RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/RO/M/28
3 April 2000
(00-1331)
Committee on Rules of Origin
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 18 FEBRUARY 2000
Chairman:  Mr. A.R. Moroz
The agenda proposed for the meeting, contained in WTO/AIR/1237 and Add.1, was adopted
by the Committee on Rules of Origin (CRO) as follows:
I. OVERALL ARCHITECTURE OF THE HARMONIZED RULES OF ORIGIN
(G/RO/41, PAGES 2-35A)....................................................................................................1
II. PRODUCT-SPECIFIC RULES OF  ORIGIN (G/RO/41).................................................3
A. C HAPTERS 25-27 ( MINERAL PRODUCTS ) AND 71 ( PRECIOUS STONES AND METALS )..............3
B. C HAPTERS 41-43 ( LEATHER )...................................................................................................5
C. C HAPTERS 72-73 ( IRON AND STEEL ) .......................................................................................6
D. C HAPTERS 74-81 ( NON-FERROUS METALS ).............................................................................8
III. ENDORSEMENT OF PROPOSALS ON HARMONIZED RULES (G/RO/W/51/REV.1
AND REV.1/CO RR.1) ........................................................................................................10
IV. IMPLICATIONS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HARMONIZED RULES
OF ORIGIN ON OTHER WTO AGREEMEN TS (G/RO/W/28/REV.1, G/RO/W/30-34,
38, 42, 48 AND 52) ............................................................................................................. .10
V. DEADLINE FOR COMPLETION OF THE WORK PROGRAMME ON
HARMONIZING RULES OF ORIGIN ...........................................................................11
VI. DATE OF THE NE XT MEETING...................................................................................12
I. OVERALL ARCHITECTURE OF THE HARMONIZED RULES OF ORIGIN
(G/RO/41, PAGES 2-35A)
1.1 The representative of the European Communitie s, facilitator for the informal plurilateral
discussions on Appendix 2 of the overall architecture, stated as follows:
"As regards Rule 2(a), a number of delegates supported the US proposal that the coverage of
this rule should be expanded in order to deal with the situation in which origin was to be
conferred on the basis of a designated stage of manufacture (G/RO/W/52).  However severaldelegations stated that expansion of the coverage was not necessary.  Some delegations stated
that Rule 2(a) was not a rule of origin determination and that Rule 2(b) could be applicable toG/RO/M/28
Page 2
a Rule 2(a) situation.  These delegations suggested adding a footnote to Rule 2(b) to clarify
the coverage of Rule 2(b).  The appropriateness of this Rule 2(a) in Appendix 2 was
questioned by the facilitator and discussed by delegations.
There was no discussion on Rule 2(b) because Members agreed with it.
There was agreement on the question of sequencing of Rules 2(c) and 2(d).  The agreement
was reached on the understanding that (i) the primary or residual status of the product-specific
rules could be redesignated at the chapter level and (ii) the text of redesignated Rule 2(c) be
modified to avoid ambiguity.
As concerns Rule 2(c) there was no consensus reached.  Hence, two alternative texts
remained on the table.  The facilitator made a compromise proposal for consideration at the
next meeting.
There was no discussion on Rule 2(d) because Members agreed with it.
There was agreement on Rule 2(e).
As concerns Rules 2(f) and 2(g), there was no consensus reached.  Three drafts for 2(f)
remained on the table.  The facilitator consolidated these drafts for consideration at the next
meeting.
As concerns Rules 3(a) and 3(b), the second i ndent of Rule 3(a) and the third indent of
Rule 3(b) reflected the results of discussions between Members.  However, earlier drafts
remained on the table.
As concerns Rules 3(c) and (d), a number of delegations pointed out that these rules were
redundant since Rule 2 already addressed the situation.  One Member needed more time to
reflect on this issue.
With respect to Rule 3(e), it was noted that the two drafts dealt with different situations.
Some delegations pointed out that points raised in the second indent were already reflected in
chapter rules.  Members agreed to continue thei r examination of this issue at the next meeting.
With regard to Rule 4, it was noted that as a result of application of this rule, the imported
input used for producing and incorporated in certain originating materials in the last country
of production were considered as originating materials, while the imported input used for
producing and incorporated in certain final products in the last country of production wereconsidered as non-originating materials.  One Member stated that Rule 4 should not be
applicable to General Rules.  Members agreed to continue their examination of this issue at
the next meeting.
