WORLD TRADE G/TMB/R/26
26March 1997
ORGANIZATION(97-1268)
Textiles Monitoring Body
REPORT OFTHE TWENTY-SEVENTH MEETING
1. TheTextiles Monitoring Body helditstwenty-seventh meeting on10to12and24March 1997.
2. Present atthismeeting werethefollowing members and/or alternates/second alternates, and
observers:Mrs.Dwarka-Canabady;Messrs.Malik/Lam;Mukerji/Ms.Shahin;MissOrozcoJaramillo/
Messrs. DaCosta eSilva; Rey/Zapedowski/Urkan; Richards; Saeki; Wentzel; Tadpitakkul; Tagliani;
Tong/Kim.
3. TheTMB adopted thereport ofitstwenty-sixth meeting (G/TMB/R/25).
Notification under Article 2.1oftheAgreement onTextiles andClothing (ATC)
4. TheTMB tooknoteofanaddition made bytheUnited States, following Bulgaria ’saccession
totheWTO, toitsnotification under paragraph 1ofArticle 2(G/TMB/N/63/Add.9). Thisnotification
wasmade inaccordance withtherelevant provisions included intheReport oftheWorking Party on
theAccession ofBulgaria totheWTO, according towhich “...the quantitative restrictions maintained
byWTO Members onimports oftextiles andclothing products originating inBulgaria thatareinforce
onthedateprior tothedateoftheaccession ofBulgaria totheWTO shallbenotified totheTextiles
Monitoring Body (TMB) asbeing thebaselevels forthepurpose ofapplication ofArticles 2and3
oftheWTO Agreement onTextiles andClothing. [...]Tothese baselevels theincrease ingrowth
ratesprovided forinArticles 2.13and2.14oftheAgreement onTextiles andClothing shallbeapplied,
asappropriate, fromthedateofaccession ofBulgaria totheWTO ”(WT/ACC/BGR/5, paragraph 48).
TheTMB understood thatthegrowth ratesinthisnotification would beincreased annually inaccordance
withparagraphs 13and14ofArticle 2oftheATC.
Notifications under Articles 2.8(a) and2.11oftheATC
5. Inaddition tothereview ithadstarted atprevious meetings (G/TMB/R/23, paragraph 6and
G/TMB/24, paragraph 6),theTMB alsobegan itsreview under paragraph 21ofArticle 2ofthe
programmes ofintegration notified pursuant toparagraphs 8(a)and11ofArticle 2bysome other
Members, and,seeking further information andclarification from some ofthem, decided torevert
toitsreview atasubsequent meeting. Inthemeantime, pursuant toparagraph 11ofArticle 2,the
TMB iscirculating these additional notifications toWTO Members.
Notifications under Article 2.17oftheATC
6. TheTMBstarteditsreviewofadministrativearrangementsnotifiedbytheUnitedStatespursuant
toparagraph 17ofArticle 2anddecided torevert tothisreview atasubsequent meeting.
Notification under Articles 8.5and4.2
7. TheTMBtooknoteofacommunicationreceivedfromthePhilippinesthat,inviewofamutually
agreed solution between thePhilippines andtheUnited States, itrequested thatthematter ithadraised,G/TMB/R/26
Page2
pursuant toparagraphs 5ofArticle 8and2ofArticle 4,regarding changes intheUnited States 'rules
oforigin, should beremoved fromtheTMB’sagenda ofitstwenty-seventh meeting. Thiswaswithout
prejudice tothePhilippines ’rights under theATC, inparticular under itsArticle 8.
Notification under Article 8.10oftheATC
Hong Kong/Brazil: imports ofwoven artificial filament fabrics (category 618)
8. TheTMB received acommunication fromHong Kong under paragraph 10ofArticle 8,related
tothesafeguard measure introduced byBrazil pursuant toparagraph 11ofArticle 6oftheATC on
imports ofproducts ofcategory 618(woven artificial filament fabrics) fromHong Kong. Themeasure
hadbeenintroduced witheffect asfrom1June1996. Bilateral consultations hadtaken place between
Brazil andHong Kong pursuant toparagraph 11ofArticle 6andhadbeeninconclusive. BothMembers
hadnotified thisoutcome totheTMB within thedeadline envisaged inparagraph 11ofArticle 6.
