RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/C/M/106 
11 May 2011 
 (11-2410) 
Council for Trade in Goods  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS  
21 MARCH 2011 
 
Chairperson: H.E. Ambassador Mothae Anthony Maruping (Lesotho)  
  
 The meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods was convened by airgram WTO/AIR/3719 
and the proposed agenda for the meeting was c ontained in document G/C/W/647.  The meeting 
proceeded on the basis of the following agenda. 
 
I.  NOTIFICATION OF REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS.............................................1  
II.  STATUS OF NOTIFICATIONS UND ER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 
AGREEMENTS IN ANNEX IA OF THE WTO AGREEMENT ........................................2  
III. APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS TO  THE SUBSIDIARY BODIES .................................2  
IV.  EUROPEAN UNION – REQUEST FOR A WAIVER ON ADDITIONAL 
AUTONOMOUS TRADE PREFERENCE S GRANTED BY THE EUROPEAN 
UNION TO PAKISTAN (G/C/W/640) STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN 
UNION .......................................................................................................................... .............4  
V.  CAPE VERDE – REQUEST FOR A WAIVER RELATED TO THE 
IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE VII OF GATT 1994 AND THE 
AGREEMENT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE VII OF THE GATT 
1994 (G/C/W/643 AND G/C/W/646)........................................................................................5  
VI.  UKRAINE – IMPLEMENTATION OF CUSTOMS VALUATION 
LEGISLATION - JOINT STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION AND 
NORWAY......................................................................................................................... .........6 
VII. ARGENTINA – IMPORT LICENSING MEASURES AND PROCEDURES BY 
ARGENTINA – STATEMENTS BY THE UNITED STATES, THE 
EUROPEAN UNION, JAPAN, CANADA, MEXICO AND PERU .....................................7  
VIII. ECUADOR MIXED TARIFFS – QUESTI ONS FROM THE UNITED STATES, 
EUROPEAN UNION, CANADA, JAPAN AND PANAMA (G/C/W/645) ........................12  
IX.  OTHER BUSINESS................................................................................................................1 4 
A.  D
ATE OF THE NEXT MEETING ....................................................................................................14  
B.  ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS .....................................14  
 
I. NOTIFICATION OF REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS 
1. The Chairman  recalled that, under the working procedures agreed by the Council on Regional 
Trade Agreements (CRTA) 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 G/C/M/106 
Page 2 
 
 
  new regional trade agreements.  He informed the CTG that the following regional trade agreements 
had been notified to the RTA Committee: 
- Free Trade Agreement on goods betwee n EFTA and Serbia (WT/REG290/N/1) 
- Free Trade Agreement on goods and services between Hong Kong, China and New Zealand 
(WT/REG291/N/1 and S/C/N/578) 
- Free Trade Agreement on goods between EFTA and Albania (WT/REG292/N/I) 
- Free Trade Agreement on goods between Turkey and Chile (WT/REG293/N/1) 
- Free Trade Agreement on goods between Turkey and Jordan (WT/REG294/N/1)  
2. The Council took note
 of the information presented. 
II. STATUS OF NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 
AGREEMENTS IN ANNEX IA OF THE WTO AGREEMENT 
3. The Chairman  drew Members' attention to document G/L/223/Rev.18 containing the status of 
notifications under the provisions of the Agreem ents in Annex 1A of the WTO Agreement.   
4. The representative of the European Union  thanked the Secretariat for the valuable and useful 
work it had done and reiterated th e importance his delegation gran ted to the timely and proper 
fulfilment of Members' notification obligations.  He  indicated that the EU had notified three ES for 
2005, 2006 and 2007 which were missing in the document and requested the Secretariat to include 
these in the report.  
5. The Chairman  proposed that the Council takes note of the document and the Secretariat issue a 
corrigendum to the document.1  
6. The Council so agreed . 
III. APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS TO THE SUBSIDIARY BODIES 
7. 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 subsidia ry bodies of the Council for Trade in Goods.  He 
informed the Council that he had carried out cons ultations over three weeks on this matter.  These 
consultations were carried out in a highly tran sparent and open manner whereby all Members were 
informed that he would be accepting proposals fo r candidates for these positions.  Based on the 
proposals and suggestions from Members which came fo rth to respond to his call, he formed a draft 
slate of names.  This draft was the basis for furthe r bilateral consultations am ong interested Members.  
Overall, this had not been an easy task.  Fina lly, he held an open-ended consultation on a proposed 
slate of names.  At this informal meeting, his pro posed slate was agreed by Members.  He, therefore, 
believed that he was in a position to propose to this Council an agreed slate of names for the 
Chairpersons of the subsidiary bodies.  This slate reflected the open, transp arent manner in which the 
consultations were carried out, as well as the wide diversity of the WTO membership.   
                                                      
