WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/C/M/110 
15 June 2012 
 (12-3150) 
Council for Trade in Goods  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS  
30 MARCH 2012 
 
Chairperson: H.E. Ambassador Jüri SEILENTHAL (Estonia) 
 
 
 The meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods was convened by airgram WTO/AIR/3915 
and the proposed agenda for the meeting was c ontained in document G/C/W/666.  The meeting 
proceeded on the basis of the following agenda. 
 
I.  NOTIFICATION OF REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS ............................................. 2  
II.  STATUS OF NOTIFICATIONS UND ER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 
AGREEMENTS IN ANNEX IA OF THE WTO AGREEMENT ........................................ 2  
III. APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS TO THE SUBSIDIARY BODIES ................................. 3  
IV.  ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION: PROCEDURES UNDER 
ARTICLE XXVIII:3 OF GATT 1994:.................................................................................... 3  
V.  ARGENTINA'S IMPORT RESTRICTING POLICIES AND PRACTICES: 
JOINT STATEMEMNT BY AUSTRALIA, CANADA, COSTA RICA, THE 
EUROPEAN UNION, ISRAEL, JAPAN, KOREA, NEW ZEALAND, NORWAY, PANAMA, SWITZERLAND, CHINESE TAIPEI, THAILAND, 
TURKEY AND THE UNITED STATES ................................................................................ 5  
VI.  NOTIFICATION OF ACTIONS TAKE N UNDER THE 1999 WAIVER FOR 
PREFERENTIAL TARIFF TREATMENT FOR LEAST-DEVELOPED 
COUNTRIES (WT/L/304) ...................................................................................................... 13  
VII. ECUADOR MIXED TARIFFS – QUESTI ONS FORM THE UNITED STATES, 
EUROPEAN UNION, CANADA, JAPAN AND PANAMA (G/C/W/639) ........................ 14  
VIII. BRAZIL'S INCREASE OF THE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCT TAX ON THE 
AUTOMOTIVE SECTOR - STATEMENT BY AUSTRALIA .......................................... 17  
IX.  CHINESE TAIPEI'S SUBSIDIES FOR THE PURCHASE OF DOMESTIC 
ELECTRIC APPLIANCES - STATEMENT BY THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA ........... 19  
X.  PHILIPPINES - REQUEST FOR A WA IVER RELATING TO SPECIAL 
TREATMENT FOR RICE OF THE PHILIPPINES (G/C/W/665) ................................... 20  
XI.  WORK PROGRAMME ON ELE CTRONIC COMMERCE ............................................. 22  
XII. OTHER BUSINESS ................................................................................................................  23 
XIII. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN 
GOODS ......................................................................................................................... ........... 25  
 
 When adopting the Agenda, the delegate of the European Union requested to include, under 
"Other Business", an item relating to "Ukraine's implementation of Customs Valuation Legislation". G/C/M/110 
Page 2 
 
 
  I. NOTIFICATION OF REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS 
1. The Chairman recalled that, under the working procedures agreed by the Council on Regional 
Trade Agreements (CRTA) following adoption by  the General Council of the Transparency 
Mechanism, the Council for Trade in Goods was to be  kept informed of Members' notifications of 
new regional trade agreements.  He informed the CTG that the following regional trade agreements 
had been notified to the RTA Committee: 
 (A) FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CHILE AND HONDURAS 
(WT/REG303/N/1) 
 
 (B) FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN PERU AND CHILE (WT/REG304/N/1) 
  (C) FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN  THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC AND 
CENTRAL AMERICA (WT/REG305/N/1) 
  (D) FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN NEW ZEALAND AND MALAYSIA 
(WT/REG306/N/1) 
  (E) ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN 
UNION AND EASTERN AND SOUTHERN AFRICA STATES (WT/REG307/N/1) 
  (F) TRADE INTEGRATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN PERU AND MEXICO 
(WT/REG308/N/1) 
  (G) ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN JAPAN AND PERU 
(WT/REG309/N/1) 
 
 (H) FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CHINA AND COSTA RICA 
(WT/REG310/N/1) 
 
 (I) FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA AND 
THE UNITED STATES (WT/REG311/N/1) 
 
2. The Council took note of the information presented. 
II. STATUS OF NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 
AGREEMENTS IN ANNEX IA OF THE WTO AGREEMENT 
3. The Chairman drew Members' atten tion to documents G/L/223/Rev.19 and 
G/L/223/Rev.19/Corr.1, containing the status of notif ications under the provisions of the Agreements 
in Annex 1A of the WTO Agreement. 
4. The delegate of the European Union thanked the Secretariat for the useful document and 
reiterated the high importance it attached to Me mbers' due compliance with the notification 
obligations set out in the WTO Agreements.  Members should certainly not disregard the first and 
foremost transparency obligation within the WT O.  The completeness and timeliness of such 
notifications benefited the daily business of this institution.  It fed into the work of each WTO 
Committee and Council and helped Members better  understand the trade practices and policies 
undertaken by each one.  He recalled that durin g the MC8 in December 2011, Ministers widely 
acknowledged that improving Members compliance with notification obligations would enhance 
transparency across WTO bodies and help to discour age protectionism.  As regards the outstanding 
notifications from the EU under the Agreement on Agri culture, he drew the Council's attention to the  G/C/M/110 
 Page 3 
 
 
  subsequent notifications made after the 31 December  2011.  Firstly on Article 16.2 (NF:1 food aid) a 
package of notifications up to 2009 was submitted  and was available on the WTO website.  Secondly, 
the EU had recently submitted its Article 18.2 DS :1 notification which covered WTO year 2008 and 
would be reviewed at the meeting of Committee on Agriculture in June 2012.  Thirdly Article 
5.7/18.2 (MA:5) notification on special safeguard for 2009 and export subsidies (ES:1-3) notifications 
for 2009 had been submitted to the WTO Secretaria t.  His delegation hoped these new notifications 
would be reflected in the next update of this document. 
5. The delegate of the United States stated that her delegation appreciated the Secretariat's report 
compiling notification obligations and compliance.  Th is provided valuable opportunity to review the 
status of notifications across committees.  The US  thanked all the Members who had fulfilled their 
notification requirements for their commitment to transparency, but expressed concerns that there 
were still numerous outstanding not ifications. She encouraged all Members to submit their 
notifications for review by the appropriate WTO body. 
6. The Chairman proposed that the C ouncil takes note of the documents1 and requested the 
Secretariat to explore ways to reduce the volume of the document containing the annual notifications. 
A revised format, of a pure technical nature, would be presented at the next meeting for Members' 
consideration.  The new format would contain onl y the notifications of the preceding year under the 
different provisions in the Agreements in Annex A of the Marrakesh Agreement with references to 
previous documents and revisions thereof in the G/L series.  
7. The Council so agreed. 
III. APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS TO THE SUBSIDIARY BODIES 
8. The Chairperson recalled that the Guidelines for the Appointment of Officers to WTO bodies 
contained in document WT/L/510, adopted by the General Council on 10 December 2002, provided 
that the Chairperson of the Council for Trade in Goods would conduc t consultations on the 
appointment of the Chairpersons of the subsidia ry bodies of the Council for Trade in Goods.  He 
informed the Council that he had carried out cons ultations over four weeks on this matter.  These 
consultations were carried out in a highly tran sparent and open manner whereby all Members were 
informed that he would be accepting proposals fo r candidates for these positions.  However, despite 
his best efforts, he was not in a position to presen t a slate of names and proposed that the Council 
suspend this item and reconvene at a short noti ce, as soon as a slate was ready for Members' 
consideration.   
9. The Council so agreed. 
IV. ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION: PROCEDURES UNDER ARTICLE 
XXVIII:3 OF GATT 1994:  
10. The Chairperson informed Members that under th is agenda item, the Council was to consider 
a request for extension of the time period for the w ithdrawal of concessions for the two enlargements 
of the European Union that took place on 1 May 2004 and on 1 January 2007, respectively. 
A. ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ON 1 MAY 2004  (G/L/695/ADD.15) 
11. The Chairperson drew Members' attention to  document G/L/695/Add.15 which concerned the 
accession to the European Union on 1 May 2004 of  Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, 
Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, the Slovak Republic  and Slovenia.  In this communication, the EU 
                                                      
1 See also document G/L/223/Rev.19/Corr.2. G/C/M/110 
Page 4 
 
 
  indicated that it would not assert that Members who had submitted a claim pursuant to 
Article XXIV:6 of GATT 1994 were precluded fro m withdrawing substantially equivalent 
concessions under Article XXVIII:3 of GATT 1994 becau se this withdrawal occurred later than six 
months after the EU's withdrawal of concessions, provided that the claiming WTO Member withdrew 
concessions no later than 99 months after the EU's  modification of concessions.  He recalled that the 
General Council had on four earlier occasions, on the basis of similar communications from the EU, 
extended the deadline for withdrawal of concessions  referred to in Article XXVIII:3 of GATT 1994, 
namely, at its meetings in October 2004, and in March, June, and Decembe r 2005.  Similarly, the 
Council for Trade in Goods had extended the deadline on twelve occasions, namely at its meetings of 
12 July 2006, 30 January, 21 May and 23 November 2007, 22 May and 18 November 2008, 29 June 
and 30 October 2009;  21 May and 30 November 2010; and, 26 May and 7 November 2011.   
12. The representative of the European Union said th at while negotiations had been finalized, the 
setting of the banana tariff did not yet have lega l force as the Geneva agreement on bananas had not 
yet entered into force.  The ratification was pending by the EU's WTO partners.  The EU had 
therefore circulated a communication aimed at exte nding the period in which Members are allowed to 
withdraw substantially equivalent concessions.  He noted that the me ssage itself was identical to the 
one which the CTG endorsed when extending the period for withdrawal in the CTG of  7 November 2011.   
13. The Council took note of the statement made and also of the EU communication contained in 
document G/L/695/Add.15.  It agreed to the extensi on of the deadline as set out in the EU's document 
G/L/695/Add.15.   
B. ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ON 1 JANUARY 2007   
14. The Chairperson drew Members' attention to  document G/L/821/Add.10 which concerned the 
accession to the European Union on 1 January 2007 of Bulgaria and Romania.  In this 
communication, the EU indicated that it would not assert that Members who had submitted a claim 
pursuant to Article XXIV:6 of GATT 1994 were precl uded from withdrawing subs tantially equivalent 
concessions under Article XXVIII:3 of GATT 1994 becau se this withdrawal occurred later than 
six months after the EU's withdrawal of concessions, provided that the claiming WTO Member withdrew concessions no later than 66 months after the EU's modification of concessions.  He recalled 
that the Council for Trade in Goods had extende d the deadline on ten occasions, namely at its 
meetings of 21 May and 23 November 2007, 22  May and 18 November 2008, 29 June and 
30 October 2009; 21 May and 30 November 2010; and 26 May and 7 November 2011. 
15. The representative of the European Union in formed the Council that the negotiations 
following the EU's 2007 enlargement had been fi nalized; the EU was now proceeding with the 
signature and conclusion of the fina l two agreements.  However due to  the time necessary to finalize 
all the procedures and to ensure the entry into for ce of all the agreements, another extension to the 
period in which Members allowed to withdraw subs tantially equivalent concessions was necessary. 
The EU had therefore circulated a communication aimed at extending the period in which Members 
are allowed to withdraw substan tially equivalent concessions.  The message itself was similar to the 
one which the CTG endorsed when extending the period for withdrawal in the CTG of  7 November 2011.  
16.  The Council took note of the statement made a nd also of the EU communication contained in 
document G/L/821/Add.10.  It agreed to the extens ion of the deadline as set out in the European 
Union's document G/L/821/Add.10.   G/C/M/110 
 Page 5 
 
