. /.  RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  S/C/W/331 
18 February 2011 
 (11-0846) 
Council for Trade in Services  Original:   English 
  
 
COMMUNICATION FROM HONG KONG, CHINA 
 
Review of Article II (MFN) Exemptions
 
 
Further Questions from Hong Kong, China 
 
  The following communication, dated 9 Febr uary 2011 from the delegation of Hong Kong, 
China is being circulated to the Member s of the Council for Trade in Services. 
 
_______________ 
 
1. Further to the joint communication from Hong Kong, China and Japan of 26 October 2010 
(S/C/W/322), Hong Kong, China set out in this communication the specific questions for the remaining sectors. In this regard, both the gene ral questions and specific questions on horizontal 
exemptions, as set out in the joint communication1, remain applicable.  
I. SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ON SECTORAL EXEMPTIONS 
2. Hong Kong, China would invite the Members concerned of the following sectoral MFN 
exemptions to respond to the following specific qu estions (page number refers to JOB/SERV/29): 
(a) Financial Services 
Q1 Austria (page 72) : Please provide a list of countries to which this exemption is applied.  
Q2 The US (page 85, 2
nd entry): With respect to agency or ag ency and representative office 
licences, it is mentioned that a condition for certain  states is that the foreign bank is one of the 
five largest banks in the home country. Could the US advise us on what basis the size of the foreign bank is measured- total capital or assets or otherwise? Given that the size of the respective top five banks vary much from countri es to countries, what is the policy intention 
of the measure? Does it operate as a de facto quota (eg a maximum of five banks for each 
country)? Or is it related to reciprocity?  
(b) Transport Services 
(i) Maritime Transport Services 
Q3 Brazil (page 90) : At the meeting of the Council Review of MFN Exemptions of 5 July 2000, 
Brazil pointed out that "Brazilian companies had a small participation of about five per cent 
in ocean cargo shipping with its own vessels a nd the MFN exemption was intended to help 
revert the situation"
2.  Could Brazil provide an up-to-date figure on Brazil’s participation, and 
                                                      
1 See paragraphs 4 to 5 of S/C/W/322 of 26 October 2010. 
2 Paragraph 66 of S/C/M/45 of 18 August 2000. S/C/W/331 
Page 2  
 
  in the light of this new figure, explain whet her the condition that created the need for the 
exemptions still prevails? 
Q4 EU (page 94): Is there any relevant measure implem ented under this exemption?  Why the 
exemption is particularly required for Germany? 
Q5 India (page 96, 2nd entry): India has indicated in the last review that they were reviewing 
this exemption.  We would like to know the details and the result of the review. 
Q6 Philippines (page 98, 2nd entry): Would the Philippines please provide information on the 
existing bilateral agreements c overed by this exemption, the countries to which these bilateral 
agreements apply, and the expiry date of  each of these agreements?  We would also 
appreciate it if the Philippines could elaborate on the meaning of "limited access" in the 
second column. 
Q7 Singapore (page 99) : It is noted that Singapore will periodically review this exemption in the 
light of international developments.  Would Singapore please provide information about the 
latest review and its results?  We would also lik e to know if there are more bilateral shipping 
agreements signed since the last review. And, if so, what are they? 
Q8 Thailand (page 100, 1
st entry) : In the last review, Thailand indicated that "in practice all 
WTO Members had enjoyed a zero VAT rate on the selling and marketing of maritime services since 1998" but "Thailand had not modified the relevant laws".  We would like to 
know if the relevant law has now been modified.  If not, is there any plan for modification? 
(ii) Internal Waterways Transport 
Q9 EU (page 105, 1
st entry) :  The EC Indicated at the meeting of the Council Review of MFN 
Exemptions of 5 July 2000 that the exemp tions needed to be maintained because the 
conditions creating the need prevailed until the overall harmonization of the European 
waterway-transport market was completed3.  We would appreciate it if the EU could let us 
know its plan and progress for the harmonization. 
 (iii) Rail Transport Services 
Q10 Bulgaria (page 117), Czech Republic (page  117), and Slovak Republic (page 117):  With 
the harmonization in the transportation system in  the EU and noting that the three countries 
are now EU member states, please explain whether the exemption is still necessary. 
(iv) Road Transport Services 
Q11 Thailand (page 131) : Thailand indicated at the meeting of the Council Review of MFN 
Exemptions of 5 July 2000 that it would review the exemption during the course of the 
current round of negotiations
4.  Would Thailand advise whether such a review has been 
conducted, and if so, the outcome of the review? 
  
__________  
                                                     
 
3 Paragraph 59 of S/C/M/45 of 18 August 2000. 
4 Paragraph 110 of S/C/M/45 of 18 August 2000.