1 See document G/L/223/Rev.18/Corr.1.  G/C/M/106 
 Page 3 
 
 
  8. The names of Chairpersons for the subsidiary bodies were as follows: 
 
Committee on Market Access Mr Atilla Bastirmaci (Turkey) 
Agriculture Mr Jonas Skei (Norway) 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Mr Deny Kurnia (Indonesia) 
Technical Barriers to Trade Ms Denise Pereira (Singapore) 
TRIMs Mr Patrick Van Gheel (Belgium) 
Anti-Dumping Practices Mr Subhas Gujadhur (Mauritius) 
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Mr Andreas Krallmann (Germany) 
Safeguards  Ms Lillian Bwalya (Zambia) 
Import Licensing Mr Flavio Soares Damico (Brazil) 
Rules of Origin Mr Daniel Owoko ( Kenya) 
Customs Valuation Mr Masafumi Kobayashi (Japan) 
State Trading Enterprises Mr Christian Fresard (Chile) 
Committee of Participants on the Expansion 
of Trade in Information Technology Products Mr Syed Mohd Faizal Bin Syed Mohd DARDIN 
(Malaysia) 
 9. He proposed that the Council agrees with the nominations read out.  
10. The Council so agreed
. 
11. The Chairman  recalled that while all the other subsid iary 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 subsidia ry bodies, he proposed that the Council takes note of 
his proposals.  
12. The Council so agreed . 
13. The Chairman  added that, on the question of Vice-Chairs, it was his understanding that it 
would be for the subsidiary bodies to decide if th ey needed a Vice-Chair in cases where the option 
existed under the Agreement or rules of procedure a nd that it was for the respective Chair to hold the 
necessary consultations.  He asked if th e Council could proceed on this basis. G/C/M/106 
Page 4 
 
 
  14. The Council so agreed .   
15. 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 2010. 
IV. EUROPEAN UNION – REQUEST FOR A WAIVER ON ADDITIONAL 
AUTONOMOUS TRADE PREFERENCES GRANTED BY THE EUROPEAN UNION 
TO PAKISTAN (G/C/W/640) STA TEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION 
16. The Chairman  recalled that at the meeting on 30 November 2010 the European Union 
introduced document G/C/W/640 cont aining a request for a waiver for the application of additional 
autonomous trade preferences granted by the European Union to Pakistan.  At that meeting some of 
the delegations who took the floor, while highlig hting the importance of the initiative, had also 
indicated that they had some concerns regardi ng the possible collateral systemic and commercial 
effects of the EU proposal on their economies.  In this regard they expressed their willingness to 
further consult on the issue with the European Union.   He also recalled that at the last meeting in 
January 2011, the EU informed this Council that it had started a consultation process which was 
underway and that it would inform the Goods Council of these consultations at the present meeting.  
17. The representative of the European Union recalled that the EU request for a waiver had been 
submitted six months ago and was meant to be a rapid and substantial response - together with several other short, medium and longer term measures - to help Pakistan's recovery from an extraordinary 
disaster.  The EU had engaged in a consultation process with those Members that expressed 
difficulties both of systemic and economic nature that could be derived from the waiver;  his 
delegation intended to con tinue consultations with a view to re aching consensus and invited all those 
Members that still have outstanding issues to express their concerns in order to find a mutually 
acceptable solution in the shortest delay, otherw ise the purpose of the waiver would be missed. 
18. The delegate of India
 informed the Council that his delega tion was still in consultations with 
the EU on various issues related to the difficulty In dia had in joining the consensus on the adoption of 
the waiver.  
19. The delegate of Bangladesh  stated that his delegation fully supported the EU's proposed 
waiver for Pakistan on humanitarian grounds;  howe ver Bangladesh had some areas of concern which 
had been conveyed to the EU at the CTG meeting of 30 November 2010.  His delegation was 
interested in knowing how these concerns had been addressed and whether any change to the proposal 
could be anticipated.  He believed that accommoda ting these concerns could facilitate convergence 
towards the adoption of the waiv er decision by consensus.  
20. The delegate of Peru  expressed solidarity with Pakistan  because of the floods which had 
affected it; her delegation also acknowledged the circ umstances which had led to the waiver proposal.  
However, the proposal would affect a number of small and medium sized enterprises in Peru, 
specially the textile sector;  therefore her delegati on was ready to meet the EU to examine and discuss 
these issues. 
21. The Chairman  proposed that the Council takes note of the statements made and recalled that it 
had been considering the waiver request for over 90 days;  therefore, in accordance with Article IX.3 
(b) of the Marrakesh Agreement, it was required to  submit a report to the Ministerial Conference or, 
in this case, the General Council. Since the next Ge neral Council meeting was scheduled to take place 
on 3 to 4 May 2011, he intended to provide, on behalf  of the CTG, a brief and factual report to the 
General Council indicating that the CT G would need further time to c ontinue its work and report back 
to the General Council once the work had been completed.  G/C/M/106 
 Page 5 
 
