RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/RO/M/29
13 June 2000
(00-2335)
Committee on Rules of Origin
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 14 APRIL 2000
Chairman:  Mr. A.R. Moroz
The agenda proposed for the meeting, contained in WTO/AIR/1272, was adopted by the
Committee on Rules of Origin (CRO) as follows:
I. OVERALL ARCHITECTURE OF THE HARMONIZED RULES OF ORIGIN
(G/RO/41) ...................................................................................................................... ............2
II. PRODUCT-SPECIFIC RULES OF  ORIGIN (G/RO/41).....................................................2
A. C HAPTERS 82-83 ( ARTICLES OF METAL ).....................................................................................2
B. C HAPTERS 84-85 AND 90 ( MACHINERY ).....................................................................................4
C. C HAPTERS 86-89 ( TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT ).....................................................................8
D. C HAPTERS 92-97 ( MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS AND OTHER ARTICLES ) ...........................................9
III. ENDORSEMENT OF PROPOSALS ON HARMONIZED RULES (G/RO/W/53) .........11
IV. IMPLICATIONS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HARMONIZED
RULES OF ORIGIN ON OTHER WTO AGREEMENTS (G/RO/W/28/REV.1,
G/RO/W/30-34, 38, 42, 48 AND 50).......................................................................................11
V. DEADLINE FOR COMPLETION OF THE WORK PROGRAMME ON
HARMONIZING RULES OF ORIGIN ...............................................................................11
VI. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON RULES OF
ORIGIN (G /RO/ 44) ............................................................................................................... .12
VII. NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 5 AND PARAGRAPH 4 OF ANNEX II OF
THE AGREEMENT ON RU LES OF ORIGIN...................................................................13
VIII. ELECTION OF OFFICERS..................................................................................................13
IX. OTHER BUSINESS.............................................................................................................. ..13
(i) Agreement between the European Communities and the United States on rules of origin ......13
(ii) Date of the next meeting................................................................................................... ........14
(iii) Workshops/seminars on  rules of origin ....................................................................................1 4G/RO/M/29
Page 2
I. OVERALL ARCHITECTURE OF THE HARMONIZED RULES OF ORIGIN (G/RO/41)
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:
"The plurilateral discussion on 12 and 13 April was devoted to rule 2 of Appendix 2.  The
discussion provided a useful opportunity to clarify differences in approach.  Some Members
changed their positions in an attempt to achi eve compromise solutions.  Such changes will be
reflected in the Integrated Negotiating Text (INT).
Rule 2(a):  Some delegations were in favour of deleting Rule 2(a) and solving the issue of Ottawa
language rule through a footnote in rule 2(b).  Other delegations still consider that rule 2(a)
should be maintained.
Rule 2(b):  Those delegations wishing to maintain rule 2(a) did not see the need for a footnote
referring to Ottawa language rule.Rule 2(c):  Most delegations agreed that the rule applied in those cases where the materials did
not change their classification and originated in a single country.  One delegation, in an attempt to
promote consensus, dropped its request for including complete/finished products/articles.  The
discussion is still open on the issue of added materials.
Rule 2(d):  There was little discussion with regard to rule 2(d) because Members agreed with it.
Rule 2(e):  There was little discussion with regard to rule 2(e) because Members agreed with it.
Rule 2(f):  The main issue at stake concerns how materials should be dealt with for origin
determination purposes.  One delegation, in an attempt to promote consensus, accepted the
inclusion of all materials when determining origin through this rule and therefore dropped its
request to take into account only the non-originating materials.
Rule 2(g):  One of the delegations (proponent) accepted the merging of rules (f) and (g).
The facilitator submitted a proposal merging rules 2(e), (f) and (g) for the sake of trade
facilitation (see JOB(00)/3230, page 4).  Some delegations supported the proposal."
1.2 The CRO took note of the statement made, as well as requested  that examples be developed for
rule 2 of Appendix 2.
