WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/C/M/107 
29 July 2011 
 (11-3899) 
Council for Trade in Goods  
  
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS  
26 MAY 2011 
 
Chairperson: H.E. Ambassador Juri SEILENTHAL (Estonia) 
 
 
 The meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods was convened by airgram WTO/AIR/3752 and the proposed agenda for the meeting was c ontained in document G/C/W/649.  The meeting 
proceeded on the basis of the following agenda.  
I.  MARKET ACCESS ISSUES ................................................................................................... 2  
A.  C
OMMITTEE ON MARKET ACCESS – PERIODIC REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE  ............................ 2  
B.  INTRODUCTION OF HARMONIZED SYSTEM 1996  CHANGES INTO WTO  SCHEDULES OF 
TARIFF CONCESSIONS  – REQUEST FOR A WAIVER EXTENSION : ARGENTINA 
(G/C/W/956)  AND (G/C/W/648) ................................................................................................. 2  
II.  EUROPEAN UNION - REQUEST FOR A WAIVER ON ADDITIONAL 
AUTONOMOUS TRADE PREFERENCE S GRANTED BY THE EUROPEAN 
UNION TO PAKISTAN (G/C/W/640) - STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN 
UNION ......................................................................................................................... .............. 3  
III. UKRAINE- IMPLEMENTATION OF CUSTOMS VALUATION 
LEGISLATION - JOINT STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION AND 
NORWAY ........................................................................................................................ .......... 4 
IV.  ARGENTINA - IMPORT LICENSING MEASURES AND PROCEDURES BY 
ARGENTINA - STATEMENTS BY THE UNITED STATES, THE EUROPEAN UNION, JAPAN AND CANADA. ........................................................................................... 6  
V.  UKRAINE - EXPORT RESTRICTIONS FOR CEREALS - STATEMENT BY 
THE EUROPEAN UNION .................................................................................................... 10  
VI.  ECUADOR MIXED TARIFFS - QUESTI ONS FROM THE UNITED STATES, 
EUROPEAN UNION, CANADA, JA PAN AND PANAMA (G/C/W/639 AND 
G/C/W/645) .................................................................................................................... .......... 12 
VII. EUROPEAN UNION ENLARGEMENT:  PROCEDURES UNDER ARTICLE 
XXXVIII: 3 OF GATT 1994 .................................................................................................. 16  
A.  E
NLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ON 1 MAY 2004  (G/L/695/A DD.13)...................... 16  
B.  ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ON 1 JANUARY 2007  (G/L/821/A DD.8) ................. 16  
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS ................................................................................................................  17 
A.  UNITED STATES : E-C OMMERCE WORK PROGRAMME  .............................................................. 17  
B.  CANADA : CARIBCAN TRADE PREFERENCES  .............................................................................. 17  
C.  DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING  ................................................................................................... 17  
 
  G/C/M/107 
Page 2  
 
  I. MARKET ACCESS ISSUES 
1. The Chairman noted that the Market Acce ss Committee had forwarded two items for 
consideration to the Council for Trade in Goods.   
A. COMMITTEE ON MARKET ACCESS – PERIODIC REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE  
2. The Chairman drew Members' attention to th e periodic report of the Committee on Market 
Access contained in document G/MA/245.  The repor t was factual in nature, and reflected the work 
undertaken in the Market Access Committee.   
3. The delegate of the United States indicated that her delegation had no objection to the 
adoption of the report and, with regard paragraph 4 thereof, she noted that the Council would need to 
discuss further on how to handle the products wher e there was no consensus in the Word Customs 
Organization (WCO) on correlation between the HS2002 and HS2007; this might also be an issue of 
concern in the other WTO committees.  
4. The Council took note of the periodic report and of the statement made.   
B. INTRODUCTION OF HARMONIZED SYSTEM 1996  CHANGES INTO WTO  SCHEDULES OF TARIFF 
CONCESSIONS  – REQUEST FOR A WAIVER EXTENSION : ARGENTINA (G/L/956)  AND 
(G/C/W/648) 
5. The Chairman drew Members' attention to the draft waiver decision circulated in document 
G/C/W/648, which had been made in connection with the introduction of HS1996 changes into WTO 
schedules of tariff concessions.  The current waiv er decision was contained in document WT/L/801 
and expired on 30 April 2011.  The one year extens ion of the waiver decision was considered at the 
formal meeting of the Market Access Committee that took place on 12 May 2011.  It had been 
forwarded by that Committee to the CTG for action. 
6. The delegate of Argentina noted the successful outcome of the exchanges that took place with 
the EU as part of Argentina's change to the HS96;   indicated that, as a result of this, on 28 February 
2011, the Secretariat had circulated an addendum wh ich would be annexed to  Argentina's schedule 
LXIV, and informed the Council that Argentina' s final Certification of Modifications and 
Rectifications to Schedule LXIV (Argentina's Certific ation) would be ready in June 2011.  Therefore, 
the request for an extension was due to the time di fference between the end of the current extension, 
as requested in 2010, and the date on which the Certification would be  ready.  He thanked the Council 
for considering the approval of the extension request  and indicated that if Argentina's Certification 
were to be ready in June 2011 as expected, it would not be necessary to forw ard the extension request 
to the General Council.1 
7. The Council approved the draft waiver decision contained in G/C/W/648 and agreed to 
forward it to the General Council for adoption, unless Argentina's Certification were  circulated before 
the next General Council meeting. 
 
                                                      
1 Argentina's certification was circul ated in document WT/Let/763 cont aining the certified true copy of 
the Certification of Modifications and Rectifications to Schedule LXIV - Argentina , effective 28 May 2011 .    G/C/M/107 
 Page 3 
 
