WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/REG228/M/1 
27 October 2008 
 
 (08-5184) 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements 
Fiftieth Session  
 
 
 
 
CONSIDERATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC COOPERATION 
AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIA AND SINGAPORE, GOODS AND SERVICES 
 
Note on the Meeting of 18-19 September 2008   
 
Chairman:  Mr. D. Brauns (Germany) 
 
 
1. The meeting was convened in document WTO/ AIR/3202 and Corrigendum 2, dated 5 June 
and 9 July 2008, respectively. 
2. Under Agenda Item B.II of its 50th Session, the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements 
(CRTA or the Committee) took up consideration of the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement between India and Singa pore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Agreement'), goods and 
services. 
3. The Chairman
 said that the Agreement had been notified by the Parties to the WTO on 
3 May 2007 under Article XXIV:7(a) of the GATT 1994 and the Understanding on the Interpretation 
of Article XXIV of GATT 1994 as an Ag reement establishing a free-trade area 
(document WT/REG228/N/1) and under GATS Article V:7(a) as an Agreement providing for the 
liberalization of trade in services within  the meaning of Article V of the GATS 
(document S/C/N/393).  The text of the Agreement w as available, together with its Annexes, on the 
Parties' official websites.  The Factual Presentation on the goods and services aspects (document 
WT/REG228/1, dated 27 February 2008) had been  prepared by the Secretariat on its own 
responsibility in full consultation with the Parti es, in accordance with paragraph 7(b) of the 
Transparency Mechanism for Re gional Trade Agreements (document WT/L/671).  In addition, 
written questions and replies on the Agreement had been recently distributed in document 
WT/REG228/2, dated 10 September 2008.  He proposed to organize the consideration of the 
Agreement by asking first the Parties and then othe r Members to give any general comments.  The 
Committee would then turn to the specifics of the Agreement using the Factual Presentation, 
document WT/REG228/1, to guide the debate.  Gi ven that the goods and services aspects of the 
Agreement were dealt with in a single factual pr esentation, he proposed to go through the Factual 
Presentation by section, and then throug h the questions and replies document. 
4. The representative of India  thanked the WTO Secretariat for preparing the Factual 
Presentation on the India-Singapore Comprehensiv e Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) and 
Ambassador Karen Tan and her colleagues who had wo rked closely with India in preparation for the 
meeting.  He emphasized that Singapore was an important trading partner for India with annual 
bilateral trade of about US$15 billion.  Singapore’s trade with India constituted about 39% of India’s 
total trade with the ASEAN countries and approxima tely 3.75% of its global trade.  The increasing 
economic engagement between Indi a and Singapore had led to the Ag reement which had entered into 
force on 1 August 2005.  The Agreement was an inte grated package of several agreements concerning 
trade in goods, services, investment and economic cooperation in fields like education, science and WT/REG228/M/1 
Page 2 
 
 
  technology, air services, and intellectual property.  The Agreement had provided a renewed fillip to 
the countries' growing economic ties.  The quantum of  trade in goods between them had gone up by 
30% in the post-Agreement phase and this buoyant trend was expected to  continue.  He believed that 
India’s increasingly intensive economic and commerc ial engagement with ASEAN as implementation 
of its 'Look East' policy, had led to enhanced India-Singapore economic a nd commercial relations.  
Complementarities in terms of economic strengths and needs had offered the enabling environment 
for relations to prosper.  India had looked for infrastructure investment, critical technologies and 
export markets.  Singapore, with its surplus capital was a potential partner in infrastructure development in India as well as investment in Indian companies.  There were several firsts associated 
with the Agreement as far as India was concerned.   The Agreement was the first and presently the 
only such agreement signed by India with any country.  It was for the first time that India had entered 
into a bilateral Economic Integrati on Agreement in Services.  It was also the first time that India had 
notified an RTA under Article XXIV of GATT and Article V of GATS.    
