RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/C/M/8
18March 1996
ORGANIZATION(96-0959)
COUNCIL FOR TRADE INGOODS
29January 1996 and14February 1996
MINUTES OFMEETING
Held inCentre William Rappard
on29January 1996 and14February 1996
Chairman: Mr.M.Endo (Japan)
Theproposedagenda,containedindocumentG/C/W/37,wasadoptedwithoutanyamendments.
Page
Meeting of29January 1996
- Thefollowing items were discussed:
1. Malawi -Renegotiation ofSchedule LVIII 2
- Extension ofWaiver (G/L/51, G/C/W/31)
2. Customs Union between Turkey andtheEuropean Community 2
- Communication from theParties totheCustoms Union
(WT/REG22/N/1)
3. Agreement between theGovernment ofDenmark andtheHome 7
Government oftheFaroe Islands, oftheonepart,andtheGovernment
ofIceland, oftheother part,onfreetrade between theFaroe Islands
andIceland
- Notification from theParties totheAgreement
(WT/REG23/N/1 andWT/REG23/1)
- Thefollowing items were discussed under "Other Business"
4. Brazilian Measure concerning theautomotive sector 8
5. USdraftbillconcerning thedefinition of"domestic industry" inthearea 10
ofsafeguards
Themeeting wasresumed on14February 1996
- Thefollowing items were discussed:
6. Appointment ofOfficers 12
- Committee onAgriculture 12
- Committee onSanitary andPhytosanitary Measures 12G/C/M/8
Page2
Page
- Working Party onState-Trading Enterprises 12
- Working Group onNotification Obligations andProcedures 12
7. Election ofChairperson fortheCouncil forTrade inGoods 15
_______________
TheChairman welcomed delegations tothemeeting oftheCouncil forTrade inGoods which
wasconvened byWTO/AIR/248. Henoted thatinaccordance withtheagreement reached atthelast
meetingoftheCouncilon1December1995,thefollowingOrganizationshadbeeninvitedtothismeeting
oftheCouncilnamely:FAO,IMF,ITCB,OECD,UN,UNCTAD,WorldBankandtheWorldCustoms
Organization. Heproposed thatpending theadoption ofcriteria andconditions forobserver status
forInternationalIntergovernmentalOrganizationsintheWTOandunlessadelegationraisedanobjection,
those Organizations invited tothismeeting oftheCouncil forTrade inGoods beinvited alsotothe
nextmeeting.
1. Malawi -Renegotiation Schedule LVIII
- Extension ofthewaiver
1.1 TheChairman drew theCouncil 'sattention toacommunication from Malawi, circulated in
document G/L/51, inwhich itrequested anextension ofawaiver which hadbeengranted toitinthe
context oftherenegotiation ofitsschedule under theHarmonized System. Inthisconnection, adraft
decision hadbeencirculated indocument G/C/W/31. Malawi 'srequest hadbeenbefore theCouncil
atitslastmeeting, butitwasagreed thatastherequest hadreached theCouncil atalatestage, itwould
bepreferable torevert tothismatter atthismeeting bywhich timeMembers would havehadmore
timetoconsider therequest andthetextofthedraftdecision.
1.2 There wasnodiscussion onMalawi 'srequest foranextension ofawaiver
1.3 TheCouncil forTrade inGoods approved anextension ofthewaiver granted toMalawi until
30June1996, andrecommended thatthedraftdecision contained indocument G/C/W/31 beforwarded
totheGeneral Council foradoption.
2. Customs Union between Turkey andtheEuropean Community
- Communication from theparties totheCustoms Union (WT/REG22/N/1)
2.1 TheChairmandrewtheCouncil'sattentiontothecommunicationfromthepartiestothecustoms
union contained indocument WT/REG22/N/1, which indicated theentry intoforce on1January 1996
oftheCustoms Union between Turkey andtheEuropean Community. Heunderstood thatthetext
oftheAgreement hadbeennotified totheWTO Secretariat andwould becirculated shortly.
2.2 TherepresentativeoftheEuropeanCommunitiesstatedthatthecustomsunionwhichwasnotified
bytheEuropean Community andTurkey on22December 1995(WT/REG22/N/1), hadalonghistory.
TheEuropean Economic Community andTurkey hadagreed totheformation ofacustoms union as
partofthe"Ankara Agreement" signed on12September 1963, which established awider association
between theEuropean Economic Community andTurkey. Thiswasfollowed byaSupplementaryG/C/M/8
Page3
Protocol signed on23November 1970, andaComplementary Protocol andanInterim Agreement
signed on30June1970. Allthese agreements were examined indetail intheGATT. Theparties
tothese agreements hadprovided information toother GATT contracting parties onaregular basis.
2.3 Theagreements notified on22December 1995 formed partofapackage intended tofinalize
theestablishment ofthecustoms union. Theoverall package consisted oftwomainparts: firstly there
wastheDecision 1/95oftheEC/Turkey Association Council. Within thisAgreement there wasa
second Decision 2/95which established atransitional regime forcertain sensitive products. Thelatter
Decision onlyconcerned measures which would betaken byTurkey. These twoDecisions were
circulated toWTO Members intheforminwhich theywereapproved bytheEC/Turkey Association
Council. Secondly, theCommunity andTurkey wereentering intoanagreement establishing afree
trade areaforproducts covered bytheEuropean CoalandSteel Community (ECSC) Treaty. This
agreement hadbeeninitialled andwould beconcluded andnotified shortly.
2.4 Decision 1/95wastaken bytheAssociation Council established under theframework ofthe
1963 Ankara Agreement. Atthattime, theAgreement excluded coalandsteelproducts which have,
asaresult, always beentreated separately. Theforthcoming Coal andSteel Agreement would be
transitional, astheECSC Treaty wassupposed toexpire attheendoftheyear2002, when Decision
1/95might provide therelevant framework foralltrade ingoods. ItwascleartotheCommunity,
thatDecision1/95andtheforthcomingagreementoncoalandsteelproductswouldneedtobeconsidered
together. They formed asingle package covering allsectors, andsetoutthesteps needed tobring
tofruition the1963 commitment toestablish acustoms union.
2.5 TheECdelegation wasconvinced thatthese agreements, taken together wereconsistent with
theobligations ofMembers under theprovisions ofArticle XXIV ofGATT 1994andtheMemorandum
ofUnderstandingontheInterpretationofArticleXXIV.Henotedthatthecoveragewascomprehensive;
nosector would beexcluded. Furthermore theagreements forcoalandsteel, andforcertain other
products, reflected acombination ofspecial circumstances. These agreements werelimited induration
andcovered onlyasmall number ofproducts.