 
  II. EUROPEAN UNION - REQUEST FOR A WAIVER ON ADDITIONAL 
AUTONOMOUS TRADE PREFERENCES GRANTED BY THE EUROPEAN UNION TO PAKISTAN (G/C/W/640) - STA TEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION 
8. The Chairman recalled that at the meeting on 30 November 2010 the European Union 
introduced document G/C/W/640 containing a request for a waiver for the application of additional 
autonomous trade preferences granted by the European Union to Pakistan.  At that meeting some of 
the delegations who took the floor, while highlightin g the importance of the initiative, also indicated 
that they had some concerns regarding the possibl e collateral systemic and commercial effects of the 
EU proposal on their economies.  In this regard th ey expressed their willingness to further consult on 
the issue with the European Union. 
9. At the meeting in March 2011, the EU delegate informed this Council that, as announced at the 
meeting in January 2011, it had st arted a consultation process which was under way and that it would 
inform the Council on these consultations at the present meeting.   
10. The Chair recalled delegations th at, as had been mentioned by his predecessor, that since this 
Council had not completed its consideration of the wa iver request within the 90 days stipulated in 
Article IX.3(b), of the Marrakesh Agreement, it was required to submit a report to the Ministerial 
Conference or, in this case, the Ge neral Council (GC).  In this regard , at the meeting of the GC which 
took place on 3 May 2011, in his capacity as Chair of  this Council, he had pr ovided, on behalf of the 
CTG, a brief and factual report indicating that the CT G would need further time to consider the request 
and that it would report back to the GC once it ha d completed its work.  The General Council had so 
agreed. 
11. The delegate of the European Union, reaffirm ed the information provided by the Chair and 
indicated that his delegation had requ ested the item to be placed on the agenda of this meeting in order 
to inform delegations on the state of play of the bila teral consultations which the EU had held with those 
Members that had expressed systemic and economic c oncerns on the EU's request .  These consultations, 
while useful to address Members' concerns had not yet produced a consensus and given that the 
objective was to assist Pakistan's  economy through emergency trade me asures and trade preferences, he 
encouraged Members that still had co ncerns to continue working with the EU with a view to finding a 
mutually agreeable solution in support of the waiver.  , but these consultations could not continue for 
much longer since  the time would soon come to deci de collectively whether or not there was consensus 
to support the waiver request. 
12. The delegate of Pakistan indicated that the wa iver request had been under discussion in this 
Council since November 2010 and that time was of es sence to help Pakistan face the difficulties and 
economic impact brought by the flooding.  He echoed the EU in its request to the Members who were 
still consulting with their respective capitals and the EU to conclude deliberations as early as possible. 
13. The delegate of India recalled that his delega tion had already expressed its views on this issue 
in the previous CTG meetings.  The systemic con cerns on the multilateral trading system were serious 
since aid would adversely affect other nations a nd distort trade without providing shortcuts of 
emergency nature to the flood affected in Paki stan; the measure was unprecedented in WTO and 
introduced a new way for decision making.  Reports indicated that the current proposal had been 
debated in the EU parliament; nevertheless, while suggesting changes, it did not vote on the package.  
If indeed this proposal was at a draft stage, then it would be difficult for the WTO to decide on the 
waiver.  He therefore urged the EU to apprise the CTG of the issues which had been discussed in the 
EU parliament and of the reasons as to when an agreement could be reached.  In light of this, his 
delegation was of the view that th e EU seek a WTO waiver after all their internal approvals, including 
that of the EU parliament were in place and the final contours of the package were known. G/C/M/107 
Page 4  
 
  14. The delegate of Vietnam welcomed the consu ltation process engaged by the EU and Pakistan 
with delegations that, like his delegation, had e xpressed concerns on the waiver request; he would 
welcome a revised proposal not only mitigating the sy stemic concerns but also considering Pakistan's 
needs.  His delegation could go along with a revise d request but was of the view that this waiver 
request should not constitute a precedent for similar measures to be considered as a systematically 
appropriate means of addressing humanitarian crisis  situation by WTO Members.  His delegation 
recognized that any preferential treatment progr amme might have unwanted commercial effects on 
those who were not recipients of such scheme; in this regard Vietnam also  recognized that the EU 
waiver for Pakistan establi shed a limited list of products subject  to tariff preference through the use of 
TRQs to minimize the potential negative impact on other Members.  His authorities had convinced 
domestic industries and business associations to agree with this solution.  Vietnam also requested the 
EU to review the programme annually and to engage  in consultation with any Member that would be 
affected during the implementation process.  
15. The delegate of Morocco indicated that given the sensitive and serious situation in Pakistan, 
and considering that it was an unprecedented request, Morocco had made some proposals during the 
consultations, and wanted the EU to respond to the se;  she also indicated that her delegation was 
ready to take part in further consultations on this subject. 
16. The delegate of the European Union explained that the internal EU legislative procedure 
would be finalized once the WTO agreed on the waiver  request;  and that its adoption by the General 
Council did not depend on the finalization of internal  procedures by EU Parliament.   By voting the 
amendments to the regulation contained in the wa iver request and withholding the final vote on the 
request as such, the EU Parliament had clarified its view and opinion but at the same time, 
deliberately kept open all options for a swift adopti on in the so-called first reading of its internal 
procedures once the WTO would have reach ed consensus on the waiver request. 
17. The delegate of Pakistan thanked the EU for its  explanation and Vietnam for its statement in 
support of the waiver. 
18. The Council took note of the statements made.  
III. UKRAINE- IMPLEMENTATION OF CUSTOMS VALUATION LEGISLATION - 
JOINT STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION AND NORWAY 
19. The Chairman recalled that at the Council's meetings on 31 January and 21 March 2011, the 
European Union had made statements on its own be half and that of the Norwegian delegation on the 
"Implementation of Customs Valuation Legislati on by Ukraine".  In a communication dated 11 May 
2011, the EU delegation requested inclusion of the same issue as an agenda item of this meeting. 
20. The delegate of the European Union on behalf  of his delegation and on behalf of Norway 
welcomed the outcome of consultations held on 10 March 2011 between Ukraine, the EU and Norway 
which were followed by a technical meeting with  the Ukrainian State Customs Service held on 16 
March.  At that meeting his delegation proposed  a concrete action plan aimed at a swift and 
sustainable solution of what the EU continued to see as a customs valuation problem in Ukraine.  This 
proposal consisted of a number of short-term acti on points that would help bring valuation control 
fully in line with WTO standards.  The action plan invited Ukraine to take advantage of available EU 
cooperation and assistance to examine best practices in valuation control;  more specifically, it 
recommended organizing at the earliest possible time, a workshop with experts in order to objectively 
identify the problems and where appropriate, reco mmend necessary legislative, organizational or 
procedural measures aimed at a permanent and sustainable solution.  G/C/M/107 
 Page 5 
 
 
  21. The EU believed that implementing these actions would bring positive effects in the short run 
and would lead to a reduction in the number of trad ers' complaints, therefore it encouraged Ukraine to 
take these actions into consideration.  In fact, the EU had noted that some progress had been made 
recently to solve the problem, such as a greater  acceptance of the invoice value, the so-called 
transaction value, as a basis for customs valuation.  Nevertheless, there were  reports indicating that 
other possible problems were arising in customs cl earance in Ukraine.  Th e EU was fully committed 
to continue working with Ukraine in a constructiv e way towards a practical and effective solution to 
this problem; it also expected real and concrete  progress in practice and in a continued form until 
Ukraine's implementation of their customs valuati on legislation was fully in compliance with the 
WTO provisions. 
22. The delegate of the Switzerland echoed the join t statement made by the EU and Norway;  her 
delegation had already indicated at the previous  CTG meeting that Swiss companies also faced 
problems in the area of customs valuation.  Despite that the issue had been raised by many Members 
on many occasions, both bilaterally and at this Council , in practice the situation had not improved.  At 
the meeting of the Customs Valuation Committee, on 12 May 2011, Ukraine indicated that a working 
group of experts would be created within the Cust oms Department, and that the surveillance authority 
would answer the questions posed by the private sect or.  Her delegation would be grateful if Ukraine 
could provide more information as to when th ese two bodies would be established and how these 
would help address the problems mentioned.   
23. Switzerland would also use any other available and relevant fora to solve the issue and 
remained ready to work constructively with Ukrain e in seeking a solution and concrete results.  She 
finally invited Ukraine to implement its customs valuation legislation in conformity with its WTO 
commitments in a transparent, uniform and consistent manner. 
24. The delegate of the Canada echoed the previous  speakers and encouraged Ukraine to bring its 
legislation into conformity with the WTO Agreem ent on Customs Valuation, Canada was also ready 
to work with Ukraine to achieve that outcome. 
25. The delegate of the United States indicated that her authorities had also received similar 
reports from some US exporters.  As her delega tion had previously mentioned, all WTO Members 
should follow the requirements set in the Customs Va luation Agreement and apply such methods in a 
clear and transparent manner so as to disrupt trade as little as possible.  The US had recently engaged 
in bilateral consultations with Ukraine on the ri sk analysis methodology it was applying and looked 
forward to learning more about these procedures;  her delegation appreciated Ukraine's cooperation 
and looked forward to continuing working w ith Ukraine and other Members on this issue. 
26. The delegate of Ukraine thanked the previous sp eakers for their interest in the implementation 
of customs valuation legislation in his country and fo r the consultations held in Geneva and in Kiev.  
With regard to the action plan offered by the EU a nd aimed at minimizing the traders' concerns on this 
customs issue, he indicated that his authorities c onsidered it as a sign of understanding and support of 
the steps taken by the Ukrainian customs author ity to fight fraud and corruptive practices, to 
streamline the customs control and make it more efficient. 
27. In order to ensure proper risk manageme nt the Ukrainian customs authorities were 
implementing various instruments such as the legisl ation which had now been brought in conformity 
with the requirements of the WTO Customs Valuati on Agreement.  Accordingly, the main valuation 
method was based on transaction value.  Statistics s howed that application of this method grew from 
81 per cent in 2010 to 92 per cent during the first five  months of 2011; this was an improvement, in 
the customs' work. G/C/M/107 
Page 6  
 
