 
 RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  S/C/W/250  
23 November 2004 
 (04-5078) 
Council for Trade in Services Original:   English 
  
 
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, 
PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU 
 
Review of Article II (MFN) Exemptions; 
 
Questions from the Separate Customs Territo ry of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu  
 
  The following communication, dated 19 Novemb er 2004 from the delegation of the Separate 
Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Ma tsu is being circulated to the Members of the 
Council for Trade in Services. 
 
_______________ 
 
 1. As part of the Council for Trade in Services’ process of reviewing MFN exemptions in 
accordance with the Annex on Article II Exempt ions of the GATS, we address the following 
questions to certain Members to determine whether th e conditions that original ly created the need for 
their exemptions still prevail. Our questions are not  addressed to all Members; nor do they cover an 
exhaustive list of all services sectors and subsectors.  At this stage, they are addressed to our major 
trading partners only and focus exclusively on th e Audio Visual Services and Maritime Services 
sectors. We reserve the right to raise further questions with Members on issues concerning other 
services sectors in the future.   
I. AUDIO VISUAL SERVICES: MFN EXEMPTIONS. 
2. Many Members have cited cultural cooperation and cultural links as conditions creating the 
need for exemptions, and the majority have not undertaken any specific commitment in the sector. We 
are particularly concerned that the sector may then  be effectively excluded from the application of the 
MFN principle, or that a primarily bilateral system of market access and national treatment is being 
maintained.    
A. A.
 CO-PRODUCTION ARRANGEMENTS AND ORIGIN CRITERIA . 
Under the category of measures “co-production arr angements and origin criteria” the questions 
to which we would appreciate answers from the Members concerned are as follows:  
 
Q1.  Are the measures under the exemptions applied by national origin of the audiovisual 
works?  If so, how is the national origin a pplied? (The origin of the funding party, the 
production crew , the place of production, etc.)  
 
Q2.  Do the conditions which created the n eed for the MFN exemptions still prevail? 
Specifically, have any measures not based on discrimination among countries been contemplated for pursuing the same policy objectives? 
 S/C/W/250 
Page 2  
 
 NB. All page numbers quoted belo w refer to document JOB(04)/114. 
 
Australia 
3. On page 48, measures providing preferentia l co-production arrangements for film and 
television productions to Italy, UK, Canada, Fran ce and any other country where cultural cooperation 
might be desirable and which is prepared to exch ange preferential treatment, are maintained for an 
indefinite duration.  
 
Canada 
4. On pages 51-52, exemptions for differential treatment accorded to countries and natural 
persons having co-production agreemen ts with Canada have been registered under the subsector Film, 
Video and Television Programming Co-productio n, for an indeterminate duration.  
 
European Communities and their Member States 
5. On page 59, measures on co-production of audiovi sual works confer  national treatment to 
works covered by bilateral or plurilateral agreemen ts, in particular in relation to distribution and 
access to funding. 
New Zealand 
6. On page 68, measures taken for the purposes of  the co-production of films and television 
programmes under Film Co-production Agreements  with Canada, France, the United Kingdom and 
others, are registered as being for an indefinite duration. 
B. B
ROADCASTING  
Singapore 
7. On page 70. an exemption for preferential br oadcast and transmission rights under bilateral 
agreements has been registered, and Singapore will keep the possibility of removing this exemption 
under review. Please could Singapore explain whether the conditions which created the need for the 
exemption still prevail and whether any action is being contemplated to eliminate these conditions?  
II. MARITIME SERVICES; MFN EXEMPTIONS. 
 
8. We have the following question for certain  Members on their MFN exemptions in the 
Maritime Services sector, as registered in document JOB(04)/114: 
9. Please could the Members explain whether the conditions which created the need for the 
exemptions still prevail and whether any action is being contemplated to eliminate these 
conditions?  
European Communities and their Member States 
10. On page 101, the chartering in/of foreign ship s by consumers resident in Germany has been 
registered as an indefinite exemption subject to reciprocity.   S/C/W/250 
 Page 3 
 
 
 New Zealand 
11. On page 103, an exemption for Eire, Hong K ong, UK, Canada, India, Malaysia, Singapore, 
Pakistan, and South Africa in the Maritime (passenge r and freight) Services sector is registered as 
being for an indefinite duration.  
Singapore 
12. On page 107, an exemption concerning Maritime  Transport Services under bilateral shipping 
agreements has been registered as being for an indefinite period, with the qualification that Singapore 
will periodically review this in the light of international developments. 
Thailand 
13. On page 108, Thailand has registered an exemp tion under international maritime transport of 
cargoes for a duration of 10 years. 
 
 
__________ 
 
 