source
stringclasses 1
value | document_id
stringlengths 11
11
| title
stringlengths 4
531
| short_title
stringlengths 0
109
| author
stringclasses 941
values | date
stringlengths 3
10
| type_of_document
stringclasses 5
values | identifier
stringlengths 0
1.19k
| link
stringlengths 54
54
| file
stringlengths 0
25
| folder
stringclasses 157
values | word_count
int64 0
373k
| character_count
int64 0
3.12M
| text
stringlengths 0
3.12M
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GATT Library | vk405pq4159 | South African import restrictions : Note by the Exceutive Secretary | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, May 25, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 25/05/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/31 and GATT/CP.3/31 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/vk405pq4159 | vk405pq4159_90320177.xml | GATT_143 | 1,626 | 10,173 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR LIMITED C
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS GATT/CP.3/31
25 May 1949
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Third Session
SOUTH AFRICAN IMPORT RESTRICTIONS
Note by the Exceutive Secretary
The following letter dated 25 May has been
received from the Leadcr of the South African Delegation:
"I attach, for the information of the
CONTRACTING PARTIES, a copy of a statement made by the Acting
Minister of Economic Affairs of the Union of South Africa in
Parliament on Monday evening, 23 May, 1949, regarding the intro-
duction of physical import control in South Africa as from 1st
July next.
2. The statement indicates that in the
administration of the Union's now import control measures, a dis-
tinction will be drawn between sterling and non-sterling countries.
3. I wish to explain, however that this
aspect of the new scheme is still under consideration and it is
possible that the distinction may ultimately be changed to one
between soft and hard currency." STATEMENT BY THE
ACTING MINISTER OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS.
In view of the interest which has been shown in the
import control regulations both inside and outside the House,
I wish now to announce that regulations will be published at
an early date in which provision will be made that no goods
may be imported into the Union after 30th June except on
production to the Department of Customs and Excise of a
permit issued by my Department.
Certain exceptions will be made, the main two being
that no import permit will be required in respect of -
(1) Goods shipped from sterling countries on or
before June 13th, the date of shipment to be
substantiated by on board bill of lading or
postal receipt. Excuses that goods could
not be placed on board owing to any reason
whatsoever will not be accepted. A very
liberal margin of time should therefore be
allowed when arrangement for shipment ex
factory or store is being made.
(2)Goods arriving from non-sterling countries,
the importation of which has been authorised
in terms of the present exchange quota
regulations.
In this latter connection a proviso will be made
that the goods must have been ordered and confirmed before
June 30th and importers should approach their bank managers
for full particulars of the, necessary formalities without
delay.
Permits will indicate the maximum free on board
cost (as defined by the Customs Acts) of the goods described
in the permit which may be imported into the Union during the
period of validity of the permit. The permits will also
indicate the currency area from which the goods may be
imported.
My Department is at present compiling the necessary
statistics on which the administration of import control will
be based. The preliminary figures available indicate,
however, that the money available for expenditure in the
period July to December of this year will be insufficient
even to meet the Union's full requirements of essential raw
materials and capital goods. This position has been brought
about largely as a result of past over-expenditure on
finished consumer goods which have been reaching the Union in
quantities considerably in excess of the level which can be
maintained out of our foreign exchange earnings.
In these circumstances the Government has decided
for the present to concentrate the money available on the
importation............. - 2 -
importation of those goods which are necessary to keen the
wheels of our industries turning. No permits will there-
fore be issued in the immediate future for the importation
of any finished consumer goods, except in exceptional
isolated cases where the goods are highly essential for
maintaining public health and similar purposes.
The whole matter will be reviewed in the light of
the fuller information which is expected to be available
during August, and it will then be determined to what extent,
if any, it will be possible to allocate foreign exchange for
the importation of less essential goods.
The Government regards the importation of essential
raw materials for industries, and essential capital goods
for mining, agriculture and other basic industries, as of
primary importance for maintaining our economic life during
the difficult months ahead, and it is convinced that its
efforts to do so will meet with the general approval of the
country, since any failure to do so must result in unemploy-
ment not only in the industries directly concerned, but also
in the distributive trades.
It is confidently believed that the position in
1950 will be much improved, although we will even then not
be able to live in the luxurious manner that we have, done in
the past few years. For the remainder of this year,
however, it is clear that the country will have to "live on
its fat" and many importers, particularly those of finished
consumer goods, will have to husband their resources in
order to keep going.
The Office of the Director of Imports and Exporti
is at present preparing permits to cover a preliminary
allocation of essential raw materials, spare parts for
industrial machinery and consumable stores for industry.
These will, however, not cover the importation of non-
essentials or of any row materials for which substitutes
are available in the Union in adequate quantities.
Importers of consumer goods, non-essential raw
materials and items of capital plant should therefore
suspend or cancel all orders for such goods as cannot be
shipped from sterling countries by 13th June or which will
not be entered with the'Union Customs Department by 30th
June. In the case of non-sterling countries any orders for
similar goods which may have been placed without authority
under the present exchange quota regulations should also be
cancelled or suspended.
A considerable amount of premature publicity has
been given to the question of the importation of set-up oars
and of books. In the case of cars it is necessary to
remember that during 1948 we spent well over sixty million
pounds on motor cars, motor spares, petrol, tyres, etc.,
and that we cannot under present conditions possibly
maintain such a level of expenditure.
On ................ - 3 - On the other hand the Government wishes to avoid or
minimise unemployment in the Motor Assembly Industry and a
certain percentage of exchange has already been granted to the
assemblers to import components. In addition, it has been
suggested to the representatives of other overseas car
manufacturers that they should try to make arrangements to
have their cars assembled in the existing plants in this
country, and certain arrangements to this end have already
been effected while others are being negotiated.
It is not at this stage possible to determine to
what extent, if any, it will be possible in the immediate
future to permit the importation of set-up cars, including
those which originate in America, England and the Continent.
The matter is still being investigated and no final statement
is at present possible. It is emphasised, however, that if
it should be found necessary to suspend imports for a few
months, this should not be interpreted as a ban, and that,
although preference must be given to raw materials and
components as compared with finished products, it is not the
intention of the Government to ban the importation of British
or any other set-up cars.
Regarding the importation of books, any statements
made by private individuals or organisations must also be
regarded a s premature as the Government does not intend to ban
the importation of cny books other than those in respect of
which other regulations already apply, such as the prohibition
of comics, Wild West and certain other types of magazines,
etc.
It appears, however, that under present conditions
some saving must also be made on the importation of books and
periodicals and it is clearly desirable that educational and
technical books and periodicals should receive preference
over light reading matter. The interested bodies have
therefore been asked to submit full particulars and proposals
to the Directorate of Imports and Exports.
The basis on which preliminary permits fox essential
raw materials, spare parts and consumable stores are being
prepared for the second six months of 1949 is as follows:-
(1) In the case of sterling goods, not more
than 25% of the f.o.b. cost of the individ Pal
importer's total importations during 1948,
i.e. 50% of his importations during
6 months, and
(2) in the case of non-sterling goods, not more
than 162/3% of the f. o.b. cost of the
individual importer's total importations
during 1943, i.e. 331/3% of his importations
during 6 months.
It is emphasised that no importer can rely on getting a permit
for non-essential materials or for materials which are avail-
able in South Africa.
These ...... - 4 -
These permits must be regarded as preliminary and
further assessments for the period July to December will be
made in three or four months time when it is anticipated
that further quotas will be available. Every effort will
then be made to increase total quotas for essential
industrial requirements to a substantial level of 1948
imports, but it is not at present possible to determine what
proportions will be achieved.
These above-mentioned figures are intended as a
general indication to importers of raw materials, spare
parts and consumable stores of the preliminary quotas they
can expect to receive and they should for the present
exercise caution in negotiating orders for goods in excess
of such quotas. A number of industrial groups have been
engaged in discussions with the Director of Imports and,
in certain cases, have been advised of the quotas which oan
be expected by their members. In such cases the above
general statement will not apply and such groups should
continue to work on the basis advised to them by the
Director.
--------------000------------ |
GATT Library | kf509rp4674 | Spanish text of the Havana Charter : Note from the Executive Secretary | Interim Commission for the International Trade Organization, April 20, 1949 | Interim Commission for the International Trade Organization (ICITO/GATT) | 20/04/1949 | official documents | ICITO/1/10, ICITO/INF/1-8, and ICITO/1/1-16 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/kf509rp4674 | kf509rp4674_90180021.xml | GATT_143 | 150 | 988 | INTERIM COMMISSION
FOR THE INTERNATIONAL
TRADE ORGANIZATION
URGENT ACTION
UNRESTRICTED
COMMISSION INTERIMAIRE DE
L'ORGANISATION INTERNATIONALE ICITO/1/10
20 April 1949
DU COMMERCE
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Spanish Text of the Havana Charter
Note from the Executive Secretary
In view of the fact that the Secretariat has been
notified that further comments are to be expected upon
the Spanish text of the Havana Charter, the date for
deposit of this text with the Secretary-General of the
United Nations has been postponed from 11 April.
Account will be taken of any comments received by noon
on 30 April. All that are received by then will be
incorporated in the text and communicated to all
Governments. The text itself will be deposited on
31 May with the Secretary-General of the United Nations
unless objections are registered in the interval.
Note: Comments should be sent to Mr. Grant Tolley,
ICITO Liaison Officer, United Nations
Headquarters, Lake Success. |
GATT Library | xp446qf0814 | Special protocol relating to article XXIV | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, April 4, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 04/04/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP/13 and GATT/CP/13 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/xp446qf0814 | xp446qf0814_90070145.xml | GATT_143 | 88 | 615 | GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS AND
TRADE
ACCORD GENERAL SUR
LES TARIFS DOUANIERS
ET LE COMMERCE
Limited B
GATT/CP/13
4 April 1949
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Special Protocol relating
to Article XXIV
The Secretary General of the United Nations has advised
receipt of an instrument of acceptancer of the above Protocol
from the government of India.
PARTIES CONTRACTANTES
Pretocole spTcial relatif à
l'Article XXIV
Le SecrTtaire GTnTral de I'Organisation des Nations Unies a fait
connaître qu'il avait reçu un instrument d'acceptation du Protocole
ci-dessus par le gouvernement de l'Inde. |
GATT Library | jf980mr3744 | Special protocol relating to Article XXIV | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, June 10, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 10/06/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP/25 and GATT/CP/25 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/jf980mr3744 | jf980mr3744_90300096.xml | GATT_143 | 101 | 671 | ,tr ._
/ ;
GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS AND
TRADE
ACCORD GENERAL SUR
LES TARIFS DOUANIERS
ET LE COMMERCE
LIMITED B
GATT/CP/25
10 June 1949
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
SPECIAL PROTOCOL RELATING TO ARTICLE XXIV
The Secretary-General of the United Nations has advised that
on 24th May 1949, he received the instruent of acceptance of the above
Protocol from the Goverrment of Syria.
PARTIES CONTRACTANTES
PROTOCOLE SPECLAL RELATIF A L'ARTICLE XXIV
Le Secretaire General de l'Organisation des Nations Unies a
fait connaitre qu'il avait recu le 24 mai 1949 un instrument d'acceptation
du Protocole ci-dessus par le Gouvernement de la Syrie. |
GATT Library | sz031rs8752 | Speech by the Head of the Czechoslovak Delegation. Mr. Zdenek Augenthaler to the Item 14 of Agenda (CP. 3/2/Rev.2) | May 30, 1949 | 30/05/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/2/Rev.2 and GATT/CP.3/2/Rev.2 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/sz031rs8752 | sz031rs8752_90320076.xml | GATT_143 | 3,439 | 21,740 | CONFIDENTIAL 30/V/1949
Speech by the Head of the Czechoslovak Delegation
Mr. Zdenek AUGENTHALER to the Stem 14 of Agenda (CP. 3/2/Rev.2)
Request of the Government of Czechoslovakia for a decision under
Article XXIII as to whetherr or not the Government of the United
States has failed to carry out its obligations under the Agreement
through its administration of the issue of export licensees.-
Mr. Chairman, Follow Delegates
In your opening speech of this session, Mr. Chairmans
you said that there are on our agenda items the discussion
of which could easily be allowed to stay from the facts and
figures of economics to the area of political debate and you have
appealed to all of us not to stray in that directions
I presumes Mr, Chairman, that you had in mind especial-
ly the item under discussion to-day and I will comply with your
wish though. it is not an easy task.
It is not oasy because the USA Second Decontrol
Act of 1947, in its findings of fact and declaration of policy,
explicitly says under point 4 that it is the general policy
of USA export control "to aid in carrying out the foreign policy
of the United States", which moans that political reasons are
placed before the obligations of Article 92 of the Havana Charter
which says " that the members will not have recourse to unilateral
economic measures of any kind contrary to the provisions of this
Charter."
I do not intend to question at this moment the
extent to which the USA is able in the light of the provisions
of the General .4 Areement on Tariffs and Trade, to maintain its
export controls of goods which are not at all in short supply
and are not war material, and I will turn directly to the administra-
tion of the export control. 2/
Article I of the G.A.T.T. contains the paramount rule
of General Most-Favoured-Nation-Treatment and specifies that
with respect to all rules and formalities in connection with
exportation any aduntage ,favour privilege or immunity granted
by any contracting party to any product destined for any other
country shall be accorded immediately and unconditionally to the
like product destined for the territories of all other contracting
parties.
Article XIII of the. G.A.T.T. clearly says that no prohi-
bition or restriction shall be applied by any contracting party
on the exportation of any product destined for the territory of any
other contracting party, unless the exportation of the like product
to all third countries is similarly prohibited or restricted. Para-
graph 2 of the same Article provides as a matter of principle that
in applying restrictions, contracting parties shall aim at a dis-
tribution of trade in such product approaching aa/closely as possible
the shares which th;. various contracting parties might be expected
to obtain in the absence of such restrictions, and paragraph 3
provides that the contracting party applying the restrictions
shall provides upon the request of any contracting party having
an interest in the trade in the product concerned all relevant
information concerning the administration of the restrictions, etc.
Exceptions to the Rule of non-discrimination are admitted
in Article XIV for reasons of balance of payments difficulties, which
is sertainly not the case of the USA, especially as all imports
from the USA into other countries are paid for in dollars.
We must thus turn our attention to Articles XX and XXI.
Article XX, paragraphII in connection with the preamble
to this Article says, that subject to the requirement that such 3/
measures are not applied in a manner which would constitute a means
of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where
the same conditions prevail a contratcting party may take measures
essential to the aquisition or distribution of produces ia general
or local short supply, provided that any such measures shall be
consistent with any multilateral arrangements directed to an equit-.
able international distribution of such productor with the
principle of eqitable shares of the international supply of such
productsor measures essential to the control of prices by a con-
tracting party undergoing shortages subsequent to the war, but these
measures should be removed as soon as the conditions giving rise to
them have ceaced.
Article XXI, paragraph b (ii) allows a contracting
party to take any action which it considers necessary for the
protection of its essential security interests relating to the
traffic in arms, ammunition and implements of war and to such
traffic in other goods and materials as is carried on directly or
indirectly for the purpose of supplying military establishment,
I must apologize to you, Mr. Chairman, and to all
my colleagues, that I started my statement by analysing the relevant
provisions of the G.A.T.T., well known to all of you, but I thought
it advisable to do so in order to put our problem in the right light.
Now let us see, what are the export controls of the
USA and how they are administered. For this purpose I would like
first of all to refer to the official publication of the US Department
of Commerce -"Comprohensive Export Schedule" Nr. 26, issued on
October let, 1948. On page 18 of this publication you will finds
that for the purpose of export control, all foreign destinations
are classified as follows: 4/
1) All experts to Canada are free and no licenses are required.
This is, in our opinion, the first discrimination against
all other contracting parties, contrary to the basic prin-
ciples of Article I and XIII, paragraph 1.
2) country Group "R" comprising practically all European countries
and their adjacent possessions.
3) Country Group "O" coprising all foreign destinations other
than Canada and those included in Group "R".
All commodities which may be exported under general
license to Group "O" destinations may be reexported from
one country in that Group or from Canada to any other country
in that Group, but the reexportation fron one country of
Group "R"to other countries in that Group is prohibited
unless a license is issued or amended accordingly. This is
a second discrimination, this time against the countries
of Group "R", so differentiated from the others.
4) But there is a further discrimination between countries of
Groups "O" and "R'. All commodities, whether included in the
so-called positive List or not, require a license for export
to Group "R" destinations except shipments within the dollar-
-value limits of a general license. So far as exports to
Group "O" countries are concerned however, certain commodities
on the Positive List do not require a validated license for
export to certain Group "O" destinations, and if the commodi-
ty does not appear on the Positive List, then an export
license is not required for shipments to a Group "O" country.
5) Now I would like to pay special attention to the unfortunate
Group "R" - Europe. There is a further division, which does
not appear from the published schedules, but which exists, 5/
as I will show, and which is of a greatest importance to my
own country. On November 4, 1948, the Honorable Willard
L. Thorp sated in Committee 2 of the General Assembly in Paris
the followings "Since March 1st, 1948, export control over
short-supply items has been reinforced by the imposition of
export licensing control over nearly all shipments to Europe.
This control serves two primary purposes. The first of these
purposes is to insure that the requirents of the countries
participating in the European Recovery Program are met, so far
as possible, in accordance with the purposes and provisions of
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1948. The second of these purposes
is to supplement the long-standing control of exports of arms,
ammunition and implements of war by subjecting to close scrutiny
shipments to Eastern Europe of other items which have military
significance. In practice, this has meant that shipments to
participating countries, other than shipments of products
of short-supply list, have been licensed freely whereas ship-
ments destined for non-participating countries have been
carefully scrutinized 1) to insure an adequate flow the parti-
cipating countries of goods needed for their economic recovery
and 2) to prevent the shipment to Eastern Europe of things that
would contribute significantly to the military potential of that
region."
I would like to point out, that Mr. Thorp in his
speech mentioned goods that would contribute "to the military
potentigl".
As you all know, the notion "war or military" potential
is an extremely elastic notion. It embraces the reserves of man-power,
the
economic resources of a country and/extent to which both have been
militarised, it embraces also the time element, that is, not only
the possibility of developing military strength but also the
degree of actual preparedness, it embraces equaly moral and mental 6/
forces of the poople.
Practically everything may be a possible element of war
potential, but if we accept this meaning, it would mean rooting
out important sections of vital peacetime industry, narrowing
the field of important research and changing the face of modern
civilization and make peaceful cooperation impossible. War power
stretched away from the actual organizations until it covers
the whole nation and until, as Mr. Salvador de Madariaga said
"the young mother, peacefully feeding her tender baby at her
breast, is transfigured from an idyllic picture of motherhood
into a grim amason, pouring sinews of war into a recruit ready to
take up a rifle on the twentieth year of hostilities." But the
G.A.T.T. speaks only about "military establishments", which are
something entirely different and that is why in our opinion
the "war-potential" has no place in our considerations
Mr. Thomas C. Blaicdell, Acting Assistant Secretary
of Commerce, made, on January 31, a similar statement while
giving evidence before the Congressional Committee investigating
the Bill which prolaged the Department of Commerce's export
controlson commodities in short supply. His statement shows
that
1) the United States regards the need for controls as
greater than ever;
2) Sheer chortage is becoming a lese frequent reason for
refusing licenses
3) Shipments to Eastern Europe are being stopped for
reasons of foreign policy. As Mr. Blaisdell said:
"Except for commodities in short supply shipments to
Western Europe are being licensed fairly freely, but 7/
shipments to Batern Europe have been carefully restricted".
I assume that these statements are closely connected
with the famous secret list, A and B, the existence of which
nobody has denied. I would be obliged to the USA delegates if they
would, in accordance with Article XIII, paragraph 3, provide us
with all relevant information concerning the administration of the
restrictions and the distribution of such licenses.
For tho moment I will consider only the statements
I have quoted above. It can be seen from these statements that
1) existing restrictions have been intensified since March
lst, 1948, that is since the entry into force of the
G.A.T.T.
2) The reason for inteanifying the restrictions in most
cases was not that of short supply;
3) Two main reasons for discrimination are invoked:
a) security reasonas,
b) participation or non-participation of a country in
the European Recovery Program.
I shall return later to tht question of security
and begin with the second point.
The foreignn Assistance Act of 1948, Chapter 169,
ses. 112 g provides that no export shall be authorized of any
camodity from the USA to any country wholly or partly in Europe
which is not a participating country, if the department, agency, etc.,
determines that the supply of such commodity is insufficient,
or would he insufficient if such export were permitted, to fulfil
the requirements of participating country under this title. This law
was passed on April 2nd, 1948, and signed by the President of the 8/
USA on April 3, 1948, that is after the entry into force of
the G.A.T.T. and in consequence should, in our opinion, contain
no provisions which are clearly inconsistent with the G.A.T.T.
Now I would like to return to the question of national
security. The G.A.T.T. contains in this respect a definition
in Article XXI. For our part, it would suffice to mention only
sub-paragraph ' (ii) "relating to the traffic in arms, ammunition
and implements of war and to such traffic in other goods and
materials as is carried on directly or indirectly for the purpose
of supplying a military establishment." But Mr. Thorp was speaking
about "military potential" which is, in our opinion an entirely
different thing.
As a conclusion to this part of my statement I would
like to point out that USA export controls
1) are contrary to the basic principles of Article I request-
ing licenses for exports to some destinations and none
to others;
2) are administering then these licenses contrary to the
provisions of Article XIII.
Until this moment I have been speaking only about
texts and paragraphs.
Let us see now what are the consequences of the USA 's
measures on the development of international trade. Czechoslo-
vakia has ordered from US factories different materials and
equipment, in our view none of them for a military establishment,
There are, for example, equipment for dried milk production,
electrodes, electric bulbs wire, alluminium folios for 92 $,
X-ray tubes, enamelled copper wire, enamelled sets for pharma- 9/
coutical manufacture, different equipment for mines, melting
equipment for Czechoslovak State Mint, etc. We had to pay
in advance for most of the goods ordered and now these goods
are lying in US factories or warehouses and some 27 millions of
dollars are blocked in this way. We also know that the USA has
handed over to other Countries its secret lists of prohibited
goods, that the United Kingdom has meanwhile introduced some
similar restrictions on exports and that in the French National
Assembly the Republican representative M. Chambeiron stated
on May 17, 1949 in his interpellation the following:
"Le ler avril dernier, un haute fonctionnaire du Quai
d'Oreax a declare, lors d'une conference de presses que le
Gouvernement francais se proposait, a l'exemple des Etats-Unis
et de la Grande-Bretagne, de limiter nos exportations en
interdisct la sortie de certains products. Deux listed seraient
deja dressees......... Nous apprenons maintenant que le
Gouvernement songs a interdire l'exportation des machines-outils". *.*,,
Mr. Chairman, Fellow Delegates, we have signed the
G.A.T.T. confident that it would bring a certain sense of security
and legality into international trade relations loading to an
expanding exchange of goods and ensuring full employment.
Ineteal we are faced with the greatest insecurity and with
measures which are leading to an inevitable decrease in our
trade with certain countries. How can our enterprises be expected
to place their orders with the factories of those countries, in
which, either through State intervention or the possibility of
State intervention millions of our money remain, or may remain,
frozen? 10/
All of you know that unemployment is rapidly
increasing in some countries. Is this the right way to
fight against it, doos it not mean that the USA is
closing down itself its export markets?
For all those reasons we expect your decision
to be just and fairy and to ronew the badly shaken confidence,
because otherwise it would allow each country to do to other
countries practically what it wishes. The work we have done
until now would he completely destroyed and a big question
mark would he placed above the not yet existing ITO.
As soon as you would admit that a country may
impose restrictions and special formalities on exports
to some destinations aid none to others, the Most-Favoured-
-Nation-Treatment would cease to exist and we would be
in the midst of -.:ldest economic warfaro instead of peaceful
cooperation,
Mr. Chairman, Follow Delegates, we have brought
this matter before you because we approached in accordance
with Article XXTII, paragraph 1 already on December 2, 1948,
the US State Department with a verbal note but until now
we have received no reply. COMPREHENSIVE EXPORT SCHEDULE NO 26.
Part 3. Country Groups.
For the purpose of export control, all foreign destinations, except Canada, are
classified by the Office of International Trade into two country groups Group
O and Group R. ( Exportations to territories and possessions of the United Sta-
test e.g. Alaska Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands. Canal Zone Guam etc., as
well as to the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, do not roquiro export
licenses.)
Country Group O
All foreign destinations, othor than Canada and those included in Group R, are
included in Group 0.
Country Group R
The following destinations comprise Group R:
Aegean Islands ( including the Dodecanese
Islands )
Albania
Andorra
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czechoslovakia
Denmark (except Greenland )
Estonia
Finland
France (including Corsica )
French North Africa (including Algaria,
Tunisia, and French Morc co)
Norway
Poland and Danzig
Portugal (including Azores and Madoira
Islands)
Romania
San Marino
Spain and Possessions ( including Balea-
ric Islands; the Canary Islands; Spanish
Morocso; Ceuta; Melilla; Ifni; Rio de Oro;
Spanish Guinea, including Rio Muniand
Fernando Po; Annobon, Corisco, and Elobey
Islands.
Sweden Canada.
Germany
Gibraltar
Greece ( and its Mediterranean Islands )
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy ( and its Mediterranean Islands )
Latvia
Lichtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta, Gozo, and Cyprus Islands
Monaco
The Netherlands
Switzerland
Tangier ( including the international
zone )
Trieste. Free Teritory of
Turkey ( Asiatic aud European )
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
( European and Asiatic )
United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland
Vatican City
Yugoslavia
Licenses are not required for the export of articles, materials, supplies, or
technical data to Canada. THE PROBLEM OF DISCRMINATION
IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE. x/
Statement by Willard L. Thorp.
Since March 1, 1948, export control over shortsupply items has been reinforced
by the imposition of export-licensing control over nearly all shipments to Europe.
This control serves two primary purposes. The first of these purposes is to
insure that the requirements of the countries participating in the European
Recovery Program are met, so far as possible, in accordance with the purposes
and provisions of the Foreign Assistanco Act of 1948. The second of these pur-
poses is to supplement the long-standing control of exports of arms, ammunition,
and implements of war by subjecting to close scrutiny shipments to Eastern Europe
of other items which have military significance.
In practice, this has meant that shipments to participating countries, other
than shipments of products on the short-supply list, have been licensed freely
whereas shipments destined for nonparticipating countries have been carefully
scrutinized (1) to insure An adequate flow to the participating countries of
goods needed for their economic recovery and (2) to prevent the shipment to
Eastern Lurope of things that would contribute significantly to the military
potential of that region.
**Speare 0 ei
x/ Speking before Committee 2 of the UN Assembly in Paris on Nove 4, 1948. U.S. Department of Commerce
Office of International Trado
Cross) STorling 9200
Ext. 3681 OIT-318A
Socrotary of Commerce Charles Sawyer announced late to-day that,
effective immediately, validated licenses will not be required to export
any fats (including fatback and butter) and oils and oil bearing seeds
to destinations outside the Group "R" countries in Europe and adjacent
areas. Commerce officials emphasized that validated licenses are still
required for shipments to the Group "R" countrises.
Today's action is the latest of a series of steps relaxing
controls on fats and oils. Export controls on inedible fats and oils were
removed on February 7, as a result of a survey undertaken at the request
of are Sawyer. At the same time, quotas of lard, soybean and cottonseed oil
were increased by 105,000,000 pounds.
This -f'ternoon the International Emergency Food Committee
of which the United States is a member, agreed that fats and oils should be
removed from a system of world allocation, Earlier today Socretary Sawyer
had deferred action pending this decision ofIEFC.
The decision of the IEEC made practical the action of the
Department of Commerce, which authorizes the shipment of all fats and
oils to all parts of the world, except the Group "R" countries, without
obtaining validated licenses.
Following is a list of the fats and oils removed today from
the Fositive List of commodities under export controls ..........
follows the list of goods. Import into CZECHOSLOVAKIA
from
U. S.A.
United Kingdom
France
Netherlands
Belgium
Norway
Denmark
Italy
Greece
Sweden
Participating countries of ERP
in Annecy
% of the Czechoslovak total import
1947 1948 Reduction 1947/4-
10,2 4,8 53 %
11,7 10,1 -14 %
3.s~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~' n.s l
5,8
4,6
2,3
2,8
4,0
0,9
5,9
5,4
3,1
1,2
1,3
2,4
0,9
5,3
- 29 %
- 7%
- 33 %
- 48 %
- 54 %
- 40 %
0
- 23 %
- 24 %
32,2
42,5 |
|
GATT Library | by145hk6227 | Statement by the Czechoslovali Delegation regarding the possibility of Accession of Western Germany to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 26, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Working Party 10 on New Tariff Negotiations | 26/09/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP3/WP10/2/4 and GATT/CP.3/WP.10/2/1-10 WP.10/2/3,6/Corr.1 WP.10/2/5,8,9,10/Rev.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/by145hk6227 | by145hk6227_91870599.xml | GATT_143 | 401 | 2,681 | RESTRICTED
GATT/CP3/WP10/2/4
26th September, 1949.
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
WORKING PARTY 10
Statement by the Czechoslovali Delegation regarding
the possibility of Accession of Western Germany to the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
In addition to its statement made at Annecy the Czechoslovair Delegation
wishes to draw attention to the fact that, at the Second Session of the
Preparatory Committee, a Subcommittee was appointed with the following Terms
of Reference:
"To examine the situation respecting the participation as full contract-
ing parties of Burma,Ceylon and Southern Rhodesia", ..... and "as to how
the text of the General Agreement should be changed" (E/EC/t/198,15 september
1947) .
In order to form an opinion with regard to the participation of these
countries, the Subcommittee requested the United Kingdom Delegate to submit
information relating to the ability of these territories:
(a) to approve and modify their teriffs without the consent of the
United Kingdom;
(b) to apply the General Agreement without recference to the United
Kingdom; and
(c) to entor into contractual relations on commercial matters with
foreign governments, including any example of such contractual
relations .........
Having considered all the relevant facts, the Sub Committee unanimously
agreed to recommend to the Tariff Agreeement Committee that:
"Burma, Ceylon and Southern Rhodesia, according to their status de jure
and/or defacto,can be admitted to participate as full contracting
parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade."
In this way the Contracting Parties have laid down the rules for the
possibility of accession of a country to the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade.
The Occupation Statute for Western Germany, issued on April 10, 1949,
specifically reserves to the occupation powers: Trade discrimination
(para 2(b)), foreign affairs including international agreements made by or
on behalf of Germany (para 2(c)), and control over foreign trade and exchange
(pare. 2(g)), and under the memorandum on the measures for Germany, issued
on April 27, the Joint Export-import Agency and the Joint Foreign Exchange
Agency, or any successor to then, continue in existence, are charged with
the performance of their present functions and the United states has retained
its predominant voice in then. Therefore, it seems sufficiently clear,
that Western Germany cannot satisfy the conditions laid down by the
Contracting Parties and cannot be invited to the next set of tariff negotiations
with the view to become a full contracting party to the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade. |
GATT Library | jc120ns6409 | Statement by the Delegation of Cuba on Margins of Preference initiated in Annecy | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, July 26, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 26/07/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/59 and GATT/CP.3/59+Corr.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/jc120ns6409 | jc120ns6409_90320262.xml | GATT_143 | 263 | 1,742 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR LIMITED B
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS GATT/CP/3/59.
26 July 1949
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Third Session
Statement by the Delegation of Cuba on Margins
of Preference initiated in Annecy
There is being circulated separately a Statemerno by the
Delegation of Cuba on Margins of Preference initiated in Annecy.
In submitting this Statement the Delegation of Cuba has
requested that the question be discussed at an early meeting of
the Contracting Parties in connection with item 3 of the Agenda..
It is therefore proposed that the matter be considered by the
Contracting Parties at a meeting to be arranged later this week,
probably on the afternoon of Friday, 29 July.
Note: One copy of the Statement of the Delegation of Cuba
has been distributed to each Co'ntracting Party.
PARTIES CONTRACTANTES
Troisième session
Exposé de la délégation de Cuba concernant les marges
de préférence instituées à Annecy.
Le texte d'un exposé de la délégation de Cuba concernant les
marges de préférence institutes a Annecy est distribué dans un document
distinct.
En presentant cet expose, la délégation de Cuba a demand que
la question soit discutee lors dune prochaine seance des Parties Contrac-
tantes en liaison avec le point 3 de l'ordre du jour. On propose en
consequence que les Parties Contractantes examinent la question lors
d'une reunion qui aurait lieu a la fin de cette semaine, probablement
dans l'après-midi du vendredi 29 juillet.
Note: Il a été distribute a chacune des Parties Contractantes un exem-
plaire de l exposé de la délégation de Cuba. |
GATT Library | zs855sn1308 | Statement by the Delegation of the United States regarding certain legal questions relative to the accession of the Republic of Korea to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade | Contracting Parties, August 23, 1949 | Contracting Parties and Working Party 10 on New Tariff Negotiations | 23/08/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/WP.10/3 and GATT/CP.3/WP.10/1,3-7 WP.10/4/Rev.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/zs855sn1308 | zs855sn1308_91870583.xml | GATT_143 | 342 | 2,175 | GATT/CP.3/WP.10/3
23 August 1949
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Contracting Parties
Third Session
Working Party 10 on New Tariff Negotiations
STATEMENT BY THE DELEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES
REGARDING CERTAIN LEGAL QUESTIONS RELATIVE TO
THE ACCESSION OF THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA TO
THE GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
The Constitution of the Republic of Korea, adopted July 12, 1948,
provides that the President shall conclude treaties, with certain
requirements as to the approval thereof by the legislature and the
State Council (arts. 42, 59 and 72).
Several months after the adoption of this Constitution the
General Assembly of the United Nations, in its resolution on Korea
of December 12, 1948, while reciting that the unification of Korea
had not been achieved, declared that the Government of the Republic
of Korea had been established as a lawful government having effective
control and jurisdiction over that part of Korea in which a great
majority of the people of Korea resided, and that it was the only such
government of Korea (par. 2). The resolution recommended that
Members of the United Nations and other nations should take these
facts into account in establishing their relations with the Government
of the Republic of Korea (par. 9).
The resolution recommended as early withdrawal of the occupation
forces as was practicable (par. 3), and such withdrawal has since
taken place.
The Government of the Republic of Korea has already been recognized
by twenty-two countries including, among the contracting parties,
Australia, China, France, Netherlands, United Kingdom, and United States
of America. It has concluded a few bilateral international agreements,
and is a Member of the World Health Organization.
In view of this clear recognition by the United Nations of the
status of the Republic of Korea in spite of the fact that it did not
include all the territory commonly known as Korea, and in view of the
membership of the Republic in an international organization brought into
relationship with the United Nations, there would seem to be no legal bar
to its accession to the General Agreement under Article XXXIII. |
GATT Library | qm531cp5380 | Statement by the Head of the Czechoslovak Delegation. Mr. Zdenek Augenthaler to Item: 14 of Agenda (CP:3/2/Rev.2) | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, May 30, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 30/05/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/33 and GATT/CP.3/33 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/qm531cp5380 | qm531cp5380_90320183.xml | GATT_143 | 3,457 | 22,203 | RESTRICTED
GENERL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR LIMITED C
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS 30 May 1949
MADE ET LE COMMERCE Original: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Third Session
Statement by the Head of the Czechoslovak Delegation
Mr. Zdenek AUGENTHALER to Item: 14 of Agenda (CP:3/2/Rev.2)
Request of the Government of Czechoslovakia for a decision
under Article XXIII as to whether or not the Government of
the United States has failed to carry out its obligations
under the Agreement through its administration of the issue
of export licenses,
Mr. Chairman, Fellow Delegates,
In your opening speech of this session, Mr, Chairman, you said
that there are on our agenda,itemsthe discussion of which could
easily be allowed to stray from the facts and figures of economics
to the area of political debate and you have appealed to all of us
not to stray in that direction.
I presume, Mr. Chairman, that you had in mind especially the
ite under discussion to-day and I will comply with your wish though
it is not an easy task.
It is not easy because the USA Second Decontrol. Act of 1947, in
its findings of fact and declaration of policy, explicitly says under
point 4 that it is the general policy of USA export control "to aid
in carrying out the foreign policy of the United States which means
that political reasons are placed before the obligations of Article 92
of the Havana Charter which says "that the members will not have
recourse to unilateral economic measures of any kind contrary to the
provisions of this Charter." GATT/CP.3/33
page 2
I do not intend to question at this moment the extent to which
the USA is able in the light of the provisions of the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade, to maintain its export controls of goods which
are not at all in short supply and are not war material,. and I will
turn directly to the administration of the export control.
Article I of the G.A.T.T contains the paramount rule of General
Host-Favoured-Nation-Treatment and specifies that with respect to all
rules and formalities in connection with exportation any advantage,
favour, privilege or immunity granted by any contracting party to any
product destined for any other country shall be accorded immediately
and unconditionally to the like product destined for the territories of
all other contracting parties.
Article XIII of the G.A.T.T. clearly says that no proIibition or
restriction shall be applied by any contracting party on the exaportation
of any product destined for the territory of any other conttracting party,
unless the exportation of the like product to all third countries is
similarly prohibited or restricted. Paragraph 2 of the same Article
provides as a matter of principle that in applying restrictions,
contracting parties shall aim at a distribution of trade in such product
approaching as closely as possible the shares which the various
ccntracting parties might be expected to obtain in the absence of such
restrictions, and paragraph 3 provides that the contracting party
applying the restrictions shall provide, upon the request of any
contracting party having an interest in the trade in the product
concerned, all relevant information concerning the administration of the
restrictions etc.
Exceptions to the Rule of Non-Discrimnination are admitted in
Article XIV for represons of balance of payments difficulties, which is
certainly not the case of the USA, especially as all imports from the
USA into other countries are paid for in dollars. We must thus turn
our attention to Articles XX and XXI. GATT/CP.3/33
page 3
Article XX, paragraph II in connection with the preamble to this
Article says, that subject to the requirement that such measures are
not applied in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or
unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions
prevail, a contracting party may take measures essential to the
acquisition or distribution of products in general or local short supply,
provided that any such measures shall be consistent with any mutilateral
arrangements directed to an equitable international distribution of such
product, or with the principle of equitable shares of the international
supply of such products, or measures essential to the control of prices
by a contracting party undergoing shortages subsequent to the war, but
these measures should be removed as soon as the conditions giving rise
to them have ceased.
Article XXI, paragraph b (ii) allows a contracting party to take
any action which it considers necessary for the protection of its
essential security interests relating to the traffic in arms, ammunition
and implements of war and to such traffic in other goods and materials
as is carried on directly or indirectly for the purpose of supplying
military establishments.
I must apologize to you, Mr. Chairman, and t.o all my colleagues, that
I started my statement by analysing the relevant, provisions of the
G.AT.T., well known to all of you, but I thought it advisable to do so
in order to put our problem in the right light.
Now let us see, what are the export controls of the USA and how
they are administered. For this purpose I would like first of all to
refer to the official publication of the US Department of Commerce -
"Comprehensive Export Schedule" No. 26, issued on October 1st, 1948.
On page 18 of this publication you will find, that for the purpose of
export control, all foreign destinations are classified as follows: GATT/CP.3/33
page 4
1) All exports to Canada are free and no licenses are required.
This is, in our opinion, the first discrimination against
all other contracting parties, contrary to the basic
principles of Articles I and XIII, paragraph 1.
2) Country Group "R" comprises practically all European
countries and their adjacent possessions.
3) Country Group "0" comprising all foreign destinations other
than Canada and those included in Group "R".
All commodities which may be exported under general
license to Group "0" destinations may be re-exported from
one country in that Group or from Canada to any other country
in that Group, but the re-exportation from one country of Group
"R" to other countries in that Group is prohibited unless a
license is issued or amended accordingly. This is a second
discrimination, this time against the countries of Group "R"
so differentiated from the others.
4) But there is a further discrimination between countries of
Groups "'Y" and "R". All commodities, whether included in the
so-called Positive List or not, require a license for export
to Group "R" destinations except shipments within the dollar-
value limits of a general license. So far as exports to
Group "0" countries are concerned, however, certain commodities
on the Positive List do not require a validated license for
export to certain Group "0" destinations, and if the commodity
does not appear on the Positive List, then an export license
is not required for shipments to a Group "0"' country.
5) Now I would like to pay special attention to the unfortunate
Group "R" - Europe. There is a further division, which does
not appear from the published schedules, but which exists, GATT/CP.3/33
page 5
as I will show, and which is of a greatest importance to
my own country. On November 4, 1948, the Honourable
Willard L. Thorp stated in Committee 2 of the General
Assembly in Paris the following: "Since March 1st, 1948,
export control over short-supply items has been reinforced
by the imposition of export licensing control over nearly
all shipments to Europe. This control serves two primary
purposes. The first of these purposes is to ensure that
the requirements of the countries participating in the
European Recovery Programme are met, so far as possible, in
accordance with the purposes and provisions of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1948. The second of these purposes is
to supplement the long-standing control of exports of arms,
amunition and implements of war by subjecting to close
scrutiny shipments to Eastern Europe of other items which
have military significance. In practice, this has meant
that shipments to participating countries, other than shipments
of products of short-supply list, have been licensed freely
whereas shipments destined for non-participating countries
have been carefully scrutinized 1) to ensure an adequate flow
to participating countries of goods needed for their economic
recovery and 2) to prevent the shipment to Eastern Europe of
things that would contribute significantly to the military
potential of that region."
I would like to point out that Mr. Thorp in his speech
mentioned goods that would contribute"to the military potential".
As you all know, the notion "war or military" potential
is an extremely elastic notion. It embraces the reserves
of man-power, economic resources of a country and the extent
to which both have been militarized, it embraces also the time GATT/CP.3/33
page 6
element, that is, not only the possibility of developing
military strength but also the degree of actual preparedness,
it embraces equally moral and mental forces of the people.
Practically everything may be a possible element of war
potential, but if we accept this meaning, it would mean rooting
out important sections of vital peace-time industry, narrowing
the field of important research and changing the face of
modern civilization and make peaceful co-operation impossible.
War power stretches away from the actual organizations until
it covers the whole nation and until, as Mr. Salvador de
Madariaga sad "the young mother, peacefully feeding her
tender baby at her breast, is transfigured from an idyllic
picture of motherhood into a grim amazon, pouring sinews
of war into a recruit ready to take up a rifle on the
twentieth year of hostilities". But the G.A.T.T. speaks
only about "military establishments", which are something
entirely different and that is why in our opinion the "war
potential" has no place in our considerations.
Mr. Thomas C. Blaisdell, Acting Assistant Secretary
of Commerce, made, on January 31st, a similar statement while
giving evidence before the Congressional Committee investigating
the Bill which prolonged the Department of Commercets export
controls on commodities in short supply. His statement shows
that:
1) the United States regards the need for controls
as greater than ever;.
2) Sheer shortage is becoming a less frequent
reason for refusing licenses;
3). Shipments to Eastern Europe are being stopped
for reasons of foreign policy. As Mr. Blaisdell GATT/CP. 3 /33
said. "Except for commodities in short supply
shipments to Western Europe are being licensed
fairly fairly, but shipments to Eastern Europe
have been carefully restricted".
I assume that these statements are closely connected with the
famous secret lists, A and B, the existence of which nobody has denied.
I would be obliged to the USA delegates if they would, in accordance
with Article XIII, paragraph 3, provide us with all relevant information
concerning the administration of the restrictions and the distribution
of such licenses.
For the moment I will consider only the statements I have quoted
above. It can be seen from these statements that:
1) existing restrictions have been intensified since
March 1st, 1948, that is since the entry into
force of the G.A.T.T.;
2) The reason for intensifying the restrcitionsin
most cases was not that of short supply;
3) Two main reasons for discrimination are invoked;
a) security reasons,
b) participation or non-participation of a
country in the European Recovery Programme.
I shall return later to the question of security and begin with
the second point.
The Foreign Assistance Act of 1948, Chapter 169, sec. 112 g
provides that :no export shall be authorized of any commodity from the
USA to any country wholly or party in Europe which is not a participating
country, if the department, agency etc determines that the supply of
such commodity is insufficient, or would be insufficient if such export
were permitted, to fulfil the requirements of participating country
under this title. This law was passed on April 2nd, 1948, and signed GATT/CP3/33
page 8
by the President of the USA on April 3, 1948, that is after the entry
into force of the G.A.T.T. and in consequence should, in our opinion,
contain no provisions which are clearly inconsistent with the G.A.T.T.
Now I would like to return to the question of national security.
The G.A.T.T. contains in this respect a definition in Article XXI.
For our part, it would. suffice to mention only sub-paragraph b (ii)
"relating to the traffic in arms, amunition and implements of war and
to such traffic in other goods and materials as is carried on directly
or indirectly for the purpose of supplying a military establishment".
But Mr. Thorp was speaking about "military potential" which is, in
our opinion, an entirely different thing.
As a conclusion to this part of my statement I would like to
point out that USA export controls:
1) are contrary to the basic principles of Article I
requesting licenses for exports to some destinations
and none to others;
2) are administering then these licenses contrary to
the provisions of Article XIII.
Until this moment I have been speaking only about texts and
paragraphs.
Let us see now what are the consequences of the USA's measures
on the development of international trade. Czechoslovakia has ordered
from US factories different materials and equipment, in our view none
of them for a military establishment. There are, for example,
equipment for dried milk production, electrodes, electric bulb wire,
aluminium folios for 92 $, X-ray tubes, enamelled copper wire, enamelled
sets for pharmaceutical manufacture, different equipments for mines,
melting equipment for Czechoslovak State Mint etc. We had to pay in
advance for most of the goods ordered and now these goods are lying in
US factories or warehouses and some 27 millions of dollars are blocked GATT/CP.3/33
pace 9
in this way. We also know that the USA has handed over to other
countries its secret lists of prohibited goods, that the United
Kingdom has meanwhile introduced some similar restrictions on exports
and that in the French National Assembly the Republican representative
M. Chambeiron stated on May 17, 1949 in his interpellation, the
following:
"On April 1st last a high official of the Quaid D'Orsay
stated, at a press conference, that the french Government proposed
to follow the example of the United States and the he United Kingdom
and to restrict French exports by prohibiting the export of certain
products. Two lists are reported to have been drawn up already
........ We now learn that the Government contemplates prohibiting
the export of machine tools".....
Mr, Chairman, Fellow Delegates, we have signed the G.A.T.T.
confident that it would bring a certain sense of security and legality
into international trade relations leading to an expanding exchange of
goods and ensuring full employment. Instead we are facead with the
greatest insecurity and with measures which are leading to an inevitable
decrease in our trade with certain countries. How can our enterprises
be expected to place their orders with the factories of those countries,
in which, either through State intervention or the possibility of State
intervention millions of our money remain, or may remain, frozen?
All of you know that unemployment is rapidly increasing in some
countries. Is this the right way to fight against it, does it not
mean that the USA is closing down itself its export markets?
For all these reasons we expect your decision to be just and fair,
and to renew the badly shaken confidence, because otherwise it would
allow each country to do to other countries practically what it wishes.
The work we have done until now would be completely destroyed and a big
question mark would be placed above the not yet existing ITO. GATT/CP. 3/33
page 10
As soon as you would admit that a country may impose restrictions
and special formalities on exports to some destinations and none to
others, the Most-Favoured-Nation-Treatment would cease to exist and
we would be in the midst of wildest economic warfare instead of peaceful
cooperation.
Mr. Chairman, Fellow Delegates, we have brought this matter before
you because we approached in accordance with Article XXIIX, paragraph 1,
already on December 2, 1948, the US State Department with a verbal note
but until now we have received no reply. GATT/CP.3/33
page 11
COMPREHENSIVE EXPORT SCHEDULE No. 26
Part 3. Country Groups
For the purpose of export control, all foreign destinations, except
Canada, are classified by the Office of International Trade into two
country groups: Group 0 and Group R.
(Exportations to territories
and possessions of the United States, e.g.Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto
Rico, Virgin Islands, Canal Zone, Guam etc. as well as to the Trust
Territory of the Pacific Islands, do not require export licenses).
Country Group 0
All foreign destinations, other than Canada and those included in
Group R, are included in Group 0.
Country Group R
The following destinations comprise Group R:
Aegean Islands (including
the Dodecanese Islands)
Albania
Andorra
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czechoslovakia
Denmark (except Greenland)
Estonia
Finland
France (including Corsica)
French North Africa (including
Algeria Tunisia and French
Morocco)
Norway
Poland and Danzig
Portugal (including Azoros and
Madeira Islands)
Roumania
San Marino
Spain and Possessior (including
Balearic Islands: the Canary
Islands; Spanish Morocco;
Ceuta; Melilla; Ifni; Rio
de Oro; Spanish Guinea, including
Rio Muni and Fernando Po;
Annobon, Corisco and Elobey
Islands.
Sweden
Canada.
Germany
Gibraltar
Greece (and its Mediterranean
Islands)
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy (and its Mediterranean
Islands)
Latvia
Lichtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta, Gozo, and Cyprus Islands
Monaco
The Netherlands
Switzerland
Tangier (including the
International Zone)
Trieste, Free Territory of
Turkey (Asiatic and European)
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
(European and Asiatic)
United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland
Vatican City
Yugoslavia
Licenses are not required fear the export of articles, materials, supplies,
or technical data to Canada. GATT/CP.3/33
page 12
THE PROBLEM OF DISCRIMINTION
IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE
x/
Statement by Willard L. Thorp
Since March 1st, 1948, export control over short supply items has
been reinforced by the imposition of export-licensing control over nearly
all shipments to Europe. This control serves two primary purposes.
The first of these purposes is to ensure that the requirements of the
countries participating in the European Recovery Programme are met, so
far as possible, in accordance with the purposes and provisions of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1948. The second of these purposes is to
supplement the long-standing control of exports of ams, ammunition,
and implements of war by subjecting to close scrutiny shipments to
Eastern Europe of other items which have military significance.
In practice, this has meant that shipments to participating
countries, other than shipments of products on the short-supply list,
have been licensed freely whereas shipments destined for non-participating
countries have been carefully scrutinized (1) to ensure an adequate flow
to the participating countries of goods needed for their economic
recovery and (2) to prevent the shipment to Eastern Europe of things
that would contribute significantly to the military potential of that
region.
.......................
x/ Speaking before Committee 2 of the UN Assembly in Paris on
Nov. 4, 1948. GATT/CP.3/33
page 13
U.S. Department of Commerce
Office of International Trade
Cross) STerling 0200
Ext. 3681 OIT-318A
Secretary of Commerce Charles Sawyer announced late today
that, effective immediately, validated licenses will not be required
to export any fats (including fatback and butter) and vils and oil
bearing seeds to destinations outside the Group "R"' countries in Europe
and adjacent areas. Commerce officials emphasized that validated
licenses are still required for shipments to the Group "R" countries.
Today's action is the latest of a series of steps relaxing
controls on fats and oils, Export controls on inedible fats and oils
were removed on.February 7, as a result of a survey undertaken at the
request of Mr. Sawyer. At the same time, quotas of lard., soyabean
and cottonseed oil were increased by 105,000,000 pounds.
This afternoon the International Emergency Food Committee of which
the United States is a member, agreed that fats and oils should be
removed from a system of world allocation. Earlier to-day Secretary
Sawyer had deferred action pending this decision of IEFC.
