RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/TF/M/24 
25 June 2008 
 (08-3020) 
Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation   
  
 
 
SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard
 
from 26-30 May 2008  
 
Chairman:  H.E. Mr. Eduardo Ernesto Sperisen-Yurt (Guatemala) 
 
 
1. The Chairman  recalled that the proposed agenda fo r the meeting had been circulated in 
WTO/AIR/3187.  As indicated in the airgram, th e meeting sought to address a number of newly 
submitted proposals and to advance work in the areas of technical assistance and S&D.  In addition, 
Members would address the regular item of par ticipation by the Anne x D organizations.   
2. The agenda was adopted . 
3. The Chairman  shared his plans for the proceedings of  the negotiating week.  The structure of 
the session reflected its targeted objectives, focu ssing on (i) the new proposals received on various 
elements of the mandate, and (ii) the crucial issues of technical assistance and S&D.  About half of 
the time would be devoted to each domain, starting with the novel contributions submitted by the 
membership.  To facilitate their discussion, they ha d been grouped by the main area they related to, 
ranging from the three GATT Articles – in descendi ng order - to the customs cooperation side.  
Questions linked to TACB and S&D would be ta ken up as of Wednesday, with the following day 
equally being dedicated to this field.  Friday  would see Members address a few additional matters – 
such as the needs assessment area an d the work of the Annex D part ners – before concluding in 
plenary mode.  
4. Work on all elements of the agenda would take  place in a variety of formats to allow for a 
maximum of flexibility.  The mornings of the sessi ons would be conducted under his chairmanship in 
open-ended, informal mode.  He also intended to chair part of the afternoon discussions while equally 
leaving room for engagements amongst the membersh ip.  The afternoons of Tuesday, Wednesday and 
Thursday had been reserved to that end.   
5. The results of the inter-delegation activities w ould be fed back into the Chair-led process 
through reports by the Members involved, inform ing the Negotiating Group about progress made and 
yet to be achieved.  A report would also be provi ded from his side, offering a personal evaluation of 
this week.  
6. All of this would hopefully allow Members to have another constructive meeting that moved 
them an additional step ahead on their negotiating path.  He did not have to remind them of the 
amount of work still ahead and the limited time at their hands for its completion.  
7. The opening plenary was adjourned  and the informal working sessions commenced . TN/TF/M/24 
Page 2  
 
  A. N
EW AND REVISED PROPOSALS  
8. This part of the meeting was conducted in informal mode  with the exception of the following 
introduction of new submissions: 
9. The representative of Switzerland  introduced proposal TN/TF/W/155 on publication and 
availability of information on behalf of th e co-sponsors Hong Kong, China, Japan, Mongolia, 
Norway, Turkey and Switzerland .  
10. The introduction would be very brief for two r easons.  First, the proposal had just been 
circulated to Members and colleagues might need more  time to study it thoroughly.  It might therefore 
not seem judicious to go into the details of the te xt straight away.  Secondly, Members would have a 
chance to exchange views more extensively than the heavy schedule of the current  morning session 
would permit.  This would take place in the form of an informal discussion to be held on Thursday, 
from 3 to 4.30 p.m., with a view to providing a forum for an informal exchange and discussion on 
Article X proposals. 
11. The new text was closely based on the proposals on publication and availability of 
information that had been made in communica tions TN/TF/W/114/Rev.1 and TN/TF/W/132/Rev.1.  
The co-sponsors proposed for this new proposal to replace TN/TF/W/114/Rev.1 and 
TN/TF/W/132/Rev.1 in the next revision of the compilation document (TN/TF/W/43/Rev.15) and its 
subsequent revisions, except for the text on pr ior publication and consultation contained in 
TN/TF/W/132/Rev.1.   
12. In consolidating these two textual proposals into  the current submission, the co-sponsors had 
taken into account the previous discussions on the subjects in the Negotiating Group.  Working 
together in the format of a Focus Group, they were  happy to report that a close collaboration of the 
proponents had brought a bout good results, as the present text a nd the enlarged list of co-sponsors 
proved. 
13. Switzerland hoped that the proposal would take Members a step forward in the Focus Group's 
efforts to further consolidate and converge related textual proposals. 
14. The representative of Canada  introduced proposal TN/TF/W/153, noting that it had already 
been discussed informally.  Australia, Canada, Turkey , and the United States were pleased to be able 
to present a joint proposal on advance rulings.  Th e proposal set out the nature of the obligation 
sought, calling for Members to issue an advance ru ling and for them to establish and make public 
certain provisions related to such advance rulings.  Importantly, it was made clear that an applicant 
would receive a response when the Member was unable  to issue an advance ruling or declined to do 
so. 
15. The proposal also established that an advance ruling would be valid for a certain period of 
time after its issuance.  It set out that the Member  should publish the time for an advance ruling to be 
issued as well as the validity period and the inform ation that needed to be provided.  The proposal set 
out that a Member should provide for a review to allow applicants to better understand the decision or 
to provide further information.  It established th at a Member should endeavour to make available 
information on advance rulings of significant interest to traders. 
16. Finally, the proposal set out several key definitions.  The four proponents had worked 
together to reflect the views of the Membership  and were hopeful that the new proposal would be 
favourably received. 
  TN/TF/M/24 
 Page 3 
 