2.6 Therepresentative ofTurkey stated that,ashadalready beencommunicated totheDirector-
General oftheWorld Trade Organization, theCustoms Union between Turkey andtheEuropean
Community hadentered intoforce on1January 1996. Theprogressive establishment oftheCustoms
Union, inaccordance withtheAssociation Agreement between Turkey andtheEuropean Economic
Community signed atAnkara on12September 1963 andtheSupplementary Protocol thereto dated
23November 1970, hadthusbeencompleted.
2.7 Itwashisdelegation 'sconsidered view thattheCustoms Union between Turkey andthe
Community wasinfullconformity withtheWTO rulesbothinletter andspirit. Itwentwithout saying
thatentry intoforce oftheCustoms Union represented aturning point inrelations between Turkey
andtheEuropean Union.
2.8 TheCustoms Union would notonlyresult inthefurther strengthening ofcommercial and
economic tiesbetween theparties butwould alsoputTurkey closer tofullintegration intheEuropean
Union, anobjective which hadalready beensetinthe1963 Ankara Agreement.
2.9 Astothemainaspects oftheCustoms Union: itcovered industrial andprocessed agricultural
products. TheEuropean Coal andSteel Community products would besubject toafreetrade
arrangement within thisframework.
2.10 Asof1January1996,Turkeyhadeliminatedcustomsdutiesandotherchargesanddutieshaving
equivalent effect onindustrial products fortheECtoachieve thefreemovement ofgoods within theG/C/M/8
Page4
Customs Union. Moreover, Turkey hadstarted toapply theCommunity 'sCommon Customs Tariff
ratesforimportsofindustrialproductsoriginatingfromthirdcountries.TheMassHousingFundcharges
levied byTurkey onimports ofindustrial products werecompletely abolished on31December 1995
onanm.f.n. basis.
2.11 Inaddition tothat,thelegal andpractical rules oftheCommunity 'sCommon Commercial
Policy, including competition rules, safeguard rules, prevention ofdumped orsubsidized imports,
management ofquantitative restrictions andtariffquotas, standardization andconformity assessment,
protection ofrights against illicit commercial practices, would beapplied byTurkey.
2.12 Turkey hadrecently adhered totheinternational instruments onIntellectual andIndustrial
Property Rights andhadstarted tobring itslegislation inlinewiththeTRIPS Agreement 'srequirements.
2.13 Therepresentative ofCanada stated thatinDecember 1995, Canada hadencouraged bothparties
tonotify theAgreement along withtherequired trade documentation inorder toassess theimpact on
Canada 'stradeinterest andtopermit Canada toengage inArticle XXIV:6 consultations, asnecessary,
before tariff concessions were modified orwithdrawn. While aone-page communication hadbeen
submitted toadvise WTO Members oftheentry-into-force oftheAgreement, thedetails werestillnot
available. Inaddition totariffissues, Canada wasparticularly interested inknowing howTurkey would
adopt theEuropean Union 'stariffratequotas andhowtheAgreement would apply toagricultural goods.
Canadawasconcernedaboutapossiblerepetitionofthedifficultiesthathadbeenencounteredinprevious
enlargements which infactherdelegation hadthought hadbeenaddressed inthemostrecent caseof
enlargement. Shereiterated theneedforfulltransparency andtimely submission ofinformation.
2.14 Therepresentative ofMalaysia, while congratulating theparties fortheentry intoforce ofthe
customs union agreement, saidthatMalaysia, thePhilippines, Singapore andThailand would beaffected
bytheunilateral measures imposed byTurkey, particularly ontextiles. TheWTO didnotprevent
Members from engaging intheformation orjoining anycustoms union oftheirchoice. However,
therewerespecific provisions thathadtobeobserved, andArticle XXIV clearly stated thatthereshould
notbebarriers raised totrade ofothers whowerenotpartofthecustoms union. Hisdelegation did
nothaveaproblem withTurkey wanting tobeassociated withtheEuropean Union. However, there
hadbeenanoversight onthepartofTurkey asregarded itsobligations under Article XXIV. The
unilateral imposition ofquotas byTurkey oncertain textiles andclothing items from some countries
wasaserious breach ofWTO rulesandinparticular theAgreement onTextiles andClothing. Itdid
notaugurwellfortheimplementationofthelatterAgreementwhichwasaimedattheeventualintegration
ofthissector intothemultilateral trading system. There werebound tobeproblems associated with
thecustoms union; but,itwasunfair forTurkey totransfer perceived coststoothers. Hisdelegation
therefore wished toseeTurkey rescind theunilateral imposition ofquotas oncertain textile products
andurged theTurkish Government tocomply withtherelevant provisions oftheWTO andthe
Agreement onTextiles andClothing. Hisdelegation reserved itsrights topursue thismatter under
those Agreements.
2.15 Therepresentative oftheUnited States stated thathisdelegation continued tosupport regional
economic integration inEurope, andtherefore strongly supported theconclusion oftheCustoms Union
between theEuropean Union andTurkey andwelcomed thenotification oftheAgreement tothisbody.
However, hisdelegation hadconcerns thatcertain WTO provisions andobligations were notbeing
metbytheparties tothisAgreement, andmore generally inother agreements towhich theEUwas
aparty. TheGATT andnowWTO rulescovering customs unions andfreetrade areas weredesigned
tomake surethatregional integration complemented themultilateral trading system. ThisAgreement
wasacustoms union which entailed modifications oftariff bindings oftheparties tothisagreement.
ArticleXXIV:6clearlystatedthatcountriesmustnotifytheagreementandthatcompensationnegotiations
mustbecommencedbeforetariffconcessionsweremodifiedorwithdrawn.ThiswasthesecondcustomsG/C/M/8
Page5
union notified bytheEUinthepastyearandthesecond timethatthisobligation hadbeenignored.
Heenquired when theparties intended toprovide thetrade andtariff datarequired byWTO Members
toevaluate theeffect ofthisagreement, andwhen theyintended tobegin Article XXIV:6/XXVIII
negotiations.