 
  22. The Council so agreed . 
V. CAPE VERDE – REQUEST FOR A WAIVER RELATED TO THE 
IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE VII OF GATT 1994 AND THE AGREEMENT 
ON IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE VII OF THE GATT 1994 (G/C/W/643 AND 
G/C/W/646) 
23. The Chairman  recalled that at the previous meeting Cape Verde had introduced document 
G/C/W643 containing a request for a waiver related to an extension of the implementation period of 
Article VII of GATT 1994 and of the Agreement on the implementation of Article VII of GATT 
(Agreement on Customs Valuation).  At that meeting several Members took the floor to voice support 
for this request and others, while indicating th eir willingness to consider favourably the waiver 
request, sought from Cape Verde clarification on th e reasons which did not allow it to implement the 
current Action Plan and also requested Cape Verd e to present a draft waiver decision including an 
updated Action Plan.  He had been informed that Ca pe Verde, after having c ontacted the delegations 
who requested additional information and the draft waiver decision with an updated Action Plan, had 
circulated document G/C/W/646.  
24. The delegate of Cape Verde  recalled that the request for a waiver was examined at the CTG 
meeting held on 31 January and that  it had broadly been accepted; af ter that meeting and as result of 
its consultations with delegations who raised qu estions and concerns, Ca pe Verde had submitted a 
draft waiver decision, including a revised Action Plan.  The exchange which took place with other 
delegations had proved to be positiv e;  Cape Verde hoped that Member s' concerns were now satisfied 
and that the waiver could now be approved.  
25. The delegate of Switzerland  thanked Cape Verde for the efforts it had made and the 
clarification it had provided;  his delegation welcomed the draft decision. 
26. The delegate of the United States  thanked Cape Verde for the information and clarification 
provided in response to the US questions on the wa iver request.  Her delegation was also of the 
opinion that Cape Verde's implementation of th e Customs Valuation Agreement should be both 
responsible and reliable.  She indicated that in  order to be in a position to support the proposed 
waiver, the US would like to request that an add itional provision, similar to others that had been 
included in past waivers, be inserted into the text of the waiver;  she therefore proposed the following 
text: "Cape Verde will report to the Committee on Customs Valuation by 30 September 2011 on its 
progress in fulfilling the Action Plan attached and the status of its implementation of the WTO 
Agreement on Customs Valuation".  Her delegation believed that such report would not only promote 
good use of the Customs Valuation Committee but will also help to keep Members informed of Cape 
Verde's progress, or difficulties it may encounter, in the implementation of the Action Plan.   
27. The delegate of the European Union  also thanked Cape Verde for the draft decision and for 
the information provided on the reasons supporting Ca pe Verde's request and the means it would need 
in order to fully implement the Customs Agreement.   His delegation hoped that the extension of the 
transitional period would appear to correspond to r eal constraints of Cape Verde, and would grant 
Cape Verde the time necessary to comply with its commitments.  He noted that reporting on the 
implementation of the waiver was an important principle enshrined in Article IX of the WTO 
Agreement;  therefore, his delegation supported th e US proposal that there should be an interim 
review clause in the decision to follow-u p on the implementation of the Action Plan.   
28. The delegate of Cape Verde  thanked the US and the EU delegations for their comments and 
indicated that it did not object to the proposal to submit an interim report to the Committee on 
Customs Valuation by 30 September 2011;  he al so thanked the Secretariat for all the support 
provided to Cape Verde during the process. G/C/M/106 
Page 6 
 
 
  29. The Chairman  proposed that the Council approves the draft waiver decision including the new 
paragraph proposed by the US delegation and forward it to the General Council for adoption. 
30. The Council so agreed . 
VI. UKRAINE – IMPLEMENTATION OF CUSTOMS VALUATION LEGISLATION 
- JOINT STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION AND NORWAY 
31. The Chairman  recalled the Council that at its last meeting, the EU delegation made a 
statement on its own behalf and that of the Norw egian delegation on the implementation of Customs 
Valuation Legislation by Ukraine, and indicated that in a communication dated 10 March 2011, the 
EU delegation had requested the Secret ariat to include this issue as an  agenda item of this meeting.  
32. The delegate of the European Union  on behalf of his own de legation and that of the 
Norwegian delegation, thanked Ukraine for the constructive meeting that took place on 10 March 
2011 as a result of the concerns raised by the EU and Norway at the Council's meeting in January 
2011.  He welcomed Ukraine's indication that it w ould ensure that the current practices would be 
changed immediately so that these would not only, not disrupt legitimate trade, but also be WTO 
consistent.  He informed Members that the recent meetings held by the European Commission with 
SCSU in Kiev on 16 March, as well as with the Norwegian ambassador to Ukraine on 15 March 2011, 
also indicated that there was willingness to tackle  the problem.  The EU and Norway had raised 
repeatedly, at different levels both bilaterally a nd multilaterally, their concerns with regard to 
Ukraine's customs valuation methodology.  Numer ous written communications had been addressed to 
Ukraine relating to the problems encountered by th e economic operators;  the EU and Norway were 
working on an additional list of de tailed questions as a follow-up to the discussions held on this topic 
at the meeting of the Customs Valuation Comm ittee in November 2010.  The reports from the 
economic operators indicated that Ukrainian cust oms authorities routinely questioned the declared 
value and did not follow the WTO methodology;  on many occasions customs authorities did not 
apply the primary method of customs valuation - the transaction value method, even when the 
suitability of this method was not in doubt and coul d be used in conformity with the Ukrainian 
Customs Code.  Additionally, these authorities regular ly used minimum prices to determine the value 
and relied frequently on wholesale/retail prices in  foreign markets.  Notwithstanding the recent 
positive developments mentioned before, there was still a real and systemic problem in place and 
both, the EU and Norway would like to work in a constructive manner with the Ukrainian Customs 
authorities to find a practical and effective solu tion since non-compliance with WTO methodology to 
define the customs value was the main problem fa ced by EU and Norwegian operators with customs 
in Ukraine. 
33. The delegate of Norway  echoed the EU and indicated that finding a solution to the systemic 
problem faced by the economic operators in Ukrain e was of great importance to the EU and Norway. 
34. The delegate of Switzerland  supported the joint statement made by EU and Norway and 
indicated that Swiss companies were also facing th e same problems with regard to customs valuation 
in Ukraine.  The number of problems due to the way in which the legislation was being implemented 
had significantly increased since 2010.  Ukrainian customs authorities did not follow the WTO 
methodology in defining the customs value, system ically re-checked the transaction value as the 
primary valuation method and used, instead, the mi nimum prices of other similar imported goods to 
calculate the value.  This made it impossible to predict the customs value which served as a basis for 
the calculation of import duties and other fees.  Additionally, the customs clearance process was 
delayed causing extra costs for importers, and making it difficult to export to Ukraine.  The 
measurement unit employed for valuation imposed a dditional problems:  for each delivery of goods, 
Ukrainian customs took the total sum of the shipment and divided it by weight;  this resulted in a price 
per kilogram.  Switzerland had raised the issue bilaterally several times but no progress could be  G/C/M/106 
 Page 7 
 