 
  17. The representative of Korea  introduced TN/TF/W/138/Rev.2 on behalf of Korea, Singapore  
and Thailand , explaining that it was the second revision of the original proposal on the issue of Single 
Window.  It had been submitted last March.  As  Members might recall, during the course of the 
negotiations, the Single Window propo sal had attracted great interest and encouraged many Members' 
continuous support. 
18. Korea had taken careful note of the various  comments and suggestions expressed by some 
Members on the previous version of the proposal.  The sponsors continued to believe that the Single 
Window would be one of the most efficient and effective tools for trade facilitation and should 
therefore be a key element in the Trade Facilitation Agreement. 
19. The sponsors had made efforts to reflect t hose comments as much as possible in order to 
increase the comfort for all Members.  In the revisi on, they particularly made good use of the Aide 
Memoire as contained in Job(08)/13 which had been helpful to track Members' specific comments on 
the proposal.  Korea wished to express special tha nks to the Secretariat for providing Members with 
this document. 
20. In terms of the main changes made in the second revision of the proposal, a simple way of 
characterizing them would be to say that they sou ght to consider Members' realistic difficulties in 
implementing the Single Window while trying to clearly define Members' commitments by adding more clarity to the function of the Single Window.   
21. The sponsors recognized that the Single Window was still under evolution with an increased 
participation of relevant agencies and of the technol ogical development.  With respect to the specific 
changes made, the explanations would focus on the fi rst, second and sixth bullet points of the textual 
proposal while then also briefly explaining the minor changes introduced in other paragraphs. 
22. Under the first bullet point, the sponsors ha d replaced the wording "provide for" with 
"maintain or establish" to clarify the meaning.  They had added a footnote illustrating the definition of the Single Window, quoted from the UN/CEFACT Recommendation.  However, the sponsors were still open to suggestions on how to address the defin ition of the Single Window in the WTO context.   
23. They had also expanded the scope of the Singl e Window to include transit as indicated in 
previous meetings.  In an effort to address conf identiality concerns expressed by some Members, the 
sponsors also complimented the second sentence to  ensure that the documentation and/or data 
requirements were distributed only to the relevant authorities or agencies.   
24. More importantly, the sponsors had added a new sentence to further specify a function of the 
Single Window which, in their view, helped to clearly define Members' commitments.  Some 
Members had repeatedly posed questions about the definition and the coverage of the Single Window 
with others pointing out the need to mo re distinctly define the commitments. 
25. In terms of how the Single Window operated, it received documents and/or data requirements 
form the applicants and distributed them to the rele vant authorities or agencies.  In the same way, the 
Single Window would receive the result relating to th e documents and/or data requirements back from 
the relevant authorities or agencies and would deliver them to the applicants.   
26. The applicants could also submit licensing  requests through the Single Window which 
sequentially distributed the documents and/or data  requirements to the relevant authorities and 
delivered the results issued by the authorities to the applicant at the e nd of the process.  However, this 
was only possible to the extent that the relevant  authorities were included in the participating 
authorities. TN/TF/M/24 
Page 4  
 
