RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/MA/M/28
28 May 2001
(01-2659)
Committee on Market Access
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 21 MARCH 2001
Chairman:  Mr. Christophe Kiener (Switzerland)
Agenda of the Meeting  Page
1. Periodic Report of the Committee to the Council for Trade in Goods including
Factual Information on Waivers Expiring on 30 April 2001 (G/MA/SPEC/17) .............1
2. Submission of HS96 Documentation (G/MA/TAR/2/Rev.24) ...........................................3
3. HS2002 Procedures............................................................................................................ ...4
4. Modalities and Operation of the Integrated Data Base (IDB) ..........................................4
(a) Status of submission of the requir ed documentation (G/MA/IDB/2/Rev.10).........................4
(b) Progress report on the work  done by the Secretariat ..............................................................5
(c) A Multilateral Appraisal of the operation of the Integrated Data Base and related technical
assistance activitie s (G/MA/IDB/4)........................................................................................6
5. Consolidated Tariff Schedules Database Project...............................................................7
6. Notifications of Quantitative Re strictions (G/MA/NTM/QR/W/1) ..................................9
7. Notifications under the Decision on Reverse Notification of Non-Tariff Measures
(G/MA/NTM/W/3/Rev.1)......................................................................................................9
8. Seminar on Tariff Matters .................................................................................................109. Other Business............................................................................................................... ......10
(a) Tariff information availa ble in the Se cretariat......................................................................10
(b) Date of the next meeting.................................................................................................... ...10
10. Election of Chairperson..................................................................................................... .10
Introduction
The Chairman stated that the proposed agenda for this meeting was circulated in
WTO/AIR/1501 on 7 March 2001.  An annotated agenda indicating the documents needed for the
meeting was circulated as Job No. 1622.  The agenda was adopted with the additions of items under
9(a) and 9(b).
1. Periodic Report of the Committee to the Co uncil for Trade in Goods including Factual
Information on Waivers Expiring on 30 April 2001 (G/MA/SPEC/17)
1.1 The Chairman drew the Committee's attenti on to document G/MA/SPEC/17 which contained
the draft periodic report of the Committee.  This report, which would be finalized in the light of the
discussion today, would be submitted to the Council for Trade in Goods for examination at itsmeeting of 18 April 2001.  The report summarized the factual information on waivers in Annexes I
and II.  Since the issuance of this document, requests for waiver extensions were also received from
Morocco and Switzerland, thus they should be ad ded to Annex I.  All waivers would expire on 30
April 2001.G/MA/M/28
Page 2
1.2 As concerned the HS96 waiver, a draft decision on a further extension was circulated in
document G/C/W/255 dated 19 March 2001.  To date, 20 Members had forwarded to the Secretariat
requests for the extension of their waivers. The list of those Members is reproduced in both
documents G/C/W/255 and Annex I of G/MA/SPEC/17.  He noted there were several informal
consultations held on the format of the HS96 waivers.  At the formal meeting of 12 October 2000,certain delegations had stated that it was time to change the present system of a collective decision for
HS96 waiver extensions to individual waiver decisions.  Certain other Members were not in favour of
this approach.  Thus, at the informal meeting of the Committee on 2 February, this subject was taken
up and further consultations were held.  As a result, on 19 March, an agreement was reached whereby
the waiver to be granted would be the last collective waiver issued for a period of one year, instead of
the usual six months.  Additionally, the Decision states that all documentation must be provided.  All
of these changes were reflected in the new draft decision, document G/C/W/255.
1.3 The delegate of Morocco stated that in November 2000, his delegation submitted the necessary
documentation regarding transposition of its tariff schedules for HS96, however, the concordance
tables had not yet been sent in.  As concerned the first concordance of HS92 to HS96, his office in
Geneva had recently received this information from capital and would be forwarding it to theSecretariat.  For the second concordance, given the technical work required, his delegation would
notify this to the Secretariat in mid-April, and in any case before the end of the present waiver
extension.  The request for an extension of the waiver was requested in order to enable his delegation
to carry out the necessary requirements.