As concerns Rule 5(a), there was an agreement that this rule should be moved to the General
Rules section.With regard to Rule 5(b), one delegation stated that the examples of goods subject to this rule
were bolts and nuts, and eggs.  Some other delegations pointed out that Rule 5(b) was not a
rule of origin, because origin for the good concerned was already determined.  It was alsopointed out that there was no uniform inventory management method.  It was agreed that
delegations should provide more information on this issue and that discussions should be
continued at the next meeting.G/RO/M/28
Page 3
As concerns Rule 5(c), no consensus was reached.  The current drafts remained on the table
for discussion at the next meeting.  One delegation pointed out that there was no need for this
rule, because an origin rule for a subdivision of the HS in which the set was classified was to
be applicable for the set.
With regard to Rule 6, no consensus was reached.  The current drafts remained unchanged.
The facilitator consolidated these drafts for cons ideration at the next meeting.  However, some
delegations could not agree with this rule, because they were against any value-based
approach.  Other delegations emphasized that the calculation of value or weight for this rule
would be simple and easy.  Another delegation stated that this rule should be applicable to
both Appendix 1 and Appendix 2.  This delegation pointed out that by applying the de
minimis rule, the goods incorporating some non-originating material could gain the status ofwholly obtained goods."
1.2 The CRO took note of the statement made.
II. PRODUCT-SPECIFIC RULES OF ORIGIN (G/RO/41)
A. CHAPTERS 25-27 ( MINERAL PRODUCTS ) AND 71 ( PRECIOUS STONES AND METALS )
2.1 The representative of the Philippines, facilitator for the informal plurilateral discussions on
chapters 25-27 and 71, stated as follows:
“Chapters 25-27:
Issue No. 1 – It was agreed that consensus remains elusive at this stage.
Issue No. 2 – Consensus was reached for option B on 20 July 1999 and as contained in the
minutes of the Meeting of 16 November 1999 (paragraph 3.1 of G/RO/M/26), Option B was
endorsed.
Issue Nos 3-6 – Consensus was reached for option A in the meeting held on
10-21 November 1997.  This consensus was reflected in paragraph 8.13 of document
G/RO/M/12.
Issue No. 7 – Two issues were considered, namely, the chapter note 2 of chapter 27 and the
processes listed as contained in paragraph 43 of document G/RO/41.
i. On chapter note 2 of chapter 27, it was agreed that consultation/discussion would be
needed with regard to the following proposal:
"Goods of headings 27.01 and 27.10 through 27.13 that have been obtained as a result
of a chemical reaction as defined in Note 1 of this chapter or as a result of a physical
separation process listed below are deemed to be goods of the country where the
reaction or process occurred:"
ii. On the processes that were enumerated in paragraph 43 of G/RO/41, it was agreed
that consultation/discussion would be needed with regard to the following proposals:
(a) To replace atmospheric or vacuum distillation listed as (a) with “fractional
distillation at atmospheric or reduced pressure”;G/RO/M/28
Page 4
(b) The proposal by one member to add the following processes/chemical
reaction, namely (aromatics production processes, dehydrogenation, process
for production of normal paraffins, sulfur compound sweetening and
oxygenates production process).
There was agreement to delete the processes in brackets (b), (l), (m) and (n), subject to the
resolution of ii (b).
It was agreed to continue discussion of this issue during the intersessional period by e-mail.
Issue No. 8  – As reported in the July, September and November meetings, there has been
growing consensus towards option A.At this plurilateral meeting, the Member who found it difficult to join the consensus for
option A informed that it needed more time to work on a compromise proposal.
Issue No. 9 – While majority of the Members were for option A, one Member stated that it
needed more time to work on a compromise proposal.  Another  Member who found it
difficult to join option A stated that it does not consider it necessary to have a negative list as
presently enumerated in option A.  It also pointed out that “obtaining sulphur content as a
result of mixing products with different sulfur contents,”  was not just a simple process.
It was agreed to continue the discussion of this issue during the intersessional period by
e-mail.
Issue No. 10 – As reported in the formal meeting of 16 November 1999, consensus was
reached for option B that is now proposed for endorsement in this meeting. Please refer to
document G/RO/W/51/Rev.1/Corr.1.
Chapter 71
Issue No. 1 – Unfortunately, the growing consensus towards option A that was reported in the
November meeting was unraveled in this meeting with some members now joining option B.
Proponents of option B find it difficult to accept that plating is the last substantial
transformation of the products obtained.