  27. Some delegations had sought clarification on whether the Single Window included broader 
cases such as licensing requests handled by the Agri culture Ministry.  That was indeed the case.  
28. Under the second bullet point, the sponsors ha d specified the exceptional cases allowing for 
additional requests for documentation and/or data requirements by other agencies under very limited 
circumstances.   
29. Under the sixth bullet point, the sponsors re placed the phrase "administrative capacity" by 
"implementation capacity" which could cover broa der national situations such as inadequate 
infrastructure, financial resources, ins titutional constraints and the like.    
30. Some Members had pointed out the necessity of fixing a minimum number of participating 
authorities or agencies while other Members had called  for a need to limit the scope of participating 
authorities and agencies.  Those comments had not b een reflected in the revision since the sponsors 
believed it was better to leave this decision to each Member, taking into account its own national 
situation.   
31. However, attention should be drawn to the third bullet point where the sponsors specified 
Members' obligations to notify other Members th e details of the operation of the Single Window, 
including the participating authorities and agencies.  That was an important element for the success of 
the Single Window since it ensured the transpar ency of each Member's Single Window system. 
32. The revision also contained some minor changes.  A second footnote had been added in 
consideration of some Members' calls for the no tification to be covered in the proposal on GATT 
Article X.  The reference to the WCO Revised  Kyoto Convention had been removed as some 
Members had pointed out that it did not regulate the operation of a Single Window. 
33. Lastly, the sponsors had moved the sentence on the overall S&D treatme nt from the chapeau 
to the end of the textual proposal.  Korea hope d that the given explanation helped Members 
understand the revised paper and gave more comfort to all.  The Korean delegation was interested in 
discussing the proposal with interested Members. 
34. The representative of Canada
 introduced proposal TN/TF/W/128/Rev.1, expressing 
appreciation for the support received for the propo sal as part of the trade facilitation negotiations.  
Canada was also pleased that Norway ha d decided to co-sponsor the document.  
35. Canada had heard comments from Members that th e previous version of the proposal was too 
prescriptive in detailing the manner in which cooperati on would take place.  Ottawa saw the proposal 
as having two parts. 
36. The first related to the border agencies within a Member which should cooperate.  As all of 
those agencies fell under the purview of a Member, this cooperation could be set out in stronger 
terms. 
37. Accordingly, the language had been strengthene d to read that the agencies "shall cooperate 
and coordinate".  The revision also no longer c ontained the prescriptive elements which Canada had 
understood to be problematic for a number of Members. 
38. The second part related to the cooperation be tween two bordering Members.  Given the 
geographic, physical and economic realities faced by  many Members, the nature of that commitment 
had to reflect some of those challenges.  TN/TF/M/24 
 Page 5 
 