 
  V. ARGENTINA'S IMPORT RESTRICTING POLICIES AND PRACTICES: JOINT 
STATEMEMNT BY AUSTRALIA, CANADA, COSTA RICA, THE EUROPEAN 
UNION, ISRAEL, JAPAN, KOREA, NEW ZEALAND, NORWAY, PANAMA, SWITZERLAND, CHINESE TAIPEI, THAILAND, TURKEY AND THE UNITED 
STATES
2 
17. The Chairman informed the Council that in a communication dated 19 March 2012, the 
delegation of the United States had requested the Secret ariat to include in the agenda of this meeting, 
the issue of "Argentina's Import Restricting Polic ies and Practices: Joint Statement by Australia, 
Canada, Costa Rica, the European Union, Isr ael, Japan, Korea, Norway, Panama, Switzerland, 
Chinese Taipei, Thailand, Turkey and the united States."  
18. The representative of the United States indicated  that he would like to offer three brief 
remarks on behalf of the US before turning to a jo int statement.  First, on behalf of the US, he 
welcomed the very high level delegation from Arge ntina present at the meeting, Ambassador Cecilia 
Nohan, Ambassador Horacio Salvador  and Ambassador Alberto D'Alotto. Second, that his 
delegation was of the understanding that Argentina had been very busy over the past few days both in 
Geneva and in capitals; this was a very positive de velopment and a sign that Argentina was now ready 
to engage.  The US hoped that this new e ngagement would extend beyond political pressure 
concerning a particular meeting and would incl ude a new willingness to address broadly held 
substantive concerns.  Third, that all of the WT O membership had been talking, before, during and 
after MC8 about the importance of work in the WTO's regular bodies like this one; WTO Members should use the committees for problem solving, thus wo rking together with trad ing partners to address 
and resolve issues of mutual concern was what th e WTO was all about.  The US was pleased to be 
able to join together in the hope that Argentina w ill see the seriousness with which this large group of 
Members views Argentina's import restrictions and requested that the restrictions be eliminated.  He 
then indicated that his delegation was presenting a joint statement on behalf of 14 co-sponsors: 
Australia, Costa Rica, The European Union, Israel, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Switzerland, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, Turkey and The United States. 
19. When delivering the joint statement, he stated  that the co-sponsors wanted to express jointly 
their continuing and deepening concerns regarding the nature and application of trade-restrictive 
measures taken by Argentina, which were adversel y affecting imports into Argentina from a growing 
number of WTO Members.  These measures include d the overly broad use of non-automatic import 
licensing trade balancing requirements, and pre-regi stration and pre-approval of all imports into 
Argentina.  Since 2008, Argentina had greatly expa nded the list of products subject to non-automatic 
import licensing requirements.  Currently, an im port license was required for approximately six 
hundred 8-digit tariff lines in Argentina's non-agricultural goods schedule.   The products affected 
included, but were not limited to, laptops, home a ppliances, air conditioners, tractors, machinery and 
tools, autos and auto parts, plastics, chemicals, tyres, toys, footwear, tex tiles and apparel, luggage, 
bicycles, and paper products.  
20. A non-automatic licensing requirement was WT O incompatible unless it was necessary to 
implement measures which were imposed in confor mity with the relevant WTO rules and did not 
have trade-restrictive or trade-distortive effect s on imports beyond those caused by the underlying 
restriction.  The non-automatic licensing requirement must comply with all relevant provisions of the 
Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures, in cluding a maximum processing period of 60 days. 
Companies from many of the Members that suppor ted the joint statement reported that Argentina's 
non-automatic import licensing scheme had a trade-rest rictive effect on imports and that there were 
                                                      
2 At the meeting Mexico requested to be included in the list of countries co-sponsoring the joint 
statement and immediately before the meeting Costa Rica requested to be withdrawn from the list of co-
sponsors. G/C/M/110 
Page 6 
 
 
  long delays in the issuance of import licenses.  Ma ny companies had reported waiting periods of up to 
six months and longer.  In some instances, compan ies were denied import licenses altogether, without 
justification or explanation. 
21. The lack of transparency in Argentina's implementation and administration of its import 
licensing regime created profound uncertainty for both  exporters and potential e xporters to Argentina, 
as well as for investors in Argentina.  In January  2012, Argentina announced regulations that went 
into effect on 1 February, requiring pre-registra tion, review and approval of each and every import 
transaction.  These regulations were creating long de lays and resulting in huge costs for many of the 
exporters from Members supporting this statement.  It  appeared that this new system is operating as a 
de facto  import restricting scheme, on all products.  
22. Argentina had made clear through public governme nt statements that it had also adopted an 
informal "trade balancing" policy, whereby comp anies seeking to import products must agree to 
export, dollar for dollar, goods of an equal or greater value or establish production facilities in 
Argentina.  Many companies had reported r eceiving telephone calls from Argentine government 
officials in which they were informed that th ey must agree to undertake such trade balancing 
commitments prior to receiving authorization to import goods. The Ministry of Industry's website was 
replete with press releases announcing these trade-ba lancing and domestic pro duction arrangements.   
These arrangements included well known automakers  agreeing to export products such as wine, olive 
oil, and soy meal, and requiring companies acros s a number of sectors to undertake production in 
Argentina without reference to the economics of doing so. Argentina might claim that companies 
enter into these arrangements voluntarily, but many of the Members supporting this statement shared 
concerns that it might be operating otherwise.   
23. He also indicated that Members supporting this  statement were not aware of any official 
directive or resolution setting out these trade balancing or investment requirements.  However, high 
level Argentine government officials had been quot ed in the Argentine press as saying quite clearly 
that the purpose of these requirements is to improv e its trade balance by restricting imports and 
promoting exports. Many of the Members co-sponsor ing the joint statement had previously raised 
concerns about Argentina's increasingly protecti onist measures both bilaterally and multilaterally 
beginning in 2008 when Argentina began progressively  expanding the number of products subject to 
its non-automatic import licensing requirements. Con cerns had been raised and questions had been 
directed to Argentina in the Committee on Import Licensing, the Committee on Agriculture, and in 
this Council.  However, Argentina has failed to  adequately address these concerns or respond to 
Members' questions.  Indeed, rather than elimin ating these import-restrictive measures and practices, 
Argentina had introduced new measures, and the existing measures have become increasingly 
problematic for our exporters. 
 
24. The import-restrictive measures and practices th at Argentina had put in place were unbefitting 
any WTO Member, particularly a member of the G- 20 who had committed to refrain from raising new 
barriers to trade and investment.  In light of the shared goal of making every effort to sustain global 
economic growth, Argentina's measures, which cl early limited the growth-enhancing prospects for 
trade, were particularly troubling.  Thus, the co-sponsoring Members requested Argentina to take 
immediate steps to address the concerns they had rai sed at this meeting, and that many Members had 
risen in the past, by removing or terminating these import-restrictive measures and practices.   If, on 
the other hand, despite the concerns described a bove, Argentina continued to maintain these import-
restrictive measures and practices, Argentina should provide a detailed written explanation of why in  G/C/M/110 
 Page 7 
 
 
  its view these measures and practices were consistent with WTO rules.  Members reserved their rights 
to pursue this matter further.3 
25. The delegate of Mexico also welcomed the high ranking officials from Argentina who were 
attending the meeting but expressed his regret that Mexi co had to make a statement at this point in the 
agenda of this meeting.   Argentina was a country  with which Mexico had many historical, cultural 
and fraternal links. With Argentina, his country had shared flourishing trade and rapidly increasing 
mutual investments.  However, in the course of r ecent years, Mexico had been concerned to observe 
that Argentina was attempting to counter macr oeconomic difficulties with  trade policy related 
measures using trade restrictions and restrictions to  investments which failed to fall in line with WTO 
rules.  Not only had Argentina failed to rectify its initial restrictive measures, but rather it also 
continued to bolster the range of such measures a nd expanded the list of prod ucts which were subject 
to such measures. This had seriously impacted Mexi can exports to Argentina; furthermore, there had 
been a trade to restrict other Mexican exports wh ich were key to Mexico's trade relationship with 
Argentina.  In light of this, Mexico had decided to announce its co-sponsorship of the joint statement 
presented at this meeting by the US delegation in its own capacity along with the delegations of 
Australia, the European Union, Israel, Japan, Ko rea, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Switzerland, 
Chinese Taipei, Thailand and Turkey.  He therefore re quested that Mexico's name be included as part 
of that statement in the minutes of this meeting.  Me xico also subscribed to the final part of the joint 
statement in that Mexico reserved all its rights to take this point further if Argentina persisted in 
maintaining the measures which originated the trade concerns raised at this meeting and also if 
Argentina continued to increase the number of trade restrictive measures. 
26. The delegate of Chinese Taipei also welcomed  the high level delegation from Argentina and 
associated itself with the joint statement made by the US and Mexico.  Argentina had applied non-
automatic import licensing (NALs) requirements to a broad range of products  which covered a large 
portion of our exports to Argentina.  The peri od for processing applications for import licences was 
reported to be considerably longer than sixty days .  Moreover, Argentina introduced a new regulation 
in February this year, requiring pre-registrati on review and approval of each and every import 
transaction.  His delegation was concerned that Ar gentina's NALs requirements and import restricting 
measures had been not only causing extra burden to expor ters and their local trading partners but also 
resulted in trade distortive effects on imports.  Hi s delegation hoped that Argentina would apply its 
measures in a transparent and predictable manner wi thout causing impediment to international trade. 
27. The delegate of Turkey joined others in welc oming the Argentine delegation.  Turkey as one 
of the co-sponsors fully supported the joint statemen t delivered by Ambassador Punke and shared the 
concerns expressed therein.  As expressed through out the joint statement, Argentine import regime 
had become more cumbersome by the last changes which brought about the requirement of pre-
registration, review and pre-approval of all im port transactions.  These changes, when compounded 
by the already continuing practices, rendered Arge ntina's import regime even more restrictive.  
Turkey's exports of white goods were mostly hit an d almost came to a halt as a result.  Regrettably 
Turkey was now at a point where a significant down fall in its exports to Argentina in almost all 
sectors had been observed.  Turkey asked Argentina again to act in accordance with its obligations 
arising from the WTO membership. 
28. The delegate of Australia also welcomed the high level delegation from Argentina and 
registered Australia’s support for the joint statement delivered by the US and the co-sponsors. 
29. The delegate of Japan welcomed the high le vel delegation from Arge ntina and reiterated 
Japan’s support to the joint statement delivered by  Ambassador Punke of the US.  Japan co-sponsored 
the joint statement because despite  repeated expressions of serious concerns by a number of countries 
                                                      