2.16 Hisdelegation hadpointed outinarecent TPRM meeting thattheEUhadperpetuated apattern
ofnotcoming closetofullyliberalizing agriculture initsregional agreements. Many oftheseagreements
andarrangements were withcountries forwhich agriculture would beexpected tobeanareaof
comparative advantage, andwhich could contribute verysignificantly toeconomic growth. Thenew
customs union excluded notonlyagricultural items, butalso, aspreviously mentioned, steel. His
delegation looked forward tothethorough andprompt review ofthisagreement.
2.17 Therepresentative ofHong Kong stated thatHong Kong fullyrespected therights ofWTO
Memberstoformcustomsunionsorfreetradeareasinaccordancewithrelevantmultilateralinstruments.
Hiscomments would bedirected toaspecific issue only, which hadarisen intheimplementation of
theCustomsUnionbetweenTurkeyandtheEuropeanUnion.Startingfrom1January1996,quantitative
restrictions hadbeenimposed byTurkey ontheimports ofarange oftextiles andclothing products
from Hong Kong and,ashisdelegation understood, fromatotalof25suppliers. Theimposition of
these quantitative restrictions wasunilateral andwithout prior notification. Hong Kong hadwritten
totheTurkish authorities requesting details ofthismeasure andtheirjustification byreference toWTO
agreements. Theresponse received todatehadnotprovided satisfactory answers tothequestions raised.
Hong Kong hadveryserious concerns about theTurkish action inthecontext ofArticle XXIV of
GATT 1994, aswellasother GATT Articles andtheAgreement onTextiles andClothing. Itwas
notHong Kong'sintention toenter intoadiscussion onlegality atthispoint oftime. There were
established procedures under theWTO system forsuchpurposes, which would ensure thatMembers '
rights were protected andtheirobligations observed. Members 'attention, however, wasdrawn to
thePreamble totheUnderstanding ontheInterpretation ofArticle XXIV ofGATT 1994, thefourth
paragraph ofwhich reaffirmed thatintheformation orenlargement ofeconomic integration agreements,
theparties should tothegreatest possible extent avoid creating adverse effects onthetrade ofother
Members. Itwould bedifficult tothink ofamore adverse effect thantheimposition ofdiscriminatory
quantitative restrictions which offended thefundamental principles oftheWTO. Hisdelegation urged
thattheaction taken byTurkey berescinded, andreserved itsWTO rights totakethematter further.
2.18 Therepresentative ofIndia stated thathisdelegation associated itselfwiththestatement made
bytherepresentative ofHong Kong. Hisgovernment wasstillexamining thisissue, andtherefore his
remarks would bepreliminary innature atthisstage. Hisdelegation wished toconvey theconsiderable
concern feltregarding thequota regime imposed unilaterally bytheGovernment ofTurkey onthe
exports oftextile products from India toTurkey. India'sexports oftextile products toTurkey did
notfacequantitative restrictions before 1January 1996. Itwasnotclearunder whatprovisions the
Government ofTurkey hadintroduced thismeasure, which wentagainst theletter andspirit ofthe
liberalization oftrade inthetextile andclothing sector embodied intheAgreement onTextiles and
Clothing. Hisdelegation requested Turkey torescind therecently introduced quota restrictions on
textiles andclothing exports ofIndia.
2.19 Therepresentative ofAustralia stated thathisdelegation welcomed thisAgreement between
theEuropean Union andTurkey forthemutual expansion oftrade. Buthewished tosupport the
comments made particularly byCanada andtheU.S.earlyinthediscussion withrelation tothenecessity
toprovide fulltransparency ofthetrade effects onother thirdcountry suppliers asaconsequence of
theformation ofcustoms unions. Thepoints hadbeen very wellmade oftherequirements in
Article XXIV forfulldetailed information ofpotential changes intariff commitments tobenotified
inadvance oftheirimplementation sothatArticle XXIV:6 negotiations could beeffectively carried
outtosafeguard theinterest ofthirdcountries. Itwasregrettable thatinthiscase, onceagain, ithadG/C/M/8
Page6
notbeenpossible forinterested countries tobegin theprocess ofnegotiating theirtrade interests in
relation tothisparticular agreement.
2.20 Therepresentative ofPakistan expressed hisdelegation 'sunderstanding andappreciation of
Turkey 'snatural disposition toforge closer relations withtheEuropean Community, asitwassituated
inclose proximity tothevastmarket. Pakistan therefore congratulated Turkey ontherealization of
itsobjectivetoformacustomsunionwiththeEuropeanCommunity.Turkeywasafriendlyandfraternal
country -andanything which would contribute totheprosperity oftheTurkish people waswelcome
toPakistan. Hisdelegation would follow, withdeepinterest, theexamination ofthedetailed provisions
ofthecustoms union inrelation totherelevant requirements oftheGATT/WTO. Pakistan therefore
encouraged theparties tothecustoms union tonotify, promptly, thecomplete details ofthearrangement.
Hehoped thatthedetails would encompass information onallaspects ofthearrangement, inaddition
tothose relating totariffs. AsPakistan awaited receipt ofthedetailed information forexamination
inaworking party, which hisdelegation would recommend theCouncil should agree toestablish at
today'smeeting, hisdelegation hadnoted withacertain disappointment that,inadeparture fromthe
letter andspirit oftheGATT 1994provisions onCustoms Unions andFree-trade Areas, theformation
oftheEC/Turkey Customs Union hadresulted inraising discriminatory barriers against thetrade of
third countries including Pakistan 's.There were valid questions about thecompatibility ofsuch
restrictions withtherequirements oftherelevant provisions ofGATT 1994. Pakistan hadbeenpursuing
discussions toemphasize thatforfreecirculation ofTurkish textile products intheEuropean Union
market, these restrictions werenotnecessary. Unfortunately ithadnotbeenpossible toachieve this
objective. Therefore, Pakistan wasobliged toreserve itsGATT rights inthatregard.
2.21 Therepresentative ofPerustated thatlikeother delegations, hisdelegation wasconcerned by
theunilateral application oftextile quotas byTurkey, which affected Peru'strade. Hisdelegation,
therefore, wished toreserve itsrights under theWTO.
2.22 Therepresentative ofKorea stated thathisdelegation shared theconcerns expressed byvarious
speakers concerning theTurkish government 'sunilateral textile import restriction measures which had
came intoeffect atthebeginning of1996. Asoneofthemajor textile suppliers oftheTurkish market,
theRepublic ofKorea hadasubstantial interest inthismatter. ItwastheKorean viewthattheseimport
restrictions wereinconsistent withtheWTO Agreement, andmight haveatrade restrictive effect on
textiles andclothing trade. Inthisregard, Korea wished toreserve itsrights under theWTO.