TheTMB hadexamined thismatter atitsmeetings on9to11September and4to6November 1996,
andtheTMB’sobservations, findings andrecommendations hadbeenmade available toWTO Members
inanotebytheTMB’sChairman dated 8November 1996(G/TMB/9). Thefullreport oftheTMB’s
review ofthismatter hadbeencirculated indocuments G/TMB/R/16 andG/TMB/R/20. TheTMB
hadsubsequently taken note, atitsmeeting on17to19December 1996, ofacommunication received
fromBrazil that"inaccordance withparagraph 9ofArticle 8oftheATC, theBrazilian Government
shallendeavour toaccept infulltherecommendations oftheTMB concerning transitional safeguards
applied toimports ofcategory 618(woven artificial filament fabrics) [...]fromHong Kong, contained
indocument G/TMB/9". TheGovernment ofBrazil also"reserved itsrights under paragraph 12of
Article 6oftheATC inrelation tosuchrecommendations" (G/TMB/R/22, paragraph 11).
9. Hong Kong’scommunication under paragraph 10ofArticle 8,received bytheTMB within
thetime-frame envisaged inthisparagraph, conveyed Hong Kong’sinability toconform withthe
recommendation theTMB hadmade, which allowed fortherestraint toremain inplace atlatest until
31December 1997. Thereasons given byHong Kong initscommunication were:
- thatadetermination ofserious damage should notbemade almost entirely byreference
toinappropriate factual data, i.e.datarelating toamuch broader industry thanthe
particular industry inrespect ofwhich damage wasclaimed;
- thateveniftheTMB considered thatthefactual dataprovided byBrazil forthebroader
industry wererelevant totheindustry manufacturing woven fabrics ofartificial filament
yarn(despite themarked disparity insizesofdifferent industries covered bythefactual
data), theTMB should havetaken intoconsideration thattheindustry manufacturing
woven fabrics ofartificial filament yarnhadperformed much better thanthebroader
industry, aswasevident insuchdatarelating to,interalia,output andproduction
capacity; and
- thatevenifithadbeenconsidered proper fortheTMB tofindbyinference thatthe
industry manufacturing woven fabrics ofartificial yarnhadbeensuffering damage,
thecausal relationship ofsuchdamage found byinference andincreased quantities of
imports hadnotbeenreviewed bytheTMB.
Hong Kong, therefore, requested theTMB tore-consider thematter inthelightofthese reasons, and
toissue revised recommendations.
10. Duetoscheduling problems oftherequesting Member, theTMB could notstarttoreview
thismatter before itsmeeting on24to26February 1997. Attheinvitation oftheTMB, Hong Kong
andBrazil sentdelegations totheTMB’sreview.G/TMB/R/26
Page3
11. During thismeeting, therepresentative ofHong Kong stated thathisauthorities wereunable
toconform withtheTMB recommendation forthefollowing main reasons:
- Brazil hadfailed tofulfil itsobligations under paragraph 3ofArticle 6oftheATC
toexamine therelevant economic variables specific totheparticular industry (i.e.the
category 618industry) inrespect ofwhich Brazil hadclaimed tohavefound serious
damageandhadfailedtoprovidethedatarequiredundersub-paragraph(a)ofthesecond
sentence ofparagraph 7ofArticle 6oftheATC;
- interms ofprinciple, itwasinappropriate fortheTMB tomake adetermination of
seriousdamagebasedalmostentirelyondatarelatingtovariousmuchbroaderindustries
thantheparticular industry;
- principle apart, considering that,ascould bededuced from productivity, output and
employment datasubmitted byBrazil, thecategory 618industry represented only
0.5percentto1percentofthose broader industries, there were noeconomic or
statistical grounds fortheTMB todraw inferences from thedataprovided forsuch
much broader industries;
- eveniftheTMB considered thattheBrazilian dataprovided forthebroader industries
were relevant toBrazil ’scategory 618industry, theTMB should have taken into
consideration thatBrazil ’scategory 618industry hadperformed better thanthebroader
industries, aswasevident from thedatarelating tooutput andcapacity utilization;
- given thefactthattheTMB hadconcluded thatBrazil ’scategory 618industry was
suffering serious damage byinference from datarelating tobroader industries, the
TMB should have proceeded toexamine thecause ofthisdamage tothebroader
industries, i.e.whether itwasduetotechnological changes orchanges inconsumer
preference,beforedeterminingwhethertheinferreddamagetothecategory618industry
could beattributed toHong Kong.