5. With respect to trade in goods, for the last Indian financial year (April 2007 – March 2008), 
Singapore had been India’s fifth largest merchandise  trading partner and fourth largest merchandise 
export market.  Total bilateral trade during 2007-2008 of US$14.96 billion was 30% more than the 
previous year.  India's main exports to Singapore included minerals, pearls, base metals, chemicals, 
machinery and textiles.  The main Indian imports  from Singapore included machinery, chemicals, 
wood pulp, base metals and plastics.  On 20 D ecember 2007, a Protocol had been signed in New 
Delhi to amend the Agreement to  provide additional tariff c oncessions.  With these additional 
concessions offered on 539 tariff lines, tariff conc essions would increase from 83% to 93% of the 
value of Singapore’s exports to India. 
6. Growing demand in India for investment in these sectors coupled with its friendly investment 
environment had resulted in substa ntial foreign direct investment (FDI) into India from Singapore.  
The trend had gathered momentum following the signing of the Agreement in 2005. The most 
prominent investors included Temasek Holdings, Si ngapore Government Investment Company (GIC), 
SingTel, Singapore Stock Exchange (SGX) and Asce ndas.  Indian corporate presence in Singapore 
had also been growing steadily with around 2,600 Indian  companies registered there.  The IT majors 
had a strong presence in Singapore and used it as a hub for their regional operations.  These included 
Tata Consultancy Services, Infosys, Wipro, HCL T echnologies, NIIT and  Satyam Computer Services 
among others.  In the manufacturing sector, the Tata  Group had acquired a major stake in Nat Steel 
and Punj Lloyd Ltd had taken over Sembawa ng Engineers and Constructors Pte Ltd. 
7. With regard to services, the Agreement provi ded for the opening of 15 new bank branches in 
India by three Singapore banks over four years.  The Reserve Bank of India, India's Central Bank, had 
granted approval to UOB Ltd, Singapore to open its  maiden branch in Mumbai and to DBS Bank Ltd, 
Singapore to open eight branches in India.  State Bank of India had received a QFB (qualifying full 
bank status) licence from the Monetary Author ity of Singapore (MAS) while ICICI Bank’s 
application for QFB status was being processed.  At  present, nine Indian banks had operations in 
Singapore.  Following the Agreement, there had b een a significant upswing in air services.  With 
direct connections to 12 Indian cities, Singapore had the strongest air connections to India.  There were 157 direct weekly flights with a seat capacity of about 350,000 operated by four Indian carriers 
and two Singapore carriers. 
8. While the Agreement was an important pillar of bilateral relations, strong political, historical 
and cultural bonds had imparted strength and stability to these relations.  India's links with Singapore 
dated back to the Chola empire of the 10th centu ry AD which had extended its rule over much of 
Southeast Asia.  Later, Singapore’s strategic loca tion had been recognized as essential to the security 
of the British Empire in India, and it had been form ally declared a colony under British India, and had 
been governed from Calcutta from 1830 to 1867.  More recently, the swathe of agreements concluded 
between India and Singapore reflected growing bilate ral cooperation and provid ed a larger framework  WT/REG228/M/1 
 Page 3 
 
 
  for activities between the two Governments, the econo my and civil society.  Key agreements included 
the CECA, the bilateral Air Services Agreement a nd the Defence Cooperation Agreement.  The year 
2007 had witnessed the creation of a Joint Ministeria l Committee headed by the Foreign Ministers, a 
bilateral CEO’s Forum, an India Business Forum a nd the announcement of a Strategic Dialogue.  Not 
only was Singapore India’s most important trading partner amongst the ASEAN countries, it was also 
India’s gateway to ASEAN and beyond.  The moment um imparted by the Agreement had culminated 
in the signing of the India-ASEAN Free Trade Ag reement (FTA) a few weeks ago.  The Agreement, 
therefore, provided an example of how bilate ralism could feed into regional and multilateral 
arrangements in a positive way.  He thanked the European Communities (EC), Chinese Taipei, Japan 
and the United States for their written questions .  Joint responses from India and Singapore had 
already been circulated to Members.  His delegati on would be happy to answer any further questions.  