  28. Article VII of GATT/94 and WTO CVA provide d the order in which customs valuation 
should be made but the issue of accuracy of the valu ation itself was not laid out therein.  Members' 
rights could not be restricted, nor those of their cust oms administrations to satisfy themselves as to the 
truth or accuracy of any statement, document or declaration presented for valuation purposes could be 
called into question.  In this regard, customs proc edures in Ukraine were in line with those widely 
used by WTO Members, which e nvisaged to check the documents submitted, a comparison of the 
declared values with the values of identical or si milar goods, a verification of authenticity of the 
documents submitted to customs through enquiries to the customs administrations of other countries.  
29. In line with the Kyoto Convention, Ukraine also  used and relied on an automatic system of 
risk management.  This recommendation was the basi s for customs officers to use additional methods 
of customs controls, such as verification of doc uments and information submitted for clearance.  
Ukraine also had the right to request, whenev er necessary, additional documentation as it was 
envisaged in the decision related to cases where th e customs administration had reasons to verify the 
truth and accuracy of the declared value.  In cases of  delays in the final determination of the value, 
importers had the right to release the goods upon the provisions of a guarantee. 
30. Ukrainian customs administration was constantly  improving its controls and putting in place 
trade-facilitating systems for instance, it had est ablished a constructive dialogue with economic 
operators representing different businesses in Ukrain e; a working group had been established in the 
Department of Customs Control and Clearance, where the experts provided assistance and clarification on a regular basis and upon request.  If necessary, his delegation would provide a schedule of this work and  remained open for further consultations and was ready to provide 
information and replies to Members' queries.  
31. The Council took note of the statements made. 
IV. ARGENTINA - IMPORT LICENSING MEASURES AND PROCEDURES BY 
ARGENTINA - STATEMENTS BY THE UNITED STATES, THE EUROPEAN UNION, JAPAN AND CANADA 
32. The Chairman informed the Council that the delegation of the European Union, in a 
communication dated 11 May 2011, requested the Secretar iat to include in the agenda of this meeting, 
the item on "Import Licensing Measures and Proce dures by Argentina- Statements by the United 
States, the European Union and Jap an".  In a communication dated 13 May 2011, Canada requested to 
be added to the list of speakers under this agenda  item. 4.2 The delegate of the European Union 
recalled that Argentina's import licensing measures had been raised in the WTO on several occasions 
and that, at the meeting of this Council on 21 Marc h 2011, the Chair encouraged Members to continue 
consultations towards a solution.  Accordingly, th e EU had raised its concerns bilaterally with 
Argentina end March 2011 and also multilaterally  at the Import Licensing Committee on 11 April 
2011.  Nevertheless the EU concerns had not yet be en addressed by Argentina and the questions the 
EU posed had not received a meaningful reply.  T hus, the EU looked forward to hearing Argentina's 
justification of the import licensing measures, th e timing and duration, details about the product 
coverage and the procedures, and how these were c onsistent with Argentin a's obligations under the 
Import Licensing Agreement and, information on th e impact of such measures including on its 
domestic market.  
33. Argentina should also provide explanation on the recent extension of the scope of the non-
automatic licensing (NAL) measures, as published on  15 February and 9 March 2011, which covered 
an additional 200 products, including high end cars w ith big engines, certain car parts and mobile 
phones.  These measures followed an informal dema nd from the Argentinean Ministry of Industry to 
car importers to reduce imports by 20 per cent and which seemed to be part of an import substitution 
policy in Argentina.  Car importers were also  complaining about delays at customs and for  G/C/M/107 
 Page 7 
 
 
  homologation of motor vehicles as consignments were blocked basically since 4 February 2011.  In 
general, importers of a number of  goods were requested to reduce imports by 20 per cent or more 
compared to previous years and to buy or export mo re locally produced goods and, in April the EU 
received new complaints from other industry sectors facing the same problems. 
34. The NAL scheme now covered almost 600 products, a development extremely worrying as it 
worsened the impact of the measures on exports from the EU and many other WTO Members.  The 
NAL covered imports from the EU, over US$1 billion or 60 per cent of total imports from the EU.  
This was even more alarming when considered in  the context of other measures taken to pursue 
import substitution in Argentina. 
35. The NAL was only justified where necessary to  implement WTO compatible measures;   
unless this condition was met, NAL violated the spirit and letter of WTO obligati ons.  Article 3(2) of 
the WTO Agreement on Import Licensing (the Agre ement) stated that "non-automatic licensing 
procedures shall correspond in scope and duration to the measure they were used to implement and 
shall be no more administratively burdensome than absolutely necessary to administer the measure".  
Article 5(g) of the Agreement confirmed this by  requiring that the notification of non-automatic 
import licensing regimes to the Committee on Import Li censing include an indication of the measures 
being implemented through the licensing procedure.  A different interpretation of these articles would 
render Article XI of the GATT/94 meaningless since it would allow WTO Members to use arbitrarily import licensing regimes as a means to restrict imports for protectionist purposes. 
36. Argentina's newly introduced electronic syst em to request licences had not changed the 
situation.  The procedures for examination of the applications for import licences still lacked 
transparency.  Some elements of the procedures for the examination of applications for import 
licences, such as the change from first come first se rved method of considera tion of applications to 
simultaneous consideration, were not regulated in  the Argentinean legislation as required by the 
Agreement le.  The NAL scheme and its extensi on constituted a serious barrier to exports to 
Argentina and were contrary to Argentina's internati onal commitments.  Not only did it fly in the face 
of Argentina's political commitments undertaken in the G-20 context not to introduce new trade 
restrictive measures, but it also raised very serious concerns in terms of Argentina's WTO obligations.  
This barrier needed to be addressed  urgently given its gravity.   
37. The EU also requested explanations on how  Argentina planned to address these barriers 
affecting the EU imports and which had been ra ised on numerous occasions, both bilaterally and 
multilaterally since 2009. The import restrictions imposed by Argentina were of increasing and 
serious concern to the EU and invited Argentina to  bring its regime in full compliance with its WTO 
obligations;  the EU reserved its  rights to pur sue further action on this matter under WTO rules. 
38. The delegate of the United States recalled that at  the last CTG meeting, the US presented four 
specific questions regarding Argentina's import li censing regime for which her delegation requested 
responses prior to this meeting.  As noted in the CTG meeting minutes, Argentina stated it would 
respond at the April meeting of the Committee on Import Licensing. 
39. First, the US requested that Argentina indi cate the WTO legal basis for the use of these 
import licensing procedures.  The US had already re quested such a justification but   was yet to 
receive a response.  Argentina continued to claim that its import licensing procedures were legitimate; 
however, given the discretionary way in which th e licensing procedures were administered and in 
light of the concerns highlighted by several Member s, in this Council as well as in the Committee on 
Import Licensing, the US disagreed with Argentina' s  statements.  If Argentina  continued to assert 
that its import licensing procedures were legitimate, the US would request Argentina to  provide a full 
and complete explanation on what specific WTO co nsistent measure were the procedures being used 
to implement, as well as the legal basis for use of such a measure. G/C/M/107 
Page 8  
 