II. PRODUCT-SPECIFIC RULES OF ORIGIN (G/RO/41)
A. CHAPTERS 82-83 ( ARTICLES OF METAL )
2.1 The representative of Hong Kong, China, facili tator for the informal plurilateral discussions on
chapters 82-83, stated as follows:
" Issue No. 1:  There was no consensus reached.  The proponent of option A/2 changed the ten
constituent parts in that option to five parts as provided for in option A/1.  One delegation stated
that the number of parts classified in chapters 82 and 83 might be less than five.  A number ofG/RO/M/29
Page 3
delegations stated that this issue should be re-examined after the discussion on the horizontal
issue concerning chapter 84.
Issue No. 2:  There was no consensus reached.  One delegation stated that the assembly of a blade
and handle was a simple process.Issue No. 3:  There was no consensus reached.  A number of delegations stated that the assembly
process in this issue was much more complicated than in the case of Issue No. 2 and that
numerous parts were involved in the assembly process.  One delegation stated that the objective
of option A could be achieved by the application of the assembly rule contained in option A/2 of
Issue No. 1.
Issue No. 4:  There was no consensus reached.  One proponent of option A stated that the
application of the assembly rule contained in option A/2 of Issue No. 1 could address this Issue.
That delegation made the same statement concerning other similar Issues in chapters 82-83.
Issue No. 5:  There was no consensus reached.
Issue No. 6:  There was no consensus reached.
Issue No. 7:  There was no consensus reached.
Issue No. 8:  There was no consensus reached.  One Member supporting option A stated that its
position was based on reasons of consistency.  One Member supporting option B indicatedflexibility.  Another Member supporting option B stated that plating enhanced the value of a
good, but did not result in a new product.
Issue No. 9:  There was no consensus reached.
Issue No. 10:  There was no consensus reached.  Several delegations indicated their willingness to
reconsider their positions.Issue No. 11:  There was no consensus reached.  Several delegations indicated their willingness to
reconsider their positions.
Issue No. 12:  There was no consensus reached.  One Member changed its position from option B
to option A.
Issue No. 13:  There was no consensus reached.  Several delegations indicated their willingness to
reconsider their positions.  One Member changed its position from partial support for option B to
full support for option B.
Issue No. 14:  There was no consensus reached.  Several delegations indicated their willingness to
reconsider their positions.
Issue No. 15: There was no consensus reached.  Several delegations indicated their willingness to
reconsider their positions.
Issue No. 16: There was no consensus reached.  Several delegations indicated their willingness to
reconsider their positions.G/RO/M/29
Page 4
Issue No. 17: There was no consensus reached.  It was noted that agreement on chapter notes
could address this Issue."
B. CHAPTERS 84-85 AND 90 ( MACHINERY )
2.2 The representative of the United States, facilitator for the informal plurilateral discussions on
chapters 84-85 and 90, summarized the results of the discussions as follows:
"Summary of plurilateral meeting:  Plurilateral meetings were held over five days during the
April session of the CRO. Due to limitations of time and the number and complexity of the
outstanding issues involved, discussion was limited to 58 generic issues identified by the
Technical Committee on Rules of Origin (TCRO).
Discussion of the generic issues provided a useful basis for clarifying differences and similarities
among the various proposals and in certain cases there emerged potential opportunities for
possible compromise.
During the discussion of product specific issues, some changes in the positions of Members were
taken. They will be reflected in the INT.
Issue No. 1:  There was a growing consensus that a good assembled from a collection of parts
(classified as an assembled good by application of HS General Interpretive Rule 2) should have
origin in the country of assembly, provided that the assembly would have satisfied the
requirements of the applicable rule for the good had each of the parts been imported separately
and not as a collection. A draft text of a rule (see JOB(00)/3230, page 1108) was circulated but
was not approved.
There was no consensus reached on the origin of a machine assembled from an unfinished
machine of the same heading or subheading.
There was consensus that rules for chapter 84 should provide, under certain circumstances, for
origin in the country of assembly of parts of goods assembled from parts classified in the same
heading or subheading as the assembled part. There was no consensus on the qualifying criteria to
be applied.
Issue No. 2:  There was no consensus reached. Two members remain in Option C and one agreed
to reconsider its position. There remains wide variation of opinion as to the qualifying criteria to
be applied among those members supporting Options A and B.
