RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/C/M/92 
14 April 2008 
 
 (08-1734) 
Council for Trade in Goods  
  
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
11 MARCH 2008 
 
Chairperson: H.E. Ambassador Karsten Vagn Nielsen (Denmark
) 
 
  The meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods was convened by airgram WTO/AIR/3160 and the proposed agenda for the meeting was c ontained in document G/C/W/593.  The meeting 
proceeded on the basis of the following agenda. 
 
 Table of Contents
 Page  
 
I. NOTIFICATION OF REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS.............................................2  
II. UNITED STATES – REQUEST FOR WAIVERS FOR AFRICAN GROWTH 
AND OPPORTUNITY ACT, CARIBBEAN BASIN ECONOMIC RECOVERY 
ACT, AS AMENDED, AND ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCE ACT, AS AMENDED........................................................................................................................ ........2
 
III. SENEGAL - CUSTOMS VALUATION AGREEMENT: REQUEST FOR AN 
EXTENSION OF WAIVER  GRANTED UNDER ARTICLE IX OF THE WTO 
AGREEMENT ...................................................................................................................... ....3 
IV. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – REQUEST FOR A WAIVER FOR THE 
APPLICATION OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AUTONOMOUS PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT TO MOLDOVA .............................................................4
 
V. ISSUES RELATED TO TEXTILES.......................................................................................5  
VI. STATUS OF NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 
AGREEMENTS IN ANNEX IA OF THE WTO AGREEMENT ........................................8  
VII. APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS TO CTG SUBSIDIARY BODIES.................................8  
VIII.  OTHER BUSINESS................................................................................................................1 0 
A. DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING ....................................................................................................10  
IX. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN 
GOODS .......................................................................................................................... ..........10  
 
  G/C/M/92 
Page 2  
 
  I. NOTIFICATION OF REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS 
 
1.1 The Chairman
 recalled that, under the working procedures agreed by the Committee on 
Regional Trade Agreements following adoption by  the General Council of the Transparency 
Mechanism, the Council for Trade in Goods was to be  kept informed of Members' notifications of 
new regional trade agreements.  He informed the CTG that the following regional trade agreements 
had been notified to the RTA Committee:  A. Interim Agreement on Trade and Trade-rela ted matters between the European Communities 
and Montenegro in document WT/REG236/N/1  
 B. Free Trade Agreement between Pakistan and China in document WT/REG237/N/1  1.2 He proposed that the Council takes note of the information just presented.  
1.3 The Council so agreed
. 
 
II. UNITED STATES – REQUEST FOR WAIVERS FOR AFRICAN GROWTH AND 
OPPORTUNITY ACT, CARIBBEAN BASIN ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT, AS AMENDED, AND ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCE ACT, AS AMENDED  
 
2.1 The Chairman
 recalled the Council's consideration of the three waiver requests presented by 
the United States for the African Growth and O pportunity Act, the Caribbean Basin Economic 
Recovery Act and the Andean Trade Preference Ac t.  The United States had submitted revised waiver 
requests for these three progra mmes in documents G/C/W/508/Rev.1, G/C/W/509/Rev.1, and 
G/C/W/510/Rev.1.  At the November 2007 meeting, it w as agreed to revert to this matter at this 
meeting.   
 2.2 The representative of the United States
 updated the Council on developments since the last 
meeting.  He discussed tw o separate issues.  On th e overall issue of the three waivers, his Government 
had discussed the issue with the concerned Member si nce the last meeting but was not able to reach an 
agreement.  It intended to continue this process with a view towards reaching a mutually acceptable 
solution.  Secondly, since the last meeting, th e US Congress extended the provisions of the ATPA 
waiver for the four countries involve d.  While this did not change th e situation with respect to that 
waiver request nor to the three waiver requests in ge neral, his delegation would,  in due course, submit a 
revised waiver request to reflect this extension.   
 