  40. Second, the US requested Argentina to provide information on the time period for approving 
licences, together with an explanation on the le ngth of time for approval and information concerning 
the reported requirements that companies commit to exporting in order to obtain an import licence.  
Many US exporters had complained that Argentina customs officials were taking considerably longer 
than the 60 days permitted under the Agreement to process import licences.  The US companies had 
also complained that Argentine officials had requi red a commitment to export a specific amount, or to 
invest domestically, in order to obtain an im port licence. Her delegation sought from Argentina 
clarification on how such requirements were WTO consistent.  
41. Third, the US wanted an indication of what specific steps Argentina was taking to address the 
trade distorting effect of its import licensing regime. 
42. She finally referred to the various news reports and local reports coming out of Argentina that 
indicated Argentina's plan to exclude certain tradin g partners from the effects of these requirements.  
As the US had previously explained, Argentina's import licensing procedures were severely impacting 
companies' ability to import foreign goods into Ar gentina.  Not only were companies concerned about 
added costs and uncertainty associated with exportin g to Argentina as a result of these measures, but 
were also concerned about the negative effects of products being sold increasingly on the grey market 
due to the distortions created by Argentina's import pr ocedures.  It had become clear that this problem 
had developed into a significant trade barrier.  Her authorities would therefore continue to raise the 
matter wherever appropriate until Argentina indicated that it was serious about working together to 
resolve this problem with the United States. 
43. The delegate of Canada supporte d the previous speakers and reca lled that this matter had been 
discussed in this Council and elsewhere for some time.  His delegation emphasized the need for 
transparency and consistency with the obligations  contained in the Agreement on Import Licensing. 
As indicated in the past, Canadian exporters we re concerned by the lack of clarity in the 
administration of Argentina's NAL as well as the recent extension of the programme to a broader 
scope of products as stipulated in Resolution 45 /2011.  Canada had requested information from 
Argentina regarding this programme but that su ch information had not yet been provided.  
44. The delegate of Japan supported the previous sp eakers and reiterated his delegation's concerns 
on this issue.  The delays in the issuance of impor t licences in Argentina had not improved. In a recent 
hearing with Japanese companies in  Argentina, it had been found that nearly half of the import 
licences were issued after 60 days with more than 10 per cent issued after 150 days.  On top of this, 
came the increase of products covered by the NAL requirements.  This was the case with some 
manufacturing companies where one third of the parts and components they needed were now 
covered under the licensing requirements, thereby inevitably affecting their production activities.  
Furthermore, it was announced that the issuance of  import licences for automobile cars would be 
reduced by 20 per cent compared to the previous  year.  Some Japanese companies had to give up 
import of cars for this reason and remained unable to  respond to the order of Argentinean customers.  
In addition, there were cases where some companies were required to export a product despite the fact 
that no production was made.  Japan had requested  the Argentinean authorities, both in Tokyo and 
Buenos Aires, to improve this situation but ther e had been no changes.  Therefore, Japan urged 
Argentina to improve the current situation and also expected to hear from Argentina on the 
compatibility between these measur es with relevant WTO provisions. 
45. The delegate of Colombia indicated that the e xporting sector in Colombia, specifically that of 
the textile sector had reported cases where import li cences applications requested to the Argentine 
Ministry of Industry had been delayed for more than  a year.  Colombian exporters had also indicated 
that the licensing legislation was unclear as to  the procedures and length.  Import licensing 
applications involved the interaction with a numb er of authorities within the Ministry and the 
governmental authorities in Argentina which only served to slow down the process of issuing import  G/C/M/107 
 Page 9 
 
 
  licences.  This issue had been addressed bilate rally between the two countries and in 2011 two 
separate meetings had taken place at ministerial level without any positive result. Colombia echoed 
the request made by other delegations to Argentina to clarify the concerns that had been raised in the 
course of this meeting and to take the necessary steps to ensure that its regulations were in line with 
the WTO provisions. 
46. The delegate of Peru reiterated the concerns of his delegation on this issue given the effects 
the Argentine NAL scheme had on international trade.   His authorities had been informed that delays 
in granting the NAL continued; this affected the Peruvian exporters and ha d undermined predictability 
within the international trading system.  Peru e xpected Argentina to grant the pending NALs so as to 
avoid any possible restrictive effects on international trade. 
47. The delegate of Turkey recalled that his dele gation had expressed serious concerns regarding 
the NAL practices of Argentina and indicated that th e responses by Argentina to Turkey's questions in 
document G/LIC/Q/ARG/13 had not clarified the WTO justification and compatibility of the Argentine measures. Turkey's concerns were aggravat ed with the recent extension of the scope of the 
NAL practices which now covered a wide range of products in textile, electronics, automotive and 
steel sectors, among others.  Approximately 35 pe r cent of Turkey's exports to Argentina were 
expected to be affected by this extension. 
48. Monitoring and control of imports, as well as the assurance of products' conformity with 
technical regulations should be performed without  injuring current trade flows, and in compliance 
with relevant GATT/WTO principles and provisions .  As recognized in the preamble of the 
Agreement, NAL procedures should be no more ad ministratively burdensome than absolutely 
necessary to administer the relevant measure and al so implement it in a transparent and predictable 
manner. 
49. Adversely, NAL of Argentina was acting as e ffective import restrictions due to the non-
transparent and unpredictable nature of their implem entation.  Moreover, delays in the provision of 
import licences could reach up to 200-300 days whic h was far beyond the 30-60 days period foreseen 
in Article 3.5(f) of the Agreement.  However, as  Argentina declared that the application of the 
licensing system was consistent with the Agreemen t, his delegation would appreciate if Argentina 
provided further details of the operation of its NAL scheme including the time frame for processing 
import licence applications, as well as the reasons for the reported delays in the processing of applications. 
50. It was regrettable to observe that the NAL sch eme had turned out to be a means of general 
import substitution policy implemented by Argentina.   Therefore his delegation urged Argentina to 
bring its import licensing measures and implementa tion in compliance with the WTO rules in the 
shortest delay. 
51. The delegate of Switzerland recalled that at the CTG meeting on 5 July 2010, her delegation 
had expressed for the first time, its concerns on these  measures.  Even though some specific problems 
of the Swiss industry had been solved bilaterally  in 2010, Switzerland was concerned that Argentina 
had still not taken appropria te measures to conform its NAL to th e WTO.  The extension of the scope 
of Argentina's NAL system on 15 February 2011 had worsened the situation.  Moreover, the 
discretionary import licensing procedures resulted in  quantitative restrictions on imports which were 
contrary to GATT/94 Article XI, therefore Switzer land urged Argentina to put its import licensing 
system in conformity with WTO commitments. 
52. The delegate of Mexico recalled that on several occasions, her delegation had expressed 
systemic trade concerns on the Argentine NAL which led to trade barriers that affected an increasing 
number of products.  Mexico's concern also rela ted to the uncertainty which arose from the G/C/M/107 
Page 10  
 
