. /.   WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/MA/W/113 
22 May 2009 
 (09-2493) 
Negotiating Group on Market Access Original:   English 
  
 
MARKET ACCESS FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS 
 
Answers by the co-sponsors to Questions from Kor ea on the “Understanding on the Interpretation of 
the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade with respect to the Labeling of Textiles, Clothing, 
Footwear, and Travel Goods”  
 
Communication from the European Communities, M auritius, Sri Lanka, and the United States 
 
  The following communication, dated 20 May 2009, is being circulated at the request of the 
co-sponsors of the proposed “Understanding on the Interpretation of the Agreement on Technical 
Barriers to Trade with respect to the Labeling of Textiles, Clothing, Footwear, and Travel Goods”  
 
_______________ 
 
 I. TEXTILES, APPAREL, FOOTWEAR AND TRAVEL GOODS LABELING 
1. KOREA:  Para. 2.1 – Among textiles, yarn and fa bric are subject to business to business 
transactions that are usually based on detailed specifications papers and no other information 
than the country of origin is necessary on the labe l.  In order to reflect this aspect, could the 
proponents consider adding another category w ithin this paragraph for yarn and fabric?  
 
ANSWER:   We believe  this question pertains to raw materials transferred from a supplier 
to another business for processing into a finished product.  Our understanding is that in such 
instances, labeling requirements are often non-applicable.  
 
The co-sponsors would happy to discuss this question further with the Republic of Korea in 
order to explore the issue in greater detail.   
 2. KOREA : Para. 3 – How do Members give “positiv e consideration” to non-permanent 
labels? Could the proponents provide specific examples in which “p ositive consideration” 
works? 
 
 ANSWER:    “Positive consideration” is a term u sed elsewhere in the TBT Agreement, in 
particular Article 2.7.  In the context of pa ragraph 3 of the proposal, a Member could give 
“positive consideration” by favourably consideri ng whether the required information could be 
included on a non-permanent (as opposed to a permanent) label. In undertaking such 
consideration, a Member might assess whether its legitimate objective – for example of 
informing consumers of fiber content or country of origin  – could be met if the information 
were included on a non-permanent label, or whet her that objective could only be met if the 
information were on a permanent label.    Re quiring information on a non-permanent label as 
opposed to a permanent label can be a less tr ade restrictive means to ensure required 
information is conveyed to consumers. TN/MA/W/113 
Page 2  
 
  3. KOREA : Para. 5.4 – Does the expression “make available to the public” include an 
option of providing the information on request rather than putting it on the open notice? 
  ANSWER:  Yes, however in order to make that meaningful, we would expect that the 
Member would need to have some mechanism to  make the public aware of the opportunity to 
request copies or access to the Member’s res ponse to comments. For example, the Member 
could publish a notice (in print or electronically) that the public may obtain copies of the Member’s responses to comments by contacting the Member at a certain address.  “Make available to the public” would also include maki ng documents available in a reading room at 
a government agency, for example.  The point is  that the public should have access to such 
information, whether in a publication, on governme nt websites, in libraries, or in some other 
accessible way.   
 
4. KOREA :  Para. 6 – Do the proponents have any reason for omitting “in the case of a 
permanent label, the reason for requiring info rmation…” in this para graph while paragraph 
5.2 contains this clause? 
 
 ANSWER :   The co-sponsors will examine this dr afting issue and thank the Republic of 
Korea for bringing it to our attention.   
  
__________