2.3 The representative of Paraguay  noted that his delegation had been informed that on 29 January 
2008, the US Congress had extended the prefer ential agreement for ANDEAN countries through 
December 31 2008.  The ATPA was due to expire at  the end of 2006 but it ha d been successively 
extended.  Since 2002, Paraguay had be en requesting to be included in th is preferential arrangements or, 
at least, to receive the same treatment as ANDEAN  countries.  This was because Paraguay was in a 
similar situation, both in terms of its fight against elicit drugs and its development needs.  Paraguay, a 
small vulnerable land-locked economy, was confront ed with drug transit from neighbouring countries 
through its territory.  In addition, Paraguay's trad e balance with the United States was clearly 
unfavourable - for every dollar exported to the US market, Paraguay imported no less than 15 dollars 
worth.  It was also advisable to recall that  the Heads of State of MERCOSUR expressed their 
understanding and support for Paraguay's position in expressing hope fo r securing fair and just treatment 
in any deviation from the principle of non discrimination in the impl ementation, by WTO Members, of 
preferential schemes under the enabling clause.  This expression was part of the joint communiqué from the MERCOSUR Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in January 2007.  With the extension of the ATPA, his 
delegation maintained the possibility for the US to  understand its concerns and to give Paraguay the 
attention it deserved.   G/C/M/92 
 Page 3 
 
 
   
2.4 The representative of Mauritius  reiterated the importance of th e AGOA scheme in the socio- 
economic development of Sub-Saharan African countri es.  This scheme needed legal cover under the 
WTO rules so as to ensure its predictability.  Furthe r delay in granting the waiver for AGOA would lead 
to uncertainty for actual and poten tial investors which could be a de stabilizing factor to these already 
fragile economies.  Her delegation, therefore, appeal ed to those delegations who still had reservations on 
this issue to consider the development imperative of these schemes and to exerci se flexibility so that the 
waiver could be approved.  Her delegation also, ag ain, requested that the AGOA waiver be dealt 
separately and in a straight forward manner as none of the concerns expressed by Members relate to the 
AGOA scheme. 
 
2.5 The representative of Kenya  welcomed the update from the US regarding this matter.  His 
delegation urged the Members still in consulta tion on the AGOA waiver to expedite these 
consultations so that the AGOA waiver could be approved.  As Ma uritius had said, AGOA 
represented important opportunities for the beneficiary countries. 
 
2.6 The representative of Nigeria  supported the statements by Mauritius and Kenya and those 
Members who would make their own statements in support of the AGOA request.  Her country was one of the beneficiaries of the AGOA programme, and her delegation had not ed various achievements 
of the AGOA programme, initiated by the US in 2000 with the aim of assisting Sub-Saharan Africa's 
economic development.  Her country  was concerned with the uncertain ty that the delay in adoption 
may cause.  Nigeria appealed to all its trading partners and WTO Members to give the necessary 
support for the AGOA waiver.  2.7 The representative of Lesotho
 associated his delegation with the statements made by 
Mauritius, Kenya and Nigeria and appreciate the effort  that the US was continuing to make to break 
the deadlock.  He added his voice to those who were  trying to persuade those Members who were still 
seeing their way clear to reconsider their positi ons so as to allow this waiver go forward. 
 2.8 The Chairman
 proposed that the Council take note of th e statements made and revert to this 
item at its next meeting.  
2.9 The Council so agreed
. 
 
III. SENEGAL - CUSTOMS VALUATION AGREEMENT: REQUEST FOR AN 
EXTENSION OF WAIVER GRANTED UNDER ARTICLE IX OF THE WTO AGREEMENT 
 
3.1 The Chairman
 drew Members' attention to documents G/C/W/581 and G/C/W/582 submitted 
by Senegal.  In addition, Senegal had recently submitted an addendum to G/C/W/582 which had been 
circulated as G/C/W/582/Add.1.  This document pr ovided further information to support Senegal's 
request for an extension of its waiver for minimu m customs values.  He understood that consultations 
would be concluded in the next couple of days.  As there were no statements, he proposed that the 
Council reverts to this item at its next meeting.   
 
3.2 The Council so agreed . G/C/M/92 
Page 4  
 
  IV. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – REQUEST FOR A WAIVER FOR THE 
APPLICATION OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AUTONOMOUS PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT TO MOLDOVA  
 
