation reports. For the EU-Chile Association 
Agreement which had been the basis of a mock implementation report, the Secretariat was still awaiting clarification of some issues by the Parties before circulating the report as an official 
document. 
2.15.  A representative of the Secretariat said that the status of the preparation of factual 
presentations of RTAs between WTO Members was as follows: in the case of two RTAs  – US-
Bahrain, goods and services; an d CAFTA-DR, goods and services,  the factual presentations had 
been sent to the parties in 2009 and comments on these RTAs had not been received. For ASEAN-
China, services, the factual presentation had been sent to the Parties in 2010, but no comments had been received. For US-Colombia, goods and services,  the factual presentation had been sent 
to the Parties in 2012. Only Colombia had provided comments. For US-Korea, goods and services, 
the factual presentation had been sent to the Parties in 2012.  No comments had been received. For ASEAN-Australia and New Zealand, New Zealand-Chinese Taipei, and Chile-Nicaragua, all 
goods and services,  comments had been received and the Secretariat expected to issue the factual 
presentations shortly. For Mexico-Uruguay, goods,  comments had been received but one issue 
remained to be clarified. For EU-Colombia, Peru , goods and services, data had been received and 
the Secretariat was currently drafting the factual presentation. For US-Panama, goods and 
services,  data had been received but some issues remain to be clarified. For the Dominican 
Republic-Central America, goods and services,  some  data issues from Honduras and the Dominican 
Republic remained to be clarified. For Korea-India, services,  data had been received from Korea 
and some data from India. For Korea-ASEAN, servic es, data had been received from Korea only. 
For Georgia-Russian Federation, goods, some data  had been received from Georgia. For Mexico-
Central America, goods and services, data was due by 24 June and for Singapore-Chinese Taipei, 
goods and services, data was due by 10 September.  
2.16.  With regard to RTAs involving non-Members, the situation was as follows: for Iceland-
Faeroe Islands, goods and services, the factual presentation had been sent to the Parties in 2009. Comments had been received but some outstanding data from the Faeroe Islands was awaited. For 
EU-Serbia, services, comments had been receiv ed and the Secretariat expected to issue the 
factual presentation shortly. For the Customs Un ion between the Russian Federation, Belarus and 
Kazakhstan, sufficient data was available and the factual presentation was being drafted. For EU-
San Marino, EFTA-Lebanon, Turkey-Syria, CEFT A Enlargement, Ukraine-Azerbaijan, Ukraine-
Turkmenistan, Ukraine-Uzbekistan, the Common Economic Zone, the Russian Federation-Azerbaijan, Russian Federation-Serbia, Russian Fe deration-Turkmenistan and  Russian Federation-
Uzbekistan, as well as the EU-ESA, all goods, and EU-CARIFORUM, goods and services, data was 
not complete.  
2.17.  A third category concerned 7 agreements  – ASEAN-Japan, EU-Cameroon, EU-Cote d'Ivoire, 
EFTA-Colombia, and EU-Papua New Guinea, Fiji, the new CIS Agreement, all goods and EU-Central 
America, goods and services – for which not all parties had ratified the agreements yet. The 
Secretariat intended to wait before ratification was complete by all the parties before commencing the drafting of factual presentations. She urged th e parties concerned to notify the Secretariat as 
soon as possible of the completion of their ratification procedures so the process could start. She 
also urged all Members to comply with deadlines to the extent possible so the Secretariat could comply with the deadlines for consideration of agreements by the Committee within the given 
time.  
2.18.  The representative of Peru, referring to the Secretariat's presentation clarified that the 
current Colombia-EU agreement was an agreement between Colombia and Peru on the one hand, 
and the European Union on the other, and that Peru had sent the information requested for  
preparation of the factual presentation. 
ITEM B.II FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COSTA RICA AND SINGAPORE, GOODS AND 
SERVICES 
(The minutes of the consideration of this agreement are being distributed as a separate 
document.) WT/REG/M/73 
 
- 5 - 
 
   
ITEM B.III FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CO STA RICA AND PERU, GOODS AND SERVICES 
 (The minutes of the consideration of this agreement are being distributed as a separate 
document.) 
 ITEM B.IV FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN PERU AND MEXICO, GOODS AND SERVICES 
 
(The minutes of the consideration of this agreement are being distributed as a separate document.)  
ITEM B.V FREE TRADE AGREEM ENT BETWEEN El SALVADOR, GUATEMALA, HONDURAS AND 
COLOMBIA, GOODS AND SERVICES  
(The minutes of the consideration of this agreement are being distributed as a separate 
document.)  
ITEM B.VI FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN  UKRAINE AND MONTENEGRO, GOODS AND 
SERVICES  (The minutes of the consideration of this agreement are being distributed as a separate 
document.) 
 ITEM B.VII FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND OMAN, GOODS AND 
SERVICES  
 (The minutes of the consideration of this agreement are being distributed as a separate 
document.) 
 ITEM B.VIII ECONOMIC INTEGRATION AGR EEMENT – EAST AFRICAN COMMUNITY COMMON 
MARKET, SERVICES  
 
(The minutes of the consideration of this agreement are being distributed as a separate document.) 
 
