G/MA/M/31
Page 1
Organization / RESTRICTED
G/MA/M/31
26 June 2002
(02-3559)
Committee on Market Access
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 15 MARCH 2002 AND
THE RESUMED MEETING OF 12 JUNE 2002
Chairperson: Mrs. Lourdes Berrig (Philippines)
Agenda of the meetingPage
1.Periodic report of the Committee to the Council for Trade in Goods including factual information on waivers expiring on 31April 2002
2.Submission of HS96 documentation......
3.Submission of HS2002 Documentation......
4.HS2002 Draft Waiver Decision (G/MA/W/29)......
5.Modalities and operation of the Integrated Data Base......
(a)Status of submission of the required documentation (G/MA/IDB/2/Rev.13)......
(b)Progress Report on the Work done by the Secretariat......
6.Consolidated Tariff Schedules Database Project – Report by the Secretariat......
7.Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns: Meaning to be given to the phrase "substantial interest" in paragraph 2 (d) of Article XIII of GATT 1994 (paragraph 1.2 of WT/MIN(01)17)
8.Notification of Quantitative Restrictions (G/MA/NTM/QR/1/Add.8)......
9.Notifications under the Decision on Reverse Notification of Non-Tariff Measures (G/MA/NTM/W/3/Rev.1)
10.Other Business......
(a)United States - Egypt's use of specific duties on imports of textile and clothing items, and China's tariff rate quota administration as well as application of the VAT to fertilizer imports
(b)Submission of national tariffs in 2002......
(c)Letter from the Chairman of the Committee on Trade and Development......
(d)Date of the next meeting......
The above agenda as reproduced in document WTO/AIR/1726 was adopted with the addition of items under 10. An annotated agenda was circulated in an informal document (Job No.(02)/19) dated 8 March 2002. The Committee also agreed that, in light of the informal consultations that were still ongoing on the slate of chairpersons for subsidiary bodies of the Council for Trade in Goods, consideration of the item on "Election of Chairperson" be postponed to its next meeting. Discussion on item 6 was suspended and resumed on 12 June 2002.
1.Periodic report of the Committee to the Council for Trade in Goods including factual information on waivers expiring on 31April 2002
1.1The Chairperson drew the Committee's attention to document G/MA/SPEC/20 which contained the draft periodic report of this Committee. She noted that this report, which would be finalized in the light of the discussions at this meeting would be submitted to the Council for Trade in Goods for examination at its meeting of 2 May 2002. The report contained in its Annexes I and II tables summarizing factual information on the waivers under process submitted by the Members concerned. In this context, she requested the Committee to take note of the requests that had been presented by these Members concerning their respective waivers and of the reasons for doing so.
1.2As could be noted in this document, the waivers were divided into two different groups: (1) the waivers granted in connection with the introduction of HS96 changes into the WTO schedules; and (2) the waivers related to the transposition of pre-Uruguay Round schedules into the Harmonized System (Nicaragua and Sri Lanka). All the waivers expired on 30 April 2002.
1.3As far as the first group of waivers was concerned, She recalled that the Committee had agreed the previous year that no further extension of the waiver, on a collective basis, would be granted. However, that this would not preclude Members from requesting waivers on an individual basis. She noted from Annex I of the document G/MA/SPEC/20, that to date 13 Members had forwarded to the Secretariat requests for waivers in connection with the introduction of HS96 changes to their schedules of concessions. Factual information had been provided by these Members concerning their request and in most cases a draft decision had also already been circulated. In two cases (Argentina and Pakistan) the draft decisions were forthcoming.
1.4The representative of the United States referred to the request by Panama for a waiver. He recalled that in 2001 when the last "collective" waiver was issued for 12 months, one of the conditions for granting that waiver to several Members including Panama was that they would provide full documentation. In the case of Panama, that documentation had not been submitted, so his delegation was not in a position to support Panama's waiver request.