4.1 The Chairman
 drew Members' attention to document G/C/W/592 circulated by the European 
Communities.  In this document, the European Co mmunities presented its request for a waiver for the 
application of the EU autonomous preferential treatme nt to Moldova.  The ma tter was the subject of 
an open-ended informal consultation held on 6 March 2008.  At this meeting, the EC presented its 
request and draft waiver decision.  Members had the opportunity to comment on the documents. 
4.2 The representative of the European Communities  informed the Council that his delegation 
was requesting the CTG's approval of its request fo r a waiver from its obligations under Articles 1 and 
12 of the GATT in respect of the preferential treatment extended by the EU to Moldova since January 
2008.  He recalled that Moldova was the poorest count ry on the European continent.  His delegation 
sought to support the development of Moldova's economy through increased exports.  To do that, it 
had made a commitment in the European neighbour hood action plan of 2005 to consider granting 
additional autonomous trade preferences beyond  the GSP to Moldova, provided that Moldova 
improved its own system of controls and certificati on of the origin of goods.  Since this commitment 
under the EMP in 2005, Moldova had significantly reform ed its customs legislation.  In return, the EU 
had decided to introduce additional trade preferen ces for Moldova as of January 2008.  Exports of 
Moldova into the EU represented 0.03% of EU impor ts and it was clear that the tariff preferences 
provided under this autonomous regime did not create any impediment to the reduction or the 
elimination of tariffs or other restrictions to trad e on an MFN basis, and did not in any way create any 
trade barriers.  He concluded by recalling that sin ce the year 2000 a similar regime had been extended 
to the countries of the western Balkans.  These pref erences had been extended further five years in a 
decision adopted by the WTO General Council in Ju ly 2006.  His delegation was now seeking to add 
to that a waiver for the benefit of Moldova. 
4.3 The representative of Moldova  asked Members to support the EC's initiative for the 
application of autonomous preferential treatment  to the Republic of Moldova.  His delegation 
considered that this would help to develop the Moldovan economy. 
4.4 The representative of Argentina   said that, after hearing the EC's statement, his delegation 
understood that it had taken on board some of the s uggestions his delegation had made to improve the 
text.  It seemed that these suggestion were not ex actly as his delegation had expressed them but his 
delegation was satisfied that the basic ideas were there.  Still, without asking for new ideas to be 
introduced in the text, it was his delegation's understandi ng that, in the application of this duty free or 
preferential treatment, the EU would not prejudice th e interests of other Members not benefiting from 
this treatment.  His delegation hoped that the EU understood matters in the same way.  
4.5 The representative of Paraguay   said that his delegation understood the needs of Moldova, a 
poor, landlocked country like his own.  Neverthele ss, the issues relating to waivers were highly 
sensitive for his delegation.  He had not, as yet, r eceived from any instructions from his capitol with 
regard to this particular issue.  He, therefore, re quested that this matter be reverted to at the next 
meeting where he would, in no uncertain terms he supposed, be able to provide his delegation's 
consent to the EC's request.  He noted that the document presented was dated February 29 and had not 
yet been translated into the other WTO languages.  It was only available in English. Because of the 
serious nature of this issue and the attention it deserved,  he asked to revert to it at the next meeting.   
4.6 The representative of the European Communities  confirmed to Argentina that his delegation 
had the same understanding of the application of th is preferential arrangement.  On this, he believed 
that their delegations were in full agreement.  He had considerable sympathy for the situation in which 
the representative of Paraguay found himself.  Pe rhaps Paraguay was not th e only delegation which  G/C/M/92 
 Page 5 
 
 
  had not received formal instructions on this matter.  He, therefore, asked if it would be acceptable to 
Paraguay that it place a waiting reservation on the EU's  request subject to the waiver being agreed 
once that reservation could be lifted by Paraguay.  In  this way, the Council woul d not have to revert to 
this item at its next meeting.    
4.7 The representative of Paraguay  said, that in order to demonstrate its interest and spirit of 
cooperation, his delegation would accept the proposal  made by the EC.  His delegation would place a 
waiting reservation on this draft waiver if all other de legations were prepared to proceed in this way. 
4.8 The representative of Argentina  stressed that the EC's proposed  approach was an exceptional 
way of proceeding.  His delegation understood the c oncern of time for the EC, so it would go along.  
However, he stressed that this action could not be  a precedent.  His delegation would agree with this 
manner of proceeding exceptionally but it may oppose such a proposal in the future.   
4.9 The representative of Paraguay  supported Argentina's statement.  Alongside the spirit of 
cooperation which his delegation woul d like to demonstrate, it nevertheless had concerns with regard 
to issues that might be sensitive, brought up at the last minute, and not given the due time needed to 
study them.  Issues such as this one needed to be  brought up well in advance;  delegations needed to 
have the substance early so that they could proper ly consider all of the issues.  He expressed his 
delegation's concern with the translation of the EC 's requests into Spanish and French.  This manner 
of proceeding was indeed an exception and, in Pa raguay's case, was provided to Moldova because of 
its particular circumstances.    
4.10 The Chairman  thanked delegations for their flexibility  and for the cooperative spirit shown.  
He proposed that the Council take note of the stat ements made and that, under the circumstances, the 
Council approve, on an ad referendum basis, the EC waiver request contained in G/C/W/592.  If any 
Member could not agree, it should notify the Secretariat in 10 days.   
4.11 The Council so agreed . 
 