12. Therepresentative ofBrazil questioned whether itwasHong Kong’sviewthatthedataprovided
byBrazil referred toadifferent industry from theonethatBrazil claimed itneeded protection. He
noted thatforindustries producing different linesofproducts, theaccounting rulesinmostcountries
didnotcallforproviding datasuchasthose referred toinparagraph 3ofArticle 6oftheATC for
eachandevery lineofproduct. Insuchcases, should estimates beused, orshould nodataatallbe
provided? Hequestioned whether theassessment ofthevariables mentioned inparagraph 3ofArticle 6
should bequantitative orqualitative andwhether, when oneoftheelements showed amarginal
improvement, thiswould cancel outtheother elements which showed asharp deterioration. Ifthe
assessment oftheexistence ofserious damage should becircumscribed tothatportion oftheindustry
producingproductsofcategory618,theeffectsofimportsshouldbeassessedwithrespecttothissegment
oftheindustry aswell. Heasked whether Hong Kong wasoftheviewthattechnological changes had
taken place withrespect tocategory 618,andwould explain suchalarge increase inimports. The
representative ofBrazil alsoquestioned whether itwasHong Kong’sviewthataninvestment inthe
Brazilian industry producing products ofcategory 618would beasound one.
13. TheTMB began athorough consideration ofthereasons andarguments putforward by
Hong Kong, aswellasofthecomments andclarifications provided byBrazil, and,inview ofthe
complexity ofthematter, decided torevert toit,andconclude itsconsideration atitsnextmeeting.
14. TheTMB recalled that,inaccordance withparagraph 10ofArticle 8,itwasrequired togive
thorough consideration tothereasons given bytheMember which considered itselfunable toconformG/TMB/R/26
Page4
withitsrecommendations, andissueanyfurther recommendations itconsidered appropriate forthwith.
TheTMB noted that,initsstatement before theTMB andinreplies toquestions, Hong Kong had
provided further clarification withrespect tothefundamental question ithadrequested theTMB to
review, i.e.whether adetermination ofserious damage canbemade almost entirely byreference to
datarelating tomuch broader industries thantheparticular industry inrespect ofwhich damage was
claimed.
15. TheTMB alsorecalled thatBrazil had,atthetimeitrequested consultations, provided
information toHong Kong withrespect toalltheeconomic variables referred toinparagraph 3of
Article 6,onwhich Brazil hadbased itsdetermination oftheexistence ofserious damage. This
information hadalsobeenmade available totheTMB. TheTMB noted thatHong Kong hadrightly
pointed out,astheTMB hadalsoobserved during itsreview ofthemeasure (G/TMB/R/20), thatsome
ofthedatapresented byBrazil related toabroader industry thanthatforwhich thedamage wasclaimed.
TheTMBnotedthatduringtheexaminationofthematterinSeptemberandNovember1996,HongKong
hadindicated that,during bilateral consultations, ithadsought more specific information fromBrazil
withrespect tosome ofthese economic variables. Brazil hadexplained thatnosuchspecific datawere
available. TheTMB further noted thatduring thatexamination ofthematter, Hong Kong hadargued
against thejustification ofthemeasure byreference toallthedataprovided byBrazil including those
which were related toabroader industry thanthecategory 618industry itself. Initspresentation,
Hong Kong’scomments regarding thequality ofthedataprovided byBrazil hadfocused primarily
onthelackofup-to-date information andontheabsence ofdataseries forseveral years, thatwould
make itpossible toidentify trends.
16. TheTMB, while recalling thatparagraph 10ofArticle 8didnotprovide anyexpress guidance
onthereasons which canbegiven byaMember foritsinability toconform withtherecommendations
oftheTMB, noted thatinthisparticular casethekeyreasons identified byHong Kong foritsinability
werebased onarguments which hadalready beenavailable, buthadnotbeenpresented byHong Kong
asacentral issue, during theBody’sexamination under theprovisions ofArticle 6ofthesafeguard
measure.