It was agreed to continue discussion of this issue during the intersessional period by e-mail.Issue No. 2 (a) – Working of industrial diamonds
The consensus that was reached at the November meeting, “CTSH provided that the goods are
cut or ground to final shape” is proposed for endorsement at this meeting, G/RO/51.
Issue No. 2(b) – Working of non-industrial di amonds and precious and semi-precious stones
The consensus that was reached at the November meeting, "CTSH provided that the goods are
cut, ground or otherwise worked to final shape, whether or not polished" is proposed for
endorsement at this meeting, G/RO/W/51.G/RO/M/28
Page 5
Issue No. 2 (c) – Working of reconstructed stones
The consensus that was reached at the November meeting, "CTSH provided that the goods are
cut, ground or otherwise worked to final shape, whether or not polished" is proposed for
endorsement at this meeting, G/RO/W/51.
Issue No. 2(d) – Working of synthetic stones
There was growing consensus towards option A which is, "CTSH provided that the goods are
cut, ground or otherwise worked to final shape, whether or not polished."
A Member is still for option B which is, “the country in which these goods are obtained in
their unworked state.”
Members felt that consensus on this issue will be elusive at this stage.
Issue No. 3 – There was growing consensus towards option A.
The Member who supports option C stated that assembling parts of jewelry into a finished
article should not be considered as substantial transformation while Members supporting
option A stated that manufacturing of jewelry involved a design for jewelry as well a
complicated production process.
It was agreed to continue discussion of this issue during the intersessional period by e-mail.
Issue No. 4 – There are currently four options for this issue.  Members supporting option B
indicated their willingness to be flexible.  The proponent of option D stated that its position is
mid-way between option A and C.
It was agreed to continue discussion of this issue during the intersessional period by  e-mail.
Issue No. 5 – It was agreed that this issue w ould be considered together with other horizontal
issues in chapters 82-90.”
B. CHAPTERS 41-43 ( LEATHER )
2.2 The representative of Canada, facilitator for the informal plurilateral discussions on
chapters 41-43, summarized the results of the discussions as follows:
“Issue No. 1 – No consensus was reached.
Issue No. 2 – Basket 1 endorsed by CRO (see G/RO/M/12, para. 8.13(3))
Issue No.3 – Basket 1 endorsed by CRO (see G/RO/M/12, para. 8.13(3))
Issue No. 4 – Basket 1 endorsed by CRO (see G/RO/M/11, para. 8.13(2))
Issue No. 5 – There was still growing consensus toward option A while one Member asked
that option B be reinstated. Option C was dele ted since there were no longer any proponents
of this option.
Issue No. 6 – There was no consensus reached and hence, two options remain on the table.
One of the members who supports option A distributed a technical paper regarding theG/RO/M/28
Page 6
processes involved in re-tanning of tanned products while another Member agreed to circulate
further information to Members on this subject.
Issue No. 7 – There was no consensus reached.  There was agreement to delete option A since
there were no longer any proponents of this posi tion and to re-instate option C at the request
of one Member (option E was deleted previously). Hence, as a result of this plurilateral
meeting, options B, C and D now remain on the table. One of the Members who supports
option B distributed a technical paper regarding the processes involved in the finishing of
tanned and re-tanned products while another Member agreed to circulate further information
to Members on this subject.
Issue No. 8 – There was no consensus reached.  Members agreed to review whether some of
the proposed origin-conferring processes are indeed technically possible.”
C. CHAPTERS 72-73 ( IRON AND STEEL )
2.3 The representative of Korea, facilitator for the informal plurilateral discussions on
chapters 72-73, summarized the discussions as follows:
"Restructuring of Issue Nos. 1 and 2
The Secretariat explained that Issue Nos. 1 and 2 were broken down into a subset of issues in
order to better identify the differences in position of Members on the two issues.
Issue No. 1(a) – There were three subsets of issues under Issue No. 1(a), each of which had
three different options.  There was an agreement to delete option B.  Therefore, the three
options were narrowed down to two options for each subset of issues.  The only exception
was for Issue No. 1(a)(iii), for which there still remained option B, being supported by oneMember.  Since the Member was not represented at the plurilateral meeting, the facilitator
was requested to contact the Member in an effort to streamline the options.
Issue No. 1(b) – Most Members were of the view that the production process described under
Issue No. 1(b) was neither technically feasible nor commercially meaningful.  The view was
first presented by Members supporting option B.  Members supporting option A shared the
view but continued to support option A on the ground that the option would not cause anyharm.