1.4 The delegate of South Africa stated that his delegation was pleased to reach a consensus on a
collective waiver, as South Africa was one of the applicants.  He appreciated the fact that the waiver
was for a period of one year, as this would allow his delegation to submit the outstanding information
which had not yet been verified by his capital.  He stated that they would be submitting the
outstanding information by July and hoped other Members would consider this proposal favourably.
1.5 The delegate of Mexico stated that they had recently received a communication from Canada
whereby Canada had lifted the reservation on the Mexican documentation for the transposition to
HS96.  As this was the only reservation placed on the Mexican schedule, he had informed the
Secretariat that Mexico would not require a waiver extension and requested that changes be made to
the relevant documents, G/C/W/255 and the periodic report (G/MA/SPEC/17), which the Committee
would be submitting to the Council for Trade in Goods.
1.6 The delegate of Panama stated his support for the Chairman's proposal regarding the situation
of Panama concerning the submission of documentation.  He stated that his delegation was in a
position to submit the greater part of the documentation by the end of March and the remaining
documentation in time so that a substantial scrutiny of the entire range of documents could be madebefore time ran out at the end of July.  He hoped consensus support could be reached on this proposal
so that progress could be made on the issue.
1.7 The delegate of the European Communities stated his delegation's support for the proposal.  He
thanked those delegations that had spoken for their statements, as this was a welcome development.
However, he noted a problem with the French versi on of the draft decision (G/C/W/255); in the first
sub-paragraph, the English text read "shall have submitted all documentation required", but the
French text stated that the Member concerned should have "submitted the required documentation".
He noted that the French text should be corrected, and he also pointed out a similar problem with the
Spanish translation.
1.8 The delegate of the United States noted that his delegation had stated previously at the meeting of
12 October 2000, that they would be unable to support a further extension of a "collective waiver".  Their
position was clear and the reasons were well known.  He appreciated the Chairman's efforts to addressG/MA/M/28
Page 3
this issue with a balanced compromise.  Thus, his delegation was willing to support a compromised
approach of one last waiver for a period of one year.
1.9 The delegate of Canada stated that his delegation was one of those who had stated they could no
longer support the continuation of the collective waiver, as it would not allow the process to move
forward.  However, based on the recent developments, he was prepared to join the consensus on the
Chairman's proposal.
1.10 The delegate of India noted that their position had been to support the continuation of the waivers
on a collective basis, and the document before the Committee today sought to compromise the position of
India and others on the matter.  For the record, she stated that her delegation accepted this compromise
with the understanding that subparagraph (v), regarding the fact it was a last collective waiver, would notprejudice the modalities that might be adopted in the HS2002 process.  It would not preclude the use of
collective waivers in that exercise at the point in time.
1.11 The delegate of Norway agreed with the Chairman's proposal.  Additionally, he noted they were
finalizing a reply to one Member, which he hoped would end the HS96 process for them in the near
future.
1.12 The delegate of Brazil noted that they had always favoured the collective waiver approach since
it seemed the most pragmatic answer.  However, he indicated they would accept the compromise
proposed by the Chairman.
1.13 The delegate of Pakistan noted that their views on this matter were well known, and thus
associated himself with the statements of India and Brazil on this matter.1.14 The delegate of Egypt reiterated what her delegation stated at the informal meetings, that the
collective waiver approved was the most appropriate but they could accept the Chairman's proposal, as it
was a compromise and it did not prejudice the rights of Members to ask for individual waivers thereafter.
1.15 The Chairman confirmed that the French and Spanish texts would be corrected accordingly and
the Committee took note of the statements made and agreed  to forwarded the draft decision to the
Council for Trade in Goods for further action.