 
  39. Canada had heard general support for prescribing the alignment of working hours and days as 
a concrete measure that could bring tangible benefits to traders.  In this way, that element had been 
modified.  But the element on common customs facilities had been removed.  
40. The representative of Turkey  presented  proposal TN/TF/W/146/Rev.1 by Turkey, Georgia  
and Paraguay  on freedom of transit.  The discussions on freedom of transit in the Negotiating Group 
and the older version of the current proposal had b een taken into account in the preparation of the 
revised text.  
41. Turkey was concerned about restrictions in tr ansit traffic that occurred on various occasions.  
These restrictions caused significant economic lo sses both on the producer and consumer side.  
Turkey believed that a real clarification and improve ment of the freedom of transit principle could not 
occur without reaching effective solutions that woul d discipline the restrictions on transit and ensure 
transparency. 
42. Within that context, the proposal had been prepared to be a basis for a reasonable and 
balanced solution to the problem.  In line with th e spirit of GATT Article V, such a solution should 
aim at achieving freedom of transit in a way that  saw freedom of transit as the principle with 
restrictions only being a llowed in exceptional cases. 
43. That was by no means a new approach but merely a clarification and reflection of the existing 
legal situation for the special case of freedom of  transit.  Since there were no explicit exceptions 
stated in GATT Article V, the only legitimate exce ptions to freedom of transit might result from 
GATT Articles XX and XXI in extremely rare cases. 
44. There was extensive jurisprudence by both th e dispute settlement body and appellate body on 
how a trade restrictive measure could be applied to  fulfil a legitimate policy objective that could be 
considered to fall under the scope of GATT Article XX.   The restrictive measure should pass a certain 
necessity test to be considered to  legitimately fall within the scope of Article XX.  In addition to 
contributing to one of the legitimate objectives set out in Article XX  and to complying with all the 
clauses of the Article, the measure should be the least  trade restrictive for achieving the declared aim. 
In other words, a trade restrictive measure could not be considered  necessary if there were GATT 
consistent or less inconsistent ways of achieving th e same policy objective.  This was the main logic 
applied by the Appellate Body on the question of how a trade restrictive measure could be justified as 
constituting a legitimate exception set out in Artic le XX.  For Turkey, there were no reasons to 
believe that GATT Article V lays outside that scope.  
45. The revised proposal aimed at nothing more than to ensure that the same logic was applied to 
freedom of transit.  Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the pr oposal tried to ensure a progressive check that the 
measure restricting transit was the least trade rest rictive way of achieving the declared objective by 
the restricting Member. 
46. Taking into account a sense of the freedom of transit principle and the uniquely strong 
wording attached to trade in the GATT text, such a procedure was stri ctly necessary to ensure that the 
freedom of transit principle was not arbitrarily violated.  The current proposal also aimed at 
associating elements of transparency with ensuring freedom of transit.   
47. Finally, the proposal tried to ensure that fees and charges for transit were commensurate with 
the cost of service rendered and that they were applied in a non-discriminatory and transparent 
manner.  
48. The representative of Canada  introduced proposal TN/TF/W/154.  While Canada appreciated 
the revised proposal on Customs Cooperation by India, South Africa and Sri Lanka it believed that, TN/TF/M/24 
Page 6  
 
  despite the revisions that had been made, previ ous comments made by Canada and other Members 
were still not adequately reflected.  Judging from Members' comments as expressed in the February 
meetings, it appeared that a chief concern focused on confidentiality issues.  It certainly was Canada's 
main concern.   
49. As previously stated, Canada felt that any su ch proposal must ensure that all exchanged 
information would be treated with the same leve l of protection required under the laws of the 
requested Member.  That was necessary as traders provided this information to customs with the 
understanding of the protection afforded by domestic  laws.  To betray that understanding, including 
through third party disclosure, jeopardized the trus t between traders and customs administrations, and 
could result in traders not fully disclosing informa tion essential to efficient customs processes out of 
the fear that this business information would not be properly safeguarded.  Such action would cause 
the exact opposite result to the objective of these ne gotiations.  It would impede effective customs 
processing, and therefore not be trade facilitative. 
50. Based principally on these concerns, and using the language from the WTO Ministerial 
Decision 8.3, which addressed situations where ther e was reason to doubt the truth or accuracy of a 
declaration, and building upon elements of the cu rrent Indian proposal, Canada had put forward a 
proposal on Customs Cooperation, TN/TF/W/154.   
51. The intention when drafting this proposal had been to support the key objectives of those 
Members who had stressed the importance of this type of proposal, while incorporating the protections which were equally fundamental.   
52. It should be noted that W/154 sought to incorporate and complement some of the key 
concepts which had been put forward on customs cooperation by the World Customs Organization.  
As noted on its website, the WCO was the "only in tergovernmental organization exclusively focused 
on Customs matters, and… was recognized as the voice of the global Customs community."   
53. On the topic of customs cooperation, the WCO had put forward the Johannesburg 
Convention.  Although the Johann esburg Convention had a limited number of signatories for different 
reasons and Canada found many of its provisions problematic, it shoul d be noted that it included an 
article on Exemptions and Reservations  that allowed Members to use discretion, based upon 
legitimate concerns, when responding to requests for information.  This provision, which was 
noticeably absent from proposal TN/TF/W/123,  as Ca nada had noted during previous meetings, was 
important to WCO members and was included in TN/TF/W/154. 
54. In addition, the WCO Johannesburg Convention li mited the scope, in Article 2, paragraph 2, 
to ensure that any activity carried out was done in accordance with the legal and administrative 
provisions and within the competence and resour ce limitations of the customs administration.  
Building on this concept, TN/TF/W/154 contained language which set out that the sharing of any 
information needed to be done on mutually agreed terms.  
55. W/154 also limited the scope of the informati on to valuation information.  This was done 
based upon the comments of Members, who had stated  that they wanted to address situations where 
there was a reason to doubt information received in support of the valuation of goods.  Since this was 
the situation that Members were seeking to address, this proposal focused on valuation. 
56. In addition, W/154 provided Members the ability to decline a request when they were not 
convinced that the request was justified or that  the confidentiality of the information would be 
maintained.  Furthermore, it required a requested Member's express consent for disclosure, including 
in judicial or administrative proceedings.  TN/TF/M/24 
 Page 7 
 