Issue No. 1(c) – Consensus was reached on option B.
Issue No. 2(a) – There were two subsets of is sues under Issue No. 2(a).  Growing consensus
towards option A was reconfirmed on both subsets, following a confirmation done at the
plurilateral meeting in November 1999.  The facilitator was requested to contact Members
supporting option B.
Issue No. 2(b)(i) – Members supporting option B stated that the process described under this
issue (cold-rolling) did not practically take place in the normal course of business, and that the
process, if it happened, would be considered to be skin-press as mentioned in the Note of
chapter 72.  Members supporting option A were encouraged to review their position.
Issue No. 2(b)(ii) – The facilitator was requested to contact Members supporting options B to
E in an effort to streamline the options.  Members agreed that, in streamlining the options, the
significance of the cold-rolling process should be recognized.G/RO/M/28
Page 7
Issue No. 2(b)(iii) – As on Issue No. 2(b)(i), Members supporting option B stated that the
process described in this issue was not practically meaningful.  Members supporting option A
stated that the issue was different from 2(b)(i), because ex 72.22(c) covered not only angles,
shapes and sections but also bars and rods.  It was suggested that splitting ex 72.22(c) could
provide a solution.
Issue No. 2(b)(iv) – As on issue 2(b)(ii), the facilitator was requested to contact Members
supporting options B to E, in an effort to streamline the options.  Members agreed that, in
streamlining options, the significance of the cold-rolling process should be recognized.  It was
suggested to reconsider the scope of exception for option C in light of consistency with
option D under Issue No. 2(e)(i) as well.
Issue No. 2(c)(i) – Option B now reads as follows:
"No (CTH, except from ex 72.20(b)):  US [CHI]
(CTHS, except from ex 72.20 (b)):  (EC) (CAN) (CH)"
It was suggested that options A and B could be merged in view of the fact that the only
practical difference between the two options would be over cold-rolling ex 72.19(a) to
produce ex 72.19(b).  It was also suggested that producing ex 72.19(b) out of ex 72.20(b)
would not be practically meaningful.
Issue No. 2(d) – Members supporting option B were encouraged to review their position in
view of the significance of the cold-rolling process.
Issue Nos. 3(a)  and (b) – Concerning the description of goods for ex 72.10(b) and ex 72.10(c)
(p. 950, G/RO/41), it was agreed that "and" should be added after "plated or coated with tin,"
and "Plated or coated with zinc," to avoid any possible misunderstanding.
Several Members stated that CTHS supporters could join simple CTH in view of the fact that
the second coating (corrugating for 3(b)) was not practically meaningful.
Issue No. 3(c) – Several Members stated that the gap between CTH and CTHS was not that
significant on certain product items (ex 72.10(d), ex 72.12(b)) and that efforts should be made
to merge the options.
On some other product lines (ex 72.19(d), ex 72.20(d), ex 72.22(e), ex 72.25(d) and
ex 72.28(e)), Members were encouraged to streamline the options in consultation with the
facilitator.
While discussing ex 72.16(d), one Member stated that there was significant technical
difference between coating flat products and others.  Another Member disagreed.
Issue No. 4 – One Member stated that wire could be produced by cutting cold-pressed flat
products.  The suggestion led to several comments:
- Chapter note on 72 excludes origin conferment by cutting.
- It is extremely difficult and expensive to cut cold-pressed products.
One Member supporting the minimum 50 per cent rule for wires showed flexibility on the
minimum reduction rate.  This Member invited other participants to suggest alternative
reduction rates.G/RO/M/28
Page 8
Issue No. 6 – It was suggested that establishing a split heading for hollow profile might be
necessary to advance discussion on Issue No. 6.  One Member volunteered to consider
making a proposal to that effect.
Issue Nos. 7 and 8 – After a lengthy discussion, most Members were of the view that
resolution of Issue Nos. 7 and 8 rested upon the definition of assembly and simple assembly
(Chapter note 1).  If the manufacture of structures (or parts thereof for Issue No. 8) satisfies
definition of assembly, the origin criterion shall be CTHS, while simple assembly shall not
confer origin.  To other Members, the exception of simple assembly was not acceptable.
Issue No. 9 – It was agreed to delete options C and D.  Therefore the options were narrowed
down to two, namely A and B.
Issue No. 10 – It was noted that more information was necessary to better examine this issue.