V. ISSUES RELATED TO TEXTILES 
 
5.1 The Chairman  recalled that at the meeting of the CTG on 23 November 2007 the discussion 
had focused on the proposal submitted by Turkey on 6 March 2007, contained in document G/C/W/573.  In this submission, Turkey had presented a draft outline for the work programme 
proposed in document G/C/W/549, which contained the terms of reference of a work programme 
proposed by Turkey for the consideration of the Council. At the meeting on 23 November 2007, 
Members had expressed their views on the draft outline.  There remained no common understanding 
either on the submission presented by Turkey or on the terms of reference of a work programme.  
Several delegations had supported Turkey and had spoken in favour of the proposed outline whilst 
several others had remained unconvinced of the need  for such a work programme and, therefore, were 
not prepared to discuss a possible outline.  Turkey  and three other Members had made reference to 
consultations that had taken place bilaterally with Turkey.  The Chairman had understood that these 
consultations had been useful a nd had concluded by appreciating th at discussions were continuing 
among several Members, and by encouraging the Members to seize opportunities to get a better 
appreciation of positions.  It had been agreed to  revert to this matter at this meeting.   
 5.2 The representative of Turkey
 clarified that the proposal that his delegation wanted the 
Members to consider was contained in document G/C/W/573, which contained proposed terms of 
reference for the work programme.  He recalled the basic rationale behind Turk ey's efforts, which was 
that, after the termination of the Agreement on Te xtiles and Clothing, the textiles and clothing sector 
needed a true, complete and objective analysis of th e situation. The textiles and clothing sector was an 
area where flexibility was necessary.  In view of the discussions that had taken place in the CTG, his G/C/M/92 
Page 6  
 
  delegation believed that, with some  additional work and constructive  engagement, the Members could 
reach a common understanding that would satisfy a ll.  On the other hand delegations had been 
overloaded since the last meeting of the CTG by the negotiations and Turkey had not been in a 
position to hold enough consultati ons to move the issue forward.  Turkey had always stated its 
openness to suggestions on the work programme, and at the last meeting of the Council the option of 
having a stocktaking exercise consisting of a compilati on of the results of all previous work done on 
this issue had emerged.  Turkey had appreciated this alternative and stated its readiness to work in that 
direction.  Turkey expected to continue its c onsultations with Members and believed it would be 
possible to reach a balanced outcome at the next meeting. 
5.3 The representative of Jordan
 reiterated his delegation’s supp ort for the Turkish proposal and 
requested that this item be kept on the agenda. 
5.4 The representative of Mexico  also reiterated her support for th e Turkish proposal and to keep 
the item on the Council’s agenda. 
5.5 The representative of El Salvador  also supported the proposal made by Turkey for a work 
programme, which should be based on document G/C/ W/573. She hoped that the consultations that 
would be carried out on this issue would be fruitful. 
5.6 The representative of Mauritius  further supported the request made by Turkey and stated that 
her delegation wanted this item to  be maintained on the agenda. 
5.7 The representative of China  stated that he did not see the need to adjust his delegation’s 
position, since any such work programme would run the risk of singling out one specific sector, in particular the textile sector, which had remained outside the general rules of the GATT for decades.  
Furthermore, his delegation suggested that this ite m should not be listed on the agenda of the next 
CTG meeting since there was such a wide gap among the positions of Members. 
5.8 The representative of India
 observed that there was no change in the proposal.  His delegation 
had had no bilateral discussions on this issue either w ith the proponent or with any of its supporters.  
He suggested that if there was a change in any of the positions of the Members, the Council could 
revert to the proposal.  Until such time, it was best to  let the issue rest.  If there was a new proposal, or 
if there were any change, his dele gation would be open to looking at it, but until that point he did not 
see much value added by maintaining the issue on the agenda. 
5.9 The representative of Hong Kong, China  noted that for a number of past meetings he had not 
seen any new element emerge on this item. Therefor e, unless there were new issues that the Members 
would agree to discuss, he was not sure it w as necessary to keep the item on the agenda. 
5.10 The representative of Pakistan  agreed that there had been no forward movement and that there 
were still divergences amongst Members. Therefore, his delegation agreed with China, India and 
Hong Kong, China that there was no valu e in keeping this item on the agenda. 
5.11 The representative of Turkey  said that his delegation could understand the proposal to put this 
item to rest if it had no support or if nobody saw any value in such a work programme.  But there was 
support not only for the proposal but also for the work programme. Therefore, like other delegations, 
Turkey would prefer that this item remain on the agenda. Time would be av ailable for consultations 
and he was sure that such consu ltations would be fruitful since Turk ey was very serious about having 
a resolution of this matter as soon as possible. Turkey did not want to prolong this discussion in any way and was working with a view to having, at l east for the next meeting of the CTG, something on 
which all delegations could reach a common understanding.  G/C/M/92 
 Page 7 
 