The decision of the EEC made practical the action of the
Department of Commerce, which authorizes the shipment of all fats and
oils to all parts of the world, except the Group "R"countries, without
obtaining validated licenses.
Following is a list of the fats and oils removed to-day from
the Positive List of commodities under export control: ..........
follows the list of goods. GATT/CP.3/33
page 14
Import into CZECHOLOVAKIA
% of the Czechoslovak total import
From
1947 1948 Reduction 1947/48
U.S.A.
United Kingdom
France
Netherlands
Belgium
Norway
Denmark
Italy
Greeee
Sweden
Participating countries
of ERP in Anneey
10,2
11.7
3.5
5.8
4.6
2.3
2.8
4.0
6.9
4.8
10.1
2.5
5.4
3e1
1.2
1.3
2.4
0.9
5.3
- 53%
- 14%
- 29%
- 7%
- 33%
- 48%
- 54%
- 40%
- 23%
42.5 32.2 -24%
42.5 |
GATT Library | fh256wr8272 | Statement by the United States regarding accession of Japan to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade | Working Party 10 on New Tariff Negotiations, September 26, 1949 | Working Party 10 on New Tariff Negotiations | 26/09/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP3/WP10/2/3 and GATT/CP.3/WP.10/2/1-10 WP.10/2/3,6/Corr.1 WP.10/2/5,8,9,10/Rev.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/fh256wr8272 | fh256wr8272_91870597.xml | GATT_143 | 1,230 | 7,981 | RESTRICTED
GATT/CP3/WP10/2/3
London, England
September 26, 1949
Working Party 10 on New Tariff Negotiations
STATEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES REGARDING ACCESSION OF
JAPAN TO THE GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Four years after Japan's surrender it is obvious that if
the Allied objective of developing the growth of a peaceful
Japan with a self-supporting economy is to be achieved, a
substantial revival in Japan's foreign trade must occur, It
is in the interest of the world trading community that this
growth in Japan's foreign trade occur within the framework
of those rules which the major trading nations have accepted
as most desirable for the conduct of foreign trade. Although
the Supreme Commander has ensured Japan's observance of the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade principles during the
occupation, the inclusion of Japan in the third round of
tariff negotiations and Japan's accession to the General
Agreement on Tarilfs and Trade would give the Contracting
Parties further assurance of the development of Japan's post-
war trade policies along sound economic lines in conformity
with multilateral principles set forth in tho Gencral Agreement.
The Contracting Parties would also receive from Japan
quid pro quo for all obligations assumed and concessions
made and would share in the advantages of an expanding trade,
In addition, Japan's accession to the General Agreement would
tend to aid in the economic recovery of Japan. Failure to
bring Japan into international arrangements for the conduct
of trade on a mutually advantageous and expanding basis retards
the achievement by Japan of a solf-supporting position and to
this extent perpetuates the heavy burden which Japan imposes
both on the United States and on the world economy generally.
Certain developments suggest the timeliness of Japan's
becoming a participant in the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade. Under the economic stabilization program for
Japan, among other things, the Occupation Authorities havo
established a single rate of exchange for the yen which
places Japan's foreign trade transactions on a rational
basis, This stop has eliminated any implic it export sub-
sidies which may have resulted from the precious multiple
exchange rate system. In addition, import and domestic
price subsidies have been reduced and those rotained are
clearly disclosed in the budget. Further progross in the
rational development of Japan's foreign trade would follow
from Japan's accession to the General Agreements on Tariffs
and Trade.
The inclusion of Japan in the framework of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade would contribute to the
political stability of the Pacific area and. of the world.
It will do this by increasing the scope of a mutually bono-
ficial expansion of trade under fair methods of oporatio.
The contrary course with all its implications may breed
serious resentment and political dissatisfactions. There
has been / - 2 -
has boon raised the portinent question in this connection of
the international legal status of Japan. For the reasons
given in the attached Annex, in the opinion of the United
States Government there is no reason of a legal character
which would bar Japan from becoming a party to the General
Agreement.
In summary, the United States believes that economic and
political considerations load to the conclusion that the
Contracting Parties should invite Japan to participate in the
third round of tariff negotiations and that no legal obstacle
precludes this course of action, Successful negotiations
with Japan would direct the development of Japan's commercial
policy consistently with the promotion of non-discriminatory,
multilateral trade and would give the Contracting Partios
a moans of redrosing comiAorcial gricvancos against Japan.
Further, in so far 'as Japan would participate in tho .d-
vantages ensuing from the broadening of the scope and
coverage of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade,
oncouragoment would be givon tc Jc,.pan's peacoful dovolopment
and adhorenco to democratic insti utions. ANNEX
So far as the international legal status of Japan is
concerned, there is no lack of authority with capacity to
undertake binding commitments for Japan nor, in the opinion
of the United States, is there any reason of a legal character
which would bar Japan from becoming a party to the General
Agreement, The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade provides
in Article XXXIII that a gevernment not party to the General
Agreement or a government acting on behalf of a separate cus-
toms territory possessing full autonomy in the conduct of its
external commercial relations and of the other matters pro-
vidod for in the Agreement may accode to the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade, on its own behalf or on behalf of that
territory. Some combination or combinations of authority
possess such capacity on behalf of the separate customs
territory of Japan.
The Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers has full
authority to permit the Japanese Government to participate in
the third sot of tariff negotiations and eventually to become
a member of the General Agreement. In tho basic post-surronder
policy for Japan, FEC-014/9 Juno 19, 1947, the nations composing
tho Far Eastern Commission agreed that one of the ultimate
objectives in relation to which policies for the post-surronder
period for Japan should conform was "to bring about the earliest
possible establishnment of a democratic and peaceful government
which will carry out its international responsibilities, respect
the rights of other states, and support the objectives of tho
United Nations," (Part I, Paragraph 1-B) and that liovontual
Japancse participation in world trade relations will be per-
mittod" (Part I, Paragraph 1-D). Finally., the Suprome Commander
was directed to exercise his authority through Japaneso Govern-
mcnt machinery and agencies "to tho extent that this satisfac-
torily furthers the objectives and policies stated herein"
(Part II, Paragraph 2),
In accordance with this policy the Supreme Commander
authorized the adherence of Japan to the Contracting Partios
without objection from the Far Eastern Commission. As a matter
of fact, the Supreme Commander has entered into many trade and
financial arragements on behalf of occupied Japan-
So far as the other provisions of tho General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade are concerned, it should be noted that
Article XXIX, Paragraph 1, of the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade requires the Contracting Partios to observe the
principles , not the procedural requirements (including quali-
fications for membership) of the International Trade Organiza-
tion, In the amended version of Articlo XXIX, certain chapters
of tho Charter of tho Intornational Trado Organization dealing
with organization., including Articlo 71, arc spocifically
excluded, Thus,without prejudice to the question whether Japan
could qualify under Article 71 of the Charter,, thoro is no
requirement in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade that
prospective parties qualify under it,
It should perhaps be addod that there is similarly no
need to examine Japan's qualifications under Article 71 as a
result of the adoption at the first session of the Working Party
of a / -2 -
of a formula for invitation of certain countries which requires
that the countries in question qualify under tho Articlo, It
was understood at the time that this formula was for applica-
tion to countries other than Japan, Korea and West Germany,
on which decisions were reserved for the second session of the
Working Party, And oven if it were argued that the formula
should apply to Japan, Paragraph 5 of Article 71 clearly con-
templates the possibility of either full or limited membership
of Japan in tho International Trade Organization, |
GATT Library | dz358jp5107 | Statement made by the Representative of Cuba regarding the Non-Discriminatory Measure maintained for the Development of Henequen production | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, April 26, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization), Contracting Parties, and Working Party 2 on Article XVIII | 26/04/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/WP.2/3 and GATT/CP.3/WP.2/1-9 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/dz358jp5107 | dz358jp5107_91870533.xml | GATT_143 | 743 | 4,896 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED C
GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR GATT/CP.3/WP.2/3
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Contracting Parties
Third Session
WORKING PARTY 2 ON ARTICLE XVIII
Statement made by the Representative of Cuba regarding
the Non-Discriminatory Measure maintained for the
Development of Henequen production.
The Cuban Delegation wishes to make the following statement in
order to clarify to members of the Working Party that the non-
discriminatory measure adopted by the Cuban Government was fundamentally
based on the furtherance and development of Henequen production.
The production of Henequen in Cuba began to develop, without
artificial means, before the first world war. Due to proper climatic
conditions in our country and to the availability of large areas
properly suited for the cultivation of this fibre (which, by the way,
were inadequate for, other economical cultivation), our domestic produc-
tion of Henequen began to increase progressively.
The quota system has been a decisive factor in the development. of
the Henequen production in Cuba, as proven by the increase in the areas
under cultivation amounting to more than FIFTY PERCENT as against the
area cultivated during the three-year period prior to the date this
measure was put into effect.
Technicians in our Department of Agriculture recommended recently
that it would help to develop further and expand our manufacture of
Henequen, if the same were to be mixed with a certain proportion of
Sisal. The necessary experiments were successfully carried out and,
therefore, a programme was put into practice to develop the production
of Sisal, This program is going ahead and we shall soon be in a
position to compete more favourably in the world market, thus being in
a better condition to develop further the production of Henequen. GATT/CP .3/WP. 2/3
page 2
We are also doing research work both in the agricultural. and
manufacturing fields and expect favourable changes which would also
help to develop even further our production of Henequen.
While waiting for the areas already planted with Sisal, as well as
for the ones which are contemplated, to be in a condition to produce
the fibre which the industry requires, it is essential to maintain the
measure adopted, limiting imports, which, if they were to take place,
would endanger the development of this agricultural enterprise, with
its repercussion on the economic situation of Cuban farmers, labourers
and workers engaged in the same.
It is evident that the world requirements of hard fibres are very
extensive and as soon as the present difficulties for obtaining these
requirements are solved by the different countries requiring hard fibres,
the development of. fibre production throughout the world, including Cuba,
will undoubtedly reach much higher than actual levels.
With reference to future cost of production, it is not possible
to determine same inasmuch as Cuba's policy on salaries and wages is
intimately related to that of the sugar industry and, therefore,
salaries and wages affecting fibre production will definitely have to
be adjusted to the circumstances governing sugar production.
;Although we have not as yet been able to obtain the figures cover-
ing the area under cultivation for the year 1949, we have been informed
that. same has increased in comparison with preceding years.
In the "World Fiber Survey", published by the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, the-following was stated::
"Indeed, importing countries 'in general are experiencing acute
fiber shortages and are attempting to cover their cordage needs as best
they can by the importation of finished products. The binder twine
outlook is especially serious. Most of the important consuming coun-
tries have expressed concern as to their. ability to meet requirements",
etc...... GATT/CP.3/WP.2/3
page 3
We again wish to emphasize the fact that our Government waived its
rights to a number of restrictive quotas but in the case of Henequen
has no other alternative but to maintain the non-discriminatory measure
we now have in force, as we cannot contemplate the possibility of
throwing out of work from 3 to 4,000 workers, In a country such as
ours, not highly industrialized, this would constitute a national
problem.
Please also do not lose sight of the fact that this measure dates
back to 1939, and can never be interpreted as a precedent by the
contracting parties.
In the light of our statement and information we earnestly request
the Working Party to view with sympathy our case accepting and recom-
mending the necessity of our maintaining the non-discriminatory measure
on Henequen imports. |
GATT Library | gy207pb7011 | Statement of the Colombian Delegation regarding a Customs Union between Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador and Panama | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, April 20, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) | 20/04/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP/16, GATT/TN.1/11, and GATT/CP/16 GATT/TN.1/11 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/gy207pb7011 | gy207pb7011_90070150.xml | GATT_143 | 127 | 851 | GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS AND
TRADE
ACCORD GENERAL SUR
LES TARIFS DOUANIERS
ET LE COMMERCE
RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP/16
GATT/TN.1/11
20 April 1949
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Statement of the Colombian Delegation regarding a
Customs Union between Colombia. Venezuela. Ecuador and Panama.
The Colombian Delegation to the Tariff Negotiations
at Annecy has the honor, according to instructions from its
Government, to inform the Contracting Parties to the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade that Colombia has taken the
first steps - together with Venezuela, Ecuador and Panama -
towards the formation of a Customs Union, and that she
intends to carry out the negotiations until a Customs Union
is firmly established.
The Government of Colombia has considered it desirable
to bring this to the knowledge of the Contracting Parties. |
GATT Library | cp662fm3352 | Statement of the Czechoslovak Delegation on Western Germany and other Areas under Military Occupation | August 22, 1949 | 22/08/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/WP.10/5 and GATT/CP.3/WP.10/1,3-7 WP.10/4/Rev.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/cp662fm3352 | cp662fm3352_91870586.xml | GATT_144 | 507 | 3,348 | RESTRICTED
GATT/CP.3/WP.10/5
22 August 1949
S t a t e m e n t
of the Czechoslovak Delegation on Western Germany and
other Areas under Military Occupation
In accordance with the article 71 of the Havana Charter and with
the corresponding Article XXVI of the GATT may become members of the
Organization respectively contracting. parties.
1) states
2) separate customs territories proposed by the competent Member
having responsibility for the formal conduct of its diplomatic
relations and which is autonomous in the conduct of its external
commercial relations.
Havana Charter as well as GATT being international treaties, the
parties to it must be capable of contracting, otherwise all contracts
entered into by such states or territories in excess of their contracting
powers are void.
Western Germany is not a state, but only a part of a state still
legally existing but whose sovereignty is suspended and cannot be
considered either to be a separate customs territory for which some
Member has international responsibility.
The interpretative note to the Article XXVI of the GATT states
clearly that Territories for which the contracting parties have
international reponsibility do not include areas under military
occupation."
In the report of the Working Party 6 on the USA Proposal
Relating to Western Germany, revised by the Contracting Parties at the
19th Meeting on 6 September 1948 (GATT/CP.2/32/Rev.1) it was under
point 4 stated what follows:
"The representative of Australia expressed the view that, as it was
generally accepted that the proposed agreement would be entirely
separate from the General Agreement and that any difficulties which
might arise between signatories would be matters for adjustment between
the signatories concerned, the question was beyond the competence and
authority of the CONTRACTING PARTIES; in the light of these and
other consideration to which he referred it would be inexpedient and GATT/CP.3/WP.10/5
page 2
and improper for the meeting of the Contracting Parties to make
recommendations regarding the form of the proposed agreement. The
representative of New Zealand stated that the agreement proposed
by the United States should be taken up bilaterally with Governments
interested rather than at meetings of the Contracting Parties."
For all those reasons the Contracting Parties agreed to that
the Agreement on Western Germany should not be formally approved
as being a question outside the competence of the C.P.
As the representative of Australia stated at the 19th meeting
of the second session of the C.P. (GATT/CP/2/SR.19) "any decision
that might be taken would create a precedent which would cause
embarrassment to the Australian Government in respect to any
similar arrangement proposed in respect to Japan and similar
difficulties might be encountered by other Governments interested
in the same question."
The Agreement on Western Germany wad therefore neither attached
to the General Agreement and completely omitted from any reprint of
the General Agreement and its related documents.
In this way, the Contracting Parties have decided about the
legal position of Western Germany and cannot invite this territory
under military occupation to participate in future Tariff
Negotiations and become eventually a contracting party. |
|
GATT Library | kg612sy9260 | Statement of the Danish, Norwegian and Swedish Delegations regarding the possibility of a Customs Union | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, April 12, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization), Contracting Parties, and Tariff Negotiations | 12/04/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP/15, GATT/TN.1/9, and GATT/CP/15 GATT/TN.1/9 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/kg612sy9260 | kg612sy9260_90070148.xml | GATT_144 | 173 | 1,292 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR RESTRICTED
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS GATT/TN.1/9
12 April 1949
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE
ORIGINAL:ENGLISH
Contracting Parties Tariff negotiations
Statement of the Danish, Norwegian and Swedish Delegations
regarding the possibility of a Customs Union.
The Danish, Norwegian and Swedish Delegations to the Tariff
Negotiations at Annecy have the honour, according to instructions
from their Governments, to inform the Contracting Parties to the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade that their countries are
examining the possibilities of establishing a common Scandinavian
Customs Tariff with a view to entering into a Scandinavian Customs
Union possibly including Iceland.
The result of these examinations may in due time necessitate the
taking up, in accordance with the provisions in the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade, of negotiations on adjustments in the
obligations which the above-mentioned countries might undertake by
tariff negotiations pursuant to the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade.
The Governments of Denmark, Norway and Sweden have considered it
desirable to bring this to the knowledge of the Contracting Parties. |
GATT Library | qh164gb7123 | Statement of the Delegation of Cuba on margins of preference negotiated at annecy - Proposal of the Norwegian Delegation | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, August 6, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 06/08/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/71 and GATT/CP.3/71 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/qh164gb7123 | qh164gb7123_90320300.xml | GATT_144 | 249 | 1,614 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP.3/71
6 August, 1949
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Third Session
STATEMENT OF THE DELEGATION OF CUBA ON
MARGINS OF PREFERENCE NEGOTIATED AT ANNECY -
PROPOSAL OF THE NORWWGIAN DELEGATION
The Norwegian Delegation propose that the CONTRACTING PARTIES,
in relation to tho statement of the delegation of Cuba on margins
of preterence negotinted at Annecy, give tho following Decision
on the legal issues arising out of the statement.
The CONTRACTING PARTIES decide:
1) The determination of rights and obligations between
governments arising under a bilateral agreement is not a
mattor within the competence of the CONTRACTING PARTIES;*
2) The reduction of the rate of duty on a product,
privided forin is schedule to the General Agreement, below
tho rate set forth therein, does not require unanimous
consent of the CONTRACTING PARTIES in accordance with the
provisions of Article XXX;
3) A margin of preference, on an item included in
eithor or both parts of a schedule, is not bound against
decreade by the provisions of the General Agreement.
This Dccision does not procludo the possibility of
resort to Article XXIII.
* This Decision by its terms clearly refers only to the
determination of the rights and obligatins as between the
parties to the bilateral agreement and arising from that
agreement. [It is, however, within the competence of the
CONTRCTING PARTIES to determine whether acting undcr such
a bilateral agreement would or would not conflict with the
provisions of the General Agreement.] |
GATT Library | pr359vz3834 | Statement of the New Zealand Delegation | Contracting Parties, April 11, 1949 | Contracting Parties and Committee on Special Exchange Agreements | 11/04/1949 | official documents | GATT/CEA.2/W/3 and GATT/CEA/1-9 GATT/CEA/W.1-6 GATT/CEA.2/W.1-11 GATT/CEA/N.1-4 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/pr359vz3834 | pr359vz3834_90310163.xml | GATT_144 | 1,446 | 9,121 | Restricted
CONTRACTING PARTIES
GATT/CEA. 2/W/3
April 11, 1949
Committee on Special Exchange Agreements
Second Session
STATEMENT OF THE NEW ZEALAND DELEGATION
For the convenience of other committee members the following
statement of its views concerning procedures involving prior approval
has been prepared by the New Zealand Delegation.
New Zealand's views on this matter are not based on any opposition
to prior approval as such, nor do wc consider that any such question of
principle arises. We do however consider that such a procedure is inap-
propriate to the particular circumstances of a Special Exchange
Agreement. Our view is based on the practical consequences likely to
result from attemptingg to apply the procedure to actual situations, and
on the relationship of the Special Exchange Agreement to the General
Agreement itself.
1. The Now Zealand Delegation considers that it is inconsistent with
the precedent established by the General Agreomont to provide in the
Special Exchange Agreement procedures for prior approval. Such proce-
durcs, whil found in the articles of agreement of the Monetary Fund,
are not generally employed in the General Agreement itself. In accor-
dance therefore with our view that the Special Exchange Agreement
should wherever possible take the General Agreement as its model, we
consider that pri or approval should be av:-idod in the Special Exchange
Agreement. Particularly relevant in this connection are the provisions
of Article XII of GATT which relate to the imposition and maintenance
of quantitative regulation of imports because of balance off payments
difficulties. The subject matter of this article is more closely ana-
lagous than that of any Other article of GATT to the subject matter of
tho Special Exchange Agreement and therefore article XII procedures
should, we consider, be adapted to cover matters within the scope of
the Special Exchange Agreement.
2. In fact, to follow any different procedure would give rise to a
serious anomaly. Under article XII of the Genereal Agreement a contrac-
ting party faced with balance of payments difficulties is able to
impose, without prior approval, import restrictions to protect its
monetary reserves. There may well be circumstances in which exchange
controls could be employed so as to achieve the same effect; this is
implicitly recognised in article XV (5) of GATT. Under the London
draft of the Special E:changc Agreement, however, i contracting party
would not be able to impose such exchange controls without prior
approval. It seems to us that this situation clearly shows that the
present draft of the Special Exchange Agreementt goes beyond ensuring
that a non-member of the Fund will not frustrate the objectives of GATT;
it imposes further important prococural obligations on the contracting
party concorned.
3. Not only do we consider that prior approval is contrary to the
procedent of the General Agreement; we also conder that it is a pro-
oeduro which could nct be carried cut in practice oven if provision
were made for it in the Special Exchange Agreement.
-103 - Page 2
The London draft of the Special Exohange Agreement and the atei
report prepared by the Committee assume that the International Monet;
Fund has cErtain powers in relation to the Special Exchange Agreement
which we consider should remain solely in the hands of the CONTRACTING
PARTIES. This assumption is that the Monetary Fund will determine foi
instance whether a proposed change of par values is to be approved ar
whether the imposition of exchange controls is to be permitted. This
assumption is made clear both in paragraph 8 of the report itself and
in Article XIII paragraph 5 of thc draft annexed to the report. New
Zealand does not consider that such powers under the Special Exchange
Agreement should be in the hands of the-International Monetary Fund.
It is unreasonable to expect a country to surrender to an internatior
organisation of which it is not s member power to make decisions on s
important matters. We would stress that this is a matter of principle
and our objection does not arise vecause the Monetary Fundlis the or-
ganisation, the objection is to any, organisation of which we are not
member having power to docide such matters in relation to our exchange
actions.
4. We further consider that the allocation of such powers to the
Monetary Fund would be contrary to the provisions of the General
Agreement. Article XV paragraph 2 of the General Agreement states
that the "CONTRACTING PARTIES" shall accept the determination of
the Fund as to whether action by a contracting party in exchange
matters is in accordance....with the terms of a special exchange
agreement . .". New Zealand considers that the approval or
disapproval of a change in per values or imposition of exchange
controls goes beyond determining whether action is or is not in
accordance with the turms of an agreement. It is a determination
as to the desirability or necessity of an action in the light of
economic conditions. Therefore we consider that the CONTRACTING
PARTIES are not entitled to accept without question the opinion of
the Fund on such matters, They must themselves consider and
give a decision on any such cases as they arise.
5. Any application for prior approval must therefore, be dealt
with by tho CONTRACTING PARTIES themselves. That requires either
a special session of the CONTRACTING PARTIES or postponement of
decision until the next regular session. The CONTRACTING PARTIES
meet only at fairly lengthy intervals, hence considerable delay
may be involved before a decision is obtained, and serious damage
may be caused to the economy of the country concerned. Moreover,
the l-nger remedial action is delayed, the more serious will the
situation become, and the more drastic will be tho action which
will eventually have to be taken.
Even if the CONTRACTING PARTIES happened to be in session at
the time when tho need to take action arose, a nonmember of the
Fund requiring to obtain the prior approval of the CONTRACTING
P.RTIES would wtill be subject to the likelihood of greater and
more damaging delay than a member of the Fund would be in similar
circumstances. In the first place, delary would occur for
consultation between tho Fund and the CONTRACTING PARTIES; only
one organization is involved in tho case of a member of the Fund.
Secondly, during, the period of consultation a Fund member may cover
a deficit in its balance of current payments by drawing on the
resources of the Fund. Those resources are not available to a
non-member of the Fund, so that the need for quick action is even
greater, Thirdly, there is probably a natural reaction on the Page 3
part of the Fund to protect its resources against heavy drawings
by giving early approval to such measures as may be necessary to
ensure the continued viability of the applicant. There can be no
certainty of an equivalent favourable predisposition towards a
non-member of the Fund either on the part of the Fund or of the
CONTRACTING PARTIES. We therefore consider that some procedure
other than that at present prop-sed would be more appropriate to
actual conditions under a special exchange agreement,
6. An additional reason for deleting provisions involving prior
approval is the need for the preservation of secrecy. It is
generally recognized that the effectiveness of Governmental action
in exchange matters is likely to be frustrated if advance informa-
tion of the Government's intention leaks out. It is important in
this connection to remember that prior consideration under a
Special Exchange Agreement may well involve a greater risk
of leakage the n prior consultation under Fund agreement, because
two groups of representatives and of staff are involved.
7. New Zealand. therefore considers that procedures involving
prior approval should be deleted from a Special Exchange Agreement
for three particular reasons: -
(a) The Precedent of the General Agreement.
(b) The impracticability of the procedure in the particular
circumstances of the Special Exchange Agreement.
(o) The need for secrecy.
8. Instead of providing for prior approval we would propose
provision for prior consultation where practicable, adopting a
wording somewhat similar to that of paragraph 4 (a) of GATT
Article XII. In addition there would be a considerable
safeguard against unnecessarily harmful action in exchange
matters through a complaint procedure which could be initiated
by any other contracting party whose trade was injured by the
action. Such a complaint procedure would, we consider, be very
effective in avaiding wrongful actions by a non-member of the
Fund. Such a contracting party would always have to consider
the possibility that the CONTRACTING PARTIES would authorise
other contracting parties to take compensatory action of Creat
severity against it, either under this special complaint
procedure or under Article XXIII of the General Agreement. |
GATT Library | nx088xb8367 | Statistical information supplied by the Delegations of Syria and Lebanon | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, May 2, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization), Contracting Parties, and Working Party 2 on Article XVIII | 02/05/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/WP.2/5 and GATT/CP.3/WP.2/1-9 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/nx088xb8367 | nx088xb8367_91870535.xml | GATT_144 | 804 | 6,373 | GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS AND
TRADE
ACCORD GENERAL SUR
LES TARIFS DOUANIERS
ET LE COMMERCE
Contracting Parties
Third Session
Working Party 2 on Article XII
Statistical information supplied by the Delegations
of Syria-and Lebanon
RESTRICTED
LIMITED C
GATT/CP.3/WP.2/5
2 May 1949
ENGLISH
ORIGINAL: FRENCH
Syro-Lebaneise
Customs Unior
I.
1.
Population in
Statistics on
Land under cultivation
Arable but unfilled land
Forests
Pasturage
Mountainous regions
Deserts
relation to Area
classification of Land
Syria 1945
2,263,000
3,388,000
417,000
3,600,000
2,534,000
6,651,000
(in Hectares)
225,000
180,000
2. Population in Syria and Lebanon
Year Syria Lebanon Total
1944 2,901,000
1945 2,949,800 1,146
1946 3,006,000 1,165
3. Rate of Population Increase
Syria 22% Lebanon 16.2%
4. it.&_ture population: Syria
1944 2,901;000
1949 3,246,000
1954. 3,625,040
200
4,096,600
4,171,200
-
- GATT/CP.3/WP.2/5
page 2
5. Distribution of population: Syria 1944
.
Urban population 825,000
Rural population 2,076,000
2.901.000
2,901,000
28.5%
71.5%
100
Arable land ..,............. ..5,651,000 hectares:
Rural population per square
km. of arable land ............ 37 persons. Syro-Lebanese
Customs Union
II. Index Numbers
GATT/CP.3/WP.2/5
page 3
Weighted index numbers
Wholesale Retail
Prices Prices
100 100
205 126
631
860
913
1019
852
781
774
271
500
671
716
731
686
669
629
Index Numbers
Cost of Living Agricultural
Wages
100
100
275
419
537
562
523
466
474
100
100
175
225
300
500
600
550
500
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948 GATT/CP.3/WP.2/5
page 4
Syro-Lebanese
Customs Union
III. Agricultural Work
I. Agricultural machinery used in Syrria
No. of tractors
No. of harvester-
threshers
No. of agricultural
threshing, shelling
and sorting machines
etc. .
2. Grain Production: Syrla
1946
202
143
492
1947 1948 1949
301 Customs returns show
the number of agricultural
machines imported in 1948 to
194 be double the number existing
in 1947. Prospects for 1949
are still more encouraging.
492
(Tons)
1942 8183,000
1943 1,184,000
1944 1,0.61,000
1945 1,004,000
1946 1,9188,000
3, Wheat production and area under wheat: -Syria
Area (Hectares) Production(iu tons) Yield
_______________ .__________________ (Kg . per Ha.)
1938 369,825 529,874 1,432
1940 486,100 499,915 1,028
1941. 429,900 357,770 833
1942 470,050 393,748 838
1943 503,600 535,620 1,063
1944 570.,725 438,760 769
1945 750,140 379,493 519
1946 810,485 568,775 701
1947 843,472 403,800 477
N.B. As may be seen, the yield per BP. varies according to weather
conditions. GATT/CP.3/WP.2/5
page 5
Syro-Lebanese
Customs Union
4. Barley production and are under barley:
Area (Hectares)
244470
279,265
258,960
263,560
242,560
272,?650
;348,10
3.70,s00
365,040
Production (in tons)
318,130
276,090
206,680
2133,600
314,980
250,270
247,56$
482,384
168,810
Yield
(Kg. per Ha.)
1,304
986
798
810
1,298
917
711
'763
463
1938
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947 GATT/CP.3/WP.2/5
page 6
Syro-Lebanese
Customs Union
IV Foreign Trade
1. Overall figures for special import
and export trade
Years 1938-1947
(Quantities refer to m. tons; values to thousands of Lebanese or
Syrian pounds).
Exports
Quantity
376,201
323,83P
121,563
29,487
23,781
52,821
120,099
139,315
106,521
148,018
(58,042)
Value
29,278
36j517
19,302
11,228
23,753
32,031
46,195
43,842
85,56o
83,640
(43,620)
Balance
Value
-41, 533
-39,050
-37,854
-29,299
-83,332
-78,.106
-47,449
-86,782
-186,424
-284,974
(-286,278)
First nine months.
Imports
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
*
1948
561,231
542,234
314,147
273,542
503,465
428,483
428,968
514,692
596,258
655,798
(488,828)
Value
70,811
75,567
57,156
40, 527
107,085
110,137
93,644
130,624
271,984
368,614
(329,898) GATT/CP.3/WP.2/5
page 7
Syro-Lebanese
Customs Union
2. . Rice Production and imports; area under rice:
ra and Lebanon
Production (m,tons)
2,840
3,050
2,430
1,020
3,300
6,100
9,767
14,500
19,000
21,500
1,000
Area (Hectares )
950
1,020
650
1,050
962
1,800
2,086
6,770
7,609
8,165
Imports (m.tons)
17,500
20,000
9,000
18,000
750
7,500
11500
9,500
2,792
4371
300
3. Ginned cotton; production
an imports
Production
7,600
5,670
7,600
2,770
3,200
3,l400
3,3-140
4,300
4,784
5,440
(m.tons) Area (Hectares)
32,860
36,780
31,780
18,970
13,320
15,240
16,700
17,525
19,837
19.,335
Year
1938
1938
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
-eba4o7
1947
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1.9
16.3
842
921
3$031
2,021
30
174
and imports: GATT/CP.3/WP.2/5
page 8
Syro-Lebanese
Customs Union
4. Cement; production and imports
Syria and Lebanon
Syria
80,000
2,085
14,455
42,778
33.,584
35,106
34,728
44,800
45,668
49,250
Lebanon
171,000
89,568
67,862
171,966
118,321
136,326
148,471
157,599
167,580
208, 532
Total
251,000
91,653
82 2317
214,744
151,905
171,432
183,199
202,399
213,248
257,782
in metric tons:
imports
6,000
1,337
17,500
51,041
N.B. The future requirements of
as follows:
the two countries are estimated
for 1949 at 300,000 m,tons
for 1953 at 350,000 m.tons
Market prices:.
excluding taxes Beirut 79 Syrian pour
-do- Damascus 100 Syrian or Lebanese pounds
C.i.f. price of 66 ! 1 1
imported cement-
-do- plus 1l% t302 2 *
Year
1938
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
Exports
49,000
9,000
3,000
1,000
28,000
55,000
1;345
331 |
GATT Library | hh301pf8179 | Status of Colombian Negotations | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, August 30, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Tariff Negotiations | 30/08/1949 | official documents | GATT/TN.1/36, GATT/CP.3/88, and GATT/CP.3/88 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/hh301pf8179 | hh301pf8179_90320342.xml | GATT_144 | 386 | 2,554 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS GATT/TN.1/36
GATT/CF .3/88
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE 30 August 1949
Tariff Negotiations
STATUS OF COLOMBIAN NEGOTATIONS
The Executive Secretary has received joint letters from
Colombia and the United States, and Colombia and Benelux requesting
that these two negotiations "should be considered as 'uncompleted
negotiations' which, it is hoped, may be consluded at a later date."
A letter was also addressed to the Executive Secretary by
the leader of the Colombian delegation, dated August 29, stating
that Colombia withdrew its application to accede to the General
Agreement at this time. The text of this letter is a s follows:
"The Delegation of Colombia to the Annecy meetings made
all efforts to terminate the corresponding negotiations
for its country's entance to the GATT and notified the
Secretariat in due time of the results.
Many negotiations were terminated, but it was not possible
to conclude those with the United States and Benelux, of
which the Secretariat was also advised in jointly signed
notes, These two negotiations have been considered as
"uncompleted negotiations" to be terminated at a future
date.
In accordance with whit we agreed during our conversations
with Mr. Wyndham "hito, Executive Secretary, and inasmuch
as the most important negotiations for Colombia are those
with the United States and these have not been concluded,
Colombia has requested to those countries with whom it
finished negotiations at Annecy that they agree to consider
them as "in suspense" until the "uncompleted negotiations"
are terminated,
In these circumstances, the delegation of Colombia withdraws
its application to accede to the General Agreement at this
time on the understanding th t the Government of Colombia
may possibly wish to renew their application to accede at
a future date,"
As most of the schedules hove already been numbered, it is
suggested that the listing of the schedules remains the same with
the omission of Schedule XXI reserved for Colombia. It is also
expected that the delegations will not wish to modify their schedul.
in view of the withdrawal of Colombia, as the provisions of para-
graph 4 of the Annecy Protocol of Accession or of paragraph 4 of
the Annecy Decision of Terms of Accession fully reserve their
right to withhold or withdrew the conessions negotiated with
Colombia at Annecy. |
GATT Library | yq071bp8343 | Status of the Agreement and protocols : Formal confirmation of Declarations of the Contracting Parties at the Third Session | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, May 5, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 05/05/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/19 and GATT/CP.3/19 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/yq071bp8343 | yq071bp8343_90320141.xml | GATT_144 | 1,433 | 9,101 | RESTRICTED LIMITED C
GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR
GATT/CP.3/19
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS 5 May 1949
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Contracting Parties
Third Session
STATUS OF THE AGREEMENT AND PROTOCOLS
Formal confirmation of Declarations of the Contracting
Parties at the Third Session
As the Delegate for the Lebanon was not present at the time
when Declarations were made by the Contracting Parties under Item 5
of the Agenda, it is suggested that these Declarations be now
confirmed and put into final form at a meeting to be attended by
all the contracting parties.
The following documents are attached:
1) Declaration accepting the reservation as to Article
XXXV attached to the signature of the Union of South
Africa to the Protocol modifying certain provisions,
2) Declaration concerning the signature by Southern
Rhodesia of the Protocol modifying certain provisions
and the special Protocol modifying Article XIV;
3) Declaration concerning the acceptance of the Protocol
modifying Part I and Article XXIX by Southern Rhodesia;
4) A note on the decisions of the Contracting Parties
concerning the Intcrpretative Note to Article XXIV
in Annex I of the General Agreement. GATT/CP.3/19
page 2
1. DECLARATION ACCEPTING THE RESERVATION AS
TO ARTICLE XXXV ATTACHED TO THE SIGNATURE OF THE UNION
OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE PROTOCOL MODIFYING CERTAIN PROVISIONS
REFERRING to the discussion during the Second Session of the
CONTRACTING PARTIES of the views of the Government of the Union of
South Africa regarding the Protocol Modifying Certain Provisions of
the General Agreement, dated.March 24, 1948, and particularly to the
following statement by the Chairman, on September 1, 1948:
"This proposal is that in view of the discussion which has been
held we do r.ot take any decision one way or another on the
legal issue, but that we invite the Government of the Union of
South Africa to sign the Protocol modifying certain provisions
of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, but. with a
reservation that they do not accept Article XXXV. We can agree
now that, if the Government of South Africa signs the Protocol
between: now and our next session, we shall give sympathetic
consideration to approval of the South African reservation at
our next session without altering the legal situation as it
now exists, This could then have the effect that the other
Contracting Parties would continue to regard themselves as
bound by and having the right to apply the provisions of
Article XXXV, which do not require any of them to apply the
General Agreement, or alternatively Article lI of that
Agreement, to another contracting. party if there have not
been tariff negotiations between the two parties and if either
of the parties had made a declaration to that effect, while
South Africa would continue to regard themselves as not being
bound and would presumably apply the General Agreement to all
contracting parties, irrespective of whether or not tariff
negotiations have taken place between the parties". GATT/CP.3/19
page 3
TAKING NOTE of the signature of this Protocol on behalf of the
Union of South Africa on February 16, 1949, with the reservation that"
the Government of the Union of South Africa do not accept Section IV
of the Protocol inserting a new Article XXXV in the General Agreement",
THE CONTRACTING PARTIES UNANIMOUSLY:
DECLARE that no objection is raised by any contracting party
to this reservation, it being understood that the relevant relationships
among the contracting parties will be as set forth in the above state-
ment by the Chairman
AND INSTRUCT the Executive Secretary of the Interim Commission
for the International Trade Organization to notify the Secretary
General of the United Nations on their behalf that the reservation of
South Africa has been examined at a meeting on 9th May, 1949, at which
all the contracting parties were represented, axid that no contracting
party raised any objection to the said reservation. GATT/CP.3/19
page 4
2. DECLARATION CONCERNING THE SIGNATURES BY
SOUTHERN RHODESIA OF THE PROTOCOL MODIFYING CERTAIN
PROVISIONS AND THE SPECIAL PROTOCOL MODIFYING ARTICLE XIV
RECOGNIZING that it would be desirable, in the interest of
uniformity that the Government of Southern Rhodesia should sign the
Protocol modifying Certain Provisions and the special Protocol modifying
article XIV of tho General Agreement on Tariff s and Trade, which were
signed at Havana un 24 March, 1948-. and
TAKING NOTE of the willingness of the Government of Southern
Rhodesia to sign these Protocols provided it is allowed to elect to be
governed by the provisions of Annex J to the General Agreement;
The CONTRACTING PARTIES request the Secretary General of the United
Nations to accept the signature of the Government of Southern Rhodesia
to these Protocols, notwithstanding the provisions of Section V of the
Protocol modifying Certain Provisions and of Section IV of the Special
Protocol modifying Article XIV;
AND DECLINE that as a consequence of its signing the Special
Protocol modifying article XIV, the Government of Southern Rhodesia
will be deemed to have exercised its right, under paragraph 1 (d) of
Article XIV of the General Agreement as amended by the Special Protocol,
to elect to be governed by the provisions of Annex J to the General
Agreement in lieu of the provisions of paragraphs 1 (b) and 1 (c) of
Article XIV as amended. GATT/CP.3/19
page 5
3. DECLARATION CONCRNING THE ACCEPTANCE OF
THE PROTOCOL MODIFYING PART I AND ARTICLE XXIX BY
SOUTHERN RHODESIA
TAKING NOTE that, on 19th November 1948, the Government of
Southern Rhodesia notified the Secretary General of the United Nations
of its acceptance of the Protocol signed at Genava on 14th September,
1948, Modifying Part I and Article XXIX of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade, but that this notification was accompanied by the
following statement:
"The Government of Southern Rhodesia desires to draw attention
to the fact that it did not accept the Special Protocol amending
Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
signed at Havana on the 24th day of March, 1948, Accordingly,
while it is prepared in terms of Section I of the new Article
XXIX to observe the general principles of Chapters I to VI
inclusive and of Chapter IX of the Havana Charter, the
Government of Southern Rhodesia desires to record that it
finds the present form of the interpretative Note in Annexure
P to paragraph 5 of Article 44 of the Havana Charter to be
unacceptable, and, therefore, reserves its position with regard
to Article XXIV .of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. "
and
TAKING NOTE of the explanation by the representative of Southern
Rhodesia, that the statement accompanying the instrument of acceptance
by his Government of the Protocol modifying Part I and Article XXIX
was not intended as a reservation to its acceptance of the Protocol
and that his Government regards its acceptance as unconditionally
binding, GATT/CP.3/19
page 6
THE CONTRACTING PARTIES UNANIMOUSLY DECLARE that the acceptance
of Southern Rhodesia is valid and effective and instruct the Executive
Secretary of the Interim Commission for the International Trade
Organization to forward a copy of this Declaration to the Secretary
General of the United Nations with reference to the communication
of 8 February 1949 addressed by him to the contracting parties
individually. GATT/CP.3/19
pane 7
4. A NOTE ON THE DECISIONS OF THE CONTRACTING
PARTIES CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATIVE NOTE TO ARTICLE XXIV
IN ANNEX I.
The Contracting Parties are asked to confirms the following
decisions:
(i) That the Protocol of Rectifications to be drawn up
at the present Session is to include a provision to
modify the first of the two Interpretative Notes ad.
Article XXIV as follows.
"Paraagraph 9
It is understood that the provisions of Article I would
require that, when a product which has been imported into
the territory of a member of a customs union or free-trade
area at a preferential rate of duty is re-exported to the
territory of another member of such union or area, the latter
member should collect a duty equal to the difference between
the duty already paid and the duty that would be payable if
the product were being imported directly into its territory,"
(ii) That the Contracting Parties request the Executive
Secretary of the Interim Commission of the International
Trade Organization to bring to the notice of the Inter-
natioinal Trade Organization at the first opportunity after
its establishment that the Interpretative Note to Article
XXIV of the General Agreement has been modified as
provided in parac-raph (i) above and that the members of
the Organization may desire to make a similar modification
of the correspending Note to Article 44 of the Havana
Charter. |
GATT Library | dv737cf9277 | Studies regarding the selection of Headquarters of the International Trade Organization | Interim Commission for the International Trade Organization, May 31, 1949 | Interim Commission for the International Trade Organization (ICITO/GATT) | 31/05/1949 | official documents | ICITO/1/13, ICITO/INF/1-8, and ICITO/1/1-16 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/dv737cf9277 | dv737cf9277_90180024.xml | GATT_144 | 396 | 2,904 | UNRESTRICTED
INTERIM COMMISSION COMMISSION INTERIMAIRE DE ICITO/1/13
FOR THE INTERNATIONAL L'ORGANISATION INTERNATIONALE 31 May 1949
TRADE ORGANIZATION DU COMMERCE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
STUDIES REGARDlNG THE SELECTION OF HEADQUARTERS OF THE
INTERNATIONAL TRADE ORGANIZATION
The terms of reference of the Interim Commission require it to
submit to the first regular session of the Conference of the ITO,
inter alia, studies regarding the selection of the Headquarters of
the Organization. At the second session of the Executive Committee
of the Interim Commission, the Secretariat was instructed to prepare
studies relating to the New York area and Geneva. It was further
agreed that if members of the Interim Commission wished to suggest
other sites they should themselves present the necessary studies for
consideration by the Executive Committee and eventually by the
Conference. In order to ensure uniformity between the Secretariat
studies relating to Geneva and New York.and any other studies presented
by members of the interim Commission, there are set out below the
headings under which the Secretariat's report will be presented.
I. Office Space and Meeting Hall Facilities
a. Existing space - availability, location, cost and suitability
for needs of organization.
b. Possibilities of new construction in the near future.
c. Availability, Cost, Location and Suitability of Permanent
site: geological conditions and other factors affecting
cost of new construction.
II. Housing Accommodation
a. Availability in urban and suburban centres, located
conveniently with reference to office and meeting hall
facilities.
b. Construction of housing units in the near future in urban
and suburban areas.
c. Sites for possible future developments in urban and
suburban areas which would be suitable.
III. Transportation and Communication
a. Availability of regular service required by the organization in
its daily work.
b. Availability for residential purposes. ICITO/1/13
page 2
IV. Cost of living
a. Rent, food, clothing, transportation, medical care,
cultural and entertainment items.
V. Cultural Facilities
a. Availability of libraries, universities, theatres, musical
organizations, churches, schools, newspapers.
VI. Physical Characteristics
a. Cl te temperature range and other climatic conditions
affecting workers.
VII. Attitude of Population
a. Lack of discrimination against any religious, racial or
national groups.
b. Interest in international organizations.
c. Types of local government and administrative units.
VIII.Location with respet to the United Nations Headquarters
a. Possible saving to the Specialized Agency due to common
services.
b Advantages of being located near the substantive departments
of the United Nations for co-ordination purposes. |
GATT Library | wj452nn4439 | Subjects proposed for discussion | Contracting Parties, May 9, 1949 | Contracting Parties and Working Party 7 on Brazilian Internal Taxes | 09/05/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/WP.7/3 and GATT/CP.3/WP.7/1-4, WP.7/2/Add.1-3 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/wj452nn4439 | wj452nn4439_91870568.xml | GATT_144 | 185 | 1,198 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED C
GATT/CP. 3/WP. 7/3
Contracting Parties 9 May 1949
Third Session ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
WORKING PARTY 7 ON BRAZILIAN INTERNAI, TAXES
SUBJECTS PROPOSED FOR DISCUSSION
At its first meeting on 4th May the Working perty provisionally
agreed upon a list of subjects for discussion. It is suggested for
the consideration of the Working Party that the list might be
slightly amended -and rearranged as follows:-
1. The application of Article III of the General Agreement
to, respectively, items bound in the tariff schedules
and items not so bound.
2. The rolevance of Article III in cases where there are
no imports of the product concerned, or the volume
of imports is small.
3. The effect of the words "to the fullest extent not
inconsistent with existing legislation" (in paragraph
1 (b) of the Protocol of provisional Application on the
obligation of a. contracting party under Article III.
4. The question whether "Protection" in the torms of
Article III is to bo measured in absolute terms or
in terms of the proportion between an existing
difference in the incidence of charges and a former
difference. |
GATT Library | cy492fv4331 | Submission of Proposals for Consideration by the Working Party | Contracting Parties, May 2, 1949 | Contracting Parties and Working Party on Rectifications | 02/05/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/WP.5/2 and GATT/CP.3/WP.5/1-11, WP.5/3/Corr.1,WP.5/11/Add.1/3 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/cy492fv4331 | cy492fv4331_91870547.xml | GATT_144 | 105 | 756 | RESTRICTED
CONTRACTING PARTIES Limited C
Third Session GATT/CP .3/WP%,5/2
2 May 1949
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
WORKING PARTY ON RECTIFICATIONS
Submission of Proposals for Consideration
by the Working Party
At the first meeting of the Working Party it appeared that
several countries were considering the submission of lists of
rectifications of Schedules to the General Agreement. It was
therefore decided that all Delegations be informed that the next
meeting will be held on the 13th May and that requests for recti-'
fications should be forwarded to the Secretariat for circulation
by the end of the current week in order to allow other delegations
time for adequate examination. |
GATT Library | wm226zd4151 | Subventions iustraliennes aux im importations do sulfate d'ammonieque : Demandne presente par le Gouvernment du Chili | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, July 27, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization), Parties Contractantes, and Contracting Parties | 27/07/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/63 and GATT/CP.3/61 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/wm226zd4151 | wm226zd4151_90320269.xml | GATT_144 | 634 | 4,187 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMET ACCORD GENERA SUR LIMITED- B
GATT/CP. 3/63.
ON' TARiFFS AND LES TARIF DOUANIERS 27 July 1949
FRENCH
TRADE F E COMMERCE ORIGINL:ENGLISH
Parties contractantes
Troisieme session
Subventions iustraliennes aux im importations
do sulfate d'ammoni; que
Demandne presente par le Gouvernment du Chili
Le Gouvcrnement du Chili a demanded que soi inscrite, sous la rubrique
20 de '1Ordre du jour, unc question qui. so pose a apropos dos subventions
vorsees par le Gouvernamont australien pour le sulfate dammoniaque. Cotta
question ost resumee dans unc lettro reproduite ci-dessous, do la delegation
du Chili. I1 y a lieu de romarquor que des negociations bilatgrales se d6-
roulent actuollement entree la dele'gation do Australie et la de'lgation
du Chili, et quo la deelgation du Chili rotirera cotton question do l'ordre
du jour si ces negociations donnent un resultat satisfaisant.
Vouiei le Luxte do colte lettre qui cst datee du 25 Juillct 1949:
" Depuis quclques annees, le Gouvernomont do l'Australic subventionno
les importations de nitrate chilion et de sulfate d'mnnoniaque afin
que les agricultours australian puissent obtenir des engrais azotes au
plus bas prix possible.
" Le D6partement australion du Commer'ce et do 2)Agriculture a annonce
recemment que la subvontion ditat d'onviron 500.000 ; pour l'annee
comprise entre le ler Juillot 1949 et le 30 juin 1950, slappliquera a
partir du lar ju.illet de l'annee couranto, aux souls importations de
sulfate d 'moniaque.
" Cette mesure desavantage a un tcl point le nitrate du Chili que sa
vente, qui ne beneficiora plus d'une subvcntion sur le marche australien,
devindra impossible des lors qu'il devra soutonir la concurrence du
sulfate d'ammoniaque toUjours subventionnre, qui est lo produit cr-zuwr-
rent du nitrate du Chili, GATT/CP3/61
page 2
" D'autro part, a un moment ot la subvention s'lappliquait aux
doux produits susmcntionnes, l'Australic ct lo Chili au cours de
lk douxiceme reunion de la Comission preparatoire de la; Confefrence
du Commerce et do l'emploi do lrgrmisation des Nations Unies, ont
neocie a Genevo des concessions ttarifairos qui so trouvont consi-
gneos dn.ns los lists correspondantes de l'accord general sur los
tarifs douaniors at le commerce. Parmi d'autres concessions, )2Aus-
tr-.dlie a accords au Chili pour le nitrate de soude, la franchise des
droits,
" Los doux pays ont sign he protocol, d'application provisoire de
1' ACord genetiral sur los tarifs douniers ct le commerce et 1' appli-
quent,
" Los faits exposes ci-dessus montrent quo la mesure discriminatioire
adopt.ee par le Gouvernment de l'Australian faveur du sulfato dt am-
moniaquo et 'a l'oncontro du nitrato du Chili, annule reduit du
moins fortemont la valour de ha concession quo co Gouvernement I. ac-
cordeo pour ce produit a notrc pays, A la suite des negociations mcnees
a Geneve,
" Nous avons price ho dele'gration de l'Australic aupres do la presente
Conference do demander a son Gouvernnment quo la subvention pour le
nitrate du Chili soit maintenue com elle: l'est pour ho sulfate d'am-
moniaquo; nous continuons nos pourpearlers avoc ce governement au sujet,
de cotte domande et esperons qu'ils aboutiront a uno decision favorable..