1.5The representative of Panama stated that her delegation had made a partial submission. The remaining documentation would be submitted once certain internal procedures relating to the adoption of certain executive decrees had been completed in Panama. She hoped that these decrees would be enacted in the very near future.
1.6 The representative of Malaysia wished to signal the fact that his delegation might need to request a waiver in the future. His delegation was still evaluating whether there was a need for Malaysia to request a waiver because all that was required of Malaysia was to notify corrections which had been identified by its trading partners. He hoped that when the corrections were circulated, Canada would lift its reservation on Malaysia's HS96 submission. He informed the Committee that Malaysia had lifted its long-standing reservation on the EC schedule. This was largely due to the EC representative, Mr. J. Graminsky who had been so forthcoming in explaining the issue to Malaysia.
1.7The representative of the European Communities thanked Malaysia for having lifted its reservation. There was one remaining reservation on the EC schedule, but his delegation had high hopes in the discussions that were going to take place with the Member concerned in the very near future. In addition, his delegation was now in a position to lift its reservation on Brazil's and Paraguay's documentation, and this would be confirmed in writing early next week. His delegation had also lifted its reservation on Iceland's documentation, and a letter to this effect was sent the previous day to Iceland and to the Secretariat.
1.8The representative of Canada stated that his delegation would welcome Malaysia's notification of corrections, and if everything was in order would lift unconditionally the reservation.
1.9The representative of Brazil thanked the European Communities for the information. The fact that the last reservation had been lifted would allow Brazil to conclude expeditiously the process of transposition.
1.10The representative of Paraguay thanked the European Communities for the information. Paraguay hoped to conclude discussions in a very short period of time with the remaining Member who had a reservation on Paraguay's proposed HS96 changes, in which case Paraguay would be able to withdraw its waiver request.
1.11The representative of Iceland thanked the EC for lifting its reservation. She informed the Committee that in the light of the aforementioned, Iceland could withdraw its request for a waiver. Additionally, her delegation would be shortly submitting some modifications to its schedule.
1.12The Committee took note of the statements and agreed to forward the waiver requests and accompanying draft decisions set out in Annex I of document G/MA/SPEC/20, with the exception of Iceland's and Panama's, to the Council for Trade in Goods for approval.
1.13The Chairperson stated that details concerning the Members which had requested an extension of their respective waivers for the transposition of their schedules in the Harmonized System following the introduction of the Harmonized System were contained in Annex II of document G/MA/SPEC/20. These extensions concerned Nicaragua and Sri Lanka. The requests and the draft decisions related to these extensions had been circulated in documents G/L/515 and G/C/W/351 for Nicaragua, and G/L/516 and G/C/W/352 for Sri Lanka.
1.14The Committee took note of the statements and agreed to forward the waiver requests and accompanying draft decisions set out in Annex II of document G/MA/SPEC/20 to the Council for Trade in Goods for approval.
2.Submission of HS96 documentation
2.1The Chairperson stated that according to the provisions contained in the General Council Decision of 8 May 2001, extending the time-limit of the waivers granted to Members that had requested it until 30 April 2002 (reference to document WT/L/400), it was envisaged that the Members concerned would submit by this date the complete documentation related to the introduction of HS96 changes in their WTO schedules, and that in special circumstances they could request technical assistance from the Secretariat. Document G/MA/TAR/2/Rev.27 reflected the present situation concerning the submission of the required documentation. From the document, it could be noted that the submissions of seventeen Members, whether they had requested an extension of waivers or not, remained pending due to ongoing consultations and/or negotiations.
2.2She also reported on the informal consultations that had been taking place on the subject of the HS96 transposition exercise. Since the last formal meeting on 26 September 2001, further informal meetings of the Committee were held on 11 December 2001 and 18February2002 to review the status of HS96 submissions. Informal lists entitled Revision 10 and Revision 11 detailing the situation of HS96 submissions were faxed to all Members when these informal meetings were convened. This process had been useful in achieving progress and she proposed that another meeting of this kind be held in the near future. A Revision 12 of the informal list detailing the situation of HS96 submissions would be issued along with the fax convening this meeting.