 
  5.12 The Chairman  concluded that there remained no common understanding among the Members 
on this item. He proposed that the Council take note of statements made. He encouraged Members, once 
again, to seize any opportunity to meet with a vi ew towards a better appreciation of each other’s 
position, the objective being that the Council might ev entually be in a position to move forward on the 
item.  He understood that the proponents intended to m eet with delegations and that they hoped fruitful 
work could be carried out in order to find a constructive solution.  He also noted that all Members 
agreed that discussions should not be unnecessarily prolonged.  On the assumption that there would be a 
basis for moving forward, he suggested that the possib ility of reverting to this item at the next meeting 
of the Council be maintained. 
5.13 The representative of India  asked if his understanding, that the item would be put on the 
agenda of the next meeting on the basis that there would be something new before the next meeting, 
was correct? 
5.14 The representative of Turkey  said that his understanding was that the Council had in fact 
several documents on the table for discussion, the l ast one being G/C/W/573 which included the terms 
of reference for the work programme. Therefore, th e Council could still continue at the next meeting 
to examine the details of G/C/W/573 with delega tions expressing their views on this proposal.  If 
there would be any other developments that could be fruitful, his delegation would be ready to report 
them to the CTG. 
5.15 The representative of China  believed there were differences between the Chairman’s and 
Turkey's understanding. He asked for clarifica tion of what the Chairman had suggested. He 
understood that the proponents would be meeting with delegations and it was hoped that such 
meetings would be fruitful so that this process would create some basis for moving forward. This 
meant that there was, at present, no basis for movi ng forward, and that the Members would be waiting 
for the creation of that basis. 
5.16 The Chairman  concluded that it was clear from the in terventions that there remained no 
common understanding amongst Members on this item.  That was clear from the discussions at the 
present meeting, and he had concluded similarly on  previous occasions.  His proposal, therefore, was 
that the Council take note of the statements made.  He once again encouraged  Members to seize any 
opportunity to meet with a view to getting a bette r appreciation of each other's position in order to 
create a situation where the Council would be in a po sition to move forward.  He had noted that the 
proponents intended to meet with delegations.  They had expressed th e hope that fruitful work would 
be carried out in order to find a constructive solutio n.  He had noted that all Members agreed that 
there was no point in prolonging a discussion unnecessar ily.  On this assumption that hopefully there 
would, as a result of the process, be possibilities for m oving forward, he did not, at this stage, intend 
to exclude the possibility of reverting to this ma tter at the next meeting.  If the proponents of a 
proposal saw possibilities for moving forward, then th e item would be on the agenda.  That was the 
common understanding on the basis of which the C ouncil worked. He was not the one who intended 
to exclude discussions, no matter how likely or how un likely it was that a result could be achieved, if 
Members assumed that there might be a slight possibilit y of reaching a result. In this regard he was in 
the hands of Members. 
5.17 The Council so agreed . 
 G/C/M/92 
Page 8  
 