" Pour le cas oa nous ne parviondrions pas a une solution favorable,
jo me porm.ts de vous demander do bien vouloir fairo inscrireo cette
affaire a. lordro du jour de la troisieme reunion dos Farties contrac-
tantes (nu titre de la rubrique 20), pour que lesdites Parties puis-
sent l'oxminer conformement aux dispositions de l'Articlo XXIII de
l'Accord general, qui envisage plus pnrticularment des cans du genre
do colui qui vous est signrle dans la presonte communiction,
" Jo vous sorais egalament roeconnaissant de bien vouloir notor, par
ailleurs, que le Chili retirara cetts question de 1'order du jour si,
conme il l'espere, il peut parvenir a un accord satisfaisant avec la
delegation de l'Australie par voice do negociations directories
" Vauillez agreer, etc... |
GATT Library | zx543qy1767 | Suggested Revisions to GATT/CP.3/WP.1/12 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, June 1, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization), Contracting Parties, and Working Party 1 on Accession | 01/06/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/WP.1/12/Add.2 and GATT/CP.3/WP.1/11,12, WP.1/12/Annex WP.1/12/Add.1,2 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/zx543qy1767 | zx543qy1767_91870530.xml | GATT_144 | 218 | 1,613 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR RESTRICTED
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS GATT/CP.3/WP.1/12/Add.2
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE 1 June 1949
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Contracting Parties
Third Session
Working Party 1 on Accession
Suggested Revisions to GATT/CP.3/WP.1/12
Page 2
Paragraph 2(a) Proposed Decision, 1st sub-paragraph.
Possible revised version of the last sentence
"Each Decision would be taken after an interval designed to
allow all Contracting Parties to make a judgment whether to
subscribe to the Decision as to the accession of each individual
Government in the light of the results of the tariff negotiations with
that acceding Government, account being taken of the value placed upon
the indirect tariff concessions resulting from the Geneva and Annecy
negotiations."
Page 3
Suggested revised version of the 1st sub-paragraph of the
paragraph headed "General":
"An important consideration in the present tariff negotiations is
the indirect benefits of the concessions exchanged at Geneva between
the present Contracting Parties. It has been assumed, therefore, that
the tariff concessions offered at Annecy by an acceding Government wil
be made in a large measure in consideration for the Geneva concessions.
Correspondingly it is assumed that all the governments concerned will
take into consideration the indirect benefits which it will receive
from the negotiations between the acceding governments themselves and
between them and the other present Contracting Parties." |
GATT Library | yc019fw3754 | Summary of disoussion on the period of duration of schedules embodying the rosults of the Anncy negotiations | Contracting Partics, April 22, 1949 | Contracting Parties and Working Party 1 on Accession | 22/04/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/WP.1/5 and GATT/CP.3/WP.1/1-10/Add.1 WP.1/5/Rev.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/yc019fw3754 | yc019fw3754_91870518.xml | GATT_144 | 446 | 2,714 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED C
GATT/CP.3/WP. 1/5
22 April 1949
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Contracting Partics
Third Session
Working Party 1 on Accession
Summary of disoussion on the period of duration of
schedules embodying the rosults of the Anncy negotiations.
The general feeling of the Working Party was in favor of
having a uniform date for the duration of all the schedules.
This would facilitate the integration of the now concessions with
the old schedules and also would enable any revisions requested
to be dealt with as a single operation. If a single date was to
be adopted then the choice lay between applying the date of
January 1st, 1951 to the Annecy schodules or deciding that those
should run for three years until say September 1952 and extending
the Geneva schedules also to this date. This extension, however,
presented serious technical difficulties, particularly to the
United States who could not complete the necessary domestic
procedures in time to enable such an extension to be agreed at the
present session. The objection to a uniform date of January 1st,
1951, was that this would mean a very brief period of assured
effectiveness for the now schedules, If, for example, the Protocol
of Accession wore to remain opon for signature until June 30th,
1950, possibly some of the schedules might only be effective for a
period of 5 months. On the other hand, the running out of the
period did riot have the effect of invalidating the schedules but
merely of enabling revisions to bo made in accordance with the
provisions of Article XXVIII. It was probably unlikely that there
would be any wholesale demands for revision.
The alternative of having a different date for the now
schedules, i.e., to make them run uhtil September, 1952, and main.
training the January 1st, 1951 date for the Genova Schedules was also Page 2
examined by the Working Party. The Working Party was informed
that a representative of one acceding government had said that
such an arrangement would not find. ready acceptance. It was
pointed out in the course of the discussion that an aaceding
government would not necessarily be seriously prejudiced by
agreeing to a three year period for the Annecy Schediles,
provided it were recognized that such a government would have
the right to seek compensation under Article XXVIII, if it a
determined to have a substantial interest in respect of any
item in a Geneva schedule for which revision was sought.
It was agreed to continue the discussion of this question
at a later meeting when if possible some consideration might be
given to the relationship of this question to the possible date
of a second general round of negotiations. |
GATT Library | cd839py4692 | Summary Record of Informal Meeting of representatives of Executive Committee of ICITO present in Annecy : Held on Wednesday, 8 June 1949, at 10.30 a.m | Interim Commission for the International Trade Organization, June 24, 1949 | Interim Commission for the International Trade Organization (ICITO/GATT) | 24/06/1949 | official documents | ICITO/1/14, ICITO/INF/1-8, and ICITO/1/1-16 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/cd839py4692 | cd839py4692_90180025.xml | GATT_144 | 1,983 | 12,382 | UNRESTRICTED
INTERIM COMMISSION COMMISSION INTERIMAIRE DE ICITO/.1/14
FOR THE INTERNATIONAL L'ORGANISATION INTERNATIONALE 24 June 1949
TRADE ORGANIZATION DU COMMERCE ORIGINAL : ENGLISH
SUMMARY RECORD OF INFORMAL MEETING OF
REPRESENTATIVES OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF ?
PRESENT IN ANNECY
Held on Wednesday, 8 June 1949, at 10.30 a.m.
Chairman: Mr. L.D. WILGRESS (Canada)
Subject discussed: Future programme for the Interim Commission
The CHAIRMAN reviewed for representatives the terms of
reference of the Interim Commission and the work already accomplished
for carrying out these terms of reference. A third session of the
Executive Committee had been scheduled at the last session for
September of this year on the assumption that there would be several
ratifications by that date and that it would be possible to foresee
the date of the First Conference. Since this assumption has not
proved correct, there would seem to be little point in holding the
September meeting of the Executive Committee. The problem before
the meeting was what should be the programme of the Interim Commission
in view of the delay in the establishment of the Organisation, and
what should be the function of the Secretariat. This also raised
the question and the means of financing the Interim Commission in
1950. Should a further advance from the Working Capital Fund of the
United Nations be requested from the General Assembly or should some
other means such as direct contributions .be found. He called upon
the Executive Secretary for his views.
The EXECUTIVE SECRETARY said that there seemed little doubt
that the decision to hold a meeting of the Executive Committee in
the autumn of this year should be changed. There were, however,
other pressing questions which must be considered, viz., the future ICITO/1/14
page 2
programme of the Interim Commission and the method of financing it.
When the draft terms of reference for the Interim Commission were
drawn up in Havana, the basic one which gives the power to perform
certain necessary tasks of the Organization itself pending its
establishment and which is contained in the terms of reference of
all other Interim Commissions, was omitted. This was done deliber-
ately because in consideration of the important matters dealt with
in the Charter, it was not thought desirable that the Interim Commis-
sion should exercise these powers. . It had also seemed probable at
that time that the Charter would not be very long delayed in entering
into effect. Moreover, some important questions which would ultimately
fall under the aegis of the Organization were also covered by the GATT
and would therefore engaged the attention meanwhile of the Contracting
Parties. The result is that the Interim Commission has functions
only in terms of the First Conference and these very restricted ones
which are largely covered in the two draft reports, except for one or
two matters, for which reports could be prepared with little difficulty,
The EXECUTIVE SECRETARY stated that his first reaction to the
prolongation of the. period before the Organization would come into
being was that the Interim Commission had exhausted its utility and,
after a formal meeting to give final form to its report, might well
be dissolved. The only good argument for its continuance was that of
holding together its small Secretariat to form a nucleus of staff for
the first conference, but he did not think the collection of an adequate
staff sufficiently difficult to justify the continuance of the present
one only on those grounds. The retention of the staff could only be
justified insofar as there was a programme for it to implement.
In preparation for an early meeting of the Conference a very
detailed report on administrative questions had been prepared. It
had been hoped that with the aid of this report these questions could ICITO/1/14
page 3
be dealt with quickly and the time of the Conference devoted to the
important substantive matters which would undoubtedly be before a
Conference held at such an actual time. The Interim Commission might
decide that it wished to take an active part in the preparation for
such discussions. However, because of pressing present problems and
the delay in the establishment of the ITO, it may well be that other
agencies will have to take up the problems with which the ITO is
intended to deal. Governments must decide whether to give the Interim
Commission an active role.
With regard to the meeting provided for in Article 103 of the
Charter for September 30 1949, of those countries having deposited
instruments of acceptance, it seemed to him that a meeting of the
whole Interim Commission would be of more value, it was very desir-
able to examine the whole purpose and role of the Interim Commission.
If it were decided that there was no case for expanding its mandate,
the Executive Secretary thought it undesirable to approach the General
Assembly for a further loan for 1950 for such limited activities, a
loan which the General assembly might well be reluctant to grant.
Dr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) thought that with regard
to the September 30 meeting, formal action would be necessary as it is
formally provided for in the Charter, It might be advisable to communi-
cate with all members of the Interim Commission suggesting that the
date provided for in article 103 2(b) be altered and then if there were
agreement, notify the Secretary-General of the change.
As to the continuation of the Interim Commission, the Secretariat
should continue as it was necessary that someone should prepare for the
first meeting. He thought that there was useful work for the Secretariat
to do and suggested specifically that it might prepare a study of the
various resolutions of the General Assembly, the Economic and Social ICITO/1/14
page 4
Council, Specialized Agencies, etc. which had a bearing on the Havana
Charter, as to their relationship with various functions provided for
in the Charter. As to the financial problem, he was in favour of
applying for a further loan from the General Assembly.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY (United States of America) thought that the
Interim Commission should be continued. He suggested as a useful
task for the Secretariat, collecting material on deviations from Article
23 for the report which the Charter requires to be prepared by 1 March 1950.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) agreed to the postponement of
the September meeting and thought that Dr. Augenthaler's suggestion
as to the method of dealing with the provisions of Article 103 should
be very seriously considered. As to the work of the Secretariat,
there was much useful work that could be done; in the commodity field
particularly he wondered whether ICCICA was adequate to deal with the
present situation. There was also much to be done in the economic
development field, and it was surely a pity that the Interim Commission
was not taking part in this work in its formative stages. Although
minor, there was also the question of relations with other agencies
and organizations. With regard to work in connection with Article XXIII,
paragraph 1(g), the Interim Commission and present Secretariat was
certainly not competent to undertake the task and some other means must
be found for dealing with the matter, perhaps by postponement for a year
as suggested in the report.
Mr. COUILLARD (Canada) agreed that the Secretariat should be
continued, particularly as it also served a very useful function at
Secretariat for the GATT, and he thought that there was a sufficient
amount of work for it to do.
Mr. POLITIS (Greece) requested the Secretariat to indicate
possible functions it could perform and thought that within the spirit ICITO/1/14
page 5
of preparing for the first conference there was much apart from
purely administrative work that could be done.
Mr. PATIJN (Netherlands) thought it was very important that
the Secretariat should be kept intact. With regard to the suggestion
of Dr. Augenthaler, he thought that the co-ordination work was already
being done by the United Nations and should not be repeated elsewhere.
He did think that useful co-ordination work could be done in the field
of economic development.
The CHAIRMAN, in reply to questions from the various delegates
as to the reaction of the General Assembly to a further request for
a loan, stated that at the last Session of the General assembly there
had been no long debate or serious difficulty in granting the loan
and that the final vote had been something like 30 to 6. Of the 30,
however, who voted in the affirmative in the Plenary Session, many had
been critical in Committee V on the grounds of safeguarding the finances
of the United Nations. The question of finances was of secondary
importance, however, compared with the basic question of the programme
of the Interim Commission.
Mr. CLARK (Australia) agreed that the Secretariat should not
be dissolved, and suggested that there was very useful work to be done
in connection with Article 21, paragraph 6, and Article 4, and that
perhaps a paper could be prepared on matters concerning a general
disequilibrium restricting international trade. There was much useful
work the Secretariat could also do for the Contracting Parties, such
as objective and fact finding studies concerning articles XVIII, XV
and XVI, in the absence of which Working Parties were required to
prepare such data during meetings which added to the cost and which
by their very nature were less objective. ICITO/1/14
page 6
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) wished to clarify his point
as he thought that Mr. Patijn had misunderstood him. He only referred
to resolutions dealing with the same problems dealt with by the Charter
as they would have to be constantly referred to by the Organization.
He wished to warn the meeting about suggesting that the Secretariat
make studies of controversial topics as it would expose them to
attack from all sides.
Mr. AMARICH (France) agreed regarding the postponement of the
September meeting and said that it appeared that there was adequate
work for the Secretariat to do. He asked whether a change in the
terms of reference was required.
The EXECUTIVE SECRETARY said that he wished to emphasize the
fact that it was necessary to find a definite programme for the Interim
Commission rather than a series of tasks for the Secretariat. In
reply to the specific suggestions made, he had given considerable thought
to the possibility of work in the economic development and commodity
fields, and had come to the conclusion that the Interim Commission on
its present terms of reference had nothing whatever to contribute.
It could give no more than possible future programmes of a possible
future ITO at an indeterminate future date, It must in particular
avoid the danger of inhibiting other organizations able to act from
taking up urgent tasks by asserting the future responsibilities of the
ITO.
Unless there were a much clearer idea of the responsibility of the
Interim Commission and specific tasks that it could perform, he saw no
useful purpose in its continuing and a possible harmful one in that it
might prevent other organizations from taking up tasks assigned to a
future and uncertain ITO. ICITO/1/14
page 7
The CHAIRMAN thought that there was general agreement on
the minor points raised in this discussion, such as postponing the
September meeting and possible methods of financing a continuing
Secretariat. He suggested that delegations give very serious considera-
tion to the Executive Secretary's statement before the next meeting
to be held on July 5th or 6th. Of the various suggestions for work
for the Secretariat, the most useful one seemed to him that made by
the Australian delegate concerning Article XXI, paragraph 6 as that
related to a problem which was not within the province of any organiza-
tion yet established, He also informed delegates that at the next
meeting the question of barriers to the international transport of
goods, concerning which a paper had been distributed, would be
discussed.
The meeting rose at 12.30 p.m. |
GATT Library | dr512fg9649 | Summary record of the 31st Meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy on Monday, 4 July 1949, at 10 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, July 4, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 04/07/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.31 and GATT/CP.3/SR.29 - SR.32 + SR.31/Corr.1,2 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/dr512fg9649 | dr512fg9649_90060128.xml | GATT_144 | 0 | 0 | |
GATT Library | xj278nk5999 | Summary record of the 31st Meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy on Monday, 4 July 1949, at 10 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, July 4, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 04/07/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.31 and GATT/CP.3/SR.29 - SR.32 + SR.31/Corr.1,2 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/xj278nk5999 | xj278nk5999_90060128.xml | GATT_144 | 0 | 0 | |
GATT Library | bb443ds0191 | Summary record of the 31st Meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy on Monday, 4 July 1949, at 10 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, July 4, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 04/07/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.31 and GATT/CP.3/SR.29 - SR.32 + SR.31/Corr.1,2 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/bb443ds0191 | bb443ds0191_90060128.xml | GATT_144 | 1,500 | 9,298 | GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS AND
TRADE
ACCORD GENERAL SUR
LES TARIFS DOUANIERS
ET LE COMMERCE
RESTRICTED
LIMITED B.
GATT/CP.3/SR.31
4 July 1949
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Contracting Parties
Third Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE 31st MEETING
Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy
on Monday, 4 July 1949, at 10 a.m.
Chairman: Hon. L. D. WILGRESS (Canada)
Subjects discussed:
1. Report of Working Party 3 on Consultation under Articles
XII, XIII and XIV, excluding Article XII, 4 (a)
2. Draft Protocol Modifying Article XVI of the General
.Agreement.
3. Report of the Third Session of the Contracting Parties
The Chairman called upon Mr. PERRY (Canada) as Chairman
of the Working Party to introduce the report.
Mr. PERRY outlined the contents of the report and added, on
instructions of the Working Party, that where the term "special
session" of the Contracting Parties had been used, although this
terminology found no place in the General Agreement, it had been
felt that the meaning given to the term justified its use. There
was however no suggestion to amend Article 25 in this connection.
He had further been asked by the Working Party to call the
attention of the Contracting Parties to a personal view which had
been submitted by the representative of the International Monetary
Fund, that the Chairman of the Contracting Parties should be free
to invite an individual contracting party for consultation under
the appropriate paragraph of the Agreement. The Working Party could GATT/CP.3/SR.31
page 2
only accept this view with the proviso that the views of the
Contracting Parties be first ascertained by a canvass which the
Chairman would be authorized to take.
The report was then examined paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 and 2 were approved.
An amendment to paragraph 3 proposed by Dr. AUGENTHALER
(Czechoslovakia) to delete "ordinary session" and substitute therefor:
"next session decided upon by the Contracting Parties at their previous
session or otherwise" was adopted.
Paragraph 3 as amended was approved.
The amendment proposed by Mr. COELHO (India) that the second
sentence of paragraph 4 should read:
"In the view of the Working Party the following cases could
be considered within this group to the extent indicated in
paragraphs 14, 15, 22, 23 and 24 of this report:
Article XII - paragraph 4 (c)
Article XIV - paragraph 2
Annex J - proviso to paragraph 3."
was approved.
Paragraph 4 as amended was approved.
Paragraphs 5 to 7 were approved.
Mr. COELHO's re-draft of paragraph 8 as follows:
"The Working Party considered that in the above cases a
canvass would be initiated by the Chairman either on the basis
of official information reaching him, or ca receipt of written
communications from Contracting Parties. In the conduct of a
canvass the Chairman should provide Contracting Parties with as
complete information as possible in order that the Contracting
Parties would be in a position to furnish their views as to the
urgency of the consultation and the course of action most favoured"
was approved. GATT/CP.3/SR.31
page 3
A new paragraph as follows:
"In the expression of such views on a canvass Contracting
Parties should take into account the nature of the reference
and the particular provisions of the Article under which the
case arises."
was proposed by Mr. COELHO and was approved as paragraph 9, the
existing paragraph 9 and the subsequent paragraphs to be renumbered
accordingly.
The Chairman proposed to read out the articles according to the
numbers appearing in the report.
Paragraph 9 was approved.
Paragraph 10 as amended by a proposal of Dr. AUGENTHAEER that
the words:
"in the sense of paragraph 2 (c) of Article 78 of the Havana
Charter"
be inserted after: "(representative of the CONTRACTING PARTIES ....)"
was approved.
Paragraphs 11 to 17 were approved.
A proposal by Mr. COELHO to add, in the third sentence after
"in cases of this nature", the words: "and also in other cases" was
approved, this sentence to appear as a separate paragraph.
The proposal of Mr. SHACKLE (U.K.) to add, as a further paragraph
to the report, the text contained in document A/W/11 gave rise to a
discussion in which Mr. SHACKLE (U.K.), Mr. LEWlS (U.S.) and Mr. PERRY
(Canada) took part.
In view of the references to document GATT/CP.3/30 and of opinions
raised by some delegates in favour of the wording of paragraphs 13 and
14 of the latter document, Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) proposed that the
Executive Secretary be asked to merge into one the two reports of the GATT/C.3/SR.31
page 4
Working Party. The meeting agreed to the proposal and Mr. PERRY was
asked to draft a wording for the new paragraph which would reconcile
the different views.
The annex was approved with the addition of the following words
to the title:
"for the purposes of procedure under Articles XII, XIII and XIV."
The meeting then proceeded to the composition of the selected
committee. The Chairman said that he had composed a slate in accordance
with paragraph 2 (c) of Article 72 of the Havana Charter. With respect
to the doubts expressed by Mr. AUGENTHALER as to whether a membership of
ten would be sufficient, he accepted Mr. AUGENTHALER's proposal to
submit his selection to the meeting as a basis for discussion.
He had in mind the following:
Australia
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
Chile
Czechoslovakia
France
India
U.K.
U.S.A.
Mr. SHACKLE (U.K.) mentioned South Africa as being representative
of a particular type of economy as indicated in Article 78 and also as
having had special experience of the consultation procedure.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) expressed his general agreement
with the Chairman's selection. In suggesting a committee of twelve
himself, he had had in mind China, as one of the Great Powers, and
Norway as a representative of the Scandinavian countries. GATT/CP.3/SR.31 page 5
In the ensuing discussion Mr. W. KING (China), Mr. JOHNSEN
(New Zealand), Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium), Mr. MOBARAK (Lebanon),
Mr. HASNIE (Pakistan), Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia), Mr. SCHOYEN
(Norway), Mr. TRABOULSI (Syria), Mr. LECUYER (France) took part.
In the light of the opinions expressed it was agreed to limit the
committee to the ten members proposed by the Chairman and to add as
a note to the composition:
"The Chairman shall, however, have power to add as members
of the Committee not more than three additional members from
among China, Lebanon-Syria, Norway and South Africa."
Mr. PERRY (Canada) then presented his re-draft of the new paragraph
to be added to the report of the Working Party, as follows:
"As outlined in GATT/CP.3/30 Rev.1, the interim procedures
indicated in this report are intended to be resorted to only
exceptionally and where most urgent circumstances require such
action; and the powers intended to the Chairman in the ad hoc
and selected committees would not include the right to conclude
consultation on behalf of the CONTRACTING PARTIES, which would
normally do this at their next session."
Paragraph 26 as redrafted was approved.
The report as a whole was approved as amended.
2. Draft Protocol Modifying Article XXVI of the General Agreement
The Executive Secretary in introducing his note said that the
subject matter of the draft protocol had been dealt with in the
Working Party on Accession, the report of which the Contracting Parties
had already examined. The Working Party had felt that it was not only
desirable but important that Article XXVI be brought in line with the
Havana Charter, because as it stood at present, it might make it more
difficult for the definitive functioning of the General Agreement. GATT/CP.3/SR.31
page 6
It had been indicated that various delegations would have drafting
changes to make so he thought it would be in order to defer the
draft to the Working Party.
The suggestion contained in the note of the Executive Secretary
was approved.
3. Report of the Third Session of the Contracting Parties
The Executive Secretary put forth the suggestion that the work
of the Contracting Parties would have added value if there should exist
a formal report at the end of each session, which might include some
assessment of the results and be published for the information of the
thoughtful reader who could not be content with the scant notices which
reach him through the press. He would therefore like to be authorized
to prepare, before the end of the Session a comprehensive report to be
published as an official record of the Third Session.
Mr. MULLER (Chile) congratulated the Executive Secretary on his
suggestion and suggested the inclusion of a review of the work of
previous sessions.
The Chairman, in reply to Mr. CATUDAL (U.S. A.), who had also
expressed his approval, said that if the Contracting Parties agreed,
work could begin immediately.
Mr. HASNIE (Pakistan), Mr. MOBARAK (Lebanon) and Mr. CASSIERS
(Belgium) expressed approval and made suggestions concerning the
language in which the report was to be couched.
It was agreed that the report be drafted and circulated as soon
as possible before the end of the Session in order that it might be
approved by the Contracting Parties.
The meeting rose at 12.30 P.M. |
GATT Library | gk811mh7742 | Summary record of the 31st Meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Anneey on Monday, 4 July 1949, at 10 a.m. Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, July 22, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 22/07/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.31/Corr.1 and GATT/CP.3/SR.29 - SR.32 + SR.31/Corr.1,2 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/gk811mh7742 | gk811mh7742_90060129.xml | GATT_144 | 71 | 458 | GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS AND
TRADE
ACCORD GENERAL SUR
LES TARIFS
ET LE
DOUANIERS
RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP.3/SR.31/Corr.1
DOUANIERS 22 July 1949
COMMERCE
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Contracting Parties
Third Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE 31st MEETING
Held at Hotel Verdun, Anneey
on Monday, 4 July 1949, at 10 a.m.
CORRIGENDUM
In the 20th line on page 3 the words "and also in
other eases" should read "and also in other appropriate
eases". |
GATT Library | rf968dt3489 | Summary record of the Eighteenth Meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy, on Monday, 30 May, 1949, at 2.30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, May 30, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 30/05/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.18 and GATT/CP.3/SR.17 + 18 SR.18/Corr.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/rf968dt3489 | rf968dt3489_90060084.xml | GATT_144 | 1,719 | 11,032 | GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS AND
TRADE
ACCORD GENERAL SUR
LES TARIFS DOUANIERS
ET LE COMMERCE
RESTRICTED
LIMITED C
GATT/CP.3/SR.18
30 May, 1949
ORIGINAL :ENGLISH
Contracting Parties
Third Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE EIGHTEENTH MEETING
Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy,
on Monday, 30 May, 1949, at 2.30 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. L. D. WILGRESS (Canada)
Subjects discussed:
1. Request of Czechoslovakia for Decision
under Article XXIII.
2. Interpretation of "entry into negotiations"
for the purposes of Article XXXV.
1. Request of Czechoslovakia for Decision under Article XXIII.
Dr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) made a statement issued
as Document GATT/CP.3/33. He further said that he had been approached
by the Press with regard to the statement he had just made and that
he had refused to give any information whatsoever, in accordance with
the established procedure. Nevertheless, he wished to request the
Chairman to give a ruling in connection with press releases on the
matter under discussion.
Mr. PHILIP (France), while reserving his position with regard
to the statement made by the representative of Czechoslovakia, wished
to correct a reference made to a member of the French National Assembly,
M. Chambeiron, whom the representative of Czechoslovakia had mentioned
as a Republican deputy; he was in fact a deputy for the Union
Républicain Progressist de la Résistance. He also wished to draw GATT/CP.3/SR.18
page 2
attention to the fact that the quoted statement made by M. Chambeiron
on May 17, 1949, referring to remarks made by an official of the Quai
d'Orsay on April 1st, used the conditional tense, He could say that no
statement had been made by the French Government on April 1st, or any
other day, that would resemble the quotation made by M. Chambeiron in
the French National Assembly. He recalled that licensing was decreasing
in France.
It was decided to defer the discussion of the subject brought up
by the representative of Czechoslovakia so as to enable delegations to
give it proper consideration. It was also decided that a full summary
of the statement made by the representative, of Czechoslovakia be
embodied in a press release to be issued by the Chairman immediately
after the meeting.
2. Interpretation of "entry into negotiations" for the purposes of
Article XXXV (Document A/W/7)
Dr. MULLER (Chile) (Chairman, Tariff Negotiations Committee)
introduced the recommendation of the Tariff Negotiations Committee and
summed up the views expressed during the fourth meeting of the Committee
on the interpretation of "entry into negotiations" for the purposes of
Article XXXV. (GATT/TN.1/SR.4). The recommendation read as follows:
"Delegations shall be deemed to have 'entered into
negotiations' for the purpose of Article XXXV only
when a formal exchange of offers takes place and is
notified by both parties to the Secretariat."
The CHAIRMAN expressed his regret for having been unable to
attend personally the fourth meeting of the Tariff Negotiations
Committee. He recalled that at the meeting of the heads of delegations
which had taken place at the beginning of the present Session he had
given a ruling on the meaning of "entry into negotiations" for the
purpose of Article XXXV, namely, that delegations should be deemed to
have "entered into negotiations" when they had exchanged offers of GATT/CP.3/SR.18
page 3
concessions. That had been in accordance with the usual procedure
followed in bilateral negotiations. It was clear that a satisfactory
result could be achieved only as a result of such negotiations.
He recalled that exploratory talks were not meant to replace
negotiations and were intended only to ascertain whether there was
a basis for entering into negotiations. Article XXXV had been
drafted for special circumstances, namely, to overcome certain
legislative and political difficulties encountered by some of the
contracting parties as a result of the introduction of the two-thirds
majority rule in Article XXXIII; also at the Second Session,
Article XXV:5(b) fashioned after Article 17 of the Havana Charter,
had been adopted. It was necessary to be careful not to widen
Article XXXV beyond the purposes for which it was intended. He
had had that in mind when he gave the ruling at an early meeting,
and the procedure to be followed had been set out very clearly, in
accordance with the ruling he had given, in document GATT/TN.1/A/4
issued by the Tariff Negotiations Working Party. He thought that no
more specific ruling could be given without running the risk of
amending Article XXXV and interpreting it in a way in which it had
never been intended. The document under discussion, A/W//7, gave the
possibility of postponing indefinitely the commencement of negotiations
and was in his view contrary to the letter and spirit of Article XXXV.
Once offers were discussed, negotiations were entered into. In any
Order of the Day there was a schedule of negotiations that were taking
place and it would not be quite logicial if delegations could maintain
that they had not entered into negotiations when a notice of the
entering into negotiations appeared in the Order of the Day which was
an official Conference document.
Dr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) agreed with the CHAIRMAN
that it would be unfortunate if Article XXXV were given a meaning other
than originally intended. He recalled that at the Geneva Session GATT/CP.3/SR.18
page 4
bilateral negotiations had not implied any obligations whatsoever
and it had been only after the appending of signatures that the
results of negotiations had become valid. At Annecy, however,
an acceding government could become a contracting party as a result
of a two-thirds vote without satisfying one-third of the contracting
parties, and at the same time such an acceding government would be able
to enjoy all the concessions agreed to at Geneva and at Annecy. That
was the reason why there was such hesitation with regard to entering
into negotiations. He thought it would be best to provide an
interpretation for Article XXXV which would enable the exploratory
talks to be widened.
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) said that Article XXXV was an
exception to the M.F.N. rule. It was a legal principle to interpret
restrictively provisions adopted under exceptional circumstances.
He agreed with the representative of Czechoslovakia that an acceding
government could become a contracting party as a result of a two-
thirds vote without giving adequate concessions for the Geneva and
Annecy concessions which it would automatically enjoy once it became
a contracting party. Referring to the CHAIRMAN'S recommendations
that Article XXV; 5(b) could be used as a safeguard, he said that
he could not agree with that view because if applied, it would favour
individual solutions. In his opinion, the CONTRACTING PARTIES should
try to devise collective measures for the defense of their legitimate
interests. It would be useful that a statement be made with regard
to Article 17 of the Havana Charter, namely that concessions accruing
to the acceding governments through the Geneva schedules should be
compensated by corresponding concessions by the acceding governments;
if that were accepted as a general rule, there would be no need for
resort to Article XXXV or XXV:5(b). GATT/C P.3/SR.18
page 5
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) supported the views expressed
by the representatives of Czechoslovakia and Belgium. There were
cases in the present negotiations where some contracting parties were
called upon to negotiate with countries which were engaged in revising
or had recently revised their tariffs and rates. He would not say
generally that the increase of rates had taken place in order to
improve the bargaining position of some acceding governments and in
contradiction to the memorandum on Tariff Negotiations issued as
document GATT/CP.2/26; nevertheless, the effect of increased tariffs
was an improvement of the bargaining position. For that reason,
exploratory talks were useful in order to ascertain whether the
tariff rates were too high and whether a better basis could be
found. With that reservation, he wished to support the recommendation
under discussion.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY (United States of America) said that if the
CONTRACTING PARTIES dealt with the problem as suggested by the
representative of Czechoslovakia, the result would be to change the
system from one in which Article XXV:5(b) would be employed, to one
in which unilateral action would be taken under Article XXXV. If
that system were to be widely used, multilateral agreements would
contain many deficiencies. He could not agree that some contracting
parties were in danger of giving all the Geneva and Annecy concessions
to an acceding government as a result of a two-thirds vote without
getting any benefits from such an acceding government; it would be
the CONTRACTING PARTIES as a whole who would see that an acceding
government, that had not given satisfactory concessions to contracting
parties, would not enjoy all the benefits of GATT. He tended to
agree more with the view of the representative of Belgium, which
he thought was more in accordance with the principles underlying GATT,
namely, that each country give up some of its advantages for the
benefit of the CONTRACTING PARTIES as a whole. GATT/CP.3/SR.18
page 6
Mr. COUILLARD (Canada) said that he supported the ruling
given by the CHAIRMAN at the beginning of the present Session; that
he opposed the use of Article XXXV for purposes other than that for
which it was originally intended; and that he believed that in
cases of disagreement, the principle of two-thirds majority combined
with Article XXV:5(b) afforded adequate safeguard for contracting
parties against acceding governments that were unwilling to recognize
the benefits of the Geneva and Annecy schedules. For these reasons
he was unable to support the recommendation of the Tariff Negotiations
Committee.
The CHAIRMAN, replying to the suggestion made by the
representative of Belgium, said that it would not be wise to say at
present more than had been mentioned in the documents drawn up and
approved as a basis for negotiations. He regarded the provisions of
Article 17 of the Havana Charter, as developed in the Memorandum
on Tariff Negotiations, as satisfactory. There was no mathematical
formula that could measure the value of concessions, but the
CONTRACTING PARTIES acting jointly would be able to judge the
result of bilateral negotiations as recorded in Schedules attached
to the protocol on accession. He also recalled the provisions of
paragraph 2 of Article XXXV and, at the same time, advised the
CONTRACTING PARTIES not to put acceding governments in a disadvantageous
position.
It was agreed to continue this discussion at the next meeting.
The meeting rose at 5.45 p.m. |
GATT Library | kb481yq0407 | Summary record of the Eighth Meeting : Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, May 4, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 04/05/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.8/Corr.1 and GATT/CP.3/SR.8 + Corr.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/kb481yq0407 | kb481yq0407_90060048.xml | GATT_144 | 0 | 0 | |
GATT Library | zr924rb5728 | Summary record of the Eighth Meeting : Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, May 4, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 04/05/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.8/Corr.1 and GATT/CP.3/SR.8 + Corr.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/zr924rb5728 | zr924rb5728_90060048.xml | GATT_144 | 79 | 539 | GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS AND
TRADE
ACCORD GENERAL
LES TARIFS
ET LE COMMERCE
RESTRICTED
SUR LIMITED B
GATT/CP.3/SR.8/Corr.1
DOUANIERS 4 May 1949
ORIGINAL : FRENCH
Contractig Parties
Third Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE EIGHTH MEETING
CORRIGENDUM
Page 2; the last sentence of Mr. RODRIGUES' remarks should read
as follows:
"Nevertheless, while stressing that such a procedure must
not be understood as subjecting the case of Brazil to the unanimity
rule, he would not oppose the amendment".
_4 O % |
GATT Library | hj210dw5041 | Summary record of the Eighth Meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy, on Friday, 22 April, 1949, at 2.30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, April 22, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Third Session of the Contracting Parties | 22/04/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.8 and GATT/CP.3/SR.8 + Corr.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/hj210dw5041 | hj210dw5041_90060047.xml | GATT_144 | 2,908 | 18,322 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS GATT/CP.3/SR.8
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE 22 April 1949
ORIGINAL : ENGLISH
Third Session of the Contracting Parties
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE EIGHTH MEETING
Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy, on
Friday, 22 April, 1949, at 2.30 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. H. van BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands)
Subjects discussed:
1. Report on Negotiations affecting the Schedules to the
Agreement - Negotiations with the United Kingdom and
the United States.
2. Interim Agreement for a Customs Union between South Africa
and Southern Rhodesia.
1. Report on Negotiations affecting the Schedules to the Agreement:
Brazil - Negotiations with the United Kingdom and the United States
(GATT/CP1, page 29, GATT/CP/10, A/W/5)
The CHAIRMAN opened the discussion on document A/W/5 - Decision
further Waiving certain Obligations of Brazil under Article II.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) proposed the following amendments:
a) In the second paragraph of the preamble, to replace the words
"to reach agreement at any time subsequent thereto" by "to reach agree-
ment at any time up to the present date";
b) In the substantive part of the Decision, to replace the first
line of paragraph 4 by "The waiver mentioned in paragraph 1 of this
Decision shall cease to have force and affect on June 15, 1949, if,
by then, negotiations have not been completed". His delegation considered
that it was the waiver and not the other provisions of the Decision
which should cease to have force and effect in the case of non-agreement
within the time limit.
c) To delete the last sentence of paragraph 4. He thought it
was not appropriate to lay down in the present resolution that the GATT/CP.3/SR. 8
page 2
provisions of the agreement were to become an integral part of the
General Agreement; that question should be considered after the agree-
ment had been reached and the final report communicated.
Mr. HOLLIS (United States) had interpreted the last paragraph of
the Decision of 1948 as meaning that if agreement were reached, the
matter would not be referred back to the CONTRACTING PARTIES for further
action. As the amendment suggested by the United Kingdom delegate
left open the question whether further action should be taken by the
CONRACTING PARTIES and, if so, what action, he would agree to it if it
were satisfactory to the Brazilian delegate.
Mr. RODRIGUES (Brazil) failed to see the advantage of deleting
the last sentence of paragraph 4 since a final report must be presented
after agreement has been reached and paragraph 5 (a) of Article XXV of
GATT, on which the Decision of September 1948 was based, called for
approval by a two-thirds majority. Nevertheless, while stressing that
such a procedure must be understood as subjecting the case of Brazil
to the unanimity rule, he would not oppose the amendment.
Mr. de VRIES (Netherlands) agreed with the United States' interpreta-
tion. When the matter was discussed in Geneva, it was stated that
several items in the Brazilian schedule were under the level of the
duties imposed. It was decided that if an agreement were reached in
connection with the three products in question, there would be no further
action by the CONTRACTING PARTIES. It was not clear whether the
approval mentioned in the last sentence of paragraph 4 was to be given
by a two-thirds majority or unanimously.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) solid that an analagous question concerning
the proper procedure for modifying bindings or items in tariff schedules
was under consideration by the Working Party on the Protocol for Accession
which had not yet reached a decision. His proposal to delete the last
sentence of paragraph 4 would have the advantage of leaving the matter
open until the Working Party had reached a decision. GATT/CP.3/SR.8
page 3
Mr. HOLLIS (United States) doubted whether a decision taken by
the Working Party concerning Article XXXIII could have retroactive
effect on the CONTRACTING PARTIES' Decision of last September under
Article XXV.
He proposed the following redraft of paragraph 4:
"A final report on the negotiations provided for in paragraph 2
shall be communicated to the CONTRACTING PARTIES not later than
June 1, 1949. The substantive provisions of the agreement reached
as a result of such negotiations shall become integral parts of
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. If no agreement is
reached by June 15, 1949, the waiver mentioned in paragraph 1 shall
on that day cease to have force and effect".
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) was in favour of application of the unanimity
rule in this case in order to conform with the procedure adopted in
other cases. Moreover, if a decision were taken by two-thirds majority,
the CONTRACTING PARTIES that were indirectly interested might have no
opportunity to record objections.
Mr. RODRIGUES (Brazil) thought the point under discussion was
rather in the nature of a legal technicality whereas the economic aspects
were the real concern of the CONTRACTING PARTIES. He would not press
for either voting rule; Brazil's case was so well justified that what-
ever majority was required, he felt convinced the vote would be favourable
He considered, however, that the experience of the last two or three
years had shown that the unanimity rule was undesirable and would inevitably
cause difficulties if applied in the case of countries having a large
share in international trade. He did not agree with the Australian
delegate that a two-thirds majority would prevent CONTRACTING PARTIES
from formulating objections. With reference to the remarks of the
Netherlands delegate, he pointed out that at the time of the Decision of
1948, Brazil was offering and was still offering substantial temporary
reductions to all CONTRACTING PARTIES without any compensation. No new
decision was called for. The point was that the time limit had been GATT/CP.3/SR.8
page 4
exceeded; that was merely a legal matter and in any case Brazil was not
responsible for the delay.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) felt that a question of principle
was involved. It was not proper that in a case where all CONTRACTING
PARTIES had rights, as they had in the schedules, a two-thirds majority
should be able to modify the rights of the minority. If, however, the
CONTRACTING PARTIES were unanimous in approving such a situation, he
would withdraw his proposal, although he still considered it would be
preferable to await the decision of the Working Party.
Mr. HOLLIS (United States) drew attention to the first clause of
Article XXX, which set out the procedure in the case of amendments.
In certain other Articles provision was made for modification of the
schedules by the contracting parties concerned without specification, as
to the number of votes required for acceptance. In each of those
Articles a special set of circumstances was described, limiting the
action of the contracting parties. In Article XXV the circurnstances
were not so definite as in others; but the CONTRACTING PARTIES had
decided last September that exceptional circumstances did exist in the
case under discussion and the action then taken was, therefore, approp-
riate. Brazil was not responsible for the failure to reach agreement
by the date set and, as representative of one of the negotiating govern-
ments, he found it embarrassing, when that country was reqesting an
extension of time, to change the procedure for putting into effect the
results of the negotiations. For these reasons he considered the
text he had proposed was preferable both from the legal and the practical
point of view. The wording of the last sentence of document A/W/5 was
unfortunate since it implied that the agreement must be submitted to
the CONTRACTING PARTIES for approval and did not define the procedure.
The CHAIRMAN, summing up, said the issue before the meeting was
to determine whether the Decision of September 1948, which had been GATT/CP.3/SR.8
page 5
challenged by the United Kingdom delegate, had been an appropriate
decision, If so, it must be assumed that Brazil had already been
authorised to modify her schedule and when she had complied with the
other obligations laid down in the Decision, the provisions of the
agreement reached could be embodied in the General Agreement. The issue
was complicated by the fact that the Brazilian delegate spoke of approval
of the agreement by the CONTRACTING PARTIES, which was not mentioned in
last year's Decision.
Mr. RODRIGUES (Brazil) said the text of document A/W/5 had been
drafted by him and the United States delegate in consultation with the
United Kingdom delegate. The provisions were the same as those in last
year's Decision and only verbal changes had been made. He was prepared
to accept either the United States or the United Kingdom amendments,
though he preferred the former as adhering more closely to the previous
text.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) explained that it had not been his
intention to challenge the whole basis of last year's decision. He was
anxious that a distinction should be made, on the one hand, between
granting a waiver to permit a country to enter into new negotiations
concerning its schedule, and, on the other, authorising the incorporation
of the results of such negotiations into the schedule. It was important
that unanimity should be required for the latter authorisation.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) agreed with the United Kingdom
point of view. While not wishing to place any obstacle in the way of
approval of the agreement reached by Brazil with the United Kingdom and
the United States of America, he felt that it was desirable to maintain
uniformity of procedure. He, therefore, suggested deleting the last
sentence and modifying the second sentence to read "A final report on the
negotiations provided for in paragraph 2 shall be communicated not later GATT/CP.3/SR.8
page 6
than June 1, 1949, to the CONTRACTING PARTIES which will decide on the
measures to be adopted".
Mr. RODRIGUES (Brazil) explained that the difference in wording
of paragraph 4,compared with the original Decision of September 1948, was
due to the fact that at the time communication of the agreement through
the Chairman would have been the only means of allowing the CONTRACTING
PARTIES to formulate objections before the provisions became an integral
part of the General Agreement. Now, however, a full meeting of the
CONTRACTING PARTIES was in progress during which they could make known
their views.
Mr. de VRIES (Netherlands) pointed out that one of the CONTRACTING
PARTIES was not yet represented at the meeting, and expressed a preference
for the United States proposal.
Mr. HOLLIS (United States) had understood that the reason for
communication of the agreement was to inform the CONTRACTING PARTIES of
new provisions which had been incorporated into the General Agreement.
Mr. REISMAN (Canada) said that although he had not been present at
the previous discussions, it had been his understanding that there was
every intention of maintaining the unanimity rule where modification of
schedules was concerned.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) was prepared as a compromise to agree
to the last sentence of paragraph 4 since the CONTRACTING PARTIES would
still be in session when the agreement was reached and could then take a
decision in full knowledge of the facts.
Mr. RODRIGUES (Brazil) felt it would be unwise to consider the
Decision of September 1948 as a final decision, since it would create a
precedent enabling two or three countries to decide upon matters affecting
the interests of other countries. The Decision of 1948 had been taken
to allow Brazil to withdraw from certain obligations in order to come GATT/CP.3/SR.8
page 7
to a new agreement with two other countries. Other countries might,
however, be interested in the agreement reached and should be given
an opportunity to present objections. That did not mean that the
final decision must be unanimous and he was of the opinion that a two-
thirds majority should suffice.
Mr. PANDO (Cuba) agreed to the maintenance of the last sentence of
paragraph 4 on an assurance from the CHAIRMAN that the question of the
number of votes required was left open.
It was unanimously decided to maintain the last sentence of para-
graph 4 of Document A/W/5.
The United Kingdom amendment of the first line of paragraph 4 was
adopted.
The United Kingdom amendment of the second paragraph of the preamble
was adopted.
Document A/W/5, as amended, was adopted.
2. Interim Agreement for a Customs Union between the Union of South
Africa and Southern Rhodesia (Document GATT/CP.3/9)
Mr. NORVAL (Union of South Africa) explained the history of the
customs relations between the Union of South Africa and Southern Rhodesia
and the background of the Interim Agreement reached between the two
countries. The Agreement was for an initial period of five years and
was renewable. He drew attention to paragraph 2 of the preamble and
Articles 3 and 8 which showed the sincere intention of the two governments
to remove all customs and other trade barriers between the two countries
and to re-establish the full and complete Customs Union which had existed
for 25 years up to 1930 and to extend that Customs Union to neighbouring
States and Territories. The Customs Union Council provided for in
Article 2 had already been set up to study the existing tariff systems in
order to harmonise the tariffs of the two countries and pave the way
towards a complete customs union. Only a very limited number of goods
imported from Southern Rhodesia into the Union of South Africa were subject
to duty. Article 7 empowered the Government of Southern Rhodesia to raise GATT/CP.3/SR.8
page 8
the duties on certain products imported from South Africa on certain
conditions and within certain limits. As these provisions, might give
rise, to question, Mr. Norval wished to explain that they had been made
purely for protective purposes. In Southern Rhodesia, mainly a mining
and agricultural country, industry was in its infancy, whereas South
Africa was in a more advanced stage of industrial development. The
Customs Union Council would be in permanent session and one of its func-
tions was to watch the situation and to recommend reduction or suppression
of duties whenever practicable.
The schedule of divergencies in the most-favoured-nation tariff rates
required under article 13 had already been submitted to the Customs Union
Council.
A point which might give rise to question was that no mention was
made in the Interim agreement of the length of the transitional period
between the date of that Agreement and the re-establishment of a Customs
Union. It was felt that a somewhat lengthy period would be necessary
because of the differences in the economic structure and development of
the two countries. Representatives of the two Governments had discussed
the question recently and had suggested a period of ten years.
The representative for South Africa proposed that:
a) Ten years should be allowed for the transitional period;
b) The annual reports which were to be tabled in Parliament by the
Customs Union Council, should be submitted to the Secretariat for the
information of the CONTRACTING PARTIES;
c) A progress report should be made to the CONTRACTING PARTIES at
the end of three years;
d) At the end of five years, a definite plan for the remaining five
years should be submitted.
Mr. ROWE (Southern Rhodesia) supporting the proposals of the South
African representative gave figures to illustrate the rapid development GATT/CP.3/SR.8
page 9
of Southern Rhodesia in the last fifty years. In such a young country
it was impossible to foretell what pattern development would take in
industry and trade and, therefore, difficult to draw up a definite
plan and schedule of the steps to be taken to establish a Customs Union.
The South African Government understood the position of Southern Rhodesia
and had agreed that it would be dangerous for her new industries to estab-
lish a customs union immediately. The Interim Agreement gave Southern
Rhodesia a certain amount of protection for a limited number of products
over a limited period.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY (United States) joined the CHAIRMAN in thanking Mr.
Norval and Mr. Rowe for their clear presentation of the problems and the
solutions envisaged. The question under discussion was one of consider-
able importance to all countries and constituted an important precedent.
The relevant provisions in the General agreement had been drawn up with
very great care in order to facilitate the formation of customs unions,
while introducing safeguards against their possible distortion to the
detriment of international trade. The General Agreement, therefore,
provided that, in a customs union, duties should not be higher than those
previously existing in the component parts of the union and, further, that
a definite plan and schedule of steps to be taken to establish a customs
union should be drawn up. As pointed out by Mr. Norval, on both these
points the Interim Agreement between South Africa and Southern Rhodesia
might be criticized. Although he would have preferred to have a more
definite plan for the gradual removal of duties, he understood the diffi-
culties and would not raise objection. Approval in this case should not,
however, be taken as a precedent.
Mr. Willoughby did not understand the significance of the proposal
that the CONTRACTING PARTIES should agree to a transitional period of GATT/CP.3/SR.8
page 10
ten years. He assumed that the CONTRACTING PARTIES would be free
throughout that period to review progress and to make recommendations
if they felt doubtful that a customs union would be consummated by the
date set.
It was agreed to continue the discussion at the next meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 5.30 p.m.
--,n- J, |
GATT Library | fv544sw3856 | Summary record of the Eleventh Meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy on Monday, 9 May 1949 at 2.30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, May 9, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Third Session of the Contracting Parties | 09/05/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.11 and GATT/CP.3/SR.11 + Corr.1 SR.12 + Corr.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/fv544sw3856 | fv544sw3856_90060059.xml | GATT_144 | 1,562 | 10,234 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR LIMITED C
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS GATT/CP.3/SR.11
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Third Session of the Contracting Parties
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE ELEVENTH MEETING
Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy
on Monday, 9 May 1949 at 2.30 p.m.
Chairman: Dr. H. van Blankenstein (Netherlands)
Subjects discussed:
1. The position of Palestine in relation to the General
Agreement.
2. Formal confirmation of Declarations concerning acceptance
of certain Protocols.
1. The position of Palestine in relation to the General Agreement
(Document GATT/CP .3/17)
Dr. BENES (Czechoslovakia) stated that a few weeks ago, his
Government had entered into negotiations with the State of Israel
regarding a bilateral trade agreement and had been informed by the
Government of Israel that it did not consider itself bound by
Schedule XIX, Section E, of the General Agreement contracted by the
Government of the United Kingdom acting as the mandatory power for
Palestine. He was satisfied with the Note prepared by the Secretariat
(GATT/CP.3/17) and the draft declaration contained therein.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) supported the draft declaration.
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) recalled that in 1947 the United Kingdom,
acting as the Mandatory Power for Palestine, had granted certain
concessions on behalf of Palestine to France and Czechoslovakia, that
were of interest to the Benelux countries and Belgium had taken these
into account when granting concessions to the United Kingdom. As the GATT/CP.3/SR.11
page 2
State of Israel did not recognize the obligations contracted by the
United Kingdom, acting as Mandatory power for Palestine, a certain
disequilibrium had arisen. He therefore wished to enquire whether
it would be in order to approach the United Kingdom with a view to
the removal of that disequilibrium.
Mr. LECUYER (France) said that France did not intend to withdraw
any concessions in its schedule to the General Agreement.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) stated that the change that had
taken place with regard to Palestine had been of a politcal nature and
entirely outside the control of the United Kingdom Government. Israel
was in a way the successor state of Palestine, and Palestine had, therefore,
ceased to be a member of GATT.
The CHAIRMAN suggested that Article XXIII of the General Agreement
provided for a situation such as that referred to by the representative
of Belgium.
