RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  S/C/W/253 
8 February 2005 
 (05-0516) 
Council for Trade in Services Original:   English 
 
 
COMMUNICATION FROM HONG KONG, CHINA 
 
Review of Articles II (MFN) Exemptions  
Questions from Hong Kong, China  
  
 
 The following communication, dated 28 Janua ry 2005, from the delegation of Hong Kong 
China is being circulated to the Members of the Council for Trade in Services.  
 
_______________ 
 
 1. For the purpose of the review of the MFN exemp tions by the Council for Trade in Services in 
accordance with the Annex on Article II Exemptions of the GATS, specifically for the purpose of 
examining whether the conditions which created the need for the exemptions still prevail, we would 
request the Members concerned to provide answers to the following questions in respect of their MFN 
exemptions. 
I. GENERAL QUESTIONS  
General Questions 
 2. For each of the MFN exemptions listed in  the Secretariat’s sectoral compilation 
(JOB(04)/114), we would appreciate if the Me mbers concerned would respond to the following 
questions put forward in the communication JOB(04)/ 131 of 22 September 2004 by the delegations of 
Chile; China; Hong Kong, China; Japan; Korea; Mexico and Chinese Taipei: 
Q1. Please confirm if the exemption has expired or  will terminate on reaching a period of 10 
years.  If not, please indicate when the exemption will terminate. 
 
Q2. Please indicate whether the exemption has been used for any actual measure since its 
introduction and if so provide information on the use. 
 Q3. For those exemptions still in force, plea se explain whether the conditions which created 
the need for the exemption still prevail.  Please explain why if so. 
 Q4. Please describe whether any action has been taken or is being contemplated to eliminate 
the conditions which created the need for th e exemption.  Please explain why if not. 
 
Less Favourable Treatment 
 
3. Some Members have listed MFN exemptions for measures which purport to grant less 
favourable treatment than those accorded by specific commitm ents inscribed in their respective 
schedules of specific commitments.  As set out in pa ragraph 14 of the explanatory note for scheduling S/C/W/253 
Page 2  
 
 initial commitments
1 and paragraph 5 of the draft guidelines for listing MFN exemptions2, an MFN 
exemption taken in a sector where specific commit ments have been undertaken would only allow the 
Member concerned to extend to certain countries treatment which is more favourable than that 
specified in the schedule.  Accord ing treatment less favourable than  that specified in a Member’s 
schedule would undermine the Member’s comm itments under GATS Articles XVI, XVII or XVIII 
and cannot be justified under Article II and A nnex on Article II Exemption of the GATS.   
4. We would appreciate if the Members concerned of each MFN exemption listed below could 
respond to the following questions, in addition to Q1-4: 
Q5. Please confirm if the exemption is intended to cover measures that grant less favourable 
treatment than that accorded by the respecti ve market access and national treatment 
commitments. 
 Q6. If so, please explain how the less favou rable treatment under the MFN exemption can be 
reconciled with the respective market a ccess and national treatment commitments. 
 
Educational Services
 
 
Member MFN Exemption (page number in JOB(04)/114) 
Macedonia, Former Yugoslav 
Republic of educational services (page 77) 
 
Financial Services  
 
Member MFN Exemption (page number in JOB(04)/114) 
Colombia insurance and insurance -related services; banking and other 
financial services, excluding insurance (page 79) 
Honduras opening of branches or agencies of foreign banks (page 82) 
Hungary commitments undertaken unde r mode 3 of financial services 
(page 82) 
Indonesia joint-venture banks (page 82) 
Israel granting of licence to the establishment of foreign service 
suppliers in banking (page 82) 
Pakistan granting of licences for ba nking and other financial services 
(page 83, 1st entry) 
Peru non-application of MFN clause (page 84)
adoption of protectionist or discriminatory measures (page 84) 
Philippines establishment of commercial presence or expansion of existing 
oeprations  in commercial banking (page 84, 1st entry) 
establishment of commercial presence in commercial banking (page 84, 2
nd entry)
foreign equity applications in Investment House (page 85) 
Slovak Republic establishment of comme rcial presence or conducting of new 
activities (page 87) (see also Q38 below) 
Turkey establishment of branches (page 89 (see also Q40 below) 
United Arab Emirates entry/establishment/ operation of foreign financial services 
suppliers and the opening of new branches (page 89) 
                                                      
 1 MTN.GNS/W/164 of 3 September 1993. 
 2 Job No. 2061 of 15 September 1993.  S/C/W/253 
 Page 3 
 
 
 Member MFN Exemption (page number in JOB(04)/114) 
USA expansion of existing oper ations, establishment of a new 
commercial presence or the conduct of new activities (page 90, 1
st entry)
establishment of state-licensed  branches, agencies, or 
representative offices, or the ownership of commercial bank 
subsidiaries (page 90, 3rd entry) 
 
Health Related and Social Services  
 
Member MFN Exemption (page number in JOB(04)/114) 
Jordan medical labs (page 92) 
 
Transport Services  
 Maritime Transport Services 
 
Member MFN Exemption (page number in JOB(04)/114) 
Benin maritime transport : Coastal shipping (cabotage) trade and 
liner trade (page 94) 
Cambodia maritime transport (page 96) 
China maritime transport, International transport, Freight and 
passengers (page 98, 1st entry)  
Cuba maritime transport services (1) Freight transportation (page 
100) 
Jamaica  maritime transport (page 102) 
Philippines  maritime transport services Liner cargo trade (page 105, 1st 
entry)  
Senegal maritime transport (page 106, 1st and 3rd entries) 
maritime transport : bulk and specialized cargoes (page 106, 2
nd entry) 
Singapore  maritime transport services : Storage and warehousing; Freight 
forwarding; Inland trucking; Container station and depot services (page 107) 
Thailand transport services : Selling and marketing of maritime 
transport services; Selling and marketing of air transport services (page 108, 1
st entry) 
international maritime transport of cargoes (page 108, 2nd 
entry) 
Turkey  transportation services (page 111, all entries) 
Venezuela maritime freight transport services (page 112, all entries)  
 Internal Waterways Transport 
 
Member MFN Exemption (page number in JOB(04)/114) 
Cambodia internal waterways (page 113) 
Hungary internal waterways transport (page 113) 
 
Air Transport Services 
 
Member MFN Exemption (page number in JOB(04)/114) S/C/W/253 
Page 4  
 
 Member MFN Exemption (page number in JOB(04)/114) 
Austria CRS and sales and marketing of air transport services (page 
115) 
Bulgaria sales and marketing services for air transport, including CRS 
(page 115) 
EC CRS and sales and marketing of air transport services (page 
116) 
Finland CRS and sales and marketing of air transport services (page 
116) 
Iceland CRS and sales and marketing of air transport services (page 
116) 
Norway CRS and sales and marketing of air transport services (page 
118) 
Romania sales and marketing services for air transport (page 118) 
Slovenia computer reservation system and marketing of air transport 
services 
Sweden CRS and sales and marketing of air transport services (page 
121) 
Thailand aircraft repair and maintenance services (page 122, 2nd entry) 
 Rail Transport Services 
 
Member MFN Exemption (page number in JOB(04)/114) 
Turkey rail transport services (page 124) 
 
Road Transport Services 
 
Member MFN Exemption (page number in JOB(04)/114) 
Albania road transport; passengers and freight (page 125) 
Brazil land transport (cross-border supply) (page 127) 
Cambodia land transport (page 128) 
Croatia road transport passenger and freight (page 129) 
Egypt road transport (passenger and freight) (page 130) 
Estonia international road transport services (page 131) 
Finland road transport; passengers and freight (page 132) 
Georgia transport services (page 132) 
Latvia road transport; passengers and freight (page 133) 
Liechtenstein road transport services (passenger and freight) (page 133) 
Lithuania road transport passenger and freight (page 134) 
Macedonia, Former Yugoslav 
Republic of road transport services (page 134) 
Moldova road transport passenger and freight (page 135) 
Morocco international road transport (page 135) 
Norway road transport: passenger and freight (page 135) 
Romania road transport services (page 137) 
South Africa road transportation (page 139) 
Sweden road transport (passenger and freight) (page 139) 
Switzerland road transport services (p assenger and freight) (page 140, 1st 
entry)  S/C/W/253 
 Page 5 
 