Issue 11 – As on Issue Nos. 7 and 8, many Members were of the view that resolution of Issue
No. 11 rested upon the definition of assembly.Issue No. 12 – Some Members expressed a view that the product discussed under Issue
No. 12 was losing commercial importance.NOTE:  During the plurilateral discussions, many participants indicated changes in their
positions.  These will be reflected in the working document, G/RO/41.  Thus, the above
summary should be read in combination with the working document to be amended to reflect
the results of the plurilateral discussions."
D. C
HAPTERS 74-81 ( NON-FERROUS METALS )
2.4 The representative of Australia, facilitator for the informal plurilateral discussions on
chapters 74-81, summarized the discussions as follows:
“Issue No. 1 – One Member changed its position from option A to option B.  Proponents of
option A indicated their willingness to provide more information on this issue by e-mail
during the intersessional period.  Members supporting option B were also encouraged toreconsider their position on the basis of this new information.
Issue No. 2 – There is growing consensus towards option A.  The proponent of option B
indicated its intention to reconsider its position.
Issue No. 3 – Members supporting option A pointed out that the manufacturing of flakes from
powders was not commercially meaningful, although technologically possible.  The
proponent of option B indicated its intention to provide more information on this issue by e-
mail during the intersessional period.
Issue No. 4 – It was noted that the manufacturing of powders from flakes was not
commercially meaningful, although technologically feasible.  Members were encouraged to
reconsider their positions and to exchange the results of their reconsideration through e-mail.
Issue No. 5 – There is growing consensus towards option A.  The proponent of option B
indicated its intention to reconsider its position.G/RO/M/28
Page 9
Issue No. 6 – There is growing consensus towards option A.  It was noted that manufacturing
of bars, rods and profiles from cast or sintered bars and rods did not practically take place.
The proponent of option B indicated its intention to reconsider its position.
Issue No. 7 – There is growing consensus towards option A. The proponent of option B
indicated its intention to reconsider its position.Issue No. 8 – It was noted that metals under chapters 74-81 were relatively soft and so
relatively easy to transform.  One Member supporting option B indicated its intention to
modify its proposal.  One proponent of option A also indicated its willingness to reconsider its
position.
Issue No. 9 – One Member consolidated its position for all items to option A, while another
consolidated its position under option B for all items.  One Member supporting options B and
C indicated its intention to reconsider the 50 per cent reduction rule, and the possibility of
moving from option C to option B for certain items.  Members were invited to continue their
intersessional discussions by e-mail.
Issue No. 10 – One proponent of option B indicated its intention to reconsider its position.
All Members were invited to continue their intersessional discussions by e-mail.Issue No. 11 – One Member changed its positi on from option B to option A.  One proponent
of option A indicated its intention to modify its proposal and to provide more information on
this issue by e-mail.
Issue No. 12 – There is growing consensus towards option A.  The facilitator was requested to
contact the remaining supporter of option B.Issue No. 13 – The proponent of option A indicated its intention to consult with its industry
for more information on this issue.Issue No. 14 – Two Members changed their positions from option B to option A.  One
Member changed its position from option A to option B.  One proponent of option B indicated
its intention to modify its proposal to take account of the concerns of the supporters ofoption A.
Issue No. 15 – Two Members changed their positions from option B to option A.  It was noted
that the introduction of a cutting rule at chapter level would address this issue.  Members were
invited to continue their intersessional discussions by e-mail.
Issue No. 16 – Many Members stated that this was a non-issue.  Further clarification would be
necessary through intersessional discussion by e-mail.Issue No. 17 – There was no consensus on this issue.  It was noted that the assembly rule at
chapter level would address many questions surrounding this issue.Issue Nos. 18, 19 and 20 – It was noted that parallel discussions had taken place under Issue
Nos. 7-9 of chapters 72-73.
Issue No. 21 – The facilitator was requested to contact the proponent of option A to confirm
its position.  The other proponent agreed to review its position.G/RO/M/28
Page 10
Issue No. 22 – There is a growing consensus towards option A.  The proponents of options B
and C indicated their intention to reconsider their positions.
Issue Nos. 23 and 24 – Members supporting both options indicated their intention to
reconsider their positions.”
III. ENDORSEMENT OF PROPOSALS ON HARMONIZED RULES (G/RO/W/51/REV.1
AND REV.1/CORR.1)
3.1 The CRO endorsed option B in Issue No. 23 of chapters 28-40 (split headings ex-35.07(a), (b)
and (c) should be deleted).