Issue No. 3:  There was no consensus reached. This issue was largely discussed in Issue 1. There
is a  wide variation of opinion as to the qualifying criteria to be applied among those members
supporting option A.
Issue No. 4:  There was no consensus reached. Two members support Option A.
Issue No. 5:  The title of this Issue should be changed to read: “Assembly of a collection of parts
classified by virtue of the application of GIR 2 (A)”. As noted in Issue No. 1, there was a growing
consensus that goods assembled from a collection of parts (classified as assembled goods byG/RO/M/29
Page 5
application of HS General Interpretive Rule 2) should have origin in the country of assembly,
provided that the assembly would have satisfied the requirements of the applicable rule for the
good had each of the parts been imported separately and not as a collection.
Issue No. 6:  There is apparent consensus for Option B as there are no known proponents for
Option A. There was general agreement that more clarity is needed with respect to the types of
packaging intended to be covered by the rule.
Issue No. 7:  There was consensus that a change of classification resulting from application of the
functional unit rule (Section XVI note 4) could be origin conferring. There is no consensus on the
question of whether qualifying criteria should be required and, if so, what the criteria should be.
There was also no consensus on any chapter residual rule which could apply should the primaryrule not be satisfied.
Issue No. 8:  There was a consensus to delete this issue.
Issue No. 9:  There was a growing consensus that a change of classification resulting from a
change in the use of a good could not be origin conferring in the absence of an accompanying
production process.
Issue No. 10: There was a growing consensus that a change of classification resulting from the
re-certification or retesting of a good could not be origin conferring in the absence of an
accompanying production process.
Issue No. 11:  There was no consensus reached.  Members made the following observations:
- the TCRO's recommendation that disassembly should not be origin-conferring
had not yet been confirmed by the CRO;
- it would be beneficial for the origin result in this case to be the same as that
provided in Appendix 1 with respect to the recovery of parts and raw materials;
- a rule basing origin on the country of recovery would be the easiest to administer
among the options available and would avoid "tracing back" problem;
- in some circumstances the original origin of the recovered part may be readily
known, by reason of the marking or otherwise.
Issue No. 12:  There was a growing consensus for the country of recovery to be the country of
origin.  Members noted the observations made regarding Issue No. 11.
Issue No. 13:  There was no consensus reached.
Issue No. 14:  There was no consensus reached.  Among Members who supported limiting the
application of the change of classification rule by an exception or value-added or other special
requirement, interest was expressed in consolidating positions with a chapter note which would
enumerate the circumstances when the assembly of a part consisting of a motor or motor engine
assembled with other components would not be considered origin-conferring.
Issue No. 15:  There was no consensus reached.  As in the case of Issue No. 5, some Members
who are desirous of limiting the application of the change of classification rule expressed interest
in a chapter note, perhaps combined with the not e suggested for Issue No. 14.  Others felt the
limitation might best be reflected in the primary rule.G/RO/M/29
Page 6
Issue No. 16:  There was no consensus reached.  However, it was noted that if the one remaining
supporter of option D could accept option A or B, or a variation thereof, this issue could be
combined with Issue No. 1.
Issue No. 17:  There was no consensus reached.  Some Members indicated that they will review
their positions in light of the discussion.
Issue No. 18:  There was no consensus reached.
Issue No. 19:  There was no consensus reached.
Issue No. 20:  There was no consensus reached.
Issue No. 21:  There was no consensus reached.
Issue No. 22:  There was no consensus reached.
Issue Nos. 23 through 33:  These issues cover questions concerning specific assemblies of units
of ADP machines consisting of:
(a) different types of units of the same heading or subheading (e.g. a printer unit with a
storage unit);
(b) the same type of unit of the same heading or subheading (e.g. an assembly of two or more
storage units);
(c) the attachment of one or more parts to complete or further assemble an ADP unit.
There was no consensus with views being divided with some Members accepting all assemblies
as origin-conferring, some requiring the satisfaction of value-added criteria and others not
accepting changes within the heading as origin-conferring.