1.16 Furthermore, the Chairman noted that the details concerning the Members which had requested
an extension of their respective waivers for either the transposition of their schedules in the
Harmonized System or the renegotiation of their schedule following the introduction of the
Harmonized System were contained in Annex II  of document G/MA/SPEC/17.  These extensions
concerned Nicaragua, Sri Lanka and Zambia.  The requests and the draft decisions related to theseextensions had been circulated in documents G/L/440, 442, 443 and G/C/W/250, 251, 252 and would
be considered by the Council for Trade in Goods at  its meeting of 18 April and then forwarded to the
General Council for adoption.  The Committee agreed to forward the draft decisions to the Council for
Trade in Goods for adoption.
2. Submission of HS96 Documentation (G/MA/TAR/2/Rev.24)
2.1 The Chairman stated that according to the provisions contained in the General Council
Decision of 8 December 2000, extending the time-limit of the waivers granted to Members that had
requested it until 30 April 2001 (reference to document WT/L/379), it was envisaged that the
Members concerned would submit by this date the complete documentation related to the introductionof HS96 changes in their WTO schedules, and that in special circumstances they could request
technical assistance from the Secretariat.  The Committee had before it document
G/MA/TAR/2/Rev.24 which reflected the present situat ion concerning the submission of the required
documentation.  From the document, it could be noted that the submissions of twenty-one Members,G/MA/M/28
Page 4
whether they have requested an extension of waivers or not, remained pending due to ongoing
consultations and/or negotiations.
2.2 He reported on the informal consultations that had occurred on this matter.  As was agreed at
the formal meeting of 12 October 2001, further informal meetings of the Committee were held on 24November 2000 and 26 February 2001 to review the status of HS96 submissions.  Informal lists
"Revision 6" and "Revision 7" detailing the situa tion of HS96 submissions were faxed to all Members
when these informal meetings were convened.   As this process seemed to be useful in achieving
progress, he recommended another meeting be held on 21 May 2001.  A "Revision 8" of the informal
list detailing the situation of HS96 submissions would be issued along with the fax convening this
meeting.
2.3 The delegate of India noted that there were some Members who did not have a waiver, yet
their schedules containing HS96 changes were not finalized or certified.  She wanted to note this
factual matter so that the entire situation was clear.
2.4 The delegate of Japan noted his delegation's concern with the HS96 process, especially the
aspect of the collective waiver.  Thus, he encouraged those delegations that had not finished the HS96
transposition exercise to finish their work in a timely manner.  In this regard, he supported the
Chairman's proposal to continue the review process.
2.5 The Committee took note of the statements made.
3. HS2002 Procedures
3.1 The Chairman recalled that at the last formal Committee meeting of 12 October 2000, many
delegations expressed appreciation for the process that was recently launched with respect to possible
procedures to implement HS2002 changes into WTO tariff schedules.  At that time document Job no.5247 had been issued and was generally well received by Members.  Furthermore, after more input
and feedback from Members, Job 5247/Add.1, Job 5247/Add.1/Rev.1 and Rev.2 were issued prior to
holding several informal meetings of the Committee on 24 November 2000, 2 February, 26 February
and 16 March 2001.  Thus, there was great effort achieved which should ultimately allow the
Committee to adopt new procedures for HS2002 changes.  However, at this point in time, it appeared
that the Committee was not yet in a position to adopt the procedures and that more informal
discussions would be needed.  As  you know, at the end of the informal meeting on 16 March 2001,
delegations were asked to consider alternative language relating to the deadline for submission of
documentation and delegations were asked to respond by 23 March 2001.  One delegation noted that
they would have comments to make, and agreed that these be submitted by 23 March 2001 also.