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) said that he was prepared to accept the
CHAIRMAN's view. He wished to add, however, that as a rule negotiations
conducted and concluded by one country should be re-opened only by that
country.
Mr. HOLLIS (United States) supported the CHAIRMAN's interpretation.
Prof. RODRIGUES( Brazil) thought that the withdrawal of
concessions granted by the United Kingdom on behalf of the mandated
territory of Palestine constituted a change in a schedule annexed to
the General Agreement and would require a unanimous decision by the
CONTRACTING PARTIES.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) said that his Government had not
withdrawn concessions. As a result of political events, outside its
control, concessions granted on behalf of the mandated territory of
Palestine had ceased to be valid. .GATT/CP.3/SR.11
page 3
The EXECUTIVE SECRETARY said that the Secretariat paper had
proceeded on the assumption that the first question to be determined
was whether or not Article XXVII applied. If the decision was
affirmative the consequences had two aspects. First, the concessions
made on behalf of Palestine by the United Kingdom and included in
Section E of Schedule XIX would disappear and it might be desirable
to make the appropriate rectification subsequently. That could be
done by a protocol of rectification approved by a unanimous vote.
Secondly, there was the right of withdrawal of concessions granted
by other Contracting Parties on Palestine products. This was clearly
dealt with in Article XXVII which expressly provided for consultation
with other interested Contracting Parties.
Prof. RODRIGUES (Brazil) could not agree that the question
under discussion could be dealt with on the basis of the provisions
of Article XXVII and thought that Article XXV of the General Agreement
should be applied.
The EXECUTIVE SECRETARY said that the Secretariat, in arriving
at its recommendation, had reasoned as follows. The United Kingdom
had negotiated in Geneva in 1947 on behalf of the mandatory
government of Palestine. On 15 May 1948, the mandatory government
had ceased to exist. Therefore, at that date the United Kingdom could
no longer be regarded as a contracting party in respect of Palestine.
In these circumstances Article XXVII became applicable. It was not
correct to say that the United Kingdom was withdrawing concessions.
The mandatory government having ceased to exist the United Kingdom had
ceased to be a contracting party in respect of Palestine.
Prof. RODRIGUES (Brazil) said that in view of the explanation
given by the Executive-Secretary he would support the draft declaration.
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) suggested that the draft be amended so
as to imply that Article XXIII of the General Agreement would be
applicable if the case he had mentioned should arise. GATT/CP . 3/SR .11
page 4
The CHAIRMAN proposed, and the representative of Belgium agreed,
that the recording of this proposal in the Summary Record of the
meeting would be sufficient.
Mr. HOLLIS (United States) moved that the draft declaration
be amended so as to read, commencing second line on page 3; "the
CONTRACTING PARTIES declare that, since the United Kingdom ceased,
as from. 15 May, 1948, to be a contracting party in respect of the
territory formerly included in the Palestine mandate, (a) Section E
shall be deemed to be no longer a part of Schedule XIX, and (b) any
contracting party ......."
Prof. DeVRIES (Netherlands) moved that the words "at any
time" be deleted.
The CHAIRMAN said that the words mentioned by the representative
of the Netherlands appeared in the text of Article XXVII of the
General Agreement and did not imply any limitation. A reasonable
interpretation, however, was that, although there was no time limit,
the withholding or withdrawing of concessions should take place
within a reasonable time after the new situation had been brought
to the notice of the contracting party concerned.
Mr. HOLLIS (United States) said that the words of the
declaration were not meant to be an exact quotation from Article XXVII
of the General Agreement. He could not agree with the interpretation
of the words "at any time" given by the CHAIRMAN; if following the
withdrawal of a contracting party, other contracting parties maintained
concessions, that would have a desirable effect from the point of
view of the remaining contracting parties. In some cases, obligations
would be upheld until such time as the failure of new negotiations
became apparant.
The amendments proposed by the representatives of the United
States and Netherlands were put to the vote and adopted unanimously. GATT/CP . 3/SR. 11
page
The declaration as amended was put to the vote and adopted
unanimously. The representatives of all the twenty-three contracting
parties being present.
2. Formal confirmation of Declarations concerning acceptance of
certain Protocols
The CHAIRMAN recalled that at previous meetings Declarations
were agreed upon by the Contracting Parties under Item 5 of the Agenda.
The representative of the Lebanon having arrived at Annecy, it was now
possible to confirm these Declarations as all contracting parties were
represented at the meeting.
The Declaration accepting the Reservation as to Article XXXV
attached to the Signature of the Union of South Africa to the Protocol
modifying certain Provisions was put to the vote and adopted unanimously,
the representatives, of all the twenty -three contracting parties being
Present.
The Declaration concerning the Signature by Southern Rhodesia
of the Protocol modifying certain Provisions and the Special Protocol
modifying Article XIV was put to the vote and adopted unanimously, the
representatives of all the twenty-three contracting parties being present.
The Declaration concerning the Acceptance of the Protocol
modifying Part I and Article XXIX by Southern Rhodesia was put to the
vote and adopted unanimously, the representatives of all the twenty -three
contracting parties being present.
The CHAIRMAN invited comments on the "Note on the Decisions of
the Contracting Parties Concerning the Interpretative Note to Article
XXIV in Annex I".
Mr. ROWE (Southern Rhodesia) moved that the seventh line in
paragraph 9 be amended so as to read ".... the duty already paid and
any higher duty that would be payable ....". GATT/CP. 3/SR. 11
page 6
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) asked that the words
"Contracting Parties" in the first and sixteenth lines of the note
be put in capital letters.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY (United States of America) moved that in
paragraph (ii) all words be deleted after the word "above" in the
fourth line from the bottom. He thought that it was advisable not
to recommend an amendment of the Charter before its ratification.
Prof. RODRIGUES (Brazil) supported the representative of
the United States.
Mr. ROWE (Southern Rhodesia) said that the lines referred to
by the representative of the United States were intended as an
explanation of the first part of the paragraph and did not imply any
obligation, but he had no objection to their deletion.
The amendments proposed by the representatives of Southern
Rhodesia, the United Kingdom and the United States were put to the
vote and adopted unanimously.
The Note on the Decisions of the Contracting Parties concerning
the Interpretative Note to Article XXIV in Annex I as amended was put
to the vote and adopted unanimously, all twenty-three contracting
Parties being present.
The meeting rose at 4.30 p.m. |
GATT Library | qm899pd5433 | Summary record of the Fifteenth Meeting : Held at the Hotel Verdun, Annecy on Friday, 20 May 1949, at 2.30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, May 20, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 20/05/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.15 and GATT/CP.3/SR.15 + Corr.1 SR.16 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/qm899pd5433 | qm899pd5433_90060077.xml | GATT_144 | 2,153 | 13,958 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR LIMITED C
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS GATT/CP.3/SR.15
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Third Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE FIFTEENTH MEETING
Held at the Hotel Verdun, Annecy
on Friday, 20 May 1949, at 2.30 p.m.
Chairman: Dr. H. van Blankenstein (Netherlands)
Subject discussed:
Continuation of discussion of Report I of Working Party 1 on
Accession.
Continuation of discussion of Report I of Working Party 1on
Accession (Document GATT/CP.3/26).
The CHAIRMAN invited comments on the section of the
Report which explains in general terms the draft Protocol of
Accession (paragraph 2 (b) of the Report under consideration).
Mr. BANNERJI (India) said that he was in general agreement
with the broad objectives of the Report and recalled that in practice
his Government had extended the full benefits of the Geneva Schedules
to the entire world. Referring to the first two paragraphs under
the heading "General." on pages two and three of the Report, the
representative of India wished to draw attention to Article 17,
paragraph 2b of the Havana Charter, the general principles of which
were to be followed by virtue of paragraph 1 of article XXIX of the
GATT, namely, that no Member should be required to grant unilateral
concessions, or to grant concessions to other Members without GATT/CP .3/SR. 15
page 2
receiving adequate concessions in return. He also recalled
paragraph 3 of Article 17. The representative of India found it
difficult to reconcile the draft Protocol with the mentioned
provisions of Article 17 of the Charter. According to the draft
Protocol any acceding government would enjoy the benefit of all the
Geneva Schedules as soon as it became a contracting party on entry
into force of the Protocol, irrespective of whether or not there had
been any exchange of concessions at Annecy between that acceding
government and a particular contracting party.
He preferred the draft Protocol prepared by the Secretariat,
which stipulated that the Protocol could not be brought into effect
with respect to any particular existing contracting party and any
particular acceding government until both became signatories to the
Protocol. The serious substance of the matter had made it necessary
for him to refer it back to his Government for final decision.
The representative of India could not agree with the report of
the Working Party that Article XXXV and paragraph 5 (b) of Article XXV
would afford the necessary safeguards. In sub-paragraph 1 (a) of
Article XXV of the GATT, unlike sub-paragraph 4 (b) of Article 17
of the Charter, there was reference only to two parties not having
entered into tariff negotiations with each other; there was, however,
no requirement that such negotiations having been initiated had to
come to a successful conclusion within the terms of Article 17 of
the Charter. The draft Protocol under consideration created a
situation where by vote of the requisite number of existing contracting
parties an acceding government would acquire rights at least in
respect to the Geneva Schedules and the other benefits of the GATT
with regard to an existing contracting party without having successfully
concluded tariff negotiations at Annecy. He recalled a statement
made by representative or the United States when introducing GATT/CP.3/SR.15
page 3
Article XXXV at the First Session of the Contracting Parties:
"Mr. LEDDY (U.S.A.), replying to a question by Dr. Coombs, stated
that if the unanimity requirement were amended in regard to accession,
two-thirds of the Contracting Parties could oblige a contracting party
to enter into a trade agreement with another country without its
consent. His Government therefore felt that it was necessary to
have a safeguard such as that which was proposed." (Document
GATT/1/SR.7 dated 15.3.48).
He had the impression that the Protocol under consideration
was not quite in accordance with the decisions of Havana, and
suggested that it should be further considered by the Working Party.
He stressed the fact that his Delegation did not wish to prevent the
accession of any new government to the GATT but had in mind a safe-
guard for any particular contracting party with regard to any particular
acceding government in a case where negotiations at Annecy did not.
Come to a satisfactory conclusion. Acceding governments should be on
a footing of equality with the existing contracting parties and should
not be given an advantageous position.
Mr. COOMERASWAMY (Ceylon) supported the views expressed
by the representative of India.
Mr. BENES (Czechoslovakia) reserved the position of his
Government on the Draft Protocol for the time being. He agreed with
the views expressed by the representative of India and preferred the
original draft prepared, particularly paragraph 2, by the Secretariat,
to the draft submitted by Working Party 1.
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) noted that an individual decision
could be made in the case of each of the eleven acceding governments.
It was necessary that the Geneva concessions should be taken into
account by all the acceding governments during the Annecy negotiations. GATT/CP .3/SR.15
page 4
In the case of Belgium the concessions granted amounted to 50% of
his country's customs revenue. He was not opposed to the accession
of any Government that was prepared to comply with the requirements
of the Charter and of the General Agreement, but the Contracting
Parties should deny accession to any acceding government not granting
sufficient concessions at Annecy.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) (Chairman Working Party I)
said that the subject under consideration. involved a difficult
question of balance. Neither a contracting party nor an acceding
government should be in a position to exercise pressure. It had
been realized at Havana that the original Article. XXXIII of GATT,
which required a unanimous decision with respect to accession had
actually given a veto power to each of the contracting parties.
This was remedied by the adoption of the provision for a decision by
a two-thirds majority. However, the effect of this amendment could
have been to coerce a contracting party to reach a trade agreement
against its will. The balance had been redressed by the insertion of
the new Article XXXV and by the ability of a contracting party to
utilize paragraph 5 (b) of Article XXV. With regard to the statement
made by the representative of India, he said that the application of
paragraph 5(b) of Article XXV need not cause delay and could be invoked
he believed oven before the end of the present session. Referring to
the statement made by the representative of Belgium, he said that
although the results of the negotiations of a particular acceding govern-
ment should be considered individuals, the Contracting Parties acting
Jointly should assess the results of the negotiations as a whole in
making a Decision; to go further would, he believed, upset the balance
in the other direction.
Mr. HOLLIS (United States of America) supported in general
the views expressed by the Chairman of Working Party I. He recalled GATT/CP .3/SR .15
page 5
that Mr. Leddy, United States representative at the Havana Session,
in introducing the safeguards now incorporated in Article XXXV, had had
in mind certain legal procedures required in the United States, as
well as certain political difficulties of some of the contracting
parties, which could not be put before the Contracting Parties as a
whole. Article XXXV would only apply when negotiations had not been
entered into. Any contracting party could avail itself of paragraph
5(b) of Article XXV when negotiations had been entered into but not
satisfactorily concluded, and its case would be considered by the
CONTRACTING PARTIES, acting jointly. With reference to the statement
of the representative of India, he said that the proposed Protocol
did not provide for unilateral concessions by any contracting party to
any acceding government. An acceding government would assume the
obligations as well as become entitled to the rights enjoyed by
contracting parties. He pointed out that the contracting parties
would enjoy the concessions granted by an acceding government during
the Annecy negotiations as soon as that particular acceding government
signed the Protocol, unless the acceding government Withheld concessions
from a particular contracting party under paragraph 4 of the Protocol.
Mr. ARANGO (Cuba) recalled that GATT was a group of nations
that had associated themselves democratically to codify the rules of
multilateral trade and to remove barriers to such trade. In order
to achieve their aims they had made mutual sacrifices by lowering rates
of duty, and through their application of the principle of m-f-n
treatment, benefits would accrue to other nations that had not yet
associated themselves with the GATT without giving anything in exchange
to the Members of GATT. This had the effect that the most benefit
would accrue to those nations that most delayed joining the GATT. He
thought that in order to preserve the principle of equilibrium between GATT/CP.3/SR.15
page 6
concessions granted and received, acceding governments should first
of all compensate for the benefits which they had already received.
Further benefits should be granted to such acceding governments, only
if and when they made new concessions in favour of existing contracting
parties. On the other hand, the CONTRACTING PARTIES should welcome
any acceding government provided it was prepared to accept the two
concepts he had expressed. He favoured the original Secretariat
draft (GATT/CP.3/W .1.), and behind that the draft Protocol proposed
by the Working Party had already had an adverse effect on negotiations.
He believed it would put present contracting parties in a weaker
bargaining position than acceding governments if their only safeguard
was recourse to Article XXXV or to paragraph 5(b) of Article XXV.
M. LECUYER (France) thought that some of the fears expressed
regarding the results of the Annecy negotiations were justified. Two
remedies had been proposed, should negotiations with acceding govern-
ments fail: first, a contracting party that was not satisfied could
refuse to vote for the accession of the acceding government and so in
fact impose a sanction on the accession of that acceding government;
and secondly, a contracting party that was not satisfied with the
concessions made by an acceding government could refuse to sign the
Decision with respect to that acceding government. He felt that the
first solution would create two categories of acceding governments, i.e.
some who would enjoy the Geneva concessions and some Who would be denied
those concessions. In the second case, a remedy could better be found
in paragraph 5(b) of Article XXV. He preferred this latter solution.
Mr. REISAMN (Canada) considered that the Protocol prepared
by the Working Party corresponded with the General Agreement. The
suggestion made by the representative of India would require the GATT/CP .3/SR. 15
page 7
modification of the General Agreement and would alter fundamentally
the compromise reached at the First Session at Havana. He recalled
that as a result of the Havana compromise two-thirds of the contracting
parties could require the other contracting parties to apply m-f-n
treatment to an acceding-government - which was what the draft Protocol
provided. He agreed that the terms of accession had to be balanced
and that acceding governments should be required to make tariff conces-
sions in return for the benefits they derived from the existing
Schedules. He thought, however, that recourse to paragraph 5(b)
of Article XXV would provide an adequate safeguard for any contracting
party which was unable to conclude successfully its negotiations with
an acceding government.
Mr. JOHNSON (New Zealand) expressed the hope that tariff
negotiations would be concluded successfully, and added that New Zealand
did not wish to withhold the Geneva concessions. However, from the
practical standpoint, his Government might be faced with certain legisla-
tive difficulties unless New Zealand was able to sign the Protocol prior
to its entering into force for any acceding government.
Mr. USMANI (Pakistan) favoured the text of the Protocol
submitted by Working Party I. He recalled how as a result of the
extension of m-f-n treatment by the key countries initially signing the
Protocol of Provisional Application of the Geneva Session, other countries
had subsequently adhered to the General Agreement. He thought that
the eleven acceding governments should be treated in the same spirit.
It should be left to the Contracting Parties as a whole to judge whether
a particular acceding government had made sufficient concession. He
thought it would be preferable to enable the acceding governments to
become a contracting party, and then the provisions of paragraph 5(b) GATT/CP.3/SR .15
page 8
of Article XXV would amply cover a case such as that mentioned by the
representative of India, should it arise.
Dr. NORVAL (South Africa) said that he was unable to subscribe
to the Cuban point of view. He thought that it was not necessary to
apply strictly in negotiations the quid pro quo principle, since any
improvement in the general level of international trade would benefit
all countries, including South Africa. His Government had already
made the necessary arrangements to enable the Delegation to agree to
the accession of new governments.
The meeting rose at 6 p.m. |
GATT Library | yd674gm5834 | Summary record of the Fifth Meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy on Monday 18 April 1949, at 2.30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, April 20, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 20/04/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.5 and GATT/CP.3/SR.4 + SR.5 + Corr.1,2 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/yd674gm5834 | yd674gm5834_90060034.xml | GATT_144 | 2,181 | 14,090 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE
RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP .3/SR. 5
20 April 1949
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
THIRD SESSION
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE FIFTH MEETING
Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy
on Monday 18 April 1949, at 2.30 p.m.
Chairman : Hon. L.D. WILLGRESS (Canada)
Subjects
1.
2.
3.
discussed:
Election of Vice-Chairman
Import Restrictions Imposed by the Union of South Africa
Status of the Agreement and Protocols,
1. Election of Vice-Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN invited nominations for the position of Vice-
Chairman for the unexpired term of Mr. Speekenbrink who had been
elected on 17 August 1948 and whose term would therefore expire on the
same day this year.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY (United States) paid tribute to the part played
by the Benelux countries in the furthering of the cause of the
Contracting Parties and thereupon proposed Mr. van BLANKENSTEIN for
Vice-Chairman.
Mr. KING (China) remarked commendatorily on the attributes of the
candidate and seconded the motion.
Mr. van BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands) was unanimously elected Vice-
Chairman of the Contracting Parties.
Upon the proposal of Mr. BARADUC (France) the meeting
unanimously agreed to send in the name of all delegations a message to GATT/CP .3/SR .5
page 2
Mr. SPEEKENBRINK to convey their regret for his resignation.
Mr. van BLANKENSTEIN thanked the representatives for their kind
thought and for his nomination.
2. The Import Restrictions Imposed by theby the Union of South Africa
(GATT/CP/3 and CP.3/3 Add.1 (Continued discussion)
The CHAIRMAN, resuming the item, said that, if necessary, the
Legal Department of the United Nations could be consulted as to the
correct interpretation of paragraph XII: 4 (a), and he suggested that
the terms of reference should be broad enough to cover the full scope
of the item on the adopted agenda; the draft he had presented included
also a study of procedure which met the point raised by certain dele-
gations wishing to examine the procedure for the conduct of future
consultations.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) said that he would regard the observation
he had made on a previous occasion on the meaning of "such measures" in
paragraph 4 (a) as having been disposed of by the remarks of the
Netherlands representative. The proposal to ask the Working Party "to
review the procedure for consultation provided in paragraph 4 (a)" was
not acceptable, as this would amount to reviewing the paragraph itself.
Also he could not accept the view that the terms of reference he had
proposed were based on a particular interpretation of Article XII, since
his proposal merely repeated the provisions of the Article.
Mr. JOHNeSEN (Nw Zealand) thought it would be desirable to have
the question of procedure clarified as it was important for the future of
the Agreement, but since broad terms of reference would create diffi-
culties in deciding on what matters were relevant, he would support the
Australian proposal. He said the last part of the Chairman's draft
was redundant as consultation with the Fund was mandatory on the
Contracting Parties by virtue of Article XV.
Mr CASSIERS (Belgium) drew a distinction between legal and factual GATT/CP.3/SR. 5
page 3
questions. To consider any factual situation, the Working Party must
have a mandate to consider all Articles.
Mr. OLDINI (Chile) pointed out that there was no logical con-
sistency between the provisions in parentheses in paragraph 4 (a) and the
rest of the paragraph. The review of procedure was a difficult task
which might prove beyond the capacity of a working party and should
therefore be left out, As regards the first half of the Chairman's
draft, the language was open to various interpretations; to study all
Articles would be inviting the danger of opening controversial questions.
Weighing the two, he would rather accept the Australian draft, slightly
extended.
The CHAIRMAN introduced the following revised draft incorporating
a number of improvements based upon the discussions:
"(1) In order to facilitate the conclusion of consultations
between the CONTRACTING PARTIES and the Union of South Africa
in accordance with Article XII (4) (a), to examine, in the
light of the provisions of that sub-paragraph, the import
restrictions imposed by the Union of South Africa and modifi-
cations thereof, and to report thereon to the CONTRACTING
PARTIES;
"(2) to make practical recommendations to the CONTRACTING
PARTIES for the efficient working of the procedure for con-
sultations contemplated under Article XII 4 (a);
and on both these questions to consult with representatives
of the International Monetary Fund."
Mr. ROWE (Southern Rhodesia) proposed to change "contemplated
under" in paragraph (2) to read "provided for in".
Mr. BOHR (Luxembourg) indicated that he concurred with the views
of the representatives of the Netherlands and Belgium; it was GATT/CP.3/SR. 5
page 4
important to clarify the procedure, and narrow terms of reference would
handicap the Working Party.
The amendment proposed by Mr. ROWE was adopted, and the terms of
reference proposed by the Chairman were approved as amended.
3. Quesutions arising from the Note on the Status of the Agreement
GATT/CP.3/7.CP/7 Adad 4 and CP /13).
The CHAIRMAN introduced this item by observing that the contracting
parties had found it confusing to operate with a number of instruments.
and therefore an endeavour should be made at this session to bring the
instruments into a more orderly arrangement. As for the General
Agreement itself, all twenty-three signatories had become contracting
parties ,and only the application to a few overseas territoris for
which contracting parties had international responsibility remained to
eb efefted. cAmong these notification was still awaited from the
Government of Belgium in respect of the application of the Agreement to
the Belgian Congo. All Protocols adopted at Havana and Geneva had
come into force with the exception ott he Protocol modifying Part I and
Article XXI.X If those contracting parties which had not accepted
this Protocol did not find it insurmountably difficult to accept it,
it was highly desirable that they should do so without delay in order
that a consolidated text could be presented to the acceding govrenments
for their acceptance so as to minimsie legal complications.
TheCHAIRMAN then asked MAILN then asked the contracting parties whether they could
clarify the position of their governments with respect to the application
or the General Agreement to their non-metropolitan territories.
Mr.BA /A (France) stated that steps had been taken by his
Government for the application of the Agreement in respect of all
territories for which France had international responsibility, with the
exception of Morocco with which his Government was still seeking agree-
ment, His Government would soon be able to notify the application of GATT/CP.3/SR.5
page 5
the General Agreement to all territories of the French Union except
Morocco.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) drew attention to the fact that his
Government had made effective the provisional application of the Agree-
ment in respect of all territories for which it assumed international
responsibility with the exception of Jamaica. The Government of the
latter territory was still considering the question.
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) confirmed that the Agreement had been made
effective in respect of the Belgian Congo, and he thought that
notification had been sent to the United Nations. He would investigate
and take steps to see that the Secretary-General of the United Nations
was duly notified.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) said that the Agreement had not been made
effective in respect of the territories of New Guinea and Papua as his
Government believed it was not required to apply the Agreement to such
territories under the terms of the Protocol of Provisional Application;
his Government was not required to do so until it accepted the Agreement
in accordance with Article XXVI.
Mr. HOLLIS (United States) said that his Government had given a
different interpretation to the Protocol of Provisional Application;
the Protocol, in his view, required the contracting parties to make
effective the provisional application of the Agreement in respect of all
territories except the contracting parties for which there was special
mention of their metropolitan territories.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) referred to paragraph 2 of the Protocol
and pointed out that his Government, being one of the "foregoinig
governments" referred to therein, was entitled to effect the application
only when notice had been given
(a) Protocol Modifying Certain Provisions
Mr. HOLLIS (United States) recalled the proceedings at the Second GATT/CP.3/SR.5
page 6
Session which had resulted in the understanding referred to in the Note
(GATT/CP.3/7) regarding the signing of the Protocol by the Union of South
Africa with a reservation on Article XXXV. To register the
concurrence of the Contracting Parties in this reservation, he proposed
that the Contracting Parties adopt a declaration to be addressed to the
Secretary -General of the United Nations. He submitted a draft of his
proposed declaration,
Mr. HASNIE (Pakistan) stated that the acceptance of the reservation
should not in any way affect the status of Article XXXV as an integral
part of the General Agreement among all contracting parties except for
the contracting party which had thus signified its non-acceptance. His
Government would accept the reservation on the understanding that it did
not affect the provisions of the article which permitted his Government
to withhold application of the Agreement with respect to the Union of
South Africa.
Mr. DESAI (India) said his Government was prepared to accept the
reservation on the same understanding as put forward by the representa-
tive of Pakistan by which he understood that the reservation would not
give any contracting party the right to raise questions on any
restrictions which India might impose on her trade with South Africa.
The CHAIRMAN remarked that since there was general accord in
principle to accept the reservation he would propose that the United
States draft should be distributed and considered at the next meeting.
Mr. ROWE (Southern Rhodesia) announced that his Government had
authorized signature of this Protocol.
(b) Protocol Modifying Article XIV
The CHAIRMAN introduced this section in the Note and requested
the meeting to indicate its wish as to whether a waiver should be given
to Southern Rhodesia for it to sign the Protocol under the conditions
suggested. If the Contracting Parties were agreeable to accepting the GATT/CP.3/SR .5
page 7
signature in the circumstances, it would be necessary to consider the
formal steps to be taken for giving legal effect to the signature.
Mr. ROWE (Southern Rhodesic) indicated that signature of this
Protocol had also been authorized by his Government.
Dr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) suggested that a decision could
be taken under Article XXV by following the procedure laid down in
paragraph 5 (a) thereof
The CHAIRMAN, however, thought that it might be preferable to
adopt a declaration so that the decision of the Contracting Parties
could be clearly conveyed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
The declaration.would be to the effect that the Contracting Parties
were prepared to accept Southern Rhodesia's signature with the proviso
that notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 (d) of Article XIV
as amended, Southern Rhodesia should be allowed to elect to be governed
by the provisions of annex J of the Agreement. This was agreed by the
Contracting Parties in principle and the Executive Secretary was asked
to prepare a draft of the required document for consideration at a
subsequent meeting.
(c) Protocol Modifying Article XXIV
Mr. RODRIGUES (Brazil) stated that this Protocol had been accepted
by his Government and he would enquire why the instrument of acceptance
had not been sent to the United Nations.
Mr. U MYA SEIN (Burma) regretted that his Government had not been
able to go through the formalities of acceptance, owing to its heavy
occupation in matters of grave importance and urgency, but wished to
assure the contracting parties that acceptance of the Protocol would be
effected in due course.
Mr. HOLLIS (United States) observed that the assertion in the
Note inferred that countries which became contracting parties after an
amendment had become effective would nevertheless remain subject to the GATT/CP.3/SR .5
page 8
provisions of the unamended version until they had gone through a form
of acceptance of the instrument embodying the amendment. This inter-
pretation, he felt, would give rise to undesirable complexity by
increasing the divergences in the text of the Agreement. This
undesirable situation, however, could be avoided by interpreting the
words "each other contracting party" in paragraph 1 of Article XXX in a
manner other than was implied by the Note. He proposed that the words
should be taken to mean each other country which was a contracting party
at the time the amendment became effective. This would have the
result that in the first place a new acceding government would hence-
forth, upon accession, become a party to the Agreement in its modified
version incorporating all amendments which had become effective prior
to the accession, and secondly, protocols such as the one modifying
Article XXIV would become effective retroactively in respect of those
countries which became contracting parties subsequent to the Protocol
coming into force.
Mr. Hollis was requested to present his proposal in writing at
the next meeting, when discussion would be resumed.
The meeting rose at 5.40 p.m. |
GATT Library | wb628gs9925 | Summary record of the First Meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy on Friday, 8 April 1949, at 3 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, April 8, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Third Session of the Contracting Parties | 08/04/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.1 and GATT/CP.3/SR.1 + Corr.1 SR.2 + Corr.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/wb628gs9925 | wb628gs9925_90060019.xml | GATT_144 | 2,217 | 14,221 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR RESTRICTED LIMITED B
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS GATT/CP.3/SR.1
TRADE ET LE COMMECERCE 8 April 1949
ORIGINAL : ENGLISH
Third Session of the Contracting Parties
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE FIRST MEETING
Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy
on Friday, 8 April 1949, at 3 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. Dana L.. WILGRESS (Canada)
Subjects discussed:
1. Election of Vice-Chairman.
2. Arrangements for the Session.
3. Adoption of Agenda (GATT/CP.3/2/Rev.1 and Add. 1-3).
4. Relations with the press.
The CHAIRMAN declared open the Third Session.
The representatives, he said, were now meeting
for the third time pursuant to Article XXV for the purpose of
giving effect to those provisions of the Agreement which involved
joint action, and, generally, with a view to facilitating the
operation and furthering the objectives of the Agreement. The
two previous sessions had been devoted mainly to modification of
the Agreement to bring its provisions into line with the Havana
Charter. Now that the stage of evolution of the Agreement was
past, the present session would be concerned mainly with questions
arising out of its operation. Tariff negotiations were to be
held with eleven governments and their accession would serve to
bring new strength and vitality to the Contracting Parties and
to make them an even more representative group of countries
engaged in international trade. GATT/CP.3/SR.1
Page 2
The CHAIRMAN expressed the opinion that the length of the
agenda was a healthy sign for the Contracting Parties, pointing to
greater accomplishment through solving difficulties and settling
differences which were bound to arise out of the operation of such
a complicated instrument, but the representatives must seek to discuss
all questions objectively and in strict accordance with the provisions
of the Agreement and to resolve differences in a spirit of understanding,
without ever departing from the principles underlying the instrument.
The discussions should be confined within the scope of paragraph 1
of Article XXV and in particular no effort should be spared to avoid
trespassing upon the field of political debate. All questions should
be dealt with expeditiously and thoroughly. Among the items, priority
of attention should be given to arrangements for the conduct of the
tariff negotiations, including preliminary examination of an instrument
of accession. Following that, owing to the wish of the financial
experts for an early accomplishment of their work, it would be
desirable that the item dealing with import restrictions of the Union
of South Africa should be taken up first, followed by the item on
Special Exchange agreements. The complicated nature of the item
dealing with the non-discriminatory measure notified under Article
XVIII, made indispensable the setting up of a sub-committee for its
detailed consideration and therefore it also called for preliminary
study at an early date.
1. Election of Vice -Chairman. The CHAIRMAN announced the resignation
of Mr. Speekenbrink as Vice-Chairman of the Contracting Parties and
suggested that the election of his successor should be postponed until
a subsequent meeting.
2. Arrangements for the Session. The EXECUTIVE SECRETARY outlined
briefly the arrangements made for the holding of the meetings at Annecy GATT/CP.3/SR.1
Page 3
and referred to a recently published information paper which gave a
detailed account of the arrangements. He described the circumstances
in which the site of Annecy had been chosen, and suggested the setting
up of an Administrative Committee to ensure efficient working and
improvement in the arrangements.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) referred to the distribution of a
paper on the provisional agenda and enquired what attitude should be
taken by delegations in relation to the press.
The EXECUTIVE SECRETARY stressed the need for rigid enforcement of
the security arrangements. The press had been informed that the
meetings of the Contracting Parties would be private, and that no
communiquTs would be issued except those authorized by the Chairman.
As regards the Agenda, only a background paper had been supplied to the
press representatives and this was confidential until released for
publication.
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) mentioned incidents in which
his delegation and others had been approached for comments on items of
the agenda, and asked for a pronouncement from the Chair on the whole
question of the handling of the press.
The CHAIRMAN said that, although it was up to each delegation to
decide upon its own attitude towards the press, it would be unfair to
other delegations, in view of the provisions of Rule 36 of the Rules
of Procedure, if a delegation should disclose information directly
related to any item on the agenda prior to its being mentioned in a
press release. However, he thought, there was no harm done in supplying
correspondents with background information for their guidance.
The suggestion to set up an Administrative Committee to deal with
organizational questions met with the approval of the meeting and it GATT/CP.3/SR.1
Page 4
was agreed that the Executive Secretary should invite those delegations
which had shown an interest in the problems involved to nominate
representatives.
3. Adoption of Agenda. (GATT/CP.3/2/Rev.1 and Add. 1-3). The
CHAIRMAN presented the provisional agenda item by item.
Items 1 through 9 were approved without discussion.
In discussing Item 10, proposed by the United States, dealing
with "Most-favoured-nation Treatment for Occupied Areas", Mr. AUGENTHALER
(Czechoslovakia) proposed the deletion of the item on the ground that
the question had been fully dealt with at the previous session and a
repetition of familiar arguments was unnecessary.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY (United States) said that it would be desirable
to take up certain aspects of the question which had not been fully
discussed at the previous session.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) felt that the Item as it was worded did
not give adequate indication as to the substance of the question to
be discussed. He would like to know if the Chairman would give a
ruling similar to the one he had given at the second session.
The CHAIRMAN explained that the ruling he gave at the second
session was based on the Final Note to the General Agreement. The
discussion at that session was confined to "Most-favoured-nation
Treatment" for Germany, and no decision was taken regarding its
application to Japan. In the light of that ruling, it would seem to
be in order that an opportunity were afforded the countries interested
for the consideration of the case of Japan.
Mr. van BLANKENSTEIN (the Netherlands) enquired whether the
wording of the Item limited its scope to the extent of excluding
questions already dealt with at the second session. GATT/CP.3/SR.1
Page 5
The CHAIRMAN thought that since the question of Germany had
been actually disposed of, it could be presumed that the question of
Japan would be the subject of discussion under the proposed item.
Mr. PHILIP (France), however, thought that a review of the
consequences of granting the treatment to Germany would be necessary
in examining the question of applying it to Japan.
The CHAIRMAN drew attention to paragraph 3 of Article V of the
Agreement on Western Germany and pointed out that according to its
provisions the administration of the Agreement was outside the
Jurisdiction of the Contracting Parties. Any consideration of the
consequences would have to be arranged under that paragraph.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY (United States) said that his Government did not
intend to raise again the question of Western Germany, and it was only
due to the desire not to circumscribe the scope of discussion that the
Item was worded in general terms.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) felt that past experience
suggested precaution on questions like this, and would like to postpone
decision until a less equivocal wording of the agenda item was
formulated.
Mr. PHILIP (France) said that he agreed with the Chairman's ruling,
but still felt that the Contracting Parties should have access to
information on the results of granting "M-f-n Treatment" to Germany.
At the second session, the Contracting Parties had agreed that the
question was not strictly within their competence, but had decided to
allow the interested governments to take the opportunity to negotiate
an Agreement.
The CHAIRMAN concurred in the account given by the representative
of France; as the matter had been considered to lie outside the
Jurisdiction of the Contracting Parties, the Working Party Report GATT/CP.3/SR.1
Page 6
had been received merely for purposes of record. The Final Note to
the General Agreement clearly gave the Contracting Parties a mandate
to consider the question.
Item 10 was approved by 11 votes to one with four representatives
abstaining.
Item 11 was approved without discussion.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY (United States) said that his delegation had no
objection to the inclusion of the Item 12 proposed by
out would like to it worded differently so as not to prejudge the
was agreed the item should be changed to read:
"Request of the Govemment of Czechoslovakia for a decision
under Article XXIII as to whether or not the Government of the
United States had failed to out its obligations under the
Agreement through its administration of the issue of export
licences."
The Item wasap proved.
Item 13 and the Item proposed by Ausrtalia in CATT/CP.3/Rev.1/Add.1
were approved without discussion.
Mr. PHILIP (France) introduced a proposal on the basis of the
reservation made by his Govornment referred to in GATT/CP.3/Rev.1/Add.1.
Mr. MULLER (Chile) thought that the wording of the item
should be changed to avoid prejudicial effect.
At the suggestion of the Chairman and Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia),
and with the concurrence of Mr. PHILIP (France) the Item was altered to
read as follows:
"The examination, in the light of Article III, of the
circumstances in which Brazil has imposed certain taxes on certain
products of foreign origin."
The Item was approved. GATT/CP.3/SR. 1
Page 7
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) said that the proposal made by
his Government for a consideration of the position of Palestine in
relation to the General Agreement, (GATT/CP.3/2/Rev.1/Add.3), was
prompted by the fact that the concessions granted to Czechoslovakia
by Palestine in 1947 were not honoured in the new tariff of the State
of Israel.
Mr. PHILIP (France) requested that the question be considered
later when its legal aspects had been given more careful study. To
consider the question with advantage, it would be necessary to invite
the Government of Israel to send an observer. Furthermore, he would
need to refer to his Government for instructions.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia), while agreeing that a difficult
legal problem was involved, thought that the Palestine position should
be clarified as early as possible for urgent practical reasons, since
certain governments had made requests for concessions on certain items
on which concessions had formerly been given to Palestine. He had no
objection to inviting an observer, but a difficulty lay in the fact
that Israel was not the same as Palestine.
The CHAIRMAN thought that the question was raised in the light
of Article XXVII of the General Agreement; he assured the representative
of France that it was a purely legal question and that the Secretariat
was seeking advice from the Legal Department of the United Nations.
Item 14 was then approved.
Mr. COUILLARD (Canada) proposed and Mr. HERRERA-ARRANGO (Cuba)
agreed that they might wish to obtain the opinion of the Contracting
Parties under the provisions of Article XXIII on a question concerning
the 20% surtax imposed by Cuba on certain imports. It was agreed that
it would suffice to mention the possibility in the summary record of
the meeting and that if need be the question could be raised under the
Item "other business".
The Agenda was then adopted as Whole. GATT/CP.3/SR.1
Page 8
4. Relations with the press. The CHAIRMAN wished to know whether
the adopted agenda should be released to the press in accordance with
Rule 37 of the Rules of Procedure.
In reply to a question by Mr. HEWITT (Australia), the Chairman
said that in his opinion to provide the press with the agenda at the
outset would probably avoid inquisitive interest of an embarrassing
nature.
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) thought that press releases should
be supplied to all delegations; in particular, the "embargoed"
information paper on the background of the agenda items should have
been distributed to facilitate a decision on the question in hand.
At the request of the Chairman, the EXECUTIVE SECRETARY explained
the circumstances of the issue of the background papers. He said that
there had not been a single case to his knowledge in which the agenda
of an international conferernce had been withheld from the press. The
information paper comprised merely brief descriptions of the items
and strictly objective notes. There was little danger of improper
use being made of the paper as no journalist would destroy his
professional honour to his own disadvantage If, however, it was
the desire of the meeting, the paper could be withdrawn altogether,
but in his opinion, excessive secretism would only he damaging to the
interests of the Contracting Parties, and the task would be made less
complicated by supplying the press with correct background information
In reply to further questioned, he assured the meeting that all
communiquTs would thereafter be supplied to the delegations.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY (United States) also felt that discretion did not
call for secrecy to the extent of keeping the public entirely
uninformed of the subjects to be discussed.
It was agreed to issue the agenda as adopted, and to raise the
"embargoe" on the information paper.
The meeting rose at 6.25 p.m. |
GATT Library | qs007pv7982 | Summary record of the Fortieth Meeting : Held at the Hotel Verdun, Annecy, on Thursday, 11 August 1949 at 10 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, August 11, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 11/08/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.40 and GATT/CP.3/SR.39 - 41 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/qs007pv7982 | qs007pv7982_90060161.xml | GATT_144 | 2,203 | 14,181 | GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS AND
TRADE
RESTRICTED
ACCORD GENERAL SUR LIMITED B
LES TARIFS DOUANIERS GATT/CP.3/SR.40
ET LE COMMERCE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Third Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE FORTIETH MEETING
Held at the Hotel Verdun, Annecy,
on Thursday, 11 August 1949 at 10 a.m.
Chairman: Hon. L.D. WILGRESS (Canada)
Subjects discussed: 1.
Continuation of the Fourth Report of
Working Party 2.
Section H: Procedures Between Sessions
for Existing and New Measures
2. Report of Working Party 5 on Rectifications.
(GATT/CP .3/66).
3. Position of Section B (Newfoundland) of
Schedule XIX. (GATT/CP.3/75).
1. Continuation of the Fourth Report of Working Party 2. (GATT/
CF.3/60 and Corr.1) . Section H: Procedures Between Sessions
for Existing and New Measures.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) pointed out that when Article XVIII
had been drafted in Havana, it had been drafted for a permanent
organization with a continuing administration. The Working Party
had attempted to find some means of administering the article under
a situation of temporary arrangements and irregular sessions.
He explained the three main recommendations contained in
paragraph 96 (i), (ii) and (vi).
The CHAIRMAN said that yesterday''s meeting had shown the
value of a thorough examination by the Working Party. He proposed
taking up the summary contained in paragraph 96 point by point. GATT/CP.3/SR.40
page 2
Sir Oliver GOONETILLLEKE (Ceylon) paid tribute to the
thoroughness of the working Party in drawing up the information
required from governments notifying measures and incorporating it
in the questionnaire contained in Annex C. He also praised the
thoroughness it had shown in its work in general and the patience
of the Chairman and members of the Committee with his own country's
problem in particular. He wondered if it would not be desirable
for the proposed Inter-sessional Committee to examine also in detail
the proposals contained in this report as there might be portions
of it which could be improved. He thought the members of the
Inter-sessional Committee should be nominated in such a way as to
take advantage of the experience gained during the Working Party
at this meeting. It would be unfortunate if an entirely now set
of people took up this problem now. His delegation had originally
envisaged a much wider. scope for the committee. However, he now
agreed that in the early stages they could only build up procedures
and a volume of case law.
The CHAIRMAN said that he was glad to hear Sir Oliver
Goonetilleke's remarks about the excellence of the Working Party's
work, an opinion which he shared but which was the more valuable
coming from Sir Oliver., who had had first hand contact with the
Working Party.
He thought Sir Oliver's suggestion a very useful one; that
the terms of reference of the committee be widened so as to include
keeping the procedure recommended in the report, including the
questionnaire, under review and making such recommendations for
modifications of the procedure as appeared desirable in the light
of this review to the next session of the Contracting Parties.
The question of the terms of reference would be taken up under
paragraph (vi).
Paragraph 96 (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) were approved,
Paragraph 96 (vi), together with the proposal by Ceylon for
widening the terms of reference was approved,
Paragraph (vii) was approved. GATT/CP.3/SR.40
Page 3
The CHAIRMAN said that he had given much thought to the
nomination of the committee and felt that the suggestion by Ceylon
would be the most useful for the purpose of assuring continuity and
experience. He therefore proposed as members of the Inter-sessional
Committee, Australia, Canada, Chile, Cuba, France, India, Netherlands,
Syria, United Kingdom and United States, the countries which had
been members of Working Party 2 at the Third Session, with Mr. C.L.
Hewitt (Australia) as Chairman.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ (Brazil) agreed with the composition but
thought it possible that some of the countries nominated might not
always be able to attend. He, therefore, suggested that substitutes
be nominated, bearing in mind the need to retain the representative
character of the committee.
Mr. EVANS (United States of America) supported this
suggestion and proposed that the Chairman of the CONTRACTING PARTIES
be authorized to make replacements for any countries unable to attend.
Mr. THOMMESSEN (Norway) considered that the chairman of the
committee should also be authorized to invite representatives of
additional countries to become members of the committee if it appeared
desirable in order to make it more representative. He pointed out
that, for instance, none of the northern countries were represented.
The CHAIRMAN formulated the Brazilian proposal, as supported
by the United States, as follows:
"If any one or more of the countries nominated
find it impossible to participate in any
meeting of the committee, the Chairman of the
CONTRACTING PARTIES shall be authorized to
nominate another country or countries to take
its or their place. In so doings he shall
bear in mind the need of preserving the
representative character of the committee."
The Brazilian proposal, thus formulated, was approved.
With regard to the suggestion of Mr. Thommessen (Norway),
the CHAIRMAN proposed that Norway be added to the members of the
Working Party. GATT/CP .3/SR.40
page 4
Mr. REISMAN (Canada) supported the Chairman's proposal
regarding the addition of Norway. He wished to confirm, however,
that this committee which represented only the contracting parties
as at present composed, was appointed only until the next session.
With the accession of new contracting parties it might be necessary
to alter the membership.
The CHAIRMAN said that was correct.
The composition of the committee was approved.
The CHAIRMAN congratulated Mr. Hewitt and the other
members of the Working Party for the confidence shown in them,
Section I: Procedures under Article XVIII with respect to Measures
permitted by the Protocol of Provisional Application and the Annecy
Protocol of Accession.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) summarized this section.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) said that the conclusions
of this section were agreeable to his delegation but there was one
lacuna at the end of paragraph 99, although not the fault of the
Working Party. This was the sentence dealing with "existing"
legislation. He considered it clear that this meant legislation
existing at the date of the Protocol rather than the date of its
signature by different governments. This was the intention of
the drafters at Geneva and the corresponding provision of the Annecy
Protocol of Accession made this construction clear in the case of
acceding governments. He thought it was desirable to settle this
problem at the present time.
For the special case of Pakistan, a special solution might be
found but the general principle should be settled now,
The CHAIRMAN said that there had been a full discussion
of this question at the previous meeting and that it was no fault of
the Working Party that this problem had not been decided then. He,
as Chairman, had not given a ruling at that time because he thought
it unlikely that the question would ever arise and that if it should
arise, it could be then considered. However, as it had again been
raised by the United Kingdom and was obviously important to then that GATT/CP.3/SR.40
page 5
some decision should be made, he would, therefore, make a ruling.
"Existing legislation" referred to the data of October 30th, 1947.
This ruling was based on the arguments presented by the United Kingdom
delegate and also on the text of the Protocol of Provisional
Application itself which stated:
Paragraph 1 (b)
"Part II of that Agreement to the fullest
extent not inconsistent with existing
legislation."
and in the last paragraph states:
"Done at Geneva, in a single copy,
in the English and French languages,
both texts authentic, this thirtieth
day of October one thousand nine
hundred and forty-seven."
The CHAIRMAN was confident that this interpretation would
be approved by the majority of the contracting parties. He felt,
however, that particular attention should be given to the special
and exceptional circumstances of Pakistan, i.e. these attendant
upon the coming into existence of a new state. Pakistan became
a state on August 14th, 1947 and when the Protocol was opened
for signature, there wasno Pakistan legislation as such. The
Pakistan Parliament did not meet until 1948 at which time it
proceeded to enact legislation to replace the legislation previously
applicable to the whole continent of India. This in some cases
differed from the previous existing legislation. He felt that if
any case ever arose out of these circumstances, the contracting
parties should give special attention and sympathetic consideration
to such a case.
Mr. BURR (Chile) said that his delegation had already
stated its opinion that existing legislation referred to that existing
on the date of signature by a particular country. He maintained
this point of view.
Mr. AZIZ AHMAD (Pakistan) said that the Chairman's ruling
with its provision for sympathetic consideration for any case
affecting Pakistan was acceptable to his delegation. GATT/CP .3/SR.40
page 6
The CHAIRMAN stated that the ruling would be recorded
in the record of the meeting, together with the reservation of
Chile to that ruling.
Mr. EVANS (United States of America) suggested the
addition of the words "without departing from the intent of a
measure eembodied in the legislation" at the end of the second
sentences He thought this would coevr the case of legislation
which was mandatory in intent but couched in permissive terms.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ (Brazil) inquired whether the proposed
United States wording would cover the case of specific measures
taken by the executive power in pursuance of an general authorization
of the legislature,
The CHAIMARN felt that this interpretation would be
conra ry to the conclusion reached by the Working Party as the
sentence states: "imposes on the executive authority requirements
which cannot be modified by executive action". He inquired
whether the United States position could be met by the insertion
of the following words in the eighth line of the paragraph: "by
its terms or by expressed inten"; the sentence would therefore
read: "The Working Party agreed that a measure is so permitted
provided that the legislation on which it is based is, by its
terms or by expressed intent, of a mandatory character, that is,
it imposes on the executive authority requirements which cannot be
modified by executive actio."
Mr. EVANS (United Statesof America) agreed to the Chairman's
wording and withdrew his own suggestion.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ (Brazil) wished to explain his position,
He was not against the principle limiting heu ruling to mandatory
legislation but he thought the ruling should also provide for the
type of case which might arise in some countries where the legislation
instead of specifying the detailed measures to be carried out by the
executive in certain circumstances, gave general instructions which
the executive was to elaborat. He wished a ruling that such
regulations drawn up by the executive under those circumstances would
also be regarded as mandatory legislation. GATT/CP.3/SR.40
page 7
The CHAIRMAN thought the position was quite clear and
that no further interpretation was necessary at this stage. The
proposed amendment by the United States only broadened the concept
of mandatory legislation to include legislation which was mandatory
by its expressed intent. Any further interpretation would depend
on the particular cases.
The CHAIRMAN's wording was agreed.
Paragraph 102-(1), (2), (3) was approved.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ (Brazil) said that the examination of measures
notified under Article XVIII had been the first opportunity of
examining specific measures in relation to the provisions of the
Agreement. There were, however, other measures introduced by
individual contracting parties from time to time to which other
provisions of the General Agreement were relevant. There had
hitherto been no opportunity to examine or evaluate these in the
light of the General Agreement. He suggested that the Secretariat
be asked to collect information on such measures and circulate this
information with such commentary as might be appropriate.
The CHAIRMAN thought this was a very useful suggestion
and that the Secretariat should be asked to do as much as possible
within its resources.
The report was approved as a whole with the amendments to
paragraphs 96 and 99.
2. Report of working Party 5 on Rectifications. (GATT/CP.3/66).
Mr. JARDINE (United Kingdom) introduced the report.
The CHAIRMAN expressed the gratitude of the Contracting
Parties to Mr. Jardine and the members of the working Party. He
stated that the Protocol of Rectifications as well as the Protocol
replacing Schedule I would be open for signature on the following
day and that it was important that it should be signed at the earliest
possible time.
The report of the Working Party was approved. GATT/CP. 3/SR. 40
page 8
3. Position of Section B (Newfoundland of Schedule XIX.
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that the declaration on page 2
stating that Section B would no longer form a part of Schedule XIX
required approval.
Mr. HOLLIS (United States of America) was in favour of
adopting this declaration. He added that only a few months had
elapsed since the change in the status of Newfoundland and it had
not yet been possible to evaluate the full effects of this change.
If any question of adjustment should later arise, they would expect
to take it up with the appropriate government.