3 The joint statement was ci rculated as G/C/W/667. G/C/M/110 
Page 8 
 
 
  in this Council and also in its subsidiary b odies, the problems resulting from Argentina's import 
licensing policies had even become more serious.  New measures had been introduced and existing 
measures had been expanded with import restricti ng impacts.  Japan, like other countries supporting 
the joint statement, urged Argentina to respond to th e serious concerns expressed by those countries in 
various committees by rectifying WTO inconsistent me asures.  In this connection, he referred to the 
repeated commitments made by the G-20 leaders to  refrain from raising new barriers to trade and 
investment.  
30. The delegate of Panama stated that the presence at this meeting of high officials from 
Argentina showed the interest of this country to r esolve the issues which had ar isen as a result of the 
NALs measures in question.  His delegation fully s upported the joint statement and firmly hoped that 
Argentina might give positive responses to the concer ns raised.  This was of significant importance to 
the Panamanian government and his delegation would c ontinue to work bilaterally with Argentina.  
Both brother countries had already undertaken bilateral measures for so me time and Panama 
maintained high hopes that this could be solved expeditiously. 
31. The delegate of Chile welcomed the high ranki ng delegation of Argentina led by Ambassador 
Cecilia Nohan.  Chile had always rejected any measures which presente d an unjustifiable and 
unnecessary barrier to trade.  In that regard, Chile ex pressed its concern for the restrictions on imports 
which have been instigated by Argentina.  The Ch ilean export sector had been exposed to a situation 
which had generated high costs and uncertainty as a result of the high level of bureaucracy concerning 
Argentina's markets.  Chile had been discussing th is bilaterally with Argentina and hoped that the 
results of those discussions would allow lighter  burden concerning exports to that country. 
32. The delegate of Colombia welcomed the Argen tinian delegation led by the Vice Minister for 
External Trade.  Colombia also had concerns re garding the NALs regime that Argentina had been 
imposing.   These measures had  de facto become a quantitative restriction on imports.  Colombia 
believed that those measures might be incompatib le with Argentina's commitments within the 
framework of the WTO.  The effects of these measures  on exports were very tangible.  Bilateral trade 
between the two countries had been increasing but since 2009, there had been a clear reduction in the 
share of industrial products in the total of Colombia n exports to Argentina.  A more detailed view 
showed that at least 42 tariff lines had been affected  by the Argentine NALs system and the effect of 
this on trade was quite clear: in 27 of those 42 lines,  exports had been reduced by more than half over 
the past two years and in the case of 18 tariff lines trade had been reduced to almost zero.  Some of 
the products affected various types of furniture , paper products, garments  and zips among others; 
therefore SMEs were particularly affected by these measures.  The recently adoption of Resolution 
3252 of 2012, establishing an affidavit prior to im port had worsened the situation.  Colombian 
exporters had been reporting that Ar gentinian authorities had been ta king more than 90 days to assess 
licence applications and affidavits and, in many cases , requests had been rejected with no clear reason 
or explanation.   
33. Colombia had always tried to seek reciprocal and just attitude concerning bilateral trade.  
There had always been a historical deficit for Colomb ia with its trade with Ar gentina; this increased 
by 40 per cent between 2009 and 2010 and fo r 2010 and 2011 would increase by 17 per cent.  
Colombia had always respected its obligations to  Argentina both multilaterally and bilaterally; that 
had allowed Argentinian imports to increase.  Colomb ia had always tried to grant complete certainty 
to Argentinian exporters in terms of exports to its territory but the same had not been offered to 
Colombian exporters to Argentina since a number of measures introduced by Argentina had reduced 
such certainty.  His authorities had also raised thes e concerns bilaterally with Argentina and, along 
with other Members, had indicated its concerns  in the Committee on Import Licensing and in this 
Council and yet Argentina had offered no solution to these problems; on the contrary, it had increased 
the measures.  His delegation therefore wanted to re quest that these issues be dealt with by Argentina  G/C/M/110 
 Page 9 
 
 
  and had always had the willingness to address this i ssue constructively and the measures to be lifted 
as soon as possible.   
34. The delegate of the European Union indicated  that the EU aligned itself with the joint 
statement delivered by the US on be half of all the co-sponsors.  Hi s delegation reiterated the serious 
concerns over Argentina's long standing policies as described in the joint statement.  The EU was 
exploring any available option to re-establish WT O compatibility and hoped that today's discussion 
opened the door for a substantive discussion on Argentina's policies. 
35. The delegate of New Zealand also welcomed  the high level Argentinian delegation. New 
Zealand fully endorsed the joint st atement as delivered by the US.  Like previous speakers, New 
Zealand had systemic concerns in relation to th e range of import restrictive measures taken by 
Argentina and would be following the developments closely. 
36. The delegate of Peru welcomed the high level officials from Argentina and stated that Peru 
understood the efforts which Argentina was making w ith a view to promoting its development as part 
of its own development strategy, adopted to ensure th e well-being of its population.  In spite of that, 
Peru reiterated what had been said at previous meetings in the Committee on Import Licensing and in 
this Council relating to the Argentinean NALS system.  Peru also had concerns about the delays to 
grant import licences which harmed its exporters .  Therefore, Peru called upon the Argentinian 
authorities to quickly grant pending non-automatic li cences and, in line with WTO standards, avoid 
all unnecessary barriers to trade.  A number of Peruvi an exports to Argentina, particularly garments 
and other products, very important  to a number of its SMEs, were still waiting for licences to be 
granted by the Argentinean authorities.  Peru belie ved that Argentina would use all relevant methods 
of dialogue with its main trading partners to avoi d the negative effects caused by these delays and by 
the obligation to carry out an affidavit prior to im ports as required since 1 February 2012.  This also 
applied to services that came into force on 1 April with retrospective effects. 
37. The delegate of Norway welcomed the high level delegation from Argentina and as a co-
sponsor of the statement joined those delegations  who had expressed their concerns regarding the 
trade restrictive measures taken by Argentina.  No rway was particularly concerned by the systemic 
problems. 
38. The delegate of Switzerland welcomed the de legation from Argentina.   Switzerland supported 
the joint statement on Argentina's import restrictive measures.  Since summer 2010, Switzerland had 
drawn attention to this problem in various WTO bodies and it had not seen any progress on this issue.  He invited Argentina to consider the concerns  expressed by many Members and to remove or 
terminate these import restrictive measures and practices. 
39. The delegate of Hong Kong, China welcomed the delegation from Argentina.  Hong Kong, 
China supported the joint statement and registered its  systemic concerns on both the legislation and 
application of Argentina's restric ting policies and practices.  She emphasized that any trade restrictive 
measures were not conducive to the development of  bilateral economic ties and mutual co-operation 
and should be eliminated as fast as possible. 
40. The delegate of Singapore indicated that her de legation had systemic concerns about the trade 
restricting policies and practices.  Singapore had concerns with any continuing implementation of 
trade restrictive measures and introduction of new on es.  Thus, she urged Argentina to review these 
protectionist measures with the aim of removing them  so as to further the collective goal at the WTO 
of liberalizing and facilitating trade.  Singapore was en couraged by the high level of representation of 
Argentina at this meeting; this indicated Argentin a's engagement in the matter and it hoped this could 
be resolved soon. G/C/M/110 
Page 10 
 
 
  41. The delegate of Israel also welcomed the hi gh level delegation from Argentina.  Israel 
supported the statement delivered by the US and l ooked forward to a positive and prompt solution to 
its concerns. 
42. The delegate of Malaysia joined others in welcoming the Argentinian delegation to this 
meeting.  Her country was also one of those Members affected by the rulings imposed by Argentina.   
Her delegation understood that bilate ral discussions were on-going at this stage and stressed that in 
this global economic environment, it was very importa nt to keep trade open and resist protectionism. 
She hoped that this issue would be resolved very soon. 
43. The delegate from China also welcomed the high  level delegation from Argentina and joined 
other delegations in expressing China's serious c oncerns over the import restrictions policies and 
practices by Argentina.  A large number of Chin ese companies had reported that they were facing 
severe difficulties in exports to Argentina; this was happening despite the fact that China was the 
Argentina's second largest trading partner and wa s increasingly importing more and more goods from 
Argentina.  China hoped that these import restric tive policies and practises taken by Argentina would 
be of a temporary nature and expected Argentina to  take effective action to ensure that trade flows 
uninterrupted among Members on a secure and pred ictable basis while fully preserving the WTO 
principles and commitments. 
44. The representative of Argentina expressed her satis faction for being, for the first time at the 
WTO in her capacity as Secretary of State with th e responsibility for international trade within the 
Ministry of Foreign relations of the Republic of Argentina and thanked all delegations for the warm 
welcome they had extended to herself and to her team  in the course of this meeting.  She had listened 
carefully to the statement delivered by certain Members and had the same spirit of openness and 
willingness to engage in discussions that guided her country's participation in the WTO.  However, 
she expressed deep surprise and disquiet of Argen tina regarding the joint statement which she rejected 
as it was not based on objective information but aimed at creating a political issue stigmatizing her 
country and seeking to exert pressure on it to revi se its current legitimate policies. Argentina 
considered this as a political action because it did not involve precise questions concerning certain 
specific measures or sectoral policies, but rather an  overall questioning of Argentina's trade policies 
and practices, of a kind unprecedented in the WTO.  Argentina was concerned at the serious systemic 
consequences that such an action could have.  Firs t of all, for the developing countries as a whole, 
which could see themselves under threat and prevente d from using legitimate trade policy instruments 
to promote their economic development in the fra mework of the difficult climate created by the 
international economic crisis, with its epicentre in the developed countries.  Secondly, in terms of the 
credibility of the multilateral trading system as a whole, which could be perceived as an unjust 
mechanism in which participants that were powerfu l, though few in number, could arbitrarily censure 
any of the other members with relatively less economic clout.  
45. The unsubstantiated nature of this joint st atement was clearly evidenced by numerous 
objective elements set out as follows: First, the statement unjustifiably characterized Argentina's 
existing trade policies and practices as "import restricting" and, on the basis of that improper and 
unilateral diagnosis, inadmissibly called on Argentina to "take immediate steps" to terminate these 
measures or, failing that, to "provide a detailed written  explanation" as to why they are consistent with 
WTO rules. The use of such language prejudged the alleged lack of validity and inconsistency with 
the international regulatory system of the trade measures in force in Argentina and failed to 
substantiate those allegations.  On the other hand, general and imprecise reference was made to 
certain "concerns" said to have been raised by "m any companies" in the signatory countries. As a 
founding Member of the WTO, Argentina reaffirm ed its unwavering commitment to the multilateral 
trading system, with the WTO at its core.  Her coun try would continue to provide information on its 
trade policy as it had been doing since the creation of this body.  At the meetings of this Council for Trade in Goods and the Committee on Import Licensing,  Argentina had repeatedly responded to the  G/C/M/110 
 Page 11 
 