 
  registered.  His authorities understood the importan ce of combatting fraud and noted that it seemed 
the Ukrainian customs authorities generally recognised  that fraud could be fought efficiently with 
targeted tools based on risk analysis and ex-post controls. His delegation w ould continue to address 
the problem in all possible fora and was ready to wo rk constructively with Ukra ine in order to find a 
satisfactory solution - concrete resu lts in the short-term.  He finally invited Ukraine to bring its 
customs valuation legislation in conformity with its WTO commitments and to instruct local customs 
authorities to apply the rules in a transp arent, uniform and consistent manner. 
35. The delegate of United States  thanked the European Union and Norway for their joint 
statement;  her delegation had also received similar reports from exporters and therefore continued to 
remain interested in this issue.   All WTO Members should not only follow the requirements set out in 
the Customs Valuation Agreement but also apply such  methods in a manner that did not disrupt trade. 
Her delegation would appreciate it if  Ukraine changed its practices. 
36. The delegate of Ukraine  indicated that the statements made by previous speakers would be 
conveyed to the relevant bodies in her capital.  He r delegation appreciated the consultations held in 
March 2011 and indicated that her authorities woul d maintain further contacts on the matter in 
Geneva and in her capital.  She also informed th e Council that Ukraine was in the process of a major 
administrative reform aimed at improving the gove rnmental bodies' operations, including the customs 
service and that, she had been informed  that EU representatives were in her capital and would meet 
with customs authority to further discuss the issue.  Ukraine was r eady for further consultations and 
also to provide answers to Members' questions. 
37. The Chairman  proposed that the Council takes note of  the statements made,  encouraged the 
delegations concerned, particularly  those that took the floor, to continue their consultations to seek a 
solution and keep the Counc il informed of the outcome. 
38. The Council so agreed . 
VII. ARGENTINA – IMPORT LICENSING MEASURES AND PROCEDURES BY 
ARGENTINA – STATEMENTS BY THE UNITED STATES, THE EUROPEAN 
UNION, JAPAN, CANADA, MEXICO AND PERU 
39. The Chairman  informed the Council that in a communication dated 9 March 2011, the 
delegation of the European Union had requested the Secretariat to include in the agenda of this 
meeting, the issue of "Import Licensing Measures an d Procedures by Argentina.  He also noted that 
the delegations of Canada, Mexico and Peru had also requested to be included as speakers under this 
agenda item.  
40. The delegate of the United States  reiterated the concerns of he r authorities over the nature and 
application of Argentina's import licence regime, which had significantly restricted imports into Argentina from a number of WTO Members, including  the US.  Since 2008, when Argentina began to 
progressively expand the number of products to licen sing procedures, the US had attempted to address 
this issue in the Committee on Import Licensing Procedures (CILPs).  
41. Following the CTG meeting in January, her delega tion had held informal consultations with 
Argentina, however Argentina had fa iled to provide a serious response to this matter.  The situation 
had become increasingly problematic for  US exporters .   In terms of scope, it appeared that a great 
majority of exports from the US to Argentina we re now subjected to non-automatic import licensing 
procedures.  Her authorities continued to recei ve numerous reports con cerning lengthy delays 
encountered (100-120 days) in obtaining a non-automatic import licence in Argentina. G/C/M/106 
Page 8 
 
 
  42. Reports of unofficial requirements tied to impor t licence approvals were also troubling; such 
as the requirement that an importing company had to  commit itself to exporting a certain amount from 
Argentina in exchange for approval of its import licence.  As a result of these measures, the US 
companies were concerned about the added costs and uncertainty associated with exporting to 
Argentina, and about the negative effects of products  being sold increasingly on the Argentinean grey 
market, due to distortions created by the import pro cedures.  All these concerns had been raised in the 
CILPs over the last two years, however Argentina had failed to take action in finding a solution.  
Despite these concerns, Argentin a had expanded its import licensing regime, the most recent set of 
procedures published on 14 February 2011 in Resoluti on 45/2011.  Therefore, Argentina appeared to 
be using import licensing procedures as a means to improve its trade balance, by restricting imports 
and promoting exports.  
43. Her delegation was also concerned about recen t reports that Argentina had planned to 
specifically ensure that certain Members would not be impacted by the import licensing procedures. 
She requested Argentina to take immediate steps to  address this issue and provide clarification on the 
following aspects: (i) an indication of the WTO le gal basis for the use of these import licensing 
procedures, at this or at the next CTG meeting;  (ii) information concerning the time period for 
approving licenses, together with an explanation on  the length of time for approval and, information 
concerning the reported exporting requirements that comp anies had to commit to in order to obtain an 
import licence; (iii) an indication of the specific steps Argentina had taken to address the trade 
distorting effects to its import licensing regime; and (iv) an explanation of why certain countries were 
being excluded from the effects of these requirement s, as indicated in various news reports and local 
reports published in Argentina.   
44. The delegate of the European Union  recalled that the Argentine import licensing measures 
had been raised in the WTO on several occasions, including the last CTG meeting in November 2010 
where the US and EU statements were supporte d by many other Members. The Chair invited 
Argentina and delegations that had expressed concer ns, to continue with their discussions and seek a 
solution.  In light of the above, interested Me mbers held a meeting on 8 March 2011 and requested 
Argentina to provide additional information on the r ecent extension of the scope of its non-automatic 
licenses scheme and about the state of play concerni ng its application.  Argentina claimed that the 
non-automatic scheme was a legitimate tool in order to deal with the increased volume of imports that 
allegedly resulted from stimulus packages in other countries.  Since Argentina had not addressed the 
concerns expressed by interested Members, the EU  looked forward to hearing concrete responses 
from Argentina at this meeting.   Their concerns we re on the justification, timing and duration of such 
measures, the procedures and their conformity  with the Agreement on Import Licensing and the 
product coverage and impact of such measures, in cluding the domestic market, since it appeared that 
Argentina had undertaken a study in that respect. 
45. His delegation also hoped to receive explanati ons from Argentina on the recent addition of 
almost 200 new products within the scope of non- automatic licensing measures, including high end 
cars with big engines, certain car parts and mob ile phones, as published on 15 February and 9 March.  
These measures followed an informal demand from th e Argentinean Ministry of Industry that 
importers reduce imports by 20% as part of an impor t substitution policy in Argentina.   Furthermore, 
car importers had also complained about delays  in customs clearance and obtaining homologation, 
which resulted in consignments having been blocked si nce 4 February 2011.  In general, importers of 
a number of goods were mainly requested, on an info rmal basis, to reduce imports and  buy or export 
more locally produced goods. 
46. Currently, the non-automatic licensing scheme covered almost 600 products, compared to the 
38 initially covered by the first measure introduced  a few years ago.  This new development was 
extremely worrying as it exacerbated the impact of th e measures on exports to Argentina.  The current 
regime covered imports from the EU  of around US$ 1,4 billion or 15.5% of total imports from the EU  G/C/M/106 
 Page 9 
 