ITEM B.IX FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETW EEN TURKEY AND MAURITIUS, GOODS  
 
(The minutes of the consideration of this agreement are being distributed as a separate 
document.)  3  AUTONOMOUS PREFERENTIAL MEASURES IN RESPECT OF UKRAINE – REQUESTED BY 
THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 
3.1.  The representative of the Russian Federation regretted once again to having to draw 
Members' attention to the EU’s preferential trade measures in respect of Ukraine,  having already 
raised this issue several times, including both at the April and June meetings of the Council for 
Trade in Goods. At the moment, there was no free trade agreement in force between Ukraine and the EU. Nevertheless, the EU had temporarily removed import duties on goods originating in 
Ukraine in accordance with the decision of the European Parliament and the European Council of 
April, 16. Thus, the Russian Federation believed that autonomous trade preferences for Ukraine constituted a breach of one of the fundamental principles of the WTO - the MFN principle. The 
practical effect on trade was very clear: until the entry into force of the Association Agreement, 
Ukraine would continue to benefit from illegal preferences on 94.7% of its industrial exports to the 
EU and 82.2% of its agricultural exports while other Members would not be getting similar access 
to the EU market, which, given the circumstances, they were perfectly eligible for. This measure 
negatively affected the economic interests of all WTO Members exporting to the EU. She stressed 
that the autonomous preferential measures had be en introduced without a decision of the General 
Council to grant a waiver from the EU’s obligations under Article I of the GATT. Moreover, the 
Russian Federation had taken note of the intentio ns expressed by both Ukraine and the European 
Union to sign the trade part of the Association Agreement this month. However, these intentions and plans did not give an excuse for not following the procedures established in the WTO. The Russian Federation was very disappointed with th e continuous neglect by the European Union of WT/REG/M/73 
 
- 6 - 
 
  both the fundamental WTO principles and concerns  expressed by the Members, whose rights had 
been impaired by this unilateral decision by the EU. The Russian Federation believed that this obvious violation of the core GATT provisions constituted a serious challenge to the Organization and once again urged the EU to comply with its WTO obligations and to develop its bilateral 
preferential relations with other Members in a WTO-consistent manner.  
3.2.  The European Union, reiterating what it had said in the meeting of the Council for Trade in 
Goods held the preceding week, recalled that it had notified its intention to conclude a free trade 
agreement with Ukraine already in 2008; this announcement had been made publicly and was 
available in the WTO's RTA Database under the section 'early announcement of RTAs’. He stressed that the so-called autonomous measures were just an early provisional implementation of the Deep and Comprehensive free Trade Agreement with Ukraine negotiated since 2008. This was not 
a stand-alone measure nor could it be considered as discriminatory. Moreover, the Agreement was 
fully compatible with WTO Article XXIV. On procedure, and in accordance with the provisions set in 
point A.1.(b) of the Transparency Mechanism De cision, on 23 April the EU had asked the WTO 
Secretariat to update its previous early announcement, informing Members that the EU had 
anticipated the implementation of the Agreement by means of autonomous trade preferences and, 
on 23 April, had started the reduction or elimination of its customs duties on goods originating in 
Ukraine, in accordance with the Schedule of concessions set out in Annex I- А to the Association 
Agreement. The text was available on the WTO's RTA Database. Finally, the EU informed Members 
that the parties would proceed with formal notification in accordance with Section B.3 of the Transparency Mechanism for RTAs, immediately af ter signature of the Agreement on 27 June.   
3.3.  The representative of Argentina expressed concern about the EU's unilateral preferences, in 
this case, in favour of Ukraine under Regulation 374/14 as well as other regulations related to this 
measure. The EU had not respected WTO procedures under Article XXIV of GATT 1994 as well as 
the Transparency Mechanism for RTAs in WT/L/671.  This constituted a very worrying precedent for 
compliance with WTO procedures by all its Member s. There was lack of transparency on a free 
trade agreement which Members had not seen and which had not been notified. This had adverse 
effects on legal certainty for international trade with the EU. 
3.4.  The representative of Nicaragua reiterated comments made in other bodies such as the 
Committee on Market Access, the Council for Trade in Goods and the Council for Trade in Services, 
that any trade liberalization agreement reached by WTO Members should not be to the detriment 
of trade by other Members as set out in WTO prin ciples. He urged the EU to respect transparency 
by notifying and reporting on the trade agreement with the Ukraine. 
3.5.  The representative of the Ukraine thanke d the EU, Nicaragua, Argentina and the Russian 
Federation for their statements. Ukraine highly appreciated the EU's initiative to grant it 
autonomous trade preferences and thanked it for its understanding of Ukraine's current economic problems. He was sure that the measures would benefit domestic producers and exporters and 
would provide an opportunity to make necessary adjustments prior to the entry into force of the 
comprehensive FTA with the EU. The measures would certainly contribute also to Ukraine’s economic growth and the creation of sustainabl e business partnerships with the EU. Ukraine and 
the EU had negotiated the FTA in full accordance with the provisions of the Transparency 
Mechanism. The early announcement to the WTO Secretariat about the beginning of negotiations 
had been made on 18 February 2008. The FTA was fully compatible with Article XXIV of the GATT and Article V of the GATS. Finally, he reassure d the Russian Federation and other Members that 
the trade preferences that had been in place for the last several months definitely would not create 
trade distorting effects in trade flows between the EU and other WTO members. 
3.6.  The representative of India reiterated its comments made in the Council on Trade in Goods 
and took note of the comments by the EU, the Russ ian Federation and Ukraine. His capital was still 
studying the procedures under which the EU had provided autonomous trade preferences to Ukraine. India wanted to understand the systemic implications of such unilateral measures so it reserved its right to comment in future meetings. 
3.7.  The Committee took note of the comments made. WT/REG/M/73 
 