 
  57. Finally, if the exchanged information was improperly disclosed, W/154 permitted the 
preclusion of further information sharing with that Member. 
58. This provision sought to make certain that the obligation for adequate protection of 
information was undertaken by the requesting memb er.  Moreover, it underlined the belief that 
effective customs proces sing was built upon trust between the trad ers and customs administrations.  
Once information was improperly disclosed, that tr ust was broken and the customs administration had 
to undertake all steps necessary to rebuild that tr ust. Canada believed that precluding any further 
requirement to share information, once information was improperly disclosed, was a necessary step to 
rebuilding that trust. 
59. In addition, W/154 included a provision to ban Members from implementing a requirement 
that importers provide customs authorities with copies of export declarations, in order for goods to be 
imported.  As previously noted, this practice that  had been encountered by Canada was a misuse of 
export declarations and an unnecessary barrier to trade. 
60. It was hoped that W/154 would effectively balance the desires of some Me mbers for this type 
of customs cooperation against the legitimate ne eds of business to protect their confidential 
information.  It sought to ensure that a WTO cu stoms cooperation proposal was consistent with, and 
complementary to, that put forward at the WCO.   
61. Finally, W/154 was based upon the premise that it was in the best interest of customs 
administrations to share information to combat cu stoms offences, so when appropriate, they would do 
so.  Given the recent significant increase in bilateral customs cooperation arrangements, many 
customs administrations obviously agreed.  Howeve r, this proposal allowed customs administrations 
discretion in such cooperation, mindful that the exchange of information for enforcement purposes 
must be balanced by adequate protection of confidentiality.  
62. Canada would be happy to meet with interest ed Members to discuss its proposal and these 
comments in more detail. 
63. Explicit requests for inclusion in the minutes of the meeting were also made with respect to 
the following interventions: 
64. The representative of Honduras  wished to express that Honduras considered the technical 
assistance provided to different countries by various WTO Members to be of the outmost importance. The same opinion was sustained with respect to  Trade Facilitation which was a topic where the 
private sector gained as much as the public one, saving time and resources.  
65. The negotiating mandate clearly stated that assist ance would be provided before and after the 
negotiation.  In the case of Honduras, technical assistance had been received to conduct the self-
assessment exercise.  Honduras had also participated in various seminars both in the capital and in 
other countries where the potential benefits of Trad e Facilitation had been discussed, an exchange had 
taken place between the technical experts in the capita l and the delegates in Geneva.  The responsible 
directors, customs and trade experts had been made  aware of what was going on in the negotiations, 
the topics discussed and the preparation required for th e possible entry into force of the agreement.  
All of that were benefits that derived from the provision of technical assistance.  
66. Among the organizations that had provided and c ontinued to provide technical assistance was 
AITIC, the Agency for Internati onal Trade Information and Coopera tion.  Many developed Members 
collaborated with that agency and therefore contribut ed to the application of the mandate to provide  
technical assistance prior to the negotiations.  Honduras urged all those Members to continue 
supporting this agency for it to continue assisting the small economies and the LDCs.  TN/TF/M/24 
Page 8  
 