  VI. STATUS OF NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 
AGREEMENTS IN ANNEX IA OF THE WTO AGREEMENT 
 
6.1 The Chairman
 drew Members' attention to document G/ L/223/Rev.15 containing the status of 
notifications under the provisions of the Agreement in  Annex 1A of the WTO Agreement.  He asked if 
there were any comments on this text. 
 6.2 The representative of the United States
 said that the report did not reflect the United States' most 
recent submissions on Import Licensin g.  The United States updated its notifications under the Import 
Licensing Procedures Agreement in February 2008, including submissions under Articles 7.3, 1.4 and 
8.2.  The United States' last Article 5 submission was in Decembe r 2007.  His delegation was concerned 
with the large number of missing notifications.  The document indicat ed that 27 Members had not made 
any submissions in the last seven years, while some  Members, like the United States, may have made 
submissions in 2008 that were not recorded.  His de legation encouraged all Me mbers to make these and 
any outstanding submissions, even if only to indi cate or confirm that the Member had no import 
licensing regime or no stat e trading enterprises, as the case may be.   
 6.3 The Chairman
 proposed that the Council takes note of th e statement made by the United States, 
and that the Secretariat issue a corrigendum to the document as necessary.   6.4 The Council so agreed
. 
 
VII. APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS TO CTG SUBSIDIARY BODIES 
7.1 The Chairman  recalled that the Guidelines for the Appointment of Officers to WTO bodies 
contained in document WT/L/510, adopted by the General Council on 10 December 2002, provided 
that the Chairperson of the Council for Trade in Goods would conduc t consultations on the 
appointment of the Chairpersons of the subsidiary  bodies of the Council for Trade in Goods.  He had 
carried out consultations over the past three weeks on this matter.  These consultations were carried 
out in a highly transparent and open manner whereby all Members were informed that he would be 
accepting proposals for candidates for these positions.  Based on the proposals and suggestions from 
Members which came forth to respond to his call, he  had been working fervently on forming a draft 
slate of names to present to Members for agreement t oday.  However, despite his best efforts, he was 
not in a position to present a slate today.  He prop osed that the Council susp ends the meeting on this 
item and that it reconvene as soon as a slate was ready for consideration.  He informed Members that 
he would be available for bilatera l consultations on this matter followi ng this meeting in Room 3139.   
7.2 The Council so agreed . 
 Resumption of the formal meeting on 8 April 2008
 
 
7.3 The Chairman  recalled that the Council, at its 11 March meeting, had agreed to suspend on 
item 7 of its agenda,  "Appointment of Officers to the Subsidiary Bodies of the Council for Trade in 
Goods."  At that meeting, he was not in a position to present a slate of names for the appointment of 
Chairs to the subsidiary bodies.  This meeting was a resumption of the 11 March meeting to take up this 
item.  Since the meeting of the Council on 11 March he had been working on fo rming a draf t slate of 
names to present to Members for ag reement, as he did in the period running up to 11 March. He did so 
on the basis of the Guidelines for the Appointment  of Officers to WTO bodies contained in document 
WT/L/510, adopted by the General Council on 10 D ecember 2002. The guidelines provided that he – 
as outgoing Chairperson of the Council for Tr ade in Goods – conduct consultations on the 
appointment of the Chairpersons of the subsid iary bodies of the Council for Trade in Goods.  
  G/C/M/92 
 Page 9 
 
 
  7.4 He had carried out consultations on this ma tter with Members at great length and over an 
extended period of time.  The cons ultations were carried out in a highly transparent and open manner 
whereby all Members were informed that he w ould be accepting proposals for candidates for these 
positions. He was grateful to Members for having par ticipated in this process in a very positive and 
constructive way and for the many proposals for candida tes that he had received.  He also to thanked 
the candidates for making themselves available. It was an important aspect of the way in which the 
organisation worked;  the overall objective being to en sure that the organisation continues to be able 
to handle its business in a smooth and seamless way.  Based on the proposals and suggestions that he 
received from Members and on the basis of his bilate ral consultations with interested Members, he 
had formed a draft slate of names.  It was not an easy  task.  He considered that he was in a position to 
propose to the Council for Trade in Goods a slate of names for the Chairs of the subsidiary bodies for 
adoption by consensus.  In accord ance with Guideline 7.3 an open- ended informal meeting was held 
on Friday 4 April to provide an opportunity for general dissemination and discussion of the slate.  7.5 The Council had already elected Ambassador Karen Tan of Singapore, as Chairperson of the 
Council for Trade in Goods. The names fo r the subsidiary bodies were as follows: 
 
Committee on Market Access Mr. Mohammad SAEED (Pakistan)  
Committee on Agriculture Ms. Valeria CSUKASI (Uruguay)  
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Measures Mr. Marinus HUIGE (Netherlands) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices Mr. Jorge HUERTA GOLDMAN (Mexico) 
 