 
  into Argentina (based on import statistics for 2010).  This development was even more alarming when 
considered in the context of other measures ta ken to pursue import substitution in Argentina. 
47. The EU considered that the Argentine non-auto matic licensing scheme was not in line with 
WTO obligations.  These measures were part of an imports substitution policy aimed at improving the 
trade balance and to systematically discriminate  against a number of imported products.  Currently, 
despite repeated requests in the WTO and bilaterally, Argentina had failed to provide any convincing 
evidence to the contrary, non-automatic import li censing was only justified where necessary to 
implement a WTO compatible measure.  The EU de legate recalled that Article 3(2) of the WTO 
Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures Agreem ent stated that "non- automatic licensing 
procedures shall correspond in scope and in duration to  the measure they are used to implement, and 
shall be no more administratively burdensome than absolutely necessary to admi nister the measure";  
that Article 5(g) confirmed this, by requiring th at the notification of non-automatic import licensing 
regimes included an indication of "the measure be ing implemented through the licensing procedure".  
A different interpretation of these Articles, he a dded, would render Article XI of GATT meaningless, 
since it would allow WTO Members to use import licen sing regimes arbitrarily as a means to restrict 
imports for protectionist purposes. 
48. The EU delegate indicated that Argentinean pr ocedures for examining applications for import 
licences lacked transparency si nce some elements were not regulated nor laid down in the 
Argentinean legislation, such as the change from th e "first-come first-served" method of consideration 
of applications to a simultaneous consideration. This was inconsistent with the Agreement which 
required that all rules related to the regime s hould be published. He also pointed out that non-
automatic licensing was just one of the measures used by Argentinean authorities to restrict imports; 
other additional requirements imposed on importers  were commitments on trade balancing with a 
view to reduce imports, increase of production in Ar gentinean facilities and compensation of imports 
with exports.   The car sector was an example of this kind of action, as declared by the Argentinean 
authorities, a policy of "one dollar of import for one dollar of export" was being imposed on 
importers.  Other restrictions included new info rmation requirements at customs level which had 
never been published, or undue delays in homologations of imported products.  
49. The EU delegation was of the view that the recent extension of the non-automatic import 
licensing scheme was a worrying signal;  not only di d it defy Argentina's political commitments under 
the G20 context not to impose restrictions to trade, but  also raised  serious concerns in terms of 
Argentina's adherence to its WTO obligations.  This scheme had now developed into a significant 
trade barrier for exports from many WTO Members and needed to be quickly addressed.  Thus, the 
EU needed Argentina:  (1) to provide more info rmation on the recent extension of the scope of its 
non-automatic licenses scheme in 201 1, as well as information about the state of play regarding the 
application and implementation of the scheme, in pa rticular as it related to the issuance and timeframe 
of licences; (2) to clarify how it planned to addr ess these concerns which affected exports from the 
EU and from other WTO Members, concerns that ha d also been raised bilaterally and in the WTO 
and, (3) to bring its regime in compliance with its WTO obligations as soon as possible. 
50. The delegate of Peru  supported the statements made by the EU and the US; her delegation 
was also concerned given that Resolution 45/201 1 adopted in February  2011 had increased the 
number of products subject to the non-automatic import licensing regime in Argentina from 400 to 
600.  Peru was affected by the excessive delays in the issuance of  licences and in particular when 
import certificates for textiles and other products were  denied.  Up to date there were 32 pending 
applications, of which 19 had now been presented for more than 60 days, the maximum delay to 
which the Agreement referred to.  This licensing sy stem had become a barrier for the real access of 
Peruvian products into the Argentinian market a nd created uncertainty in the issuing of licences, 
discouraging exports from Peru and consequently increasing the deficit of the bilateral trade balance 
with Argentina which, in 2010, stood at over US$85 0 000.  Her authorities were closely monitoring G/C/M/106 
Page 10 
 