Issue No. 34:  There was no consensus reached.
Issue No. 35:  There was no consensus reached.
Issue No. 36:  There was no consensus reached.  Some Members expressed a willingness to
consider option A.Issue No. 37:  There was no consensus reached.  Interest was expressed in determining the extent
to which the attachment of bearings to bearing housings may be considered a minimal operation.Issue No. 38:  There was no consensus reached.  One Member opposes assembly from goods
within the heading from being origin-conferring.Issue No. 39:  There was a growing consensus towards option B.
Issue No. 40:  This assembly issue is similar in scope to that discussed in Issue No. 14.  General
consensus that "simple" assembly should not be recognized as origin-conferring by reason of
assembly.  Interest was expressed in studying the possibility of adopting optional rules regardingG/RO/M/29
Page 7
qualification of originating status by assembly, i.e. value-added rule, 5-part rule or another
standard.
Issue No. 41:  All but two Members favour accepting assembly as origin-conferring and most
favour option B.  Issue seems similar to the functional unit issue.Issue No. 42:  There was no consensus reached.  The issue primarily involves the question of
simple assembly.Issue No. 43:  There was no consensus reached.  This issue involves the question of whether the
assembly of primary cells into batteries of the same heading is origin-conferring.
Issue No. 44:  There was no consensus reached.  This issue is the same as that of Issue No. 14.
Issue No. 45:  There was no consensus reached.  Issue concerns the assembly of a specific part of
a microwave oven from parts of the same heading or subheading.  Further study was needed with
respect to the parts and operations involved.
Issue No. 46:  There was no consensus reached.  This issue concerns whether the addition of
automatic controls to a machine is origin-conferri ng, with or without value-added criteria being
required, and whether the removal of automatic controls is origin-conferring.
Issue No. 47:  There was no consensus reached.  One Member was willing to reconsider its
position.
Issue No. 48:  There was no consensus reached.
Issue No. 49: There was no consensus reached.  The issue concerns the creation of a set by simple
assembly or by mere packaging.Issue No. 50:  There was no consensus reached.  This issue concerns whether the processing and
assembly of the goods of this heading are origin-conferring.  Also, whether the origin of
unrecorded media produced by erasing recorded media should have origin in the country in which
the media was (a) initially produced, (b) recorded, (c) erased or (d) collected.
Issue No. 51:  There was no consensus reached.  Large number of Members favour option A.
One Member indicated a willingness to reconsider the need for value-added criteria.Issue No. 52:  There was no consensus reached.
Issue Nos. 53 and 54:  There was no consensus reached.  The issues involve the origin of
machines resulting from the addition or removal of devices.  Members questioned the consistency
of positions taken on these issues and indicated a willingness to review their positions.
Issue No. 55:  There was no consensus reached.  There was a wide variation of views regarding
origin-conferring processes within the heading and from display devices.
Issue No. 56:  There was no consensus reached.  All but two Members favour origin in country of
assembly.G/RO/M/29
Page 8
Issue No. 57:  There was no consensus reached.  Question concerns the originating status of
goods assembled from components of the same heading.
Issue No. 58:  There was no consensus reached.  Proponents expressed a willingness to submit
further information."
C. CHAPTERS 86-89 ( TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT )
2.3 The representative of Korea, facilitator for the informal plurilateral discussions on chapters 86-89,
summarized the discussions as follows:
"Overall summary of discussions:
Concerning the scope of discussions, it was noted that some positions taken by Members on
chapters 86-89 were a reflection of their positions on horizontal issues.  Thus, it was agreed not to
discuss such positions in depth in the context of Issues 68 to 74.  Instead, those positions were
simply taken note of, pending further progress to be made on horizontal issues.
Some Members, however, were willing to depart from their horizontal positions in view of the
fact that horizontal positions could be irrelevant in discussing issues under chapters 86-89.  Such
flexibility of position was welcomed.
Members supporting two different versions of value-added rules showed a willingness to merge
their options.
On many of the issues, it was confirmed that some of the options were supported by a very
limited number of Members.  Those Members show ed a willingness to review their positions
from such a perspective.
