. /.   WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/MA/W/116 
27 May 2009 
 (09-2553) 
Negotiating Group on Market Access Original:   English 
  
 
MARKET ACCESS FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS  
 
Answers by the Co-sponsors to Questions  from Singapore on the “Understanding on 
 
the Interpretation of the Agreement on Tec hnical Barriers to Trade with respect  
to the Labelling of Textiles, Clot hing, Footwear, and Travel Goods”  
 
Communication from the European Communities, M auritius, Sri Lanka, and the United States 
 
  The following communication, dated 26 May 2009, is being circulated at the request of the 
co-sponsors. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
UNDERSTANDING ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE AGREEMENT ON 
TECHNICAL BARRIERS TO TRADE WITH RESPECT TO THE LABELLING OF 
TEXTILES, CLOTHING, FOOTWEAR, AND TRAVEL GOODS
1 
 
1. SINGAPORE : Paragraph 2 - Article 2.5 of the TBT Agreement states “… Whenever a 
technical regulation is prepared, adopted or  applied for one of the legitimate objectives 
explicitly mentioned in paragraph 2, and is in accordance with rel evant international 
standards, it shall be rebuttably presumed not to create an unnecessary obstacle to 
international trade .”  The term “ rebuttably presumed ” only features in the TBT Agreement 
once and have certain conditions attached to it.   Will the co-sponsors please state clearly the 
legitimate objective of each of the information listed in sub-paragra phs of paragraph 2? 
 
 ANSWER:   Our proposal does not attempt to identify the legitimate objective of a 
requirement to include certain information on a label – for example the information listed in 
paragraph 2 – and wonder whether such an objectiv e is something that can be identified in the 
abstract.  Instead, it would seem that each Member must determine for itself what its 
legitimate objective is and, if it adopts a meas ure to fulfil that legitimate objective, the TBT 
Agreement requires that that measure be no more  trade-restrictive than necessary to meet that 
legitimate objective.   Paragraph 2 of our proposal simply provides that requiring the specified information on a label shall be presumed not to be  more trade restrictive than necessary.  That 
presumption can be rebutted, however, by showi ng for example that the requirement is more 
trade restrictive than necessary to meet the legitimate objective the Member imposing the 
measure seeks to fulfil.  
 
2. SINGAPORE : Arguably, paragraph 2 appears to require the WTO to undertake 
standardizing work, an area which the WTO is not responsible for and unfamiliar with.  In the 
event that there are new international standards with regards to labelling of textiles, clothing, 
                                                     
 
1 Submitted by the European Communities, Sri Lanka, Mauritius and the United States (documents 
TN/MA/W/93 and TN/MA/W/93/Add.2). TN/MA/W/116 
Page 2  
 
  footwear or travel goods in the future, how  would this new Understanding take these 
standards into account? 
 
ANSWER: Paragraph 2 does not require the WTO to  undertake standardizing work nor does 
paragraph 2 create or contain standards.  The co-sponsors circulated a document, 
TN/MA/W/113, on 22 May 2009, that addresses this question.  
 3. SINGAPORE : Paragraphs 2 and 4 – How would the co-sponsors consider the interplay of 
the last sentence of paragraph 2 i.e. “ A Member may only require additional information on a 
label when it is not inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement ” and paragraph 4 
which stipulates how “ a technical regulation of a Member … shall be rebuttably presumed to 
be more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective within the meaning of 
Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement ” and can the co-sponsors please use examples to elaborate 
on this? 
 
ANSWER:  The co-sponsors circulated a document, TN/MA/W/113, on 22 May 2009, that 
addresses this question. 
 4. SINGAPORE : Paragraph 5.1 – Could the co-sponsors please elaborate on how they see “ in 
such a manner ” in the context described in this sub-paragraph? 
 
U.S. ANSWER:  This phrase is borrowed from Articles 2.9.1 and 5.6.1 of the TBT 
Agreement.  By including “in such a manner”, the co-sponsors are not precluding any publishing method that would “enable interest ed persons in other Members to become 
acquainted with” a proposed technical regul ation “and to submit comments before the 
Member finalizes the technical regulation or conformity assessment procedure.”   
 
5. SINGAPORE : Paragraphs 5.4 and 6.3 – pa ragraphs 2.9.4, 5.6.4, 2. 10.3, and 5.7.3 of the TBT 
Agreement require the Member to allow “ other Members to presen t their comments in 
writing, discuss these comments upon request, and take these written comments and the 
results of these discussions into account. ”  Paragraphs 5.4 and 6. 3 of this Understanding 
would now require the Member to “ discuss these comments upon request with the Member or 
interested person  providing them ” [emphasis in bold added ]. What interested person(s) do 
the co-sponsors have in mind?   
 
ANSWER:  The co-sponsors circulated a document, TN/MA/W/113, on 22 May 2009, that 
addresses this question. 
 
6. SINGAPORE : Would this result in numerous individuals insisting that the Member enter 
into separate discussions with them?   
 
ANSWER:  A Member would have discretion on how it wants to respond to comments from 
interested persons, either on an individual or collective basis.  
 
7. SINGAPORE : Can this interested person be from a non-WTO Member?   
  
ANSWER:  The co-sponsors circulated a document, TN/MA/W/113, on 22 May 2009, that 
addresses this question. 
 
 
__________