  discretionary application of the Argentinean licen sing procedures since it was not possible to import 
in a reliable manner.  She sought from Argentina clear  information, in the shortest delay, on the 
operation and application of the NAL system and, particularly, on the estimated timeframe for these measures.  Given the seriousness of the situation and in light of the lack of responses, Mexico would 
continue to stress these issues both bilaterally a nd multilaterally.  She urged Argentina to take all 
possible steps to appraise and correct any shortcomings that could obstruct trade and create 
uncertainty for traders and exporters.   
53. The delegate of Argentina stated that the NAL scheme was applied on a non-discriminatory 
basis to all countries and customs territories.  The procedures were not intended to limit the quantity 
nor value of imports.  The WTO legal basis wa s the Licensing Agreement, incorporated into 
Argentinean legislation by Law 24425/95.  The NAL did not comprise quotas or limitations of any 
kind.  The notification and processing procedures for licence applications were published in the 
Argentine Official Gazette.  The body responsible  for the administration of the scheme was the 
General Customs Directorate.  Once certificates were  issued, these then had to be submitted, jointly 
with the other documentation, at the release of th e goods.  Current and pursuant to Resolution 44/2003 
which was duly notified to the WTO, no duties for lic ensing or administrative procedures were levied.  
The granting of an import licence was not subject to any prior payment of a deposit;   there was no waiver involved; and the process could be initiate d prior to export, as deemed necessary by the 
exporter.  Licences were non-transferable and might only be held by the individual or by a person 
duly accredited with a proxy.  Import licences were not related to any type of import quota.  In relevant cases, security requirements were made to  both importers and domestic producers; the aim of 
these was to ensure conformity with safety standard s and to ensure proper consumer information with 
regard to origin, composition and quality of the go ods being imported.  With a view to streamlining 
procedures and ensuring greater transparency, an electronic system, the Sistema Integrado de Comercio Exterior (SISCO), was currently bei ng implemented.  Resolution number 52/2011 which 
established SISCO had already been notified to th e WTO.  In general terms, import licensing 
procedures being applied were not in fact affectin g trends in foreign trade flows in Argentina.  
Between the final quarter of 2010 and the first qua rter of 2011, Argentina had seen an increase in 
imports of 38 per cent given the increase in quantities. 
54. The Council took note of the statements made. 
V. UKRAINE - EXPORT RESTRICTIONS FOR CEREALS - STATEMENT BY THE 
EUROPEAN UNION 
55. The Chairman informed the Council that in a communication dated 11 May 2011, the 
European Union had requested the Secretariat to in clude in the agenda of this meeting the following 
item, "Ukraine- Export Restrictions for Cer eals- Statement by the European Union". 
56. The delegate of the European Union indicated  that following the imposition of export 
restrictions on cereals in the form of export quotas by Ukraine, the EU had been holding consultations 
with Ukraine under the terms of Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  During the two rounds 
of talks, exchanges focused on:  the supply situa tion, quota management practices and plan for future 
policies in Ukraine.  Considering the answers provi ded, the EU continued to believe that the export 
restrictions measures were not justified and applie d in a discriminatory manner, contrary to the WTO 
rules.  The EU had learnt that following the elimination of export quotas on corn which took place on 5 May 2011, Ukraine had decided, on 19 May 2011, to introduce duties on exports of wheat, corn and 
barley until the end of 2011.  These measures would replace existing quotas on wheat and barley. His 
authorities considered that the use of export restrictions whether in the form of quotas or export duties, were detrimental to the stab ility of international trade flows.  G/C/M/107 
 Page 11 
 
 
  57. The EU regretted and warned against proliferati on of this type of measure in general which 
not only endangered the continuity of trade flows but, as a consequence, also, prejudiced the willingness of international investors to maintain  and improve the trading infrastructure in the 
countries concerned.  In the medium to long run, no party would benefit from the imposition of such 
restrictions; he therefore urged Ukraine to end all forms of restrictions in an expeditious manner. 
58. The delegate of Israel also expressed systemic concerns on the export restrictions applied by 
Ukraine to several types of grains.  These measure s exceeded the scope and nature of the relevant 
provisions of GATT Article XI, Article 12 of the Ag reement on Agriculture and Ukraine's obligations 
under its Protocol of Accession.  In fact Ukrain e failed to circulate an advance written notice 
informing the Council of the nature and scope, f actual basis and specific duration of its export 
restrictions, and of the subsequent extension of  such measures.  This also contradicted the 
extraordinary temporary nature of this kind of instrument. 
59. Israel, as a net food importer country, also highlighted its caution against non-transparent, 
unpredictable and burdensome export restriction me asures and export quotas taken by food exporting 
Members; these kinds of measures could severely impact the ability to guarantee the undisrupted 
supply of grains necessary to secure food security concerns.  
60. The delegate of Australia stated that his aut horities continued to seek reform of all forms of 
trade restrictions and trade distorting measures whether import restrictions such as tariffs, trade 
distorting domestic support programmes,  export subsidies or export restri ctions.  Significant reform of 
all these areas was required to improve agriculture  trade flows and global food security.  Australia 
shared the concerns previously raised by others on the impact of export restrictions in international 
trade flows and commodity price volatility.  Export r estrictions were disruptive to international trade 
flows and, by increasing the uncertainty in internatio nal markets, could be a contributor to commodity 
price volatility.  Australia encouraged all Member s to refrain from using export restrictions. 
61. The delegate of the United States stated that her authorities had significant concerns not only 
with the need for export quotas, but also the non- transparent and discriminatory manner in which 
these were allocated by Ukraine.  Moreover, Ukrain e's decision to shift to export duties did little to 
assuage these concerns.  Her delegation agreed with the EU and others that any export restrictions 
were detrimental to international trade flows and that such measures, as well as Ukraine's repeated 
interferences in the grain market, were not consis tent with the open-market principles of the WTO 
trading system.  Export quotas as well as duties distorted normal trade flows and should be promptly removed.  
62. The delegate of Switzerland indicated that Uk raine had repeatedly prolonged the export 
quotas on cereals and had decided to introduce export duties until the end of this year.  As a net food 
importing country, Switzerland was particularly con cerned and affected by export restrictions and 
equivalent measures since this could lower the pred ictability of their food supply.  Therefore, she 
requested Ukraine to provide detailed informa tion on the recently introduced export duties and 
encouraged it to refrain from using export restrictions and equivalent measures. 
63. The delegate of Japan also registered his dele gation's concerns since Japan imported corn and 
wheat from Ukraine.  From the EU statement and on the basis of recent press reports, it was 
understood that export quotas would be replaced by e xport duties with similar impact on trade.  Japan 
was concerned about the export duties and, more system ically, that the use of export restrictions had a 
distortive impact on international trade. 
64. The delegate of Ukraine confirmed that his authorities abolished temporary export quotas and 
that, pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 2(a)  of GATT Article XI, temporary quotas for exports 
of certain agricultural products were introduced in Ukraine in order to prevent and relieve critical G/C/M/107 
Page 12  
 
