RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/TF/M/35 
9 July 2010 
 
 (10-3799) 
Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation  
  
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard
  
from 31 May – 4 June 2010  
 
Chairman:  H.E. Mr. Eduardo Ernesto Sperisen-Yurt (Guatemala) 
 
 1. The Chairman
 recalled that the agenda for the session had been circulated in WTO/AIR/3559. 
As Members would have noticed from the airgram, the meeting focused on three main areas of work. 
The first related to the new submissions from the me mbership.  They would be taken up right after the 
end of the opening plenary.  Once this had been  done, the Negotiating Group (NG) would move to the 
GATT Article X issues as set out in the Draft Conso lidated Text.  This would then be followed by 
work on special and differential treatment as a third key item on the agenda.  
2. Time would also be accorded to Members' bila teral, plurilateral and open-ended activities.  
The afternoons of the first three days had been rese rved to this end. Members wishing to organize 
such initiatives would be expected to report on their resu lts in Friday's closing plenary.  After that, the 
NG would take up a few technical assistance and ne eds assessment matters as Members had done in 
the past.    
3. The agenda was adopted . 
A. WORK ON THE  DRAFT CONSOLIDATED NEGOTIATING TEXT 
4. This part of the meeting was conducted in informal mode  with the exception of the following 
presentations of new submissions:  
5. The representative of China  introduced proposal TN/TF/W/134/Rev.1. China wished to thank 
Members for their comments on the previous versio n of this proposal (TN/TF/W/134).  Beijing also 
appreciated their patience in waiting for its revision.  
6. The sponsors of the new submission understood th at, in some Member countries, an audit for 
customs purposes was not exclusively conducted by th e customs agencies.  External auditing firms 
were sometimes authorized to operate such busin ess.  As a result, the sponsors had made a minor 
change in the title when revising the proposal in or der to focus on the audit that was carried out by 
customs.  In China's view, customs audit included post-clearance audit, which had been addressed in 
the first provision of the revision. 
7. China had also noticed the strong concerns of some Members about the nature of the 
commitment to use customs audit, relating to the question of whether it was mandatory or not.  But 
customs audit was an important measure to facilita te trade, as everybody reco gnized.  China was of 
the view that the extent to which a Member app lied the measure should depend on their own situation. 
This was reflected in the first provision of the proposal.  TN/TF/M/35 
Page 2  
 
  8. However, if a Member had deci ded to use customs audit, there should be binding rules for its 
use. Based on this perspective, disciplines had b een set up for the conduct of customs audit when 
revising the text, as reflected in paragraphs 2 a nd 3.  The requirements of being appropriate and 
transparent were emphasized therein. 
9. The conduct of customs audit was a type of  enforcement which should be valid.  Its 
significance consisted of the use of the informatio n resulting from it, which might lead to further 
action.  Paragraph 4 addressed the matter.  
10. As a useful instrument, customs audit would cons olidate the effects of trade facilitation if it 
was applied in connection with other instruments li ke authorized traders, risk management and the 
like. Paragraph 5 addressed that aspect.   
11. Previous communications had underlined the types of customs audit, previously referred to as 
post-clearance audit, namely regular audit and targ eted audit.  Accepting the counterproposals from 
some Members, the sponsors had made the text of the revised version less prescriptive by not 
regulating the ways of conducting customs audit in order to provide flexibility. 
12. While there were significant differences between  the original and the revised text, and the 
respective titles, the revision w as based on the valuable comment s and counterproposals from the 
plenary and the sponsors' careful reconsideration of  how customs audit contributed to the purpose of 
trade facilitation.  It was proposed that the new re vision substituted the earlie r version of the text. 
China was open to any comments and sugg estions with respect to the proposal. 
13. The representative of Korea
 co-introduced document TN/TF/W/134/Rev.1, explaining that his 
delegation had been deliberating on how to finalize the proposal on customs audit in cooperation with 
China for four years, since 2006.  Indonesia had also contributed to enhancing the quality of the 
proposal as a co-sponsoring Member. 
14. Korea welcomed the revised text on customs a udit presented by China and strongly supported 
the idea of it replacing the earlier version of th e proposal currently contained in the Draft 
Consolidated Negotiating Text. 
15. The representative of the United States  introduced JOB/TF/5, noting that the US was very 
pleased to present, together with the delegation of  Hong Kong China, a proposed revised draft of the 
provisions on internet publication for the Negotiating Group's consideration.  
16. The relevant provisions were currently reflect ed in Article 1, paragraph 2 of the Draft 
Consolidated Negotiating Text, which was listed on page 5 of document TN/TF/W/165/Rev.2.  Over 
the past few months, the United States and Hong Kong China had met intersessionally with the 
Geneva delegations of Members who had commented extensively on the earlier version of the text or 
inserted suggestions last fall and earlier in the current  year.  They had found that delegations, both in 
Geneva and in the capitals, were eager to help st reamline the text and to provide momentum to the 
Trade Facilitation negotiations. 
17. One important discovery that they had made was that, in some instances, a Member might 
have proposed lowering the level of ambition for the entire proposal only because one element was 
problematic.  They had found several instances in th e Draft Consolidated Text where the placement of 
square brackets might have resulted in throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  In order to be 
specific, it might be helpful to review the separ ate strands that existed in the current text.  TN/TF/M/35 
 Page 3 
 