2.23 Therepresentative ofBrazil stated thathisdelegation recognized theimportance andsignificance
oftheagreements thathadbeenreached between Turkey andtheEuropean Union. Hisdelegation
shared theconcerns expressed byother delegations regarding theintroduction byTurkey ofquantitative
restrictions onimports oftextiles andclothing. Asof1January 1996, exports ofsome textiles products
fromBrazil weresubject tonewquotas inTurkey. While hisdelegation fullyrecognized thedifficulties
oftheprocess ofharmonization oftrade policies asaresult oftheestablishment ofacustoms union,
hisdelegation haddoubts onwhether theintroduction ofnewquantitative restrictions could bevalidly
justified bytheformation ofacustoms union. Hisdelegation would follow thisissuewithparticular
interest.
2.24 Therepresentative ofArgentina stated thathisdelegation would liketotakepartinthework
ofanybodyestablished toexamine theagreement between Turkey andtheEuropean Union establishing
acustoms union.
2.25 Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities stated thathewished tothank alldelegations
which hadvoiced theirsupport fortheintegration process andwhich hadhighlighted thefactthatTurkey
andtheEUhavenowestablished acustoms union. Thiswasapolitical development andhethanked
those delegations whohadseenitinthislight. Asregarded theother comments made, hehadtakenG/C/M/8
Page7
noteofthose comments. Hecould understand theregret expressed bycertain delegations withregard
tothelackofcertain documentation, andthissituation would beremedied assoonaspossible. As
regarded therepercussions ofthiscustoms union ontrading partners, hebelieved thatinthepastneither
theestablishmentoftheEuropeanCommunitynoritssubsequentenlargement,northisparticularcustoms
union withTurkey hadadverse effects. Onthecontrary, hebelieved thiscustoms union could have
nothing butpositive repercussions fortheCommunity 'strading partners andfortheliberalization of
world trade ingeneral.
TheCouncil forTrade inGoods tooknoteofthestatements made.
2.26 TheChairman recalled thatatthelastmeeting oftheGeneral Council, adecision wastaken,
inprinciple,toestablishaCommitteedealingwithregionaltradingmatters.Consultationswerecurrently
being heldbytheChairman oftheGeneral Council concerning thenature andterms ofreference of
thatnewbody. Thequestion ofestablishment ofseparate working parties would havetobereviewed
inlightofthefinaldecision onthisissue. Nonetheless, since nofinaldecision onthathadbeentaken
atthisstage, heproposed thattheCouncil proceed intheusual manner andsetupaworking party
withthefollowing terms ofreference andmembership:
Terms ofreference:
"toexamine, inlightoftherelevant provisions oftheGATT 1994, theCustoms Union
between Turkey andtheEuropean Community andtosubmit areport totheCouncil
forTrade inGoods."
Headded thathisstatement concerning theunderstanding made under agenda item7ofthe
meeting oftheCouncil forTrade inGoods on20February 1995, andcontained indocument
WT/REG3/1, applied mutatis mutandis tothisworking party.
Membership:
"TheWorking Party would beopentoallMembers oftheWTO indicating theirwish
toserve onit."
Heproposed toconsult withdelegations onthequestion ofChairperson fortheWorking Party.
TheCouncil forTrade inGoods soagreed.
3. Agreement between theGovernment ofDenmark andtheHome Government oftheFaroe
Islands, oftheonepart, andtheGovernment ofIceland, oftheother part, onfreetrade
between theFaroe Islands andIceland
- Notification from the parties tothe Agreement (WT/REG23/N/1 and
WT/REG23/1)
3.1 TheChairman drewtheCouncil 'sattention tothenotification fromtheparties totheAgreement
contained indocument WT/REG23/N/1, which indicated theentry intoforce on1July1993 ofthe
FreeTrade Agreement between theGovernment ofDenmark andtheHome Government oftheFaroe
Islands, ontheonepart,andtheGovernment ofIceland, ontheother part. ThetextoftheAgreement
wascirculated asdocument WT/REG23/1.
3.2 Therepresentative ofDenmark stated that,asindicated inthenotification, theAgreement had
entered intoforce on1July1993, andcontained provisions relating tofreetrade ingoods betweenG/C/M/8
Page8
Iceland andtheFaroe Islands inthesense ofArticle XXIV ofGATT 1994. TheAgreement wasin
fullconformity withWTO rules. Additionally, twoother similar agreements werebeing processed,
namely onewithNorway andonewithSwitzerland. Theywould benotified assoonascertain technical
details hadbeenfinalized.
3.3 TherepresentativeofIcelandstatedthatthisAgreementwassimplyaformalizationofanexisting
state-of-affairs, asfree-trade hadbeenthepractice between Iceland andtheFaroe Islands forquite
alongtime. Faroese products weretreated asDanish products forcustoms purposes, andIcelandic
products infact,enjoyed asimilar rightofpassage intoFaroese territory.
TheCouncil forTrade inGoods tooknoteofthestatements.
3.4 TheChairman recalled thatatthelastmeeting oftheGeneral Council, adecision wastaken,
inprinciple,toestablishaCommitteedealingwithregionaltradingmatters.Consultationswerecurrently
being heldbytheChairman oftheGeneral Council concerning thenature andterms ofreference of
thatnewbody. Thequestion ofestablishment ofseparate Working Parties would havetobereviewed
inlightofthefinaldecision onthisissue. Nonetheless, since nofinaldecision onthathadbeentaken
atthisstage, heproposed thattheCouncil proceed intheusual manner andsetupaworking party
withthefollowing terms ofreference andmembership:
Terms ofreference:
"toexamine, inlightoftherelevant provisions oftheGATT 1994, theAgreement
between theGovernment ofDenmark andtheHome Government oftheFaroe Islands,
ontheonepart,andtheGovernment ofIceland, ontheother part,andtosubmit a
report totheCouncil forTrade inGoods."
Headded thathisstatement concerning theunderstanding made under agenda item7ofthe
meeting oftheCouncil forTrade inGoods on20February 1995, andcontained indocument
WT/REG3/1, applied mutatis mutandis tothisworking party. Itwasalsounderstood that,during the
examination, dueaccount would betaken oftheintrinsic differences between customs unions andfree-
trade areas.