 
  concerns raised by other delegations, both orally and in writing, since 2007.  This demonstrated its 
firm commitment to the principles of this Organiza tion relating to notifications and transparency.  
Argentina reaffirmed its desire to continue respondi ng to the concerns raised by its trading partners, 
which was demonstrated by her presence and her team at this meeting.  Argentina's trade policy was 
no mystery.  Like more than 100 other Members, it had a system of automatic and non-automatic 
licensing, which was compatible with WTO rules and the international commitments that it had 
assumed.  As was notified to the Committee on Impor t Licensing on 8 March 2011, in February of 
that year there was an increase in  the tariff lines covered by such licences, which currently apply to 
6 per cent of the tariff universe.  She recalled that , when Argentina reported on the new licences to be 
introduced, there was much "concern" about their possi ble impact on the import trade.  Nevertheless, 
that concern proved to be unfounded since, as she w ould show, Argentine imports recorded one of the 
highest growth rates in the world in 2011.  
46. At the same time, as part of Argentina's tr ade policy and in order to ensure greater 
transparency in the licensing process, facilita te the operations of importers and streamline 
non-automatic licensing procedures, the integrated system of foreign trade (SISCO), aimed at 
computerizing information management, was in troduced in March 2011.  Thus, the importer 
concerned may initiate the procedure online, with th e help of manuals, explanatory videos and help 
desks available on the website of the Secretariat of  Foreign Trade.  Another measure that had been 
adopted to facilitate and simplify trading opera tions was the advance sworn import declaration 
(DJAI), introduced last January as a "single elect ronic window", which was used in a similar manner 
by more than 20 countries.  This tool provided access  to advance information on all imports, ensuring 
greater predictability for commercial operators and improved efficiency and effectiveness in 
government management, in accordance with the Fram ework of Standards to Secure and Facilitate 
Global Trade (SAFE) of the World Customs Organiza tion (WCO).  In short, Argentina's trade policy 
measures were fully consistent with the interna tional commitments it had assumed.  Argentine trade 
policy was not import restrictive, and this was confirmed by the empirical evidence. 
47. Secondly, contrary to the assertion contained in  the recently submitted statement, Argentina 
had been making an important contribution, in rela tive terms, to sustaining global economic growth, 
since it was one of the countries showing the highest  increase in imports in recent years.  This 
increase had been achieved against the background of the remarkable upsurge of the Argentine 
economy, which grew at an average rate of 7.6 per cent between 2003 and 2010, reaching 8.9 per cent 
in 2011.  There was no doubt that the dynamic and prolonged expansi on of economic activity 
recorded in those years had boosted Argentina's intern ational trade and, in par ticular, had substantially 
increased Argentina's demand for imports.  Argentina wanted to  provide concrete evidence 
concerning recent trends in imports.  Year on y ear since 2006, with the sole exception of 2009, 
Argentina had broken its record for imports, which in 2011 amounted to US$74 billion. Total 
Argentine imports grew by 434 per cent between 2003 and 2011.  In 2011 in particular, Argentina was 
one of the countries in the world that saw the grea test increase in imports year on year (+30.8 per 
cent), and this increase was observed under the six main headings used for the classification of 
Argentine external purchas es according to economic use.4 This increase in Argentine imports covered 
an extremely wide range of origins:  2011 saw an  upswing in Argentine external purchases from all 
continents and more than 150 countries. It was noteworthy that in 2011, Argentina - with the 
above-mentioned 30.8 per cent increase - was the G-20 country that recorded the highest growth in 
imports in relative terms.  Among the Latin Amer ican economies, Argentina was also one of the 
countries with the biggest increase in imports.  Si gnificantly, none of the co-sponsors of the joint 
statement under consideration recorded a year-on-ye ar expansion of imports in 2011 at a rate higher 
than that achieved by Argentina. In concrete te rms, Argentina's purchases from 14 Members that had 
signed the statement grew by 24.6 pe r cent in 2011.  Two-digit growth was achieved in most cases.  
                                                      
4 Capital goods, intermediate goods, fuel, parts and accessories for capital goods, consumer goods and 
passenger motor vehicles. G/C/M/110 
Page 12 
 
 
  Therefore, it could hardly be argued that the comp anies of these countries were not able to export 
their products to Argentina. The buoyancy of Ar gentine import demand was a function of the strong 
growth of economic activity, which was fully reflect ed in the variations in the quantities of imports, 
over and above price trends.  In fact, according to  the IMF's World Economic Outlook, while the level 
of imports by developed economies grew by only 4.8 per cent in 2011 on a year-on-year basis, 
compared with 7.1 per cent for the emerging coun tries, the change in import quantities reached 
24.7 per cent in the case of Argentina. As a result, Argentina increased its share of global imports by 8 
per cent, from 0.37 per cent of the total in 2010 to  0.40 per cent in 2011, while at the same time 
maintaining a positive trade balance of more than  US$10 billion. There was conclusive evidence to 
show that Argentina's relative contribution to  global aggregate demand had been more than 
proportional to its size over the last year.  It was extremely difficult to estimate the size of the expected increase in Argentina's contributi on to trade flows and global growth.  
48. Thirdly, it was surprising that this statemen t was addressed to an emerging country like 
Argentina, when it were the developed countries which imposed the greatest restrictions on world 
trade and which not only refuse to revise their long-standing protectionist practices, such as 
trade-distorting subsidies, quotas, tariff escalation and tariff peaks, but also introduced new para-tariff 
trade restrictions which cause so much harm to world trade and mainly impact developing countries 
like Argentina. Her country was particularly concer ned at the lack of progress in the Doha Round in 
respect of agriculture, which could have contributed  to balancing the level of liberalization achieved 
in the industrial sector, thereby redressing a histori cal debt owed to the developing world. On the 
contrary, the progress achieved in the Uruguay Round was increasingly impaired by the proliferation 
of sanitary, phytosanitary and technical barrier s and by new barriers allegedly justified, inter alia , by 
environmental protection, animal welfare, private standards and consumer rights.  These were serious restrictions which were a major source of c oncern for Argentina's producers and the regional 
economies and which would be exacerbated by the forthcoming dismantling of the Generalized 
System of Preferences. There were numerous exampl es of restrictions on access, of the kind already 
mentioned, faced by Argentine producers and exporters  in the markets of many of the Members that 
had signed this statement.  Some, but not all, of  the products affected were:  meat (bovine and 
poultry), dairy produc ts, citrus, fresh fruits and premium fru its, pharmacological products, biodiesel, 
genetically modified products, queen bees, barl ey, etc.  If only the co-sponsoring countries would 
purchase these products from Argentina in the same  way as Argentina import from them. An honest 
assessment of the multilateral trading system s howed that it was not the licences imposed by 
Argentina and by so many other countries, but the traditional distorting measures applied mainly in 
the developed countries which were the root cause of the real problems in international trade.  These 
were the real obstacles to the construction of a more balanced multilateral system.  On top of the 
enormous sums devoted to domestic support for agri cultural producers, millions had gone into fiscal 
and monetary stimulus packages in recent years to  meet the global crisis, and it had not yet been 
possible to measure the true extent of the global distortionary impact of that crisis. 
49. In conclusion she indicated that the world was currently submerged in an unprecedented crisis 
which originated in the developed countries.  The emerging countries were making a substantial 
contribution to global aggregate demand, which was also unprecedented.  Argentina had made a 
major effort by increasing its imports in 2011.  Sh e asked if an emerging country which increased its 
imports by nearly 31 per cent could be described as a trade-restricting country;  why her country was 
being asked to make a greater effo rt in terms of imports than that made by other countries that had 
signed this statement.  Argentin a was a healthy economy with a gr owth model that had proved its 
worth over the past nine years, and this had been re flected in a continuous increase in its international 
import and export trade.  From its point of view, this statement represents an unfounded challenge to 
Argentina's legitimate government policies whic h were applied in accordance with WTO rules. 
Argentina rejected this type of unjustified pressure , together with the value judgements on Argentina's 
compliance with international responsibilities in foru ms other than this one.  What was more, this 
joint statement could be interpreted as a line of action aimed at narrowing the scope of emerging  G/C/M/110 
 Page 13 
 