  67. The representative of Kuwait
, speaking also on behalf of Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab  
Emirates , wished to inform the Negotiating Group that  the respective governments of those countries 
had concerns about the joint proposal submitted by th e delegations of Uganda and the United States 
regarding the prohibition of consular transactions, including related fees and charges (TN/TF/W/104).  
The mentioned proposal was still under review by th e governments of Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the 
United Arab Emirates.  Bilateral consultations had been conducted in  that regard with the proponents 
during the last meeting of the NGTF and contact with  them would continue in order to find common 
ground on this issue. 
68. The representative of Egypt  said that Egypt opposed the proposal referred to by the Kuwaiti 
delegation (TN/TF/W/104).  Egypt was against the can cellation of consular transactions and consular 
fees. 
69. The representative of Uganda  said that, as an LDC, Uganda felt that the removal of consular 
fees and charges would greatly facilitate trade.  It  would make it possible to have free trade amongst 
WTO Member states.  Uganda would make a formal statement on this issue at the July meeting. 
70. The representative of the Unites States  appreciated that some countries relied on 
consularization fees for revenue.  This had been th e case for several of them over the years, in the 
GATT and the WTO, with some of them eliminatin g them and a few others imposing them.  Uganda 
and the United States had done some research on th e matter and found that this had been on the 
agenda of the GATT since its inception, since 19 48 and 1952.  The US would try to make that 
information available before the next meeti ng for the consideration of the membership. 
71. The representative of Egypt  wished to follow-up on what been mentioned by the US 
delegation about them appreciating that some countri es relied on consular fees for revenue.  Egypt's 
opposition had nothing to do with revenue issues.  It stemmed from the simple fact that the 
US/Ugandan proposal went beyond the mandate of cl arifying and improving GATT Articles V, VIII  
and X.   
72. The proposal clearly changed Article VIII which cl early indicated the right of any country to 
collect consular fees.  It only requested a limitation of those fees.  Egypt was more than open to talk 
about how those fees could be limited, how concerns  could be addressed and to discuss whether fees 
might be high in certain cases.  It was open to discu ss certain criteria on how to collect those fees, the 
timing for processing consular transactions etc.  But Egypt did not accept changing GATT Article VIII as that went beyond the mandate.  
73. The representative of Kuwait
 wished to clarify that the f ees were not collected for revenue 
purposes. Kuwait supported the statement made by Egypt. 
74. The Negotiating Group took note  of the statements made. 
75. The plenary was adjourned .  
76. Upon resumption  of the plenary meeting, the discussions continued in informal mode with the 
exception of the following items:  TN/TF/M/24 
 Page 9 
 
 
  B.  A D HOC ATTENDANCE OF RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS , INCLUDING THE 
IMF,  OECD,  UNCTAD,  WCO  AND THE WORLD BANK, AT THE NEXT MEETING OF THE 
NEGOTIATING GROUP  
77. The Chairman  suggested inviting relevant internati onal organizations, including the IMF, 
OECD, UNCTAD, WCO and the World Bank to attend the next formal meeting of the Negotiating 
Group on an ad hoc basis, as provided for in the Work Plan. 
78. It was so agreed . 
C. O THER BUSINESS  
79. The Chairman  addressed the issue of the Group's next meeting, suggesting to hold it from 14- 
18 July.  Details would be communicated at a later stage. 
80. It was so agreed .  
81. The meeting was adjourned . 
__________