Summary of Issue-specific decisions:Issue No. 68:  Options A, B and D were taken note of as application of national positions on
horizontal issues.  Option D was merged with option B.  More Members expressed support for
option C.  Members supporting option E/1 admitted that paragraph 939 might not apply to
products at hand.  One Member agreed to move  from option E/1 to option E/2, while another
Member expressed a willingness to review its position.
Issue No. 69:  Options A and C were taken note of as application of national positions on
horizontal issues.  Brazil proposed to simplify its position as reflected in paragraph 954 and
proposed a new language (see JOB(00)/3230, page 189) to replace the paragraph.  One Memberleft option D in favour of option B/1.  As a result, only one Member supported option D.  The
Member was encouraged to review its position in view of such developments.  Brazil suggested
that, due to changes in the manufacturing technology, origin-related questions arising from
manufacture of vehicles from mono-bloc should be considered.  Brazil was requested to submit a
written proposal.
Issue No. 70:  Options A, B and D were taken note of as application of national positions on
horizontal issues.  Option D was merged with option B.  It was pointed out that only one MemberG/RO/M/29
Page 9
supported option E.  The Member was encouraged to review its position in view of such
developments.
Issue No. 71:  Options A and B were taken not e of as application of national positions on
horizontal issues.  It was pointed out that only one Member supported option D.  Since the
Member was not represented in the plurilateral, the facilitator was charged to contact the Member
to seek possible flexibility on the part of the Member.
Issue No. 72:  Options A, B and C were taken note of as application of national positions on
horizontal issues.  One Member, supporting option A, expressed willingness to look into the
possibility of departing from its horizontal position in view of the product-specific character of
the issue at hand.  Members supporting option D/1 admitted that paragraph 1006 might not applyto products at hand.  One Member agreed to move from option D/1 to option D/2, while another
Member expressed a willingness to review its position.
Issue No. 73:  Options A, B and C were taken note of as application of national positions on
horizontal issues.  Members supporting option D/1 admitted that paragraph 1021 might not apply
to products at hand.  One Member agreed to mo ve from option D/1 to option D/2.  A point was
raised that there could be logical inconsistency in the position of Members who took option E
under Issue No. 73 and took option C under Issue No. 71.  The inconsistency arose from the fact
that such Members confer origin upon completing a hull without essential character in certain
circumstances (from 89.06 to one of 89.01-89.05), while not conferring origin to the same process
in an equivalent circumstance (from 89.06).  It was further suggested that option D, according to
which 89.06 would be split into hulls and other vessels, could provide a way out of the
inconsistency.  Members supporting option E were encouraged to review their position.
Issue No. 74:  One Member proposed another option, according to which origin of a ship to be
dismantled would be decided by the last country of registration (option C).  It was reminded that
only one Member each supported options A and C.  The Members were encouraged to review
their positions in view of such developments."
D. CHAPTERS 92-97 ( MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS AND OTHER ARTICLES )
2.4 The representative of Japan, facilitator for the informal plurilateral discussions on chapters 92-97,
summarized the discussions as follows:
" Chapter 92
Issue No. 1:  There was no consensus reached.  One Member supporting option A stated that its
proposal concerning chapter Residual Rules were applicable only to heading 92.09, namely the
change from parts to parts, and that as concerns headings 92.01-92.08, CTH was applicable.
Several delegations indicated their willingness to reconsider their positions.
Issue No. 2:  There was no consensus reached. One Member supporting option A stated that the
changes within headings 92.01-92.08 were not origin-conferring, only the change from heading
92.09 to headings 92.01-92.08 should be considered to be substantial transformation.  Several
delegations indicated their willingness to reconsider their positions.G/RO/M/29
Page 10
Chapters 93-97
Issue No. 1:  There was a growing consensus towards option A.
Issue No. 2:  Consensus was reached on option A, with the addition of a footnote to heading
93.05:  "CH has proposed a Chapter Note on assembly".