2.3The representative of Sri Lanka wished to obtain technical assistance from the Secretariat for the preparation of the documentation required to be submitted in connection with this exercise.
2.4The Committee took note of the statements and agreed to the Chairperson's proposal.
3.Submission of HS2002 Documentation
3.1The Chairperson referred to document G/MA/TAR/4 which reflected the situation with respect to the circulation of HS2002 documentation. Since the issuance of this document, the verification sheet of Australia had also been circulated.
3.2In accordance with the procedures for the incorporation of HS2002 changes into schedules of concessions, adopted by the General Council on 18July 2001 and contained in document WT/L/407 the Committee needed to meet in an informal dedicated session to undertake a multilateral review of the proposed changes and the first such session of the Committee was expected to be held around the middle of April2002. This would be subject to the availability of meeting rooms, interpreters and more importantly compliance with the guidelines concerning the scheduling of meetings.
3.3The representative of Canada stated that his authorities were reviewing the comments made by the Secretariat and welcomed a mid-April 2002 meeting. He encouraged other Members to make their submissions as quickly as possible so as to avoid the HS2002 exercise taking as much time as the HS96 exercise.
3.4The representative of the United States stated that there were a number of issues that his delegation had not considered in the transposition exercise that were raised in the Secretariat verification sheet. His authorities were looking at these elements and would expect to submit responses to the Secretariat before the mid-April 2002 meeting so that there could be a useful discussion at the time of the meeting.
3.5The representative of Malaysia stated that the HS2002 changes should have been gazetted on 1March2002 in Malaysia. His delegation intended to submit the documentation by April 2002 so that Malaysia could be part of the first batch of waivers. In such a case, it was Malaysia's hope that that its documentation could also be subject to that multilateral review envisaged for the middle of April 2002.
3.6The representative of New Zealand informed the Committee that New Zealand intended to submit the relevant HS2002 documentation in April 2002.
3.7The representative of China informed the Committee that her authorities were preparing fully for the HS2002 exercise.
3.8The Committee took note of the statements.
4.HS2002 Draft Waiver Decision (G/MA/W/29)
4.1The Chairperson recalled that the subject of this waiver was first discussed at the Committee's informal meeting of 11 December 2001. There had been an exchange of views on the question of a waiver for Members implementing HS2002 changes domestically on 1January 2002, but not having undertaken the procedures to introduce such changes to their WTO schedules of concessions. It was agreed that the Chairperson would undertake consultations on this subject, specifically on whether an individual or "collective" waiver would be the best way to proceed for such Members.
4.2An informal meeting was convened on 14 January 2002 to pursue discussions on this matter. To assist in the discussions the Chairperson had requested the Secretariat to draft a possible HS2002 waiver decision using the initial "collective" HS96 waiver decision contained in documents WT/L/124 and Corr.1 as a basis. A document containing a draft HS2002 waiver decision was faxed to all Members along with the notice convening the informal meeting of 14 January 2002.
4.3An additional informal meeting was held on 31 January 2002 on this subject. A revised draft HS2002 waiver decision, which had been amended in light of the discussions held at the informal meeting on 14 January 2002 and further consultations, was circulated to all Members along with the fax convening the informal meeting of 31 January 2002.
4.4Members present at that meeting approved the revised draft HS2002 waiver decision. In addition, in order to ensure parity of treatment for all Members it was agreed that Members which implemented the HS2002 changes and made the required submission to the WTO after 30April 2002 would be given treatment no less favourable than Members having submitted the required documentation prior to 30April 2002. Accordingly, a waiver requested by such a Member (i.e. a Member having submitted the required documentation after 30 April 2002) would be recommended for approval by the Committee on Market Access at a subsequent formal meeting following the submission of documentation by this Member, and the waiver would be valid for twelve months starting from the date of implementation of the HS2002 changes for this Member.