- 7 - 
 
  4  OTHER BUSINESS 
4.1.  The Chairman informed Members of the dates scheduled for the CRTA's meetings in 2014. 
These were 23-24 September, and 10-11 November. He also informed of the dates of a seminar 
on RTAs organized by the Secretariat. This seminar was scheduled for 25 September 2014 and 
more detailed information would be made available shortly. 
4.2.  The representative of Cuba asked the Chai r or the Secretariat for more information on how 
the seminar had developed, its objectives, and which Members would be interested. She said that, 
since she had just heard of it for the first time, her reaction on holding such an event was very 
preliminary, and she hoped for an assessment of the relevance or appropriateness of such a seminar at such a close date. The 25
th of September was around the corner. As all Members knew, 
there was a great deal of work ahead and the time remaining was very limited. Members were 
concentrating on the post-Bali work programme which was a mandate from MC9 and all efforts 
should be focused on it. On 25 June there woul d be a TNC meeting and then Members might have 
more up-to-date information on progress, if an y, and the preparation of the post-Bali work 
programme. On 24 and 25 July there would be the General Council meeting followed by the 
summer break. There was indeed very little time and Members needed to have a post-Bali work programme by the end of the year. Since the WTO was a Member driven Organization she asked 
for written information on this proposed seminar being organized by the Secretariat. It was 
important to know what the objective of the seminar was, its scope and, particularly, the consequences for the WTO. 
4.3.  A representative of the Secretariat said she did not yet have full details of who would be 
invited to speak but the focus of the seminar would be the Secretariat staff working papers that 
had been issued on RTAs. It was to give an oppo rtunity to some of those staff members to present 
the papers and for interested Members to have a discussion on their content. 
4.4.  The representative of India said that th e working papers had been discussed in a few CRTA 
meetings and India had expressed strong concerns because the CRTA was not a forum for 
discussing the working papers. India also had concerns on the holding of a seminar and fixing the 
date without knowing the agenda or further details on this issue. He would appreciate if further 
details could be provided and discussed maybe at the next CRTA meeting following which the issue 
of maybe holding a seminar could be looked at. 
4.5.  The representative of South Africa reserved her interest in hearing more on the seminar at 
the next meeting. Her delegation also had concerns regarding the modalities under which some of 
the working papers had been presented in the past , so it welcomed further discussion at the next 
meeting on the scope and content of the proposed seminar. 
4.6.  The representative of Brazil said he would also like to have more information on the structure 
of the seminar. Brazil's particular concern would be whether the papers would be presented just by 
Secretariat staff or by anybody from outside the WTO.  
4.7.  The Chairman indicated that only the Secretariat staff would be presenting papers. 
4.8.  The representative of Argentina joined Cuba , India, South Africa and Brazil. He also wanted 
more detail at the next meeting on the terms of reference of the seminar. 
4.9.  The Committee took note of the comments made .  
__________