 
  18. As originally conceived in 2005, the proposal  for internet publication simply proposed a 
commitment to publish two things that traders sa id would make a huge contribution to facilitating 
global trade, particularly with developing countries. 
19. The first consisted of a layman's description of  trade procedures in the form of a practical 
guide, distinct from the general GATT Article X requi rement to publish the actual texts of the laws,  
regulations etc.  
20. The second consisted the actual forms that traders had to fill out in order to import.  The 
United States continued to find that other Members we re hearing the same from their traders and were 
inclined to support a well-drafted commitment of th is nature.  The sponsors therefore continued to 
propose that those elements formed part of  the commitment set out in paragraph 2.1. 
21. At the request of one delegation, a bracketed refe rence to "to the extent possible" remained. It 
was hoped, however, that eventually all Members would recognize that their own exporters would be 
delighted to hear of a serious commitment on the matter.  
22. The previous version of the proposal containe d in TN/TF/W/165 had included two adjectives 
concerning the description, stating that it had to be  "full and precise".  At the request of the African 
Group and other Members, the revised version dropped  those words in paragraph 2.1(a).  The phrase 
"full and precise" had been eliminated. The United States had heard that delegations considered the 
remaining text, particularly the expression "that informs traders of the practical steps needed" to be helpful and to offer sufficient guidance for thei r government officials who would be implementing 
this provision. 
23. In addition to these items now reflected in para graph 1, there were two additional ideas in the 
current draft text that had been set out separately.  The first was the proposal to publish the description 
in a WTO language, which was now contained in pa ragraph 2.2 of the proposed revision. The second 
consisted of the idea of publishing all other GA TT Article X-related items, the laws, regulations, 
rulings and the like, on the internet, which was now set  out in paragraph 2.3 of the proposed revision.  
The United States would have no problem undertaki ng such a commitment, but they and the Hong 
Kong China delegation had heard from a number of Members who were hesitant to do that and who 
did not consider these objectives to be the top prio rity. This had led to the language being drafted 
more in the form of an enc ouragement than a commitment. 
24. Obviously, there was a room for further discussi on and negotiation on all of those elements.  
But the United States hoped that delegations woul d find the proposed changes and the new structure 
of the revised text to be helpful and more amenable  to reaching a final agreement on this sub-section. 
While they understood that a few delegations would seek further impr ovements even to this text, the 
United States hoped that everybody would consider  it a better vehicle for future negotiations. 
25. The representative of Hong Kong China
 co-introduced JOB/TF/5, explaining that his 
delegation had been meeting with the United States a nd with other delegations over the past months to 
discuss the part of the Draft Consolidated Nego tiating Text relating to internet publication. 
26. The only objective they had had in mind when undertaking that work was to help clean up the 
text. In the process, many delegations had made very  useful suggestions. As a result, the United States 
and Hong Kong China were now able to propose some changes to the existing text. Those 
modifications did not change the key elements of the original text. Rather, they aimed at presenting 
them in a more logical and systematic way.  
27. For instance, as mentioned by the United States, paragraph 2.1 was one of the mandatory 
requirements that were essential to traders wh ile not posing any unnecessary burdens to Members. TN/TF/M/35 
Page 4  
 
  Paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3, on the other hand, containe d elements that, after some discussion, had been 
considered desirable, but not strictly necessary. 
28. The sponsors hoped that the proposed revised text would provide a better vehicle and basis 
for further discussions.      
29. The representative of Switzerland
 introduced proposal TN/TF/W/170, recalling that at the last 
meeting of the NGTF in March, Sw itzerland had circulated a room paper on two customs procedures: 
(i) customs procedures relating to temporary admi ssion and (ii) customs procedures on inward and 
outward processing. Based on the generally positive fee dback they had received since then in bilateral 
meetings and on the basis on the room paper menti oned before, Switzerland had decided to turn the 
room paper into a fully-fledged proposal so as to  allow for more consideration and discussion of its 
provisions by the Negotiating Group. 
30. The rationale behind the proposal was as follows: It  was certainly true to say that the world 
had changed since the GATT had been written.  It  had become more globalized, which meant that, 
among other things, more and more of the goods that crossed borders were not destined for permanent 
importation but exited the customs territory again within a specified period either without having 
undergone any significant change or after manufactur ing, processing or repair. Everybody knew about 
the existing vertical integration and the global suppl y-chains that spanned the globe. These exchanges, 
these movements of goods in and out of countries were  also testimony of the intensified cultural, 
scientific, educational and economic relati ons that drew countries together.   
31. By granting total or partial exemptions from im port duties and taxes to such goods entering a 
customs territory on a temporary basis, these exchanges, and trade more broadly could be greatly 
facilitated and important economic gains could be achieved.  In addition, those procedures also 
allowed for more intense cultural, scientific and edu cational exchanges.  The benefits were way larger 
than just economic. 
32. In drafting this proposal, Switzerland had firs t thought to include precise language on the 
scope of these customs procedures, more specific crite ria that would have to be used in deciding if 
those customs procedures applied and more detail ed specifications of the relevant international 
standards which Switzerland believed to be of use in implementing those customs procedures. 
33. In the end, those elements had not been included in the present proposal as it would have 
made it more ambitious, but also less flexible.  As it was drafted now, the proposal provided great flexibility to all Members and the level of ambiti on was not overly high.  Most, if not all Members 
were already compliant with these provisions. 
34. Against this background, it was hoped that th e tabled proposal would find a warm welcome. 
The Swiss delegation was looking forward to reac tions from Members and to discussions on the new 
text.  
35. The representative of Korea
 introduced proposal JOB/TF/6 on the establishment of a Single 
Window. A small group meeting had been held on the issue of a Single Window system on 10 March, 
organized by the proponents, including Singapore,  Thailand and Korea.  Around 20 Members had 
participated in that session.  The proponents had offered explanations of the importance of a Single 
Window system and had also recalled the implicati ons of each individual item.  The participating 
Members then engaged in discussions on the matter w ith a view to cleaning up the square brackets, 
mostly focusing on non-controversial issues.  The out come of the small groups meeting was circulated 
as a Job document (JOB/TF/6).  TN/TF/M/35 
 Page 5 
 