9. The representative of Singapore  thanked the Secretariat for having prepared the Factual 
Presentation on the Agreement, Members for their interest and the Indian delegation for having 
worked closely with them over the last few mont hs.  The Agreement was a watershed in bilateral 
relations between the two countries.  It was Singa pore's first FTA with a South Asian country and 
Asia's emerging powerhouse.  For India, the Agre ement would become an important building block 
for its integration into the larger East and South east Asian region.  Bilateral trade and investment 
figures had been encouraging.  In two short y ears, total trade between Singapore and India had 
increased by more than 40%, to S$23.9 billion in  2007 from S$16.6 billion in  2005.  Bilateral trade 
had been expanding rapidly over recent years and ha d more than trebled since 2002.  India was now 
Singapore's 11th largest trading partner.  Last year, Singapore's FDI inflows into India were 
US$1.43 billion, making Singapore India's second largest investor after Mauritius, surpassing the 
United States and the United Kingdom.  Singapore had became in turn the top destination for Indian 
outbound investment from April to December 2007, with US$7.3 billion invested, comprising 37% of 
all Indian FDI overseas. 
10. She then highlighted the key aspects of the Agreement which had been concluded after 
13 rounds in 2005.  In Singapore's view, the Agre ement was WTO-consistent and WTO-plus.  Since 
its entry into force, one review had been concl uded in October 2007.  The Agreement, as its name 
implied, was comprehensive and, as the representativ e of India had highlighted, encompassed trade in 
goods and services, investments, dispute settlement mechanisms, and various cooperation chapters.  
In addition, negotiations on a double tax avoidance agreement and air services had been also 
conducted under its auspices. 
11. For trade in goods, Singapore had liberalized its remaining MFN-dutiable tariff lines upon 
entry into force of the Agreement in August 2005, hence all Indian exports to Singapore were now 
duty-free.  Approximately 75% of all Singapore's expor ts to India would have their tariffs eliminated 
or substantially reduced by 2009.  At the recent re view of Agreement, an additional 539 export items 
from Singapore had been granted tariff reductions.  For trade in services, both India and Singapore 
had committed to liberalize key sectors for businesses and individuals of both countries.  Singapore 
had granted preferential market access to education, distribution, transport and environmental services 
while India had opened up areas in finance, tel ecommunications and engineering.  The Agreement 
had also instituted a framework to mutually r ecognize professionals from the medical, dentistry, 
nursing, architecture and accountancy trades.  It also enhanced bilateral people flows or a 
liberalization of mode 4.  It guaranteed temporar y entry and short stays for business visitors, short 
term services providers, professi onals and intra-corporate transferees travelling between both 
countries.  Another unique element of the Agre ement was the cooperation chapters.  India and 
Singapore had identified sectors where both Parties possessed complementary interests and strengths.  
The Agreement allowed the two countries to tap each other’s expertise in the areas of science and 
technology, media, education and intellectual property rights (IPR).  She informed the Committee that 
the two countries would sign a Memorandum of Understanding on IPR the following week.  The 
Agreement had become the cornerstone of Singapore's  bilateral relations with India, bringing both WT/REG228/M/1 
Page 4 
 
 
  countries closer together through trade and investme nt, and creating a platform for regular dialogue.  
She believed the Agreement would continually ev olve and contribute to this dynamic bilateral 
relationship. 
12. The representative of the European Communities (EC)  thanked the Parties for their 
comprehensive presentation and for their written answ ers to its written questions.  She noted that 
although Members had been asked to submit written questions by March, written replies had only 
been received in the current w eek.  She asked all Members to adopt a cooperative approach to the 
good functioning of the Transparency Mechanism, thereby ensuring that all documentation was circulated in a timely fashion for the benefit of a ll Members.  She then under lined the EC's concerns 
on the compliance of the Agreement with Article XXIV of GATT 1994, particularly the requirement 
to eliminate tariffs on substantially all the trade.  According to the Factual Pr esentation, only 23.6% of 
Indian tariff lines were liberalized under the Agreemen t.  In the EC's view, this was a significantly 
low and unambitious coverage, which could not be unde rstood to cover substantially all the trade.  