  shortages of food, and to eliminate the imbalance in  the domestic grain market which was essential for 
food security and stability of grain market. 
65. The government's decision had been notified accord ing to the WTO rules and procedures.  He 
noted that Ukraine's export restrictions were cause d not only by the domestic market resources deficit 
but also by the situation of the grain world mark et, the exhaustion of spare grain resources and the 
significant decrease in ending stocks of grain wh ich had resulted  in grain contraction value. 
66. The introduction of quotas had been discussed at the meetings of the Committee on 
Agriculture on 18 November 2010 and 31  March 2011.  This issue had also been discussed bilaterally 
with the EU delegation and other interested Members.  Ukraine believed that it had the right to use the 
relevant provisions of the WTO Agreements, in  particular Article 12 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  He understood that any restrictions caused concern on Members but indicated that 
careful consideration should also  be given to the circumstances from which the necessity to apply 
legitimate measure arose. 
67. Food situation in the world market was difficult enough and obliged governments to take 
appropriate measures to stabilize the social situation in their countries.  A different matter was what 
measures were allowed and available for this purpose.   Some countries used subsidies for this purpose 
but for other countries such resources were limited. 
68. Ukraine would further give preference to the measures provided in the WTO Agreements and 
would contribute to subsequent de velopment of international trade relations based on predictable and 
transparent market access.  He proposed that th is agenda item be withdrawn from the CTG agenda 
since export duties in Ukraine were not yet in fo rce, therefore, no duty had  been introduced. 
69. The Council took note of the statements made. 
VI. ECUADOR MIXED TARIFFS - QUESTION S FROM THE UNITED STATES, 
EUROPEAN UNION, CANADA, JAPAN AND PANAMA (G/C/W/639 AND G/C/W/645) 
70. The Chairman informed the Council that in a communication dated 13 May 2011 the United 
States requested the Secretariat to include the issue of "Ecuador Mixed Tariffs" as one of today's 
agenda items. 
71. The delegate of the United States indicated that her delegation was still waiting for the 
responses to the questions it posed at the last CTG meeting on Ecuador's changes to its tariff schedule 
for footwear, textiles and apparel products from an a pplied 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. 
72. The United States appreciated the replies from Ecuador in document G/C/W/645 as well as 
the additional information provided on Presiden tial Decrees 367 and 372.  Unfortunately this 
information did not answer the specific questions on what the ad valorem  equivalent (AVE) was for 
the over 300 tariff lines covered by the decrees, or the methodology and calculations used to calculate 
the AVE.  
73. Ecuador had responded that the AVE "for each of the 349 tariff lines covered by the above-
mentioned decrees correspond to the binding undertaken  by Ecuador in its Schedule of Concession".   
In the view of her delegation this meant that Ecuador believed the AVE on these tariff lines was 30 
per cent.  However, when applying the mixed tariff scheme to footwear, for example to a pair of shoes 
imported into Ecuador at a value equal to or less th an $29, it would be charged a duty higher than 30  G/C/M/107 
 Page 13 
 
 
  per cent of the value of the shoes.  Likewise, a kilo  of textiles or apparel imported at a value equal to 
or less than $27 would be charged a duty higher than  30 per cent of the value of the goods.  More 
specifically, if a pair of shoes was valued at $20, under the 30 per cent binding, an importer would pay a duty of $6, given that $20 multiplied by 30 per cent was equals to $6.  However, under the 
mixed tariff, it appeared that the same $20 pair of shoes would be charged a duty of $8, given that $20 
multiplied by 10 per cent was equal to $2, plus the $6 specific tariff for a total of $8.   
74. Her authorities did not understand how a $20 pair of shoes entering under the current mixed 
tariff scheme and being charged a duty of $8 was e quivalent to an AVE of 30 per cent.  Similar 
examples could be provided for textiles and apparel.  Thus, from the calculations the US had made it 
was not clear how Ecuador was maintaining its WTO binding of 30 per cent on footwear and textiles 
and apparel products under this new mixed tariff regime.   
75. Her delegation appreciated the additional information Ecuador had provided but found 
discrepancies in how the current mixed tariff system was equivalent to an ad valorem  tariff of 30 per 
cent in footwear, textiles and apparel.  Thus, the US again requested Ecuador to provide the AVE for 
each of the tariff lines covered by Presidentia l Decrees 367 and 372, and the methodology and 
calculations it had used to determine the AVE fo r these tariff lines.  This information should be 
provided in written for Members' revi ew.  Her delegation also had noted  that Ecuador's replies did not 
address specifically the reasons to modify the ta riffs on these items and sought from Ecuador further 
details on this matter. 
76. In response to Ecuador's invitation to Member s "to indicate the product in respect of which 
they were experiencing actual and specific trade prob lems", she noted that for the United States, there 
was a very specific trade problem with all footwear items covered by the Decrees and which were imported into Ecuador at a value equal to or less than $29, and all textiles and apparel items also 
covered by the Decrees, imported at a value equal to or less than $27 as these items, under the current 
mixed system, appeared to be charged at a duty hi gher than 30 per cent of the value of the goods. 
 