Issue No. 3:  There was growing consensus towards option C.  Members supporting options A
and B were encouraged to review their positions.Issue No. 4:  There was growing consensus towards option A, although Members supporting
option A were encouraged to make comments on the issue of loading munition.Issue No. 5:  There was no consensus reached.  One Member changed its position from option B
to option A for reasons of consistency.  One Member supporting option B stated that any change
within the heading 93.07 should be addressed by Rule 2 of Appendix 2.
Issue No. 6:  There was no consensus reached.  There was agreement to delete option B.  Several
delegations stated that due to the chapter note (the disassembly rule), CTSH had the same
coverage as "CTH, or change from …".
Issue No. 7:  There was no consensus reached.
Issue No. 8:  There was growing consensus towards option B.
Issue No. 9:  There was growing consensus towards option B.
Issue No. 10:  There was no consensus reached.  A number of delegations stated that since the
changes from subheading 9401.90 to subheading 9403.90 (or vice versa) were not likely to occur,
the CTH rule is the same as "CTH, except 9403.90/9401.90".
Issue No. 11:  There was no consensus reached.  Some Members supporting option A expressed
the view that the proposed rules under option A could be merged into a single rule with the
understanding that CTSH and "CTH, or change from …" had the same coverage.
Issue No. 12 :  There was no consensus reached.
Issue No. 13:  There was no consensus reached.
Issue No. 14:  There was no consensus reached.
Issue No. 15:  There was no consensus reached.
Issue No. 16:  There was an agreement that establishment of an appropriate Chapter Note dealing
with change of use would solve this issue.  Members supporting option B would undertake to
submit specific text thereof.
Issue No. 18:  There was no consensus reached.  A footnote will be put forward under option B:
"parts-to-parts issue is to be addressed in the co ntext of generic issues of chapters 84-90".  ViewsG/RO/M/29
Page 11
were expressed that parts-to-parts issue could be dealt with by creation of a relevant Chapter
Note.
Issue Nos. 17, 22, 25, 30:  There was an agreement that these issues would be dealt with in
overall architecture."
2.5 The Chairman stated that this was the first time that the CRO had been through chapters 82-97.
While no consensus was reached on any particular proposal, the discussion took place on a constructive
and flexible basis.  The categorization of issues into horizontal issues and product-specific issues was a
useful development as an attempt to move the work forward.
2.6 The CRO took note of the statements made.
III. ENDORSEMENT OF PROPOSALS ON HARMONIZED RULES (G/RO/W/53)
3.1 The Chairman recalled that consensus was reached on Issue No. 1(c) of chapters 72-73 at the last
plurilateral  meetings, and that the CRO, at its meeting on 18 February 2000, had agreed to revert to Issue
No. 9 of chapters 44-49 (G/RO/W/53).
3.2 The CRO agreed to revert to this issue at its next meeting.
IV. IMPLICATIONS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HARMONIZED RULES OF
ORIGIN ON OTHER WTO AGREEMENTS (G/RO/W/28 /REV.1, G/RO/W/30-34, 38, 42,
48 AND 50)
4.1 The Chairman recalled that, as concerned this agenda item, there had been submissions from five
Members 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 the United States recalled that his delegation had promised at the last
meeting of the CRO to submit a paper concerning this issue.  The paper had not yet been completed;  it
would be submitted as soon as possible.
4.3 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 Based on informal consultations on 22 March 2000, the Chairman summarized the discussion on
this issue as follows:
"There was a general recognition that while the CRO had developed good momentum under the
work programme for 2000, which it had adopted in January 2000, a deadline would be a useful
and important facilitator for completing the Harmonization Work Programme (HWP).  However,
a number of delegations stated that the deadline had to be realistic and that the results of the HWP
should be a quality product.  Delegations also discussed the question of credibility of the WTO interms of (a) setting a deadline and (b) missing a deadline.  One delegation proposed a particular
date as a deadline, and several delegations supported that proposal.  Other delegations were of theG/RO/M/29
Page 12
view that the proposed date was too tight and not likely to be achievable.  While a number of
delegations suggested that the July stocktaking m eeting offered an opportunity to assess the state
of progress, and to possibly set a deadline, some other delegations suggested that December
might be a more appropriate time to consider the deadline.  Various delegations also indicated
that informal consultations on this matter should continue."