 
  this scheme which had been generating a negative impact on the Peruvian producers and exporters, 
affecting particularly the small and medium sized enterprises (SMSE), given the lack of predictability 
and legal certainty.  This explained why her dele gation had expressed its c oncern before the CILPs 
and bilaterally.  
51. Article 3.2 of Agreement on Import Licensing stated that non-automatic licences should be 
used to administer underlying measures which were in  line with the WTO norms and standards.  Peru 
was not clear about what these underlying measures were and Argentina's notification of  
Resolution 45/2011 did not specify these measures.  Sh e asked Argentina to clarify the legal basis of 
its non-automatic licensing regime, particularly in the case of the import certificates for textile and 
other products to which R esolution 45/2011 referred to.  
52. The delegate of Mexico  joined the concerns expressed by  various delegations at the Goods 
Council and at the CILs.  Systematic and trade inte rests led her delegation to call into question a non-
automatic import licensing system, the result of wh ich was an obstacle to trade for a growing number 
of products.  The recently published Resolution 45/2011 which extended the requirement of non-
automatic licensing to more than 180 items of Argentina's tariff schedule, generated uncertainty 
among Mexican exporters.  The lack of clear and sp ecific information on the operation and reason for 
this system, the increased number of products c overed by non-automatic licences, the discretional 
application and the delays in the responses to th e applications submitted, had meant that Mexican 
exporters believed that it was commercially unviable  to carry out the trade potential that had been 
initially planned.  The difficulties faced by Mexican  producers when trying to export their goods to 
Argentina covered by non-automatic licences had dissuaded their export interest.  Her delegation 
requested details from Argentina on the implementa tion and operation of the licensing system and on 
the estimated duration of these measures.   
53. She also indicated that on several occasions b ilateral consultations ha d taken place to address 
this issue; nonetheless Mexico wanted to undersco re its concerns, since Mexican exporters could not 
carry out exports in a reliable manner, given the di scretionary operation of this licensing system.  
Mexico urged Argentina to use all means to addr ess this issue which created obstacles to trade as 
these had given rise to a climate of uncertainty for exporters; her delegation also asked Argentina to 
fulfil its transparency commitments and submit the pertinent information which would clearly justify 
its non-automatic import licensing scheme. 
54. The delegate of Canada  echoed the EU and the US and emphasised the need for transparency 
and consistency with the obligations containe d in the WTO Agreement on Import Licensing.  
Canadian exporters were also concerned by the lack  of clarity in the administration of Argentina's 
non-automatic import licensing, as well as the expansi on of products included in Resolution 45/2011.  
Her delegation invited Argentina to promptly repl y to the concerns expressed in the Goods Council 
and in other WTO instances. 
55. The delegate of Japan , in supporting previous speakers, indicated that there had been no 
improvement in the delay of issuing import licences in Argentina since the issue was raised at the 
CTG meeting in November 2010.  The required tim eframe to issue import licences had continued to 
exceed the period stipulated in the Agreemen t on Import Licensing.  Resolution 45/2011 had 
expanded the scope of products c overed by the non-automatic import licensing in Argentina; this had 
created adverse impacts on Japanese companies wh ich operated in Argentina.  In the case of 
manufacturing companies, at least one third of in termediate materials needed for production were 
covered by the non-automatic licensing; this wo uld inevitably affect the pace of production in 
Argentina.  He also indicated that imported ve hicles were the biggest problem, Japanese companies 
had been notified at the end of 2010 that in the current year import licenses would be reduced by 20% 
of the actual importation during 2010.   This woul d have a significant impact on foreign companies  G/C/M/106 
 Page 11 
 
 
  operating in Argentina, therefore his authorities re quested Argentina to ensu re that import licences 
would be issued within the timeframe stipulated in the Import Licensing Agreement. 
56. The delegate of Turkey  agreed with the statements made by the EU and the US.  Turkey had 
also expressed its concerns over the trade restricting import licensing practices of Argentina, both at 
the Committee Import Licensing and at the CTG.  His delegation had not received satisfactory 
responses to the questions it had posed to Argentin a.  Turkish industries and trade offices still reported 
problems of non-transparency and non-predictability in the implementation and compliance with 
timeframes established in the Agreement on Impor t Licensing Procedures, since delays in the 
response to applications over 60 days became, in practice, prohibitive.  The number of products 
subject to non-automatic licensing requirements had al so recently been expanded.  His delegation also 
requested answers from Argentina to questions posed at this meeting and invited Argentina to bring 
its import licensing regime and its implementation in accordance with Argentina's WTO obligations. 
57. The delegate of Switzerland  thanked the previous speakers for the statements made and 
recalled that at the CTG meeting in July 2010, his delegation had expressed its concerns regarding 
Argentina's import licensing measures adopted in June 2010.   Even though specific problems of the 
Swiss industry had been solved bilaterally last su mmer with Argentina, his delegation was concerned 
that Argentina had still not taken appropriate measur es in order to conform to its WTO obligations.  
Given the extension of the scope of Argen tina's non-automatic import licensing system on 15 
February 2011, the situation had worsened.  Arge ntina had failed to provide a WTO consistent 
explanation for the introduction of its import licensi ng measures.  His delegation was of the view that, 
in practice, the rules to obtain an import licence in Argentina were applied in a discretionary way 
leading to import delays.  This contradicted the WTO Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures 
which stated, in Article 1, that the rules governi ng import licensing procedures might be neutral in 
application and administered in a fair and equ itable manner.  Argentina's discretionary import 
licensing procedures also resulted in imports restric tions contrary to GATT Article XI.  He therefore 
urged Argentina to put its import licensing syst em in conformity with its WTO commitments. 
58. The delegation of Argentina  indicated that her delegation would strive to answer at least the 
questions posed during the informal plurilateral meeting which was held on 8 March 2011.  These 
would refer to information on the duration of the me asures; reasons for the expansion of the scheme to 
other sectors; lack of transparency in the proce dures; measures and procedures that had been followed 
to assess the imports; as well as the mention made to  some sectors which had been affected by the 
non-automatic licensing scheme such as telephones, f ootwear and automobiles. These issues had been 
conveyed to her capital and her delegati on hoped to be able to reply to them at the next meeting of the 
Committee of Import Licensing which would take place in April. 
59. To answer the questions related to transpar ency and the reasons for the duration of the 
measures, she noted that through Resolution 52, dated 15 March 2011, a system for the online 
resolution of import licensing applications had been implemented in the Ministry of Industry.  Her 
delegation hoped that through that system, Arge ntina would address the concerns expressed on the 
lack of transparency and the duration of measures. With regard to the other issues and questions that 
had been raised at this meeting, she indicated th at perhaps some of these were not new but had been 
addressed in a different way.  With respect to the statements made by the EU and the US she noted 
that these were opinions rather than questions.  Argentina believed its import licensing scheme was in 
line with the WTO rules but was ready to meet thos e Members who had voiced their concerns, either 
bilaterally or at a plurilateral level.  She finally  noted that meetings had taken place at capitals, the 
most recent in Brussels, between the EU Director General of Trade and the Argentine Secretary of Industry; consultations would c ontinue and Argentina hoped to address and answer the concerns 
raised by the Members. G/C/M/106 
Page 12 
 