 
  36. Korea wished to highlight the major outcome of the small group meeting, starting with those 
relating to sub-paragraph 5.1.  The meeting had s hown that there was consensus on the deletion of the 
bracketed wording "in so far as possible" in that sub-paragraph.  As far as the wording, "where 
practicable" was concerned,  the related bracket ha d been retained in the Job document whereas it had 
been deleted in TN/TF/W/165/Rev.2.  
37. The reference to "where practicable" was clos ely linked to the subsequent wording options 
such as "shall", "may" or "endeavour to" in order to determine the level of obligation.  It was Korea's 
understanding that there was no consensus on the dele tion of the bracket around "where practicable", 
in both the main session and at the 8 March small group meeting. 
38. Korea had never agreed to delete the bracket around "where practicable".  This was why the 
Korean delegation would like to suggest to insertion of brackets around these words "where 
practicable" in the Draft Consolidated Negotiating Text.  
39. The small group meeting had also led to an ag reement on the deletion of the bracketed words 
"to all stakeholders in international trade pro cedures".  As Members knew, the EU had expressed 
major reservations regarding the deletion of the brack eted wording at the 8 March session.  However, 
they had later kindly consented to deleting the brack eted text.  As a matter of fact, the bracketed 
wording "to all stakeholders in international trade procedures" was neither appropriate from a 
grammatical point of view nor from the contex t of the functioning of the Single Window.  
40. The small group meeting had also produced an ag reement to delete the bracketed wording "or 
agencies which require them" whereas there was no bracket around those words in TN/TF/W/165/Rev.2.  
41. Korea wished to reiterate the function of a Si ngle Window for Members' better understanding.  
The Single Window was a kind of endeavour to establish a virtual window.  For instance, if an importer wanted to import a certain good, he coul d simply log on to the Single Window website, 
which would then help with the required documentation necessary for importation.  The importer filled out the online form, or, if necessary, he c ould attach the other required documentation to the 
Single Window website as an electronic file. 
42. The Single Window would then send the submitted  documentation to the relevant authorities. 
Those authorities would communicate their findings to customs via the Single Window.  Then, based on their findings, the customs authorities would make a decision and also send their final decision to 
the importer by the way of the Single Window. 
43. Under the Single Window system, the submitted documentation was supposed to be send to 
the relevant authorities designated as "participa ting authorities" through the online information 
system.  It therefore did not originate from those who had submitted the documentation to the agencies which required them.  As a result, the re ference to "or agencies which require them" should 
be deleted in the Draft Consolidated Negotiating Text.  
44. Moving on to sub-para graph 5.2, it should be noted that it prescribed the online prohibition of 
certain documentation requests. This was because  under the Single Window system, all processes had 
to be made online.  The same documentation should th erefore not be requested again. No brackets had 
been eliminated from that section as a result of  there not being an agreement on the matter.  
45. Sub-paragraph 5.3 aimed at communicating information about the Single Window a Member 
was operating. Once a Member had notified relevant information about its Single Window their to the 
WTO Secretariat, business could get the relevant information through the WTO website.  As far as TN/TF/M/35 
Page 6  
 
  removal of brackets was concerned, there had been no consensus amongst the participants of the small 
group meeting. 
46. Sub-paragraph 5.4 sought to encourage the use of information technology.  In reality, it was 
not possible to operate a Single Window system without the aid of information technology. 
47. Sub-paragraph 5.5 contained a reference which was useful for the introduction of a Single 
Window. It did not intend to require the intr oduction of any international standard.   
48. As far as the "cleaning up" of these sections was concerned, there had been consensus on the 
deletion of the bracketed  wording "in line with in ternational standards" in sub-paragraph 5.4 and on 
the deletion of paragraph 5.5 as a whole, in case of the matter being addressed as a cross-cutting issue at a later stage. 
49. Lastly, sub-paragraph 5.6 prescribed how to expand the participating authorities stage-by- 
stage. It had nothing to do with special and di fferential treatment matters.  There was a specific 
background for the introduction of sub-paragraph 5.6 that Korea wished to illustrate for Members'  
better understanding. 
50. For example, if there were three relevant authorities dealing with animal importation in a 
given country and five relevant authorities dealing with the importation of plants, with the plant-
related authorities not being able to participate in the Single Window system due to the domestic 
situation, one could limit the scope of a Single Wind ow only to the importation of animals.  In this 
case, the number of the participating authorities woul d be three.  If the scope of the Single Window 
was limited to plant importation, then the number of participating authorities would be five.  If, on the 
other hand, the Single Window was opened up to both animal and plant importation, the number of 
participating authorities would be eight.  The number  of participating authorities could be decided 
upon depending on a country 's domestic situation. 
51. As had been said before, sub-paragraph 5.6 ha d nothing to do with special and differential 
treatment. Participants of the small group meeting ha d agreed to delete the bracketed wording "all 
developing and least-developed countries".  
52. The sponsoring delegations looked forward to Members' kind consid eration of the new text so 
that the cleaning-up efforts of the 10 March meeti ng could be duly reflected in the Draft Consolidated 
Negotiating Text.  
53. The representative of Canada
 introduced document JOB/TF/7.  As had been reported by the 
delegations of Canada and Norway in March, an  open-ended session had been organized to discuss 
the proposal on border-agency cooperation, cu rrently contained in TN/TF/W/165/Rev.2. 
54. At the March meeting the outcome of that sessi on had been presented in the form of a room 
document. It had now been turned into a Job docum ent.  The sponsors wished to thank those Members 
who had come to the open-ended session and had offered very cons tructive, practical comments and 
suggestions.  The purpose of the session had been to  clean-up the text, particularly the overlapping 
suggestions that had been made by Members in th e NGTF discussion, including additions made to the 
original proposal by the proponents. 
55. The open-ended session had not attempted to solve some of the more contentious issues such 
as the "shall ensure" versus "shall endea vour" issue contained in paragraph 1.1. 
56. Paragraph 1.2 was an attempt to lay out th e various examples of cross-border agency 
cooperation and to make them bette r understood.  It was an illustrative list and not exhaustive. This  TN/TF/M/35 
 Page 7 
 