The EC had specific questions in this regard, and concerning other areas of the Agreement, which she 
would address as specific comments later. 
13. The representative of the United States
 thanked the Parties and the Secretariat for the 
information provided on the Agreement.  The Un ited States had noted in past CRTA meetings the 
disturbing trend of Members concluding preferential trade agreements that did not appear to meet the 
ambitious requirements of Article XXIV of GATT 19 94.  In particular the U.S. had expressed its 
disappointment about those preferential trade agreem ents that did not ensure that tariffs were 
eliminated on substantially all the trade between th e parties.  However, the U.S. was compelled to 
draw specific attention to the serious shortcomings in  this particular preferential trade Agreement as it  
could not recall examining an Agreement in this Committee that appeared to fall so short of the 
"substantially all the trade" test.  Although Singapo re had liberalized fully under the Agreement, her 
delegation was disappointed as it looked as though it ha d not held India to the same high standard as 
Article XXIV of GATT 1994 required.  The eliminati on of duties on only 24% of tariff lines and 75% 
of 2003-2005 trade by India was egregious.   
14. She recalled that the MFN obligation in Article I of GATT 1994 was a cornerstone of the 
multilateral trading system.  Article XXIV allowe d a deviation from that obligation and under any 
reading of it, the standards of Article XXIV were difficult to meet.  Her delegation recognized that 
among the Membership there were differing views on the precise content and methodological approach to Article XXIV requirements.  But this Agreement would not appear to be one that posed 
such complexities given coverage of 24% of tariff lines and 75% of 2003-2005 trade by India.  Nor 
was her delegation comforted by the responses to Me mbers' questions which noted that in December 
2007 amendments to the Agreement had only increased India's coverage to 27% of tariff lines and 
81% of trade.  In her delegation's view, this w as still egregious.  The U.S. had reviewed India's 
notification of additional products  covered under the Agreement, a nd it was unclear which 404 tariffs 
as noted in the response to Question 30 were to be  eliminated.  She asked that India indicate the 
specific tariff lines that would be duty-free under th e revised Agreement, and when the tariffs would 
be eliminated.  The U.S. did not consider simply reducing tariffs on previously excluded lines to be an 
expansion of coverage.  Under Artic le XXIV, tariffs had to be elimin ated.  Furthermore, she did not 
believe that expanded coverage under the Agreement's review mech anism was a means of satisfying 
the "substantially all the trade" requirement.  "S ubstantially all the trade" could be assessed only on 
the basis of concrete elimination of duties on speci fic products as provided for in the Agreement, not 
on what tariff liberalization might or might not be ag reed upon in the future.  The U.S. believed that 
preferential liberalization agreements could be complimentary to, and support, multilateral 
liberalization.  However, Members should not be ab le to secure safe haven under Article XXIV with 
agreements that included such limited coverage.  WT/REG228/M/1 
 Page 5 
 
 
  15. The representative of Australia  thanked the Parties, the Secretariat, and the presence of the 
high level delegations showed the importance by wh ich the Parties approached this process.  Their 
statement had provided a better understanding of the significance of the Agreement from a domestic 
perspective.  He had noted Singapore's remark that the Agreement was the cornerstone of the bilateral 
relationship.  Australia had concerns about the le vel of liberalization under the Agreement, and in 
particular how it met the "substantially all the trade"  standard.  According to the Factual Presentation, 
some 23.6% of tariff lines had been liberalized by  India, corresponding to 75.3% in terms of import 
values from Singapore.  He also noted that there w as an inbuilt agenda which was referred to as the 
review mechanism.  However, there was no guarant ee or firm commitment of further liberalization;  
in particular there did not seem to be any firm co mmitment to phased-in liberalization.  His delegation 
was disappointed with the answers to questions 4 po sed by the EC and 32 by the U.S.  An intention 
for future liberalization did not marry with the firm commitmen t to liberalize substantially all the 
trade under the GATT.  He asked both Parties how this level of liberalization met the 
GATT commitment of substantially all the trade bein g liberalized.  Australia took a different view of 
this standard, and implemented a different practice in its own RTAs.  His delegation was worried that 
agreements of this standard undermined the GATT because they entrenched protectionism and 
provided an easy exception to the MFN principle. 