Membership:
"The Working Party would beopentoallMembers oftheWTO indicating theirwish
toserve onit."
TheChairman proposed toconsult withdelegations onthequestion ofChairperson forthe
Working Party.
TheCouncil forTrade inGoods soagreed.
4. Brazilian Measure concerning theautomotive sector
4.1 TherepresentativeofBrazil,speakingunder"OtherBusiness",statedthaton14December1995,
afternegotiations within MERCOSUR, theBrazilian Government hadsenttoCongress Provisional
Measure 1,235 thatdealtwiththeautomotive sector. TheProvisional Measure wasregulated byDecree
No.1,761, published intheOfficial Gazette on27December 1995 which, inturn, wasregulated by
aMinisterialOrderdated5January1996.On12January1996,ProvisionalMeasure1,235wasre-issued
under number 1,272. Thetranslation ofthepertinent legislation from Portuguese tooneofWTO 's
official languages wasbeing finalized andBrazil would soonnotify ittotheWTO.G/C/M/8
Page9
4.2 According tothenewlegislation, assembling companies andmanufacturers ofvehicles and
autoparts could benefit from areduction oftariff oncapital goods andinputs tobeusedintheir
production, iftheycomplied withcertain requirements related tonetexports andtocertain ratios
regarding purchases ofgoods manufactured inBrazil. Brazil wasaware oftheimplications ofthat
legislation toitsWTO obligations andexpressed itsreadiness tomaintain informal consultations with
interested trading partners onthebestwaytocomply withthem. ItwastheBrazilian intention, in
thatregard, toseekawaiver from certain obligations, asforeseen inArticle IX:3oftheMarrakesh
Agreement establishing theWorld Trade Organization.
4.3 Therepresentative ofKorea, thanking theBrazilian delegate forinforming theCouncil ofthis
measure, saidthatBrazilian Decree N1,761 wasamatter ofserious concern forKorea. Korea would
study carefully thedocumentation tobesubmitted byBrazil, inorder toexamine theimplications of
thismeasure onKorea 'sexports ofautomotive products toBrazil. Korea understood thedifficulties
Brazil wasfacing withregard toitsautomobile policy within MERCOSUR. However, many other
WTO Members werealsoconfronted withproblems. Ifanexception wasmade foroneMember at
thisstage, itwould notbepossible toreject similar claims made byother Members. Itwasparticularly
important atthistimeforthisfledgling institution nottosetanyprecedent undermining itsrulesand
principles. Regarding theeffect oftheBrazilian measure onthespecific interests ofKorea, although
afurther detailed study needed tobeconducted, Korea 'spreliminary assessment wasthattheBrazilian
measure would haveanegative impact onthecommercial interests ofKorea inboththeshort runand
thelongrun. Korea therefore reserved every rightunder theWTO untilthismatter wasresolved in
asatisfactory manner.
4.4 Therepresentative oftheUnited States thanked theBrazilian delegate forinforming theCouncil
ofitsintentions inthisimportant matter. Hisdelegation wascurrently reviewing thequestion with
USindustry andCongress, withaviewtowards formulating theUSposition.
4.5 Therepresentative ofMexico, thanking theBrazilian delegate fortheinformation provided,
saidthatthiswasamatter ofinterest forMexico andwasbeing studied carefully inorder toevaluate
Mexico 'sposition inthisrespect.
4.6 Therepresentative ofJapan, thanking theBrazilian delegation fortheinformation provided,
saidthatJapan hadbeenrepeatedly expressing serious concern regarding theBrazilian measures which,
inJapan'sview, would constitute aviolation ofGATT 1994, theTRIMs Agreement andtheSubsidies
Agreement. Japan hadtaken noteoftheBrazilian statement inwhich theBrazilian delegation had
suggested itsintention torequest awaiver thusimplying thattheGovernment ofBrazil regarded its
measures oratleastcertain ofthemasinconsistent withtherelevant provisions oftheWTO Agreement.
Japan wished Brazil tospecify themeasures inquestion aswellastheprovisions which Brazil felt
themeasures wereviolating. TheBrazilian request forawaiver would needtobeexamined carefully
inlightoftherelevant provisions oftheWTO Agreement. Japan wished toreserve, already atthis
stage, itsrights under theWTO Agreement.
4.7 Therepresentative ofCanada stated thatherdelegation waspleased tohearofBrazil 'sfull
cooperation andtransparency inproviding further information which might berequired regarding its
automotive investment regime. Herdelegation intended toreview indetail thenewregime assetout
inDecree 1,761 andProvisional Measure 1,235. Intheinterim, Canada wished toreserve itsrights
under theWTO.
4.8 Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities thanked Brazil fortheinformation provided.
Inthestatement, therepresentative ofBrazil hadstated thathiscountry wasconscious oftheimplications
ofthislegislation, which wasbeing translated andwould becirculated veryshortly. TheCommunity 's
would study thelegislation carefully before giving itsposition onthismatter.G/C/M/8
Page10
4.9 Therepresentative ofArgentina, speaking alsoonbehalf ofParaguay andUruguay, expressed
understanding andsympathy withthestatement made bytherepresentative ofBrazil. Thetransitional
measures wereadopted bytheBrazilian Government withaviewtothecommon regime which would
govern theautomotive sector inMERCOSUR asof1January 2000. Brazil haddemonstrated with
thisannouncement thatitwasmaking thenecessary efforts tofulfil itsobligations intheframework
oftheWTO. Allthemember countries ofMERCOSUR would participate constructively intheprocess
ofconsultations proposed byBrazil.
TheCouncil tooknoteofthestatements.
5. USdraft billconcerning thedefinition of"domestic industry" intheareaofsafeguards
5.1 Therepresentative ofMexico, speaking under "Other Business", stated thaton26January 1996,
theSenate oftheUnited States hadapproved theproposed LawS.1463 bymeans ofa"unanimous
consent agreement", inother words, without prior committee consideration, floor debate orvote.
According toreports, thisbillwould besubmitted inthecourse ofthisweek totheHouse of
Representatives, where itwould follow asimilar procedure.