 
 Member MFN Exemption (page number in JOB(04)/114) 
Thailand international road transport services – Passenger 
transportation; freight transportation; rental of non-commercial vehicles with/without driver (page 140) 
Turkey road transport services (page 141) 
USA road transport (page 142) 
 
Services Auxiliary to All Modes of Transport 
 
Member MFN Exemption (page number in JOB(04)/114) 
Bulgaria cargo-handling services and storage and warehouse services in 
sea and river harbours (page 144) 
  Reciprocity 
 
5. Some Members have taken MFN ex emptions for measures based on reciprocity .  Such 
exemptions defy the basis for participation in  the multilateral trade system based on the MFN 
principle.  We note that some of these exemptions are related to general and unspecified conditions of 
reciprocity, while others are based on reciprocity in  sectors where the Members concerned have made 
specific market access or national treatment commi tments. As noted above, a Member must grant 
unconditionally to any other Member treatment no l ess favourable than that accorded by the specific 
commitments inscribed in its schedule, notwithst anding any MFN exemption.  Any MFN exemption 
based on reciprocity must not result in less favourable  treatment for some Members than the treatment 
accorded by the specific commitments.  Even in cases where no specifi c commitment has been 
undertaken, these MFN exemptions must not prevent the negotiations for further liberalization and 
specific commitments in the respective sectors in  accordance with progressive liberalization under 
Article XIX of the GATS. 
6. We would appreciate if the Members concerned of each MFN exemption listed below could 
respond to the following questions, in addition to Q1-4 - 
 
Q7. Please indicate if the exemption pert ains to any international agreements or 
arrangements, and if so, please specify the sp ecific agreements or arrangements and the 
provisions therein requiring the exemption. 
 
Q8. Please explain the rationale behind mainta ining such an exemption under the existing 
multilateral framework for trade in serv ices, and how such measures based on 
reciprocity can be considered compatible with the multilateral trading system. 
 
Q9. Please indicate if any market access and national treatment commitments have been 
undertaken in the corresponding sector; if so, whether the exemption is intended to 
cover measures that grant less favourable trea tment than that accorded by the specific 
commitments; and if so, please explain ho w the less favourable treatment under the 
MFN exemption can be reconciled with the respective commitments.  
 
Financial Services
 
 
Member MFN Exemption (page number in JOB(04)/114) 
Austria licensing of branches or subsidiaries of foreign financial 
service suppliers (page 78) S/C/W/253 
Page 6  
 
 Member MFN Exemption (page number in JOB(04)/114) 
Brunei Darussalam establishment and expans ion of offshore and merchant banks, 
and conducting of new activities (page 78, 1st entry) 
Canada insurance intermediati on agency services (page 79, 1st entry) 
Colombia insurance and insurance -related services; banking and other 
financial services, excluding insurance (page 79) 
Côte d’Ivoire brokerage and agency services in the insurance sector (page 
80, 2nd entry) 
EC direct non-life insurance (page 81, 1st entry) (see also Q21 
below) 
Honduras opening of branches or agencies of foreign banks (page 82) 
Hungary commitments undertaken unde r mode 3 of financial services 
(page 82) 
Indonesia joint-venture banks (page 82) 
Israel granting of licence to the establishment of foreign service 
suppliers in banking (page 82) 
Mauritius restrictions on commercial presence and cross-border supply 
(page 83) (see also Q30 below) 
Pakistan granting of licences for ba nking and other financial services 
(page 83, 1st entry) 
Peru non-application of MFN clause (page 84)
adoption of protectionist or discriminatory measures (page 84) 
Philippines establishment of commercial presence or expansion of existing 
oeprations  in commercial banking (page 84, 1st entry) 
establishment of commercial presence in commercial banking (page 84, 2
nd entry) 
foreign equity applications in Investment House (page 85) 
Slovak Republic establishment of comme rcial presence or conducting of new 
activities (page 87) (see also Q38 below) 
Turkey establishment of branches (page 89) (see also Q40 below) 
United Arab Emirates entry/establishment/ operation of foreign financial services 
suppliers and the opening of new branches (page 89) 
USA expansion of existing oper ations, establishment of a new 
commercial presence or the conduct of new activities (page 90, 1
st entry)
establishment of state-licensed  branches, agencies, or 
representative offices, or the ownership of commercial bank subsidiaries (page 90, 3
rd entry) 
acting as a sole trustee of an indenture for a bond offering in the US (page 91, 2
nd entry)
designation as a primary dealer in US Government debt 
securities (page 91, 3rd entry) 
Venezuela access of foreign capital (page 91) (see also Q48 below) 
 
Health Related and Social Services  
 
Member MFN Exemption (page number in JOB(04)/114) 
Jordan  medical labs (page 92) 
 
Tourism and Travel Related Services  
 
Member MFN Exemption (page number in JOB(04)/114)  S/C/W/253 
 Page 7 
 
 
 Member MFN Exemption (page number in JOB(04)/114) 
Lithuania  tourist guides services (page 92) 
 
Recreational, Cultural and Sporting Services  
 
Member MFN Exemption (page number in JOB(04)/114) 
EC  newsagency services (page 93, 1st entry) 
press agency services (page 93, 2nd entry) 
 Transport Services
 
 
Maritime Transport Services 
 
Member MFN Exemption (page number in JOB(04)/114) 
Benin  maritime transport (page 95) 
Bolivia maritime and multi-modal freight transportation (page 95) 
Brazil maritime transport : Ocean shipping (cargo) (page 95) 
Cameroon maritime transport : Coastal  shipping (cabotage) trade (page 
96, 1st entry) 
Chile international maritime freight transportation (page 97, 1st and 
2nd entries) 
maritime transport (page 97, 3rd entry) 
Congo maritime transport : coastal shipping (cabotage) trade (page 
98) 
Côte d'Ivoire maritime transport : coastal shipping (cabotage) trade (page 
99) 
Cuba maritime transport services (1) Freight transportation (page 
100) 
EC rental/leasing services without operators, relating to ships.  
rental of vessels with crew (page 101)  
Finland maritime transport; cabotage (page 101) 
Gabon maritime transport : coastal shipping (cabotage) trade (page 
101, 1st entry) 
India  shipping (a) Cargo sharing between bilateral partners (page 
102, 1st entry)  
Mali maritime transport : Coastal shipping (cabotage) trade (page 
102) 
Niger maritime transport : coastal shipping (cabotage) trade (page 
103) 
Philippines  maritime transport servi ces Cabotage transport (page 105, 2nd 
entry) 
Senegal maritime transport : coastal shipping (cabotage) trade (page 
105) 
Singapore  maritime transport services : Storage and warehousing; Freight 
forwarding; Inland trucking; Container station and depot services (page 107) 
Sweden maritime transportation (page 107) 
Thailand transport services : Selling and marketing of maritime 
transport services; selling and marketing of air transport services (page 108, 1
st entry) 
Turkey  transportation services (page 111, all entries) S/C/W/253 
Page 8  
 
 Member MFN Exemption (page number in JOB(04)/114) 
Venezuela  maritime freight transport services (page 112, 1st and 2nd 
entries) 
 Air Transport Services 
 