4.5The Chairperson proposed that the Committee approve the decision contained in document G/MA/W/29 as well as her statement concerning the parity of treatment for all Members.
4.6The Committee so approved.
4.7In terms of procedure, the Chairperson proposed that she send a letter to all Members requesting those who would like to be covered by the draft waiver decision contained in document G/MA/W/29 to indicate this to the Secretariat by a certain date. The Secretariat in turn would include their names in the annex to this draft decision. It being understood that if the required documentation had not been submitted by 30April 2002, then at the time of adoption of this draft decision by the General Council, the Members concerned would not be considered part of this waiver decision.
4.8The Committee so agreed.
5.Modalities and operation of the Integrated Data Base
(a)Status of submission of the required documentation (G/MA/IDB/2/Rev.13)
5.1The Chairperson stated that document G/MA/IDB/2/Rev.13 which had been circulated to all Members presented the situation of PC IDB submissions as of 25February2002. The Secretariat had informed her that, since the document had been circulated, a submission had been received from Singapore relating to imports for 2001, and from Oman relating to tariffs for 2001, its first contribution to the IDB.
5.2She noted that with the recent contribution of Oman 90 Members and 4acceding countries had provided IDB submissions. Since the last revision of the Status of Submissions, 3 additional Members had submitted documentation for the first time to the IDB. She reminded Members that the deadline for furnishing the 2002 tariff information was 30 March 2002.
5.3The representative of Australia welcomed the new submissions that had been made especially by the Members that were referred to as first-timers. His delegation encouraged all efforts in this respect. His delegation wanted to emphasize the importance for Members to make regular submissions to the IDB particularly in view of its importance as a valuable negotiating tool. The impetus for providing submissions was the greatest now as there was a round of negotiations and all Members, especially developing country Members would benefit greatly from the analytical tools in conjunction with the data in the database. In compliance with the 31 March 2002 deadline for the submission of 2002 tariff information, Australia intended to provide its 2002 applied tariffs shortly. He noted that in document G/MA/TAR/3/Rev.7 which listed national tariffs available in the Secretariat, Australia's 2002 tariffs were included, and he enquired as to the source of this data.
5.4The Secretariat clarified that they were amendments to Australia's 2001 tariffs which had been notified to the Secretariat.
5.5The representative of Brazil stated that document G/MA/IDB/2/Rev.13 on the status of IDB submissions reflected accurately the fact that Brazil had submitted its 2002 applied tariffs. However, in document G/MA/TAR/3/Rev.7, it was indicated that only Brazil's 2000 tariff information was available. He enquired as to the discrepancy between the two documents.
5.6The Secretariat indicated that the tariff information submitted to the IDB and to the Tariff Library was different in terms of form, content and dissemination. The IDB was a notification in an electronic form containing inter alia information on trade import data, applied and bound duty rates, while the Tariff Library contained hard copies of national tariff schedules. The IDB had a dissemination policy which was restrictive, while information submitted to the Tariff Library was open to the public. However, if the Member so wished to make available in the Tariff Library its IDB submission, it should so notify the Secretariat.
5.7The representative of the United States stated that submissions to the IDB were crucial for countries wanting to participate in the forthcoming tariff negotiations. It would be impossible for them to do the necessary analysis, to know what their interests were without this kind of information. Also, from a technical assistance standpoint, it would be impossible for the Secretariat or other multilateral organizations to do the analysis for them if this information was unavailable. He urged those Members that had not made recent submissions to the IDB to do so in order to be able to fully participate in the forthcoming negotiations.
5.8The representative of China pointed out that some IDB information was signalled as missing in the column relating to China in document G/MA/IDB/2/Rev.13. However, China had joined the WTO only last year and she wished to know if it was necessary to make this kind of a submission as the Secretariat already had China's accession schedule.
5.9The Secretariat stated that an IDB submission consisted of inter alia applied duties while China's accession schedule contained only its bound commitments. So China would need to make a submission to the IDB concerning its 2002 applied tariffs and 2001 import data.