17. TheTMB recalled thattheissueofthespecificity oftheinformation tobeprovided totheWTO
Member affected bytheWTO Member taking anaction pursuant toArticle 6,atthetimeconsultations
weresought, hadbeenanimportant aspect intheTMB’sconsideration ofthismatter under paragraph 11
ofArticle 6.During itsreview ofthecaseinSeptember andNovember 1996theTMB, “while noting
theefforts made byBrazil toprovide Hong Kong withdataasrelevant andup-to-date aspossible at
thetimeoftherequest forconsultation andduring theconsultations, observed thatsome ofthedata
presented byBrazil related toawider segment ofproduction thanthatofcategory 618(woven artificial
filament fabrics)."1
18. TurningtothedetailedreasoningpresentedbyHongKongpursuanttoparagraph10ofArticle8,
theTMB noted that,intheview ofHong Kong, Article 6oftheATC required thatatleastallthe
economic variables mentioned inparagraph 3ofthatArticle should beexamined bytheimporting
Member, fortheparticular industry, inmaking itsdetermination oftheexistence ofserious damage,
oractual threat thereof. TheTMB noted inthisregard thatBrazil hadexplained thatithadexamined
alltheeconomic variables mentioned inparagraph 3ofArticle 6before making itsdetermination of
theexistence ofserious damage. Hong Kong hadfurther argued thatthesecond sentence,
sub-paragraph (a)ofparagraph 7ofArticle 6oftheATC suggested thatallthefactual information
provided bytheimporting Member hadtobespecific totheparticular industry, andthatBrazil had
beendeficient infulfilling thisprovision, since ithadprovided dataspecific totheparticular industry
1G/TMB/20, paragraph 8.G/TMB/R/26
Page5
onlywithrespect tofouroftheeconomic variables. Intheview oftheTMB, itfollowed from the
structure ofArticle 6oftheATC thatallthefactual information thathadbeenexamined inpursuance
ofparagraph 3ofthatArticle hadtobecommunicated bytheimporting Member totheMember or
Members affected bytheaction, andtotheTMB, since thiswasthebasis forbilateral consultations
andfortheTMB’ssubsequent consideration ofthematter. TheTMB alsonoted thatBrazil hadprovided
information withrespect totheeleven economic variables, among which datawere specific tothe
particular industry withrespect tofourofsuchvariables, aswellasonimport prices, avariable not
mentioned inparagraph 3ofArticle 6.Hong Kong furthermore questioned theTMB’sreference to
thethirdsentence ofparagraph 7ofArticle 6(paragraph 8ofG/TMB/R/20), sincetheterms “segment
ofproduction ”usedinparagraph 7ofArticle 6should, inHong Kong’sviewbeinterpreted ashaving
adifferent meaning fromtheterm“particular industry ”inparagraph 3ofthesameArticle. Therefore,
inHong Kong’sview, thedatanotspecific tothewoven artificial filament fabric industry were not
relevant formeeting therequirements setoutinparagraph 3ofArticle 6,anditwasinappropriate
fortheTMB todraw inferences fromsuchdata.TheTMB noted thatacareful consideration ofthese
arguments would imply, interalia,thattheBody would havetopronounce itselfonissues which would
require theadoption ofmore general interpretations oftheATC.2
19. Hong Kong hadfurther stated thatthe“particular industry ”wassosmall, relative tothebroader
industries forwhich datawereprovided, thatnovalid inferences regarding the“particular industry ”
could bedrawn from thisdata. TheTMB tooknoteofthereasoning andofthededuction made by
Hong Kong forcalculating therelative sizeofthe“particular industry ”,which wasbased inparton
thedatarelated tothese broader industries; suchdeductions could, therefore, onlybevalid provided
certain assumptions weremade. TheTMB alsonoted, however, thatBrazil hadprovided additional
indications regarding thesizeofproduction ofcategory 618relative tothesizeofthebroader industry
producing artificial andsynthetic fabrics, which confirmed toalarge extent thedeductions made by
Hong Kong.
20. TheTMB, recalling thatthough ithadpaidparticular attention during itsreview ofthematter
pursuant toparagraph 11ofArticle 6totheissue ofthespecificity ofinformation, recognized that
therelationship between thesizeofcategory 618andthesizeofthebroader industry referred toby
Brazil insome ofthedataprovided might nothavebeenperceived initsfullmagnitude.