 
  countries' legitimate economic policy, with th e ultimate aim of dumping on their dynamic domestic 
markets the exportable surpluses of developed countr ies currently in crisis, whose contractionary 
fiscal policies were limiting global aggregate demand.   Argentina objected, therefore, to being made 
into an example to discourage developing countries from using the public policies it was fairly 
entitled to use5. 
50. The representative of the United States in respon se, indicated that the US  intervention and 
those of quite a number of other countries had been very specific in identifying Argentine measures of 
great concern. The large number of countries raisi ng concerns should underscore that the problem is 
not theoretical or isolated. The US  was deeply disappointed that in Argentina's response they had not 
indicated any readiness to address the specific concerns  raised, which he and others had been raising 
for some time.  He noted that it was not an answer to  the concerns raised to change the subject in an 
effort to focus on others.  Nor, given those who ha d expressed concerns, was it accurate to portray this 
discussion in North-South terms.  The US hoped the Argentine delegation would report back to 
capital the serious concerns than had been raised at  this meeting and that the government of Argentina 
would act promptly to address those concerns. 
51. The Chairperson thanked all delegations for thei r interventions and prop osed that the Council 
takes note of the statements made. He also invited Ar gentina and the delegations that intervened at the 
meeting to continue their discussion on seeking for a so lution to the concerns that had been raised and 
inform the Council of this. 
52. The Council so agreed.  
VI. NOTIFICATION OF ACTIONS TA KEN UNDER THE 1999 WAIVER FOR 
PREFERENTIAL TARIFF TREATMENT FOR LEAST-DEVELOPED COUNTRIES 
(WT/L/304)  
53. The Chairperson announced that under this agenda  item there was a notification in documents 
G/C/W/664 - WT/COMTD/N/40 and WT/COMTD/N/40/Corr.1 containing Chinese Taipei's 
notification of Preferential Treatment for LDCs. Th is notification was also made to the Committee on 
Trade and Development (CTD), under the provisions in  the Transparency Mech anism for Preferential 
Trade Arrangements. 
54. In this regard, he recalled that the Counc il, at its meeting in March 2001 (document 
G/C/M/47), agreed to a method for handling no tifications under the 1999 Waiver on Preferential 
Tariff Treatment for LDCs.  Accordingly, such no tifications would be referred by the CTG to the 
Sub-Committee on Least-developed countries for Members' consideration and advice. The Sub-
Committee would then report back to the CTG on its discussions.  It was clear that this approach did 
not preclude the CTG from engaging in discussions of any matter in regard to the 1999 Waiver. 
55. The delegate of Chinese Taipei informed Me mbers that Chinese Taipei had been providing 
duty free market access for products of interest to  LDCs since December 2003.  In addition to the 
wide ranging MFN duty free treatments that it had committed to as a recently-acceded Member, Chinese Taipei voluntarily provided preferential tariff treatments on 151 products in the HS2007 
nomenclature originating from LDCs .  All LDCs designated as such by the UN were eligible for the 
preferential tariff treatments.  Once an LDC graduated, it would no longer receive the preferential treatment. In 2010 Chinese Taipei was the sixth la rgest export destination for LDCs.  That year, 
imports from LDCs to Chinese Taipei reached a total value of US$3.83 billion.  Out of all the imports 
from LDCs entering the Separate Customs Territory, nearly 98 per cent enjoyed duty free treatments.  
The preferential tariff treatments covered most of  the products in which LD Cs had export interests, 
                                                      
5 Argentina’s statement was circulated as G/C/W/668. G/C/M/110 
Page 14 
 
 
  and this had definitely facilitate d the substantial amount of trad e enjoyed between them and the 
Chinese Taipei.  His delegation firmly believed that improving market access opportunities for LDCs 
helped increase their export trade and facilitated th eir integration into the global multilateral trading 
system.  Chinese Taipei was also c onvinced that this could be an im portant contributing factor in the 
LDCs further economic growth a nd development and looked forward to further discussion with fellow 
Members on the implementation of Annex F of  the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration. 
56. The delegate of the United States welcomed the notification by Chinese Taipei; she looked 
forward to the additional elements of the notifi cation including relevant import data and product 
coverage called for in the PTA transparen cy mechanism agreed upon by Members.  
57. The Chairperson proposed that the CTG take note of the statements made and forward the 
Chinese Taipei notification to the Sub-Committee on Least-developed countries.  The Sub-Committee 
was required to report to the CTG after it has exhausted the discussions on these notifications.  
58. The Council took note of the statements and ag reed to forward the notification to the Sub-
Committee on Least developed countries for action. 
VII. ECUADOR MIXED TARIFFS – QUESTI ONS FORM THE UNITED STATES, 
EUROPEAN UNION, CANADA, JAPAN AND PANAMA (G/C/W/639) 
59. The Chairman informed the Council that in a communication dated 19 March 2012, the 
delegation of the United States requested the Secretaria t to include this issue in the agenda of this 
meeting.  
60. The delegate of the United States thanked Ecuador for its replies to the questions posed to it 
and contained in document G/C/W/645. She also appr eciated the additional information that Ecuador 
had provided regarding Presidential Decrees 367 a nd 372, which changed Ecuador's tariff schedule 
for footwear and textiles and apparel products from an  applied rate of 30 per cent ad valorem, which 
also reflected Ecuador's binding to a mixed tariff of  10 per cent ad valorem plus $6 per pair of shoes 
and 10 per cent ad valorem plus $5.50 per kilo of  textiles or apparel, respectively.  Despite the 
additional information provided by Ecuador, the US noted that the answers did not yet answer the 
specific question concerning what the ad valorem equivalent was for the over 300 tariff lines covered 
by the decrees, or the methodology and calculations u sed to calculate the AVE.  According to the US 
calculations, it was not clear how Ecuador was maintaining its WTO binding of 30 percent on 
footwear and textiles and appare l products under its new mixed tari ff regime.  If implemented as 
described by Ecuador, its current mixed tariff sch eme would exceed its 30 per cent tariff bindings for 
any footwear imports valued at, or less than $29. 00 per pair and any textiles and apparel imports 
valued at, or less than $27.00 per kilo. These discrepancies in how the current mixed tariff system was 
equivalent to an ad valorem  tariff of 30 percent in footwear, te xtiles and apparel remained.  Thus, 
once again she sought Ecuador to provide the ad valorem  equivalent for each of the tariff lines 
covered by Presidential Decrees 367 and 372, and the methodology and calculations it had used to 
determine the ad valorem  equivalents for these tariff lines.   
61. Her delegation also noted that Ecuador's re plies did not address the reasons why it had 
modified its tariffs on these items and would appreci ate if Ecuador provided any insight into this 
question. Rather than having to repeat these questions  at every CTG meeting, as the US has had to do, 
without responsive answers from Ecuador, and in th e spirit of transparency, her delegation requested 
that Ecuador provide specific answers, in writing for Members' review, on the AVEs, the 
methodology for the AVEs, and the reasons wh y its tariff schedule had been modified.    
62. The delegate of the European Union supported th e US statement and stressed that a change 
from ad valorem  tariffs to mixed tariffs implied system concerns for WTO rules.  When a Member  G/C/M/110 
 Page 15 
 
 
  changed tariff bindings, it had to be assessed whether other Members' rights were affected by such 
changes.  Ecuador had not notified Members in 2010 two Decrees and a Resolution when ad valorem  
tariffs where changed to mixed tariffs.  The EU would appreciate if Ecuador could give additional 
information regarding these mixed tariffs and if it notified "Decreto Ejecutivo 367" and "Decreto 
Ejecutivo 372" as well as "Resolución 601 of 26 November 2010 and, if it could also provide further 
information on the mixed tariffs, particularly, if there was a specific duration for which Ecuador was 
planning to implement the new tariff structure on these items and, the ad valorem  equivalents for each 
of these tariff lines and the methodology used to calculate ad valorem  equivalents for these tariff lines 
including the assurance that bound tariffs were not ex ceeded.  Without this information, it would not 
be possible to assess whether or not the EU righ ts in relation to Ecua dor's bindings had been 
respected. 
63. The delegate of Canada joined the previous  speakers.  His delegation was still awaiting 
additional information concerning the compound dut ies including clarification on why Ecuador had 
modified its tariffs on these tariffs as well as whet her there was a specific duration for which Ecuador 
was planning to implement the tariff structure; Canada also expected Ecuador to indicate the ad 
valorem  equivalent for each of the ta riff lines and the methodology and calculations used to determine 
the ad valorem  equivalents.  Canada's e xports to Ecuador on footwear , textile and apparel lines 
affected by the change totalled just over 137 000 in 2009 and had dropped to just over 72 000 in 2010.  
The amounts involved might not be that large but th is was effectively almost a 50 per cent drop in 
Canada's exports to Ecuador in the affected lines; th is was not consistent with some of the statistics 
that had been provided by Ecuador and which suggest ed that there was a growth in Canada's exports 
on these products.  Canada was anxious to get answer s to these questions and agreed with the US that 
clear information from Ecuador would not make it neces sary to continue to raise this issue at every 
single CTG meeting.  
64. The delegate of Japan associated his delegation w ith the previous statements.  It had already 
been a year and a half since th is issue had been raised in th is Council; since then, Members had 
constantly requested Ecuador to explain the methodology it had used for converting ad valorem  tariffs 
to mixed tariffs.  Despite the bilateral and plurilate ral contacts with Ecuador on this issue, Japan was 
not totally satisfied with the explanations so fa r provided by Ecuador.  Ac cording to Ecuador, while 
trade volume was continuously increasing on the good s concerning the mixed tariff, even though once 
tariff changes had already occurred, the problem was not trade volume, but a systemic issue concerning the consistency with the GATT 1994.  Jap an believed that Ecuador should make clear the 
methodology it had used to convert tariff rates or othe rwise justify this measure.  The nature of this 
issue was purely technical and his delegation expect ed Ecuador to submit written answers to these 
questions. 
65. The delegate of Ecuador thanke d delegations which had expressed interest in this issue as 
well as for arranging, on 23 March 2012, informal c onsultation with his country.  He stressed that his 
delegation accepted the informal meeting coherently  with its position of openness regarding an issue 
of concern for a number of Members, including Ecuador.  As it had been said on a number of 
occasions, one of the most important characteristics of Ecuador's economy was that it did not have its 
own currency so for its everyday business, it used the US dollar. This has obviously exerted two 
significant effects on Ecuador, the loss of its monetary policy and the use of monetary tools to 
influence on the country's economy as well as the in creased sensitivity of the external trade of the 
Ecuadorian economy. Since the last Trade Policy Review (TPR) Ecuador had already increased its 
percentage of market opening from 53.2per cent in  2005 to over 60per cent in 2010.  At other 
meetings of this Council, it had been explained that  Ecuador's external trade statistics showed that 
there was a real effect on trade flows on the 349 compound tariff lines.   
66. At the second TPR of Ecuador on 14 November 2011, it was confirmed that, when compared 
with 2010, in 2011 there was an increase in imports of 64 per cent in respect of textiles and apparel, of G/C/M/110 
Page 16 
 