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Mr. Jun KAZEKI (Japan) 
Committee on Safeguards Mr. Robert KASPER (United States) 
Committee on Import Licensing Mr. Marco J. KASSAJA (Tanzania) 
 
Committee on Rules of Origin Ms. Vera THORSTENSEN (Brazil)  
Committee on Customs Valuation Ms. Octavia CERCHEZ (Romania)  
 
Committee on Technical Barrier s to Trade Ms. Xueyan GUO  (China)  
Committee on TRIMs Mr. Henry LIU (Chinese Taipei)  
Working Party on State Trading Enterprises Ms. Virág DANI (Hungary) 
Committee of Participants on the Expansion of 
Trade in Information Technology Products (ITA Committee) Mr. Khalid EMARA (Egypt) 
 
7.6 The representative of Turkey  commended the valuable and tireless efforts by the Chairman 
and the Secretariat during the entire process of th e appointment of officers to the CTG subsidiary 
bodies. It was needless to say how hard and long the process had been but Members had, once more, 
witnessed the Chairman's skills.  He underlined that  his delegation had full confidence in the capacity 
and availability of the elected chairpersons in order to undertake the special responsibilities required 
for the posts in the subsidiary bodies.  Having said that, the recent appointment of officers to the 
WTO bodies had forced his delegation to draw the member ship's attention to some specific points.  In 
its view, chairing a body was a liability as much as a privilege.  His delegation sincerely believed that 
the burden should be shared by the Members accord ing to their capacities and readiness.  Sometimes, 
though, he considered that too much burden was put  on the shoulders of some delegations, especially 
the ones whose staff capacities were limited compar ed to others. Also, in some cases, same 
delegations retained the posts in subsequent terms or  a Member’s staff might be appointed to chair the 
body simultaneously.  Turkey believed that the re sponsibility should be shared widely and fairly G/C/M/92 
Page 10  
 
  among the Members particularly among the ones vol unteering to shoulder more responsibility.  
Therefore, he expressed his delegation’s readiness and eagerness to share the burden in order to contribute more actively to the operation of the bus iness in the WTO.  With this understanding, his 
delegation endorsed the slate.  
7.7 The Chairman
 proposed that the Council agree with the nominations read out. 
 7.8 The Council so agreed
. 
 7.9 The Chairman
 added that while all the other subsidia ry bodies of the Council had provisions 
in their respective Agreement or rules of proce dure requiring them to elect Chairpersons, Working 
Parties did not have any procedural rules on electing Chairpersons.  As a result, in the case of the Working Party on State Trading Enterprises, he proposed that the Council appoint the nominated 
Chairperson.  In the case of all the other subsidiary  bodies, he proposed that the Council take note of 
his proposals. 
 
7.10 The Council so agreed
. 
 7.11 On the question of Vice-Chairpersons, the Chairman
 noted that it was his understanding that 
it would be for the subsidiary bodies to decide if  they needed a Vice-Chai rperson in cases where the 
option existed under the Agreement or rules of procedure and that it was for the respective 
Chairperson to hold the necessary consultations. 
 7.12 The Council agreed
 to proceed on this basis. 
 7.13 The Chairman
 thanked the outgoing Chairpersons of the various subsidiary bodies of the 
Council for Trade in Goods for their hard work and dedication during the year. 
 
VIII.  OTHER BUSINESS 
 
A. DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING  
 
8.1 The Chairman  informed Members that the next CTG meeting was scheduled to take place on 
Thursday, 22 May 2008.  The agenda would close on Monday, 12 May 2008.  
IX. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON OF TH E COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
 9.1 The Chairman
 recalled that the Chairman of the Gene ral Council had carried out consultations 
on a slate of names for Chairpersons to the diffe rent WTO standing bodies in accordance with the 
established Guidelines for Appointment of Officers.   These proposed nominations were approved by 
the General Council at its meeting on 5-6 February 2008.  In line with the nominations, he proposed 
that the Council for Trade in Goods elect Ambassador  Karen Tan of Singapore as Chairperson of this 
body by acclamation. 
 
9.2 The Council so agreed . 
 9.3 The Chairman
 thanked all delegations, the Secretariat,  the interpreters and all support staff, 
for their untiring efforts and dedication to carrying out the work of the CTG in 2007.  He informed 
Members that he would retain his functions as Chair in order to conclude the work under item 7 of the 
agenda relating to Chairs of the subsidiary bodies.  9.4 The meeting was adjourned. 
__________