The declaration was adopted unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 12.50 a.m. |
GATT Library | gy346yc2896 | Summary record of the Forty-first Meeting : Held at the Hotel Verdun, Annecy, on Friday, 12 August 1949 at 10 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, August 12, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 12/08/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.41 and GATT/CP.3/SR.39 - 41 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/gy346yc2896 | gy346yc2896_90060162.xml | GATT_144 | 1,239 | 7,828 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS AND
TRADE
ACCORD GENERAL SUR
LES TARIFS DOUANIERS
ET LE COMMERCE
GATT/CP.3/SR.41
12 August 1949
ORIGINAL : ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Third Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE FORTY-FIRST MEETING
Held at the Hotel Verdun, Annecy,
on Friday, 12 August 1949 at 10 a.m.
Chairman:
Subjects discussed:
1. Australian Subsidies on Ammonium Sulphate. Request by
Goverment of Chile.(Gatt/cp.3/61).
Chairman:Hon. L.D. WILGRESS (Canada)
1. Australian Subsidies on Amonium
Sulphate. Request by Government
of Chile. (GATT/CP.3 /61).
2. Provisional Application of Chapter VI
of the Havana Charter. (GATT/CP.3/72).
3. Procedures for Convening of Special
Sessions of the Contracting Parties.
4. Do-Restrictions of Documents.
on Ammonium Sulphate. Request by
(Gatt/CP.3/61) .
Mr. MULLER (Chile) said he had no intention of pursuing this
further at the present session subject to agreement on future procedure.
Official and unofficial discussions had been held with the Australian
delegation at Annecy as soon as the Chilean Government had heard of the
Australian measures. As no agreement had yet been reached in these
discussions it had been decided to continue them between sessions. It
was, therefore, agreed by the two delegations to have the matter put on
the agenda of the first ordinary or extraordinary meeting of the Con-
tracting Parties. He expressed the hope that the bilateral discussions
would be successful. GATT/CP .3/SR. 41
page 2
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) supported Mr. Muller's request and
shared the hope that the discussions would succeed,
The Contracting Parties Agreed that this item be retained on the
agenda and that, in the event of the bilateral discussions not leading
to a satisfactory conclusion, the question be taken up in the first
full meeting of the Contracting Parties, whether in ordinary or
extraordinary session.
2. Provisional Application of Chapter VI of the Havana Charter.
(GATT/C P.3/72)
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) said that the language used in
this document seemed to imply that no action was being taken at this
stage because there was no actual need. In fact, the reason was that a
number of delegations were not inclined to put Chapter VI into effect
at a time when the Havana Charter was under consideration by their
legislatures. It would, therefore, be advisable to amend the third
paragraph of the document to make this point clear.
The EXECUTIVE SECRETARY confirmed that this was the sense of
the Executive Committee meeting of August 1st, those who were of the
opinion that the matter was not an urgent one, having been a minority.
He, therefore, thought that this should be formally recorded as the more
accurate statement.
It was agreed that the third paragraph should be amended to read
as follows:
"At a more recent meeting of the Executive Committee, on 1st
August, it was ascertained that a number of members of the
Executive Committee would not be able to act upon either of
these proposals, because they did not wish to initiate action
to put particular chapters of the Charter formally into force
while the Charter as a whole was awaiting action by their
legislatures, and therefore it was agreed that the examination
of them need not be carried further by either the Working Party
or the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee decided,
however, that the proposal for action under the General Agreement
should be brought to the attention of the Contracting Parties." GATT/CP.3/SR .41
page 3
Mr. BOEKSTAL (Netherlands) said his Government attached great
importance to the provisional application of Chapter VI of the Charter.
He expressed his support of the document before them with Mr. Shackle's
amendment. In view of the importance of the matter he would like to
propose:
1) that the Contracting Parties decide at this session to put the
matter on the Agenda of the next session.
2) that, as it was to be expected that the I.C.C.I.C.A. would
have to expand its activity pending the establishment of the
ITO, the Executive Secretary be asked to take up with the
Secretary General of the United Nations the strengthening of
the Secretariat of I.C.C.I.C.A.
The CHAIRMAN said the proposal before them was:
(a) That the document before them be noted by the Contracting
Parties and put on the agenda for their next session.
(b) That the Executive Secretary be authorized to discuss
with the Secretary General of the United Nations the
strengthening of the Secretariat of I.C.C.I.C.A.
Mr. SCHWENGER (United States) agreed with the substance of
the proposal but wished to ask whether point(b) gave rise to any
procedural question.
The CHAIRMAN replied that there was no procedural question
as the Executive Secretary of the ICITO, acting upon a request of the
CONTRACTINGPARTIES, could take the matter up under paragraph 5 of the
Interim Commission's terms of reference.
Mr. SCHWENGER (United States) thought that this was more in
'the nature of a suggestion by the Contracting Parties than of action by
them.
The CHAIRMAN replied that the suggestion had come from the
delegate for the Netherlands who, as such was also to be considered a
member of the Executive Committee - the seat being held by Benelux -.
Other Contracting Parties which were also members of the Executive
Committee of the ICITO, having raised no objection, it was in order that
Mr. Wyndham White communicate with the Secretary General. GATT/CP.3/SR.41
page 4
The proposals (a) and (b) as put forward by the Chairman were
3. Procedure for Convening of Special Sessions of the Contracting
Parties.
After a discussion on the proposed Rule 1 in which Mr. SHACKLE
(United Kingdom), Mr. HEWITT (Australia), Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium),
Mr. RODRIGUEZ (Brazil), Mr. REISMAN (Canada), Mr. LEWIS (United States),
Mr. MULLER (Chile), Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) took part, it was
agreed to adopt the Rule subject to the modification of the third
sentence to read as follows:-
"A session may, however, be held at another date on the initiative
of the Chairman, or at the request of a Contracting Party con-
curred in by the majority of the Contracting Parties."
4. De-Restriction of Documents.
Mr. LEWIS (United States) said that the proposal arose from
the difficulties which were sometimes encountered in supplying the
Legislature with documents which the Administration did not feel
entitled to make public until they were de-restricted.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) pointed out the difficulties for a
delegation to judge off-hand which documents could or could not be
made public and thought time should be given to governments to decide.
In any case he thought there were a number of documents of the Working
Party on Article XVIII which contained very confidential information
from governments which could certainly not be divulged.
Mr. STEYN (South Africa) wished to refer to the extremely
confidential nature of some of the information supplied on the South
African balance of payments and of measures at present under study by
his Government which in no case should be divulged.
A discussion followed in which Mr. LEWIS (United States),
Mr. RODRIGUEZ (Brazil), Mr. REISMAN (Canada), Mr. SHACKLE (United
Kingdom), Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium), Mr. NICOL (New Zealand), Mr. LECUYER
(France) took part and in the course of which, suggestions were put
forward that the matter be taken up at the next session and by others
that documents be de-restricted within a period of a month or more in
order to give delegations time to indicate to the Excecutive Secretary
those documents which they thought should not be de-restricted.
It was decided to continue the discussion in the afternoon and the
meeting adjourned at 1.00 p.m. |
GATT Library | cb658zs1026 | Summary record of the Forty-second Meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy on Friday, 12 August 1949, at 2.30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, August 12, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 12/08/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.42 and GATT/CP.3/SR.42, 43, 44 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/cb658zs1026 | cb658zs1026_90060166.xml | GATT_144 | 7,964 | 49,255 | GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS AND
TRADE
RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
ACCORD GENERAL SUR
GATT/CP.3/SR.42
LES TARIFS DOUANIERS 12 August 1949
ET LE COMMERCE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Third Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE FORTY-SECOND MEETING
Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy on
Friday, 12 August 1949, at 2.30 p.m.
Chairman: Hon. L. D. WILGRESS (Canada)
Subjects
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
discussed:
De-restriction of documents (continued) (GATT/CP.3/76)
Report of the Working Party on Cuban Textiles (GATT/CP.3/82)
Schedule VI - Ceylon - Results of re-negotiations (GATT/CP.3/80)
Re-negotiations of Cuba
Decision as to the meeting required under Article XXIX
Programme of work to be undertaken by the Secretariat
Date of the Fourth Session of the Contracting Parties
1. De-restriction of documents (continued) (GATT/CP.3/76)
The Contracting Parties agreed to the following formula:
On December 1, 1949 all documents of the Third Session shall be
considered to be derestricted with the exception of the following:
1. Documents originally classified as "secret";
2. Documents of working parties (but not including reports of
working parties issued as numbered GATT documents); and
3. Documents which before that date any contracting party
requests the Executive Secretary to continue to classify as
restricted. The foregoing shall also apply to any requests
from acceding governments in respect of documents arising
out of the work of the Tariff Negotiations Committee.
2. Report of the Working Party on Cuban Textiles (GATT/CP.3/82)
In the absence of the Chairman of the Working Party, Mr. Royer,
Deputy Executive. Secretary, who had been Secretary to the Working
Party was asked by the Chairman to present the report. The DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY then summarized and illustrated the report,
Mr. CHAKRAVARTI (India) said the Cuban Delegation had entrusted
to him a statement with the request that he ask the Chairman to read GATT/CP 3/SR.42
page 2
it at the meeting.
The CHAIRMAN accepted the Indian request and read the statement
which is herewith summarized:
Regret was expressed that a further request of Cuba had met
with defeat before the Contracting Parties although the Cuban
delegation felt satisfaction for its record of industriousness in
preparing the documentation with which members of the Working Party
in particular, were familiar, Full replies to all requests for
information from members of the Working Party confidential or
otherwise - had been supplied. The information had been so full
that they were at a loss to understand why the able Working Party
had not been able to arrive at conclusions favourable to their claims.
The United States delegation in its basic statement had denied
that the Cuban textile crisis was of the extension and magnitude
asserted by the Cuban delegation, but their contentions had not been
supported by any supporting evidence. The Cuban delegation had
however presented a statement entitled "National Character of the
Crisis" which examined the emergency legislation adopted and showed
the effects of the crisis as follows:
a) Contraction of domestic production;
b) progressive loss of the domestic market since 1945;
c) contraction in the number of workers employed by the
industry and in the wages paid;
d) notable decrease in the imports of raw materials by the
industry;
e) decrease in the number of enterprises;
f) contraction in the value of sales;
g) operational losses of the several enterprises,
The assertion that the difficulties of the Cuban textile
industry resulted from a world textile crisis was not accepted by
Cuba as it appeared from United Nations Statistics that the world
textile industry showed no symptoms of a crisis in April 1949, when
grave difficulties had already been manifest in the Cuban textile
industry. Nor could Cuba accept on grounds of social justice or of
adherence to the General Agreement, the suggestion of the United States
that the difficulties could be solved by internal action. GATT/CP.3/SR.42
page 3
Finally the contention that the Geneva tariff commitments were
not affecting the development of the industry, was not accepted by
the Cuban delegation which had proved that the crisis was the effect
of excessive imports. The development of the industry and its
possibility of achieving a competitive position were conditional on
an increased protection.
On the basis of all the information supplied, they had hoped that
the bilateral consideration recommended by the Working Party would
be successful. A waiver was requested from the United States in order
to reduce the duty at least provisionally on 18, later 8, tariff items
and compensation therefor was offered to the United States, but the
United States delegation declared they were not in a position to
consider the compensation offered since they were not prepared to
accept the Cuban request for a waiver of the eight items.
A United States offer of a waiver limited to parts of certain
sub-items (four in the cotton group and seven in the rayon group)
was unacceptable to Cuba because:.
a) the limited number of items receiving protection would
be substituted by other items which could compete
against them.
b) the solution would have caused a fragmentation of the
Cuban tariff entailing serious difficulties of classifi-
cation.
c) compensation would have to be given to the United States
in exchange for thewaiver, thus causing a loss to the
Cuban Treasury without any material advantage.
With respect to the opening of an enquiry, this had been
accepted subject to obtaining a limited waiver to its obligations.
No agreement having been reached on the waiver, Cuba was compelled to
reject the enquiry. At the same time the Cuban delegation did not
wish to establish a precedent by accepting such a procedure.
They thanked the Working Party but it was felt by the that a
solution could not be reached in view of the United States attitude
which even denied the existence of a textile crisis in Cuba. No
proof of this statement had however been given by the United States
delegations
The Cuban delegation had recognized the legitimate interest of
the United States to participate in the Cuban textile market, but GATT/CP.3 /SR.42
page 4
had always felt that the less developed areas should be able to
carry out a policy of industrialization which could not take place
without some loss - at least in the initial stages - to the export
trade of the more highly industrialized countries. The principles
proclaimed by President Truman in his Fourth Point gave hopes to the
Cuban delegation that Cuba's march towards industrialization would
have only been arrested but that it would again be able to resume.
The statement ended by declaring that it had been presented with
the sole aim of contributing with its constructive criticism to the
possibility that errors be avoided, which if repeated would frustrate
the high objectives of the General Agreement, and expressed the
appreciation of the Cuban delegation to the Chairman of the Working
Party, Mr. A. Philip, to Mr. Lopez Rodriguez (Brazil) and to Miss
Nancy Fisher (United Kingdom).
Mr. Evans (United States of America) commenting on the Cuban
statement, wished to point out that at the next to last meeting of
the Working Party, the Cuban Delegation had read a brief statement
which it wanted to have incorporated in the report of the Working
Party. In view of its provocative character, however, the United
States Delegation indicated that if this statement were included in
the report, the United States Delegation would have to request the
insertion in the report of a rejoinder. The Chair and, he thought,
all other members of the Working Party, had agreed not to include
any such statements, He had not been aware of the Cuban intention
to have a statement read at the present meeting. Much as he regretted
having to do so, he felt that it would be necessary to give the
meeting a brief reply to some of the assertions in the statement which
had just been read, which incidentally was a new statement and not
then one read at the Working Party meeting.
The textile items in question were negotiated at Geneva, The
rates agreed upon were to a considerable extent increases in duties,
in. partial exchange for which certain decreases were granted in rates
of duty on textile items mainly not produced in Cuba. Without
previously raising the question with theUnited States, the Cuban
Delegation had put on the agenda of the Contracting Parties a request
for a discussion of the so-called Cuban textile crisis. The
Contracting Parties, including the United States, had accepted the
item on the agenda and set up a Working Party. When the Working Party GATT/CP.3/SR.42
page 5
came to the conclusion that it could not reach a decision on the
basis of the conflicting evidence presented, it recommended bilateral
discussion between the Cuban and the United States Delegations in
order to see whether a mutually satisfactory basis for settlement of
the problem could not be reached. In the discussions which lasted
several weeks, the Cuban Delegation demanded the renegotiation of
almost all the Geneva rates not only on textile fabrics but made-up
articles. The increases asked for ranged from 50% to 130%. The
Cuban Delegation also demanded an advance waiver on all these items.
Since such a broad waiver was not acceptable to the United States
Delegation, the Cuban Delegation did reduce its request for an
advance waiver on 18 items to 8 items. However, this was still
unacceptable to the United States since these 8 items comparised 54
sub-items which covered 80% of the total exports of fabrics and
made-up articles from the United States to Cuba, a great many of
which were types of fabrics and articles that are not manufactured
in Cuba. The Cuban Delegation, moreover, was unwilling to reduce the
number of items it wished renegotiated or to recede from the high
rates of duty requested.
During the bilateral discussions the Cuban Delegation presented
data on costs of production of certain textile fabrics in Cuba, as
well as data on the landed cost in Cuba of certain textiles imported
from the United States. The United States Delegation was unable
from discussions with the Cuban Delegation to find out how these
costs of production had been arrived at, and to the textile experts
in the U.S. Delegation some of the components of the costs seemed
exaggerated and some were unexplainable. In the case of the landed
costs of imports the United States Delegation found that in all the
cases in which it was possible to indentify exactly the item, the
costs shown by the Cuban Delegation in every case except one were
lower than the New York wholesale market price in the month used by
the Cuban Delegation as the basis of costs.
The United States and Cuban Delegations therefore reported to the
Working Party that they had been unable to agree on a basis for
bilateral settlement of the textile matter. The Working Party then
recommended that every effort be made to reach an agreement for a
waiver on a reduced list. The United States, when asked by the Cuban
Delegation to suggest a reduced list, suggested a list of all the types GATT/CP.3/SR.42
page 6
of cotton and rayon textile fabrics manufactured in Cuba (these
types being included in eleven tariff sub-items), with the under-
standing that if a preliminary inquiry by competent disinterested
technicians (which inquiry had been suggested by the Working Party)
indicated a need for a waiver on more sub-items the United States
Government would be glad to consider such a waiver which could take
effect immediately upon completion of satisfactory negotiations with
the Cuban Government with regard thereto, if the Contracting Parties
so authorized. Acting upon instructions from their government, the
Cuban Delegation later replied that they could not further reduce the
list of items on which they requested a waiver and that they could
not agree to a commission of inquiry such as suggested by the Working
Party.
With respect to the Cuban statement that their delegation had
answered all requests made to them, Mr. Evans wished to point out
that a request from the United States for more detailed figures on
Cuban imports had not been answered; similarly, no reply was given
to a request for more detailed figures on Cuban production and
members of the Working Party other than the United States had
indicated that such figures were necessary in order to arrive at a
decision in the textile matter.
The statement of the Cuban Delegation mentioned that the United
States Delegation had given no evidence to support its contention that
the difficulties the Cuban textile industry was experiencing were
not the results of GATT commitments. On the contrary, the United States
Delegation in the basic report, to the Working Party showed by use of
certain Cuban statistics that imports had been small compared with
domestic production in the case of some products and that in the case
of others where a satisfactory breakdown of Cuban statistics was not
available, total imports had not increased in 1948 over 1947 and that
many of such imports were of fabrics not produced in Cuba and not
directly competitive with Cuban manufactures. In addition, the United
States basic report quoted the Cuban textile manufacturers themselves
as saying that important causes of the difficulties were internal,
such as the inability of manufacturers to discharge inefficient
workers because of Cuban Government regulations and the failure of
proper enforcement of customs regulations The United States basic
statement also included quotations from other Cuban entities to the GATT/CP.3/SR.42
page 7
effect that the difficulties were the result of overproduction in
some lines in the post-war years, consumer resistance to high prices,
and consequent contraction in sales such as were being experienced in
a number of countries, including the United States, a situation
that was temporary.
The Cuban statement also mentioned that compensation had been
offered the United States in return for the proposed waiver and the
proposed re-negotiation of the Cuban textile schedule. In the
bilateral discussions, the Cuban Delegation had presented the United
states Delegation with a list of commodities on which the Cuban
Government would consider compensation, but no suggested rates of
duty were given and the list contained no items of particular
interest to the United States since the present rates of duty and
imports of these items were already satisfactory.
It seemed unfair to the Working Party, the Contracting Parties,
and to GATT to say that the inability of the Cuban Delegation to
obtain from the Contracting Parties everything it demanded indicated
the failure of GATT to arrive at a fair solution. The Working Party
had suggested a fair solution - appointment of a neutral commission of
inquiry to arrive at the facts in the case, followed by re-negotiation
of some items in the textile schedule if the facts warranted it,
but the Cuban Delegation rejected the suggestion of such a commission,
at least partly on the grounds that such an inquiry would imply a
distrust of the evidence supplied by the Cuban Delegation. In addition,
it would not seem fair to call the proceedings a failure in view of
the fact that the United States Delegation had, as shown by the
Working Party report to the Contracting Parties offered to give
sympathetic consideration to a request by Cuba for re-negotiation of
some textile items.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ (Brazil) said the present was the most
unfortunate case since the inception in 1946. He said his sentiments
towards the United States were well known; that the cordial relations
entertained by his country with them could not be bettered by anyone.
It was therefore with no feeling of animosity towards that country
that he was going to speak. He wished to say that he stood by his
earlier remark that this case had marked a failure of the General
Agreement. He believed more than ever that this was the case. GATT/CP.3/SR.42
page 8
The Preamble of the General Agreement should have been basic in the
handling of this matter. If a country had made a mistake at Geneva
and if the Contracting Parties believed in the justice of the words
contained in that Preamble, a just solution should have been found.
It could not be that the General Agreerment was destined to freeze
positions without allowing the possibility of changes and development,
The economic development of smaller countries could not be against the
interest of the United States. Cuba was a small and undeveloped
country and should have had satisfaction. He realized they were real
difficulties in this matter for the United States but the failure to
reach a solution should have been avoided. He thought the failure had
done more harm to the General Agreement and to the Havana Charter
than any case which had up to now been before them. He was compelled
to maintain the words he had pronounced in the Working Party that this
had marked a grave failure of the General Agreement.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) said that the report was merely a
record of the failure of the discussions and called for no decision
under either Article XVIII or XIX. As such, he took it the report
should be accepted with the recommendation that the discussions should
continue with a view to a favourable solution.
Mr. BURR (Chile) said it was very difficult for a delegation
which had not been represented on the Working Party to have a precise
idea. The difficulty was increased by the fact that one of the parties
was absent from the present meeting. He had to express the regret
that no decision had been taken and that the conclusion did not
represent what should be the spirit of the General Agreement.
Mr. EVANS (United States) wished to comment on the remarks
of Mr. Hewitt, which he thought were correct but which might be
misinterpreted by others who had not read the report as carefully as
he. He wished to make it clear that there had been no negotiations
but that bilateral talks had taken place with a view to finding
agreement on a possible advance waiver and on a satisfactory basis
for possible re-negotiation of some textile items. There was therefore
no failure of negotiations but a failure to agree on the scope of an
advance waiver to Cuba and on a basis for re-negotiation. GATT/CP.3/SR.42
page 9
The recommendation contained in paragraph 8 (d) of the report
of the Working Party was approved.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) wished to have his
abstention recorded as there had been no vote on the recommendation
and asked whether there would be a vote on the approval of the report
of the working Party a whole,
The CHAIRMAN replied that it was not necessary for
contracting parties to approve the report but if the CONTRACTING
PARTIES so preferred it could be recorded that they approved the
recommendations of paragraph 8 (d) subject to the reservation of
Czechoslovakia and that they had taken note of the report.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) wished to have it on
record that he opposed the report of the Working Party because Cuba
had been requested to supply information of a confidential character
on what were commonly called "commercial secrets". They were not a
court of justice which could ask for information of this kind.
In previous discussions in the Contracting Parties the United States
had said they were unable to disclose on which items they maintain
export prohibitions and he could therefore not understand why
another country should be compelled to divulge confidential information
of this character.
The CHAIRMAN wished to say in fairness to the Working Party
that information of a confidential character had never been requested
by the Working Party as a whole but that certain countries had asked
for details on specific points and the Cuban delegation had furnished
its reply voluntarily pointing out that as it was of a highly
confidential character it had to be kept secret.
The CONTRACTING PARTIES then took note of the report of the
Working Party and approved specifically the recommendation contained
in paragraph 8 (d) subject to the reservation of Czechoslovakia.
3 Schedule VI - Ceylon - Results of Re-negotiations (document
The report on the results of the re-negotiations was unanimously
approved. GATT/CP.3/SR.42
page 10
4. Re-negotiations of Cuba
The CHAIRMAN said there was no official document on the subject
but that he had been requested to read a statement submitted by
the Delegation ot Cuba.
Mr. EVANS (United States) said this document contained secret
information which normally would not be distributed without the consent
of both parties. His delegation requested that the information contained
therein be kept secret particularly as not all of it was correct.
The CHAIRMAN informed the Contracting Parties that the
matter contained in the statement should be considered as secret and
proceeded to read the statement of the Delegation of Cuba on the
results of re-negotiations of certain items in Part II of Schedule IX
which is herewith summarized:
At the First Session of the Contracting Parties held in Havana in
March, 1949, Cuba requested the re-negotiation of six items incorporated
in Part II of Schedule IX, namely, tires and tubes (Item 314-B and C);
ribbons, trimmings and galloons (127-A and 142-E and F); and nylon
hosiery (Ex 137-F). The matter was referred to the Second session when
the United States undertook that they would begin re-negotiations for
adequate compensation.
At the Second Session the Cuban delegation also presented the
problem that confronted a part of its textile industry.
At the sane time the United States presented a complaint against
Resolution 530 of the Cuban Ministry of Commerce which was considered
prejudicial to the interests of the United States, and made representations
against the Cuban Customs Circular No. 64, on colored woven goods.
All these points were referred to a working party which on
September 13, 1948 presented recommendations (GATT/CP.3/43) which were
approved by the Contracting Parties on 14 September 1948 (GATT/CP.2/SR.25).
The recommendations were basically as follows:
(a) The Government of Cuba was to take prompt steps to relieve the
immediate difficulties affecting imports of textiles and also to discuss
with the United States at Havana this possibility of finding a satisfactory
solution for the problems arising in connection with Resolution 530. (b) the Government of Cuba would continue to apply to colored woven
textiles the treatment provided for in the third of the notes under
Tariff Items 114 through 117 and 132 through 135 of Schedule IX of the
General Agreement.
(c) The United States undertook to re-negotiate trimmings, ribbons and
galloons (Items 127-A and 142-E and F), hollow tires and inner tubes
(Items 314-B and C), and nylon stockings (Items Ex 137-F), and also
colored woven textiles referred to in paragraph (b) in return for
adequate compensation. The recommendation ended with the words,
"Initial discussions to this end will begin immediately".
The Government of Cuba complied immediately with recommendations
(a) and (b), suspending on September 15 Rule 530 and applying to
colored woven textiles the treatment provided for under paragraph (b)
above by the suspension of Circular No. 64. The Government of Cuba
was fully aware of the risks involved and the situation of the
textile industry which ensued has amply justified those fears.
On 28 October 1948 the Government of Cuba informed the Government
of the United States that it had fulfilled recommendations (a) and (b)
of the working party and in accordance with (c) invited the United
States to appoint its representatives to begin the re-negotiations.
On 1 December 1948 the United States requested information on the
items, descriptions and rates of duty desired and offered, stating
they would then indicate the concessions they would request by way of
compensation, Cuba replied to the United States two days later.
No reply having been received from the United States by, December 30,
Cuba directed the attention of the United States to the two notes of
28 October and 3 December. A further reminder was sent on 11 January
1949 calling attention to the urgency of the action required by the
textile crisis.
On 11 March 1949 the United States presented a note to Cuba
with offers of concessions and requests for compensation and on
18 March communicated the names of its negotiating team in Havana.
In their note of 11 March 1949 the United States made no mention of
the re-negotiation on colored woven goods.
Shortly after the inauguration of the present session both parties
at the request of Cuba, agreed to transfer the re-negotiations to
Annecy. The Cuban delegation then asked about colored woven goods and
the United States delegation expressed the view that a misunderstanding GATT/CP.3/SR.42
page 12
must have occurred because they were not aware of the desire of Cuba
to re-negotiate those items and that, therefore, the required public
notice in the United States had not been given. After pointing out
the number of instances in which their desire to re-negotiate these
items had been expressed in writing, and whilst disclaiming any
responsibility for the alleged misunderstanding, the Cuban delegation
agreed to begin re-negotiation of the six tariff items and to allow
time for the United States to give the public notice on colored woven
goods.
Meetings were held but notwithstanding the efforts made to reach
common meeting ground, the Cuban delegation regretted that the
re-negotiations had ended in a failure. Without going into all the
details they considered it desirable to outline the salient points
discussed.
From the outset the Cuban team had made it clear to the United
States that it was their intention to seek only such increases as
would place the products of its industry on a competitive basis with
imported articles. With respect to tires and tubes a request was
made to increase the duty to a rate which would still have been
substantially lower than those prevailing in practically all the
countries in which the tire industry has a volume of production similar
to Cuba but the maximum offer of the United States was too low for
Cuba to accept. In order to allay any fears that the increase
requested would tend to deprive exporting countries of a Cuban market,
a guarantee of not less than one-third of the Cuban market together
with an undertaking to re-negotiate rates in the future if they were
found to be excessive, was given to the United States and by the latter
refused. With reference to ribbons, galloons and trimmings, the United
States offer was again considered too low to allow competition by the
Cuban industry despite the fact that Cuba had proposed breaking down
the three tariff items into six in order to reduce in some cases
present rates as compensation to the United States.
With respect to nylon hosiery an unfortunate administrative
decision had classified nylon hosiery in 1946 on the same basis as rayon
hosiery despite the fact that the latter, being a substitute for silk,
was in practically all countries classified under silk with the same
rates of duty. The low rates were those bound in Schedule IX with the GATT/CP.3/SR.42
page 13
consequence that the nylon hosiery industry has practically disappeared
in the face of foreign competition.
They wish to point out that the volume of trade involved in these
three tariff items was three million-odd dollars as against Cuban imports
from the United States of America for 1948 of four hundred and twenty
million dollars. The three million dollars also accounted for types of
goods not produced in Cuba and which would have continued to be imported.
It was further pointed out that other countries with duties substantially
higher than those requested by Cuba for those products continued to be
substantial importers of them, Furthermore Cuba obtained principally
from the United States the greater part of raw material, fuel,
machinery, etc. necessary for the operation of the industries
concerned which would mean that the over-all value of the export trade
of the United States would not be materially affected. In addition
the liberal policy of Cuba with regard to investment of capital funds
from abroad had had as a consequence that a substantial part of the
capital invested in the industry under re-negotiation was American.
In the case of tyres and tubes the recent war had shown the
importance for a country of such an industry. Had it not existed
Cuban transport during the war would have been paralyzed. It was
pointed out that the United States in view of this had given to Cuba
significant and decisive cooperation for the establishment and
operation of this new industry notwithstanding wartime shortages in
the United States. With regard to colored woven textiles, the principle
had been established by Cuba during the 1947 negotiations and accepted
by the United States negotiators after much discussion that Cuba was
entitled to protection for those lines of its textile industry which
were capable of being produced in Cuba. Cuba offered as compensation
to the United States for allowing an increase in the rates of duties
on such lines to make a parallel reduction in those other textile
lines which could not reasonably be produced in Cuba. A distinction
had been drawn between colored woven fabrics dyed a single color or
forming stripes, squares or other designs on the one hand, and printed
fabrics on the other. Circular 64 of the Cuban Customs administration
was issued with this principle in view but upon objection by the United
States, Cuba undertook to withdraw it and to re-negotiate the
re-application of its principles. GATT/CP.3/SR.42
page 14
In view of the fact that following the misunderstanding asserted
by the American negotiaters that their re-negotiation on colored
woven goods could not be begun until after public notice was given
in the United States, the Cuban delegation, towards the end of the
re-negotiations of the other items requested the United States to
begin consideration of colored woven goods. The answer given on 5
July 1949 by a member of the United States delegation was that these
items could not be re-negotiated at the present session in view of the
late date and of the imminent departure from Annecy of the members of
the American negotiating team. This was the situation to the present
date.
Despite all the information presented to the United States, some
of a very confidential character on costs of production and other
data which are generally considered secret, no results could be
achieved. Anxiety was therefore expressed in view of Cuba's unfailing
adherence to the principles of the General Agreement, that this
international instrument seemed to be lacking in an efficient mechanism
to settle problems of the type which had been discussed.
As a consequence of the resolution of the Contracting Parties on
14 September 1948 Cuba suspended Resolution 530 as well as Circular 64.
Cuba had fulfilled the undertaking which it had assumed at that times
with respect to the re-negotiations, Cuba was leaving the Third Session
of the Contracting Parties with a feeling of frustrated aspirations.
The story of the re-negotiations and their results would be a motive
of deep preoccupation for the Government and for the people of Cuba,
a feeling which the Cuban delegation felt must be shared by many of the
Contracting Parties.
In an annex to the statement, the Cuban delegation wished to
point out that it had received on the previous day a final list of
offers from the delegation of the United States containing one minor
variation with regard to cotton ribbons. No other changes were
contemplated on the other items and no mention was made of colored
woven goods. The Cuban delegation therefore regretted to have to say
that under the circumstances the minor change would not justify any
variation in the statement above. GATT/CP.3/SR.42
page 15
Mr. EVANS (United States) regretted that for the second time
he was forced to trespass on the patience of the Contracting Parties
and to answer without adequate preparation a long paper submitted
without previous notice. However, he thought that it was essential to
correct some of the more important misapprehensions. He was not quite
sure what the Contracting Parties had been asked to do as, to his
knowledge, Cuba had not broken off the negotiations. This appeared
to be an interim report which only could be presented at the request
of the Contracting Parties or by joint agreement of the parties
concerned. The first few pages of the Cuban paper discussed the
decision taken at the Second Session of the Contracting Parties and
some of subsequent correspondence exchanged between the United States
and Cuba. He thought the recital was incorrect in a number of
substantial details:
(1) The understanding at the Second Session of the Contracting
Parties had been that there would, before re-negotiations were
undertaken, be a satisfactory settlement of the Cuban matters which
it was then agreed constituted a violation of the GATT. The United
States, however, still has not been able to obtain a satisfactory
settlement of certain phases of these matters. The regulations
which had enforced incorrect rates of duty on colored woven goods
(Circular 64) had been suspended but had not been repealed, and
refunds of incorrect duties levied have not been made. The textile
import embargo (Resolution 530) has not been entirely removed, and
there was at least one subsequent attempt, which appeared at the time
might be successful, to re-impose the import embargo in its entirety.
Furthermore, a new Resolution (14 J) had been imposed, which although
the United States had not brought the matter before the Contracting
Parties, restored part of the unsatisfactory and restrictive features
of the previous resolution 530.
(2) The recital of the correspondence which took place regarding
the re-negotiation of the six items left out the conversations which
had taken place at Havana between representatives of the United States
Embassy and the Cuban Government which showed that the Cuban requests
had not been ignored and in which attempts were made to arrive at
satisfactory settlements of the matters mentioned in (1) above. GATT/CP.3/SR.42
page 16
(3) Colored woven textiles had not been specifically included in
the Second Session report with the other items to be re-negotiated but
were to be re-negotiated "if the Government of Cuba so desires".
There was a genuine misunderstanding as to whether the Cuban Government
had asked for re-negotiation of colored woven textiles. That Government
had merely requested in rather involved and ambiguous language that
Cuban Customs Circular 64 be re-applied the word re-negotiation had
not been used in any Cuban request regarding colored woven goods, and
the United States Government had not understood that a unilateral
proposal to re-apply the incorrect duties was a request for
re-negotiation.
The Cuban statement mentioned delays that had taken place in the
re-negotiations at Annecy. It was upon the insistence of the Cuban
Government that the re-negotiations were transferred from Havana to
Annecy, whereas the United States delegation reluctantly agreed to
such transfer since it felt the re-negotiations (which were to have
begun last March) could be more speedily concluded at Havana. Both the
Cuban and United States delegations have been very busy at Annecy with
many other matters. In fact, the Cuban delegation had on a number of
occasions cancelled re-negotiation meetings which had been arranged.
On the other hand, it was only on rare occasions that the United States
delegation found it impossible to grant a Cuban request for a
re-negotiation meeting. Ten meetings in all were held up to the
time of the withdrawal of the Cuban delegation from the Conference,
but despite the relatively large number of meetings in contrast to the
few items under discussion, agreement had been reached on the rates of
duty on only two of the original six items involved, and there had been
no discussion of the compensation which Cuba would offer in return for
increases agreed to. The reason for the protracted re-negotiations,
the United States delegation feels, was the extreme positions taken by
the Cuban delegation. That delegation first took the position that the
word re-negotiation meant that the Cuban Government had the right to fix
the rates unilaterally on the six items and that the United States could
negotiate only on the compensation which would be given in return for
the increases in rates. Although the Cuban delegation eventually
receded from this extreme general position, it still insisted on
obtaining most of the rates it had originally proposed, with increases
ranging from 50% to 600%. GATT/CP.3/SR.42
page 17
On the other hand, the United States delegation bettered the
offers which it had first made in the re-negotiations and agreed to or
offered increases in duty which in some cases were considerable and
in all other cases ample. Contrary to the Cuban statement, there was
only one case out of the nine (three of the items had later bean split
up into six to make a distinction between types of products produced.
in Cuba and those not produced there), on which the Cuban delegation
eventually offered a decrease in duty, and the decrease was on types of
products not produced in Cuba. In the case of the other two new sub-
items set up to cover products not produced in Cuba, the Cuban delegation
still asked for increases, and the United States delegation agreed to the
increases requested in these cases. In all, the United States agreed
to the increased rates requested on five of the nine items, and offered
what it considered fully adequate increases on the other four.
With regard to the re-negotiation of colored woven goods the Cuban
statement mentioned that on July 5 a member of the United States
delegation remarked that the re-negotiations could not be undertaken
at Annecy because of the imminent departure of the members of the
United States Negotiating Team. If such a remark were made, it was
apparently at a time when it was thought the Conference was to close
around July 15. However, all but one of the members of the United States
Negotiating Team were still in Annecy at the end of July, and some were
still here at the time of the withdrawal of the Cuban delegation from
the Conference and had previous to that time showed a willingness to
continue the discussions regarding colored woven goods and were
awaiting information which the Cuban delegation was to furnish.
Reverting to the circulation of the Cuban paper, Mr. Evans wished
to ask the Chairman what protection a country could have against its
secret negotiations being divulged. The document contained no symbol,
there was no indication of secrecy, and he wished to know what could
be done to safeguard the interests of a country which entered
negotiations with another.
The CHAIRMAN explained that a copy of this paper with the request
for distribution to the Contracting Parties had been handed to the
Secretariat which had complied without having time to examine it.
One copy had been given to each representative present and three copies
were in possession of the Secretariat. As regards the protection to
delegations, he thought the latter had to rely to a considerable extent GATT/CP.3/SR.42
page 18
on the good faith of their negotiating partners. Documents were
normally circulated with the agreement of the Contracting Parties
but this had been a special case in view of the absence of the Cuban
delegation. The only thing that could be done was to ask delegations
to return the document. A summary of the document would appear on
the records omitting all secret information as summary records although
restricted documents were not labelled secret.
The CHAIRMAN reverting to the main question said that in
view of the United States statement that the negotiations had not been
concluded, nor broken off, no further action was necessary on the part
of the Contracting Parties.
5. Decision as to the meeting required under Article XXIX
The CHAIRMAN, pointing out that the protocol amending
Article XXIX had not yet entered into force, said that the text of
the Article would be the one contained in the original edition of the
Agreement and asked for comments.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) proposed to put the matter off
to the next session, and Mr. RODRIGUEZ (Brazil) whose country had not.
yet accepted the Protocol supported the United Kingdom proposal.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) took it that the discussion at the
next meeting would be on the date at which the meeting indicated should
take place, if the Charter had not yet entered into force.
The CHAIRMAN agreed and the Contracting Parties agreed that
in view of the fact that the Protocol amending article XXIX had not yet
entered into force the question be put on the agenda for the next
session. GATT/CP.3/SR.42
page 19
6. Programme of Work to be undertaken by the Secretariat
The Chairman pointed out that this item included suggestions
considered by the I.C.I.T.O, but referred by the Executive Committee
to the Contracting Parties:
(a) Preparation of the report referred to in paragraph 1 (g)
of Article XIV of the agreement.
(b) Preparation of material to serve as a basis for considering
possible action under Article XII, paragraph (5).
(c) Preparation of material as a basis for the consideration of
applications under article XVIII.
(a) Preparation of the report referred to in paragraph 1(g)
of Article XIV of the Agreement.
With reference to point (a) Mr. WILLOUGHBY (United States of
America) thought that it would be useful if the Secretariat took steps
to prepare the information required which would be of great help when
the I.T.O. care into being.
It was Agreed that the Secretariat collect the material which would
serve as a basis for the preparation of the report required by paragraph
1 (g) of Article XIV. The Executive Secretary said that the Secretariat
had given some thought to the method which would be most appropriate
for assembling data and had drawn up a questionnaire. He world like
the Contracting Parties to agree to recommend to their government to do
their best to reply as fully as possible. The Contracting Parties had
not yet seen the questionnaire and for that reason he was cautious in
wording his request but he would like to have this assurance.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) submitted that the report
be based on the same period a similar action which was being undertaken
by the International Monetary Fund. Discrepancies due to taking
different base periods would be unfortunate.
The CHAIRMAN said that the Secretariat would co-ordinate any
action with the International monetary Fund and added that this was one
of the questions which the Executive Secretary proposed to discuss in
Washington during the annual meeting of the Fund. GATT/CP.3/SR.42
page 20
(b) Preparation of material to serve as a basis 2 for considering
possible action under paragraph 5 of Article XII
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) whilst recognizing that the
article was mandatory on this point, said he was inclined to suggest
that no decision be taken at the moment in view of certain important
discussions which were about to take place in Washington on matters
very closely related to the one before them. If the I.T.O. had been
in existence, the work might have been done by that Organization but
he thought it would be difficult with the limited resources of the
Contracting Parties.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY (United States of America) for substantially
the same reasons as those put forward by the representative of the
United Kingdom, supported the proposal that the study be not undertaken.
It was true that a contrary proposal had been made by the United states
in the meeting of the Executive Committee, but there had been since
then a number of developments - in particular with regard to the
Sterling problem - which had made them reconsider their attitude.
Mr. LARRE (France) agreed that this might be difficult work
for a provisional organization and that the moment might not be the
most favourable. However he did not see any reason why the Secretariat
should not collect material for a study.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) was at a loss to understand
the reason why the Executive Secretary should be asked to prepare a
report on the restrictions to trade but not on the situation which had
caused them.
Mr. REISMAN (Canada) supported the United Kingdom proposal
not to take action at the present moment; but the matter should be
kept under review and, if necessary, raised at the next session. GATT/CP.3/SR.42
page 21
M. WILLOUGHBY (United States of America) wished to point
out an important difference between the two tasks. For Article XXV,
it was a matter of preparing a report, whereas in Article XII, the
matter was the initiation of discussions.
Mr. LARRE (France) said he understood the United Kingdom
proposal to mean that the Executive Secretary should do nothing
pending the Washington talks and that he should not be entrusted
with a task which he could not do with limited means. In his
opinion it was most important that the Excecutive Secretary closely
follow the Washington talks and study the extent to which any
measures which might be the outcome of such talks, did or did not
serve the purpose of Article XII (5). With respect to the proposal
of the representative for Canada who had mentioned the next session,
he thought that contracting parties would find themselves in a much
better position to give Judgment if they were supplied with information
which they would not otherwise have. This information would be
essential for the I.T.O. when it came into being.
After Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) and Mr. RODRIGUEZ (Brazil)
had expressed their support, the United Kingdom proposal to defer
action on the matter was accepted.
(c) Preparation of material as a basis for the consideration of
applications under Article XVIII
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) as Chairman of the Working Party on
Article XVIII, in reply to a question from the Chairman agreed that no
further action was needed by the Contracting Parties after the approval
of the report of his Working Party which had been submitted a few days
before.
7. Date of the Fourth Session of the Contracting Parties
There being no proposals from representatives of the
contracting parties, the CHAIRMAN suggested as a basis for discussion
the date of 23 February 1950. His suggestion was made in view of the
mandatory character of paragraph 1 (g) of Article XIV, requiring a
report to be presented not later than March 1, 1950. GATT/CP.3/SR.42
page 22
Mr. REISMAN (Canada) said that although his delegation had
no specific date to propose, he would like to indicate generally,
that, it being in the interest of all to have short sessions, the only
way in his opinion, to achieve this object would be to meet frequently.
He thought therefore that 23 February was not too early and that
perhaps an earlier date might be advisable.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) thought 23 February a reasonable
date and suggested it be accepted. If it were necessary, it would
always be possible to change it.
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) agreed with the representative of
Canada that if 23 February was not accepted the date should be an
earlier one.
Mr. THOMESSON (Norway) also supported the views of
Mr. Reisman.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) said that he felt that, if the date
of 23 February were accepted it should be with the qualification
that it could be changed if circumstances so required. For his part
he could not support an earlier date.
The date proposed of 23 February for the Fourth Session of
the Contracting Parties was approved.
As regards the place of meeting the CHAIRMAN pointed out
that the Secretariat being in Geneva there seemed to be no reason
for holding the meeting elsewhere.
Mr. SHACKIE (United Kingdom) supported the proposal of
holding the Fourth Session in Geneva and added that if it were found
necessary to go elsewhere as long a warning as possible should be
given.
The CONTRACTING PARTIES agreed to hold the Fourth Session in
Geneva.
m
Theeting e maurnedd a 7.30jom.ep. |
GATT Library | wy114nj6405 | Summary record of the Forty-third meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy, on Saturday 13 August 1949 at 10:45 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, August 13, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 13/08/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.43 and GATT/CP.3/SR.42, 43, 44 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/wy114nj6405 | wy114nj6405_90060167.xml | GATT_144 | 1,977 | 12,730 | GNERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS AND
TRADE
RESTRICTED
ACCORD GENERAL SUR LIMITED B
LES TARIFS DOUANIERS GATT/CP.3/SR.43
13 August 1949
ET LE COMMERCE
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Third Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE FORTY-THIRD MEETING
Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy,
on Saturday 13 August 1949 at 10:45 a.m.
Chaiman:
Subjects
Hon. L. D. WILGRESS (Canada)
discussed:
1. Instrument of Accession.
2 Request of Norway regarding Application of
Annecy Concessions.
3. Date-of Notification of Non-Discriminatory
Measures under Article XVIII by Acceding
Governments
4. Procedure relating to Accession
5. Third set of Tariff Negotiations.
1. The Annecy Protocol of Accession (GATT/CP.3/56)and supplementary
Repor of Joint Working Party on Accession (GATT/CP.3/83 and Add.1)
The CHAIRMAN introduced the document containing the Annecy
Protocol of Terms of Accession (GATT/CP.3/56), as approved by the
Tariff Neygotiations Committee, and the Supplementay Report of the
Joint Working Party on Accession (GATT/CP.3/83), both of which had been
Creferred by that Committee to the CONTRADING PARTIES for final approval.
The CHIRMAN informed the meeting that he Supplementary
Report of the Joint Working Party had been approved by the Tariff
Negotiations Committee at its tenth meeting as containing an alternative
method of effecting accession (GATT/TN.1/SR.10). According to the GATT/CP.3/SR.43
page 2
procedure recommended by that Committee the Executive Secretary, in
consultation with the Chairman and the countries most concerned, should
decide upon a choice between the two methods set out in the two documents.
The recommendation in paragraph (1) of the document GATT/CP.3/56
was approved.
The decision recommended in paragraph .(2) of the document was
approved by a unanimous vote (16 votes to none).
The recommended Protocol of Accession was approved as one of the
alternative instruments of accession.
Following a suggestion of Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) it was
agreed that the word "until" in paragraph 3 of the Model Protocol
might be retained or changed to "on" by the Secretariat as the case may
be when the date in that paragraph was inserted.
Paragraph 1 of the Supplementary Report GATT/CP.3/83 was approved
together with the draft Decision and Model Protocol, as a second
alternative method of effecting accession.
The procedure regarding the adoption of either of these methods
recommended by the Tariff Negotiations Committee as referred to above
by the CHAIRMAN was agreed to by the contracting parties. The
Executive Secretary was accordingly requested to inform the contracting
parties and acceding governments when the final decision had been taken.
The meeting noted the withdrawal of the United Kingdom - Norwegian
proposal referred to in paragraph (2) of the Supplementary Report.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) explained the purpose of the
decision referred to in paragraph (3) of the Supplementary Report and
suggested certain drafting changes therein.
The CHAIRMAN introduced the revised from of the decision
submitted by the Italian Delegation (GATT/CP.3/83/Add.1).
Mr. KING (China) said that his delegation would make a
reservation regarding this decision as he had to consult tariff experts
of his delegation.
The CHAIRMAN replied that this would be taken into account
when the question was taken up under paragraph 12 of Article XVIII of
the Agreement. GATT/CF .3/SR.43
page 3
The decision was approved by the CONTRACTING PARTIES by 16 votes
to none as follows:
"The CONTRACTING PARTIES, on the basis of
Article XXV 5 (a) of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade, decide that, notwithstanding
anything contained in paragraph 13 of Article
XVIII, the Italian Government may continue to
apply to the products listed under the items of
the Italian tariff set out below, notwithstanding
that the duties may later be consolidated in the
schedule of tariff concessions negotiated by the
Italian Government at Annecy, the measures which
it has notified to the CONTRACTING PARTIES under
the terms of paragraph 11 of Article XVIII,
pending a decision by the CONTRCTING PARTIES
under paragraph 12 of Article XVIII.
139 a) and c): raw linseed oil and soya oil;
ex 362 c 2 Beta II: (nitronaphthalene)
413 b synthetic lacquers
1198, 1200, ex 1201; 1202; 1203 a) and c).
1204 a), c), d) and 1207:
radio electric apparatus, tubes, valves and
lamps other than those used for lighting
purposes and accessories and spare parts
for such shots, tubes, etc."
2. Request by Norway for a waiver from obligations to Notify
Application of Annecy Concessions before 3rd April 1950
(GATT/CP.3/84).
Mr. THOMMESSEN (Norway), with reference to the letter
circulated in the dccument referred to above, stated that since the
Fourth Session of the CONTRACTING PARTIES had been scheduled for
23rd February 1950, the question could be considered at that session.
His delegation was therefore prepared to withdraw the request on the
understanding that it would be considered at the Fourth Session.
The CHAIRMAN commended the Norwegian representative for
the spirit of accommoodation and said that it could be included as an
item on the agenda of the next session.
The request was withdrawn by the Norwegian representative with
the understanding that it would be placed on the agenda of the Fourth
Session. GATT/CP.3/SR.43
page 4
3. Notification by Acceding Governments of Non-Discriminatory
Measures under paragraph 11 of Article XVIII.
(GATT/CP.3/58/Add.1).
The CONTRACTING PARTIES considered the Note by the Executive
Secretary and adopted the suggestion therein, that is, to substitute
the date of 30th July 1949 for 15th July 1949 in paragraph 5 (c)
both of the Annecy Protocol of Accession in GATT/CP.3/56 and of the
Annecy Decision on Accession in GATT/CP.3/83.
4. Information to Acceding governments regarding Progress
of Accession.
At the suggestion of Mr. WASSARD (Denmark) who was invited to
address the meeting on behalf of the acceding governments, and of
Mr. THOMMESSEN (Norway) it was agreed that:
1. The Executive Secretary should keep each
acceding government currently informed
of the decisions of contracting parties
regarding its accession.
2. It would be proper for the Executive
Secretary to communicate to the contracting
parties on or about 15 October to remind
them of the fact that a failure to sign
the Protocols or a protocol as the case
may be, would be taken as a negative vote
on the accession of an acceding government.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) stated that Czechoslovakia
would not be able to sign the Protocol or protocols at Annecy on
September 10, but this was simply because of the departure of his
delegation before that date, He would however, be willing to give
each acceding government a letter of assurance that such signature was
intended.
5. Third set of Tariff Negotiations.
The CHAIRMAN introduced the Secretariat Note on the subject
(GATT/CP.3/77 and Corr.1) and drew attention to its Annex II containing
a list of the countries to which invitations might be extended. In GATT/CP.3/SR.43
page 5
view of the imminent conclusion of the session, the Chairman proposed
a procedure under which
(1) a Working Party would be set up to study
the matter in the course of the next few
weeks,
(2) the Working Party would circulate a memo-
randum to the contracting parties and
request them to indicate by an agreed
date whether they agreed that tariff
negotiations should take place in the
manner recommended by the Working Party,
and
(3) the CONTRACTING PARTIES would give their
formal approval of the report of the
Working Party at the Fourth Session.
The Working Party would have for its thief concern the question
of the time schedule for the tariff negotiations as the question of
the venue would be left for discussion at the Fourth Session by the
CONTRACTING PARTIES themselves.