Member MFN Exemption (page number in JOB(04)/114) 
Austria CRS and sales and marketing of air transport services (page 
115) 
Bulgaria sales and marketing services for air transport, including CRS 
(page 115) 
Canada exemptions from tax (page 115, 1st entry) 
EC CRS and sales and marketing of air transport services (page 
116) 
Finland CRS and sales and marketing of air transport services (page 
116) 
Iceland CRS and sales and marketing of air transport services (page 
116) 
Kuwait air transport services (page 117) 
Latvia sale and marketing of air transport services (page 117) 
Liechtenstein CRS and sales and marketing of air transport services (page 
116) 
Lithuania sale and marketing of air transport services (page 118) 
Macedonia, Former Yugoslav Republic of CRS and sales and marketing of air transport services (page 
118) 
Moldova selling and marketing of air transport services (page 118) 
Norway CRS and sales and marketing of air transport services (page 
118) 
Poland sale and marketing of air transport services (page 118) 
Romania sale and marketing services for air transport (page 118) 
Singapore computer reservation systems 
Slovenia computer reservation system and marketing of air transport 
services 
Sweden CRS and sales and marketing of air transport services (page 
121) 
Thailand aircraft repair and maintenance services (page 122, 2nd entry) 
 Rail Transport Services 
 
Member MFN Exemption (page number in JOB(04)/114) 
Turkey rail transport services (page 124) 
 
Road Transport Services 
 
Member MFN Exemption (page number in JOB(04)/114) 
Armenia road transport services (fr eight transportation) (page 125, 1st 
entry) road transport services (passenger transportation) (page 125, 2
nd entry) 
Austria road transport (passengers a nd freight) (page 126, all entries; 
page 127)  S/C/W/253 
 Page 9 
 
 
 Member MFN Exemption (page number in JOB(04)/114) 
Brazil  land transport (cross-border supply) (page 127) 
Bulgaria road passenger and frei ght transportation (page 128, 2nd entry) 
Costa Rica land transportation services – passenger transportation (page 
128; page 129, 1st entry) 
Czech Republic road transport Passenger and freight (page 130) 
Estonia international road transport services (page 131) 
EC road transport – passenger and freight (page 131) 
road transport services – freight (page 132) 
Finland road transport; passengers and freight (page 132) 
Georgia transport services (page 132) 
Honduras land transport services (page 132) 
Hungary road transport (passenger and freight) (page 132) 
Latvia road transport; passengers and freight (page 133) 
Liechtenstein road transport services (passenger and freight) (page 133) 
Macedonia, Former Yugoslav Republic of road transport services (page 134) 
Mexico tourism. Road transport (passenger) (page 134) 
Morocco international road transport (page 135) 
Poland all passenger and freight tr ansport services excluding maritime 
transport (page 137) 
Romania road transport services (page 137) 
Slovak Republic road transport Passenger and freight (page 138) 
Sweden road transport (passenger and freight) (page 139) 
Switzerland road transport services (p assenger and freight) (page 140, 1st 
entry) 
Thailand international road transport services – Passenger 
transportation; freight transportation; rental of non-commercial vehicles with/without driver (page 140) 
Tunisia road transport (page 141) 
Turkey road transport services (page 141) 
USA road transport (page 142) 
Uruguay land transport (cross-border supply) (page 142) 
 
Services Auxiliary to All Modes of Transport 
 
Member MFN Exemption (page number in JOB(04)/114) 
Bulgaria cargo-handling services and storage and warehouse services in 
sea and river harbours (page 144) 
  
II. SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ON SECTORAL EXEMPTIONS 
7. Further to the general questions of Q1-9, we would like to request the Members concerned of 
the following sectoral MFN exemptions to respond to the following specific questions (page number 
refers to JOB(04)/114) - 
1. Educational Services 
Q10. Macedonia, Former Yugoslav Republic of (page 77) : It is noted that the Former Yugoslav 
Republic of Macedonia has made full market a ccess and national treatment commitments for S/C/W/253 
Page 10  
 
 modes 1, 2 & 3 of secondary education services, higher education services, and adult 
education in its schedule of specific commitments.  Please confirm whether or not this exemption is intended to apply to the scheduled services and if so, whether it purports to grant 
less favourable treatment than that acco rded by the relevant commitments.  
 
2. Financial Services 
Q11 Austria (page 78) : The exemption concerns about the gran ting of waiver to certain countries 
in respect of “ the requirement of an economic interest test bound in the Austrian Schedule ”.  
Would Austria please provide reference to the bound requirement in the existing applicable 
schedule of specific commitments on financial services?   
 
Q12 As understood from the Meeting of the Council Re view of MFN Exemptions held on 5 July 
2000
3, the exemption had been taken due to the fact that it had not been possible to conclude 
the financial services negotiations in 1993 and that  the exemption had not been used by then.  
With the conclusion of the extended negotiati ons on financial services in December 1997, 
please advise whether the conditions creating the need for the exemption still prevail.  Please 
also advise whether any countries have been gran ted the waiver since the last Review of MFN 
Exemptions, and if so, please provide the list of the countries. 
 Q13 Brunei Darussalam (page 78, 1
st entry) : Would Brunei Darussalam advise whether the 
exemption has been used for any actual measure, and if so, provide information on the kind of 
differential treatment being accorded to other me mbers and the list of members involved.  As 
understood from the Meeting of the Council Re view of MFN Exemptions held on 5 July 
20004, there were specific procedures for granting approval for the establishment of off-shore 
banks.  Please advise the criteria that have been adopted by the relevant authority for 
according the differential treatment.   
 
Q14 Brunei Darussalam (page 79) & Singapore (page 87) : It is noted that the exemption will be 
maintained until either Brunei Darussalam  or Singapore terminates the currency 
interchangeability agreement signed between th em.  We would like to know whether the 
agreement still remains in force, and whether there are any provisions concerning the termination/expiry of the agreement.  
 
Q15 Canada (page 79, 1
st entry) : Would Canada please advise whether it has entered into 
bilateral arrangements/agreements with any st ates in the United States?  If so, please provide 
details of the bilateral arrangeme nts/agreements, in particular t hose details in relation to the 
mutual preferential treatment covered by the ex emption and to the termination/expiry of the 
arrangements/agreements.  Besides, apart from reciprocity, are there any other factors that 
Canada has taken into consideration for not  implementing the relevant measures on a MFN 
basis? 
 Q16 Colombia (page 79) : At the Meeting of the Council Review of MFN Exemptions held on 5 
October 2000
5, Colombia clarified that the exemption was eliminated at the end of 1997 right 
before the conclusion of the extended negotiations  on financial services.  The same statement 
was also made in its communication S/C/W/172.  However, it is found that the exemption remains in Colombia’s initial offer as well as in the Secretariat’s latest compilation of MFN 
exemptions as contained in JOB(04)/114.  W ould Colombia please clarify if the exemption 
                                                     
 
 3 Paragraphs 19 & 32 of S/C/M/45 of 18 August 2000. 
 4 Paragraph 16 of S/C/M/45 of 18 August 2000. 
 5 Paragraph 13 of S/C/M/47 of 17 November 2000.  S/C/W/253 
 Page 11 
 
 
 still remains in force, and if so, whether the exemption would be eliminated as communicated 
at the aforementioned Meeting? 
 Q17 Besides, it is noted that the Colombia h as made market access and national treatment 
commitments for mode 3 of all financial servic es.  If the MFN exemption remains in force, 
please confirm whether or not this exemption is intended to apply to the scheduled services, 
and if so, whether it purports to grant less fa vourable treatment than that accorded by the 
relevant commitments.  
 Q18 Côte d’Ivoire (page 80, 1
st entry) & Senegal (page 85) : Would the Members concerned 
please provide details of the preferential me asures taken in accordance of the Agreement 
establishing the Inter-African Conference on Insu rance Markets (CIMA) as covered by the 
respective exemption? 
 Q19 Côte d’Ivoire (page 80, 5
th – 7th entries) & Senegal (page 86) : We would like to know 
whether Côte d’Ivoire and Senegal have  entered into any regional/subregional 
arrangements/agreements with the WAEMU and WAMU Member States?  Please also provide details of the preferential measure s taken in accordance with the Agreements 
establishing WAEMU and WAMU as covered by the exemptions.  
 Q20 El Salvador (page 81) : As understood from the Meeting of the Council Review of MFN 
Exemptions held on 5 July 2000
6, the convention on facilitating the financial integration of 
countries of the Central American Isthmus wh ich necessitates the exemption, though had been 
signed back on 27 August 1993, had not yet entered into force.  Would El Salvador provide 
the latest status of the convention and, if it h as still not yet been ratified by all the contractual 
parties, explain whether the conditions which cr eated the need for the exemption still prevail?  
 