16. The representative of th e European Communities  had follow-up questions to its written 
questions 4, 5 and 10 on the coverage of the Agreem ent.  In response to the EC's concerns regarding 
compliance with the obligation to eliminate dutie s on substantially all the trade, as set out in 
Article XXIV of GATT 1994, the Parties had mainta ined that the Agreement provided for expansion 
of coverage under the review mechanism.  The EC ask ed the Parties to clarify and explain in detail the 
ultimate objective of the Agreement, what they aime d at in terms of liberalization commitments and 
to present to Members a clear plan and schedule for achieving those commitments, which would then 
help Members to consider the Agreement.  Failure  to do so would prevent Members from effectively 
considering the Agreement since they would not be  able to assess commitments which were, as the 
Parties stated, still to be negotiated.  The EC remi nded the Parties to notify subsequent changes in a 
timely fashion, as set out in paragraph 14 of the Tr ansparency Mechanism.  Sh e also asked the Parties 
to detail the current coverage of the Agreement, in  terms of trade and tariff lines, following the first 
review in October 2007.   
17. The EC also had follow-up questions on its written questions 7-9 on export duties.  The 
Parties had not replied to question 9, and theref ore, she asked again whether the Parties could 
elaborate on current and any future export duti es on trade between the Parties and on how they 
intended to ensure compliance with the obligatio n set out in Article XXIV of the GATT 1994 to 
eliminate duties and restrictive regulations of co mmerce on substantially all the trade between the 
Parties.  She reminded the Parties of their obligatio n, as set out in Article XXIV of the GATT 1994, to 
include export duties in their liberalization comm itments.  Lastly, on a follow-up question to its 
written question 38 on banking services, she asked India to clarify if the so-called "global quota" on 
new foreign bank branches in India constituted the q uota on new foreign bank branches that had been 
bound by India under the GATS.  If it did, she asked India to clarify how this was compatible with its obligations under Article V of the GATS. 
18. The representative of the United States
 supported the EC's question on banking services, and 
would submit a question in writing to the Parties. 
19. With regard to the questions and replies circul ated before the meeting, the representative of 
the United States  raised three follow-up questions.  Firs tly, as a follow up to question 30, she 
requested India to provide a list of the 404 tariff li nes to be eliminated and the 135 tariff lines to be 
reduced as well as the timetable for the elimination of the 404 tariffs.  Secondly, she asked whether 
the branch licences that India had committed to pr ovide to the designated Singapore banks would be 
over and above the quota inscribed in India's GATS schedule or whether they would reduce that quota WT/REG228/M/1 
Page 6 
 
 
  to third parties.  She believed, the responses of th e Parties to question 38 appeared to contradict one 
another.  India's response, wh ich her delegation presumed was authoritative, suggested that the 
licenses granted to Singapore would be subtracted from its global quota.  Thirdly, if these branch licenses were to come out of India's global quota on new foreign bank branches, she wondered how 
the commitment in the Agreement complied with th e obligation in Article V.4 of the GATS not to 
raise the overall level of barriers to trade within the sector for other Members. 
20. The representative of Canada
 supported other Members' concerns on India's liberalization 
commitments in line with the discussion on "substa ntially all the trade", and asked India why 76.4% 
of tariff lines remained dutiable under the Agreement. 