 
  33 per cent in respect of shoes and of 11 per cent in  respect of textiles manufactures. Given that there 
Ecuador did not have monetary policy, tariffs were one of the main tools of the Ecuadorian 
commercial policy; the average MFN applied rates we re reduced from 11.4 per cent in 2005 to 9.2 per 
cent in 2011 and, around 54.5 per cent of applied rate s, ranged between 0 and 5 per cent.  Moreover, 
the average rate for imports of industrial produc ts was reduced 3 points to 7.6 per cent while the 
applied rates ranged from 0 to 5 per cent affected 53 per cent of tariff lines.  There were tariff quotas 
for almost 17 agricultural products but these had never been used.  He then indicated that a number of 
mixed tariffs adopted in May 2010 and implemented in June of that year, were WTO consistent;  that 
Article X of GATT 1994 only obliged Ecuador to publis h trade measures which might have an impact 
on trade and that those measures had been published in due time.   
67. At the same TPR of Ecuador, his delegation specified that for the Members presenting this 
concern, there had been no effect at all on their trade with Ecuador.  On this basis, his delegation 
ratified that the tariffs Ecuador ha d imposed in 2010 and which led to the modification of the previous 
tariff structure for certain non-agricultural products, we re in line with Ecuador's rights and obligations 
established in the GATT 1994.  In addition, foreign tr ade statistics showed that trade in these products 
continued to increase, proving that there was no r eal or potential trade problem between Ecuador and 
its partners.  For example, a forecast for imports  in 2011, using figures from the Central Bank of 
Ecuador, showed that total imports made-up of te xtile articles would increase by around 55 per cent, 
45 per cent for footwear and 30 per cent for textile s, compared to 2010. Ecuador was reviewing the 
situation regarding these products on a case-by-case basis.  For example, a modification of the tariff on jute bags, which would do away with the ex isting compound tariff and introduced a 30 per cent ad 
valorem  tariff, along with a zero per ce nt tariff deferral up to December 2014, was scheduled to be 
introduced shortly.  Furthermore, Ecuador would soon be reviewing the tariff structure in respect of 19 selected tariff lines, such as those relating to television sets. 
68. In conclusion, Ecuador believed that the measure adopted to restructure the tariff was entirely 
consistent with its obligations under Articles II a nd X of the GATT 1994.  Nonetheless, as a sign of 
Ecuador's sensitivity to the concerns expressed by several Members, he repeated, his country was 
willing to address any specific concerns that Member s might have regarding individual products of 
particular interest to them on an ad hoc basis a nd where the statistical data substantiated a marked 
decline in trade flows to Ecuador. Ecuador w ould distribute a document containing its responses
6. 
69. The delegate of Cuba supported Ecuador's statement in that its mixed tariff system adopted in 
2010 fell fully in line with the multilateral tradi ng system's requirements under WTO Agreements.  
According to the provisions of Article X of GAT T 1994, Ecuador met its obligation to publish its 
measures and Presidential Decrees on mixed tariffs .  Furthermore, no provision in the GATT 1994 
obliged Members to notify any WTO body of methodologies and formulas.  GATT Article X only 
imposed the publication of legal and administrativ e steps of general application implemented by 
Members.  This requirement had been met by Ec uador and Cuba supported the Ecuadorian statement 
that the relevant information for economic operators  had been published and disseminated in line with 
the aforementioned WTO obligations.  Cuba was also of the view that the commitments established in 
WTO Agreements did not limit a Member's ability to revise its tariff structure.  Ecuador was therefore in full compliance with GATT 1994 Article II.  As to the statistics mentioned by Ecuador, these 
clearly showed that from a trade point of view, there was no argument which justified the alleged 
trade concerns raised by various Members who had taken the floor.  
70. The delegate of the United States thanked 
Ecuador for its responses; she looked forward 
to the document that Ecuador had announced.  However, Ecuador's response still did not answer 
the questions asked by the United States, the Europ ean Union, Canada, Japan and Panama which were 
just asking for information to understand how Ec uador complied with its WTO commitments since 
                                                      
6 See document G/C/W/669.  G/C/M/110 
 Page 17 
 
 
  the analysis they had made indicated otherwise.  Thus , if in fact Ecuador's analysis showed that there 
was no problem then Ecuador should not have any problem in sharing the information requested.  
71. The delegate of the Bolivarian Republic of Ve nezuela expressed solidarity with the arguments 
raised by Ecuador.  
72. The Chairman invited the Council to take note of the statements made. 
73.  The Council so agreed.  
VIII.  BRAZIL'S INCREASE OF THE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCT TAX ON THE 
AUTOMOTIVE SECTOR - STATEMENT BY AUSTRALIA 
74. The Chairman informed the Council that in a communication dated 16 March 2012, the 
delegation of Australia had requested the Secretariat to  include in the agenda of this meeting, the issue 
of "Brazil's Increase of the Industrial Product Tax on the Automotive Sector - Statement by Australia".  
75. The delegate of Australia recalled Member s this issue, announced by the Brazilian 
government in September 2011 in its government Decree number 7567, was first raised in the 
Committee on Market Access in October last year by Japan and Korea.  Continuing concerns were 
brought to Members' attention at the CTG in ear ly November 2011.  With the measure coming into 
effect on 16 December 2011 and refl ected in Law 12.546 of 14 Decem ber 2011, Australia raised the 
issue under "Other Business" at the CTG meeting on 1 February this year a nd continued to have both 
systemic and commercial concerns with the nature and design of this measure, particularly as it 
appeared to affect both imports of motor vehicles as well as automotive parts and automotive services.   
76. Australia as a country also with an automotive industry, well appreciated the impact of the 
continuing uncertainties of the global economy for the automotive sector.  The automotive sector in 
his country had been facing the challenges of a high Australian dollar and changes in consumer 
demand with a move from large cars towards smaller cars.  Australia, like all other WTO Members, 
was mindful that the WTO rules provided the pa rameters to guide governments on how best to 
provide assistance to industry sectors and how to avoi d trade impacts on Members' interests.  So it 
was with this concern that his authorities ha d viewed the path that Brazil had taken.  
77. Brazil's measures had increased the tax on both imported and domestically produced motor 
vehicles but provided an exemption only for vehicl es domestically assembled.  The criteria for this 
exemption included local content requirements who se level varied depending  on various preferential 
bilateral automotive agreements that Brazil had.   Thus, it was unclear how the percentages for 
regional content operated particularly  given that Annex II of the decree suggested that the calculation 
of regional content was based on a company's overall vehicle production, not on a vehicle by vehicle 
basis.  It was unclear whether th is meant that as long as a company's overall regional content for its 
total manufactured vehicles met 65%, the regional content for an individual vehicle produced by that 
company did not also need to make the 65% threshold. 
78. Brazil had previously highlighted to Members th at that measure was of a temporary nature 
and due to expire at the end of 2012.  However, af ter further analysing the legislation, it was unclear 
to Australia whether the measure was in fact a te mporary one.  For example, Law 12.546 appeared to 
provide the tax reduction or exemption until 31 July  2016 and the Decree indicated that there were 
differing tax rates to apply from January 2013 thro ugh to July 2016.  As Australia noted at the 1 
February meeting of this Council, the so-called te mporary measures could ha ve long-term deleterious 
effects for exporters establishing relationships w ith importers and consumers and these temporary 
arrangements would entrench access for some an d not for others since that access would be G/C/M/110 
Page 18 
 
 
  conditioned to establishing a manufacturing base in Br azil and meeting a local content requirement.  
This discriminated against some Members and favour ed others.  Recent press reports on the ceilings 
on the export of motor vehicles to Brazil's market under bilateral arrangements further underlined the 
distortions created in access to the Brazilian market. 
79. Australia was also concerned that the Decree provided that the tax reduction or exemption 
applied to products of the same brand used by an importer, or of the same brand of vehicle 
manufactured by an authorized company.  This meant that a manufacturer could not source products 
from an independent automotive parts supplier.  These provisions also suggested that effectively, only 
manufacturers who import would qualify for the tax re duction.  An importer who did not manufacture 
would appear not to qualify.  His authorities attach ed particular importance to the operation of global 
supply chains and in being able to compete fair ly.  They recognized that internationally, the 
automotive industry was moving towards global car pl atforms; however restricting imports through 
the measures Brazil had introduced discouraged in novation and competitiveness in markets.  Now 
was not the time to be restricting markets or introducing caps on Members' exports to markets; now was also not the time to be unravelling the long ne gotiated rules which had enabled Members to assist 
their industries in the least harmful way. 
80. He then drew Members' attention to the jo int press release from the BRICS Trade Ministers 
on 28 March 2012 where, in particular, Ministers emphasized "the need to resist protectionist 
tendencies and to promote international trade as an  engine for economic gr owth and development, 
while respecting the WTO consistent policy space av ailable to developing countries to pursue their 
legitimate objectives of growth, development and stability". Australia appreciated the willingness of 
the Brazilian delegation to discuss this matter furthe r and looked forward to the opportunity to clarify 
direct with Brazil, a number of issues in re lation to the operation of this new measure. 
81. The delegate of Korea echoed the statement made by Australia; Korea had stressed its 
concerns on various occasions, including the previous meeting of the CTG. He stated that Korea still 
had concerns over the Brazilian tax measures at issu e and that it looked forward to closely working 
with Brazil and other Members towards resolving this issue. 
82. The delegate of the European Union shared th e concerns of Australia and Korea about the 
Brazilian decision to grant a tax advantage to vehicl es containing at least 65 per cent of local content. 
In the view of his delegation the measure app eared to be incompatib le with basic WTO non-
discriminatory principles since Brazil was treating domestic products more favourable than imported 
ones. This measure was also at odds with th e overall G-20 commitment to refrain from taking 
protectionist measures.  The EU therefore expected  Brazil to remedy the situation as soon as possible. 
83. The delegate of Canada recalled that her delegati on had taken the floor on this item in the past 
to register its concerns. Canada continued to have systemic concer ns and as a Member of the G-20 
group of countries, it supported the commitment made by leaders in that forum to resist trade 
protectionism and to rollback trade restrictive measu res that were already in place.  She encouraged 
Brazil to examine this tax measure in light of th at G-20 commitment and to consider whether there 
were steps that could be taken to minimize or el iminate the possible trade distorting effects of the 
measure.  
84. The delegate of the United States stated that her authorities shared many of the concerns 
which had already been noted by other Members a bout Brazil's tax increase on imported autos.  The 
US would continue to monitor this issue closely. 
85. The delegate of Japan thanked Australia for havi ng raised this issue, already discussed during 
previous meetings of this Council.  Japan shared  the systemic concerns about such measures and 
recalled that in the declaration of the BRICS in De lhi, the leaders committed to working together to  G/C/M/110 
 Page 19 
 