21. Inthecontext oftherelationship between the"particular industry" andthebroader industries
Hong Kong hadstated that,during theexamination ofthematter pursuant toparagraph 11ofArticle 6,
theTMB hadconsidered thatonlyoneeconomic factor specific tocategory 618(domestic prices)
indicated thattheBrazilian industry wassuffering damage; another (output) wasanindication tothe
contrary, while thedecrease inmarket share andtheincrease intherelatively lowvolume ofexports
wereinconclusive. IntheviewofHong Kong, fourother economic factors (utilization ofcapacity,
employment, profits andinvestment) indicated, fortheTMB, thatdamage wasbeing suffered, while
productivity, inventories andwages wereconsidered nottosupport suchaconclusion, allthese data
being related tomuch broader industries thanBrazil 'swoven artificial filament fabric industry. Thus,
intheviewofHong Kong, theTMB presumably hadbased itsacceptance ofserious damage tothe
category 618industry almost entirely byinappropriate inferences ithaddrawn from datarelated to
much broader industries.
2Paragraph 2ofArticle IXoftheMarrakesh Agreement Establishing theWorld Trade Organization states
that"theMinisterialConferenceandtheGeneralCouncilshallhavetheexclusiveauthoritytoadoptinterpretations
ofthisAgreement andoftheMultilateral Trade Agreements. Inthecaseofaninterpretation ofaMultilateral
Trade Agreement inAnnex 1,theyshallexercise theirauthority onthebasis ofarecommendation bytheCouncil
overseeing thefunctioning ofthatAgreement".G/TMB/R/26
Page6
22. TheTMB observed that,inaddition toimports, Brazil hadprovided information specific to
category 618withrespect tooutput, market share, exports, domestic prices andimport prices; that
ithadprovided information relative toabroader industry withrespect toproductivity, utilization of
capacity, wages, employment, profits andinvestments; information regarding inventories wasnot
considered byBrazil toberelevant inthiscase. Thus, some important dataandfactual information
provided byBrazil wascategory-specific. TheTMB alsorecalled that,inassessing one-by-one the
developments inparticular economic variables, ithadkeptinmind thelackofspecificity ofsome of
thedataandalsotherelevant provisions oftheATC according towhich noneoftherelevant economic
variables, either alone orcombined withother factors, cannecessarily givedecisive guidance inmaking
adetermination ofserious damage. TheTMB could notshare theviewofHong Kong thattheBody
hadconsidered during itsreview ofthemeasure under paragraph 11ofArticle 6thatthedecrease in
theshare ofthedomestic market heldbyBrazilian manufacturers wasinconclusive inassessing the
stateoftheBrazilian industry. While noting that"theshare heldbydomestic manufacturers hadgone
down from64to35percent", ithadnotonlyobserved that"theATCdoesnotprovide forguaranteed
market shares" (G/TMB/R/20, paragraph 10),butalsostated that"thedataprovided anunambiguous
indication thattheindustry hadbeenunable totakeadvantage ofthesubstantial increase initsdomestic
market. Partofthestrength ofthedomestic demand could beattributed totheimplementation ofthe
economic stabilization programme, andinparticular totheliberalization ofimports undertaken byBrazil
during thelastdecade. Adjustment efforts hadbeenundertaken, which hadnotenabled theBrazilian
industry tocompete successfully withimports, inparticular given theprice levels prevailing inthe
Brazilian market" (G/TMB/R/20, paragraph 20).
23. Consequently, while theTMB didnotdisagree withthearguments ofHong Kong regarding
therelative sizeoftheindustry producing category 618products, itcould notaccept thecontention
that"since, asregards thedataspecific toBrazil 'swoven artificial filament fabric industry, theTMB
noted onepositive factor (output) andonenegative economic factor (domestic prices)", theTMB had
"presumably based itsacceptance thatserious damage toBrazil 'swoven artificial filament fabric industry
could bedemonstrated ontheinferences itdrew from datarelated tomuch broader industries".
24. TheTMB observed thattheadditional reasons given byHong Kong foritsinability toconform
withtherecommendation oftheBody assumed thattheTMB’sdetermination ofserious damage had
beenbased almost entirely onfindings drawn byinferences from, andtheunconditional acceptance
oftherelevance of,datarelating toabroader industry. Astheassumptions underlying thesearguments
hadnotbeenconfirmed bytheBody (seeparagraph 23above), theTMB wasoftheviewthatitwas
notnecessary toaddress these reasons insubstance.
25. Insumming uptheconsideration ithadgiven tothereasons presented byHong Kong, theTMB
agreed thatincaseofrecourse toArticle 6,itwasimportant toprovide asmuch factual information
anddataaspossible thatwasspecific totheproduct category itself, asproduct-specific information
anddatashould haveamajor impact ontheoverall assessment whether serious damage oractual threat
thereof could bedemonstrated.