5.2 Thedraftbillredefined theterm"domestic industry" ascontained inUnited States 'legislation
onsafeguards. Rather thanusing thedefinition contained inexisting United States 'legislation which
corresponded toArticle 4.1(c) oftheWTO Agreement onSafeguards, thebillestablished that,where
oneormore domestic producers produced alikeordirectly competitive perishable agricultural product
during aparticular season, theUnited States authorities could limit"domestic industry" tothesaid
producers ifthose producers soldalloralmost alloftheiroutput ofthatproduct inthatseason and
thedemand forthatproduct wasnotmet,toasubstantial degree, byother domestic suppliers ofthe
product producing itinadifferent season. Inother words, where aperishable product wasproduced
intwodifferent states oftheUnion andonestateproduced itinwinter andtheother insummer, the
United States could implement asafeguard measure toprotect thewinter producers without taking
account, when determining theexistence ofinjury orthreat ofinjury, oftheoutput ofthestateproducing
theproduct inthesummer. Mexico considered thatthedefinition inthebillwasclearly inconsistent
withtheWTO obligations oftheUnited States, aswasshown bythefactthatexisting legislation had
tobechanged inorder tobeabletoactinthisway, andtheUnited States International Trade
Commission hadunanimously ruled against arequest forsafeguards bydomestic industry thathad
features ofthisnewdefinition. Thiswasnotabilateral matter. Ifthedraftbillbecame law,andother
WTO Members followed thesame path, there wasaserious danger thatother WTO Members might
apply safeguard measures ofthissortagainst products suchasvegetables, citrus fruits, apples, fish,
shellfish, etc.. Mexico reserved therighttoinclude thismatter ontheagenda ofthisCouncil orof
theGeneral Council toassert itsrights under WTO rules, iftheneedarose, andwaswilling toprovide
further information ordocumentation tothose delegations interested inthematter.
5.3 Therepresentative ofCanada stated thatherdelegation shared theconcerns expressed byMexico
about thebillthatwaspassed intheUSSenate on26January 1996. Itappeared thatthislegislation
wasinconsistent withUnited States 'obligations under theWTO withrespect tothedefinition of
"domestic industry". AsMexico hadpointed out,thiswasanissueofserious concern. Herdelegation
would encourage theUnited States toreview thissituation, andtoensure thatanylegislation thatwas
enacted would beconsistent withitsWTO obligations.
5.4 Therepresentative ofChile stated thathisdelegation shared theconcern already mentioned
byMexico andCanada withrespect tothisbill,which changed thedefinition of"domestic industry"
intheUnited States 'legislation intheareaofsafeguards when dealing withperishable agricultural
products. Chile believed thatthiswould beincompatible withthesafeguard obligations oftheWTO
andwould weaken theproof ofdamage.G/C/M/8
Page11
5.5 TherepresentativeofAustraliastatedthathisauthoritieswouldalsobeveryconcernedifanything
should bedone interms ofpassing legislation intheUnited States thatwould make theapplication
ofArticle 4oftheSafeguards Agreement more protective, andcertainly anyaction thatwould beat
variance withtheUnited States 'obligations under thatAgreement. Clearly, there wasneedformore
information,buthewishedtoregisterhisdelegation'sconcernonthatpointatthismeetingthismorning.
5.6 Therepresentative ofArgentina stated thatasproviders ofperishable products totheUSmarket,
hisdelegation shared theconcern expressed earlier byother delegations. Currently, thiswasonlya
billbefore theCongress, andtheonlything thatcould bedonewould beforMembers toencourage
theexecutive branch totryandconvince Congress oftheinconsistency ofthemeasure under discussion
andthemultilateral rules oftheWTO.
5.7 Therepresentative ofNewZealand stated thatthisissuehadonlyjustcome toNewZealand 's
attention andhisdelegation hadnothadtheopportunity tofullystudy itsimplications. Nonetheless,
asanexporter ofperishable agricultural products totheUSmarket, hisdelegation shared theconcerns
voiced, inparticular thatadeparture from theprovisions ofArticle 4oftheSafeguards Agreement
maybeinprospect. LikeCanada andArgentina, NewZealand would hopethattheUSadministration
would beabletoreview thissituation andwould seek, tothebestofitsability, toensure theconsistency
oflegislation withitsWTO obligations.
5.8 Therepresentative ofGuatemala stated thathisdelegation wished tostateitsconcern regarding
theUnited States 'billtochange thedefinition of"domestic industry" under safeguards. Hisdelegation
supported thestatement made bythedelegation ofMexico andreserved therighttorevert tothismatter
inforthcoming meetings.
5.9 Therepresentative ofBrazil stated thatmore information onthismatter wasrequired. Even
atthisstage, hisdelegation shared theconcerns expressed byother delegations onthisissue.
5.10 Therepresentative ofPerushared theconcerns expressed byother delegations onthisissue.
5.11 Therepresentative ofMalaysia, speaking onbehalf oftheASEAN countries, thanked Mexico
forbringing thismatter totheattention ofCouncil Members. ASEAN countries would beinterested
toknow offurther developments andreserved theirrights topursue thismatter.
5.12 Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities stated thathisdelegation wasgrateful for
theinformation provided byMexico andasked theUnited States 'delegation toprovide Members with
further information andbackground relating tothismeasure.
5.13 Therepresentative ofColombia, likeother countries thatexported perishable products, shared
theconcern voiced regarding thisbill,andinvited theGovernment oftheUnited States toensure that
anymodifications toitssafeguard legislation would beconsistent withitsobligations under theWTO.
5.14 Therepresentative oftheUnited States stated thathisdelegation hadtaken noteofthestatements
made, andwould report tohisauthorities theconcerns expressed onthisparticular issue. Therelevant
information would bemade available asrequested.
5.15 TheCouncil forTrade inGoods tooknoteofthestatements, andsuspended themeeting to
enable theChairman tofinalize consultations regarding Chairpersons ofsubsidiary bodies oftheCouncil
forTrade inGoods. Themeeting wasresumed on14February 1996.G/C/M/8
Page12
6. Appointment ofOfficers forthe:Committee onAgriculture; Committee onSanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures; Working Group onNotification Obligations andProcedures;
Working Party onState Trading Enterprises
6.1 TheChairman stated thatthe"Guidelines fortheAppointment ofOfficers toWTO bodies"
contained indocument WT/L/31 andapproved bytheGeneral Council on31January 1995, provided
thattheChairperson oftheCouncil forTrade inGoods would conduct consultations ontheappointment
ofthechairpersons ofbodies toGroup 6(A)which comprised thesubsidiary bodies oftheCouncil
forTrade inGoods. Accordingly, hehadconducted consultations andhadaslateofChairpersons
torecommend totheCouncil. While alltheother subsidiary bodies oftheCouncil forTrade inGoods
hadprovisions intheirrespective Agreements orintheirRules ofProcedures requiring them toelect
theirownchairpersons, thefoursubsidiary bodies mentioned under thisagenda itemdidnothavesuch
provisions; therefore, theCouncil forTrade inGoods hadtoappoint those chairpersons.