 
  urge other countries to resist all forms of trade prot ectionism and disguised restrictions on trade.  This 
should also be applicable to all cases including the one at issue. His delegation would like to work 
closely with Brazil and other Members to resolve th is concern and would also continue to closely 
monitor any action of the Brazilian government concerning these measures. 
86. The delegate of Hong Kong, China indicated th at, as in previous meeting, his delegation 
would like to register its systemic concern over the protectionist nature of Brazil's measures. She also 
called upon all Members to work together to resist any forms of protectionism. 
87. The delegate of Brazil in response to the pr evious speakers, recalle d delegations who had 
intervened that this subject had been previously  addressed both in this Council and in the Committee 
on Market Access; he then referred back interested Members to the statements made by his delegation 
at the last meetings of this Council in Nove mber 2011 and January 2012. He furthered that the 
Brazilian government was making prep arations to hold informal bila teral talks with Members that 
requested for information on th e IPI for the automotive sector. 
88. The Chairperson invited the Council to take note of the statements made. 
89. The Council so agreed. 
IX. CHINESE TAIPEI'S SUBSIDIES FOR THE PURCHASE OF DOMESTIC 
ELECTRIC APPLIANCES - STATEMENT BY THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA 
90. The Chairperson informed the Council that in a communication dated 16 March 2012, the 
delegation of Korea had requested the Secretariat to in clude in the agenda of this meeting the issue of 
"Chinese Taipei's subsidies for the Purchase of Domestic Electric Appliances - Statement by the 
Republic of Korea". 
91. The delegate of Korea recalled that at the pr evious meeting in February, Korea and several 
other Members expressed concerns over Chinese Taip ei's scheme for providing subsidies for the 
purchase of domestic electric appliances.  His dele gation believed that this issue needed to be 
addressed in a swift and appropriate manner as the subsidies scheme was not only incompatible with 
WTO rules but also caused the systemic concern that this type of practice might set an unhealthy 
precedent.  Thus, Korea had engaged with Chinese Ta ipei in an active and constructive manner with a 
view to repealing the scheme as soon as possible.  Korea had recently learnt that the relevant 
authorities of Chinese Taipei expressed their inten tion to discontinue the subsidy scheme by the end 
of this March 2012 as originally planned.  Kor ea looked forward to Chinese Taipei confirming 
whether the scheme would be repealed by the end of  this month as originally scheduled while further 
addressing the broader systemic concern expressed over the possible recurrence of such temporary 
measures. 
92. The delegate of the Chinese Ta ipei informed Members that the measure had been published in 
December 2011 and also posted on the website of th e official gazette and revenue authorities in the 
Chinese Taipei.  The purpose of the measure was to  encourage industry to manufacture highly energy 
efficient homes appliances and to give incentive to  consumers to replace the old appliances with new 
energy efficient products.  As Chinese Taipei was an  island with a distinct lack of natural resources, 
his authorities hoped the measure would also help to  reduce Chinese Taipei's reliance on the import of 
energy.  His delegation believed this would make a significant contribution to achieving Chinese 
Taipei's policy objective for improving energy e fficiency, reducing carbon emission and facilitating 
the development of a green economy, a policy objectiv e which was also broadly shared by many other 
Members.  He indicated that implementation of the measure was for the period from 1 January and 
confirmed it would end on 31 March 2012.  Thus, no extension would be granted.  By nature, the 
measure was temporary, short- term and the amount provided w as very small, only US$ 67 per G/C/M/110 
Page 20 
 
 
  consumer for each domestic energy efficient hom e appliance purchased, regardless of the brand. 
Furthermore, the recipients of the assistance were  consumers, not producers and the measure was not 
contingent on using domestic over imported goods in the manufacturing of home appliances.  His 
authorities would not expect this measure to ha ve adverse effects on the normal functioning of 
international trade.  He hoped these clar ifications addressed Members' concerns. 
93. The Chairperson invited the Council to take note of the statements made. 
94. The Council so agreed. 
X. PHILIPPINES - REQUEST FOR A WAIVER RELATING TO SPECIAL 
TREATMENT FOR RICE OF TH E PHILIPPINES (G/C/W/665) 
95. The Chairman drew the Council's attention to document G/C/W/665 submitted by the 
Philippines on 16 March 2012 and containing a request and a draft decision for a waiver relating to 
special treatment for rice of the Philippines.  
96. The delegate of the Philippines when referring to the exceptional circumstances which led the 
Philippines to request for a waiver for special trea tment for rice recalled that in 2006, pursuant to 
Section B of Annex 5 of the Agreement on Agri culture (AOA), the Philip pines was granted an 
extension of its special treatment for rice from 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2012.  The terms of this 
extension stated that "Any continuation of special fo r rice shall be contingent on the outcome of the 
Doha Development Agenda and that in the event th at the special treatment ceases to apply after the 
entry into force of the outcome of the DDA negotiati ons, the tariff rate shall be modified to reflect 
such an outcome."  Thus, it was envisaged that the DDA negotiations would be completed before the 
expiration of the extension of the Philippines' special  treatment for rice. It was also expected by his 
authorities that the regime for sp ecial treatment for primary agricultural products under Section B of 
Annex 5 of the AOA would be replaced by a new mechanism that would be agreed to as part of the outcome of the Doha negotiations.  In fact, in 2006 when it was agreed to an extension period of only 
seven years, it was on the understanding that the outcome of the DDA negotiations would provide an 
alternative special mechanism that would cushion any negative impacts of liberalization on rice on the 
Philippines food and livelihood security. 
97. Unfortunately, the DDA negotiations had not been  completed and it was unclear whether or 
not the new mechanism for special treatment would ev entually be a part of the outcome.  Thus, the 
Philippines considered it necessary to seek to extend its special regime for rice and, to ensure the 
maximum transparency on this matter, it initiated the negotiations on this issue in the Committee on 
Agriculture (COA) on 17 November 2011.  These nego tiations were notified to Members in document 
G/AG/W/91 dated 22 November 2011 and several bilatera l and plurilateral meetings with interested 
Members had taken place.  However, his delegation noted that some Members raised concerns as to 
whether Section B of Annex 5 of the AOA provided a legal basis for a further extension of the special 
treatment within the meaning of Article 4.2 and An nex 5 of the AOA.  His authorities believed that 
Annex 5 allows for the further extension the Philippines was seeking, were conscious of the 
impending expiry of the special treatment and wanted  to avoid a protracted legal debate on the proper 
interpretation of Annex 5. Thus, they had decide d to ask for a waiver as contained in document 
G/C/W/665 and welcomed any technical comments on the draft decision contained therein.  
98. He furthered that rice was the predominant stap le in the Philippines and that the Philippines' 
transition to a tariff regime for rice raised food security and economic stability issues.  These 
circumstances provided a proper and reasonable b asis for the proposed waiver. He concluded by 
outlining the way forward of the waiver request. The Philippines hoped: (i) that its request would 
assure Members that it was firmly grounded on and cons istent with WTO rules.  (ii) to continue the 
negotiations it had started in N ovember 2011 on the basis of the draft waiver decision contained in  G/C/M/110 
 Page 21 
 
 
  document G/C/W/665. (iii) to define and finalize specific elements of the draft waiver decision 
expeditiously so that any necessary revision on the draft could be submitted to  the next CTG meeting 
with a view to generating consensus at that mee ting and; (iv) urged Members to intensively and 
substantively engage in the negotia tions so that a successful agreem ent could be reached before the 
expiration of the special treatment for rice. 
99. The delegate of the United States indicated that her delegation had a number of serious 
concerns with the Philippines waiver request as curre ntly drafted and was not in a position to join a 
consensus on it at this meeting.  The US looked forw ard to meeting bilaterally with the Philippines to 
fully explore its concerns regarding the request. 
100. The delegate of Australia recalled that in th e context of the Philippines TPR that took place 
the previous week, her delegation raised the issue of further reform of Philippines rice policy.  
Australia welcomed continuing reform efforts a nd was looking at this particular request while 
considering those further developments.  She took note  of the request but given that this was a draft, 
there were many elements which required further clarification and consultations.  
101. The delegate of Canada also t ook note of the request and stated that his delegation was among 
the parties that were presently engaged in consul tations with the Philippines on the continuation of 
special treatment for its rice.  Those consultations had not yet concluded.  Thus, in light of this request 
to the Council, he sought from the Philippines furt her information on how it intended to proceed in 
those consultations.  He also ratified the commitment  to continuing to work with the Philippines to 
conclude these consultations this sp ring, but until further clarificati on of how this request and those 
consultations were related, Canada  had to reserve its position on the waiver request. However, Canada 
looked forward to continuing to work with the Philippines. 
102. The delegate of the European Union stated th at his delegation in principle could support the 
waiver. However the EU required sufficient time to co mplete its internal procedures so as to be in a 
position to possibly join the consensus at the General Council when adopting the waiver. 
103. The delegate of Pakistan stated that his de legation recognized the purpose and circumstances 
of the waiver request; Pakistan had had bilateral meetings with the Philippines and looked forward to 
further engagements in order to have a meani ngful outcome concerning this waiver request. 
104. The delegate of El Salvador indicated that he r delegation had been following closely the issue 
of the special treatment of rice of the Philippines.  El Salvador hoped to continue the constructive 
dialogue that had begun with the Philippines within the context of other WTO bodies with a view to 
achieving a positive solution to this  request in the near future. 
105. The delegate of Indonesia indicated that hi s delegation acknowledged th e legitimate reasons 
for request and that the proposal deserved full consid eration by this Council.  However, after listening 
to the statements of the previous speakers, with a view to finding an acceptable and speedy solution to 
the request, his delegation encouraged the interested delegations to intensify their consultations with 
the Philippines. 
106. The delegate of the Philippines thanked delega tions for their interest and interventions, 
particularly those who had supported, in principle,  its waiver request.  Hi s delegation had listened 
carefully to the comments made, particularly by those Members who had expressed certain reservations or concerns.  Thus, the Philippines w ould continue to engage in positive and constructive 
negotiations with interested Members, initially on a bilateral basis.  It would then pursue these 
bilateral engagements both in  Geneva and in capitals. G/C/M/110 
Page 22 
 
 
  107. The Chairperson invited delegations to take note of the statements made and indicated that the 
Council would revert to this issue at its next meeting. 
108. The Council so agreed. 
XI. WORK PROGRAMME ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE 
109. The Chairperson recalled that in December 2011 Ministers in Geneva, pursuant to the 
mandate assigned during the Seventh Session of the Ministerial Conference (WT/L/274) to 
intensively reinvigorate the Work Programme on Electronic commerce, in document WT/L/843 
decided: 
"To further instruct the General Council to hol d periodic reviews in its sessions of July and 
December 2012 and July 2013, based on the re ports submitted by the WTO bodies entrusted 
with the implementation of the Work Programme, to assess its progress and consider any recommendations on possible measures related to electronic commerce in the next session of 
the Ministerial Conference,"  
 