 
  responded to requests that had been made by Member s, particularly from developing countries, to lay 
out some of the examples in some kind of incr emental order of what would be examples of cross-
border agency cooperation.  It was generally agr eed by everybody that this was a non-mandatory 
commitment. The language in paragraph 1.2 was of a best-endeavour nature.  
57. In an effort to move Members forward, the de legations of Canada and Norway proposed that 
the revised version of the proposal replaced the curr ent version in the Draft Consolidated Negotiating 
Text as a basis for further discussions in future meetings. 
58. The representative of Norway  introduced document TN/TF/W/171, explaining that it was a 
very short proposal for a draft text on dispute se ttlement.  As pointed out in the communication, 
Norway considered it time to present a proposal on th e matter, especially since there was language in 
section II of the Draft Consolidated Negotiating Te xt (TN/TF/W/165/Rev.2) that contained exceptions 
to the right of dispute settlement.  The proposal for a grace period in subheading 7 of part II was an example for that.   
59. Dispute settlement had been referred to as one of  the cross-cutting issues.   Norway wished to 
present a very simple text on the matter. It was hoped that it was something Members could relatively 
easily agree upon. 
60. Different WTO Agreements contained differe nt models regarding the use of dispute 
settlement.  Norway had taken Article 30 of the Su bsidies Agreement as a model, although there were 
similar provisions in other Agreements such as in Article 6 of the Import Licensing Agreement and in 
Article 14 of the Safeguards Agreement. 
61. As pointed out in paragraph 2 the communicati on, the exceptions or adaptations for dispute 
settlement purposes could be addressed either in th e article on dispute settlement itself or in the 
substantive articles. Where exactly this should be pl aced at the end of the day could be addressed at a 
later stage. 
62. It was not yet clear if there was a need to ma ke a more specific provision  for the application 
of what was being now discussed in the NAMA ne gotiations on NTMs and on the related horizontal 
mechanism.  That mechanism did relate to consulta tions and not to the hardcore rights and obligations 
of the WTO dispute settlement understanding as such.  Norway did not have any strong views on the 
question of whether this should be reflected in th e Trade Facilitation Agreement at all.  But it was 
definitely one of the issues they had looked at wh en discussing the issue of dispute settlement in the 
capital.  
63. The representative of Norway
 introduced JOB/TF/8 on the use of international standards, on 
behalf of  the co-sponsoring delegations of South Africa, Switzerland  and Norway .   
64. The Draft Consolidated Negotiating Text (T N/TF/W/165/Rev.2) contained three proposals 
regarding international standards, two from the or iginal proponents of th e use of international 
standards and one from the ACP Group. 
65. During the period between the last negotiating round and the current one, there had been a 
number of bilateral meetings with  delegations with a focus on streamlining the textual basis, 
consolidating those three texts into one.  There had been no intention to add or subtract anything of 
substance, but the wish to have one text Member s could base their further negotiations on, as opposed 
to three.  TN/TF/M/35 
Page 8  
 