 
  60. The Chairman  invited the Council to take note of the statements made and invited Argentina 
and delegations that had expressed concerns to continue with thei r discussions towards a solution.  
61. The Council so agreed .  
VIII.  ECUADOR MIXED TARIFFS – QUESTIONS FROM THE UNITED STATES, 
EUROPEAN UNION, CANADA, JAPAN AND PANAMA (G/C/W/645) 
62. The Chairman  recalled the Council that at the last meeting, Ecuador provided oral responses 
to the questions put forward by the United States,  the European Union, Canada, Japan and Panama on 
its mixed tariff system in document G/C/W/639.  Ec uador then provided its responses in written form 
and these were circulated to Members in docum ent G/C/W/645, dated 7 March 2011.  He also 
informed the Council that the delegation of the United States, in a communication dated 10 March 
2011, had requested the inclusion of this issue in the agenda of this meeting. 
63. The delegate of the United States  thanked Ecuador for its responses in document G/C/W/645 
and for the additional information it had provid ed on Presidential Decrees 367 and 372, which 
changed Ecuador’s tariff schedule fo r footwear and textiles and appare l products from an applied rate 
of 30 per cent ad valorem.  It also reflected Ec uador’s binding to a mixed tariff of 10 per cent ad 
valorem plus $6 per pair of shoes a nd 10 per cent ad valorem plus $5.50 per kilo of textiles or apparel, 
respectively.  She indicated that  the specific trade data provided by Ecuador for these specific items 
was helpful, however, regarding the data, requested Ecuador to verify if its imports of footwear, 
textiles and apparel had increased across the board for all Members, to include those Members which 
were major exporters of these products.   
64. She noted that despite the additional informa tion provided by Ecuador, the answers did not 
address the specific questions concerning what the ad valorem equivalent  (AVE) was for over 300 
tariff lines covered by the decrees, nor the methodol ogy and calculations used to calculate the AVE. 
In its responses Ecuador had stated that the AVE "for each of the 349 tariff lines covered by the 
above-mentioned decrees corresponded to the bindi ng undertaken by Ecuador in its Schedule of 
Concessions".  This could be interpreted that Ecua dor believed the AVE on these tariff lines respected 
the 30 per cent, however, when her authorities had applied the mixed tariff scheme to footwear, it 
resulted that a pair of shoes imported into Ecuador at a value equal to or less than US$29 would be 
charged a duty higher than 30 per cent of the value of th e shoes.  Likewise, a kilo of textiles or apparel 
imported at a value equal to or less than US$27 w ould be charged a duty higher than 30 per cent of 
the value of the goods.  More specifically, if a pa ir of shoes was valued at US$20, under the 30 per 
cent binding, an importer would pay a duty of US$6 , given that US$20 multiplied by 30 per cent was 
equal to US$6.  However, under the mixed tariff, it appeared that the same US$20 pair of shoes would 
be charged a duty of US$8, given that US$20 multi plied by 10 per cent corresponded to US$2, plus 
the US$6 specific tariff, resulting in US$8.  It w as difficult to understand how a $20 pair of shoes 
entering under the current mixed tariff scheme and be ing charged a duty of $8 was equivalent to an 
AVE of 30 per cent; she therefore requested further explanation on the methodology Ecuador had used.  From the calculations made by her delegation,  it was not clear how Ecuador was maintaining its 
WTO binding of 30 per cent on footwear and textil es and apparel products u nder its new mixed tariff 
regime.   
65. The US appreciated the additional information Ecuador had provided, but continued to find 
discrepancies on how the current mixed tariff system was equivalent to an ad valorem  tariff of 30 per 
cent on footwear, textiles and apparel.  She request ed Ecuador to provide the AVE for each of the 
tariff lines covered by Presidential Decrees 367 and 372, as well as the methodology and calculations 
it had used to determine the AVE for these tariff lines.  Finally, she stated that Ecuador’s replies had 
not addressed the reasons why it had modified its tariffs on these items.    G/C/M/106 
 Page 13 
 