Mr. RODRIGUES (Brazil) thought that the preparation should
not be left entirely to the next session as it would be desirable for
the contracting parties to have a general idea of the time schedule
before the adjournment of this session. Since the selected Working
Group might not be representative of the experience which had been
gained by contracting parties in the past in connection with the
earlier negotiations, its findings might not be as complete or perfect
as to need only a formal approval. In his view, any report presented
by such a Working Party would still require a thorough review by
another larger Working Party at the Fourth Session. Referring to
Annex II to the Secretariat Note, he enquired why Germany was not
included in the list.
The CHAIRMAN agreed that careful attention should be given
to such a report at the Fourth Session but he thought that nevertheless
preliminary steps could be taken at this time, especially regarding Page 6
the study of the time schedule, As had been done prior to the
Second Session in preparation of the Annecy negotiations, the
Executive Secretary could be authorized to send telegrams to certain
countries to enquire about their interest in the proposed negotiations.
As for Western Germany, it would be for the Working Party to consider
and make a recommendation. The Secretariat Note had not included it
because of the indefinite status of that country as it had been
thought that invitations should only be sent to members of the United
Nations and those countries which were seeking United Nations
membership.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) agreed to the procedure
proposed by the CHAIRMAN and suggested that in the first place the
Working Party should make it clear in its report that in the proposed
negotiations the concessions which had been granted by contracting
parties as a result of past negotiations would be taken into account.
With regard to countries to be invited, the Working Party should, as a
rule, concern itself with members of the United Nations, and those
governments listed in the Economic and Social Council Resolution
regarding invitations to the Havana Conference.
Mr. NICOL (New Zealand) was in full agreement with the
proposal to set up a Working Party and suggested that if negotiations
should take place in the latter part of 1950, ending for instance
around January 1, 1951, any subsequent negotiations should be spaced
further away.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) suggested that recommendations
by the Working Party should provide sufficient elasticity to suit the
special circumstances of individual countries as his Government might
wish to consider the question in connection with the pending financial
consultation in Washington next month. Contracting Parties should
therefore not be requested to give their opinion on the recommendations
before October 1st. Referring to the remarks of Mr. NICOL, he felt
that even though the negotiations took place in late 1950, there might
still be need for revision of the earlier schedules early in 1951.
M. GASSIERS (Belgium) was agreeable on the whole to the
suggestions in the Secretariat Note. GATT/CP.3/SR.43
page 7
Referring to the point raised by Mr. SHACKLE, the CHAIRMAN
suggested that the Working Party should be required to submit its
draft memorandum by October 1st but replies should not be required
before October 31st. Regarding the list of countries to be canvassed,
he felt that the Czechoslovakian proposal embodied a principle worthy
of further consideration by the Working Party.
Mr. BOEKSTAL (Netherlands) proposed that instead of the
countries invited to the Havana Conference it should be those
countries which were elegible for membership of the I.T.O. under
Article 71 of the Havana Charter that should be invited to participate
in the negotiations.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) pointed out that although
the military authorities of occupied areas had been invited to send
observers to the Havana Conference, it would not be appropriate to
invite any such authorities, whose status was not clearly defined, to
negotiations, with a view to concluding substantive agreements.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY (United States) gave his support to the
proposals of the Chair regarding the procedure. On the question of
Germany, however, his delegation was unable to define its views at
present. He felt that it would be futile for the CONTRACTING PARTIES
to try to settle questions regarding individual countries at this
stage; they should be left to the Working Party to deal with.
Discussion on this item to be continued at next meeting.
The meeting rose at 12:45 p.m. |
GATT Library | yy051ww9853 | Summary record of the Fourteenth Meetting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy on Thursday, 19 May 1949 at 2.30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, May 19, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Third Session of the Contracting Parties | 19/05/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.14 and GATT/CP.3/SR.13 + Corr.1,2 SR.14 + Corr.1,2 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/yy051ww9853 | yy051ww9853_90060069.xml | GATT_144 | 2,576 | 15,949 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERL SUR RESTRICTED LIMITED C
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS 19 May 1949
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Third Session of the Contracting Parties
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE FOURTEENTH MEETTING
Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy on
Thursday, 19 May 1949 at 2.30 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. Van BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands)
Subjects discussed:
1. Adoption of Emergency Measures to Resolve the Crisis of
the Cuban Textile Industry (GATT/CP.3/23)
2. Working Days for Whitsun.
3. Remarks of the Delegate of France on Document
GATT/CP .3/SR . 11/Corr. 1.
4. Non-Discriminatory Masures notified by the Government
of Ceylon under Article XVIII ( GATT/CP.3/20)
5. Report of Working Party No. 6 on the Australian
Schedule (GATT/CP .3/25)
6. Consideration of the Report of Working Party No.1
on Accession (GATT/CP.3/26) in connection with the
Report of Working Party No. 2 on the Notification by
Acceding Governments of Measures under paragraph 11 of
Article XVIII (GATT/CP.3/21)
1. Adoption of Emergency Measures to resolve the crisis of the
Cuban Textile Industry (GATT/CP.3/23) (Continued)
Upon the proposal of the Chairman, the Contracting Parties
agreed to the following composition of the Working Party which it was
decided to set up at the last meeting: GATT/CP . 3/SR.14
page 2
Brazil
Canada
Ceylon
Cuba
United Kingdom
United States
with Mr. AndrT Philip (France) as
Chairman.
2. Working Days over Whitsun Week-end
Upon a suggestion of Mr. Shackle (U.K.) a discussion followed
resulting in a decision that no meetings of Contracting Parties or of
important Working Parties would be held on Saturday, June 4th, and that
Monday, June 6th, would be a holiday.
3. Remarks of the Delegate of France on Document GATT/CP.3/SR.11/Corr.1.
Mr. LECUYER (France) referring to a rectification contained in
the document quoted above wished to place on record his position in the
following terms:
(i) It was never the intention of the French Delegation to give
approval to the terms of the Note issued by the Secretariat on the
position of Palestine in relation to the General Agreement. Moreover,
the French Delegation notes that the part of the Note dealing with
transmission to a successor state of obligations contracted by the
original state was not considered in the course of the discussion.
(ii) As regards the position of Great Britain, it is certain that during
the validity of its mandate, the United Kingdom was competent to contract
international obligations on behalf of Palestine. But it is equally
certain that termination of its mandate deprived Great Britain of this
power and that Great Britain has retained no obligation as a Contracting
Party in respect of the territory of Palestine.
(iii) As regards Israel, the French Government considers that this State
is bound to respect the obligations contracted on its behalf by the
Government of the United Kingdom. Undoubtedly, Israel is entitled to GATT/CP.3/SR.14
show that any of these obligations has consequences harmful to its
interest and may request a release from such obligations. But in this
case, an entirely different point of international law is involved, for
the application of which in the particular case of the General Agreement
the presence of a qualified representative of the State concerned would
be required.
The CHAIRMAN thought it was not for the Contracting Parties to
settle the legal point at this moment but only to take note of Mr.
Lucuyer's statement.
4. Non-Discrimnatory Measures notified by the Government of Ceylon
under Article XVIII. (GATT/CP.3/20)
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) proposed referring the examination
of the measures notified by the Goverment of Ceylon to Working Party 2
on Article XVIII as the measures clearly fell under this Article.
Mr. USHANI (Pakistan) stated that the document before the
Contracting Parties was the first of its kind to be submitted in the
sense that the protective measures in question were those provided for
under paragraphs 6 and 7 of Article XVIII which require automatic
concurrence by the Contracting Parties. His delegation attached great
importance to the procedure that would be followed. He suggested the
establishment of a new Working Party rather than the submission of the
measures to the existing Working Party whose terms of references
appeared not exactly to cover the question on hand.
Mr.SHACKLE (United Kingdom) contended that in view of its
extensive mandate, Working Party 2 was suitable for the purpose.
The CHAIRMAN informed the Contracting Parties that unless
there were some very special reason it would be most useful if the
measures were referred to Working Party 2, which had gone ahead very GATT/CP .3/SR.14
Page 4
quickly with its work; moreover the present Session had shown a tendency
to set up a large number of working parties, and delegations were
finding it difficult to appoint representatives.
Mr. USHANI (Pakistan) pointed out that the terms of reference
of Working Party 2 referred to the examination of statements submitted
by contracting parties in support of measures notified under paragraph 11
of Article XVIII and that that was a mention in the agenda of the review
of Procedures for new measures in relation to the provisions of article
XVIII, but this review, to his understanding would be confined to
measures provided for under other paragraphs of article XVIII than
paragraph 7, which requires no review but automatic concurrence by the
Contracting Parties. In the present case paragraph 7 of Article XVIII
applied and the contracting parties were required by the provisions of
paragraph 10 to take a decision regarding the advice to be given to the
applicant Contracting Party within 15 days of the receipt of an
application. As experience of working parties had shown that a decision
would not be reached within 15 days and that the provisions of paragraph
7 were to be held to be practically automatic in their operation, he
suggested that a small working party be established which would ascertain
which measures related to consolidated items and which did not.
Mr. REISMAN (Canada) maintained that Working Party 2 was the
appropriate body and that paragraph 10 made it perfectly clear that the 15
days referred to thetime limit within which the CONTRACTING PARTIES were
expected to advise the applicant of the date by which it would be notified
whether or not it was to be released from the relevant obligation. If any
contracting parties had any worries about the composition of the working
party, he thought that the established practice should reassure them that
any interested party would be allowed to attend meetings and make state-
ments. GATT/CP .3/SR.14
page 5
The CHAIRMAN re-affirmed this right of contracting Parties.
Mr. JAYASURIYA (Ceylon) said his delegation had relied so
much on the automatic nature of paragraph 7 of Article XVIII that they
had not given much thought to the choice or composition of the working
Party.
Mr. USMANI(Pakistan) stated that according to his under-
standing of paragraph 10, urgency of action by the Contracting Parties
was required only in respect of protective measures under paragraphs 7
and 8 of that article. Under paragraph 8, the measures referred to
might violate obligations relating to bound items under Article II but
under paragraph 7, the measures would be only those which were not in
conflict with article II but with provisions of Part II of the Gatt.
In as much as the present Contracting Parties are not applying the pro-
visions of Part II fully, it followed that in the first sentence of
paragraph 10 the words "released from the relevant obligation" would refer
to obligations under paragraph 8 and not paragraph 7 as, under the latter,
there were no "obligations" so long as Part II of the Gatt was not
enforced. He stated that, in the case of the measures to be taken by
Ceylon, there alight be some measures which affect the bound items in the
Gatt schedule of Ceylon. In such a case the special Working Party be
wanted to see formed woud examine the measures and decide whether to
release Ceylon or not.
In the view of the CHAIRMAN it would not be appropriate to
discuss at this point Mr. Usmani's interpretation and suggested referring
it to Working Party 2 with a request for an interpretation of paragraph
10 of Article XVIII.
Mr. USMANI(Pakistan) asked whether there would be an
addition to the agenda of the working Party and, if so, what would be
the terms. GATT/CP.3/SR.14
page 6
The CHAIRMAN said the terms of reference would be to study
the proposal submitted by the delegation of Ceylon and to report to
the contracting parties as soon as possible in the light of the points
raised in the discussion at the present meeting.
Dr. BENES (Czechoslovakia), who said his country was not a
member of the working party, was re-assured of his right to appear
before it and submit any questions and statements.
5. Report of Working Party No .6 on the Schedule of Australia
Mr. JOHNSON (New Zealand) introduced the report, by pointing
out briefly its salient points, and recommended its acceptance by the
CONTRACTING PARTIES.
Mr. BANERJI (India) wished it to be recorded that he had held
discussions with the Australian Delegation and that agreement at delega-
tion level had been reached subject, however, to definite instructions
which he was expecting from his Government. He did not want to hold
up the work of the CONTRACTING PARTIES but he had to reserve his position
in order to be able to revert to the matter, should it be necessary.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY (United States) proposed that the report be
approved, and be referred to the Working Party on Rectifications in order
that the technical side of the question might be considered.
Mr. JOHNSEN wished to add that it was the assumption of the
Working Party that the report would be so referred.
The proposal to refer the report to the Working Party on Rectifica-
tions with the special request to consider the form in which the modifica-
tions to the Australian schedules will be incorporated in the General
Agreement was approved by the CONTRACTING PARTIES. GATT/CP.3/SR .14
Pa ge 7
6. Consideration of the Report of Working Party 1 on Accession
(Document GATT/CP.3/26) in connection with the Report of
Working Party No. 2 on the notification by Acceding Governments
of measures under paragraph 11 of article XVIII (Document GATT/CP.3/21)
The CHAIRMAN, in proposing that the report on the notifica-
tion of measures be taken first, referred to a phrase in paragraph 3
of the Report which might induce a reader to think that the duration
of the present session beyond 15 June was envisaged. He wished to
make it clear that there was no reason to think that the present session
would continue beyond the date fixed.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) as Chairman of Working Party 2
outlined briefly the contents of the Report which proposed 15 June as
the date by which measures were to be notified under paragraph 11 of
Article XVIII and that the date of the 15th of May 1949 be taken as
the one on which any non-discriminatory measures should be in force
to be eligible for the purposes of paragraph 11. The Working Party
in proposing these dates had borne in mind the need to give Acceding
Governments sufficient time in which to compile lists of the measures
in force and also the need to avoid the risk of an Acceding Government
having to abrogate existing legislation if a date were set too far in
the past.
The report was adopted unanimously by the CONTRACTING PARTIES
for communication to the joint Working Party on Accession and also
to all Acceding Governments.
The CHAIRMAN proposed to take up at this point the Report
of Working Party No. 1 which, if adopted, would also be transmitted
to the Joint Working Party on Accession and then to the Tariff
Negotiations Committee. GATT/CP.3/SR. 14
page 8
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) as Chairman of the Working
Party on Accession, pointed out that the CONTRACTING PARTIES had
before them a long and complicated document which,rather than read
in extenso, he would briefly summarize.
The Working Party had begun with a draft submitted by the
Secretariat which consisted of a draft decision by the CONTRACTING
PARTIES and a draft Protocol embodying the terms of accession in
the form of a collateral contract to the General Agreement; it
had been found to be the most practical solution and two such
documents were annexed to the Report.
Special emphasis was laid by Mr. SHACKLE upon one variant in
the Working Party's draft Protocol with respect to the Secretariat
draft; the Working Party proposed that upon the entry into force
of the Protocol for an Accounting Government, that Government would
be required to apply the General Agreement provisionally and would
thus become a Contracting Party enjoying the benefits of the Agree-
ment.
He also wished to call the attention of the meeting to the
attitude taken by the representative of Cuba in connection with the
phrase contained in paragraph 3 of the draft Protocol: "and upon
the entry into force of those concessions that schedule shall be
regarded as a schedule to the General Agreement relating to that
Contracting Party". Mr. Shackle wished to emphasize that the
words "to be regarded as a schedule" were not to be taken as a
modification of the Geneva Schedules but as an incorporation of
the new in the old. Cuba had presented an amendment to the effect
that the Schedules contained in Annex B should become an integral
part of Part I of the General Agreement as provided in Article II,
paragraph 7, for the Geneva Schedules. In the view of the Cuban
Delegation, no modifications, not even rectifications, could be
made in the Geneva Schedules before January 1 1951, except by GATT/CP.3/SR. 14
page 9
unanimous agreement of all Contracting Parties. The Cuban Delegation
had therefore reserved its rights upon this point.
The CHAIRMAN proposed to read the Report and submit it to
the meeting, section by section, after which the draft decision and
draft Protocol would be examined paragraph by paragraph.
Mr. HERRERA-ARANGO (Cuba) pointed out that Cuba took a very
serious view of the matter and that he had made their view clear from
the beginning. They certainly had no desire to hinder accession but
did not wish thereby to do violence to the terms of the Agreement.
A statement to the CONTRACTING PARTIES had been prepared by his
delegation, but in view of the far-reaching effects of the decisions
to be taken, they had thought it desirable to submit it to their
Government. He consequently asked the Chairman if he could be given
time to present his case after receiving a reply from Havana.
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that the Report would have to be
discussed with Acceding Governments and that urgent submission to
them was desirable. He therefore proposed that the meeting proceed
with the examination without prejudice to the rights of the Cuban
Delegation or of other delegations to present observations if they
thought necessary.
With reference to section 2, Mr. BANERJI (India) asked for
clarification of the statement that a single decision was proposed
to over all eleven Acceding Governments without prejudice to the
possibility of having more than one decision if desirable. He asked
how could a later decision be taken. He wished to take this opportunity
to inform the meeting that his Delegation was also awaiting instructions
from their Government on the whole matter and reserved the right to
revert to it accordingly.
The meeting adjourned at 5 p.m. |
GATT Library | kc171pp6550 | Summary record of the Fourth Meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy, on Thursday, 14 April 1949, at 10 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, April 14, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Third Session of the Contracting Parties | 14/04/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.4 and GATT/CP.3/SR.4 + SR.5 + Corr.1,2 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/kc171pp6550 | kc171pp6550_90060033.xml | GATT_144 | 1,755 | 11,717 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR LIMITED B
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS GATT/CP.3/SR.4
14 April 1949.
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Third Session of the Contracting Parties
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE FOURTH MEETING
Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy, on
Thursday, 14 April 1949, at 10 a.m.
Chairman: Hon. L. D. WILGRESS (Canada)
Subjects discussed:
1. Non-discriminatory Measures Notified under Article
XVIII.
2. Import Restrictions Imposed by the Union of South
Africa.
1. Examination of the Statements Submitted in Support of the
Non-discriminatoy Measures Notified under Paragraph 11
Mr. USMANI (Pakistan) said that the contracting parties
were required to apply the provisions of Article XVIII only to
the fullest extent not inconsistent with their existing
legislation, and it should be understood that the procedures
laid down at previous sessions should be applicable only to those
contracting parties whose legislation permitted observance. He
suggested that the procedure needed modification insofar as it
related to measures which were covered by paragraph 7 (a) of
Article XVIII.
The CHAIRMAN said he did not think that any government
would be prevented by existing legislation from acting in
accordance with the procedure which merely required a government
applying such measures to notify the Contracting Parties. As
for the proposed Working Party, he suggested it should be asked GATT/CP .3/SR.4
page 2
to examine the statements submitted by contracting parties in support
of the measures notified under paragraph 11 of Article XVIII, the
objections lodged by contracting parties which consider their
interests to be materially affected and the eligibility of these
measures for treatment under the provisions, and also to consider
the procedures for the examination of measures notified under
paragraph 11 by new contracting parties and of new measures under
other paragraphs of that same article.
Mr. EVANS (United States) asked whether under those proposed
terms of reference questions on the adherence to the time schedule
could be raised.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) suggested the terms of
reference would be made as broad as possible so as to cover all
points raised at the plenary meeting. Mr. EVANS (United States)
concurred in this suggestion.
Mr. REISMAN (Canada) thought that the terms of reference
proposed by the Chairman did Not fully cover the points raised by
the representatives of India and Pakistan and should be broadened.
The principle of broad terms of reference should henceforth be
applied to all working parties.
The CHAIRMAN submitted a re-draft on the basis of the
suggestions in which was included the phrase "in the light of the
discussions at this session".
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) said that the Working Party should
be understood to have power to recommend as to whether the interests
of any contracting party were materially affected.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) suggested the phrase "and to
take into account the points mentioned during the discussions" for
the words suggested by the Chairman. GATT/CP .3/SR .4
page 3.
The following terms of reference were approved:
(a) To examine the statements submitted by contracting parties
in support of measures notified under paragraph 11 of Article
XVIII and the objections to these measures lodged by
contracting parties which consider their interests to be
affected.
(b) To take account of the points raised in the discussions
at this session.
Upon the approval of the terms of reference, the CHAIRMAN
proposed the following contracting parties as members of the Working
Party under the Chairmanship of Mr. HEWITT (Australia):
Australia India
Canada Netherlands
Chile Syria
Cuba United Kingdom
France United States
The composition of the Working Party was approved.
2. The Import Restrictions Imposed by the Union of South Africa.
(GATT/CP/3 and CP.3/3 Add.1 with Annex 1.)
The CHAIRMAN reported that the representatives of Australia
and the United States had been unable to reach agreement on the terms
of reference for the proposed working party, and the Australian
representative had submitted a draft, which was before the meeting
for consideration.
Mr. HERRERA-ARANGO (Cuba) wished it to be clearly indicated
in the terms of reference that the "possible effect" to be examined
was that of the measures which were actually applied.
Mr. ROWE (Southern Rhodesia) maintained that it was
unnecessary to examine the effect of the actual restrictions on other GATT/CP .3/SR.4
page 4.
contracting parties, since any contracting party which considered
itself adversely affected by the measures could have recourse to
the complaint procedure under Article XII or XXIII.
Mr. BRONZ (United States) thought that it was clear from
the context that the term "possible effect" referred to both the
trade restrictions actually proposed and any alternative measures
which the contracting parties might suggest as preferable. The
Australian draft, in his opinion, would unduly restrict the capacity
of the working party; the latter part of the text would have the
effect of exclusing entirely any consideration of the procedure
followed by the Union of South Africa.
Mr. HERRERA-ARANGO (Cuba) supported the view of the
representative of the United States that the terms of reference
should be as broad as possible. The consultation to be carried
out under paragraph 4 (a) should cover all the matters on which
consultation would have taken place if prior consultation had been
possible.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) thought the interpretation of
paragraph 4 (a) given by the representative of Southern Rhodesia
was a plausible one, for "such measures" clearly referred to the
"alternative corrective measures" immediately preceding that clause.
For consultation on the adverse effects of restrictions on another
Contracting Party an entirely different procedure was provided in
paragraph 4 (d), and the procedure in paragraph 4 (a) did not
envisage the Contracting Parties taking joint action on their own
initiative. The Australian proposal had been criticized as being
unduly restrictive on the scope of the Working Party, but the
Contracting Parties had no mandate to act beyond the terms of the
General Agreement and the latter part of the Australian draft was
certainly not more limiting than paragraph 4 (a) which was itself GATT /CP .3/SR.4
page 5
limited in scope; to delete that part would enlarge the field of
operations of the Contracting Parties beyond the provisions of the
Agreement.
The Australian delegation, though it agreed in principle
that objective consideration should be given to this procedural
question, believed it to be important that free choice by a
contracting party between prior or posterior consultation should
in no case be prejudiced.
Mr. THOMPSON-MACAUSLAND (United Kingdom) thought that the
interpretation of paragraph 4 (a) by the United States represent-
ative would suggest that a contracting party applying a restriction
would be required to consider possible alternative measures during
prior consultation, The United Kingdom Government, however, had
always attached great importance to the observance of the utmost
secrecy provided for in paragraph 4 (e) of Article XII, which
precluded any detailed study of prospective measures. Since no
contrating party was required to indicate the timing, scope, etc
of prospective measures when it deemed inadvisable to do so,
paragraph 4 (a) had been so worded as to indicate that consultation
in advance was desired only when it is not impracticable. This
being the case, the terms of references would be too narrow if they
excluded a review of the effect of measures already adopted.
Dr. de VRIES (Netherlands) thought that "alternative
measures" should be taken to cover both existing or proposed and
alternative measure. Consultation presupposed the possibility
of modification or substitution of originally proposed measures,
and consideration of suggested alternatives to the original measures
should not be precluded merely because secrecy was to be observed.
He favoured terms of reference as broad as possible in order to
avoid difficulties in the Working Party's proceedings, and therefore GATT/CP .3/SR.4
page 6
preferred the draft proposed by the Chairman.
M. LECUYER (France) said that he was also in favour of broad
terms of reference to enable the Working Party to consider all points
mentioned at the plenary meeting and all aspects of the question
including commercial, economic and financial matters. He supported
the representative of the Netherlands in advocating the first draft
although the Australian draft did not seem to him to be over-
respective.
Mr. BRONZ (United States) agreed with the interpretation of
paragraph 4 (a) given by the representative of the Netherlands. As
for the observance of secrecy, paragraph 4 (e) only meant to enjoin
the contracting parties to make provision for secrecy in the conduct
of consultations, and it should not be carried to the point of
limiting the scope of consultations. If there were to be no
discussions on the precise nature of prospective measures, which
might be suggested by contracting parties as preferable alternatives,
there would be no way of bringing the consultation to a useful
conclusion. The Australian representative based his objection to
reviewing the procedure on the ground that the practicability of
prior consultation was not open to discussion, but in all Judicial
proceedings procedual matters were challengeable as well as matters
of substance. The action of a contracting party would certainly
be open to question if it deliberately avoided instituting
consultations. when there was every opportunity for it to do so. In
the present case, the South African Government had communicated to
the Chairman of the Contracting Parties, but the Contracting Parties
had not taken any joint action on their own initiative and had
instituted a consultation only after a request had been presented by
the United States. GATT/CP .3/SR.4
page 7.
Mr. HERRERA-ARGO (Cuba) agreed with the representatives
of the Netherlands and the United States that the interpretation
of the Australian representative was too restrictive.
Mr. PERRY (Canada) said that it would be preferable it the
question of correct procedure could be dealt with without direct
reference to the Union of South Africa. The Australian
interpretation of paragraph 4 (a) was unacceptable to his delegation.
There was no reason why the Contracting Parties should be precluded
from reviewing under that paragraph any matter which might be
regarded as inconsistent with any paragraph other than 4 (a) of
the Article. The Contracting Parties should regard themselves
as completely free to discuss frankly all relevant matters and
therefore should consider under paragraph 4 (a) all the circumstances
which prompted the restrictions. His delegation therefore would
fully endorse the proposal made by the Chairman.
Mr. NORVAL (Union of South Africa) said that although he
agreed that all relevant matters should be discussed by the
Working Party, it did not necessarily follow that all points
that had been raised during the discussion were relevant,
Discussion on this item to be continued at the next
meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 12.45 p.m. |
GATT Library | sq166hw9758 | Summary record of the Nineteenth Meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy, on Tuesday, 31 May, 1949, at 2.30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, May 31, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 31/05/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.19 and GATT/CP.3/SR.19 + Corr.1 SR.20 + Corr.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/sq166hw9758 | sq166hw9758_90060089.xml | GATT_144 | 2,600 | 16,237 | AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS AND
ACCORD GENERAL SUR
LES TARIFS
DOUANIERS
RESTRICTED
LIMITED C
GATT/CP. 3/SR. 19
31 May, 1949
TRADE
ET LE COMMERCE
ORIGINAL : ENGLISH
Contracting Parties
Third Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE NINETEENTH MEETING
Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy,
on Tuesday, 31 May, 1949, at 2.30 p.m.
Chairman:
Subjects
Mr. L. D. WILGRESS (Canada)
discussed:
1. CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION ON INTERPRETATION
OF "ENTRY INTO NEGOTIATIONS" FOR THE PURPOSES
OF ARTICLE XXXV.
2. REQUEST OF THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN FOR A
DECISION UNDER ARTICLE XXIII CONCERNING THE
REBATE OF EXCISE DUTIES ON CERTAIN PRODUCTS
EXPORTED FROM INDIA.
GENERAL GATT/CP. 3/SR. 19
page 2
1. CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION ON INTERPRETATION OF "ENTRY INTO
NEGOTIATIONS" FOR THE PURPOSES OF ARTICLE XXXV (Document A/W/7)
The CHAIRMAN said that he had expressed the view at the
previous meeting that it was better not to adopt the proposal of the
Tariff Negotiations Committee. He had also recommended to maintain the
definition of "entry into negotiations" as laid down in paragraph 2 of
Document GATT/TN.1/A/4. Some contracting parties had agreed with the
Chair and some others had emphasised that Article XXXV should be used
only in the most exceptional circumstances and that a remedy could be
found in Article XXV, 5 (b). He added that if the definition in
Document GATT/TN.1/A/4 were acceptable, a procedure could be worked out
that would apply to Article XXV, 5 (a) and (b), and which would afford
relief to contracting parties which find themselves unable to extend
m-f-n treatment to acceding governments with which negotiations prove
unsatisfactory; that procedure might be available before an acceding
government became a contracting party.
Mr. OLDINI (Chile) recalled that at the previous meeting some
contracting parties had expressed the opinion that the definition sub-
mitted by theTariff Negotiations Committee constituted an amendment to
Article XXXV. The representative of Belgium had said rightly that
Article XXXV was an exception to the m-f-n rule and that it should be used
restrictively. He agreed with the premises of the argument expressed by
some representatives, but he was unable to agree with their conclusions.
The CONTRACTING PARTIES were requested to interpret restrictively not the
text of an article but the intentions that had been in the mind of the
drafters. If the drafters had wished to have it used restrictively, they
should have inserted into the text their intentions and reasons for such
a restrictive use. It was a general legal principle that if a text had
to be used in a particular manner and did not have general application, GATT/CP.3/SR. 19
page 3
the historical background of the purpose should be inserted into the text
of the legal document. That had not been done at Havana and the con-
tracting parties were confronted, in the case of Article XXXV, with a
general text. Having established that point, he said that in his opinion
the text submitted by the Tariff Negotiations Committee did not constitute
an amendment to Article XXXV. He compared paragraph 2 of Document
GATT/TN.1/A/4 ith the text submitted by the Committee and he came to the
conclusion that the only difference between the two texts were the few
words added at the end namely: "and is notified by both parties to the
Secretariat". That addition, he thought, could not constitute an
amendment to Article XXXV. The Chairman had said that it did, and he
wished to reserve the position of his government should a formal
resolution be passed. He thought that if the CONTRACTING PARTIES had
to give up the use of Article XXXV and use Article XXV instead, they
would have to know the exact procedure to be followed and he suggested
that the Tariff Negotiations Committee be requested to work out and
submit such a procedure.
Mr. HSUEH (China) agreed that Article XXXV had been drafted for
special purposes. Nobody could deny, however, that the wording of that
article was of a general nature. If some contracting parties had already
benefited from the provisions of Article XXXV, it would not be fair to
deny its application to other contracting parties. He recalled that
when the use of Article XXXV as a safeguard had been mentioned in
Working Party 1, there had been no opposition to it. If the CONTRACTING
PARTIES decided to refrain from using .Articles XXXV and XXV, 5 (b), they
would be at a clear disadvantage with regard to the acceding governments.
He therefore wished to support the recommendation submitted by the
Committee. GATT/CP.3/SR.19
page 4
Mr. HE RRERA ARANGO (Cuba) said that his delegation had always
had a keen interest in the discussions on Article XXXV. He had been the
first to ask the Chair for the interpretation of the meaning of "entry into
negotiations". The Chairman had answered him then that in cases where
no exchange of offers took place, delegations would not be deemed to have
entered into negotiations. His delegation had proceeded on that basis
and he had pointed out to the acceding governments with which he had been
negotiating that those negotiations were conducted on a preliminary basis
and he had reserved the right of using Article XXXV if no basis for formal
negotiations could be found. In his opinion, the interpretation suggested
by the Tariff Negotiations Committee expressed the same sense as the
ruling which the Chair had given earlier. Document A/W/7 was a good
interpretation of the ruling previously given by the Chair and only
ensured that no contracting party would be at a disadvantage with regard
to acceding governments. He therefore wished to support the recommendation
submitted by the Committee.
Mr. LECUYER (France) said that his delegation was considering
the problem under discussion without any prejudice as it had already
entered into negotiations with all of the acceding governments. He
recalled that, in English law, interpretation of legal texts was based
purely on the text as such, whereas in French law there was a general
tendency to consider circumstances and intentions that lay behind any
legal document. Article XXXV was drafted for specific aims and should
be applied only to specific cases, but he understood the point made by
the representative of Chile that the text of Article XXXV was of a general
nature and did not convey the restrictive intentions of its drafters.
Nevertheless, in existing circumstances, he thought that more stress
should be laid on the practical side than on the legal side of the problem.
The aim of the Tariff Negotiations Committee when presenting their GATT/CP.3/SR. 19
page 5
recommendation was to expedite bilateral negotiations. He suggested
that, while reserving their legal attitude, the CONTRACTING PARTIES should
take up the proposal put forward by the representative of Chile and
instruct Working Party I to work out a practical procedure.
Professor de VRIES (Netherlands) agreed with the interpretation
given by the Chairman with regard to Article XXXV. In his opinion it
was contrary to the spirit of Article XXXV to give an interpretation
which was not originaIly intended. He recalled that at the 1947 Session
there were cases.. where countries had negotiated for several months without
coming to any agreement. He had in mind especially, the negotiations
that he had then conducted on behalf of the Benelux countries with the
Delegation of Cuba and which had lasted for several months but which
had not been successful; offers had been exchanged and, when viewed
from the present time, it would seem to him that those negotiations could
not be called just exploratory talks. He agreed with the representative
of Belgium, namely, that the CONTRACTING PARTIES should await the end of
negotiations and then consider jointly the results of negotiations and to
take a vote with regard to acceding governments on the basis of the
nature of the negotiations that had been conducted.
Mr. DESAI (India) supported the ruling given by the Chairman,
and said that questions of procedure and of interpretation of the General
Agreement should be dealt with on the basis of the wide and noble
objectives underlying the Agreement and which were mentioned in its
preamble.
Dr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) said that he was aware of the
special position of Article XXXV. It was an established rule, not only
in Anglo-Saxon law but also in the law of other countries and of the
International Court of Justice, that as long as a text was clear no GATT/CP.3/SR.19
page 6
interpretation was necessary; historical intentions and background were
considered only if the text did not appear to be clear. In his opinion
the text of Article XXXV was very clear and therefore did not require
interpretation. He recalled that if, as a result of a two-thirds majority
vote, he was expected to extend m treatment to a country with which he
had been unable to conclude satisfactory negotiations, the Government and
Parliament of his country would have to give it approval and he doubted
whether, on such a basis, legislative approval would be given.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) recalled that when the Chairman at the
beginning of the present Session, had suggested the arrangements to be
made with regard to the scheduling of negotiations, he had raised the
question of the relation of such a procedure to cases where the poss-
ibilities for trade were small. He had thought that it should be open
to delegations to meet and in the course of informal discussions to see
whether an initial basis for negotiations existed. This position had
been confirmed by the Chairman and re-affirmed by the Tariff Negotiations
Working Party in GATT/TN.1/A/4. The recommendation of the Tariff
Negotiations Committee that was under discussion was similar to the basis
from which the Committee had started its work on 11 April 1949, with
only one reservation, namely, the implication that a provision exchange
of offers might be required by one party prior to the formal exchange of
offers. Because of that, he thought that the ruling given by the Chairman
and contained also in GATT/TN.1/A/4 on which the conference had proceeded
since its commencument was preferable to the subsequent interpretation by
the Tariff Negotiations Committee. He thought moreover that most points
raised during the present discussion properly came within the sphere of
the bilateral tariff discussions and should be settled in that context.
However, it was the delay in some negotiations that had now drawn
attention to Article XXXV and Article XXV 5 (b). It should be possible GATT/CP.3/SR.19
page 7
at the present stage for parties to bilateral discussions to come to a
conclusion whether a real basis fornegotiation existed, thus to decide
whether to enter into negotiations or not. But it was a problem that
could only be settled in each set of bilateral discussions. If a specific
problem later arose regarding the absence of negotiations in particular
cases and it also affected the mechanics of Article XXXV, a safeguard
existed, as the Chairman had pointed out, in paragraph 2 of that Article
and the Contracting Parties could review the position. With regard to
the Chairman's suggestion on the use of Article XXV he agreed that its
possible operation could usefully be examined, but he was not sure that
that Article could be applied in its entirety before an acceding govern-
ment became a Contracting Party.
Mr. JOHNSEN (New Zealand) said, that he hoped to conclude
negotiations with all those acceding governments where there was a real
basis for negotiations. He was not concerned therefore with the
application of Article XXXV. Exploratory talks had been necessary in
certain cases, especially where there had been a lack of information with
regard to the necessary statistics. He considered the exchange of offers
as the criterion for "entering into negotiations". He wished to draw
attention to the distinction that existed between cases where a basis for
negotiations was lacking and where there was no scope. In the latter case
the provisions of Article XXXV could not be invoked. It was nevertheless
desirable to remove doubts with regard to the former case. He had found
himself in a position last week with regard to an acceding government where
he had found that there was very little trade involved and therefore no
scope for negotiations but, nevertheless, his Government would grant m-f-n
treatment. He thought that the position with regard to Article XXXV
could be clarified if it were decided that in similar cases the Secretariat
should be notified that there was no scope for negotiations but that m-f-n GATT/CP.3/SR .19
page 8
treatment had been mutually granted and that the Tariff Negotiations
Committee should decide in cases where one party maintained that there
was scope for negotiations but where the other party denied the scope for
any negotiations.
The CHAIRMAN said that it appeared to be generally agreed that
negotiations started when two negotiating teams exchanged lists of offers.
He therefore proposed that the question under consideration be left as
framed in Document GATT/TN.1/A/4, and that Working Party I be asked to
work out the procedure to be applied under Article XXV by those contracting
parties that were not satisfied with their negotiations with acceding
governments ; it being understood that further consideration might be
given to the matter if further clarification was necessary after Working
Party I had presented its report. It was so agreed.
2. REQUEST OF THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN FOR DECISION UNDER ARTICLE
XXIII CONCERNING REBATE OF EXCISE DUTIES ON CERTAIN PRODUCTS
EXPORTED FROM INDIA (GATT/CP.3/6)
At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. HASNIE (Pakistan)
introduced the document under consideration. He said he had been
instructed to state that the circumstances had changed since the day when
he had requested the CHAIRMAN of the CONTRACTING PARTIES to put the subject
on the Agenda of the present Session. He recalled the history of the case
and said that in the meantime the Governments of India and Pakistan had
concluded an agreement whose first article read as follows :
"1. The following decision has been reached as a result of recent
discussions between India and Pakistan with effect from 1st June 1949.
Each Dominion will grant full rebate of excise on excisable
commodities exported to the other Dominion if such rebates are given
on export of the commodities to any other country. Further, for a
period of one year from the same date, the two Governments agree t page 9
give such rebate on all commodities that are at present excisable
or may, during the period, be made subject to excise duties
irrespective of whether such rebates are given on export to other
countries or not."
It gave him personally, and his Government, great pleasure to bring to
the attention of the CONTRACTING PARTIES the second paragraph of the
agreement, which read as follows:
"2. In view of clause 1 above, Pakistan Government will withdraw
their complaint before the Contracting Parties regarding rebate of
excise duties."
He therefore begged leave to withdraw the item from the Agenda. He
wished to thank the Chairman for the assistance given by him to the
Governments of Pakistan and India, and he also thanked the Indian dele-
gation and the Indian Government for settling the issue in a very amicable
manner.
Mr. DESAI (India) expressed his thanks to the representative
of Pakistan for his kind words and to the CHAIRMAN of the CONTRACTING
PARTIES for his kindness and consideration. He was happy that a solution
had been found to satisfy both his own Government and the Government of
Pakistan.
The CHAIRMAN thanked on behalf of all the CONTRACTING PARTIES
the representative for Pakistan for his encouraging announcement and he
congratulated the Governments of India and Pakistan on the agreement they
had reached.
The meeting rose at 5 p.m. |
GATT Library | xb400gg8393 | Summary record of the Ninth Meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy, on Monday 25 April 1949 at 2.30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, April 25, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Third Session of the Contracting Parties | 25/04/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.9 and GATT/CP.3/SR.9 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/xb400gg8393 | xb400gg8393_90060051.xml | GATT_144 | 3,461 | 21,882 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR RESTRICTED
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS LIMITED B
GATT/CP. 3/SR. 9
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE 25 April 1949
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Third Session of the Contracting Parties
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE NINETH MEETING
Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy,
on Monday 25 April 1949 at 2.30 p.m.
Chairman: Dr. H. van BLANKENSTEIN (the Netherlands)
Subjects discussed:
1. Interim Agreement for a Customs Union between South Africa
and Southern Rhodesia (continuation)
2. Request of the Government of Brazil for Rectifications of
Schedule III.
3. Request of the Government of Australia for the Replacement
of Schedule I by a revised Schedule adjusted to a new value-
for-duty basis.
4.. Examination in the light of Article IIl of the circumstances
in which Brazil imposed certain internal taxes on certain
products of foreign origin.
1. Interim Agreement for a Customs Union between South Africa and
Southern Rhodesia: (continuation) (Document GATT/CP.3/9 )
M. LECUYER (France) recalled the interest which French delegations
had shown in this question at previous sessions. He Considered the
present Agreement required very careful study because it was the first
of its a kind to come before the CONTRACTING PARTIES and the treatment
accorded it would set a precedent to be applied when considering other
customs unions.
He felt the Interim Agreement now before the CONTRACTING PARTIES GATT/CP.3/SR. 9
page 2
established a free-trade area rather than a customs union. The
setting up of a common tariff was relegated to second place. The
date when a single customs territory would be established was not
fixed and a considerable length of time was considered necessary for
its establishment. This was understandable in view of the very
different economic structure of the two countries and of the fact
that they were both in a stage of industrial and commercial evolution.
But the interim Agreement constituted a sort of preference system
between two countries within the framework of another preference
system- that of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
There were several questions of detail which his delegation
would raise when the interim Agreement was discussed by a Working
Party, but he wished to draw attention to two points. First,
Article 25 of this Agreement stated that:
"For the purpose of this Agreement the Territory of South
West Africa shall be regarded as part of the Unon".
This was a delicate matter involving international questions.
Secondly, the representative of neither country had said whether
the interim Agreement had already become effective. Was it the
intention of the two governments to await the views which might be
expressed by CONTRACTING PARTIES during the present meeting?
Dr. LAMSVELT (the Netherlands) welcomed the interim Agreement.
His delegation would raise points of detail in the Working Party,
but he wished to make the following general remarks. First, he
assumed that the Working Party would study it in the light of the old
text of Article XXIV which differed from the new text in that it did
not mention a free-trade area. Secondly, the Netherlands delegation,
while recognizing the difficulties, thought that the period of ten
years foreseen for the establishment of the union was somewhat long.
Finally, he enquired what would be the implications of the interim
Agreement on the customs union which he understood existed between GATT/CP.3/SR.9
page 3
Southern Rhodesia and Nethern Rhodesia.
M. CASSIERS (Belgium) agreed with the views expressed by the
delegate for France and suggested the CONTRACTING PARTIES should ask
the two countries to submit a statement of progress at a relatively
early date; examination of the question should not be postponed for
five years.
Dr. NORVAL (South Africa) thought the two main points raised on
which the two governments concerned had to satisfy the CONTRACTING
PARTIES were 1) whether or not it was their intention to enter into
a customs union, and 2) whether the interim Agreement was likely to
result in such a customs union within a reasonable length of time.
As regards the first point, he referred to his statement and that of
the representative of Southern Rhodesia at the last meeting and
stressed that it was the earnest intention of both governments to enter
into a customs union. From the remarks of the United States delegate
and others he had thought there was no doubt about that intention.
As for the question of time, he repeated the information he had given
concerning the various progress reports which would be submitted to the
CONTRACTING PARTIES. The two governments did not insist on a minimum
of ten years; it might be found that the rate of progress was much
more rapid than they anticipated. He did not think it possible to
give any further information to a Working Party at the present time.
Mr. ROWE (Southern Rhodesia), referring to the remarks of the
delegate of France, thought that possibly the fact had been overlooked
that this was not a customs union, but an interim Agreement, under the
terms of paragraph 2(b) of Article XXIV, leading up to the establishment
of a customs union. The delegates for France and the Netherlands had
suggested that a zone of free-trade was to be set up. This was not the
case. The intention was gradually to abolish duties between the two
countries and to unify their customs tariffs so that, at the end of the GATT/CP . 3/SR. 9
page 4
transitional period, they would have a complete customs union. He
said the intorim Agreement had entered into force on April 1 1949.
With regard to the customs agreement with Northern Rhodesia,
Mr. ROWE said that South Africa had an identical agreement with that
country so that no problem arose in connection with the interim
Agreement. The Belgian delegate referring to Article 21 of the
Agreement, had seemed to fear that reference to the proportion of
fifty per cent combined content of the territory of either party and
the British Commonwealth might lead to an extension of preference.
The previous agreement with South Africa had contained the same
provision but only to the extent of 25 per cent. The fact that it had
been increased to 50 per cent reduced rather than increased the
element of preference.
Mr. REISMAN (Canada) said that apart from the question whether the
present interim Agreement required examination by a Working Party,
his delegation considered that a Working Party should be set up to
study the whole question. Certain procedures were envisaged under the
old and the new Article XXIV, requiring CONTRACTING PARTIES to take
certain action and make certain recommendations, whenever a customs
union was established, and a careful study should therefore be made of
both texts.
The CHAIRMAN suggested the following terms of reference for the
Working Party:
"To examine the Agreement for the re-establishment of a
Customs Union between South Africa and Southern Rhodesia in
the light of the provisions of Article XXIV of the General
Agreement as included in the Final Act of 30 October, 1947,
taking account of the remarks made during the discussions
and of the statements by the representatives of South Africa
and Southern Rhodesia, and to submit recommendation to the
CONTRACTING PARTIES " GATT/CP.3 /SR.9
page 5
Mr. ROWE (Southern Rhodesia) wondered whether in view of the
remarks the Canadian delegate had made the terms of reference need be
restricted to examination in the light of Article XXIV of October 1947.
Mr. REISMAN (Canada) replied that although, in the present case
the old text was in force, the provisions concerning procedures and
functions were so similar in both texts that any procedures now laid
down would have a definite bearing on customs unions concluded under
the new Article XXIV.
The CHAIRMAN suggested deleting the words "included in the Final
Act of 30 October 1947".
Dr. NORVAL (South Africa) felt it would be difficult for delegations
of countries that are bound by the old text to recommend to their
governments adoption of the new text and at the same time inform them
that they were already considering a question in the light of that new
text.
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that although the old text alone was binding
at present, the new text might become effective before the customs union
was established. He therefore suggested, and Dr. NORVAL (South Africa)
agreed, that, provided the interest of South Africa were not prejudiced
by an extension of the discussions, the South African delegate would
limit himself to stressing in the Working Party that the parties
ware bound only by the old text.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia), referring to the proposed France-Italian
customs union, wondered whether it might not be advisable for the
Working Party to study the question of procedures in case customs unions
were established between sessions of the CONTRACTING PARTIES.
Dr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) thought the terms of reference of
the Working Party should be limited to the question of how far the
interim Agreement now before the CONTRACTING PARTIES was or was not in
accordance with Article XXIV. To attempt to lay down procedures for
future cases did not seem practicable - no two cases were alike. GATT/CP .3/SR. 9
page 6
Moreover it was unlikely that customs union would be established between
sessions. Negotiations for a union would probably be undertaken in
secret and when completed, the countries concerned would submit their
proposals to the CONTRACTING PARTIES for consideration.
The CHAIRMAN suggested that any general conclusion arrived at by
the Working Party, during its discussions on the immediate questions might
usefully be brought to the attention of the CONTRACTING PARTIES.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY (United States of America) suggested adding the words
"a report and" between "submit" and "recommendations", in order to follow
more closely the text of paragraph 3(a) of Article XXIV.
It was decided to set up a Working Party with the following terms
of reference:
"To examine the Agreement for the re-establishment of a Customs
Union between South Africa and Southern Rhodesia in the light
of the provisions of Article XXIV the remarks
made during the discussions and of the statements by the
representative of South Africa and Southern Rhodesia, and to
submit a report and recommendations to the CONTRACTING PARTIES"
The following Contracting Parties were selected as members:
One Benelux country
France
South Africa
Southern Rhodesia
United States
Dr. Augenthaler (Czechoslovakia) not being in a position to aceept
the Chairmanship, it was agreed that M. COUILLARD (Canada) should be
asked to act as Chairman.
2. Request of the Government of Brazil for Rectifications in Schedule III
(Document GATT/CP. 3/4)
Professor RODRIGUES (Brazil) presenting the request of the Brazilian GATT/CP .3/SR. 9
page 7
Government, suggested the setting up of a Working Party to examine and
report on the rectifications proposed in GATT/CP.3/4 and also the new
list of rectifications of errors and of the numbering of tariff items
which his delegation was preparing.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY (United States) suggested that it was desirable to
have only one protocol of rectifications and that the Working Party might
be asked to consider not only the Brazilian, but any other rectifications
that might be suggested during the course of the session.
It was decided to set up a Working Party to consider rectifications
of errors.
On the proposal of the CHAIRMAN, the following Contracting Parties
were selected as members of the Working Party:
One Benelux country
Brazil
France
United Kingdom
United States
the Chairman to be elected by the Working Party itself.
3. Requested of the Government of Australia for the replacement of Schedule
I by a revised schedule adjusted to a new value-for-duty basis
(Document GATT/CP .3/13)
Mr. FLETCHER (Australia), introducing the Australin Proposal, drew
attention to document GATT/CP.3/13 which gave details concerning the new
schedule. He thought the matter could best be discussed in a Working
Party.
Mr. HOLLIS (United States) expressed satisfaction at the simplification
of the calculation of Australian duties and agreed with the proposal to
set up a Working Party.
Dr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia), while also expressing satisfaction
that the method of calculation was simplified, thought that possibly the
new basis for the calculations of value was not altogether in conformity GATT/CP . 3/SR. 9
page 8
with the provisions of Article VII of the General Agreement. When a
country changed its tariff laws, it should take the opportunity of bringing
them into closer harmony with those provisions. He enquired at what date
the revised Customs Law had come into force.
Mr. LECUYER (France) supported the remarks of the delegate for
Czechoslovakia and pointed out that the addition of the cost of delivery
to the f.o.b. cost appeared to be not within the meaning of paragraph
2(a) of Article VII of the General Agreement.
Mr. FLETCHER (Australia) replied that the Customs Law had been in
force since November 14 1947. The importance change in the value basis
was to transfer the impost from a c.i.f. to an f.o.b. basis, and he did
not think that this was incompatible with the General Agreement. The
question of valuation was dealt with in Part II of the Agreement, but the
CONTRACTING PARTIES were not bound to observe the provisions of Part II
so long as the Agreement was not definitively in force.
Mr. JOHNSEN (New Zealand) said he had been a member of the Committee
which discussed this question very fully at Geneva, and, as the Summary
Records would show, it had been felt that the basis for calculation
adopted by Australia was fully in accord with the General Agreement.
Mr. HOLLIS (United States) considered that the point raised by the
representative of Czechoslovakia should be referred to a Working Party.
The Australian delegate appeared to believe that there was no obligation
to apply Part II of the Havana Charter; but it had always been the under-
standing of the United States Government that it should be applied to the
fullest extent, subject to existing legislation, i.e. legislation existing
at the date of the Protocol of Provisional Application.
Mr. FLETCHER (Australia), replying to an enquiry by Mr. HSUEH (China)
as to what tariff rates had been applied since the revised Customs Law
came into force, replied that at no time had rates provided in the General
Agreement been collected in Australia. The Australian Government had GATT/CP.3/SR. 9
page 9
endeavoured to ensure that, in spite of the changed to an f.o.b. basis,
the actual amounts collected would remain the same. Since that would
have lead to fractional rates, the rates had been adjusted to the
nearest 2 1/2%. The actual duties in money were substantially the
same as those in the GATT schedule although the method of calculation
had been changed.
Dr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) drew attention to the fact that
the changes in the Australian tariff had come into force after the
CONTRACTING PARTIES had terminated their work on the General Agreement
on October 30, 1947. While realizing the difficulty of influencing
legislators, he felt it would have been more consistent with the work
and aims of the CONTRACTING PARTIES if the revised Customs Law had
followed more closely the provisions of Article VII.