  66. Norway hoped to see from the current meeting th at Members would be comfortable with the 
substitution of the three texts currently contained in the TN/TF/W/165/Rev.2 document with the one 
text presented in JOB/TF/8.  
67. As Members would notice, the text still contained brackets in most of the paragraphs.  But it 
was hoped that in the next round of negotiations, Members could start looking at how to agree on 
what brackets could be taken out. 
68. The representative of Australia
 introduced JOB/TF/9 on behalf of Canada, Turkey, the United 
States and Australia .  The sponsors were pleased to present a revised version of their advance rulings 
proposal which dated from 28 May 2010.  It was th e result of extensive consultations with other 
Members at the margins of the last Negotiating Group  meeting in March as well as intersessionally.  
69. These consultations had been conducted specifica lly with those Members who had previously 
offered comments or had suggested alternative text .  The consultations were  conducted in different 
configurations and proved to be  very productive exchanges, allowing Members to gain a better 
understanding of each others' positions.  
70. The scope of the advance rulings  provisions had not been discussed in the consultations. It 
had been considered best to leave that for later.  As a result, all expressed positions on scope had been 
preserved in the proposal.  This also meant that there was no need for Memb ers to reinforce their 
alternative approaches on scope in the discussions of the current meeting since they were all reflected 
in JOB/TF/9. 
71. The key objective of the consultations had been  to reduce the number of options reflected as 
square brackets in the text.  Looking at pages 2 an d 3 of the document, the so-called clean version, 
one would note that it reflected the outcomes of the discussions, while pages 4 and 5 showed the 
modifications undertaken, which was reflected as strikethrough or underlined text. 
72. Without going into the detail of every change made, Australia wished to draw Members' 
attention to some of the key modifications.  First,  the time period to issue an advance ruling had been 
reduced to two options which the sponsors belie ved provided a basis to move forward on this 
important element. 
73. To address concerns expressed in the consultati ons, Members should note that a footnote had 
been introduced to clarify that Members were not re quired to provide a judicial appeal of an advance 
ruling or a decision to revoke or modify a ruling.  Paragraph 1.2 had undergone some slight modifications as well which could be seen on page 4 of JOB/TF/9.   
74. The sponsors looked forward to further discu ssion on the proposal on advance rulings. They 
hoped that Members could agree to the revised te xt in JOB/TF/9 as a replacement of the current 
Article 3 text contained in TN/TF/W/165/ Rev.2 as a basis for further negotiation. 
75. The representative of El Salvador
 presented document TN/TF/W/172 on behalf of the 
delegations of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador , saying that it was his pleasure to formally 
introduce their text-based legal pr oposal for special and differential treatment to the Negotiating 
Group.  
76. The document was already reflected in the wo rking papers used by the Negotiating Group. 
But the sponsors had considered it important to distribut e it officially in order for it to be available for 
Members to look it up on the WTO website, both for delegations in Geneva and for the authorities 
back in the capitals.  TN/TF/M/35 
 Page 9 
 
 
  77. In terms of adjustments, with respect to th e provisions on Category C, and related measures 
and sub-measures, the proponents of TN/TF/W/172 wish ed to underscore that the text was practically 
identical to the one included in the Draft Consolidated Negotiating Text and in the comparison table 
prepared and circulated by the WTO Secretariat.  
78. The only main change related to the first part of footnote 6 of the proposal.  There, the idea 
was that the notification of measures to be included in category C included the donors that, at the date 
of submission of the implementation plan, had agr eed to provide the necessar y assistance to help with 
the implementation of a provision or sub-part of a provision.  It also stated that the notification should include information where a donor had not been identifie d for provisions or sub-parts of provisions.    
79. This took care of cases where assistance was received by developing countries, either 
bilaterally or regionally, but where a transition pe riod was still necessary in or der for the measure to 
be implemented. 
80. In conclusion, it should be recalled that the prop osal had already been shared with delegations 
in various formats since last year.  The proponents of TN/TF/W/172 wished to stress that the proposal 
on legal language for special and differential treatment was an initial text, a starting point for 
discussions within the Negotiating Group.  They lo oked to Members' input on any of the areas which 
required a review.    
81. The sponsors felt that an in-depth discussi on on document TN/TF/W/172 had already taken 
place to some extent.  Therefore, they wished to continue discussing it in tandem with the other two 
proposals on this area, namely the text presented by the ACP Group and the proposal by the United States.  
82. The Negotiating Group took note
 of the statements made.  
B.  A D HOC ATTENDANCE OF RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS , INCLUDING THE 
IMF, OECD, UNCTAD , WCO AND THE WORLD BANK, AT THE NEXT MEETING OF THE 
NEGOTIATING GROUP  
83. The Chairman  suggested inviting relevant internati onal organizations, including the IMF, 
OECD, UNCTAD, WCO and the World Bank to attend the next formal meeting of the Negotiating 
Group on an ad hoc basis, as provided for in the Work Plan. 
84. It was so agreed . 
C. O THER BUSINESS  
85. The Chairman  addressed the issue of the Negotiating Group's next meeting, suggesting to 
hold it from 12 – 16 July.  Details regarding its content and structure would be communicated to 
Members in due course.  
86. It was so agreed .  
87. The Negotiating Group took note  of the statements made. 
88. The meeting was adjourned . 
 
__________