 
  66. The delegate of the European Union  considered that the issue had systemic importance and 
indicated that whenever a Member introduced chang es to its applied tariffs, it had to be assessed as to 
whether other Members' rights were affected by such changes.  Following discussions at the CTG 
meetings on 30 November 2010 and 31  January 2011, Ecuador had provi ded some useful information; 
the EU had had the opportunity to discuss the issue b ilaterally and thanked Ecua dor for their efforts of 
transparency.  Ecuador had to continue on this  vein of transparency and provide additional 
information on the mixed tariff system, such as the reasons which lead it to modify its tariffs on more 
than 300 items and respond as to whether the impl ementation of the mixed tariff system was for a 
specific duration or whether it was intended to remain  on a permanent basis.  He also asked Ecuador 
to provide the AVE for each one of the tariff lin es, as well as the methodology and calculations it had 
used to determine the AVE.  Only by knowing th is methodology would the WTO Members be able to 
ascertain whether their rights had been affected or not by the changes introduced by Ecuador in its 
tariff schedule. 
67.  The delegate of Japan  thanked  Ecuador for its responses, nevertheless they had not 
completely addressed the questions posed by his dele gation, particularly the question of whether the 
new mixed tariff rates were below or above the bound rates.  
68. The delegate of Canada  thanked  Ecuador for its responses in document G/C/W/645.  Like the 
US, the EU and Japan, his delegation also consider ed that the information Ecuador had provided did 
not clarify the questions posed.  For instance, Ec uador asserted that the AVEs for the 349 tariff lines 
for which it introduced mixed tariffs, were consis tent with Ecuador's bound tariff rates, however 
Ecuador had not provided the AVEs, nor the meth odology it had used which would have allowed 
Members to confirm this assertion for themselves.  His authorities would like to know how Ecuador 
could ensure that the mixed tariff rates it had introduced would not exceed the bound rates on a 
shipment by shipment basis. 
69. The delegate of Ecuador  indicated that the additional questions submitted by the co-sponsors 
of document G/C/W/639 would be referred to the capita l.   He informed the Council that, in line with 
the commitment taken at the last meeting, on its own initiation, Ecuador had  co-ordinated and held 
bilateral meetings in Geneva with  the delegations of the US, Japan, the EU, Canada and Panama, in 
order to clarify the specific trade concerns rai sed by these Members.  Given the importance, his 
authorities conceded to trade concerns raised by other Members regarding the mixed tariff system, it 
had been determined that the officers in charge of trade issues in Ecuador organized and held bilateral 
meetings with the trade authorities in Panama, the EU and Canada.   
70. He also indicated that despite a formal request  to hold a bilateral meeting with the US in 
Washington, the meeting had not yet taken place due to calendar difficulties of the US trade 
authorities and, in the case of Japan, the recen t natural disaster which had necessitated the 
postponement of the meeting.  Therefore, Ecuador had done its utmost to comply with its commitment 
to hold bilateral meetings both in Ge neva and in the different capitals.   These concrete actions showed 
the willingness and readiness of his country to clarif y the doubt that still remained on this issue.  
However, Ecuador reiterated its position that (i) the new tariff structure was compatible and  
consistent with its duties and obligations under th e different WTO Agreements and in particular, 
under Articles II and X of GATT 94; (ii)  the statisti c information on foreign trade, compiled by his  
authorities and conveyed to the Members concerne d, only confirmed the assertions expressed at  
previous meetings on the absence of true and poten tial problems in terms of trade flows with those 
supposedly affected Members; (iii) trade flows had continued to grow including products on which 
these new mixed tariffs had been applied; and (iv)  it was up to Ecuador just as any other Member, to 
revise, restructure and modify its own tariff structure in order to draw up its trade policies in 
accordance to its needs and reality, as long as multilateral commitments were respected. G/C/M/106 
Page 14 
 
 
  71. With regard to trade flows, he highlighted so me statistics which indicated the absence of any 
impact on the trade flows of the Members that had co-sponsored document G/C/W/639.  In 2010 
Ecuador maintained, in its balance of payments, a deficit of approximately US$1 630 370, which, 
over the past five years, had gra dually and constantly increased.  The global trade statistics data with 
the US showed that the bilateral non-oil balance of  payment registered a deficit for Ecuador of  
US$1 098 090.  This trend was identical in Ecua dor's trade with Canada, Japan and Panama, as well 
as with the EU with which the non-oil balance of payment for 2010 also registered a deficit for 
Ecuador of US$7 568 884.  With regard to imports  of textiles, clothing and footwear, there was a 
similar trend with respect to the US since impor ts had grown by 46% between 2009 and 2010, whilst 
with the EU, the global amount of trade had in creased during the same period from a total of  
US$1 349 223 to a total of US$2 531 774.   
72. To conclude, he indicated that his delegation had shown readiness to hold bilateral meetings 
and that these had been an opportunity for Ecuado r to submit its position on this issue and also 
contained in document G/C/W/645, dated 7 March 2011.   Trade information demonstrated that there 
was no true or potential impact on bilateral trade with the abovementioned Members, but rather a 
confirmation that bilateral trade continued to grow, including those products to which the mixed 
tariffs system had been applied.   
73. The delegate of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  also thanked Ecuador for the 
information it had provided on various occasions in the Goods Council and also bilaterally to other 
Members.  This showed Ecuador's willingness to clar ify the issue and was a proof of transparency.  
He hoped the issue would be resolved soon.  
74. The Chairman  invited the Council to take note of the statements made and encouraged 
delegations who took the floor to continue their consultations towards a prompt solution.    
75. The Council so agreed . 
IX. OTHER BUSINESS 
A. DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING  
76. The Chair  informed the Council that the next meeting was scheduled to take place on 
Thursday, 1 July 2011.  The agenda would close on Monday, 20 June 2011. 
B. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS  
77. The Chair  informed Members that the Chairman of the General Council had carried out 
consultations on a slate of names for Chairpersons to the different 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 22 February 2011.  In line with 
the nominations, he proposed that the Council for Trade in Goods elect  Ambassador Jüri Seilenthal of Estonia as Chairperson of this body by acclamation.   
78. The Council so agreed
.  G/C/M/106 
 Page 15 
 
 
  79. The Chair  congratulated Ambassador Seilentha l for his nomination and thanked all 
delegations, the Secretariat and all support staff, for their untiring efforts and dedication to carry out 
the work of the CTG in 2010.   
80. The meeting was adjourned . 
_________