It was decided to set up a Working Party to consider the Australian
proposal for revision of Schedule I.
On the proposal of the CHAIRMAN, the following CONTRACTING PARTIES
were selected to be represented on the Working Party:
Australia New Zealand
One Benelux country United Kingdom
Czechoslovakia United States of America
France
the Chairman to be elected by the Working itself.
The CHAIRMAN explained that the list comprised the names of
countries whose delegations were known to include experts on tariff
questions. He would welcome suggestions from other delegations which
considered they were in a position to assist in the study of this question.
4. Examination, in the light of Article III. of the circumstance in which
Brazil has imposed certain internal taxes on certain products of foreign
origin.
The CHAIRMAN called upon the French delegate to present this
question to the meeting. GATT/CP . 3/SR . 9
page 10
Mr. LECUYER (France) said that discriminatory taxes had been
imposed in Brazil on certain articles, such as armagnac, cognac and
brandy and products of the watch-making industry. This was in direct
opposition to the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article IlI
of the General Agreement, which were applicable in this case. He had
felt obliged to draw the attention of the CONTRACTING PARTIES to the
situation which was no doubt due to an error of interpretation by the
Brazilian administration.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) agreed with the opinion of the French
delegate, and suggested that the matter required examination.
Professor RODRIGUES (Brazil) explained that Brazil, like other
contracting parties, had the right to apply discriminatory measures
during the interim arrangement. The internal taxes, or so-called
consumption taxes, in Brazil had always been part of a consolidated
piece of legislation; there was no separate law for each article and
a modification in the group, especially if it was only a modification of
rates, did not alter the structure of the law. The collection of
consumption taxes in Brazil was a complicated matter, because, although
they were in most cases collected from the purchaser, in the case of
some raw materials and special products, they had to be collected from
other sources and, in the case of foreign products from the importers.
Customs duties were equally consumption taxes and it was, he admitted,
a wrong principle that there should be different rates for customs
duties and consumption taxes; that had, however, been the case in
Brazil for more than 50 years.
He thought the only case on which a question really arose was that
of the watch-making industry and then only concerning alarm clocks.
The ad valorem duties on gold watches had been raised because they
were so low as to be almost negligible. The negotiations on these
articles had had to be undertaken at the end of the Geneva session when the Brazilian delegation was much reduced and they had had to be
undertaken with France which was not to any extent an exporter of
watches to Brazil. The increase for the purpose of remedying the
situation had been made before the signing of the Geneva agreement and
was for purely revenue and not for protective purposes. He did not
think any of the CONTRACTING PARTIES were greatly interested as none
were large exporters of watches to Brazil.
So far as the general question raised by the delegate for France
was concerned, Profressor Rodrigues did not feel that there was any
conflict with the General Agreement. The relative Ievel of discrimin-
ation on spirits was the same now as bofore the increases. The rise
was not aimed against imported products but was an increase of tax on
domestic consumption.
He felt that this was a very diff icult matter which could best be
Studied by a Working Party.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) agreed that the matter should be
referred to a Working Party. He believed there had been increases of
discriminatory rates on other goods, e.g. beer and cigarettes. All
these increases had been made in November 1948 and he thought it
important to interpret the meaning of the words "existing legislation".
He believed the interpretation intended had been legislation existing
at the date of the Protocol of Provisional Application.
He also felt it necessary to examine the meaning of
"legislation" . There were two kinds of legislation suestivative or
mandatory legislation and legislation of a general nature which made it
possible to raise or lower any tax. If the first kind of legislation
had been intended, the Brazilian delegate's explanation might be taken
into consideration. But it it were the second kind, where there were
no mandatory obligations it should be possible by administrative
action to very the rates in such a way as to abolish discrimination, and GATT/CP.3/SR.9
page 12
the continuation of discrimination in Brazil would not be justified.
Professor RODRIGUES (Brazil) said that when he had suggested that
there might be some cause for doubt in the case of alarm clocks, he
had been the first to recognize that "existing Iegislation" should
mean legislation which existed at the date of the Protocol of Provisional
Application. This was a personal opinion which he might be led to
change as a result of further discussions. The question of alarm
clocks was the only one which he felt might be submitted to the
CONTRACTING PARTIES. The case of cigarettes was so complex, that, if
raised, it would be advisable to refer it to a Working Party. He had
only mentioned a few items; there was a new tax on automobiles which
was also, he said, a purely internal tax for the purpose of increasing
the revenue; cars were not manufactured in Brazil. He repeated that
the present discrimination on spirits in no sense differed from the
discrimination previously existing in Brazil.
The meeting adjourned at 5.30 p.m. |
GATT Library | np528mj5829 | Summary record of the Second Meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy, on Saturday, 9 April, 1949, at 10.30 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, April 9, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Third Session of the Contracting Parties | 09/04/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.2 and GATT/CP.3/SR.1 + Corr.1 SR.2 + Corr.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/np528mj5829 | np528mj5829_90060021.xml | GATT_144 | 845 | 5,373 | GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS AND
TRADE
RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
ACCORD GENERAL SUR GATT/CP.3/SR.2
LES TARIFS DOUANIERS
ET LE COMMERCE 9 APRIL 1949 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Third Session of the Contracting Parties
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SECOND MEETING
Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy, on
Saturday,. 9 April, 1949, at 10.30 a.m.
Chairman.
Hon. L. D. WILGRISS (Canada)
Subjects discussed:
1. Arrangements for the Conduct of the Tariff Negotiations
2. Order of Business of the Session.
1. Arrangements for the Conduct of the Tariff Negotiations
The CHAIRMAN announced that the tariff negotiations would
be formally open on 11 April. The Heads of Delegations would
meet that same afternoon mainly for the purpose
a Committee on Tariff Negotiations and a Tariff
Working Party to act as a steering committee.
procedure adopted at the negotiations in Geneva
Working Party would interview representatives of
governments, to arrange initial meetings for the
negotiations which would begin with the exchange
The maximum number of negotiations was 275
so far received indicated that there would be at
of establishing
Negotiations
Following the
in 1947 the
the participating
opening of the
of offers.
and information
least 175
negotiations, in 90 cases both countries concerned had made
requests, in 66 cases request lists had on presented by one
party without definite reply from the other and in 16 cases request
lists had been presented by one party and the other had indicated
that it had no intention to negotiate. GATT/CP .3/SR. 2
page 2
Among the questions to be discussed by the Negotiations
Committee, the instrument of accession would be of chief interest;
the Secretariat had prepared a draft protocol and resolution and
he suggested that it might be desirable to appoint a working party
to examine these drafts.
Mr. HERRERA-ARANGO (Cuba) wished to know whether to engage
in an exchange of lists would prejudice the right of a country to
withhold the application of the Agreement under Article XXXV. The
CHAIRMAN thought that this question should be studied in connection
with the protocol of accession.
Mr. JOHNSEN (New Zealand) said he would like to have an
indication from the Chair as to the position of the existing
schedules.
The CHAIRMAN replied that the existing schedules would be
retained and would not be affected except for those items on which
negotiations resulted in modifications.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) thought that the draft protocol since
it embodied many suggestions involving matters of substance, should
be examined closely and discussed at length before it was referred
to a sub-committee. As regards Australia it was especially
inconvenient for his Government to partake in tariff negotiations
at this time; the difficulties lay both in the signing of any such
document at this conjuncture and in implementing its contents.
It was impossible for his Government to present such a document
to the legislature or to incorporate modifications in its tariffs
this year. In view of these difficulties he would wish to see
the Protocol drafted in such a way as to enable his Government
to withhold the results of the negotiations from publication
until a later date. GATT/CP.3/SR.2
page 3
With the approval of the meeting the CHAIRMAN nominated
Australia, any one of the Benclux countries, Cuba, France, Pakistan,
United Kingdom and United States as members of a Working Party on
Accession under the chairmanship of Mr. R.J. SHACKLE (United Kingdom)
to consider and make recommendations for the incorporation of the
results of the tariff negotiations in the General Agreement.
2. Order of Business of the Session
The CHAIRMAN stated that for practical reasons Item 4, dealing
with import restrictions imposed by the Union of South Africa would
have to be taken up at an early date; secondly, Item 7 dealing with
the protective measures notified under Article XVIII, owing to the
complicated nature of the questions involved, would require prolonged
examination and therefore should be given preliminary consideration
as early as possible. After that, Item 5 dealing with the status
of the Agreement and the Protocols should be discussed and the other
items on the agenda would be taken up in whatever order was
determined later.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) thought that Items 18 and 19 -
arrangements for a third session of tariff negotiations and for
the fourth session of the Contracting Parties - were Closely connected
with Item 3 and he would suggest that these be considered together
with that item.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY (United States) emphasized the necessity
for an early conclusion of the work on the items on the South
African import restrictions and the Special Exchange Agreements.
In response to a question asked by Mr. AUGENTHALER
(Czechoslovakia) the CHAIRMAN announced that among the 13 countries
which had showed interest in tariff negotiations, E1 Salvador and
Peru had notified that they would not engage in actual negotiations. SATT/CP.3/SR. 2
page 4
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) thought that in view of the
heavy working schedule of the session, the Easter Holidays
should be made as short as possible. After some discussion
it was decided by successive voting that work should be
suspended on Friday, and Saturday, April 15th and 16th. |
GATT Library | wd574jh5256 | Summary record of the Seventeenth meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy on Monday, 23 May 1949 at 2.30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, May 23, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Third Session of the Contracting Parties | 23/05/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.17 and GATT/CP.3/SR.17 + 18 SR.18/Corr.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/wd574jh5256 | wd574jh5256_90060083.xml | GATT_144 | 131 | 897 | GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS AND
TRADE
ACCORD
GENERAL SUR
LES TARIFS DOUANIERS
ET LE COMMERCE
RESTRICTED
LIMITED C
GATT/CP.3/SR.17
23,May 1949
ORIGINAL : ENGLISH
Third Session of the Contracting Parties.
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SEVENTEENTH MEETING
Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy on
Monday, 23 May 1949 at 2.30 p.m.
Chairman: Dr. van BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands)
Subject discussed: Second Report of Working Party 2 on
Article XVIII - Extension of the last
Dates for Submission of Statements and
Lodging of Objections.
(Document: GATT/CP.3/29 and Corr.1)
At the invitation of the CHAIRMAN, Mr. HEWITT (Australia),
(Chairman, Working Party 2 on Article XVIII), introduced the report
on extension of the last dates for submission of statements and
lodging of objections.
The report and recommendation contained therein were adopted
unanimously.
The Meeting rose at 3 p.m. |
GATT Library | sb865cj4076 | Summary record of the Seventh Meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy, on Wednesday, 20 April 1949, at 2.30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, April 23, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 23/04/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.7 and GATT/CP.3/SR.6 + Corr.1 SR.7 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/sb865cj4076 | sb865cj4076_90060043.xml | GATT_144 | 2,439 | 15,786 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS GATT/CP.3/SR.7
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE 2 April 1949
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Contracting Parties
THIRD SESSION
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SEVENTH MEETING
Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy,
on Wednesday, 20 April 1949, at 2.30 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. van BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands)
Subjects Discussed:
1. Protocol Modifying Part I and Article XXIX.
2. Protocol Modifying Certain Provisions.
3. Protocol modifying Certain Provisions and special Protocol
Modifying Article XIV,
4. Report on Negotiations affecting the Schedules to the
Agreement: Brazil, Ceylon, Cuba and Pakistan.
1. Protocol Modifying Part I and Article XXIX (continued) (A/W/1,
A/W/2)
The EXECUTIVE SECRETARY upon request of the Chairman, explained
that the draft Declaration contained in A/W/1 was a recital of the
situation as explained by the delegate of Southern Rhodesia and of the
validity, in the light of that explanation, of the instrument of
acceptance deposited by Southern Rhodesia, Passing to A/W/2, he said
that the document before the Committee put forward a solution which was
not strictly an interpretation of the Interpretation Note but a
declaration that although the precise situation of Southern Rhodesia was
not contemplated by the Note, it was covered by the principle involved GATT/CP.3/SR.7
page 2
and an analogous rule should govern the application of that principle in
such cases. Further, it was proposed in A/W/2 that this matter should
be brought to the attention of the International Trade Organizations,
when established, because of a similar note in Annex P to the Charter.
The CHAIRMAN asked the meeting for comments on document A/W/1.
Mr. JOHNSEN (New Zealand) said that, since the Government of
Southern Rhodesia had not accepted the Protocol Modifying Article XXIV,
it could accept this Protocol unreservedly without prejudicing its
position in relation to Article XXIV as it could not be required to
observe the provisions of the amended version of Article XXIV.
Mr. LECUYER (France) agreed with the draft Declaration, but,
on a point of form, he thought that it should include the text of the
statement to which it refers.
The CHAIRMAN suggested that a reference to document
GATT/CP.3/7 in the records of the meeting might be sufficient,
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) thought that for the sake of
completeness it was desirable to include in the Declaration a recital
of the statement by Southern Rhodesia.
The draft declaration in document A/W/1 was adopted, and the
CHAIRMAN stated that the Secretariat would consult with Mr. SHACKLE as to
the point of drafting he had raised.
Referring to document A/W/2, Mr. HOLLIS (United States) said
that the proposal before the Contracting Parties appeared to him too
informal, and was not a satisfactory solution in a case where the
language of the Agreement was so perfectly clear that only an amendment
of the text could clear away the difficulty. He therefore proposed that
the matter be covered in a protocol of rectification. It seemed to him GATT/CP .3/SR. 7
page 3
that the problem was similar to those treated in certain other protocols,
that is, a need to re-write the language which had failed to bring out the
full intent of the Contracting Parties.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) thought that a formal amendment
was unnecessary, and would be difficult because a protocol of rectifica-
tions would require unanimity; but if a re-wording of the Interpretative
Note was desired he suggested that the following words be added:
"... latter member should collect a duty equal to the difference between
the duty already paid and the duty which would have been payable in
accordance with the provisions of the General Agreement if the product
had been imported directly into the territory of that member".
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) expressed agreement in principle with
Mr. HOLLIS. He thought Mr. SHACKLE's amendment satisfactory, and that the
agreement of two-thirds of the Contracting Parties would be sufficient.
He asked Mr. SHACKLE to clarify the case of a duty in force in the second
country being lower than the duty already paid.
Mr. COUILLARD (Canada) agreed with Mr. HEWITT in that unanimity
was not necessary and thought Mr. HEWITT's second point was also
interesting because the rate in the second country might be lower. He
asked Mr. SHACKLE What was meant by the words "in Accordance with the
General Agreement" if the rate was not scheduled.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) replied that in the case where the
duty was lower the provision would be inoperative and no difference in
duty would have to be collected. Regarding the question of acceptance
he thought unanimity had been required for protocols in the past, but
perhaps one could provide for a two-thirds majority under Article XXX.
With regard to Mr. COUILL point he had meant to cover any case
whatever it might be: if the m-f-n rate was bound then the m-f-n rate GATT/CP.3/SR. 7
page 4
would be applicable, if the preferential rate was bound in the agreement
then it would be the preferential rate.
Mr. HOLLIS (United States) agreed with Mr. SHACKLE, and wished
to state his reasons for proposing a protocol of rectification.
Protocols were of three kinds: 1) protocols of accession under Article
XXXIII; 2) protocols of amendment under Article XXX which in some cases
require the unanimous deposit of acceptance; and 3) protocols of
rectification which have been accepted as non-controversial. The
protocols of rectification had required the signature of the Contracting
Parties and had entered into force immediately; this type of protocol
would be more appropriate than a protocol of amendment.
Mr. ROWE (Southern Rhodesia) appreciated the strength of Mr.
HOLLIS' case although he would have accepted the solution proposed in the
Secretariat draft. He suggested however that the simplest solution
would be to add at the end of the lnterpretative Note:
"the term "m-f-n rate" means preferential rate where that is
applicable "
Mr. SHACKLE had misgivings about Mr. ROWE's proposal because
special care had been taken in drafting the Agreement to allow no
confusion between the terms "m-f-n rate" and "preferential rate".
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) agreed and supported the
United States' proposal with the wording submitted by Mr. SHACKLE.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) amplified Mr. COUILLARD's question, and
in reply Mr. SHACKLE suggested as an alternative to the words "in
accordnce with the Agreement" which might be misleading, the words
"consistently with..."
Mr. HEWITT would have preferred a wording of the last line
which would bring out the difference between the duty paid and what would GATT/CP.3/SR. 7
Page 5
have been paid if the article had been imported directly into the
territory. He suggested the following:
"the latter member should collect a duty equal to the difference
between the duty already paid and the duty that would be payable
if the product were being imported directly into its territory".
The CHAIRMAN asked the Secretariat to draft a paper containing
this clause to which no objection had been raised in the meeting. The
delegates of Luxembourg and Lebanon would be consulted upon their arrival.
2. Protocol Modifying Certain Provisions: South African reservation
of non-Acceptance of Article XXXV.
The CHAIRMAN referred to the draft declaration before the
meeting and said that if it were accepted it would be submitted to the
delegates of Luxembourg and Lebanon as soon as possible.
After two formal amendments proposed by Mr. SHACKLE had been agreed
the draft was unanimously accepted.
Mr. NORVAL (South Africa) thanked the Contracting Parties for
the invitation extended to his Government and for the sympathetic
consideration revealed by the adoption of the reservation. He expressed
pleasure in noticing what appeared to be a certain convargence towards the
South African point of view on the question which he thought was of
fundamental importance not only to South Africa but to the attainment of
the object of the Contracting Parties.
3. 5 (b) Special Protocol Modifying Article XIV: The position
Southern Rhodesia (document A/W/3).
The CHAIRMAN said there were two documents referring to Items
5 (a) and 5 (b) concerning the signature of Southern Rhodesia of two of
the Havana protocols. The first bearing no number was a draft resolution GATT/CP .3/SR. 7
page 6
embodying the result of the discussion at a prevoious meeting document
A/W/3 had been submitted by the United States Delegation.
Mr. HOLLIS (United States) said it had been the understanding
of the authors of the Protocol Modifying Certain Provisions and of the
Special ProtocoI relating to Article XIV that subsequent accession to the
Agreement would imply the acceptance of these two Protocols. South
Africa had been unable to accept, but Southern Rhodesia had accepted that
interpretation and considered that its signature of the Protocol of
Provisional Application did bind Southern Rhodesia to the Agreement as
modified by the two Protocols, and there would therefore seem to be no
reason for Southern Rhodesia to sign either of them. However, there
was one point to which the Contracting parties must address themselves
and find a formal solution: Southern Rhodesia had elected to be governed
by Annex K of the Charter which in substance constituted the same type
of decision and was within the same time limit as that prescribed in
Article XIV in respect of Annex J of the General Agreement.
Mr. ROWE (Southern Rhodesia) denied having said that his
Government considered itself bound by the.se Protocols Their position
was similar to that of South Africa. His Government had been invited
to sign for the sake of uniformity and were prepared to comply, provided
it was understood that they did not accept Mr. HOLLIS' interpretation
of the significance of adherence to the Provisio.nal Protocol
IMr. AUGENTHLR (Czechoslovakia) thought that A/W/3 could be
accepted if the first paragraph were amended by leaving out the phrase
beginning: "and of technical difficulties" and ,adding that in view of
the fact that all Contracting Parties are members of I.C.I.T.O., the
Contracting Parties are prepared to accept the decision of Southern
Rhodesia as made known directly to them. GATT/CP . 3/SR . 7
page 7
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) thought that since the inter-
pretation of the United States delegate was not accepted, it would seem
best for Southern Rhodesia to sign the Protocols.
Mr. HOLLIS (United States) said there was no question of an
interpretation of Article XXX in connection with these two Protocols; if
Southern Rhodesia did not feel bound by than he was not suggesting the
withdrawal of the invitation that Southern Rhodesia should sign.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) thought the invitation of the Contracting
Parties was intended to obtain the signature of the two Protocols by
Southern Rhodesia and that the Secretary General should be requested to
extend the time limit; accordingly, he supported the Secretariat draft.
Mr. NORVAL (Union of South Africa) supported the views put
forward by the delegates of the United Kingdom and Australia.
Mr. HOLLIS (United States) withdrew his proposal and supported
the Secretariat draft. He wished however to call the attention of the
Contracting Parties to the fact that the invitation to Southern Rhodesia
to sign the Protocols was made without prejudice to the future legal effect-
iveness of these protocols with respect to those countries which would
subsequently become contracting parties.
After a few drafting changes were made the draft resolution contained
in the Secretariat paper was adopted subject to the understanding proposed
by Mr. HOLLIS.
4. Report on Negotiations affecting the Schedules to the Agreement:
Brazil - Negotiations with the United Kingdom and the United States
Mr. RODRIGUEZ (Brazil) said that unfortunately agreement on the
withdrawal of the concessions in Schedule III had not been reached within GATT/CP.3/SR.7
page 8
the time set, He believed however that it would be possible to report
success to the Contracting Parties before long and a draft resolution
was being presented concerning an extension of the time limit.
Both Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) and Mr. WILLOUGHBY (United
States) supported the proposal for an extension of time, and the CHAIRMAN
proposed to revert to the question when the draft resolution would be
before them.
Ceylon - Negotiations with several Contracting Parties
GATT/CP/1, page 35)
Mr. JAYASURIYA (Ceylon) illustrating the position concerning the
re-negotiations of his country with Australia, Benelux, China, Czecho-
slovakia, France, New Zealand, Norway and the United States, said that
negotiations with the United States had been completed, negotiations with
France were expected to reach a conclusion at the next meeting, and
meetings had been arranged with the other delegations except New Zealand
and China, which would be taken up in the very near future.
Mr. WUNZ KING (China) said negotiations could begin upon the
arrival of experts from China who were expected at any time.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) said he foresaw no difficulties,
and in this, as in the case of Brazil, he urged that negotiations be
concluded before the end of the present session.
Mr. JAYASURIYA (Ceylon) said he hoped to complete the re-
negotiations by the middle of May.
Cuba Negotiations
Mr. HERREA ARANGO (Cuba) informed the meeting that negotiations
with the United States were proceeding in Havana and he hoped to be able
to report to the Contracting Parties a successful conclusion. GATT/CP. 3/SR.7
page 9
Pakistan - Negotiations with four Contracting Parties (GATT/CP.2/25,
GATT/CP. 2/39 & Add.1, and GATT/CP/5 & Add. 1& 2)
The CHAIRMAN read the report of the Delegation of Pakistan
contained in GATT/CP/5 Add. 3 and informed the Contracting Parties that if
no objection were lodged against the withdrawal of the concessions made
to France the withdrawal would become effective on the 23 April 1949.
Mr. LECUYER (France) said that the negotiations held at
Karachi had been completed but he could give no official information.
Mr. HASNIE (Pakistan) replied that the information contained
in GATT/CP/5 Add. 3 had been supplied to him by his Foreign Office.
The CHAIRMAN urged Mr. LECUYER to ask for information but the
Contracting Parties would in any case have had a month in which to lodge
objections.
Mr. WUNZ KING (China) wished to have it on record that the delays
encountered in the re-negotiations were due to technical difficulties
which had arisen on account of insufficient statistical information being
available for a study of the question. He would welcome talks with the
Pakistan Delegation as soon as his experts arrived and expressed confidence
in a favourable solution.
The CHAIRMAN asked the delegates of China and Pakistan to
arrange to meet at the earliest possible opportunity, and he asked Mr.
Hasnie to report on their discussions with the Netherlands,
Mr. HASNIE (Pakistan) agreed to discuss the matter with China
and informed the meeting that discussions with the Netherlands had made
considerable progress. He had hopes of reporting a favourable
conclusion before long.
The meeting adjourned at 5.50 p.m. |
GATT Library | sd574fw1071 | Summary record of the Sixteenth meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy, on Saturday, 21 May 1949 at 10 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, May 21, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Third Session of the Contracting Parties | 21/05/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.16 and GATT/CP.3/SR.15 + Corr.1 SR.16 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/sd574fw1071 | sd574fw1071_90060079.xml | GATT_144 | 1,464 | 9,261 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR RESTRICTED
ON TARlFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS LlMITED C
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE 21 May 1949
ORIGINAL :ENGLISH
Third Session of the Contracting Parties
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SIXTEENTH MEETING
Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy,
on Saturday, 21 May 1949 at 10 a.m.
Chairman: Dr. van BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands)
Subject discussed: Continuation of Discussion of Report I
of Working Party I on Accession.
Continuation of discussion of Report I of Working Party I on
Accession - GATT/CP.3/26.
The CHAIRMAN invited comments on paragraph 2(b) of the report
submitted by Working Party I.
Mr. HERRERA-ARANCO (Cuba) said that it was necessary to achieve
a balance between the benefits in the Geneva Schedules and the
concessions to be made by the acceding governments at Annecy. He
referred to Cuba's Law No. 14 Of 1935, which was still valid, and
which provided that any county which bought from Cuba as much as 50%
of what it sold to Cuba enjoyed a minimum tariff; a country which
bought between 25 and 50% of what it sold to Cuba enjoyed a minimum
tariff with a surcharge of 25%; a country which bought from Cuba
less than 25% of what it sold to Cuba had to pay the general tariff
which was double the minimum tariff. He recalled that contracting
parties enjoyed the minimum tariff and that was the reason why he had
to be so cautious with regard to concessions to be made by acceding
governments.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) suggested that the second sentence of
paragraph 2(a) on page 2 be replaced by the following: GATT/CP .3/SR. 16
Page 2
"Although it has been drafted in the form of a single Decision,
it is expected that a separate vote will be taken by the
Contracting Parties under Article XXXIII in respect of the
accession of each government. This will enable a Judgment to
be made as to the accession of each individual government in
the light of the results of the tariff negotiations with the
acceding government concerned. The results of these votes
would then be incorporated in the single form of Decision
proposed by the Working Party."
He explained that the Working Party had envisaged that a separate
vote on the accession of each acceding government would be taken by
the CONTRACTING PARTIES in the light of the results of the tariff
negotiations with each acceding government, and that an omnibus
Decision would contain the results of these individual decisions or
votes. He believed his proposed amendment would clarify the procedure.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom), (Chairman, Working Part I),
considered the amendment moved by the representative of Australia as
a valuable clarification of the procedure envisaged by the Working Party
He pointed out that paragraph 2 of the Preamble to the draft Decision
Relating to Accessicn to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
provided for a separate two-thirds vote by the Contracting Parties with
respect to each acceding government, and therefore the results of
individual tariff negotiations could be taken into consideration when
each such vote was taken. That procedure, he believed, would go a
long way towards meeting the points raised by various contracting
parties during this discussions. In addition, paragraph 5(b) of
Article XXV would provide a sufficient safeguard for contracting
parties after such a procedure. At that stage, a particular
contracting party wishing to invoke Article XXV would have to put its
case to the Contracting Parties, in view of the Decision on the
accession of an acceding government taken by the Contracting Parties
as a whole. GATT/CP.3/SR. 16
Page 3
Mr. HOLLIS (United States of America) supported the Australian
proposal. He recognized the desirability of either a separate
Decision or at least a separate vote in each case, since each
acceding government would then have to prove to the Contracting Parties
that it had granted substantial concessions before'its accession could
be approved by a 2/3 majority Decision. He agreed with the representa-
tive of the United Kingdom that once an acceding government had become
a contracting party as a result of a 2/3 majority Decision, it was
reasonable for the burden of proof to shift to an existing contracting
party which was not satisfied with the negotiations of such an
acceding government in seeking recourse under paragraph 5(b) of
Article XXV. Referring to the statements made by the representative
of Cuba, he said that an acceding government immediately upon becoming
a contracting party, would be under an obligation to apply its Annecy
concessions to all other contracting parties, subject to paragraph 4
of the Draft Protocol (i.e., withholding provisions), Article XXXV,
and paragraph 5(b) of Article XXV. Mr. Hollis suggested exploring
the possibility of adding to the Protocol language which would give
both to the existing contracting parties and to acceding governments,
as the case might arise, the right to invoke paragraph 5(b) of Article
XXV at Annecy, since the language of that Article itself might be so
construed to prevent its application until an acceding government
became a contracting party.
Mr. OLDINI (Chile) said that there might be a case in which an
acceding government would not recognize the benefits of the Geneva
Schedules and the balance between the concessions made by a
contracting party and the concessions granted by an acceding government
would then be impaired. In such a case, a contracting party should not
be required to extend to an acceding government all the concessions to
which the latter would normally be entitled under the General Agreement. GATT/CP.3/SR. 16
Page 4
If his country, for example, had to grant such concessions to an
acceding government with which it was not able to conclude satisfactory
negotiations as a result of a two-thirds majority Decision under the
proposed procedure, he felt that the principles of justice would be
undermined. He recalled what the representative of India said: that
it was one thing to let an acceding government become a contracting
party and quite a different thing to grant to such an acceding country
undeserved concessions. He did not, however, agree with the Indian
representative's proposal to revert to the draft Protocol submitted by
the Secretariat. Furthermore, the Australian proposal, while
acceptable, was inadequate, and would not substantially alter the
merits of the situation. Mr. Oldini proposed that the two-thirds
majority rule for a Decision by the Contracting parties with respect
to accession under Article XXXIII should also be made applicable to
the entry into force of the Protocol, i.e. two-thirds of the contracting
parties should be required to sign before the Protocol could enter into
force upon the signature of an acceding government. He also drew
attention to the difference between the English and the French texts
of article XXXIII. In the former, the word "and" was inserted at the
end of sub-paragraph (a), which meant that sub-paragraphs (a) and (b)
were inter-dependent. In the French text, however, no equivalent of
the word "and" was inserted at the end of sub-paragraph (a) and
therefore two sub-paragraphs were independent. It was natural that
the French-speaking delegations considered the French text as authentic,
and he suggested that an interpretation of Article XXXV be added to the
draft Report under consideration.
The CHAIRMAN, after pointing out the desirability of early action
by the Contracting Parties on the Working Party's Report so that it
could be referred to the joint Working Party on Accession (contracting
parties and acceding governments), proposed taking the sense of the
meeting. GATT/CP.3/SR.16
Page 5
Mr. BANERJI (India) thought that it was too early to come to a
final decision as to the form of the Protocol and that it would be
desirable to study the implications of the suggestions made by the
representatives of Australia, Chile and the United States of America.
If a vote were to be taken immediately, he would have to reserve the
position of his delegation until the views of his Government were
available.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) (Chairman Working Party I) said
that while he had the impression that the Contracting Parties were in
agreement as to the amendment proposed by the representative of
Australia, he thought that the suggestions made by the representatives
of Chile and the United States of America should be given further
consideration.
After some discussion, it was decided that paragraph 2(b) of
Report I of Working Party I, which explains the Draft Protocol of
Accession, be referred back to Working Party I on Accession for
further study in connection with the new proposals made by the
representatives of Australia, Chile and the United States of America,
and the suggestions made by the representative of India.
It was also decided that representatives of Ceylon, Chile,
Czechoslovakia and India should be invited to participate in the
deliberations of Working Party I on Accession.
The meeting rose at 12.45 p.m. |
GATT Library | vm359yk3535 | Summary record of the Sixth Meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy, on Tuesday, 19 April 1949, at 2.30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, April 22, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 22/04/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.6 and GATT/CP.3/SR.6 + Corr.1 SR.7 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/vm359yk3535 | vm359yk3535_90060041.xml | GATT_144 | 2,444 | 15,444 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR RESTRICTED
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIRS LIMITED B
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE GATT/CP.3/SR.6
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE 22 April 1949
ORIGINAL : ENGLISH
Contracting Parties
Third Session.
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE, SIXTH MEETING
Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy,
on Tuesday, 19 April 1949, at 2.30 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. H. van BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands)
Subjects discussed:
Questions arising from the Note on the Status of the Agreement
and Protocols (GATT/CP.3/7)
(c) Special protocol relating to Article XXIV (continued discussion)
The CHAIRMAN introduced the draft decision prepared by the represen-
tative of the United States concerning the interpretation of Article XXX,
as follows:
"The CONTRACTING PARTIES interpret the words 'each other Contracting
Party' in paragraph 1 of Article XXX of the General Agreement to
mean each other country which is already a contracting party at
the time the amendment initially becomes effective, or which has
then taken the last act toward becoming a contracting party, with
the result that each country subsequently taking such a last act
becomes a contracting party to the Agreement as modified by all
amendments which are then effective for any contracting parties."
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) observed that although this decision would
not affect the position of Australia, the proposed interpretation was
not a satisfactory one insofar as it affected the position of some of
the signatories of the Final Act of 1947, which were entitled to apply
provisionally the General Agreement in the original form as attached to GATT/CP .3/SR. 6
page 2
the Final Act; the signatories should have the right by the terms of
the Protocol of Provisional Application to elect whether or not to
accept an amendment to the authenticated text annexed to the Final Acts
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) said that, on the legal aspect of
this argument, an equally forceful case could be made for either side,
As for the substance of the question, i.e. the effectiveness of Article
XXIV, it would be an undesirable settlement to force any contracting
party to accept the Protocol by means of an arbitrary interpretation.
A satisfactory solution would lie in allowing the contracting parties
concerned to choose between the new version and the original.
Mr. JOHNSEN (New Zealand) thought that the interpretation proposed
by the United States would create an illogical and untenable situation
in which the Protocol would be binding on New Zealand but would not
be effective in respect of Australia, both of which were signatory to
the Final Act.
Mr. HOLLIS (United States) proposed adoption of the decision,
which would serve to clarify the meaning of Article XXX, so as to avoid
the recurrence of the confused situation of last year, The decision
should be adopted at least in respect of those countries which subsequently
accede to the General Agreement
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) though the present was not a suitable
moment to decide upon an interpretation of this nature if it was intended
that only acceding governments should be bound by it.
Mr . HASNIE (Pakistan) said that he thought his Government had
accepted this Protocol, but if it had not he was certain that it would
do so. As for the interpretation, it would be tantamount to the
deletion of the last four words of paragraph 1 of Article XXX, i.e.,
"upon acceptance by it". Interpretations like this, in direct conflict
with the letter of the Agreement, if allowed, would result in a chaotic GATT/CP. 3/SR. 6
page 3
situation which would be even more undesirable, Concerning the sub-
stance of the interpretations he also expressed the opinion that it
would be acceptable only to the extent that subsequent acceding countries
should be precluded from choosing between divergent texts of the Agree-
ment, but it should not affect the option enjoyed by the Final Act
signatories under the Protocol of Provisional application.
Mr. HOLLIS (United States) wished to clarify the point raised by
the representative of Pakistan and noted that the terms of neither the
Final Act nor the Protocol had given any special right to the original
Contracting Parties with regard to the effectiveness of Protocols adopted
by the Contracting Parties.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) thought that the question should
be considered strictly along legalistic lines, and he would like to know
more exactly the meaning of the phrase: "the last act towards becoming
a contracting party". He considered the decision to he unnecessary inso-
far as requirement for acceding countries could be provided for in the
instrument of accession.
Mr. HOLLIS (United States), in reply to the question on the meaning
of the "last act" said that the general language was intended to cover
the various forms which the act of accession might take, including the
signing of a Protocol and the deposit of an instrument of acceptance.
The purpose of the decision was to dispense with the formality required of
Acceding Governments of depositing instruments of acceptance of Protocols
already in force.
Mr. ROWE (Southern Rhodesia) also maintained that signatories of the
Final Act should not be bound by any Protocol modifying an original version
unless it was expressly accepted.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) said he could see no reason why the inter-
pretation should be adopted when on the one hand it would not bind the
original contracting parties and on the other it was not needed for GATT/CP .3/SR. 6
page 4
regulating relations with the subsequent acceding countries.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) affirmed the view that signatories of
the Final Act should not be bound by the new version of article XXIV
if they did not wish to be so.
Mr. KING (China) agreed with the representative of the United
Kingdom that the interpretation should be left in abeyance for the time
being. Contracting parties which had not formally accepted the new
version of Article XXIV should not be deprived of their liberty of free
choice. Although he appreciated the anxiety entertained by the represen-
tative of the United States in regard to the future operation of the
General Agreement he could not help regarding it as illogical that an
interpretation should be applicable to one group of countries while not
to others; it would be unfair to the acceding countries if more restric-
tive or onerous obligations were placed on them. The proposed interpre-
tation in fact was, and therefore should take the form of, an amendment
to Article XXX.
The CHAIRMAN, summing up, said that the general feeling of the meeting
suggested the rejection of the United States proposal on the understanding
that protocols of accession in future should contain clear provisions with
regard to the effectiveness of any protocols which might be in force at
the time of the accession.
Mr. HOLLIS (United States) said he was prepared to withdraw his
proposal provided the consensus of opinion of this meeting was duly
recorded to the effect that, notwithstanding the provisions of Article
XXX which required explicit acceptance of each protocol by each contracting
party, a provision in the appropriate instrument of accession would suffice
to make any protocols or amendments binding in respect of an acceding
country.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) suggested that this point should be
referred to the Working Party on Accession for attention. He also pointed GATT/CP .3/SR. 6
page 5
out the difficulties which might arise if modifications were introduced
into the General agreementt during the time when steps were being taken
by countries to become contracting parties.
Mr. RODRIGUES (Brazil) raised the same point with regard to the
legislative procedure required to put an instrument of accession into
force.
Mr. TRABOULSI (Syria) notified that his Government was prepared
to accept the Protocol relating to article XXIV.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) said that paragraph 4 of the Pro-
tocol of Provisional Application clearly indicated that the signatories
of the Final Act were entitled, until 30th June 1948, to apply the
original Agreement and therefore they should be free to decide whether
to accept amendments. It would be indeed unfortunate if divergent texts
should continue to exist, but he could see no legal interpretation which
would enable the Contracting Parties to resolve the dilemma. As for the
countries which become contracting parties hereafter he was inclined to '
think that it would be sufficient that explicit provisions be made in the
appropriate instruments of accession to cause protocols to be effective
with respect to such acceding governments.
The CHAIRMAN concluded that a compromise solution had emerged from
the discussion: that no decision be taken on the interpretation of
Article XXX while the Working Party on accession is preparing the
provisions for the conditions of accession of the eleven countries
negotiating at Annecy. The CHAIRNMAN then proceeded to request the
representative of each contracting party which had not accepted the
Protocol to indicate the position of his government.
Mr. SCHOEYEN (Norway) replied that he was unable to supply the
information at present, but his delegation would notify the Chairman at a
later meeting. GATT/CP .3/SR. 6
page 6
Mr. NORVAL (South Africa) stated that the position of his delega-
tion was clearly indicated in the statement he had made at the Second
Session on the status of the protocols (GATT/CP2/14). In his view the
operation of Article XXX had been suspended by the terms of the Protocol
of Provisional Application until 30th June 1948; the procedure
amendments could not be applied before that date, except with the consent
of all signatories to the Final Act, in such a way as to violate the
right of a signatory to become a party to the Agreement in the form
authenticated by the Final Act. As for the acceptance of the Protocol
relating to Article XXIV, his Government would consider the amendment
and it was possible that it would be accepted.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) said that his Government would be prepared
to accept the amended version of the article in the context of the Havana
Charter, but he could not say whether it would be acceptable in the
limited context of the General Agreement.
Mr. ROWE (Southern Rhodesia) indicated that his Government would have
to consider acceptance of the Protocol.
Mr. HOLLIS (United States) stated that when he mentioned future
acceding governments he had intended to refer to all governments which
might accede to the Agreement at any time in the future and not only to
the governments which were seeking accession at annecy.
Mr. HERRERA -ARANGO (Cuba) pointed out that unexpected changes in the
Agreement which might occur during the time when accession was Considered
might give rise to difficulties to acceding governments. It would be
beyond the competence of the present Working Party on Accession to make
provision for all cases in future.
Mr. HOLLIS (United States) thought that the difficulty would have
been solved by the adoption of the Decision he had proposed. GATT/CP .3/SR. 6
page 7
(d) Protocol Modifying Part II and Article XXVI.
Mr. RODRIGUES (Brazil) explained that this Protocol had been
presented to the Brazilian Congress at a time too late for action at
its last session, but he hoped that his Government would be able to
signify its acceptance before the end of the present Session of the
Contracting Parties.
(e) Protocol Modifying Part I and Article XXIX.
Mr. RODRIGUES (Brazil) said that the situation regarding this
Protocol was exactly the same as regarding the Protocol Modifying Part II
and Article XXVI. He would endeavour to see the procedure of acceptance
expedited.
Mr. GARCIA OLDINI (Chile) said that his Government had approved the
Protocol in principle; the delay in depositing its acceptance was due
to procedural and technical difficulties, but he hoped this would be
done before the close of the Session of the Contracting Parties.
The CHAIRMAN stressed the importance of bringing the Protocol into
force at as early a date as possible.
Mr. HEWIITT (Australia) suggested that in view of the importance of
the Protocol, and in particular the provisions of Article XXIX, the
Contracting Parties should revert to this question and review the situation
at the end of the session.
Mr. ROWE (Southern Rhodesia) with regard to the statement which his
Government had made upon acceptance of the Protocol, said that this
had never been intended as a reservation; the Southern Rhodesian Govern-
ment accepted the Protocol unconditionally, and it was regrettable that
the statement should have been taken in a wrong sense by the Legal
Department.
As regards the subject matter of the statement, the difficulty lay
in the Interpretative Note to Article XXIV. In that Note, it had not
been envisaged that the importing country might be one which granted the GATT/CP .3/SR.6
Page 8
same preferential treatment to the country of origin of the product,
as the re-exporting country, and in that case the difference payable
should be that between the duty already paid and the preferential rate.
His Government would have no difficulty in accepting the Protocol in ques-
tion if the Contracting Parties could indicate that the Interpretative
Note could be so interpreted.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) thought it might suffice to put on
record that the Interpretative Note should be understood in the sense
required by Southern Rhodesia since the lack of circumspection was due
to oversight in drafting when the Charter was drawn up at Havana.
Both the CHAIRMAN and Mr. NORVAL (South Africa) agreed that that
would be a sensible way to take the meaning of the Interpretative Note.
Mr. HOLLIS (United States) however, felt that it might not be
sufficient to record the interpretation merely in the proceedings of
the meeting in view of the clear and precise language used in the
Interpretative Note.
Mr. HASNIE (Pakistan) suggested to meet the situation by inserting
a few words in the Interpretative Note to elaborate its provision.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) pointed out that it would be
beyond the competence of the Contracting Parties to make changes in
the Charter. To record such an interpretation in an informal way
would be more appropriate, even though it would still be prejudicial
to the operation of the Charter.
The EXECUTIVE SECRETARY was requested to prepare a text of an
interpretative record for consideration. at a subsequent meeting.
Mr. KING (China) raised the point of order that it was not necessary
to go into the contents of the Interpretative Note while the meeting
was merely considering the nature of the statement made by Southern
Rhodesia in connection with the status of the Protocol.
The CHAIRMAN replied that the question as to the statement being
a reservation or not had been settled in the negàtive, and the Contracting
Parties were merely taking an opportunity of the present meeting to give
consideration to a question arising therefrom.
The Meeting adjourned at 5.45 p.m. |
GATT Library | cy575gf7947 | Summary record of the Tenth Meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy on Tuesday, 26 April, 1949, at 2.30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, April 26, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Third Session of the Contracting Parties | 26/04/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.10 and GATT/CP.3/SR.10 + Corr.1,2 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/cy575gf7947 | cy575gf7947_90060053.xml | GATT_144 | 3,747 | 23,709 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SURLIMITED B
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS ATT/CP.3/SR .10
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Third Session of the Contracting Parties
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TENTH MEETING
Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy
on Tuesday, 26 April, 1949, at 2.30 p.m.
Chairman: Dr. H. van Blankenstein (Netherlands)
Subjects discussed:
1.Examination in the light of Article III of the circumstances
in which Brazil imposed certain internal taxes on certain
products of foreign origin. (continuation)
2. Interim Report No. 1 of Working Party 1 on Accession regarding
the publication of the results of the Annecy Tariff
Negotiations.
3. Interim Report No. 2 of Working Party 1 on Accession on the
period of duration of schedules embodying the results of the
Annecy negotiations.
4. Interim Report No. 3 of Working Party 1 on Accession regarding
procedure for joint consideration of questions relating to
accession.
1. Brazil's Internal Taxes. (continuation)
Mr. LECUYER (France) said he had not been convinced by the arguments
of the Brazilian delegate because the taxes in question were not
ad valorem taxes but specific taxes and, moreover, calculations
made on the basis of figures given by Mr. Rodrigues himself showed
that the tax on spirits had been raised from 3 cruzeiros to 16
cruzeiros per litre. On account of the proximity between the date
of signing the Geneva Protocol and the date of promulgation of the
relevant Brazilian Law, he did not wish to stress the apparent
conflict with the provisions of the General Agreement, but he
accepted the Brazilian delegate's proposal to have the matter
examined by a Working Party. GATT/CP .3/SR. 10
page 2.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) thought the terms of reference of the
Working Party should be wide enough to cover the question of discrimin-
ation as it existed before the date of the Protocol. He suggested that
it would greatly facilitate the work of the Working Party if the
Brazilian delegation would furnish a written statement giving data
concerning the taxes under discussion.
Mr. EVANS (United States), while supporting the suggestion that
a Working Party should be set up, paid a tribute to the spirit of
frankness and co-operation shown by the Brazilian delegate.
Professor RODRIGUES (Brazil) said his Government understood the
words "existing legislation" in the General Agreement to mean legislation
existing at the date of coming into force of the General Agreement. It
had no intention of introducing discriminatory taxes after the General
Agreement became effective, indeed, a message had been sent to the
Brazilian Congress asking that further measures should be taken by the
Finance Committee with a view to abolishing all discriminatory taxes
even before the Havana Charter and the General Agreement became effective.
He could not agree with the distinction made by the delegate for
France between ad valorem and specific taxes. Theoretically there was
a difference, but in practice there was only a difference, for
administrative reasons, in the manner of collecting the taxes. There
was, in fact, only one consideration of real interest to governments,
namely, the incidence of the taxes, He referred to the interpretative
note to Article 17:2 (d) of the Havana Charter, which he considered
confirmed his argument; he stressed this point because he felt other
countries might at some future date have to avail themselves of the
provisions of Article 17 of t he Charter.
As he had explained at the last meeting, the taxes in question
were originally imposed as a semi-protective measure; but the last
revision was not made with any such intention and was purely for revenue GATT/CP .3/SR. 10
purposes and reflected the necessity of maintaining the relative level
of taxation on domestic products compared with foreign products. In any
case Brazil would have been within its rights under the Protocol of
Provisional Application, in imposing the tax for protective purposes.
Professor Rodrigues agreed with Mr. Shackle in asking that the
terms of reference of the Working party should be as broad as possible.
He further undertook to furnish a statement giving all the relevant
data as soon as possible.
It was decided to set a Working Party.
The CHAIRMAN suggested the following terms of reference:
"To examine, in the light of the provisions of Article III and
taking into account the remarks made during the discussion in the
meeting of the CONTRACTING PARTIES, the discriminatory internal
taxes imposed by the Government of Brazil on products of foreign
origin".
Professor RODRIGUES (Brazil) suggested adding the words "and the
Protocol of Provisional Application" after the words "Article III" .
The terms of reference as amended were adopted.
The following Contracting Parties were selected as members of the
Working Party:
Brazil France
China United Kingdom
Cuba United Status of America
As it appeared that Mr. Desai (India) would not have returned to
Annecy in time to act as Chairman, the CHAIRMAN suggested and it was agreed
that India should be added to the list of members and that the Working
Party should elect its own chairman.
2. Interim Report No.1of Working Party 1 on Accession regarding the
publication of the results of the Annecy Tariff Negotiations (Document
The CHAIRMAN said the Working Party had unfortunately not been able
to find a solution that would be acceptable to the Australian delegate
and the other members had, therefore, presented an interim report GATT/CP .3/SR. 10
page 4
setting out three alternatives. He enquired whether any delegates
wished to comment.
Dr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) said that, while he had no
definite views about the problem, he thought it would be unwise, for
political reasons, to allow any considerable lapse of time between
publication and the putting into effect of schedules. He suggested the
CONTRACTING PARTIES should be asked to state how soon they thought the
new schedules could become effective. There might prove to be no
considerable difference between the time required by Australia and by the
other countries. If, on the contrary, there was a substantial difference,
he thought measures should be taken to publish the Annecy schedules at an
early date.
Dr. LAMSVELT (Netherlands), speaking on behalf of the Working Party
said that it regretted it had been unable to find a solution. It had,
however, been of opinion that it was desirable that the results of the
negotiations should be made known throughout the world even if there must
be a certain lapse of time before some countries could put them into effect.
Mr. EVANS (United States) supported the remarks of the Netherlands
delegate. So far as his country was concerned, any concessions negotiated
at Annecy by the United. States delegation could be put into effect quite
shortly, posibly within six weeks. But, even if that were not possible
in the case of all Contracting, Parties, it was still impertant that the
results of the negotiations should be published as early as possible.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) thought the problem was commen to a number of
acceding governments. His answer to the question as to the period of time
required for implementation in Australia had been based on the consideration
that elections would probably take place in September or later and that the
new Parliament would not meet before February 1950. If the elections
took place earlier, Parliament would, of course, meet earlier. GATT/CP .3/SR. 10
page 5
With regard to the first alternative solution proposed in the
Working Party report, he wished to say that it had not been put forward
by him or his delegation, He appreciated the consideration given by
all delegations concerned to the difficulties of Australia in this
matter. His delegation did, however, regret that it has not been
possible to obtain more support for the viewpoint he had expressed relating
to the delay of public disclosure of the result of the negotiations in
so far as they affected concessions that might be made by Australia.
The circumstances in which it had become necessary for his government to
postpone the implementation of the concessions had equally made it
necessary for it to seek to defer publication of the results until the
Government itself had had an opportunity of informing Parliament of
those results At the present starge the only course he could follow was
to report to his Government the results of the consideration of the
problem by the CONTRACTING PARTIES in the light of the reasons that had
been put forward by other Contracting Parties, particular, those relating
to the political difficulties which would arise for them if part of the
Annecy negotiations were kept secret for a period. He would ask the
Government whether it would reconsider the matter and determine whether
it would be possible for Australia to conclude tariff negotiations at
Annecy on the basis proposed by the CONTRACTING PARTIES. He must,
however, reserve the possibility of seeking again to raise the matter
in the CONTRACTING PARTIES in the light of such further consideration
of the problem by his Government.
The CHAIRMAN thanked the Australian delegate for offering to take
the matter up with his Government and asked whether his delegation would
be willing, pending a reply, to start negotiations with the acceding
countries, on the understanding that Australia's rights in the matter
were reserved.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) said his delegation would agree to start GATT/CP.3/SR. 10
page 6.
negotiations on that understanding if the CONTRACTING PARTIES considered
that that was the most desirable procedure.
The CHAIRMAN and Mr. EVANS (United States) paid a tribute to the
cooperative attitude of the Australian delegation.
It was agreed that Report No. 1 of Working Party 1 should be
transmitted to the Tariff Negotiations Committee, together with a record of the
discussions in the meeting of the CONTRACTING PARTIES for examination
of the desirability of the Australian delegation commencing negotiations
with acceding countries, pending instructions instructions from the Australian
Govrenment, subject to reservation of their rights in connection with
the question of publication of the schedules.
3. Interim Report No. 2 of Working Party 1 on Accession on the period of
duration of schedules embodying the results of the Annecy negotiations.