3.2 The CRO endorsed the proposal for harmonization of rules of origin on an ad referendum
basis.  (Argentina, Malaysia and Morocco needed more time to reflect on these issues.  They joined
the consensus later on):
- Chapter 71 – Issue No. 2(a):  to endorse a compromise proposal (origin rule of subheading
7102.29 should read "CTSH provided that the goods are cut or ground to final shape").
- Chapter 71 – Issue No. 2(b):  to endorse a compromise proposal (origin rule of subheadings
7102.39, 7103.91 and 7103.99 should read "CTSH provided that the goods are cut, ground or
otherwise worked to final shape, whether or not polished").
- Chapter 71 – Issue No. 2(c):  to endorse a compromise proposal (origin rule of subheading
7104.90 ("synthetic stones" are to be split up) should read "CTSH provided that the goods are cut,
ground or otherwise worked to final shape, whether or not polished").
3.3 The CRO endorsed the proposal for harmonization of rules of origin on an ad referendum
basis.  (Malaysia needed more time to reflect on these issues):
- Chapters 28-40 – Issue No. 8:  to endorse option A (origin rule of subheading 3204.19 should
read "CTSH").
3.4 The CRO agreed to revert to the endorsement of option A for issue No. 9 of chapters 44-49
(Argentina supported option B on this issue), at the meeting scheduled for April 2000.
3.5 The representative of Singapore stated that since Issue No. 10 of chapters 25-27 was linked to
Issue No. 8 of the same chapters, Singapore could not endorse option A of Issue No. 10 until Issue
No. 8 was resolved.  The CRO took note of this statement.
IV. IMPLICATIONS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HARMONIZED RULES
OF ORIGIN ON OTHER WTO AGREEMEN TS (G/RO/W/28/REV.1, G/RO/W/30-34,
38, 42, 48 AND 52)
4.1 The Chairman recalled that, as concerned this agenda item, there had been five submissions
on the table:  from India (G/RO/W/28/Rev.1, G/RO /W/30, 42 and 50);  from the United States
(G/RO/W/32 and 48);  from the Dominican Republic  and Honduras (G/RO/W/33);  from El Salvador
(G/RO/W/34);  and from Korea (G/RO/W/38).
4.2 The representative of India stated that, as Members were aware, in March-April 1998, India
had proposed that the WTO Secretariat should prepare an analysis bringing out the implications ofG/RO/M/28
Page 11
major proposals for harmonizing rules of origin for free flow of trade and for the rights and
obligations of Members under various WTO Agreements.  The proposal had been made in the interest
of better understanding of the implications and of facilitating the development of transparent and
neutral rules of origin in accordance with the purpose and objective of the Agreement on Rules of
Origin.  It had also been felt that such an analysis was necessary to avoid unnecessary obstacles totrade in the future.  India had also clarified that its purpose was merely to seek clarity with regard to
the implications of major proposals under the Harmonization Work Programme (HWP) and that they
did not seek interpretations of the provisions of any WTO Agreements.  It was hoped that the analysis
proposed by India would facilitate the work of the CRO .  In the absence of such an analysis, India had
to undertake extensive consultations with experts in the working of various WTO Agreements,
especially the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC), to develop an understanding of the
implications of the major proposals for the uninhibited flow of trade.  India’s analysis had confirmedits apprehension that harmonizing origin rules on the basis of certain proposals was liable to create
far-reaching adverse implications for the rights of Members under the ATC.  It would also have
negative consequences for the normal flow of trade in the sector.  India's analysis (G/RO/W/42) had
been presented in the hope that it would facilitate understanding of the implications of such proposals
and of building consensus for transparent and neutral rules that could be applied in an impartial,predictable and consistent manner.  India urged Members to give careful consideration to the analysis,
especially during the September session of the CRO when the issue of the textiles sector would be
taken up.  Harmonized rules were necessary for providing certainty in the conduct of international
trade.  India also believed that harmonized rules should apply equally for all trade policy purposes so
as to provide for predictability for trade and the businesses concerned, noting that during the Octoberand November 1999 meetings of the CRO, many Members had supported its view.  India was
concerned that a few Members had reservations in this regard, and indicated its desire that the CRO
reach a common understanding in this regard.