21. On behalf of both Parties, the representative of Singapore  said that in his delegation's view, 
the Agreement was comprehensive as its name suggest ed, and was WTO consistent and WTO plus.  It 
built on the Parties' existing WTO commitments.  The Agreement was dynamic: the review 
mechanism as illustrated in the first review of Oc tober 2007 had provided the platform for the Parties 
to continually liberalize and integrate their markets.   In fact, since the conclusion of the Agreement, 
bilateral trade had increased by more than 30% per annum, and the Parties were confident that this 
would increase even further over the next years.   Regarding the EC's question on the ultimate 
objective of the Agreement, he drew Members' atte ntion to the preamble of the Agreement where the 
objectives had been elaborated. 
22. The representative of India  noted the concerns raised by some Members, in particular on the 
coverage of the liberalization commitments under the Agreement.  As there was a lack of unanimity 
on the meaning of "substantially all the trade", he believed that some of the comments were 
judgemental and prescriptive.  In his delegation' s view, the Agreement met the requirements of 
Article XXIV of GATT 1994 including that of "substa ntially all the trade".  While the Agreement had 
commenced with a coverage of 75% of trade value, in a very short timeframe, the Parties had used the 
review mechanism and further liberalized leading to  the current tariff elimination on nearly 81% of 
trade value.  He believed, this constituted "substantially all the trad e".  While the Parties were aware 
that the Committee was discussing only the tariff el imination aspects, a number of tariff lines and 
trade values had been subject to substantial tariff reduction, which in India's case, given that some 
lines had been subject to high tariffs, had provide d a margin of preference which had enhanced 
opportunities for trade.  After the entry into force of the Agreement there had been robust growth in 
trade and he believed that, the leve ls of ambition had been sufficiently met, and the Parties saw great 
trade opportunities.  His delegation agreed with Singapore that the Agreement was dynamic and did 
not feel that it was stuck at a certain level of liber alization at a certain point of time.  India believed 
that the Parties would achieve many more goals  and objectives than only tariff elimination on a 
certain number of lines thr ough this joint mechanism. 
23. On the second major concern raised by some Members on the commitments on banking, he 
noted that India had committed to opening 12 bank  branches per year under the GATS.  Under the 
Agreement, India had committed to providing 15 br anch licences to three Singapore banks over four 
years.  The question as to whether the commitment  to Singapore would come out of India's overall 
GATS commitment, he thought, was primarily academic  because even before India had signed the 
Agreement, it had been exceeding its bank licence co mmitments by an average of 50% every year,  
that was up to five to six additional branches ev ery year since 2001.  Notwithstanding this, he 
confirmed that the branch licences for Singapore would come out of India's global quota.  This meant, 
hypothetically, that if India were to suddenly refu se to grant more than 12 licences per year which was 
totally different from its track record, the availa bility of licences for countries other than Singapore 
would stand modified.  However, India did not view  this as a violation of Article V.4 of GATS since 
no new barriers were being created to trade in services with non parties.  Moreover, he reminded 
Members that both Parties were developing coun tries and Article V.3.(a) of the GATS clearly 
provided flexibility to them to ta ke market access and national treat ment commitments in accordance  WT/REG228/M/1 
 Page 7 
 
 
  with their levels of development,  both overall and in individual sectors and sub-sectors.  On the issue 
of a 'quota within quota', for branch licences, he poi nted out that there was no explicit requirement to 
provide exclusive quotas under FTAs.  In particular , in the US-Singapore and US-Chile FTAs, a quota 
of 5,400 and 1,400 H1B1 visas, respectively, had been granted.  These quotas had come out of the 
overall global quota of 65,000 H1B1 visas committed by the US under the GATS.  These examples 
illustrated that any FTA was agreed upon with the express purpose of providing preferential treatment 
to the contracting parties.  Obviously, the same bene fits were not extended to non parties but this did 
not mean that new trade barriers had been created.   Indeed there was some trade diversion, but 
arguably in his delegation's view, ther e was much greater trade creation. 
