WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/C/W/520 
3 June 2005 
 (05-2288) 
Council for Trade in Goods Original:   English 
  
 
UNITED STATES -  REQUESTS FOR WAIVERS FOR THE  
CARIBBEAN BASIN ECONOMIC AND RECOVERY ACT (CBERA, AS AMENDED), THE  
AFRICAN GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY ACT (AGOA), AND THE 
ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCE ACT (ATPA, AS AMENDED) 
 
Follow-up comments and questions from Pakistan
 
   The following communication, dated 2 June 2005, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of Pakistan. 
 
_______________ 
 
 We would like to thank the Chairman for convening this informal meeting and thank the 
United States for its replies and comments cont ained in document G/C/W/ 518 dated 13 May 2005.  
We would also like to commend the United States on its willingness to shed light on the many issues 
that are inevitably involved in the consideration of  its requests for waivers from its WTO obligations.  
We would also like to take this opportunity to assure all Members, in particular our developing 
country partners, of our conti nued support to the common goal of  improved market access conditions 
for developing countries, especially the least-developing among them.  
 We have transmitted the answers received fro m the US to our capital and we have been 
informed by our authorities that they will be seek ing further clarification and information from the 
United States in this matter.  Nevertheless, on a preliminary basis, given the detailed and complex 
nature of the waiver requests, we are constrained to ask some follow-up questions.  We hope that the 
Members would bear with us, given in particular th e need to ensure real tangible benefits for the 
beneficiary countries as well as the integrity of the multilateral rules and disciplines. 
 
 Turning now to some preliminary follow-up comments and questions: 
 
1. With respect to delay in the submission of these wa iver requests, i.e. four years in the case of  
CBERA and three years in the case of AGOA and ATPA, th e US merely states that it "felt" to be best 
to wait until all changes had come in. 
 In any event, could the US please recall that paragraph 3 of the decision on renewal of the 
CBI waiver granted in 1995 (WT/L/104) provided th at "the United States shall promptly notify the 
General Council of any…modification being considered  in the list of eligible products and duty-free 
treatment thereof …", and clarify reasons why it co uld not notify the General Council promptly of the 
modification being considered in duty-free trea tment of apparel products imported from CBERA 
beneficiary countries when these modifications were  being considered?  Especially, when it was 
required to do so per its obligation contained in the said waiver.   2. In response to Pakistan's question No. 3, the US stated "That waivers are being sought does 
not in it self mean that any WTO Member has b een denied benefits to which it is entitled". 
 G/C/W/520 
Page 2  
 
  Could the United States please clarify that if th e US believes that it has been in compliance 
with its obligations in these cases, then why does it now feel the need to secure waivers from its 
obligations? 
 
 If on the other hand, the answer is in the negative, then could it state whether it will provide 
compensation for impairment of bene fits to non-beneficiary Members? 
 
3. In reply to Pakistan's question No. 4, the United States has stated that: 
  "Apparel assembled in beneficiary countries with fabric formed in the United States, but using 
yarn imported into the United States, is not eligible  for duty-free treatment";  and that "Other than 
fabrics designated under the commercial availability provisions of the CBERA and ATPA, preferential treatment is not available to appa rel articles made from third-country fabrics". 
 
 That being the cases, the relevant provisions of a ll three legislations appear to be contrary to 
the United States obligation to provide equal conditi ons of competition to imported yarn and fabric.  
In this connection, we recall that Article 3.4 of  GATT states that the imported products "be accorded 
treatment no less favourable than that accorded to like products of national origin in respect of all 
laws, regulations and requirements affecting thei r internal sale, offering for sale, purchase, 
transportation, distribution or use". 
 
How does the United States intend to justify this deviation from its GATT commitments? 
 
4. In Pakistan's question No. 5, it was pointed out that according to data available on US 
Government websites, US exports of yarns and fabr ics to CBI countries relative to its export to the 
world had increased 1718.2 per cent and 814.4 per cent r espectively.  And it was inquired whether, in 
light of the data, the US could please comment if the underlying objective of the legislation was to 
provide export advantage to US yarn and fabric makers?   In reply, the United States has merely stated th at "with respect to the impact on US industry, 
in fact, these programmes increased the pace of adjust ment in the US industry just as it was facing the 
end of ATC quotas". 
 
 We request the US to please clarify as to which portion of existing CBI waiver decision was meant to facilitate the ad justment of US industry? 
 
5. Under AGOA, the United States has establishe d a criterion of per capita gross national 
product of up to $1,500 for sub-Saharan African countries to be designated as lesser-developed and 
therefore eligible for duty free treatment of their ap parel exports, regardless of the source of fabric or 
yarn.  In addition, in some cases, exceptions have al so been made so that even certain countries with 
per capita GNP of more than $1,500 have been designated as lesser-developed for purposes of this 
benefit.  
 Would the US please clarify the basis for trea ting some countries with per capita GNP of 
$1,500 and over as lesser developed and therefore e ligible for duty free treatment, but not treating 
many other developing WTO Members and LDCs with much lower GNP per capita in the same 
manner? 
 
6. In Pakistan's question No. 7, the United States was requested to explain the reasons preventing 
it from achieving its policy objectives by measures consistent with its GATT obligations.  The US 
seems to have overlooked this question. 
 
 Could the US please explain why its objectives cannot be met by GATT-consistent measures?  G/C/W/520 
 Page 3 
 
 
  
7. In Pakistan's question No.8, it was noted that  the draft decisions submitted by the United 
States with the waiver requests were considerably di fferent in their language than the existing waiver 
decision in respect of the CBERA in WT/L/104 and the decision in respect of ATPA in WT/L/184 
that expired on 4 December 2001, and a request was made if the US could explain the proposed 
changes and the reasons for those changes? 
  Since the issues involved in these cases are many and complex, therefore to facilitate efficient 
consideration, may we ask if the Secretariat could draw up a comparison of the proposed draft 
decisions for CBERA and ATPA and the related pr ovisions of existing/previous decisions in 
WT/L/104 and WT/L/184? 
  We reiterate our understanding and support for the objective of providing improved market 
access conditions for developing economies exports, especi ally for the least developing among them.   
Therefore, we hope that the Council would want to  be sure that the objectives of these Waivers 
conform to this basic objective.   
  From the answers received so far and the docum entations made available to the Council, it 
appears to us that a central element of these progr ammes is designed to provide export advantage to 
US textile producers and protection to its textile  and clothing industries by discouraging the 
outsourcing of yarn and fabrics fro m competitive suppliers outside US. 
 
 We are confident that this process of clar ification will facilitate common understanding and 
appreciation among Members and enable the Council to consider the three Waiver requests on their 
individual merits with the overriding considerati on for providing improved market access conditions 
for developing economies while preserving the integrity of the rule based multilateral trading system. 
 
__________