5.2 The representative of India stated that the stocktaking exercise scheduled for the July meeting of
the CRO was an opportunity to see how changes to the management plan itself would be required in the
light of discussions that had taken place in the meetings  of the CRO.  Adjustments were already made for
meetings in April and June 2000 under the agenda item, "review of progress at the meeting and
fine-tuning/finalization of agenda etc. for the next meeting", which  had been built into the Notional
Management Plan adopted by the CRO in Janu ary 2000 (Annex to G/RO/M/27, pages 4-6).  She
suggested extending the July stocktaking meeting in order to take up the substantive issues which the
CRO had agreed to discuss before the summer break, i.e. chapters 28-40 (chemicals), 44-49 (wood and
paper), 68-70 (ceramics) and 91 (watches).  She also stated that the management plan was not a substitute
for consideration of a definite deadline, and that informal consultations on the issue of the deadline should
be intensified.
5.3 The CRO took note of the statements made.
VI. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON RULES OF ORIGIN
(G/RO/44)
6.1 The Chairman recalled that the Chairman of the TCRO had forwarded to the CRO a request for
the CRO's advice on two matters relating to the ongoing responsibilities of the Technical Committee
(G/RO/44).  The first matter on which the Technical Committee requested the CRO's advice concerned
the two types of work provided for in paragraph 3 of Article 6 of the Agreement:  (i)  technical
rectifications provided for under General Rule 2 of the preliminary text of the harmonizednon-preferential rules of origin relating to changes in the Harmonized System, and (ii) the other work
relating to amendments to the results of the Harmonization Work Programme.  The second matter
concerned whether the Technical Committee's ongoing responsibilities could include the technical aspects
of preferential rules of origin.
6.2 Based on informal consultations in March 2000, the Chairman summarized the discussion on this
issue as follows:
"As concerns the first type of work concerning the first matter, there was a suggestion that the
TCRO start to work on the technical rectifications of the Basket 1 decisions in connection with
the HS2002;  some delegations supported that suggestion.  Others were of the view that starting
the work on HS2002 rectifications would complicate the CRO's work on the HWP;  HS2002rectifications could be undertaken during the overall coherence exercise after all rules were
agreed upon.  With respect to the second type of work concerning the first matter, one delegation
stated that the amendment mechanism provided fo r in Article 6 of the Agreement should be set
after the completion of the HWP.
As concerns the second matter, several delegations stated that the CRO should advise the TCRO
not to address issues concerning preferential rules of origin, as this was outside the scope of the
TCRO's mandate, while others indicated alternative views.G/RO/M/29
Page 13
There was also a further observation that the request from the TCRO concerned whether or not
the TCRO needed a mandate to conduct its work concerning the rectifications."
6.3 The CRO took note of the statements made and agreed  to revert to this issue at its meeting
scheduled for July 2000.
VII. NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 5 AND PARAGRAPH 4 OF ANNEX II OF THE
AGREEMENT ON RULES OF ORIGIN
7.1 The Chairman recalled that since the meeting in October 1999, the Secretariat had circulated a
document informing delegations of the new notifications received (G/RO/N/27).  To date, 72 Members
had made notifications of non-preferential rules of origin and 75 Members had made notifications of
preferential rules of origin.
7.2 The Chairman expressed concern that a number of Members had not yet complied with the
notification requirements.  He urged Members who ha d not yet notified to do so as early as possible.
7.3 The CRO took note of the statement.
VIII.  ELECTION OF OFFICERS
8.1 The Chairman noted that the Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods (CTG) was mandated
to carry out informal consultations on a slate of names for appointment as Chairpersons of subsidiary
bodies in accordance with the established Guidelines for Appointment of Officers.  However, to date, theconsultations had not yet been completed.  At the meeting of the CTG on 5 April 2000 it was agreed that
the present Chairpersons of the subsidiary bodies should continue in this function for one more meeting.