6.2 Hereported ontheresults ofhisconsultations onchairpersons for1996forsubsidiary bodies
oftheCouncil forTrade inGoods asfollows:
Committee onAgriculture: Ambassador D.Tulalamba (Thailand);
Committee onSanitary andPhytosanitary Measures: Ambassador K.Bergholm (Finland);
Committee onTechnical Barriers toTrade (TBT): Ambassador C.Guarda (Chile);
Committee onMarket Access: Mr.J.St-Jacques (Canada);
Committee onCustoms Valuation: Mr.P.Palecka (Czech Republic);
Committee onImport Licensing: Mr.C.Mbegabolawe (Zimbabwe);
Committee onRules ofOrigin: Mr.Osakwe (Nigeria);
Committee onAnti-Dumping: Mr.O.Lundby (Norway);
Committee onSubsidies andCountervailing Measures: Mr.V.DoPrado (Brazil);
Committee onSafeguards: Mr.A.Buencamino (Philippines);
Committee onTrade-Related Investment Measures: Mr.V.Notis (Greece);
Working Group onNotification Obligations andProcedures: Mr.A.Shoyer (US);
Working Party onState Trading Enterprises: Mr.P.May(Australia).
6.3 TheCouncil appointed Ambassador Tulalamba, Ambassador Bergholm, Mr.May, andMr.
Shoyer aschairpersons fortheCommittee onAgriculture, theCommittee onSanitary andPhytosanitary
Measures, theWorking Party onState Trading Enterprises, andtheWorking Group onNotification
ObligationsandProceduresrespectively,andtooknoteofthenominationsoftheotherpersonsmentioned
aschairpersons fortheother subsidiary bodies.
6.4 TheChairman proposed thatwithrespect toVice-Chairpersons ofsubsidiary bodies ofthe
Council forTrade inGoods, thepractice established in1995should befollowed, i.e.thequestion shouldG/C/M/8
Page13
behandled attheleveloftheCommittees themselves through aprocess ofconsultations undertaken
bytherespective Chairpersons.
6.5 TheCouncil forTrade inGoods soagreed.
6.6 Therepresentative ofMexico stated thathisdelegation hadasked forthefloorfirsttoconvey
itssatisfaction onthefactthatplurilateral, open consultations hadbeen heldinorder toreach an
understanding onthelistofchairpersons thathadbeenreadout. Hewished tohaveplaced onrecord
theconcern feltbyhisdelegation about there-election ofchairpersons. Although thiswasnot
inconsistent withtheguidelines fortheelection ofofficers, itdidnonetheless seem rather inconsistent
withtheprinciple ofrotation. Hisdelegation wasnotquestioning thequality ofthepeople involved,
butMexico wished toseetheprinciple ofrotation retained. Inthose cases where theMarrakesh
AgreementestablishedthattheCommittees"shallelecttheirChairmenandVice-chairmen",hisdelegation
wishedtosee,atthetimethesechairmanshippostswerefilled,alsothenomineesforVice-Chairmanship,
ifitwerefeltnecessary thataVice-Chairman beelected. Inother words, Mexico reserved theright
togiveformal endorsement totheelection ofChairperson atthetimewhen thenominees ofVice-
Chairmen 'sposts hadbeendecided, ifitwere decided thataVice-Chairman should beelected.
6.7 Therepresentative ofColombia thanked theChairman forhaving carried outaprocess inorder
toreach agreement, andalsocongratulated those representatives whohadbeenelected onthebasis
ofconsensus tochair committees andworking groups. Hefully agreed thattheabilities andthe
experience which hadbeenaccumulated bythese Chairpersons would beuseful inhelping themguide
thework ofthese committees andworking groups inaveryintelligent anduseful manner. However,
hisdelegation associated itself withtheconcern voiced bytherepresentative ofMexico. Itwasalso
hisviewthatthere should beasbroad arotation aspossible without thisnecessarily implying thatin
certain special cases are-election inoneormore posts wasnotpossible, inorder toserve thegeneral
interest. Hewasaware thatitwasnotaneasyexercise totryandsatisfy alldelegations. Itwould
seem advisable thatthenewChairman oftheCouncil forTrade inGoods would begin hisround of
consultations onChairpersons earlier sothatsome ofthepitfalls thathadappeared onthisoccasion
could beavoided.
6.8 Therepresentative ofPakistan associated hisdelegation with thepoints made bythe
representatives ofMexico andColombia.
6.9 Therepresentative ofCuba thanked theChairman forhisefforts overthelastfewdayswhich
hadpermitted asolution. Hebelieved thatsome ofthethings mentioned during unofficial consultations
should bereiterated. Hisdelegation 'spreference would bethatattheendof1996, theprocess should
beinitiated onamuch more transparent basis, andabove allthattheprinciple ofrotation should be
applied. Hebelieved thatMembers would work verywellwiththeChairpersons whohadbeenelected
onthebasisoftherecommendation bytheChairman oftheCouncil forTrade inGood forthesubsidiary
bodies oftheCouncil. Healsowished totaketheopportunity tothank hisLatin-American colleagues,
whohadaspirations tocertain posts inthesubsidiary bodies oftheCouncil, fortheflexibility they
hadshown toenable aconsensus tobereached. Members should keepthisfactinmind when they
considered theappropriateness ofelecting vice-chairpersons forcertain committees, andalsoasregarded
theconsultation process fortheelection ofofficers for1997.
6.10 Therepresentative ofElSalvador stated thathisdelegation agreed withthestatement made
bytherepresentative ofMexico, particularly withregard totheprocess ofconsultations. Hehoped
thatinthefuture, consultations would betransparent, openandplurilateral. Hisdelegation shared the
concerns expressed totheeffect thatthere hadbeenmassive re-elections. While hewassurethatthe
re-elected Chairpersons would continue todoexcellent work, theprinciple ofrotation hadtobeapplied.G/C/M/8
Page14
6.11 Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities stated thathisdelegation waspleased that
asolution hadfinally been found. There were plenty ofexcellent candidates tobeproposed as
Chairpersons, butintheendabalance hadtobefound. Theprocess thatwasbeing finalized atthis
meeting showed theimportance ofconsultations being heldinatransparent way. Withrespect tovice-
chairpersons, thisissuewastobedealtwithoncethequestion ofchairpersons wassettled; thereshould
benolinkage between thetwo.