77. The delegate of the European Union stated that the information provided by Ecuador in 
writing and also bilaterally had been constructive and useful but unfortunate ly had not addressed all 
the questions and concerns.  His delegation considered that when a Member changed its tariff 
bindings, it had to be assessed whether other Member s' rights were affected by such changes.  
Moreover, Ecuador had not notified the Presiden tial Decrees No. 367 of 21 May 2010 and No.372 of 
28 May 2010, nor the   Resolution Number 601 of COMEXI, dated26 November 2010 which had 
extended the application of mixed tariffs to tiles and ceramic products with a mixed tariff of 5 per cent 
ad valorem component of $14 per kilo of specifi c tariff.  These rules were currently applied. 
78. He invited Ecuador to notify its legislation on so that appropriate assessment could be 
conducted by those Members whose rights were affected and, sought written information, as 
previously requested but not yet provided, on the mixe d tariffs, namely if there was a specific duration 
for which Ecuador was planning to implement a new tariff structure on these items and on the AVE 
and the methodology used to calculate the AVE for each other tariff line.  
79. Even though Ecuador had stated that intr oduction of these mixed tariffs was in full 
compliance with WTO rules, the EU still lacked sufficient information to assess the situation.  
Therefore, he once again encouraged Ecuador to  continue to be transparent on this matter. 
80. The delegate of Panama reiterated the concer ns of his delegation with regard to the 
modification to the Ecuadorian tari ffs schedule adopted by Presidential Decrees 367 and 372.  With 
regard to Ecuador's responses in document G/C/W/ 645 he indicated that his authorities recognized 
Members' right to modify their tariffs structure, nevertheless they were concerned that these modifications exceeded the bound rates agreed upon in Ecuador's Schedule of Concessions.  Panama G/C/M/107 
Page 14  
 
  was also concerned that Ecuador was withholding in formation related to the methodology it had used 
to calculate the mixed tariff adopted thoroug h the aforementioned Presidential Decrees.  
81. Panama was of the view that these measures put Ecuador in a situation of non-compliance 
with regard to the bound rates agreed upon in the WTO and, according to different analysis by 
Panama and other Members, increases in Ecuador's ta riffs could reach, in average, up to 122 per cent 
with regard to the bound rates of footwear and 322 per cent for textiles.  The statistics presented by 
Ecuador reflected an increase of trade in footwear  and textiles for 2009 and 2010; nevertheless this 
increase was due to the fact that prior to 2009, trad e in these areas was limited by a safeguard measure 
because of balance of payments.  Panama reiterate d its concern on the worsening of the concessions 
granted by Ecuador to the WTO Members and ur ged Ecuador to correct these measures and to 
provide the pertinent clarifications to the concerns  that Panama had raised.  His delegation would be 
closely following this situation in a bilateral manner, in this Council and in other WTO bodies. 
82. The delegate of Canada  thanked Ecuador for the informa tion it had provided as well as for the 
bilateral meetings in Geneva and Ottawa; nevertheless Canada's co ncerns still remained. Ecuador had 
asserted compliance with WTO obligations but notwith standing the material it had provided,  Ecuador 
had not yet provided information sufficient to suppo rt or demonstrate compliance.  Ecuador asserted 
that the AVEs for the tariff lines for which it had in troduced mixed tariffs were  consistent with its 
bound rates.  However, Ecuador had not provided the AVEs, nor the methodology used to allow Members to make their own calculations.  Therefore Canada called again on Ecuador to provide this 
information as soon as possible. 
83. The delegate of Japan shared the concerns expr essed by previous speakers, especially on the 
need for more information from Ecuador with rega rd to the AVEs, the  methodology used and how 
the AVEs  were calculated. Japan had heard that  Ecuador would hold bila teral consultations in 
capitals and wanted to know when Ecuador pla nned to have a bilateral discussion in Tokyo.  
84. The delegate of Ecuador stated that,  follo wing Ecuador's traditional transparent and open 
approach to its trading regime, his authorities had already responded, at the CTG meetings of 30 
November 2010 and 31 January  and 21 March 201 1 and also published and promulgated in 
accordance with GATT Article X, the Presidential Decrees No. 367 of 21 May 2010 and 372 of 28 
May 2010 which had introduced reforms to the national tariff structure from an ad valorem  tariff to a 
mixed compound tariff for 349 tariff lines.  This restructuring was in line with the GATT 1994 which did not prevent, restrict or limit Members' rights to revise, restructure or modify their tariff structure whether via ad valorem , mixed or compound tariffs.   
85. Following Ecuador's dialogue policy with the whole WTO membership, many formal and 
informal meetings, whether multilateral or bilateral,  had taken place with the Members that circulated 
the questions contained in document G/C/W/639.  Nevertheless, Ecuador reiterated its willingness to 
continue discussing bilaterally with Members who had posed questions, as it was the case of the 
consultation held with Panama at the occasion of the visit of its President to  Ecuador on 13 May 2011. 
86. Ecuador insisted that in accordance with its transparency policy, it had already provided 
detailed information on its trade policy to the cos ponsors of document G/C/W/639.  This information 
would also be found in the Second Trade Policy Re view of Ecuador which was to take place in 
November 2011.  For these reasons Ecuador consider ed that it had no binding obligation to notify the 
methodology or calculations used with regard to its tariff policy.  Ecuador reiterated once again, that 
its trade policy was consistent with the commitme nts it had undertaken in the multilateral trading 
system. Moreover, Ecuador emphasized that these tr ade measures, as evidenced  by the statistics and 
trade information already presented to this Council , had not affected nor reduced trade flows but 
rather had increased exports from the countri es that cosponsored document G/C/W/639.  G/C/M/107 
 Page 15 
 
 
  87. With regard to the specific statistics of the co-sponsors of the aforementioned document, he 
indicated that trade flows on textiles and footwear  continued unimpeded favour ing them, and cited the 
following examples: (i) total of exports of footwear and textile from the United States to Ecuador between January -March 2010 and January- March 2011 were US$888,653 and US$ 1,708,201 respectively;  (ii) total exports of footwear a nd textiles from France to Ecuador between January - 
March 2010 and January- March 2011 were US$ 2,987 and currently US$7,664, respectively;  (iii)   
total exports of footwear and textiles from the UK to Ecuador between January- March 2010 and 
January- March 2011 were US$1,962 and US$27,107 respectiv ely.  (iv)  total exports of footwear and 
textiles from Panama to Ecuador between Ja nuary- March 2010 and January- March 2011 were 
US$39,383 and US$41,389 respectively;  (v)  tota l exports of textiles from the EU to Ecuador 
between January- March 2010 and January - March 2011 were US$21,482 and US$38,733 
respectively, and exports of shirts from the EU to Ecuador in the same period were US$3,656 and 
US$9,761, respectively. 
88. Foreign Trade statistics indicated that the global trade on the 349 products which were now 
subjected to compound tariffs had grown by 50 pe r cent between 2009 and 2010, which meant from 
US$148,423.95 to US$223,256.33.  This trend, in line with technical estimates carried out in the 
capital, would continue without major changes in 2011 and should reach an in crease of about 52 per 
cent between 2010 and 2011; this represented USD $338.614,76 in 2011.  Ecuador would always 
reiterate that implementation of compound tariffs had not distorted nor limited trade flow.  To the 
contrary, statistical information available for the first quarter of 2011 indicated that there was an 
upward trend in the various areas in which compound ta riffs were being applied.  Thus, there was no 
evidence which indicated that the measures had had an y restrictive impact, whether in terms of global 
imports, or in terms of the global imports. 
89. As it had been demonstrated by statistics, th e global projections showed that these products 
should experience 52 per cent growth by the end of  2011.  This trend was confirmed with countries 
that had questioned the measure in a slightly differe nt manner. In this regard , Ecuador confirmed that 
the adopted tariff measure had not distorted nor limite d trade flows in real or in potential terms with 
its trading partners, including the co-sponsors of document G/C/W/639. 
90. He finally indicated that his delegation contin ued to assess, on a regular basis, with capital 
based officials the impact of the implementation of these tariffs. 
91. The delegate of Cuba stated that the Preside ntial Decrees promulgated by Ecuador in 2010, 
reforming its tariff structure, were in line with th e commitments it had undertaken in the WTO.  Since 
their application to date, Ecuador ha d notified all of the elements of its measures, had answered all of 
the questions and had demonstrated with statistics that these measures had not affected nor distorted 
or limited trade flows from other WTO Members.  Cuba noted the elements provided by Ecuador 
during previous CTG meetings as well as th e statements made at this meeting. 
92. The delegate of Venezuela noted the goodwill th at Ecuador had shown to continue discussing 
this matter bilaterally or multilaterally in order to  address the concerns raised by other delegations. 
93. The delegate of Ecuador requested clarification from the Secretariat on the exact dates during 
which the issue had been discussed in the CTG.  
94. In response the Secretariat indicated that the first time was on 30 November 2010 and then at 
the first CTG meeting in January 2011 as well as at the meeting in March 2011. The Secretariat 
further clarified that at the meeting in November  2010, the issue was initially included as an agenda 
item but was discussed, at the request of Ecuador, under "Other Business" with the compromise to 
include it as an agenda item of the first CTG meeti ng in 2011. The issue had always been included in G/C/M/107 
Page 16  
 