3.2 The Committee took note of the Chairman's statement.
4. Modalities and Operation of the Integrated Data Base (IDB)
(a) Status of submission of the requir ed documentation (G/MA/IDB/2/Rev.10)
4.1 The Chairman stated that document G/MA/IDB /2/Rev.10 has been circulated to all Members
and that it presented the situation as of 7 March 2001 with regard to the furnishing of PC IDB
submissions.  There were 76 Members and 2   acceding countries that provided IDB submissions at that
time.  Two additional Members had submitted documentation for the first time to the IDB since the
last revision of the Status of Submissions.  Si nce the document was finalized, new submissions had
been received from Brazil; Brunei Darussalam; Canada; Costa Rica; Ecuador; Honduras; Macau,
China; Malawi; Paraguay, the United States, and Uruguay.  He reminded delegations that the deadlinefor furnishing 1999 imports was 30 September 2000.G/MA/M/28
Page 5
4.2 The delegate of Switzerland stated that import statistics from 2000 had just been sent to the
mission in Geneva for transmittal to the Secretariat.
4.3 The delegate of Guatemala stated that they would have additional information to make to
their 2000 submission.4.4 The delegate of Panama informed the Committee that Panama recently submitted electronic
documents of information submitted in the past and they would soon be submitting new information
for 2001.
4.5 The Committee took note of the statements made.
(b) Progress report on the work done by the Secretariat
4.6 The Secretariat gave a progress report on the work done on the IDB.  With respect to IDB
dissemination, the Secretariat had continued to load information onto the IDB Internet site on a
monthly basis and as of 28 February 2001, there we re 222 country periods on the site, of which 213
were in the approved area.  Sixty-three Members and two acceding countries or territories wererepresented.  Release 5 of the IDB CD-ROM was distributed in December 2000 and release 6 was
scheduled for distribution in June 2001.
4.7 As concerned the use of IDB information, since October 2000 the Statistics Division had
provided IDB tariff and import data to the Secretariat Working Group on Least Developed Countries
for a study on Market Access for Least Developed Countries which would be part of the WTO
contribution to the third UN LDC conference to be held in Brussels in May 2001.  Since the data had
not been requested at the detailed tariff line level, it had not been necessary, in accordance with the
IDB dissemination policy, to seek agreement from concerned parties.  Also, IDB data was used for the
Secretariat special study "Market Access: Unfinished Business" which was being released next week.
4.8 The use of information from the Trade Policy Reviews was also noted, as there were ten
Members that were approached by the Chairman last June to obtain authorization to use TPR
information, five Members had yet to respond.  They were Bangladesh, Guinea, Trinidad and Tobago,
Papua New Guinea, and Tanzania.  Authorization to  use TPR data for the IDB would also be sought
from a number of Members who were requested to supply information before the automatic
authorization procedure was introduced, th is concerned Brunei, Cameroon, Gabon, Ghana,
Mozambique, and WTO Members of the Organiza tion of East Caribbean States.  Since the
introduction of the automatic request procedure, the Secretariat has been authorized to use the TPR
information of Malawi, Mauritius, Pakistan, the Slovak Republic and Uganda for the IDB, but so far,
Malaysia had not granted such authorization.
4.9 As concerned technical assistance activities, the Secretariat had undertaken three recently, and
these included a presentation on the IDB at a seminar on Trade and Investment Information
Networking in the ECO Region in Turkey, a national seminar in Doha (Qatar), and a seminar for the
APEC Secretariat in Beijing.  Technical assistance planned for the near future included a regional
seminar in South Africa for nine English-speaking African countries, including an additional day formore in-depth consultations with South Africa; a regional seminar for Central and Eastern European
countries in Prague, and a mission in Brussels for Brussels-based missions to the WTO.   There have
also been requests for technical assistance from the Domincan Republic, India, and Sri Lanka.  With
respect to having more IDB hands-on workshops, with particular emphasis on using the IDB, further
workshops could be arranged if required.