8.2 Given this situation, the CRO agreed to postpone the election of a Chairperson and
Vice-Chairperson of the Committee and take up this matter as soon as the Chairman of the CTG had
finalized his consultations.
IX. OTHER BUSINESS
(i) Agreement between the European Communities and the United States on rules of origin
9.1 The representative of India stated that India had participated as a third party in the consultations
between the EC and the US concerning the dispute on changes in rules of origin by the US, which took
place in 1996 and again in 1998.  The mutually agreed solution under the first set of consultations hadbeen circulated under Article 3.6 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement
of Disputes.  However, the mutually agreed solution on the second set of consultations had not yet been
circulated.  She wished to know what the settlement was so that they could examine the implications of
that settlement for India.
9.2 The representatives of Hong Kong, China and Malaysia
 supported India's request.
9.3 The representative of the United States stated that they intended to notify that solution to the
related WTO bodies and subsidiary bodies.
9.4 The CRO took note of the statements made.G/RO/M/29
Page 14
(ii) Date of the next meeting
9.5 The CRO agreed to hold its next meeting on Friday, 23 June 2000, on the basis of the following
agenda:
13 June 2000 (10 a.m.): Plurilateral meetings hosted by Argentina to discuss the product-
specific rules of chapters 1-3 and 16 (meat products) and 24 and
headings 22.04-22.08 (alcoholic beverages and tobacco)
(3 p.m.): Plurilateral meetings hosted by Norway to discuss the product-
specific rules of chapters 3 and 16 (fish products)
14 June 2000 (10 a.m.) Plurilateral meetings hosted by Mexico to discuss the product-
specific rules of chapter 4 (dairy products)
(3 p.m.): Plurilateral meetings hosted by the Czech Republic to discuss the
product-specific rules of chapters 6 and 9 and heading 21.01(coffee, spices and flowers)
15 June 2000 (10 a.m.) Plurilateral meetings hosted by Brazil to discuss the product-
specific rules of chapters 7, 8 and 20 and headings 21.02-22.07
and 23.08 (vegetable, fruit and nut products)
16 June 2000 (10 a.m.): Plurilateral meetings hosted by Pakistan to discuss the product-
specific rules of chapter 15 (animal and vegetable oils)
(3 p.m.) Plurilateral meetings hosted by Malaysia to discuss the product-
specific rules of chapters 17 and 18 (sugar and cocoa products)
19 June 2000 (10 a.m.): Plurilateral meetings hosted by Chile to discuss the product-
specific rules of chapters 12-14 and 19 (oil seeds, lac and gums,vegetable plaiting, cereal products) and notes of chapters 5, 10
and 11
(3 p.m.) Plurilateral meetings hosted by the United States to discuss the
product-specific rules of chapters 84, 85 and 90 (machinery)
20 June 2000 (10 a.m.): " "
21-22 June 2000 (10 a.m.): Plurilateral meetings hosted by the European Communities to
discuss the overall architecture
23 June 2000 (10 a.m.): Informal meeting
23 June 2000 (3 p.m.): Formal meeting
9.6 The CRO requested, as suggested by the representative of New Zealand, that the Secretariat
provide a factual background note for the July stocktaking meeting, including the following elements:
(i) the number of outstanding issues, including a breakdown to the number of sub-issues as well as a
categorization of outstanding issues into horizontal i ssues and product-specific issues;  (ii) the number of
issues on which consensus decisions had been made;  and (iii) the number of plurilaterals held on both theoverall architecture and the product-specific chapters since the TCRO's submission of the final input,
being broken down into the number of days that had been taken up for each of those chapters and the
architecture.  This note should take into account the results of the work done by the CRO at the meeting
in June.
(iii) Workshops/seminars on rules of originG/RO/M/29
Page 15
9.7 The CRO thanked the WTO and WCO Secretariats for their hard work in the delivery of the
technical workshop/seminar on rules of origin which had taken place from 30-31 March 2000.  Many
Members indicated that a follow-up seminar would be useful.
9.8 The representative of the World Customs Organization stated that workshops on rules of origin
would be held at the WCO headquarters in Brussels from 8-12 and 15-19 May 2000.
__________