110. According to this mandate, he invited delegati ons to express their views and suggestions to 
work towards the preparation of the periodic review s by the General Council in its sessions of July 
and December 2012.  These reviews would be based on the reports submitted by the WTO bodies entrusted with the implementation of the Work Programme. 
111. The delegate of the United States recalled that he r delegation raised this item in this Council 
in the run up to the Ministerial Conference. The US  was pleased that the MC8 decision reinvigorated 
the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce, and w as in the process of reviewing how best to 
reinvigorate that process, with respect both to ma king the customs moratorium more permanent, and 
establishing a consensus view on the trade treatment of  downloaded software.  However, at this point, 
her delegation was not ready to offer a specific proposal, but was looking forward to working with 
other delegations to advance important e-commerce related issues in this Council, or other more 
appropriate venues under the Work Programme. 
112. The delegate of Ecuador stated that the debate and negotiation during the 8th Dedicated 
Session on E-commerce last year enabled a better understanding of trends in e-commerce.  This was 
done with a view to continue to reinvigorate the mandate of the Work Programme.  He highlighted the 
importance to continue the works on this matt er considering the objectives and transparency 
principles of the WTO.  This work was intended to  ensure full use of IT tools by micro and SMEs 
particularly by small producers. Thus, this Counc il should take up these conclusions and continue the 
works on this matter considering not only the objec tives and the transparency principle of the WTO 
but also taking into account the role and works of other organizations such as UNCTAD and the ITU 
given the intangible characteristic of e-commerce. It would also be important to consider Article II of 
the GATT 1994 and the “tariffication” or not of electronic transactions.  
113. The delegate of Cuba stated that her delega tion, as one of the co-sponsors of the document 
that served to set the framework for the discussions at the MC8, was pleased that this Council had 
taken up this issue.  As was decided at the MC8,  Cuba believed that it would be possible for this 
Council to work in synergy together with the Gene ral Council to look at the pending issues within the 
Work Programme on E-commerce, particularly c oncerning the pending developmental issues and 
special and differential treatment; the relationshi p between e-commerce and development as well as 
the effective participation of deve loping and Least-devel oped countries in e-commerce as a means to 
combat poverty, whilst ensuring respect and complia nce with the principles of non-discrimination, 
predictability and transparency which in turn, ma y facilitate and improve in ternet connectivity and 
access to the full range of ICT technology.  Cuba reiterated its support to these discussions.  G/C/M/110 
 Page 23 
 
 
  114. The delegate of the European Union stated th at the EU welcomed the Decision on electronic 
commerce adopted during the MC8 and supported the reinvigoration of the Work Programme. The 
EU was also ready to work on any proposal, especi ally from Members which had pleaded in favour of 
a strong agenda on e-commerce at the WTO. 
115. The delegate of Venezuela also stated that his delegation as one of the proponents of the 
document that served as a basis for the Work Progr amme on E-commerce at the MC8, also welcomed 
the discussions seeking to reinvigorate this Work Pr ogramme and to find an outcome to the pending 
issues. 
116. The delegate of Hong Kong, China expressed  that the contribution of e-commerce in 
facilitating trade in goods and services was indisput able.  As a firm supporter of e-commerce, her 
delegation fully supported the reinvigoration of the Work Programme on e-commerce and was open 
to any proposals that might help to achieving a satisfactory outcome. The fundamental principle was 
that the Work Programme should foster and not create obstacles to the development of e-commerce 
and trade. 
117. The delegate of Nicaragua indicated that as pa rticipant in the Decision on E-commerce taken 
at the MC8, his delegation also had the willingness to work on efforts to reinvigorate the Work 
Programme within the Committee on Trade and Development with a view to opening up and 
facilitating the use of ICT by the productive sectors in developing in Least-developed countries, 
particularly in the case of SMEs under the umbrella of inclusiveness and transparency. 
118. The delegate of Pakistan stated that like previ ous delegations, Pakistan was also interested in 
the Work Programme as reiterated and reconfirmed by the Ministers at the MC8.  His authorities were 
examining the elements of the Work Programme  and looked forward to seeing how each and every 
country would benefit fro m this work programme. 
119. The Chairperson thanked delegati ons who took the floor, invited the Council to take note of 
the statements made and indicated that this issue wo uld be included in the agenda of the next meeting 
of this Council.  
120. The Council so agreed. 
XII. OTHER BUSINESS 
A. UKRAINE ’S IMPLEMENTATION OF CUSTOMS VALUATION LEGISLATION  
121. The Chairman recalled that at the start of the meeting the European Union requested to 
include under "Other Business", an item referring to "Ukraine’s Implementation of Customs 
Valuation Legislation". 
122. The delegate of the European Union stated that his delegation regretted that they had to come 
back to the issue of customs valuation problems in Ukraine, already rai sed in this Council in 
November 2011 jointly with Norway and supported by several Members.  At that time, some 
improvements in Ukrainian Customs authorities' practices and in addressing Members' concerns was 
acknowledged and welcomed by Memb ers.  Delegations also encour aged Ukraine to continue its 
efforts to ensure the correct application of th e WTO Agreement on Customs Valuation and flagged 
their trust that these positive trends would continue.  Thus, they indicated that there would be no need 
to continue including this issue in the agenda of fu ture meetings of this Council. However, according 
to information received from EU trade operators sin ce the last CTG meeting, the situation had again 
deteriorated: problems related to refusal by cu stoms authorities to recognize the transaction value 
declared by importers and in relation to customs clearance have re-appeared; there was still G/C/M/110 
Page 24 
 
 
  uncertainty in customs authorities' practices and; trad e operators were subject to arbitrary decisions. It 
also appeared also that Ukrainian customs aut horities, contrary to WTO rules, regularly used 
minimum values for verification of customs value. 
123. The EU had continuous concern over this deteriorating situati on. As mentioned in previous 
occasions, it was ready to work together with Ukra ine in a constructive way to find a practical and 
effective solution to this problem. The EU also exp ected to see real, concrete and lasting progress on 
this issue, including full compliance with the WTO customs valuation methods in the Customs 
Valuation Agreement. His delegation would monitor this issue until Ukraine's implementation of its 
customs valuation legislation had been fully in compliance with the WTO principles and agreements. 
124. The delegate of Norway echoed the concerns by the EU regarding continued trade problems 
with Ukraine.  Despite increased demand for No rwegian seafood in Ukrainian market, there were 
major challenges regarding imports of certain types of  fish into Ukraine.  Over the last 18 months, 
Norwegian enterprises had, through several enquiri es to Norwegian authorities, asserted that there 
was an overestimation on the import value of herring,  mackerel and capelin imported to Ukraine. It 
seemed that the customs value applied by Ukrain ian customs authorities did not reflect the actual 
value of the shipments exported from Norway an d that the transaction value being used by the 
authorities in Ukraine was based on indicative pri ces.  Recent reports indicated that a Norwegian 
company established in Ukraine had experienced subs tantial problems with regard to its imports of 
herring from Norway.  Major and unjustified obstacles were created for the import of seafood into 
Ukraine which led the Norwegian fi sh to becoming more expensive wh en imported to Ukraine than 
should be the case.  
125. His delegation considered the issue of customs valuation as a trade barrier; thus, it had raised 
its concerns on several occasions in the Committe e on Customs Valuation and in this Council.  
However, the implementation of a non WTO consis tent customs valuation legislation in Ukraine 
seemed to be a continuing practice.  Norway looked forward to closely co-operate with the Ukrainian 
authorities with a view to ensure predictability in trade in seafood and believed it was possible to look 
after both parties' legitimate interests whilst secu ring conformity with th e rights and obligations 
derived from the WTO Agreements.   
126. The delegate of the United States stated that he r authorities were also concerned about reports 
they had received regarding Ukraine’s customs procedures, including reports from businesses 
concerning customs valuation of their imported goods.  As stated in the past, her delegation agreed 
that all WTO Members should fully implement th e WTO Customs Valuation Agreement and apply 
the Agreement’s procedures in a clear and transparen t manner that disrupted trade as little as possible. 
The US looked forward to continued cooperation with  Ukraine to resolve th ese issues and eliminate 
the uncertainty often faced by U.S. exporters.  
127. The delegate of Switzerland supported the statements of the EU, Norway and the US.  The 
problems faced by Swiss companies concerned implementation issues since Ukrainian customs 
authorities did not seem to follow the WTO methodology in defining the customs value.  It was with 
disappointment that Switzerland had taken note of the reports by the Swiss companies operating in 
Ukraine, that there was no change of practice since his delegation raised this issue for the first time.  
He recalled that Switzerland had raised the issu e with Ukraine several times and that it would 
continue to do so.  He urged Ukraine to bring the implementation of its customs valuation legislation 
into full conformity with its WTO commitments and to instruct local customs authorities to apply the 
relevant rules in a transparent, uniform and cons istent manner.  His authorities remained ready to 
work constructively to find satisfactory solutions an d expected to see concrete and real results soon.  G/C/M/110 
 Page 25 
 
 
  128. The delegate of Ukraine took note of the statem ents made and indicated that his delegation 
would provide due response to the questions posed  once it had received these in writing. Ukraine was 
ready to continue close co-operation on the matter with interested Members both in Geneva and Kiev. 
129. The Chairperson invited the Council to take note of the statements made. 
130.  The Council so agreed. 
B. DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING  
131. The Chair informed the Council that the next me eting was scheduled to take place on Friday, 
22 June 2012.  The agenda would close on Monday, 11 June 2012. 
XIII.  ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
132. The Chair informed Members that the Chairm an of the General Council had carried out 
consultations on a slate of names for Chairpersons to the different WTO standing bodies in 
accordance with the established Guidelines for Appointment of Officers.  These proposed 
nominations were approved by the General Council at  its meeting on 24 February 2012.  In line with 
the nominations, he proposed that the Council for Trade in Goods elect  H.E. Dr. Tom MBOYA OKEYO, Ambassador of Kenya, as Chairperson of this body by acclamation.   
133. The Council so agreed. 
134. The Chair congratulated Ambassador Mboya Okeyo for his nomination and thanked all 
delegations, the Secretariat, for their untiring effort s and dedication to carry out the work of the CTG 
in 2011.   
135. The meeting was adjourned. 
_________