4.10 As concerned the PC data entry software project being developed by SIECA, and the Inter-
American development Bank for the FTAA negotiations, twelve countries of the Americas were now
using the software for submissions to the Hemispheric Data Base and once the data were entered, theyG/MA/M/28
Page 6
could automatically be transformed into an IDB submission.  A number of technical workshops on
data capture had been given and participants were always informed that the software could be used for
IDB  submissions.  Four meetings on data capture were programmed for 2001.  There were in addition
four technical workshops programmed in 2001 for FTAA negotiators:  Mercosur plus Chile; Andean
Group; Central America, Panama, the Domincan Republic and Mexico; and for CARICOM.  TheWTO Secretariat was expecting the latest version of the software for testing and evaluation in May,
and were waiting for the final English and Spanish versions of the user Manual which are to be
translated into French. A Secretariat's assessment of the software for preparing IDB submissions
would be forthcoming.
4.11 As concerned the status of submissions re port (G/MA/IDB/2/Rev.10), there were changes
made to clarify the recording of Members' provisions of national correlations in the status of
submissions documents so as to indicate where corr elation tables were not required.  This concerned
the inclusion of "not applicable" in the column for cases where no correlation tables were deemed
necessary.  Delegations were welcome to request clarifications from the Secretariat as to the list of
tariff lines for which correlations would be required.
4.12 As concerned IDB Reporting Tools, a new vers ion (2.0) of the IDB Reporting Tools in the
three official language versions was posted on the Internet site on 22 December 2000.  The significant
changes from the previous version were new produc t selection, new reports, new trade weights, and
improved performance of the application.  Further work was to upgrade the application to MS Office
2000.
4.13 The current IDB Internet Analysis Facility has been developed for reporter selection,
nomenclature selection, product selection, selection criteria on duties, previewing the elements of the
query, and displaying the tariff line detail report.  Further elements to be added to the application
include calculation of trade aggregates, trade selection criteria, development of summary reports,developing reports and selection criteria to operate on more than one reporter and year at a time, and
saving and re-using queries.  Other work to be carried out included setting up the infrastructure of the
server housed at the International Computing Ce ntre (ICC), which would be used to make the
application available to Members via the Internet.  The Secretariat encountered a lot of unexpected
technical problems with the development tools used  for this application, but was able to eventually
resolve them and begin working on the interface.  Barring other technical difficulties, a prototype with
some extended functionality might be made available to Members soon.  Passwords for the InternetFile Transfer Facility would be changed in Ju ne 2001 and new passwords would be communicated to
Heads of Delegations well in advance of the changeover.
4.14 The Committee took note of the Secretariat's statement.
(c) A Multilateral Appraisal of the operation of the Integrated Data Base and related technical
assistance activities (G/MA/IDB/4)
4.15 The Chairman stated that after agreement at its last formal meeting on 18 December 2000, the
Committee held its first informal regional meeting on 19 March 2001 for the "Multilateral Appraisal
of the Operation of the IDB and Related Technical Assistance Activities" for the region of North andLatin America, and in this connection, the Secretariat had prepared document G/MA/IDB/W/8 for this
meeting.
4.16 In summary, there were 34 Members of the region that were invited by letter to the meeting,
17 participated and made presentations. They stressed the coordinated efforts of national institutionsto provide data and they mentioned the difficulties encountered in this process such as the different
formats of the underlying data sources and resource constraints.  There were a number of suggestions
made with respect to technical assistance activities – organize additional workshops in Geneva andG/MA/M/28
Page 7
capitals on how to use the IDB, develop closer coordination with regional organizations, and to
investigate the use of teleconferencing.
4.17 Several Members reported problems in the submission of current bound rates.  One Member
indicated its intention to submit its CTS final bound rates for inclusion in the IDB.  Others alsomentioned the usefulness of the CTS in this respec t.  Members also showed concern regarding the
gaps observed in the submission of correlation tables.  Cooperation with the Secretariat would be
sought to close those gaps.  The absence of al l non-resident Members raised concern as small
delegations and those with no resident missions in Geneva were predominant among the Members not
submitting information to the IDB.