Q21 EC (page 81, 1st entry) : It is noted that the agreement between the EC and Switzerland on 
direct non-life insurance which necessitates the ex emption is consistent with paragraph 3 of 
the GATS Annex on Financial Services.  In this connection, we note that the EC has proposed 
to delete this exemption in its initial offer.  We appreciate the EC’s offer which signifies that 
the conditions which created the need for the exemption no longer prevail.  Would EC please 
confirm its timetable for the removal of this exemption. 
 Q22 EC (page 81, 2
nd entry) : It is noted that the intended duration of the exemption is 10 years.  
We note with appreciation that the EC has propo sed to terminate the exemption in its initial 
offer, which confirms that the conditions whic h created the need for the exemption no longer 
prevail.  Would EC please confirm the removal of this exemption. 
 Q23 Honduras (page 81) & Nicaragua (page 83) : As understood from the Meeting of the 
Council Review of MFN Exemptions held on 5 July 2000
7, the Central American 
governments had reformulated a monetary ag reement covering the exemption measures but 
the agreement had not yet come into effect.  Would Members concerned provide the latest 
status of the agreement and, if it has still not yet come into effect, explain whether the 
conditions which created the need for the exemption still prevail?  
 
Q24 Honduras (page 82), Indonesia (page 82), Israel (page 82), Pakistan (page 83, 1st entry), 
Philippines (page 85), United Arab Emirates (page 89) : Please advise how the exemption 
measure which may be subject to reciprocity  is being implemented.  We would also 
appreciate any information on whether the Memb ers concerned have en tered into bilateral 
                                                      
 6 Paragraph 15 of S/C/M/45 of 18 August 2000. 
 7 Paragraph 22 of S/C/M/45 of 18 August 2000. S/C/W/253 
Page 12  
 
 arrangements/agreements with any countri es.  If so, please provide details of the 
arrangements/agreements, in particular those relating to the mutual preferential treatment 
covered by the exemption and to the terminati on/expiry of the arrangements/agreements.   
Apart from reciprocity, are there any other factor s that the Members concerned has taken into 
consideration for not implementing the relevant measures on a MFN basis? 
 
Q25 Hungary (page 82) : It is noted that while Hungary h as made full market access and national 
treatment commitments for mode 3 of all those financial services included in its schedule of GATS commitments, the exemption explicitly c overs measures that grant less favourable 
treatment than that accorded by the relevant commitments.  Please explain how the less 
favourable treatment under the MFN exempti ons can be reconciled with the respective 
commitments.  Apart from obtaining market  access possibilities for Hungarian service 
providers, has Hungary taken into account any ot her factors for not implementing the relevant 
measures on a MFN basis?  
 
Q26 Indonesia (page 82) : We note that in the “intended duration” column of the exemption, 
Indonesia has only set out the date on which the exemption would become effective, but the 
date of expiry has not been inscribed.  Would Indonesia advise what the intended duration of the exemption is?  
 
Q27 Israel (page 82)  It is noted that, in respect of banks, Israel has made full market access and 
national treatment commitments for mode 3 of those banking services included in its schedule 
of GATS commitments.  Please confirm whether or not the exemption is in tended to apply to 
the scheduled services, and if so, whether it pur ports to grant less favourable treatment than 
that accorded by the relevant commitments. 
 
Q28 Liechtenstein (page 82, 1
st entry) : We note that in its initial offer, Liechtenstein has offered 
to terminate this exemption.  We appreciate Liechtenstein’s offer which signifies that the 
conditions which created the need for the MF N exemption no longer prevail.  Would 
Liechtenstein please confirm the timetable for the removal of the exemption. 
 Q29 Liechtenstein (page 82, 2nd entry) & Switzerland (page 88) : It is noted that the exemption 
measures ensued from the monetary union between Liechtenstein and Switzerland. Please 
provide details about the monetary union in qu estion.  Have Liechtenstein and Switzerland 
entered into any bilateral arrangements/agreem ents in this regard?  If so, please provide 
details of the relevant arrangeme nts/agreements, in particular those relevant to the measures 
covered by the exemption and to the termina tion/expiry of the arrangements/agreements.  
 
Q30 Mauritius (page 83) : We note that the intended duration of the exemption is 10 years. Would 
Mauritius please confirm the termination of the exemption. 
 Q31 Pakistan (page 83, 2
nd entry) : We would appreciate information as to how the measure taken 
under this exemption i.e. the granting of favourab le treatment to “financial institutions set up 
to undertake Islamic financing transactions” is being implemented, and the elements therein 
that are not MFN-consistent.   
 Q32 Pakistan (page 83, 3
rd entry) : As understood from Pakistan’s communication S/C/W/164 
provided during the last Review of MFN Exemp tions, the exemption measure concerns about 
the laying down of separate regulations for banks  which are required to undertake and finance 
treasury functions and other non-profitable co mmodity operation programmes and other price 
support schemes of the Government.  Would Pakistan elaborate on the elements of the exemption measure which are MFN-inconsistent  and explain how the exemption measure is 
implemented on a non-MFN basis?   S/C/W/253 
 Page 13 
 
 
  
Q33 Peru (page 84, 1st & 2nd entries) : Would Peru please provide more information on the 
specific measures covered by these exemptions  and specify the elements which are MFN-
inconsistent? Apart from reciprocity, has Peru ta ken into consideration any other factors for 
not applying the two measures on a MFN basis?  
 
Q34 Besides, while Peru has made certain market  access and national treatment commitments for 
those financial services included in its schedule of GATS commitments, please confirm whether the exemptions is inte nded to apply to the scheduled services and if so, whether it 
purports to grant less favourable treatment than that accorded by the relevant commitments.  
 
Q35 Philippines (page 84, 1
st & 2nd entries) : It is noted that the two exemption measures in 
question are both subject to reciprocity test.  Apart from ensuring full market access and national treatment for Philippines financial service suppliers in another member, has 
Philippines taken into consideration any othe r factors for not implementing the relevant 
measure on a MFN basis?   
 Q36 Besides, it is noted that Philippines has made  certain market access and national treatment 
commitments for mode 3 of those commercial banking-related financia l services included in 
its schedule of GATS commitments.  Please confirm whether or not the exemption is intended to apply to the scheduled services and if so, whether it purports to grant less favourable 
treatment than that accorded by  the relevant commitments.  
 Q37 Singapore (page 86) : As understood from the Meeting of the Council Review of MFN 
Exemptions held on 5 July 2000
8, Singapore might review the exemption.  Would Singapore 
provide information about intende d duration of this exemption and the results of the latest 
review?  We would also like to know the current amount of paid-up capital of ASEAN 
Reinsurance Corporation, whether it has met th e minimum requirement set by the Monetary 
Authority of Singapore, and if so, whether it is still necessary for Singapore to maintain the 
exemption.  
 