24. On the question regarding the timelines for th e new list of products which benefited from 
tariff concessions notified by the Parties on 15 Janua ry 2008, he said details of these were available 
on India's website.  Duties on 307 lines would be eliminated by 1 December 2011, and on 97 lines by 
1 December 2015.  Lastly, in relation to export duti es and charges, India had already provided details 
of these.  Its export duties were GATT compa tible and Singapore had not suffered any adverse 
consequences because there was no trade in  these particular lines with Singapore. 
25. The representative of Australia  said that the question of "substantially all the trade" should be 
looked at closely, as Article XXIV of the GATT calle d for "elimination of duties on substantially all 
the trade".  Considering this and noting the Indi an delegation’s comments on tariff reduction, his 
delegation noted that a reduction in tariffs was not an  elimination of duties, and clearly did not count 
towards the test of Article XXIV of the GATT.  Australia conceded that one might look at the 
"substantially all the trade" test over two time periods – at the entry into force and at a later period of 
time.  While one might disagree on how long after the entry into force one could analyze further 
liberalization, it was elimination of duties that ma ttered not best endeavours or creating a platform 
that the Parties might liberalize under.  He reitera ted his delegation's concern over the level of tariff 
liberalization under the Agreement and that in many respects the Agreement did not meet the test of 
"substantially all the trade". 
26. The representative of the EC  supported Australia’s view on the coverage of the Agreement.  
In response to Singapore's comment regarding the ulti mate objective contained in the preamble of the 
Agreement, she asked what the ultimate objective fo r tariff liberalization was since this was still not 
clear.  Her delegation had asked about the plan a nd schedule to determine whether the Agreement was 
going to stop at the current point – liberalizing 80% of trade.  To her delegation, it was still not clear 
where tariff elimination currently stood after the first review, and what kind of liberalization the 
Parties were aiming for under the review clauses. 
27. While the representative of the United States  did not agree with India's interpretation of the 
relevant GATT and GATS legal pr ovisions, her delegation appreciated the transparency of the 
proceeding.  She asked again for a list of the 404 ta riff lines to be eliminated, and the 135 tariff lines 
to be reduced under the revised Agreement.  She a ppreciated the website address, but would prefer the 
actual lists of the tariff lines. 
28. The representative of Chile  supported Australia's statement. 
29. The representative of India  said it was not the first time that the term "substantially all the 
trade" had been referred to in the CRTA.  Indi a believed the term had been used far too often 
necessitated that Members who used this term were  guided by its accepted interpretation rather than 
their subjective definitions.  It had been difficu lt to find consensus on the definition, even among 
Members who had used the term frequently.  As a case in point, Australia in its communication to the 
CRTA (WT/REG/W/22/Add.1, April 1998) had proposed  a figure of 95% to define "substantially all 
the trade".  This had been a commendable effort to bring precision, which India had supported.  
However, Australia itself had said on that occasion that this quantitative figure was "arbitrary" and WT/REG228/M/1 
Page 8 
 
 
  had been offered for "discussion purposes" in the CR TA meeting of February 1998.  There had been 
detailed but inconclusive discussions on the issue.  Even the US and Canada had differed with the 
Australian approach.  The ensuing discussions in th e CRTA and even the Dispute Settlement Body in 
the Turkey-Textile case, had so far not led Member s to an acceptable definition.  In the Turkey-
Textile case, the Appellate Body had noted that , neither the GATT Contracting Parties nor the 
WTO Members had ever reached an agreement on the in terpretation of the term 'substantially' in this 
provision.  It was clear though, that 'substantially al l the trade' has not the same as all the trade, and 
also that 'substantially all the trade' wa s something considerably more than some  of the trade".  He 
urged Members to keep this in mind while refe rring to the term "substantially all the trade. 
30. The representative of Singapore  responded to Australia by emphasizing that the Agreement 
was not about best endeavours but was dynamic and encapsulated the Parties’ commitment to 
liberalize trade over time. 