4.18 At the outcome of the meeting it was agreed that the Secretariat would report on any follow-
up activities, Members not present at the first meeting would be able to make a presentation at the
next meeting, and the Chairman would send a letter to all Members of the region presenting a factual
summary of the discussion including alternative sources of information if the Member had not made
an IDB submission.  As indicated in document G/MA /IDB/4, the Secretariat would prepare a report of
the regional meetings for the consideration of the Committee on Market Access at the end of all theMultilateral Appraisal meetings for all regions which were scheduled on 15 May (Western and
Eastern Europe including Baltic St ates and CIS), 11 June (Africa), and 4 July (Asia including Middle
East).
4.19 The delegate of Canada stated the importance of the appraisal process and suggested that for
the upcoming appraisals that Members try to engage as fully as possible-- to try and submit papers on
the problems they have had in making submissions or alternatively the success they have had, and the
effectiveness of the technical assistance activities.  This would help the Committee in assessing the
situation and in deciding on how to go forward.
4.20 The Committee took note of the statements made.
5. Consolidated Tariff Schedules Database Project
5.1 The Secretariat gave a progress report on the Consolidated Tariff Schedules (CTS) database
project.  As concerned the tariff concessions, the Secretariat had consolidated the tariff concessions of
112 Members, including Switzerland.  Provisional database files had been sent to all these Members
for approval and modifications were requested by a number of Members during the approval process.A management database had been created to handle the administration of the CTS, and the main
elements of the database had been documented, for example, processing notes, concordance
procedures, standardized solutions to recurring problems in the consolidation process, etc.
Outstanding issues with respect to the processing phase of the project that has been undertaken by the
Secretariat were that the concessions of the latest WTO Member, Croatia, need to be processed; themodifications requested by Colombia need to be incorporated into its database file; and three
Members (India, Singapore and Venezuela) indi cated that comments would be forthcoming with
respect to their database files.
5.2 A number of Members had committed to processing their Schedules themselves for inclusion
in the CTS database.  These were Australia, Canada, the EU, Japan, Hungary, Iceland, New Zealand,
Norway, Poland and the United States.  Australia, Canada, the EU, Hungary, Norway, and the United
States had submitted their files, and after review by the Secretariat, the database files of all but
Australia had been finalized.  The Secretariat processed the tariff concessions of Japan at the request
of that Member.  The CTS tariff submissions of New Zealand and Poland had not yet been submitted
to the Secretariat.
5.3 As concerned agricultural commitments, work on this phase of the CTS project began in
November 2000 with continued funding from the United Kingdom Government.  The Secretariat hadG/MA/M/28
Page 8
completed the processing for all the 32 developing Members with agricultural commitments.  As of
20 March 2001, the draft database files had been sent to 21 Members for approval.  The remaining 11
files were expected to be sent to the Members concerned for approval by the end of March 2001, after
the comments from the agricultural expert were incorporated.  Thus, it was expected that the last files
would be finalized by the middle of May 2001. 
5.4 Members who processed the tariff concessions themselves, including Switzerland, had also
committed to processing their agricultural commitmen ts themselves for inclusion in the CTS database.
The Secretariat had received files from Australia, the EU, Hungary and Norway.  Of these, the files of
the EU and Hungary had been finalized.  The Secretariat has just begun processing the agricultural
commitments of Japan at their request.  Canada, Poland, New Zealand, Switzerland and the United
States had not yet submitted their files to the Secretariat.  As concerned Iceland, a CTS submissionhad just been electronically forwarded to the Secretariat, but there were technical problems opening
the files, so nothing more could be determined at this time.
5.5 After the processing phase of the CTS, a few software developments aimed at disseminating
the CTS were being undertaken or envisaged within existing resources.  The Secretariat requested the
International Computing Centre to create a new "area" on the IDB site for the CTS.  The Secretariat
would post Members' CTS files to the site from which authorized users could download the databases.