26. Inthisregard andwithrespect totheparticular casebefore it,itwastheunderstanding ofthe
TMB thatHong Kong didnotdisagree withitinaccepting thatithadnotbeenpossible forBrazil to
provide category-specific information anddatawithrespect toeachandevery economic variable
envisaged inparagraph 3ofArticle 6.TheTMB heldtheviewthatinsuchacaseandinrespect of
suchvariables, iffactual information anddatathatrelated asclosely aspossible totheproduct category
itself were examined, these information anddatahadalsotobesubmitted totheMember towhich
therequest forconsultations wasaddressed, aswellastotheTMB.
27. Inthecontext oftheabove theTMB noted that,intheviewofHong Kong, theATC required
thatonlyinformation anddataspecific tothe"particular industry" could beexamined inmaking aG/TMB/R/26
Page7
determination ofserious damage tothedomestic industry. TheTMB recalled thatithaddeclined to
pronounce itself onissues which would require theadoption ofmore general interpretations ofthe
ATC (seeparagraph 18).TheTMB alsorecalled itsobservation oftheimportance ofproduct-specific
information anddata(seeparagraph 25). Inrespect oftheabove, theTMB noted thatitwasnota
partofHong Kong'scontention torequest theBody toconduct adenovo examination withaview
toestablishing whether serious damage inthisparticular casecould bedetermined exclusively onthe
basis oftheeconomic variables forwhich category-specific information hadbeenprovided.
28. Asfollows fromtheTMB'sobservations reflected inparticular inparagraphs 17,20,22,23
and25above, theBody agreed withHong Kong'smaincontention according towhich adetermination
ofserious damage could notbemade almost entirely byreference to,andtherefore byinferences drawn
from, datarelating tomuch broader industries inrespect ofwhich damage isclaimed. Ontheother
hand, incarefully considering itsexamination oftheparticular case(i.e.theBrazilian measures against
imports ofcategory 618products fromHong Kong), theTMB could notreach thesame conclusions
asHong Kong did,since inthiscasethedetermination ofserious damage hadnotbeenmade almost
entirely byreference todatarelating tosuchbroader industries, assome important dataandfactual
information provided byBrazil were category-specific.
29. TheTMB recognized, however, thatcertain formulations ofitsreport ontheexamination of
thismatter pursuant toparagraph 11ofArticle 6could bereadsoastoleadtoslightly divergent
conclusions, which could bedifferent fromthestatement contained inthepreceding paragraph. This
applied inparticular toparagraphs 20and21ofthereport (G/TMB/R/20). Thereference inthereport
tothefactthattheTMB, withrespect tosome variables, hadtorelyonarguments byinference in
viewofthelackofspecific datarelating thecategory itself, wasaimed atindicating theserious limitations
thattheBody hadindrawing reliable conclusions onthebasis ofdatawhich wererelated tobroader
industries thantothecategory 618industry.
30. TheTMBrecalledthatithadalreadyexpressedconcernswithrespecttosomeofthenon-category
specific dataprovided byBrazil, which hadmade itdifficult toassess theextent towhich developments
insome economic variables could beattributed totheevolution ofthemarket incategory 618products.
While inlightoftheconclusions reached inparagraphs 18,23,27and,inparticular, 28above, the
TMB didnotconsider itappropriate torevise itsrecommendations adopted inNovember 1996 orto
issue further recommendations, theBody recalled thatithadobserved thatthere wereindications to
theeffect thattheBrazilian industry producing products ofcategory 618hadalready beenundertaking
important restructuring andadjustment. TheTMB, therefore, expected Brazil tokeepthedevelopments
ofthemarket ofcategory 618products under review, andrecalled thatithadrecommended toBrazil
thatthemeasuretakenagainstimportsfromHongKongofproductsofcategory618shouldberescinded
atlatest by31December 1997.
Preparation forthe1997 Comprehensive Report under Article 8.11
31. TheTMB decided torequest theWTO Secretariat toprovide Members withbackground
statistical information withrespect totrade intextiles andclothing, intimeforthemajor review to
beconducted bytheCouncil forTrade inGoods, pursuant toparagraph 11ofArticle 8,before the
endof1997. Italsostarted apreliminary discussion onthepossible structure ofitscomprehensive
report.
32. TheTMB agreed tosendtoWTO Members, intheearly partofApril 1997, areminder of
therequest forinformation ithadsenton14February 1997 (G/TMB/11).