  line with the regulations that govern the meetings  of this Council. All these written requests were 
available in the Secretariat.  
95. The Council took note of the statements made. 
VII. EUROPEAN UNION ENLARGEMENT:  PROCEDURES UNDER ARTICLE 
XXXVIII: 3 OF GATT 1994  
A.  ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ON 1 MAY 2004  (G/L/695/A DD.13) 
96. The Chairman drew Members' attention to document G/L/695/Add.13 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 
indicated that it would not assert that Members who had submitted a claim pursuant to Article XXIV: 
6 of GATT 1994 were precluded from withdrawing s ubstantially equivalent concessions under Article 
XXXVIII: 3 of GATT 1994 because this withdrawal o ccurred later than six months after the EU's 
withdrawal of concessions, provided that the claiming WTO Member withdrew concessions no later than 93 months after the EU's modification of c oncessions.  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 Ar ticle XXVIII: 3 of GATT 1994, namely, at their 
meetings in October 2004, and in March, June, and December 2005.  Similarly, the Council for Trade 
in Goods had extended the deadline on ten occasions, namely at its meetings of 12 July 2006; 30 
January 2007, 21 May and 23 November 2007; 22 May and 18 November 2008; 29 June and 30 
October 2009: and 21 May and 30 November 2010. 
97. The delegate of the European Union informed  the Council that while negotiations had been 
finalized, the setting of the banana tariff for th e EU 25 did not have legal force as the Geneva 
agreement on bananas had not yet entered into forced  given that its ratification by some of the WTO 
partners was still pending..  The EU had theref ore circulated a message contained in document 
G/L/695/Add.13 aimed at extending the period in  which Members were allowed to withdraw 
substantially equivalent concessions.  The messag e itself was identical to the one which the CTG 
endorsed when extending the period for withdrawal in the CTG of November 2010. 
98. The Council took note of the statements made a nd also of the EU communication contained in 
document G/L/695/Add.13.  It agreed on the extension of the deadline as set out in the EU's document 
G/L/695/Add.13.   
B. ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ON 1 JANUARY 2007  (G/L/821/A DD.8) 
99. The Chairman drew Members' attention to  document G/L/821/Add.8 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  precluded from withdrawing substantially 
equivalent concessions under Article XXVIII: 3 of GATT 1994 because this withdrawal occurred 
later than six months after the EU's withdraw al of concessions, provided that the claiming WTO 
Member withdrew concessions no later than 60 m onths after the EU's modification of concessions.  
He recalled that the Council for Trade in Goods ha d extended the deadline on eight occasions, namely 
at its meetings of 21 May; 23 November 2007; 22 May and 18 November 2008; 29 June and 30 
October 2009; and 21 May and 30 November 2010. 
100. The delegate of European Union indicated ne gotiations following the 2007 enlargement were 
on-going.  The EU had reached agreement at nego tiators level with most WTO Members and had 
proceeded to ratification of several of these agreem ents.  However, due to still on-going negotiations  G/C/M/107 
 Page 17 
 
 
  as well as the time required to ensure the entry into  force of the agreements already reached, another 
extension to the period in which Members were allowed to withdraw s ubstantially equivalent 
concessions was necessary.  The EU had therefor e circulated a message contained in document 
G/L/821/Add.8 aimed at extending the period in which Members were allowed to withdraw 
substantially equivalent concessions .  This message was also sim ilar to the one the CTG endorsed 
when extending the period for withdrawal in the CTG of November 2010 and the EU again requested 
the indulgence of Members on this matter. 
101. The Council took note of the statements made a nd also of the EU communication contained in 
document G/L/821/Add.8.  It agreed on the extensio n of the deadline as set out in the EU's document 
G/L/821/Add.8. 
VIII.  OTHER BUSINESS 
A. UNITED STATES : E-C OMMERCE WORK PROGRAMME  
102. The delegate of the United States recalled that  at the last Ministerial in December 2009, 
Ministers agreed to intensively reinvigorate the work programme on electronic commerce.  However, 
limited discussions had taken place in the CTG on this issue and as this issue was likely to come up at 
the next CTG meeting; therefore the United States  suggested that Members consider including an 
agenda item on the work programme for discussion at  the next CTG meeting.  Currently the United 
States did not have any specific issues or proposal s for the CTG to consider in this area but her 
delegation was open to discussing any items of interest to Members on this topic.  The US was interested in other Members' views on including the Work Programme on the next CTG agenda and 
welcomed any suggestions Members might have on how best to advance the Ministers' 2009 decision 
on reinvigorating the Work Programme. 
B. C
ANADA : CARIBCAN TRADE PREFERENCES  
103. The delegate of Canada indicated that Ca nada's WTO waiver for the CARIBCAN tariff 
programme was expiring at the end of 2011.  CA RIBCAN was a unilateral preferential tariff scheme 
that provided duty-free treatment for the majority of exports from Caribbean Commonwealth 
countries into Canada.  For more information on CARIBCAN, Members c ould consult Canada's 
November 2010 report to the GC on the progra mme and contained in document WT/L/804. 
104. He also indicated that CARIBCAN had been in  place since 1986 and that Canada had sought 
and obtained waivers from the WTO for the programme throughout this period.  The last waiver was 
granted in 2006 for a five-year period.  Canada would be considering its options regarding the 
programme and the associated waiver over the co ming months but in the meantime welcomed 
discussions with any interested Members. 
C. DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING  
105. The Chairman informed Members that the next  CTG meeting was provisionally scheduled to 
take place on Monday, 7 November, 2011.  The ag enda would close on Thursday, 27 October 2011.  
This early date was due to the fact that the General Council would meet earlier than usual in 
December to enable it to forward all the Annual Repo rts of its subsidiary bodies to the Conference at 
the 8th Ministerial Conference. 
106. The meeting was adjourned. 
 
__________