Q38 Slovak Republic (page 87) : At the Meeting of the Council Review of MFN Exemptions held 
on 5 July 20009, Slovak Republic advised that the ex emption measure had been removed by 
an amendment on the Act on Banks No. 50/96 which entered into force on 1 March 1996; hence the conditions requiring the exemption di d not prevail any more and the exemption 
would be removed.  Would Slovak Republic pl ease confirm the timetable for the removal of 
this exemption. 
 
Q39 South Africa (page 88) & Swaziland (page 88) : Would the Members concerned please 
provide more information on the specific measures covered by these exemptions which stemmed from the Common Monetary Area Agreement?  Please also elaborate on the elements which are MFN-inconsistent, and explain how the measures are implemented on a non-MFN basis.  
 
Q40 Turkey (page 89) : At the Meeting of the Council Review of MFN Exemptions held on 5 July 
2000
10, Turkey advised that the exemption had been  abrogated.  In this connection, we note 
that Turkey has proposed to delete this exempti on in its initial offer.  We appreciate Turkey’s 
offer which confirms that the conditions which created the need for the exemption no longer 
prevail.  Would Turkey please confirm the timet able for the removal of this exemption.  
                                                      
 8 Paragraph 33 of S/C/M/45 of 18 August 2000. 
 9 Paragraph 11 of S/C/M/45 of 18 August 2000. 
 10 Paragraph 18 of S/C/M/45 of 18 August 2000. S/C/W/253 
Page 14  
 
  
Q41 United States of America (page 90, 1
st entry) : It was stated that the conditions creating the 
need for the exemption was "Need to protect  existing US ownership of service suppliers 
operating in other Members".  We would like to know whether the need for the exemption is 
given rise by any actual measures taken by any specific countries.  If so, please provide 
information on the specific measures concerned and advise if the MFN exemption should be 
clarified as to which countries the measure a pplies.  We would also like to know if the 
exemption is related to any b ilateral arrangements/agreements with any countries, and if so, 
please provide details of the bilateral arrangement s/agreements, in particular those relating to 
the exemption measure and to the termination/ expiry of the arrangements/agreements.  If 
otherwise, would the US please explain why th e conditions which creat ed the need for the 
exemption still prevail.  
 
Q42 Besides, it is noted that the US has made market access and national treatment commitments 
for those insurance services included in its  schedule of GATS commitments, while the 
exemption covers differential tr eatment in regard to the expa nsion of existing operations, the 
establishment of a new commercial presence or the conduct of new activities.  Please confirm 
whether or not the exemption is intended to apply to the scheduled services, and if so, 
whether it purports to grant less favourable treatment than that accorded by the relevant 
commitments.  Specifically, please confirm whether Members who do not provide reciprocal treatment will be accorded treatment less fa vourable than that accorded by the relevant 
commitments.  If also in the affirmative, please explain how the less favourable treatment 
purported by the exemptions can be reconc iled with the relevant commitments.   
 Q43 United States of America (page 90, 2
nd entry) :  It is noted that the conditions that created 
the need for the exemption are “maintenance of  established preference”.  Would the US 
please provide details about the “established pr eference” being maintained?  Specifically, 
please provide information on any bilateral arrange ments/agreements that the US and Canada 
may have entered into in this regard, the specifi c provisions therein that are to be applied on a 
non-MFN basis, and the timeframe of the bilateral arrangements/agreements?   
 Q44 United States of America (page 90, 3
rd entry) : It was stated that the condition which created 
the need for the MFN exemption was "Need to protect existing activities of US service 
suppliers abroad and to ensure substantially full market access and national treatment in 
international financial markets".  We would lik e to know whether the need for the exemption 
is given rise by any actual measures taken by any specific countries.  If so, please provide information on the specific measures concerned and advise if the MFN exemption should be 
clarified as to which countries the measure applies.  If otherwise, would the US please explain 
why the conditions which created the need for the exemption still prevail.  In particular, as 
market access and national treatment is subject  to the specific commitments undertaken by a 
Member in the sector concerned, please explai n how the need cited as condition creating the 
need for the MFN exemption could be met by an MFN exemption based on reciprocity.  
Apart from reciprocity, are there any other factor s that the US has taken into account for not 
implementing the relevant measure on a MFN basi s?  We would also like to know whether 
the exemptions pertain to bilateral arrangement s/agreements with any countries, and if so, 
please provide details of the bilateral arrangement s/agreements, in particular those relating to 
the exemption measure and to the terminati on/expiry of the arrangements/agreements.   
 
Q45 Besides, it is noted that the US has made market access and national treatment commitments 
for those banking and other financial services in cluded in its schedule of GATS commitments 
while the exemption covers measures regardi ng establishment of state-licensed branches, 
agencies, or representative offices, or to own commercial bank subsidiaries.  Please confirm 
whether or not the exemption is intended to a pply to the scheduled services and if so, whether  S/C/W/253 
 Page 15 
 
 
 it purports to grant less favourable treatment than that accorded by the relevant commitments.  
Specifically, please confirm whether Members who do not provide reciprocal treatment will be accorded treatment less favourable than that  accorded by the relevant commitments.  If 
also in the affirmative, please explain how the less favourable treatment purported by the 
exemptions can be reconciled with the relevant commitments.  If not, please explain there is 
still a need for the MFN exemption. 
 Q46 United States of America (page 91, 1
st entry) : We note that the conditions that created the 
need for the exemption are “maintenance of esta blished preference”.  Would the US please 
provide details about the “established prefer ence” being maintained?  Specifically, please 
provide information on any bilate ral arrangements/agreements that the US may have entered 
into with Canada and the European Common Mark et in this regard, the specific provisions 
therein that are to be applied on a non-MFN basis, and the timefra me of the bilateral 
arrangements/agreements? 
 
Q47 United States of America (page 91, 2nd & 3rd entries) : We would like to know whether the 
need for the exemption is given rise by any act ual measures taken by any specific countries.  
If so, please provide information on the specifi c measures concerned and advise if the MFN 
exemption should be clarified as to which count ries the measure applies.  If otherwise, would 
the US please explain why the conditions which created the need for the exemption still 
prevail.  In particular, as market access and national treatment is subject to the specific 
commitments undertaken by a Member in the sect or concerned, please explain how the need 
cited as condition creating the need for the MFN exemption could be met by an MFN exemption based on reciprocity.  Apart from reciprocity, are there any other factors that the US has taken into account for not implementing the relevant measure on a MFN basis?  We 
would also like to know whether the exemptions  pertain to bilateral arrangements/agreements 
with any countries, and if so, please provide de tails of the bilateral arrangements/agreements, 
in particular those relating to the exemption measure and to the termination/expiry of the 
arrangements/agreements.   
 
Q48 Venezuela (page 91) : At the Meeting of the Council Review of MFN Exemptions held on 5 
July 2000
11, Venezuela advised that the exemption me asure was to last for 10 years.  Would 
Venezuela please confirm the removal of this exemption. 
 
3. Health Related and Social Services 
Q49 Cyprus (page 92) : It is understood from the Meeting of the Council Review of MFN 
Exemptions held on 5 July 200012 that the purpose of the exemptions was to provide to 
Cypriot nationals medical treatment which was e ither not adequately provided in Cyprus or 
all together not available.   Please advise wh ether preferential treatm ent granted under this 
exemption is based on reciprocity, and if so , how the relevant reciprocal measures could 
achieve the intended purpose of the exemption.    Please also provide an updated list of 
countries or medical centres with which Cyprus has entered into bilateral medical cooperation 
agreements. 
 