The new area was being tested and a few corrections would need to be made to the software, after
which the posting of files could commence.  The availability to Members could be implemented at
any time after all files had been posted.  The Secretariat could also distribute CD-ROMs containingthe Access format and text format CTS files.  Depending on the number of revisions to the CTS files,
the CD-ROMs could be re-issued periodically.
5.6 With respect to analytical facilities, it would be difficult in the short-term to begin their
development with existing resources.  However, once the IDB Internet Analysis Facility was further
advanced, this software could be used as a basis to develop an Internet application for the CTS.  For
instance, the functionality for reporter and nomenclature selection, product selection, and duty criteria
could be adapted to operate from the CTS tables.  On resources, the CTS team funded by the United
Kingdom has shrunk to one statistician, and the extra resource requested in the context of the 2001
budget exercise needed to enable the Statistics Division to support the CTS database properly was not
forthcoming.
5.7 In connection with the study on Market Access for Least Developed Countries being prepared
by the Secretariat Working Group on Least Developed Countries, the Working Group would like to
include bound duties at the HS 6 digit level in the study. If the Statistics Division were to prepare the
bound duties for the Secretariat  Working Group, the only comprehensive up-to-date source would be
the CTS data base files.  Therefore clarification was sought from the Committee as to whether theCTS files could be used for this purpose.
5.8 The delegate of Uruguay noted that with respect to the CTS file of Uruguay, they had
received temporary authorization pending further comments to the Secretariat on the document.  Thus,
Uruguay would be sending in definitive comments on the files in the future.
5.9 The delegate of Panama referred to the tools for the IDB, and noted that the Secretariat stated
that these would be updated in order to be compatible with Office 2000.  His delegation would not be
able to upgrade to Office 2000 until 2002, and thus asked if this would be problematic.
5.10 The Secretariat stated that they would be ma intaining two versions of the software, one for
the 97 version and another for the 2000 version, so it should not be a problem.
5.11 The delegate of India noted two suggestions from the Secretariat in its report with respect to
the possibility of CD-rom distribution of the CTS, and the use of this data for the LDC market accessG/MA/M/28
Page 9
study.  Her delegation questioned whether all the CTS files could be used as not all of them were
finalized and suggested that the Committee revert to this matter in the near future.
5.12 The delegate of Hungary did not see too much difficulty as the request was to use 6-digit
codes, which would not divulge tariff-specific data.  However, he noted that the CTS would be
disseminated once it was finalized, noting the comment of India.
5.13 The Secretariat noted that the CTS CD-rom would be issued when the Committee agreed that
it could be issued.  She confirmed that the information for the LDC study would be used at the 6-digit
level.
5.14 The Chairman stated that there was some ur gency to provide the information for the LDC
study, as it was needed in May 2001.
5.15 The delegate of Canada recognized the time constraint and noted that Canada had no problem
in the use of their data, however he noted the dissemination decision that was taken previously.  He
stated that given the usefulness of the study, the Committee should reflect upon this further.
5.16 The delegate of the European Communities noted that this was the first time this matter had
been raised, and he reserved his position on the matter.  However, he supported the statement of
Canada.
5.17 The Chairman suggested that the Committee ho ld informal consultations on the matter as
soon as possible and take note of the statements made.
6. Notifications of Quantitative Restrictions (G/MA/NTM/QR/W/1)
6.1 The Chairman reported that at the 12 October 2000 formal meeting of the Committee,
delegations were informed that there was a problem registering in the database Quantitative
Restriction (QR) notifications made by some Members in the area of textiles and clothing.  The
problem was that in the case of textiles and clothing for some countries, the format used to notify
under the provisions of the Agreement on Textiles  and Clothing (ATC) was not always compatible
with the format to be used for the database.  Document G/MA/NTM/QR/W/1 noted that some of the
notifications made under the ATC, quota levels were set out according to categories which contained
many HS lines.  These categories were often different in each of the countries concerned.  Thedatabase called for information by individual HS lines, and therefore it was not possible for the
Secretariat to identify and separate these individual HS lines from the category groupings for some
notifications.