4.2 The representative of the United States stated that they intended to submit another paper for
discussion at the next meeting.4.3 The representative of Mexico stated that the provision which required Members to apply rules
of origin equally for all trade policy purposes was already included in the Agreement and that the
CRO did not need further confirmation.
4.4 The CRO took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to this issue at its next
meeting.
V. DEADLINE FOR COMPLETION OF THE WORK PROGRAMME ON
HARMONIZING RULES OF ORIGIN
5.1 At the request of Members, the Chairman undertook to hold informal consultations on this
matter.
5.2 The delegate of India stated that India had repeatedly made its views clear on the need for
completing the HWP expeditiously.  Members of the CRO had all agreed with this view.  However,
India's view was that the CRO needed a definite time-frame for completing this task.  The reasons forthis were clear.  The Agreement had given Members a definite time-frame of July 1998.  That time-
frame could not be met as a substantive part of the technical work remained outstanding.  A best-
endeavours time-frame of November 1999 was then set and this also was not met, even though the
new definitive time-frame for the technical part had been met at this time.  India therefore believed
that as the CRO was now negotiating the harmonized rules armed with this technical output, it would
be prudent to set a deadline for the completion of the residual work.  India had proposed in the last
meeting of the CRO in November 1999 that the CRO should make a recommendation for a deadline
to Ministers at the Third Ministerial Session in Seattle to help them reach a decision on this importantG/RO/M/28
Page 12
aspect.  Some Members had supported this but others indicated that they would like to wait for the
Ministers to give them a deadline.  However, the Ministerial Conference had not provided the CRO
with a deadline.  As a result the CRO was working without a definitive time-frame within which it
had to complete the remaining work.  Although the CRO had a management plan and a schedule of
meetings for 2000 to discuss all product sectors and the overall architecture, predictability for tradewould emerge from a definite time-frame.  It was obv ious that in the absence of such rules, the flow
of international trade would not be facilitated.  India therefore believed that it would be useful for the
CRO to consider the trade policy aspects and to complete the work as set out in the Agreement in a
definite time-frame.
5.3 The representative of Korea, recalling that it had been agreed at the last meeting of the CRO
that the facilitators of the plurilateral groups should become more active and empowered in the
process, stated that the establishment of a deadline was the single most important facilitator.  It was
unlikely that any negotiation could efficiently go on without knowing when it would end.
5.4 The representative of Brazil stated that Brazil was flexible on this issue, but that the overall
architecture could not be subject to negotiation.  The CRO should continue its work on the overall
architecture until a consensus was reached.
5.5 The representatives of Colombia and Malaysia  (speaking on behalf of ASEAN) supported
India's proposal to set a deadline for the completion of the HWP.
5.6 The representative of Mexico stated that Mexico could go along with any consensus.
5.7 The CRO took note of the statements made and agreed  to revert to this issue at the next
meeting.  The Chairman stated that he would undertake further informal consultations with Members
on this matter before the next meeting of the CRO.
VI. DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING
6.1 The CRO agreed to hold its next meeting from 3-14 April 2000 on the basis of the following
agenda:
3 April 2000 Plurilateral meeting hosted by Hong Kong, China to discuss the product-
specific rules of chapters 82-83 (articles of metal)
Plurilateral meeting hosted by Japan to discuss the product-specific rules of
chapters 92-97 (musical instruments and other articles)
4-6 April 2000 Plurilateral meeting hosted by the United States to discuss the product-
specific rules of chapters 84, 85 and 90 (machinery)
7 April 2000 Plurilateral meeting hosted by Korea to discuss the product-specific rules of
chapters 86-89 (transportation equipment)
10 April 2000 Plurilateral meeting hosted by Japan to discuss the product-specific rules of
chapters 92-97 (musical instruments and other articles)
Plurilateral meeting hosted by the EC to discuss the overall architecture,
starting with Appendix 2G/RO/M/28
Page 13
11-12 April 2000 Plurilateral meeting hosted by the EC to discuss the overall architecture,
starting with Appendix 2
13 April 2000 Informal meetings to assess the progress of the work on the overall
architecture, and to decide whether the work should be carried out at theplurilateral meeting or at the informal meeting that day
14 April 2000 Informal meeting to discuss the reporting of the plurilateral meetings;
reporting of the intersessional discussions;  endorsement of proposals on the
harmonized rules of origin;  deadline for completion of the work programme
on harmonizing rules of origin;  implications of the implementation of the
harmonized rules of origin on other WTO Agreements;  other business
Formal meeting
__________