Q50 Jordan (page 92) : It is noted that Jordan has made full commitments for medical labs with 
the only exception of nationality requirement for lab director.  It is however provided under 
this exemption that licenses may be issued to  non-Jordanians for the practice of medical 
testing and laboratory administration only if Jordanian nationals are granted reciprocal 
                                                      
 11 Paragraph 5 of S/C/M/45 of 18 August 2000. 
 12 Paragraph 40 of S/C/M/45 of 18 August 2000. S/C/W/253 
Page 16  
 
 treatment.  Please confirm whether the exempti on is intended to apply to the scheduled 
service, and if so, how the exemption can be reconciled with the specific commitment. 
 
4. Tourism and Travel Related Services 
Q51 Jordan (page 92) : Would Jordan elaborate on the “for eign policy considerations” which are 
considered to be the condition that created the need for this exemption?  How those 
considerations were applied in the selecti on of beneficiaries under this exemption? 
 Q52 Lithuania (page 92) : It is noted that the conditions crea ting the need for the exemption are to 
preserve and promote the cultural identity.  Please explain how this need could be met by 
reciprocal agreements on tourist guides services. 
 Q53 Mexico (page 92) : At the Meeting of the Council Review of MFN Exemptions held on 5 July 
2000, Mexico explained that the conditions that  created the exemption continued to exist, 
although the negotiations of bilateral agreem ent mentioned in the exemption had not yet 
concluded
13.   Would Mexico give an update on the stat us of the relevant bilateral agreement? 
 
5. Transport Services 
(a) Maritime Transport Services 
Q54 Angola (page 94, all entries), Benin (pages 94 and 95, all entries), Cameroon (pages 96 
and 97, all entries), Congo (pages 98 and 99, all entries), Côte d’Ivoire (pages 99 and 
100, all entries), Gabon (pages 101 and 102, all entries), Mali (pages 102 and 103, all entries), Niger (pages 103 and 104, all entries) : During the last Review of MFN 
Exemptions, Hong Kong, China expressed concer ns over the extremely broad scope of the 
exemptions inscribed by these Members
14.  Clarifications had not been provided as requested 
since these Members did not have a resident re presentative in Geneva.  Our concerns however 
remain and we do hope that the Members concerned could try their best to provide 
information on the following: (1) how they define the scope of the above-mentioned exemptions; (2) the countries to which their resp ective exemptions apply; and (3) the duration 
of the bilateral and/or multila teral agreements concerned. 
 
Q55 Benin (page 95), Cameroon (page 96, 2
nd entry; page 97, 1st entry), Congo (page 99, 1st 
and 2nd entries), Côte d’Ivoire (page 100, 1st and 2nd entries), Gabon (page 101, 2nd entry, 
page 102, 1st entry), Mali (page 103, 1st and 2nd entries), Niger (page 104, 1st and 2nd 
entries), Senegal (page 106, 1st and 2nd entries) : It is noted in the 5th Column of the above-
mentioned exemptions that whether “trade pa rtners continue to block access to cargoes and 
practise dumping” constitutes one of the conditions creating the need for the exemption.  
Would the Members concerned please enlighten us  whether they are still subject to any of 
such measures maintained by their trading partners? 
 Q56 Bolivia (page 95) : In its communication provided during the last Review of MFN 
Exemptions
15, while Bolivia emphasized that it had not granted preferential treatment to 
particular communities or countries, it reitera ted that the treatment must be applied under 
conditions of reciprocity.  We  would like to seek clarification of Bolivia on the exact 
measures that have to be exempted.  Moreover, if no preferential treatment is granted to any particular countries, including those in Andean  sub-region, would Bolivia explain why there 
                                                     
 
 13 Paragraph 42 of S/C/M/45 of 18 August 2000. 
 14 Paragraph 10 of S/C/W/150 of 16 June 2000. 
 15 S/C/W/170 of 28 September 2000.  S/C/W/253 
 Page 17 
 
 
 is still a need to maintain this exemption?  W ould Bolivia also explain how the need could be 
met by an MFN exemption based on reciprocity? 
 Q57 Brazil (page 95) : At the Meeting of the Council Review of MFN exemption held on 5 July 
2000, Brazil pointed out that “Brazilian companies had a small participati on of about five per 
cent in ocean cargo shipping with its own v essels and the MFN exemption was intended to 
help revert the situation”
16.  Could Brazil please provide an up-to-date figure on Brazil’s 
participation, and in the light of this new figur e, explain whether the condition that created the 
need for the exemptions still prevails? 
 
Q58 Bulgaria (page 96, 2nd entry), India (page 102, 1st entry) : Would Bulgaria and India please 
provide more details regarding the existing meas ure(s) covered by their respective exemption 
which aims to achieve “equality in freight lifti ngs” and “equality in freight earnings”?  Please 
also provide an update on the list of countries with which bilateral cargo sharing agreements 
have been concluded and their respec tive date of entering into force. 
 
Q59 Cameroon (page 96, 1st entry), Congo (page 98), Côte d’Ivoire (page 99), Gabon (page 
101, 1st entry), Mali (page 102), Niger (page 103), Senegal (page 105) : It is noted that, for 
the above-mentioned exemptions, “near future, while the objective pursued takes root” has 
been inscribed in the “intended duration” colu mn.  Since these exemptions have entered into 
force for about 10 years, could the Members c oncerned please advise if the objective has been 
achieved, and if so, whether their r espective exemption could be removed? 
 
Q60 Cameroon (page 96, 2nd entry), Congo (page 99, 1st entry), Côte d’Ivoire (page 100, 1st 
entry), Gabon (page 101, 2nd entry), Mali (page 103, 1st entry), Niger (page 104, 1st 
entry), Senegal (page 106, 1st entry) : It is noted that each of the above-mentioned exemption 
are intended to apply until auxiliary mariti me services and port services are developed.  
Would the Members concerned pr ovide an update on the current development of the auxiliary 
maritime services and port services, now that their respective exemption has entered into 
force for around 10 years.  Please also advise whether the development would make it possible to remove their exemptions. 
 
Q61 Chile (page 97, 4
th entry) : It is noted that “specified foreign suppliers may be excluded from 
tendering” under this exemption.  We would like to know the Member countries that are 
regarded as “specified foreign suppliers” and the criteria used by Chile for making such 
decisions. 
 
Q62 China (page 98, 1st entry) : We would appreciate if China could provide information on the 
bilateral agreements currently maintained by it,  the countries to which this exemption applies 
and the effective date and durati on of the agreements concerned. 
 Q63 New Zealand (page 103) : It is noted that in its initial offer New Zealand has offered to 
terminate this MFN exemption.    We appreci ate New Zealand’s offer which signifies that the 
conditions which created the need for the exem ption no longer prevail.  Would New Zealand 
please confirm the timetable for the termination of the relevant exemption. 
 Q64 Philippines (page 105, 2
nd 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 if the Philippines could elaborate on the meaning of “limited access” in the second 
column. 
                                                      