6.12 Therepresentative ofEgypt thanked theChairman fortheefforts made tosolve thisproblem
ofelection ofChairpersons. Thesolution, which established abalance between thevarious regional
groups, wassatisfactory tohisdelegation. Hisdelegation washappy toseeAfrica getting amodest
share inthedistribution ofoffices, being represented byNigeria asfarasRules ofOrigin were
concerned, andZimbabwe, asfarasImport Licensing Procedures wereconcerned. Itwasalsoimportant
thattheprinciple ofrotation bemaintained.
6.13 TheCouncil forTrade inGoods tooknoteofthestatements.
6.14 Before taking upagenda item 7,theChairman, thisbeing thelastmeeting under his
chairmanship, provided anoverview ofthework oftheCouncil during 1995.
6.15 TheCouncil forTrade inGoods, pursuant toparagraph 5ofArticle IVoftheWTO Agreement,
hadapproved on31July1995itsRules ofProcedure, which werelargely based ontherulesofprocedure
oftheGeneralCouncil.ThesubsidiarybodiesoftheCouncilforTradeinGoodshad,whereverpossible,
based themselves ontheRules ofProcedure adopted bytheCouncil forTrade inGoods, andinthis
respect, astrong element ofharmonization andclarity hadbeenintroduced intothefunctioning ofthe
various subsidiary bodies.
6.16 Inthecontext ofimplementation oftheUruguay Round results, theCouncil atitsfirstmeeting
hadestablished theWorking Party onStateTrade Enterprises andtheWorking Group onNotification
Obligations andProcedures. Thework ofthelatter Group would beinstrumental instreamlining the
process ofnotifications. However, heemphasized theconcern regarding thelessthanfullcompliance
byMembers withnotification requirements under Agreements within thecompetence ofthisCouncil.
Ashehadalready stated when introducing theCouncil 'sreport totheGeneral Council lastyear, the
WTOsystemreliedprimarilyonmutualsurveillanceasameanstoensureimplementation.Ifnotification
obligations werenotcomplied with, therewasnobasisonwhich therelevant WTO bodies could review
themeasures ofMembers andthesystem broke down. Therefore heurged allWTO Members to
make maximum efforts tofulfil theirnotification obligations promptly.
6.17 Another issuelinked totheimplementation oftheUruguay Round results wastheestablishment
oftheIndependent Review Entity under thePreshipment Inspection Agreement. ThisAgreement had
notbeenfullyoperational asof1January 1995because ofalackofconsensus onthestatus andlocation
oftheIndependent Review Entity tobeestablished under itsArticle 4.Thisissue wasresolved in
December 1995 when theCouncil forwarded forapproval totheGeneral Council theDraft Decision
regarding theoperation oftheIndependent Entity.
6.18 During 1995, theCouncil hadalsodealt withunfinished Uruguay Round business, namely
theapproval andtransmission totheGeneral Council forapproval oftheSchedules ofConcessions
onGoods ofleastdeveloped countries, whohaduntil15April 1995 tosubmit suchSchedules, and
theSchedules ofConcessions onGoods ofcountries covered bytheDecision onFinalization of
Negotiations onSchedules onGoods andServices. Theprocess ofsubmission, verification andapproval
ofSchedules onConcessions onGoods which hadcommenced under theUruguay Round hadnow
beenfinally concluded.G/C/M/8
Page15
6.19 Other issues addressed bytheCouncil in1995 included Article XXIV working parties and
their terms ofreference. Anumber ofregional trading arrangements hadbeen notified under
Article XXIV ofGATT 1994, withtheresult, thattheCouncil hadestablished anumber ofworking
parties toexamine these agreements. ADecision hadbeen taken bytheGeneral Council on
6February 1996 toestablish aCommittee onRegional Trade Agreements. ThisCommittee would
carry outthepending work oftheWorking Parties thathadalready beenestablished bytheCouncil
forTrade inGoods.
6.20 TheCouncil hadalsodealtextensively withrequests forwaiver extensions inconnection with
theintroduction oftheHarmonized System ortherenegotiation ofSchedules. These were waivers
granted under Article XXV ofGATT 1947andstillinforce onthedateofentry intoforce oftheWTO
Agreement. TheCouncil hadalsoforwarded forapproval bytheGeneral Council thedraftDecision
ontheIntroduction of1996 Harmonized System changes intoWTO Schedules ofTariff Concessions
which granted awaiver toanumber ofMembers listed intheannex ofthedecision. Thiswaiver would
expire on30June1996, anditwashoped thattheMembers concerned would complete thisexercise
bythen.
6.21 Herecalled thatatitsmeeting of31July1995, theCouncil hadconsidered anagenda item
concerning thestatus ofMembers oftheTextiles Monitoring Body. TheChairman oftheTextiles
Monitoring Body, onbehalf oftheBody, hadinformed him,atthattime, ofdiscussions theTMB had
held, when developing andadopting itsownworking procedures, withrespect totheperceived need
oftheBody tore-assert thefactthattheTMB members discharge theirfunctions onanadpersonam
basis. Hehadindicated thathewould beconsulting withMembers onthismatter, onthebasis of
aproposal provided bytheTMB. However, itappeared thatthisissue wasnowbeing discussed in
thebroader context oftheDispute Settlement Body anditsdiscussions onthe"Code ofEthics", which
waswhythismatter hadnotbeenreverted toduring thecourse of1995.
6.22 TheCouncil forTrade inGoods tooknoteofthereport.
7. Election ofChairperson fortheCouncil forTrade inGoods
7.1 TheChairman recalled theChairman oftheGeneral Council hadcarried outinformal
consultations onaslateofnames forappointment aschairpersons tothedifferent WTO standing bodies
inaccordance withtheestablished Guidelines forAppointment ofOfficers. These proposed nominations
were approved bytheGeneral Council atitsmeeting inDecember 1995.
7.2 Onthebasis oftheunderstandings reached, heproposed thattheCouncil forTrade inGoods
electH.E. Ambassador Narayanan (India) asChairman ofthisbody byacclamation.
7.3 TheCouncil forTrade inGoods unanimously elected Ambassador Narayanan, Chairman for
theCouncil forTrade inGoods for1996.