6.2 To deal with this situation and any future such situations where  there was a problem to
include quantitative restrictions in the database, the proposal was that the Secretariat would introduce
an explanatory note in the country notes that it maintained, explaining that for example, the ATC
quota lists were contained in other documents, giving the reference symbols of these documents,
without attempting to incorporate them in the QR database.  The Committee took note of the
document and it was so agreed.
7. Notifications under the Decision on Reverse Notification of Non-Tariff Measures
(G/MA/NTM/W/3/Rev.1)
7.1 The Chairman drew the Committee's attention to the "Decision on Reverse Notification of
Non-Tariff Measures" dated 1 December 1995.   In the Decision, it was envisaged that "the
Committee shall, at two-yearly intervals on the occasion of the review of the notifications of
quantitative restrictions, review the reverse notifications of non-tariff measures received on the basis
of Secretariat analyses".   However, only one reverse notification was received in 1996, and it was feltG/MA/M/28
Page 10
that it would be preferable to wait for more notifications before issuing a document.  To date no
additional notifications had been received.  But nevertheless a review was to be conducted pursuant to
this Decision, and document G/MA/NTM/W/3/Rev.1 had been prepared by the Secretariat for this
purpose.
7.2 The Committee reviewed the situation outl ined in document G/MA/NTM/W/3/Rev.1 and
took note of the Chairman's statement.
8. Seminar on Tariff Matters
8.1 The Chairman stated that over the last day and a half, a "Tariff Seminar" was held as a result
of a proposal by Members to do so.  As envisioned, the tariff seminar covered many aspects in the
WTO with respect to tariff negotiations, renegotiations, the Harmonized System, WTO Schedules ofconcessions, the Results of the Uruguay Round, and the IDB and CTS databases. The seminar was
well attended and appeared to be very useful to delegations as it contained much of the core work of
the Committee.
8.2 The Committee took note the Chairman's statement.
9. Other Business
(a) Tariff information available in the Secretariat
9.1 The Chairman noted document G/MA/TAR/3/Rev. 6 which contained a revised and updated
list of tariffs available to the Secretariat.   He encouraged Members to submit the most recent version
of their customs tariffs if they had not already done so, as it was important to have updated
information in the tariff library for consultation by delegations, members of the Secretariat, private
parties, students etc.  He also stated that if any Member felt that its national tariff information
submitted to the TPRM or the IDB could be used in the tariff library, they should inform the
Secretariat accordingly.
9.2 The delegate of Estonia recalled that two meetings ago her delegation pointed out to the
Secretariat that information in this document related to Estonia was not up to date.  Her delegation
considered their IDB submission to be the most relevant and up to date information to be used in this
respect.
9.3 The Committee took note of the statements made.
(b) Date of the next meeting
9.4 The Chairman stated that the next meeting of the Committee was scheduled for 15 June 2001,
subject to confirmation.
10. Election of Chairperson
10.1 The Chairman stated that the Rules of Procedure for meetings of the Committee provided that
the Committee elect a Chairperson at the end of the first meeting of the new year.  The Chairman of
the Council for Trade in Goods had completed cons ultations on a slate of names for appointment of
chairpersons of standing bodies in accordance w ith the established guidelines for appointment of
officers.  On the basis of this understanding, he propos ed Mr. Yair Shiran (Israel) as Chairperson of the
Committee.  It was so agreed.G/MA/M/28
Page 11
10.2 He also pointed out that Rule 12 of the Rule s and Procedures also allowed the possibility of
electing a Vice-Chairperson.  He proposed that Ms. Lourdes Berrig (Philippines) continue in her
capacity as Vice-Chairperson for the coming year.  It was so agreed.
10.3 Many delegations took the floor to congratulate and express appreciation to the incoming andoutgoing Chairmen and the Vice-Chairperson.
__________