 16 Paragraph 66 of S/C/M/45 of 18 August 2000. S/C/W/253 
Page 18  
 
 Q65 Senegal (pages 105 and 106, all entries) : During the last Review of MFN Exemptions, Hong 
Kong, China expressed concerns over the extremel y broad scope of the exemptions inscribed 
by Senegal
17.  We would appreciate if Senegal coul d advise whether the conditions creating 
the need for these exemptions still prevail, and if so, we would appreciate if Senegal could 
provide more precise descriptions of the scope of these exemptions.  We would also like to 
know the countries to which these MFN exem ptions apply, the bilateral/multilateral 
agreements/arrangements/decisions on which the MFN exemptions are based and their respective provisions and durations. 
 Q66 Singapore (page 107) : It is noted that Singapore will periodically review this exemption in 
the light of international developments.  W ould Singapore please provide information about 
the latest review and its results? 
 Q67 Thailand (page 108, 1
st entry) : At the Meeting of the Council Review of MFN exemption 
held on 5 July 2000, Thailand indicated that following the VAT-system reform in 1998, all 
WTO Members enjoyed a zero VAT rate on the selling and marketing of maritime services in 
Thailand18.  Would Thailand please advise whether such a development would obviate the 
need for maintaining this exemption? 
 Q68 Thailand (page 108, 2
nd entry) : As understood from the Meeting of the Council Review of 
MFN exemption held on 29 May 2000, Thailand granted national treatment to US nationals 
and companies in conducting commercial, indus trial and services activities except for the 
transport sector, amongst others, under the Treat y of Amity and Economic Relations between 
Thailand and the United States19.  Would Thailand please clarify whether maritime transport 
services fall under the exception, and thus exclude d from the privilege granted under the said 
Treaty?  If the answer is affirmative, would Thailand further advise whether the conditions 
creating the need for the exemption still prevail? 
 Q69 Besides, it is noted that Thailand has made certain market access and national treatment 
commitments for fright transportation.  Please confirm whether or not the exemption is 
intended to apply to the scheduled services and if so, whether it purports to grant less favourable treatment than that accord ed by the relevant commitments. 
Q70 Thailand (page 108, 2
nd entry; page 109, all entries) : It is noted that the intended duration 
of the three exemptions relating to “Internationa l maritime transport of cargoes” is 10 years.  
It is also noted from Thailand’s response provide d at the Meeting of the Council Review of 
MFN exemption held on 5 July 2000 that the cargo sharing as stated in Thailand’s MFN exemptions (the two entries on page 109) no  longer existed in both the Agreement on 
maritime transport between Th ailand and Viet Nam, as well as between Thailand and China
20.  
We would appreciate if Thailand could confir m the termination of all these exemptions. 
 Q71 Trinidad and Tobago (page 109) : We note from the communication of Trinidad and Tobago 
provided during the last Review of MFN exemp tions that this exemption was obsolete and 
without relevance
21.  In the light of this, would Trinidad and Tobago please confirm if the 
conditions creating the need for the exemption no longer prevail and this exemption would be 
removed? 
 
                                                      
 17 Paragraph 10 of S/C/W/150 of 16 June 2000. 
 18 Paragraph 62 of S/C/M/45 of 18 August 2000. 
 19 Paragraph 36 of S/C/M/44 of 21 June 2000. 
 20 Paragraph 62 of S/C/M/45 of 18 August 2000. 
 21 Paragraph 1 of S/C/W/161 of 31 July 2000.  S/C/W/253 
 Page 19 
 
 
 Q72 Tunisia (pages 109 and 110, all entries) : At the meeting of the Council Review of MFN 
Exemptions held on 5 July 2000, Tunisia indicat ed that it was considering the possibility of 
revising its position with regard to the exemptions on maritime services22.  We would like to 
know whether such a review has been conducte d, and if so, the outcome of the review. 
 
Q73 Tunisia (page 109, 1st entry) : It is noted that this exemption is inscribed to “prevent, offset 
and counter all discriminatory measures and restri ctive and harmful actions affecting Tunisian 
maritime transporters and maritime trade”.  Would Tunisia please advise whether its maritime 
transport services suppliers have encountered such discriminatory measures and restrictive 
and harmful actions since the exemption has ente red into force?  If this exemption has never 
been invoked, would Tunisia explain whethe r the conditions creating the need for the 
exemption still prevail? 
 Q74 Turkey (page 111, 3
rd entry) : At the meeting of the Council Review of MFN exemptions 
held on 5 July 2000, Turkey indicated that the provision in Article 55.3 of Turkey’s Custom 
Law was to be applied on a reciprocal basis so  it should never apply to the Members of the 
WTO who signed the GATS23.  If the measure is not intended to apply to WTO Members, 
there appears no need for any MFN exemption.  In the light of this, would Turkey please 
confirm if the conditions creating the need for the exemption no longer prevail and the 
exemption would be removed? 
 
(b) Internal Waterways Transport 
Q75 Austria (page 112), EC and their Member States (page 113, 1st entry) :  The EC Indicated 
at the meeting of the Council Review of MFN exemption held on 5 July 2000 that the exemptions needed to be main tained because the conditions cr eating the need prevailed until 
the overall harmonization of the European wa terway-transport market was completed
24.  We 
would appreciate if the EC could advise whether such a harmonization exercise has been 
completed, and if so, explain whether the conditio ns that created the need for the exemptions 
still prevail and whether the MFN exemption could be terminated. 
 
Q76 Bulgaria (page 113), Czech Republic (page  113), Hungary (page 113), Slovak Republic 
(page 114) : Would the Members concerned please provide more information on the specific 
measures covered by their respective exemptions , and specify the elements therein which are 
MFN-inconsistent?  We would also like to know the list of countries with which the relevant 
Members have concluded agreements and the duration of these agreements.  
 Q77 Switzerland (page 114) : Would Switzerland please provide information on what are the 
“other agreements on internal waterways tran sports”, including the list of countries with 
which it has concluded those agreements a nd the elements therein which are not MFN-
consistent? 
 (c) Air Transport Services 
Q78 Austria (page 115); EC (page 116); Finland (page 116); Norway (page 118); Sweden 
(page 121) : We note that insufficient developmen t of multilateral agreed rules for the 
operation of CRS (computer reservation system) was stated to be the condition that created the need for these exemptions.  It is further understood from the Meeting of the Council Review of MFN exemption held on 18 Augu st 2000, that some multilateral rules were 
                                                     
 
 22 Paragraph 57 of S/C/M/45 of 18 August 2000. 
 23 Paragraph 65 of S/C/M/45 of 18 August 2000. 
 24 Paragraph 59 of S/C/M/45 of 18 August 2000. S/C/W/253 
Page 20  
 
 developed in the area but the implementation was slow
25.  Would EC advise whether the 
condition that created the need of the exempti ons still prevail, having regard to the latest 
development of multilateral rules in this area, a nd if so what are the areas of multilateral rules 
that give rise the need for the exemptions? 
 
Q79 Besides, it is noted that EC and the above named Member States have made certain market 
access and national treatment commitment for computer reservation system as well as the sales and marketing of air transport services.  Please confirm whether the exemptions in question are intended to apply to the scheduled  services, and if so, whether it purports to 
granted less favorable treatment than that accorded by the relevant commitments.  
 
Q80 Bulgaria (page 115) : Would Bulgaria elaborate on what are the “obligations relating to 
transport services” referred to under this exemption?   
 Q81 Chinese Taipei (page 116, 2
nd entry) : It is noted that Chinese Taipei has undertaken full 
market access and national treatment commitm ent in modes 1 to 3 for other supporting and 
auxiliary transport services.  Please confirm whet her the exemption in question is intended to 
apply to the scheduled services, and if so, how it can be reconciled with the respective market 
access and national treatment commitments. 
 Q82 Korea (page 117) : We note that Korea has proposed to delete this exemption in its initial 
offer.  We appreciate Korea’s offer and would like to know the timetable for the removal of 
this exemption. 
 Q83 Liechtenstein (page 117) ; Switzerland (page 121) : We note that insufficient development of 
multilateral agreed rules for the operation of CRS (computer reservation system) was cited as 
the conditions creating the need for the exemption.  Would Liechtenstein and Switzerland 
advise whether the condition that created the need of the exemption still prevails, having regard to the latest development of multilateral ru les in the area, and if so what are the areas 
of multilateral rules that give rise the need for the exemptions? 
 Q84 Moldova (page 118) : It is noted that the intended duration of the exemption is 5 years.  
Would Moldova please confirm the termination of exemption in July 2006 as scheduled.  
 Q85 Singapore (page 119) : It is noted that Singapore would periodically review this exemption in 
the light of “international development”.  W ould Singapore please provide information about 
the latest review and its results? 
 