31. The representative of Brazil  fully appreciated the reasons why Members felt it important to 
place on record the fact that they did not agree wh ether an agreement met the "substantially all the 
trade" test, but as had been stressed by India, there had been an attempt in th e Doha negotiations to try 
and delve deeply into this issue.  India had recalle d that Australia had put its proposal on the table, 
and Members had applauded Australia's  determined effort to try and ge t things moving in this field.  
However, nothing had come from these efforts.  In his delegation’s view, it was important that when 
Members looked at the issue of defining "substantially all the trade", they took a historical 
perspective.  Article XXIV of the GATT had been  around since the inception of the GATT, and yet 
one of the Members who seemed to find difficult y with an agreement, which on one side had 
liberalized 75% of trade or 81% in the revised Agreement as India had said, was the same Member 
who had notified to the Committee in the past an agreement with a coverage of somewhere between 
6% and 7% of trade.  It was useful to remember  that the term "substantial" had been around since 
1947, and its interpretation had seemed to vary over time. 
32. Members should also keep in mind that the "subs tantially all the trade" requirement and the 
test many Members seemed to be demanding hid some important sectoral distortions.  A study 
prepared by the Secretariat in 2002 at the beginning of the Doha negotiations – document 
WT/REG/W/46 -which looked at the coverage of notif ied RTAs had said that the goal of free trade in 
industrial products appeared to be  the accepted norm, but the treatment of agricultural goods within 
RTAs was more complex.  A few RTAs had elimin ated all duties on agricultural goods, but in general 
agricultural trade, even on a preferential basis,  remained subject to exceptions, and average 
agricultural preferential tariffs remained high.  Th us, the test was not being met by the very same 
Members in agricultural trade in the RTAs they themselves had signed.  If Members were going to 
discuss the issue of "substantially all the trade", the appropriate forum for that was the Negotiating 
Group on Rules. 
33. The representative of the EC  reiterated her previous question as she did not feel that the 
Parties had provided an adequate response.  She understood that the Agreement was dynamic, but in 
her delegation’s view, the Committee had to consid er a current FTA, not an FTA under negotiation.  
The Committee knew well the history of Article XXIV  negotiations and Members’ efforts to better 
interpret "substantially all the trade".  The EC believed that, the CRTA was the place for Members to 
assess whether an RTA met Article XXIV requirement s or not.  While negotiations should take place 
in a different forum, it was for the CRTA to assess a nd to express Members’ opinions on whether or 
not an RTA met these requirements.  Again, she insisted on a clearer indication from the Parties on 
the status of tariff elimination, and the tariff liber alization objective the Parties were aiming for in the 
dynamic process. 
  WT/REG228/M/1 
 Page 9 
 
 
  34. The representative of the United States  recognized that among Members there were differing 
views on the precise content and methodological appro ach to Article XXIV requirements, but in her 
delegation's view, the Agreement did not pose such complexities given India's very low coverage of 
24% of tariff lines, and 75% of 2003-2005 trade.  Such an approach clearly ran against any ordinary 
meaning of "substantially all the trade" a nd the objectives and spirit of Article XXIV. 
35. The representative of the EC  expressed her delegation's disappointment that there had been no 
reaction from the Parties on her delegation's questi ons during the consideration.  She asked for a 
written response to her questions. 
36. The Chairman  noted that the consideration of the goods and services aspects of the 
Comprehensive Economic Coopera tion Agreement between India and Singapore had allowed the 
Committee to clarify a number of questions and or al discussion of the Agreement could be concluded 
in accordance with paragraph 11 of the Transparency  Mechanism.  If any delegations wished to ask 
follow-up questions they were invited to forwar d submissions in writing to the Secretariat by 
25 September 2008 and Parties were asked to submit replies in writing by no later than 
9 October  2008.  In accordance with paragraph 13 of the Transparency Mechanism all written 
submissions, as well as minutes of this meeting woul d be circulated promptly, in all WTO official 
languages, and would be made available on the WTO website. 
37. The Committee took note  of the comments made. 
__________