Q86 Thailand (page 122, 1
st entry) :  At the Meeting of the Council Review of MFN Exemptions 
held on 18 August 2000, Thailand advised that in  practice CRS systems could be operated in 
Thailand but permission had to be obtained from the government since regulations relevant to 
the restriction remained in effect.  Thailand furt her undertook to review that restriction during 
the current round of negotiations26.  We would like to know whether the regulations that gave 
rise to the exemption still exist, and if the answ er is in the negative, whether Thailand would 
consider removing this exemption. 
 Q87 Thailand (page 122, 2
nd entry) :  As understood from the Meeting of the Council Review of 
MFN Exemptions held on 18 August 2000, the exemption stemmed from a provision of the 
Thai Air Transport Act (1936)27.  Would Thailand advise whether the relevant legislative 
                                                      
 25 Paragraph 91 of S/C/M45 of 18 August 2000. 
 26 Paragraph 82 of S/C/M45 of 18 August 2000. 
 27 Paragraph 82 of S/C/M45 of 18 August 2000.  S/C/W/253 
 Page 21 
 
 
 provision is still in effect? 
 (d) Space Transport 
Q88 United States of America (page 123) : Would the US please advise us how the condition 
cited as creating the need for the exemption, i. e. “to prevent disruption of competition in the 
international space launch market” could be met by the MFN exemption inscribed?  Please 
also provide an updated list of countries with  which the US has entered into bilateral 
agreements, the MFN-inconsistent provisions of  those agreements, and the duration of those 
agreements. 
 
(e) Rail Transport Services 
Q89 Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic (page 124) : Would the Members concerned 
please provide more specific information on th e measures covered by these exemptions and 
specify the elements in their measures which ar e MFN-inconsistent?  Would Bulgaria please 
also provide the list of countries with which it has entered into agreements? 
 
(f) Road Transport Services 
Q90 Albania (page 125), Brazil (page 127), Croatia  (page 129), Estonia (page 131), Finland 
(page 132), Georgia (page 132), Latvia (page 133), Liechtenstein (page 133), Lithuania 
(page 134), Macedonia, Former Yugoslav Repub lic of (page 134), Moldova (page 135), 
Morocco (page 135), Norway (page 135), Roma nia (page 137), South Africa (page 139), 
Sweden (page 139), Switzerland (page 140, 1
st entry), Thailand (page 140), Turkey (page 
141), USA (page 142) : It is noted that the above-mentioned Members have undertaken 
commitments in mode 3 for international road  transport services, which would mean that 
foreign services suppliers are allowed to  establish commercial presence for providing 
international road transport services subject to  any limitations scheduled.  Please confirm 
whether the exemption of respective Member is intended to apply to the schedule services and 
if so, whether it purports to grant less favourable treatment than that acco rded by the relevant 
mode 3 commitments.  
 
Q91 Armenia (page 125, all entries), Austria (pages 126 & 127, all entries), Bulgaria (page 
128, all entries), Croatia (page 129), Cyprus  (page 130), Czech Republic (page 130), EC 
(page 131), Estonia (page 131), Finland (page 132), Latvia (page 133), Lithuania (page 134), Moldova (page 135), Morocco (page 135), Sweden (page 139) :  It is noted all the 
above-mentioned exemptions con cern, inter alia, measures relating to tax treatment.  Would 
the Members concerned explain why these measur es could not be covered by GATS Article 
XIV (d) and (e)?  
 
Q92 Austria (pages 126 &127, all entries), EC (page 132), Finland (page 132), Sweden (page 
139):  Would the EC please advise whether the exemptions concerned have ever been 
invoked since their entry into force, and whet her the conditions creating the need for the 
exemption still prevail?  We would also appreci ate if the EC could explain how the conditions 
creating the need for the exemption could be  met by the exemption based on reciprocity.  
Apart from reciprocity, have the EC taken in to consideration any other factors for not 
applying the measures on a MFN basis? 
 
Q93 Bolivia (page 127), Brazil (page 127), Chile (page 128), Peru (page 136, 2
nd entry), 
Uruguay (page142) : Would the above Members confirm whether their respective exemption 
stemmed from the “Agreement on International Land Transport”?  We would also like to 
know the specific measures covered by these exem ptions and the elements therein which are S/C/W/253 
Page 22  
 
 MFN-inconsistent.  Would the relevant Me mbers also advise whether the measures are 
granted on the basis of reciprocity?  
 
Q94 Bulgaria (page 128, 1
st entry), Croatia (page 129), Czech (page 130), Georgia (132), 
Hungary (page 132), Latvia, (page133), Lit huania (page 134), Moldova (page 135), 
Romania (page 137), Slovak (page 138), Slovenia (page 138) : Would the Members 
concerned please provide a list of countries (or an updated list of countries) with which they 
have entered into agreements?  We would also appreciate if the Members concerned could 
provide more information on the specific measur es covered by these exemptions and specify 
elements therein which are not MFN-consistent.  Please also advise whether the exemption 
measures are granted on the basis of reciprocity. 
 Q95 Colombia (page 128) & Peru (page 136) : Would Colombia and Peru please provide more 
specific description as to what “preferential treatment” is provided to the countries of the 
Andean Group under this exemption? 
 
Q96 Cyprus (page 130) : As understood from the meeting of the Council Review of MFN 
exemption held on 5 July 2000, Cyprus needed to continue exercising its current policy until it became a full member of the EU
28.  We would like to know wh ether Cyprus would remove 
this exemption given that it is now a full member of the EU. 
 
Q97 Honduras (page 132) : Would Honduras please elaborate on what “discretion” is being 
exercised under this exemption and what measures are subject to this exemption?  Apart from 
reciprocity, has Honduras taken into considera tion any other factors for not applying the 
measure on a MFN basis? 
 
Q98 Morocco (page 135) : Morocco indicated at the meeting of the Council Review of MFN 
exemption held on 5 July 2000 that “the exemption would be lifted in the time set by the WTO and thus international road transport for goods would be liberalized by Morocco due to 
the adoption of Law No. 1699 by the Moroccan Parliament, promulgated last March”.
29 
Would Morocco advise when it intends to terminate this MFN exemption? 
 
Q99 Switzerland (page 140, 1st entry) : We note from Switzerland’s response provided at the 
meeting of the Council Review of MFN exemption held on 5 July 2000 that, in the bilateral 
transport agreements, Switzerland negotiated not  only market access but also issues relating 
to taxation and administrative procedures30.  We would appreciate if Switzerland could 
elaborate on these measures and indicate in what ways they are inconsistent with the MFN 
principle. 
 Q100  Switzerland (page 140, 2
nd entry) : It is noted in its initial offer that Switzerland has offered 
to terminate this MFN exemption.    We appreciate Switzerland’s offer which signifies that the conditions which created the need for the exemption no longer prevail.  Would 
Switzerland please confirm the timetable for the termination of this exemption? 
 
Q101  Thailand (page 140) : Thailand indicated at the Meeting of the Council Review of MFN 
Exemptions held on 5 July 2000 that it would review the exemption during the course of the current round of negotiations
31.  Would Thailand advise whethe r such a review has been 
conducted, and if so, the outcome of the review? 
                                                      
 28 Paragraph 104 of S/C/M/45 of 18 August 2000. 
 29 Paragraph 102 of S/C/M/45 of 18 August 2000. 
 30 Paragraph 105 of S/C/M/45 of 18 August 2000. 
 31 Paragraph 110 of S/C/M/45 of 18 August 2000.  S/C/W/253 
 Page 23 
 
 
  
(g)  Services Auxiliary to All Modes of Transport 
Q102  Bulgaria (page 144) : Would Bulgaria please provide a list of countries with which it has 
concluded bilateral agreemen ts, the provisions of those agreement which are MFN-
inconsistent, and the duration of the agreements concerned?   
  
__________