(Document GATT/CP.3/15: Item 3 of the Agenda)
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom), presenting the report, said the
Working Party had not found it possible to agree on a solution.
He explained the different solutions suggested in the report and the
objections which had been presented in each case. The Working Party
felt the CONTRACTING PARTIES would no doubt wish to consult the
acceding countries before taking a final decision.
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) strongly supported the view that there
should be one date for all schedules. Extension of the duration of
the schedules negotiated in 1947 would entail modification of the
Agreement. The best solution, therefore, appeared to be to agree on
the date of January 1, 1951, for the new schedules, subject to
consultation with the acceding governments.
Dr. NORVAL, (South Africa) pointed out that the countries which
negotiated the Geneva schedules accounted for well over two-thirds of
world trace, whereas the share of the countries likely to accede to
the Agreement at Annecy would probably not be more than one-quarter.
In these circumstances, concessions granted in the Geneva schedules GATT/CP .3/SR. 10
page 7
would naturally be the determining factor for the Annecy schedules
and similarly any material withdrawal of concessions at the time of
renegotiation of the Geneva schedules would have a very important
bearing on the Annecy schedules and would necessitate their renegotiation
simultaneously or very shortly after.
So far as South Africa was concerned, there were very serious
objections to having two separate dates. In the first place, from an
administrative point of view it was undesirable to have two schedules
in use concurrently. Secondly, when the Geneva schedules had been
submitted to Parliament for approval, an assurance had been given to
industrialists that the Geneva schedules would be binding for only
three years.
Dr. LAMSVELT (Netherlands), supporting the remarks of the Belgian
delegate, was strongly in favour of a common date. His delegation
had no strong preference for any particular date; on the contrary,
it was prepared to ask the Netherlands Government for powers to
prolong the period beyond January 1, 1951, if after hearing the
representatives of the acceding governments, that solution appeared
to be the most favoured.
Mr. EVANS (United States) had advocated in the Working Party the
proposal of having two separate dates, but he agreed with the
Netherlands delegate that the acceding countries ought to be
consulted before a final decision was taken. Referring to the remarks
of Dr. Norval, he thought there was a slight difference of concept
regarding the date January 1, 1951; his Government did not regard it
as the date when the Geneva schedules would be completely renegotiated;
it believed the Agreement, both as far as the general provisions and the
schedules were concerned, would continue more or less indefinitely and
that modifications would be the exception rather than the rule. page 8
Mr. Evans said he had some difficulty in following Dr. Norval's
argument that there would be two separate agreements, which would
indeed he an untenable situation. His delegation was thinking in terms
of one agreement, including the 20 schedules negotiated at Geneva,
to which would be added 11 schedules resulting from negotiations with
acceding governments at Annecy. It seemed to him feasible that these
two series of schedules should be current up to different dates.
He thought there was an argument in favour of concessions of a longer
duration for the new schedules. The United States Government had
taken the necessary measures to enable its delegation to agree to new
concessions at Annecy and he wondered whether the countries concerned
would feel that they were obtaining sufficient benefit from United
States concessions which were only current for a few months instead
of for the same length of time as the Geneva concessions.
Dr. NORVAL (South Africa) referring to the remark of the
Netherlands delegate, said his Government attached great importance to
simultaneous renegotiation of the Geneva and Annecy schedules.
Postponement of the date for a few months was not likely to cause great
difficulty; but his Government would have the stronger objection
to making the Annecy schedules binding for three years beyond 1950. He
entirely agreed with the United States delegate that it was not intended
that the schedules should lapse altogether at the end of the three year
period; but South African industrialists had been given the assurance that
the situation could be reviewed at that date.
He could not agree with the United States delegate that the new
schedules would not constitute a separate agreement. The basis of the
Annecy negotiations was that certain concessions had been granted in the
Geneva schedules and that those concessions would apply to acceding
countries. The Geneva schedules had been negotiated on the basis of a quid
pro quo and the new concessions would also be granted on that basis. GATT/CR.3/SR.10 GATT/CP. 3/SR.10
Pa ge 9
If that quid pro quo was not to run for the period of the Geneva concessions,
the new schedules should be valid for three years and then the Geneva
schedules should be made binding for a further three years, but that was
impossible from the point of view of South Africa,
Professor RODRIGUES (Brazil) agreed with the United States interpre-
tation of Article XXVIII, His Government also attached great importance
to the date January 1, 1951, since it was confronted with the same problem
as the South African Government concerning assurances made to industrialists.
The approval of the Government and Parliament would have to be obtained
before a protocol extending the period of the Geneva schedules could be
signed. As regards the date for acceding countries, he thought those
countries should be consulted; but if it were not possible to adopt
January 1, 1951, in their case also, he saw no other solution than
to have two different dates, though he felt the Working Party's report
was perhaps unduly pessimistic concerning the early entry into force of
the new schedules. To have one date for all schedules would he preferable
as it would avoid the necessity of sending large delegations abroad on
dlifferent occasions.
Mr. LECUYER (France) agreed with the delegates who had spoken against
the second solution. He thought the South African delegate had made a
good point in saying that the Annecy negotiations were of secondary
importance compared with the Geneva negotiations. Like the United States
delegate he hoped that January 1, 1951, would net be the occasion for
wholesale modifications of the schedules, but any CONTRACTING PARTY
confronted with serious difficulties could then request revision. What
would be the situation of acceding countries? He felt it would be
advisable to adhere to one date, and would prefer January 1, 1951, which
had been agreed upon after long discussions and had been adopted by
governments. If a substantial majority of the CONTRACTING PARTIES was
in favour of a different date, however, he would not insist, but would
have to consult his Government. GATT/CP .3/SR. 10
page 10.
Mr. HSUEH (China) agreed in general with the remarks of the
Belgian and South African delegates. He was of opinion that the
acceding countries should he asked to agree to January 1, 1951 in view
of the fact that still another set of negotiations might take place
before that date and a different date for each of the three sets of
schedules would lead to all kinds of complications. Then, when the
Geneva schedules had been modified in January 1951, in accordance with
Article XXVIII, both sets would run concurrently for whatever period
the CONTRACTING PARTIES considered appropriate.
Mr. COUILLARD (Canada) said his delegation favoured the adoption
of a single date, subject to the views of the acceding governments.
He considered that from an administrative as well as from a purely legal
point of view, it would be a simplification if the new schedules ran to
the same date as the Geneva schedules.
He attached importance to the point made by the South African
delegate which he thought had not been fully understood by the United
States delegate. To maintain January 1, 1951, as the date for all
schedules would allow CONTRACTING PARTIES represented at the present
meeting to extend to acceding countries concessions up to January 1, 1951,
which was a measure they might not be able to undertake if the concessions
had to be extended up to, say, 1952. The objection had been made that it
might not be practicable for all of the governments to negotiate.
He thought the best reply was that given by the United States delegate
and supported by several other delegates, when he explained what was the
spirit of Article XXVIII.
Mr. ROWE (Southern Rhodesia) supported the views expressed by the
delegate of South Africa.
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) noted that Article XXVIII did not mention
January 1, 1951, as the date of termination of the schedules but of their
possible revision. He would have no objection to the adoption of a new
date, but thought the argument in the Working Party's report had been in GATT/CP .3/SR. 10
page 11.
favour of a single date since that would allow any revisions to be
carried out in one operation. He enquired what would be the situation
after January 1, 1951: there was nothing in Article XXVIII which would
necessitate that revisions should be carried out by means of
multilateral negotiations. Under that Article any contracting party
could open negotiations at any time after that date. But it must not
be overlooked that agreements should not be contracted as between one
contracting party and another without taking into account the interests
of other contracting parties.
Dr. AUGENTHALEER (Czechoslovakia) said he understood that after
January 1, 1951, the schedules might be reviewed in bilateral negotiations
and modifications put into effect with the consent of the CONTRACTING
PARTIES. As regards the duration of the new schedules, he thought it
could be assumed that there would be a meeting of the original and the
new CONTRACTING PARTIES in the Spring of 1951, which meant that the
new schedules would remain in force for at least a year and, by October
at the latest, it should be possible to have one and the same arrangement
for all parties.
Mr. EVANS (United States) pointed out that Article XXVIII did not
specify that new negotiations had to take place on a certain date;
it reserved the right of the CONTRACTING PARTIES to request modifications
at any time after that date. It would be a simplification to have one
date if all CONTRACTING PARTIES were ready to negotiate on that basis.
Mr. JOHNSEN (New Zealand) support the remarks of the Canadian
delegate. The New Zealand legislation was such that schedules resulting
from the present negotiations would be regarded as a modification of the
Geneva agreement and they could not be put into operation without new
legislation. It would, therefore, be more practical to fix the same
date for both series of schedules. GATT/CP .3/SR. 10
page 12.
The CHAIRMAN, summing up, said the discussions had shown, that
there was a large majority in favour of the new schedules having the
same period of currency as the Geneva schedules and a unanimous opinion
that the matter should be discussed with the representatives of the
acceding governments before a final decision was taken.
He, therefore, moved, and it was agreed that Interim Report No. 2
of Working Party 1 should be referred to the Tariff Negotiations Committee
for discussion with the representatives of the acceding countries and
that at the same time both the Tariff Negotiations Committee and the
representatives of the acceding countries should be informed of the
views expressed in the present meeting of the CONTRACTING PARTIES.
As the Secretariat thought the Summary Records could not be ready
in time, the Chairman requested Mr. Shackle to act as rapporteur and
give the Tariff Negotiations Committee a rTsumT of the discussions.
4. Interim Report No. 3 of Working Party 1 on Accession - Procedure for
joint consideration of questions relating to accession. (Document
GATT/CP.3/16: Item 3 of the Agenda)
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom), presenting the report, said it had
been assumed by the Working Party that the proposed Joint Working Party
would be composed of representatives of the CONTRACTING PARTIES and
acceding countries in the same proportions as the Tariff Negotiations
Committee.
It was agreed, on the suggestion of Mr. SHACKLE, supported by the
CHAIRMAN, to refer the report to the Tariff Negotiations Committee before
final decision.
The meeting was adjourned
at 5.40 p.m. |
GATT Library | zh812kr1063 | Summary record of the the Twenty-eighth Meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy, on Monday, 20 June 1949, at 2.30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, June 20, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 20/06/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.28 and GATT/CP.3/SR.27 + Corr.1 SR.28 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/zh812kr1063 | zh812kr1063_90060122.xml | GATT_144 | 1,547 | 9,976 | GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS AND
TRADE
ACCORD GENERAL SUR
LES TARIFS DOUANIERS
ET LE COMMERCE
RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP.3/SR .28
20 June, 1949.
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH.
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Third Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE THE TWENTY-EIGHTH MEETING
Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy,
on Monday, 20 June 1949, at 2.30 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. G. BRONZ (United States)
Mr. E. WYNDHAM WHITE (Executive Secretary)
Mr. N. PERRY (Canada)
Subjects discussed:
1. Final Report of the Committee on Special Exchange
Agreements (GATT/CP .3/44)
2. Request of Delegation of Cuba regarding adjustments
in certain tariff items (GATT/CP.3/45).
Statement covering request of the Cuban Delegation
to negotiate tariff items on table potatoes.
3. Report of Working Party 3 on Consultation Procedure
under Article XII, 4 (a), continued.
1. Final Report of the Committee on Special Exchange
Agreements (GATT/CP.3/44).
Mr. BRONZ (United States) took the Chair and introduced the Final
Report of the Committee on Special Exchange Agreements as Chairman of
that Committee.
Mr. LEWIS (United States) introduced Resolution No. 3 (A/W/9), which
he explained had been drafted to cover, so far as GATT was concerned, the
case of Liberia as covered in Article 24 6 (d) of the Havana Charter.
The Final Report of the Committee on Special Exchange Agreements,
including Resolutions Nos. 1 and 2, was adopted by a vote of 17 for and
none against.
Resolution No. 3 was adopted by a vote of 15 for and none against. GATT/CP. 3/SR .28
page 2.
Mr. JOHNSON (New Zealand) expressed his delegations appreciation
of the work of the Committee, much of which had concerned particularly
New Zealand; of the association with that work of the representative
of the International Monetary Fund; of the work of the Chairman, for
which he felt Mr. Bronz had been particularly qualified, and to the
CONTRACTING PARTIES for having received the report so favourably.
2. Request of Delegation Of Cuba regarding adjustments in
certain tariff items (GATT/CP.3/45).
Statement covering request of the Cuban Delegation
to negotiate tariff items on table potatoes.
Mr. WYNDHAM WHITE (Executive Secretary) took the Chair and inquired
whether it was agreed to entertain the Cuban request under Item 20 of
the Agenda. There were no objections.
Dr. PANDO (Cuba) explained that his Delegation were seeking
authority from the CONTRACTING PARTIES to enter into negotiations with
the Delegations of Canada and the United States, with which countries
the items in question had been negotiated initially. He pointed out
that the table on page 2 of the statement covering the Cuban request
sets forth the tariffs on these items as in Parts I and II of
Schedule 9 annexed to the General Agreement, and that the table on the
second page of the statement sets forth the proposed adjustments in
these duties. The proposed adjustments would apply only during the
months of July, October and November, i.e., a requested increase in
duties during July in exchange for an offer to lower the duties by an
equivalent amount during the months of October and November, which his
Delegation regarded as satisfactory compensation for the requested
increase which they considered would afford adequate protection for
domestic producers. GATT/CP.3/SR.28
page 3.
The CHAIRMAN inquired whether the Canadian and United states
Delegations were prepared to enter forthwith into negotiations with
Cuba.
Mr. LEWIS (United States) and Mr. PERRY (Canada) indicated that
their respective delegations were prepared to enter into negotiations
with Cuba on the tariff items in question.
The CHIRMAN enquired whether any other contracting party considered
itself to have a substantial interest in these items.
Mr. LAMSVELT (Netherlands) stated that the Netherlands, being one
of the principal European suppliers of table potatoes, had a substantial
interest. However, he assumed that thre would be an opportunity to
put the Netherlands case when the results of the negotiations were
reported to the CONTRACTING PARTIES.
The CHAIRMAN commented that this was presumably a case of modifying
the appropriate schedules to GATT which should be handled in a manner
analogous to the procedure under Article XXVIII, i.e., negotiations
would take place with the contracting parties with which the tariff items
in question had been negotiated initially, as well as with any contract-
ing party which the CONTRACTING PARTIES determined to be substantially
interested. The CONTRACTING PARTIES would indicate a date by which the
negotiations should be completed and the results reported to the
CONTRACTING PARTIES. The modifications agreed would take effect immed-
iately upon approval by the CONTRACTING PARTIES, all contracting parties
having been given an opportunity to participate at some stage if the
CONTRACTING PARTIES saw fit. For example, the Netherlands Delegation
could be given an opportunity to participate at the time a report was
made to the CONTRACTING PARTIES. GATT/CP .3/SR. 28
page 4.
Dr. PANDO (Cuba) agreed with the statement made by the Executive
Secretary, which he considered to be a fair interpretation of the
appropriate procedure and expressed the hope that agreement could be
reached in time for the adjustments to be effected beginning July 1;
otherwise the domestic producers would not be able to enjoy the
protection proposed for that month.
The CHAIRMAN enquired whether the Canadian, Cuban and United States
Delegations were in a position to enter into negotiations immediately
and to report to the CONTRACTING PARTIES in approximately a week, say,
June 28.
Mr. LEWIS (United States) indicated that because of domestic
procedural requirements it would be impossible for the United States
Delegation to indicate its final decision prior to June 28, but never-
theless his Delegation would endeavour to meet the suggested deadline.
Mr. FERRY (Canada) indicated that his Delegation was in a position
to commence negotiations without delay.
Mr. PANDO (Cuba) stated that his Delegation would report to the
CONTRACTING PARTIES on the results of the negotiations as soon as agree-
ment had been reached.
Dr. AUGHENTHALER (Czecholovakia) inquired in what form such modifi-
cations in the appropriate schedules to GATT could be effected prior to
July 1.
Dr. MULLER (Chile) indicated that he was not now in a position to
state whether or not Chile would be substantially affected by the adjust-
ments proposed by Cuba and enquired whether his Delegation would have an GATT/CP .3/SR .28
page 5.
opportunity at a later date to present its case if it so desired.
The CHAIRMAN commented that the formal position was as described
by tha delegate for Czechoslovakia, i.e., the proposal was to modify
the appropriate schedules to GATT which would require formal Accept-
ance by the CONTRACTING PARTIES. On the other hand, if such a
procedure were approved by the CONTRACTING PARTIES - all interested
parties having been given an opportunity to participate with the
approval of the CONTRACTING PARTIES - there would appear to be no insuper-
able difficulties in giving immediate effect to the proposed adjustments,
subject to subsequent formalisation in a protocol, wich in turn would
require formal acceptance by the CONTRACTING PARTIES. If there were
objections to the procedure outlined, the position could be formalised
meanwhile by a waiver under Article XXV, pending formalization by a
protocol of modifications. He doubted, however, if this procedure would
be necessary. There was a precedent for the first suggestion, i.e.,
the modifications in the schedule relating to Pakistan which were agreed
at the second session and which in due course it would appear to be
desirable to embody formally in a protocol of modifications which would
include all modifications approved by the CONTRACTING PARTIES.
With respect to Chile, there appeared to be two possible remedies.
First, at any time before the report was made to the CONTRACTING PARTIES,
the Chilean Delegation could consult the Cuban Delegation, or, secondly,
either at any time before or at the time the report was made to the
CONTRACTING PARTIES, the CONTRACTING PARTIES could be asked to determine
whether Chile had a substantial interest and was therefore entitled to
join in the negotiations, or alternatively, the CONTRACTING PARTIES could
request that no final action be taken until Chile was consulted and gave
its consent. GATT/CP.3/SR. 28
Page 6.
Mr. MULLER (Chile) indicated that he would approach the Cuban
Delegation when it had been ascertained whether or not Chile was
substantially affected.
Dr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) proposed that while negotiations
were taking place the possible legal methods of effecting the contem-
plated adjustments should be investigated and suggested that the
Article XIX procedure might be a possibility.
It was agreed to request the Delegations of Canada, Cuba and the
United States to enter into negotiations without delay and to report
to the CONTRACTING PARTIES as soon as possible.
3. Report of Working Party 3 on Consultation Procedure under
Article XII. 4 (a) Continued.
Mr. PERRY (Canada) (Chairman of Working Party 3) took the Chair.
The following statement submitted by the delegate of Southern
Rhodesia was noted:
"The second sentence of paragraph 18 which states
that the report should be treated as a secret docu-
ment would imply that the report would be circulated
in a very limited number to the Head of each deleg-
ation of the contracting parties personally, if the
CONTRACTING PARTIES in session or to the
representative designated by each contracting party
as contemplated in paragraph 7 of the report, if the
report is submitted when the CONTRACTING PARTIES
The report of Working Party 3 on Consultation Procedure under
Article XII 4 (a) was adopted. |
GATT Library | vv568fn3617 | Summary record of the Third Meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy, on Wednesday, 13 April 1949, at 2.30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, April 13, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 13/04/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.3 and GATT/CP.3/SR.3 + Corr.1,2 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/vv568fn3617 | vv568fn3617_90060027.xml | GATT_144 | 3,556 | 22,772 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR LIMITED B
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS GATT/CP.3/SR. 3 13 April 1949
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Contracting Parties
THIRD SESSION
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE THIRD MEETING
Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy,
on Wednesday, 13 April 1949, at 2.30 p.m.
Chairman: Hon. L.D. WILGRESS (Canada)
Subjects Discussed:
1. Import Restrictions Imposed by the Union of South Africa
2. Non-discriminatory Measures Notified under Article XVIII
1. The Import Restrictions Imposed by the Union of South Africa
in accordance with Article XII 2(a)(i) and Article XIV 1(b).
(GATT/CP/3 and GATT/CP.3/3 & Add.1 with Annex 1)
Mr. NORVAL (Union of South Africa) presented the case for his
Government in a statement which, in view of the importance of its
contents, is reproduced in full and annexed to this Summary Record
(See Annex)
Mr. BRONZ (United States) said that great importance had
been attached to the procedure of consultation during the drawing up
of the General Agreement, and for the benefit of the future
functioning of the Contracting Parties, opportunity should be taken of
the present case to study the correct procedure of consultation to be
followed in future under Article XII 4 (a). Although the fact that
the South African Government did not communicate to the Chairman
of the Contracting Parties until the restrictions had been actually GATT/CP. 3/SR.3
page 2
imposed had not made A material difference in the present case, the
correct procedure should, nevertheless, be expounded so that in future
consultation would normally be instituted when a government was
considering the imposition of such measures and not after it had come
to a decision. He also suggested that a scheme should be designed
and recommended to the Union of South Africa for facilitating token
imports in accordance with Article XII 3 (c) (ii). For giving effect
to the provisions of Article XII 3 (c) (iii) there should be established
a procedure for examining the effects of such measures on the interests
of other Contracting Parties. And finally, the South African
Government should be requested to supply further information on any
modification of these restrictions which might have occurred since
November and on their possible development after next July. He
proposed that a working party should be set up to review, and recommend
on the circumstances of, these restrictions.
Mr. van BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands), speaking for the Benelux
delegations, referred to certain divergencies between the South African
letter of 12 November 1948 and the statistics in the memorandum prepared
by the International Monetary Fund regarding the Union's sterling
situation, and suggested to request the South African Government for
more precise information on the exact situation in which these restric-
tions were imposed as well as on their form and nature; then the
Contracting Parties would be able to decide whether the restrictions
were permissible under the provisions of the General Agreement. He
seconded the motion to set up a working party.
Mr. PHILIP (France) was also in favour of a working party
being established, to examine both the financial and commercial aspects
of these restrictions. GATT/CP .3/SR.3
page 3
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom), while not opposed to relegating
the work to a sub-body of experts, thought that great care should be
taken in drawing up its terms of reference. With reference to the
suggestion made by the representative of France, he thought that
only the commercial aspects of the measures would fall appropriately
within the scope of the present item.
Mr. PERRY (Canada) was interested in knowing to what extent
discrimination was involved in the restrictions. He supported
the proposal to set up a working party.
Mr. NORVAL (South Africa) said that since the financial
restrictions had been fully dealt with by the Fund in connection with
its approval of the exchange restrictions, it was only the quantitative
restrictions which should be studied by the proposed working party.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) referred to the remarks made by the
representative of the United States regarding the consultation
requirements of Article XII 4 (a) and drew attention to the history
of these provisions; great importance was attached by his Government
to the provision that in certain circumstances consultations might be
instituted after restrictions had been imposed. As for the terms
of reference of the working party, he thought they should be confined
to the matters referred to in paragraph 4(a) of Article XII. Concerning
the question of discrimination raised by the representative of Canada,
he thought that the reference to Article XIV 1 (b) in the South African
letter was made in connection with the rationing of exchange, an
action which had been approved by the Fund and which did not lie
within the sphere of interest of the Contracting Parties. GATT/CP.3/SR .3
page 4
Mr. BRONZ (United States) thought that the terms of reference
as advocated by the representatives of the United Kingdom and
Australia were too restricted. Although the exchange restrictions
were not subject to re-examination by the Contracting Parties, the
working party should not be precluded from studying them in view of
the close relation between the trade restrictions and the problems
of the monetary reserves and balance of payments. The working party
should therefore be authorized to review all relevant matters in the
light of paragraph 2 of Article XV.
Mr. HERRERA-ARANGO (Cuba) suggested that the terms of
reference should also cover a review of the situation or the countries
whose interests were affected by the restrictions.
he CHAIRMAN proposed that the Working Farty should be
directed "to review, within the terms of Article XII 4 (a) and having
regard also to provisions of paragraph 3 (a), the situation created by
the import restrictions, and the procedure of consultation under
Article XII 4 (a);" and "the Working Party should consult with the
representatives of the Fund."
Mr. ROWE (Southern Rhodesia) thought that the point mentioned
by the representative of Cuba was perhaps not covered by the terms
of reference proposed by the Chairman since paragraph 4 (a) seemed
to refer only to consultation on the possible effect of the alternative
corrective measures on the economies of other contracting parties.
Mr. BRONZ (United States) could not agree to this
interpretation as he thought that the clause in question referred to
the possible effect of the restrictions themselves. GATT/CP.3/SR.3
page 5
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) said that the provisions of paragraph
3 (c) should not be included within the terms of reference. Moreover,
there seemed to be some inconsistency between the terms of reference
suggested by the Chairman, which required the working party to
"review" the situation, and the provisions of Article XII 4 (a) which
set down definite subjects for consultation.
Mr. NYS (Belgium) stated that since the matter was one which
involved the provisions of many articles of the Agreement, it would
be neither desirable nor practicable to limit the mandate of the
Working Party within the terms of a single sub-paragraph, if all
factors relevant to restrictions were to be taken into consideration.
In replying to the representative of Australia the CHAIRMAN
pointed out that the consultation referred to in paragraph 4 (a) was
to be between a contracting party and the Contracting Parties. For
the sake of clarity, he would suggest, however, stating explicitly
in the terms of reference that the Working Party was to review the
situation "in order to facilitate the conclusion of consultations
between the Union of South Africa and the Contracting Parties."
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) expressed the opinion that any
examination of the procedure of consultation under Article XII 4 (a)
should be made for the purpose of facilitating the future operation
of the Agreement and that the Working Party should in no circumstance
be required to deliberate on the procedure which had been followed
by the Union of South Africa, since, by virtue of the provision in
paragraph 4 (a) which permitted posterior consultation when prior
consultation was impracticable, there was nothing in the steps
taken by the Government of South Africa which would expose it to
challenge or criticism. GATT/CP.3/SR.3
page 6
Mr. BRONZ (United States) affirmed the position of his
Government that even though the variation in the procedure actually
followed by South Africa was not a matter of importance, the correct
procedure should nevertheless be clarified as it would be of great
importance for the future of the Agreement. On these grounds he
would favour the retention of the reference to the procedure of
consultations in the terms of reference for the Working Party.
(Discussion on this item to be resumed at the next meeting.)
2. Examination of the Statements Submitted in Support of the
Non-discriminatory Measures Notified under Paragraph 11 of
Article XVIII (GATT/CP.3/8 and GATT/CP.3/1/Add.5.)
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) recalled the procedure laid down
at the Second Session in regard to the notified measures, which
involved the submission of supplementary statements and the lodging
of objections. Since the time-limits had not been adhered to in
all cases, the first task at this session would be to decide whether
a variation in the procedure laid down should be accepted. Secondly,
it had been found during previous sessions that certain measures
notified under paragraph 11 did not fall appropriately within the
scope of its provisions and it was likely that some of the remaining
measures might be found upon close examination to be of the same
nature; the question of eligibility of the measures should, therefore,
also be considered. Thirdly, decisions must be taken at this session
on questions of substance: whether any of these measures materially
affected the interests of any contracting party and the period of time
in which the measures could be maintained. Finally, it might also be
found desirable or necessary to lay down a procedure for the
acceptance of notifications of measures maintained by acceding GATT/CP.3/SR.3
page 7
countries at the time of their accession.
Mr. de VRIES (Netherlands) elucidated the communication
from his Government contained in GATT/CP.3/1 Add. 1 and affirmed
the position of his Government that when Article XII should cease
to be applicable his Government should not be precluded from
resorting to Article XVIII and applying the notified measures as
new measures and that they should then be considered under the
relevant paragraphs of that Article.
Mr. EVANS (United States) supported the views expressed
by the representative of Australia. As regards any measure
which had ceased to be in force under paragraph 11 of Article XVIII,
he concurred with the representative of the Netherlands that it
should be regarded as a new measure in the event of a renewed app-
lication being made under Article XVIII. The date set out in the
original procedure for the lodging of objections could not be
regarded as valid in respect of those measures for which supplementary
statements were not filed in accordance with the procedure and his
Government had therefore reserved its right to object to these
measures during the present session. Both the questions of substance
and eligibility should be considered by the Working Party as well as
the procedure to be adopted in respect of new measures notified
hereafter.
Mr. DESAI (India) maintained that when a measure which was
applied under Article XII should cease to be applicable under that
Article, a Government should not be precluded from reverting to the
provisions of paragraph 11 of Article XVIII and continue to maintain
it as a measure for economic development if the measure had been
formerly notified under that paragraph. GATT/CP .3/SR .3
page 8
Mr. HOIMES (United Kingdom) said that this question should
be regarded as a part of the general question of eligibility which
would be one of the major questions to occupy the Working Party's
attention. In view of the belated submission of certain
supplementary statements, the Contracting Parties should be entitled
to raise the questions of substance during the session irrespective
of the procedure which required the lodging of objections before a
certain date. He also proposed that a procedure similar to
the one laid down at the second session in regard to measures
notified between sessions should be formulated for the period between
the third and fourth sessions.
Discussion of this item to be resumed at the next meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 5.45 p.m. ANNEX TO GATT/CP. 3/SR . 3
page 9
Statement by the Leader of the South African Delegation:
Mr. Chairman,
1. In document GATT/CP.3/ dated 16 December 1948, was
reproduced the text of a communication from my Government to the
Contracting Parties announcing that; as a result of a serious and
persistent decline in its monetary reserves, the Union of South
Africa had found it necessary to impose certain restrictions on
imports.
The import restrictions applied by the Union are of a
two-fold character:
(i) exchange restrictions by which the provision of
non-starling currency for imports from non-sterling countries
during the period July 1948, to June 1949 is limited to 50 per
cent of that used in 1947, supplemented in the case of machinery
and essential materials. These restrictions were applied after
consultation and with the approval of the International Monetary
Fund, under Article VIII of the Fund Agreement, and
(ii) prohibition of imports of non-essential consumer
goods irrespective of the country of origin.
2. The Union Government's communication also briefly
outlined the basic causes of disequilibrium in the Union's
balance of payments and gave an indication of some of the
alternative corrective measures which were introduced prior to the
enforcement of exchange rationing in an effort to call a halt to the
uninterrupted drain on the country's monetary reserves.
3. Representatives of the Contracting Parties will
meanwhile have received also copies of Document GATT/CP.3/3/
Add.1/Annex 1/ of 5 April, containing a Memorandum prepared by ANNEX TO GATT/CP .3/SR . 3
page 10
the International Monetary Fund regarding the currency restrictions
imposed by South Africa.
The Fund's Memorandum has drawn particular attention to the
following basic causes of disequilibrium in the Union' s balance of
payments:
(i) the growing deterioration in our terms of trade with
other countries due primarily to the fact that the price of South
Africa's principal export product, namely, gold, in terms of the
currencies of our principal suppliers has remained practically
unaltered since the beginning of the Second World War whilst the
prices of commodities and services which we require from them have
risen very considerably and have, in many cases, not yet ceased
to rise;
(ii) the country 's abnormal requirements of imported
supplies resulting from replenishment after the war of depleted
stocks of consumers' goods, the replacement of machinery, plant
and equipment worn out during the war, the opening of the new
goldfields in the Orange Free State, the establishment of new
industries as well as the expansion of existing industries and
related activities; and
(iii) the undue increase in the supply of Money in the Union,
caused, mainly, by the unprecedented Influx of flight capital and,
to a lesser extent, also by the increase in bank credit, both of
which have helped to accentuate the effective demand for goods
from abroad. Whilst the capital came almost exclusively from
sterling area countries, it accentuated the demand in the Union
for goods from both sterling and non-sterling sources of supply.
4. The information submitted in the Fund's report clearly
sets out the position with regard to the Union's balance-of-payments ANNEX TO GATT/CP.3/SR.3
page 11
difficulties and there is nothing I would wish to add to it, except
perhaps to emphasise that the facts given by the Fund should not be
interpreted as an indication that South Africa's financial situation
has become basically unstable.
5. Our big danger has been the continuation of excessive
non-sterling expenditure and we regret that this has had to be
counteracted by means of import restrictions. As one who was
intimately associated with this problem, I can assure you,
Mr. Chairman, that we tried very hard to find alternative corrective
measures which would have avoided the need for import restrictions.
Our ability to remove the basic causes of disequilibrium in the
Union's balance of payments by measures other than restrictions on
import is, however, strictly limited.
6. The first of these causes, namely, the growing
deterioration in our terms of trade, cannot be corrected on our own
initiative as the matter is beyond our control both in respect of
the world monetary price of gold and the overseas inflation of commodity
prices. A decision with regard to the world price of gold obviously
does not rest with South Africa and all I need add at this stage is
that the Union Government has satisfied itself that the Government
of the Unitid States of America and the Executive Directors and
Staff of the International Monetary Fund are fully conversant with
the peculiar difficulties experienced by the Union as a result of
the considerable decline in the exchange value of gold.
7. The second cause, namely, the abnormal demand in
South Africa for imported goods, may become less important as a
disturbing factor in the course of time since there is already
increasing evidence of excessive anticipatory purchases by Union ANNEX TO GATT/CP.3/SR.3
page 12
importers and of overstocking in mary lines of consumers' goods.
On the other hand, our essential import requirements of plant and
machinery, equipment and materials for mining and industrial purposes
are likely to be maintained at a high level for some considerable
time to come and it would, therefore, have been unwise to rely too
much on a contradiction of consumers' demand as a moderating factor
in our present very heavy import programme. We are, therefore,
faced with the need of taking additional measures in the national
economic interest with a view to ensuring the continuous supply of
the producers' goods required directly or indirectly by all the pro-
ducing and deveIoping gold mines, as well as all essential and desirable
industries and services.
8. The third dj.sturbing factor in the Union's balance of
payments, namely, the excessive influx of unconvertible "flight"
capital from the sterling area, has admittedly ceased to be a cause
of disequilibrium, but it has unfortunately left in its wake a good
deal of the inflation previously brought about by it. Whilst some
of this inflationary pressure has probably been directly associated
with the rapid extension of industrial production, a substantial
part thereof has undoubtedly gone into the buying and holding of
imported comrnodities and the extension of credit to the general
public. In order to counteract the inflationary disturbances of
these factors, the South African commercial "banks have been requested,
as a matter of positive public policy, to contract credit facilities for
non-productive purposes generally and also to restrict advances in
the case of the less essential and over-developed industries, with
due regard to the obvious need for exercising discretion and avoiding
unnecessary disturbances." ANNEX TO GATT/CP.3/SR .3
page 13
9. I should, in conclusion, like to refer briefly to
what appears to be an incorrect impression on the part of certain
non-sterling countries of South Africa's position as a member of the
sterling group. I am referring particularly to certain countries
in Western Europe with which the United Kingdom has concluded
agreements regulating trade and financial payments between them
individually and the sterling area as a whole. Some of these countries,
which are also contracting parties to the General Agreement, have
represented to the Union Government that since, in terms of their
existing financial agreements with the United Kingdom, all financial
transactions between members of the sterling area and themselves have
to be settled in sterling, the Union could not argue that settlement of
any unfavourable balances with them would cost us gold and that, in
consequence, they were entitled to be treated on the same basis as
sterling countries for the purposes of the Union's exchange restrictions.
10. I should explain, however, that South Africa's position
is entirely different from that of the other sterling area countries
since we are committed under the Union-United Kingdom Gold Loan
Agreement to reimburse the United Kingdom in gold for any net payments
made by the Bank of England on our behalf to countries outside the
sterling area. South Africa is not member of the sterling-area
dollar pool.
11. From the Union's point of view, therefore, any net
payment made on its behalf by the United Kingdom to countries outside
the sterling area represents a loss of gold, irrespective of whether
such payment is effected in sterling or other currencies and we have,
therefore, not been able to meet the requests for exceptional
treatment preferred by certain non-sterling countries. ANNEX TO GATT/CP.3/SR.3
page l4
12. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would assure you and the
Representatives of the Contracting Parties that the Union Government
is anxious that the restrictions it has imposed shall not disturb the
normal channels of trade any more than is absolutely necessary to
remove the present disequilibrium in the Union's balance of payments.
The Union Government is also prepared to consult with any Government
which feels that its interests are materially affected and to give
due consideration to any proposals which might be submitted as a
basis for mitigating the effects of our restrictions on the trade of
individual countries, provided such proposals do not detract from
the early achievement of the objectives underlying these restrictions.
13. The restrictions applied by the Union of South Africa
from time to time will be dictated by the circumstances. |
GATT Library | cn819rg6256 | Summary record of the Thirteenth Meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy, on Wednesday, 18 May 1949, at 3 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, May 18, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Third Session of the Contracting Parties | 18/05/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.13 and GATT/CP.3/SR.13 + Corr.1,2 SR.14 + Corr.1,2 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/cn819rg6256 | cn819rg6256_90060067.xml | GATT_144 | 2,488 | 15,537 | NERAL AGREEMENT
TARIFFS AND
ADE
ACCORD GENERAL SUR
LES TARIFS DOUANIERS
ET LE COMMERCE
RESTRICTED
LIMITED C
GATT/CP. 3/SR .13
18 May 1949
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Third Session of the Contracting Parties
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE THIRTEENTH MEETING
Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy,
on Wednesday, 18 May 1949, at 3 p.m.
Chairman: Dr. H. van Blankenstein (Netherlands)
Subjects discussed:
1. Continuation of discussion on the Cuban textile industry.
2. Report of Working Party 4 on South African-Southern
Rhodesian Customs Union.
3. Non-discriminatory measures notified by the Government
of Ceylon.
1. Continuation of discussion on the adoption of measures to resolve
the crisis of the Cuban textile industry (Document GATT/CP.3/23)
The CHAIRMAN recalled that two drafts of terms of reference
for the working party to be set up to consider item 13 on the Agenda
were submitted, namely one proposal by the representative of Cuba
(A/W/4), and one proposed by the Chairman as follows:
"(a) to examine all the relevant facts submitted by Cuba
in the light of the Provisions of Article XIX.
(b) If such examination reveals that certain aspects of the
action contemplated by Cuba are not covered by Article
XIX but more properly fall under other provisions of GATT/CP . 3/SR.13
page 2.
the Agreement, to refer these matters for further con-
sideration by the Contracting parties or if the provisions
of Article XVIII are the appropriate provisions to consult
on these aspects with the working Party on Article XVIII."
Mr. PANDO (Cuba) said that the terms of reference proposed by
the Chairman limited the subject to Article XIX. He thought however
that the scope of the terms of reference should be enlarged so as to
provide for any oither provision that might be applicable. If, as a
result of unforeseen circumstances, no solution could be found under
Articles XVIII or XIX, his delegation might wish to invoke other
provisions such as Article XXX and he wished to reserve his right to
do so in due course. He could not agree that the Working Party should
be instructed precisely how to approach the question. Such procedure
would prejudge the examination of the problem in all its aspects.
He had indicated previously that in his view the provisions of
Article XVIII were applicable, if not to the whole question perhaps
to some parts of it; the Working Party however had to study and
to make appropriate recommendations on the basis of a full investiga
tion of the information that his delegation intended to submit.
Prof. RODRIGUES (Brazil) said that the Cuban proposal was
reasonable. The Working Party should be composed of members who had
a special interest in the question and should be able to take care
of it in a flexible manner and without prejudice to measures of
substance. Wherever it is found that provisions of Article XVIII
are applicable co-ordination with Working Party 2 should be established.
Mr. REISMAN (Canada) was in general agreement with the Cuban
draft, subject however to amending the last three lines of the second
paragraph so as to read: "(proper co-ordination)of its work with
Working Party 2 on those aspect of the matter that come under :Article V GATT/CP .3/SR. 13
page 3.
and are dealt with by Working Party 2."
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) proposed to amend the second and
third line of the first paragraph of the Cuban draft so as to read:
"(Item 13 of the Agenda) in the light of any pertinent provisions
of GATT, and to make .....".
The representatives of Belgium, Brazil, and the Netherlands
supported the United Kingdom amendment.
Mr. PANDO (Cuba), referring to the United Kingdom amendment,
said that Articles XVIII and XIX were the main articles on which, he
hoped, the Working Party would base its consideration, and that in
his view, the United Kingdom amendment did not introduce any point
of substance. He could see no purpose in the Canadian amendment as
his original draft expressed the same idea.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY (United States) preferred the original text of
the Cuban draft tothe Canadian amendment.
Mr. REISMAN (Canada) stated that the purpose of his amendment
was to include in the terms of reference notions orally expressed at
the previous meeting by the representatives of the United States
and Cuba, namely that the word "co-ordination" in the fourthline of
the second paraagraph implied co-ordination between the two Working
Parties.
The CHAIRMAN assured the representative of Canada that the word
"co-ordination" in the Cuban draft was meant as co-ordination between
the two Working Parties and the representative of Canada thereafter
withdrew his amendment.
The United Kingdom amendment was put to the vote and defeated
by ten votes to six.
The Cuban proposal (A./W/4 as follows) was put to the vote and
adopted by fourteen votes to none:
"To study the question on textiles submitted by Cuba (Item 13 GATT/CP. 3/SR. 13
page 4.
of the Agenda) in the light of Article XVIII, XIX and/or any other
pertinent provision of GATT, and to make the appropriate recommendation
to the CONTRACTING PARTIES.
"If the Working Party finds that in its consideration of the
measures proposed by the Government of Cuba recourse is had to the
provisions of Article XVIII, the Working Party shall take appropriate
steps to ensure the proper co-ordination of its work on these aspects
of the matter with the consideration which is being given by Working
Party No.2 to the application of Article XVIII."
The CHAIRMAN said that as the CONTRACTING PARTIES had decided
to set up a Working Party, he would propose its composition at the
next meeting.
Mr. COELHO (India) thought that the CONTRACTING PARTIES should
define clearly the nature of co-operation between the newly established
working party and Working Party 2 as the latter had already a con-
siderable agenda.
The CHAIRMAN suggested that it should be left to the Chairmen
of the two working parties to find an appropriate method of co-
operation.
The representatives of Brazil, Cuba and France, supported the
Chairman's view.
2. Report of Working Party 4 on the South Africa-Southern Rhodesia
Customs Union (Document GATT/CP.3/24).
At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. COUILLARD (Canada)
(Chairman, Working Party 4), introduced the report on the South Africa.
Southern Rhodesia Customs Union and the draft Declaration annexed
thereto.
Mr. COELHO (India) reserved his final view on the matter; the
document had been circulated only two days before and there had not GATT/CP.3/SR.13
page 5.
been sufficient time for consultation with his Government. At the
moment, he wished to give only tentative views: he inquired whether
the first part of Annexure B on page 2 of the report indicated the
introduction of any new or increased preferential tariffs.
Dr. NORVAL (South Africa) said that the second part of Annexure
B on page 2 of the document indicated that no new or increased
preferential rates had been introduced.
Mr. COELHO (India), presenting additional tentative views, said
that he was particularly impressed by the absence of any definitiveness.
He quoted in support of his view the following pages of the report:
"The representativesof South Africa and Southern Rhodesia indicated that
their Governments have made no plans concerning the preferential rates
of duty." (first three lines of second sub-paragraph of paragraph 2);
"Several members of the Working Party expressed regret that the
Interim Agreement does not provide a more definite indication of
the steps that will be taken ...." (first three lines of sub-
paragraph 3 of paragraph 2); "The representatives of South Africa
and Southern Rhodesia explained the problems involved in the re-
establishment of this customs union which make it difficult to
formulate at this stage a definite schedule or time-table..." (first
four lines of paragraph 6).
The CHAIRMAN referred to the Declaration proposed by Working
Party 4, specially to the undertaking given by the Governments of
South Africa and Southern Rhodesia with regard to schedules.
Mr. MULLER (Chile) supported the report and Declaration on the
assumption that it had created a precedent, namely that a customs
union could be approved without including a specific schedule.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY (United States) recalled that when, at a previous
meeting, the subject had been brought up, his delegation had expressed
the view that each case should be considered on its merits. The case GATT/CP. 3/SR .13
page 6.
under consideration could not create a precedent because no two cases
had the same characteristics.
Dr. NORVAL (South Africa) was prepared to admit that the customs
agreement concluded last December did not entirely comply with Article
XXIV with regard to a specific schedule. On the other hand, an
undertaking had been riven, and approved by the Working Party, which
in his opinion was equivalent to the presentation of a specific
schedule.
Mr. COUILLARD (Canada) did not agree with the representative of
Chile that a precedent had been created. The Working Party, in
examining the procedure to be established for the implementation of
Article XXIV, came to the conclusion, mentioned in paragraph 7 of the
report, that "consideration by the CONTRACTING PARTIES of proposals
for customs unions would have to be based on the circumstances and
conditions of each proposal and, therefore, that no general procedures
can be established beyond those provided in the Article itself." With
regard to the case under consideration, he recalled the passage in
the last sub-paragraph of paragraph 6 of the report, in which the
Working Party recommended "that the CONTRACTING PARTIES should formally
request the two Governments to instruct the Council to include in each
annual report a programme of the steps to be taken during the ensuing
twelve months towards the attainment of the full customs union."
Mr. MULLER (Chile) agreed with the conclusion that each case
should be considered on its merits. Nevertheless, precedents were
created by the application of law. In the case under consideration,
the schedule required by Article XXIV had bean substituted, and so
the first practical application of Article XXIV had created a precedent
which his Government would cite should it be in the future a party
to a similar union.
Mr. LECUYER (France) recalled the provisions of paragraph 10 of GATT/CP . 3/SR.13
page 7.
Article XXIV and concluded therefrom that no precedent had been
created in the application of Article XXIV.
The CHAIRMAN said that to establish precedents was clearly
against the spirit of Article XXIV. It was mentioned in the report
that the conclusions were arrived at under special circumstances.
Precedents were created in law only if identical circumstances were
applicable .
Mr. HASNIE (Pakistan) wished to inquire as to the nature and
duration of a reservation made during a meeting by a representative
of a contracting party.
The CHAIRMAN recalled that as had been stated by the representative
of India, his delegation did not have sufficient time to consult his
Government on a certain matter. He understood that the representative
of India wished to make a statement on the question under consideration
at a later stage of the present Session.
Mr. COELHO (India) suggested that when important items were put
on the Agenda, sufficient time should be afforded for consultation
with Governments. He inquired whether he would be obliged to make
a statement before the end of the Session in order to clear his
reservation.
The CHAIRMAN said that he did not intend to put an obligation
on the representative of India. He had understood from his statement
that he wished to state the view of the Government of India at a
later stage of the present session. He drew attention to the basic
difference between a reservation made by a delegation in the course
of a meeting and a reservation made by a government on appending its
signature to an international document. Replying to the point raised
by the representative of Pakistan, the CHAIRMAN said that the Pakistan
delegation might raise the question under item 20 of the Agenda.
The report of the Working Party 4 and the Declaration concerning GATT/CP . 3/SR. 13
page 8.
the Customs Union Agreement between the Governments of the Union of
South Africa and Southern Rhodesia were put to a vote and adopted,
it being understood that the representative of India might wish to
report on the views of his Government at a later meeting of the
Session.
3. Non-discriminatory measures notified by the Government of
Ceylon (Document GATT/CP.3/20).
Mr. JAYASURIYA (Ceylon), referring to Document GATT/CP.3/20,
said that of the fourteen industries scheduled in the statement,
eleven were regarded as having been established during the war and,
therefore, as falling under the provisions of Article XVIII, paragraph
7 (a)(i). With regard to these eleven products, the Government of
Ceylon had not assumed any obligations under Article II of the General
Agreement. Two other industries, namely rubber goods and cement,
would fall within the scope of paragraph 7 (a)(iii) of Article XVIII,
and referred to the utilisation of primary products found in abundance
in Ceylon. There was only one item, namely leather goods with regard
to which his Government had undertaken an obligation under Article
II. He was hopeful, however, that in the course of negotiations,
he would be able to arrive at some agreement with the contracting
parties interested directly so as to revise the obligation of his
Government in respect of leather goods. He said that the method of
protection selected by his Government was one which claimed the least
amount of restriction on international trade. Because of balance-
of-payments difficulties, his Government had tried the tariff
protection method and had found that it inflicted severe burdens
on consumers whose average income in Ceylon was only Rs.250 (or £20)
per year. The grant of subsidies was financially impossible for
his Government because Ceylon's national income and revenue could GATT/CP. 3/SR. 13
page 9.
not warrant such payments. The object of the Ceylon Industrial Products
Bill was to regulate the imports of only some industrial products by
requiring the importer to buy a certain fixed proportion of the
home-manufactured products. His Government would fix the prices of
all regulated products and would also undertake to supply the importer
with the fixed proportion of the same product which he would be required
to buy before he could qualify for an import licence. No upper limit
was set to the total imports of any of the products that became liable
to regulations under that measure. All industrial products to which
the provisions of the Bill were to apply would be brought under the
control of the Minister of Industries for a fixed period of time.
The representative of Ceylon wished to draw attention to the fact that
his Government was prepared to consult with the CONTRACTING PARTIES
in all cases in which it was proposed to apply the provisions of the
Bill to any products other than those referred to in the statement,
and that it was the intention of his Government to limit the regulation
of the imports of the mentioned products to a period of five years.
The meeting rose at 6 P.m. |
GATT Library | vh852yy9584 | Summary record of the Thirtieth Meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy, on Thursday 30 June 1949 at 10 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, June 30, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 30/06/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.30 and GATT/CP.3/SR.29 - SR.32 + SR.31/Corr.1,2 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/vh852yy9584 | vh852yy9584_90060127.xml | GATT_144 | 900 | 5,674 | GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS AND
TRADE
CONTRACTING PARTIES
RESTRICTED
ACCORD GENERAL SUR LIMITED B
LES TARIFS DOUANIERS GATT/CP .3/SR. 30
30 June 1949
ET LE COMMERCE ORIGINAL ENGLISH
ORIGINAL ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Third Session.
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE THIRTIETH MEETING
Held at Hotel. Verdun, Annecy,
on Thursday 30 June 1949 at 10 a.m.
Chairman:
Dr. Z. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia)
Subjects discussed:
Report of Working Party 7 on Brazilian Internal Taxes
(GATT/CP.3/42, GATT/CP.3/42 Corr .1)
The chair was taken provisionally by the Executive Secretary
who announced that before taking up the substantive business on the
agenda a determination should be reached on a matter of procedure.
In the past, in the absence of the Chairman and of the Vice-Chairman
of the Contracting Parties, the chair had been taken by the Chairman
of the Working Party presenting the report. In this case the
Chairman had asked to be relieved and he asked for nominations.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) proposed by Mr. SHACKLE
(U.K.), and seconded by Mr. RODRIGUEZ (Brazil) and Mr. LECUYER (France),
was elected Chairman.
Miss FISHER (U.K.), Chairman of the Working Party, on
request of the Chairman summarized the report and moved its approval
by the Contracting Parties.
Mr. LECUYER (France) illustrated the difficulties and
PARTIES GATT/CP .3/SR. 30
Page 2
complexities of the matter which he said combined with the difficulties
of interpretation of the General Agreement, particularly in respect
of its provisional application, to make an examination of the question
very arduous. There was general agreement that indirect protection
should be limited and one form of indirect protection was that of
discriminatory internal taxation. It appeared to the French
Government that the Brazilian legislation was of a discriminatory
character and, though he did not wish to say that it was the intention
of the Brazilian Government to increase the protection on the items
concerned the fact remained that higher charges fell upon imported
goods. This had been brought to the attention of his Government by
French exporters. An important question of principle was involved
and for this reason the matter had been brought up by the French
Government. He felt that legislation was necessary if Brazil was to
comply with the terms of the General Agreement. Note was taken of
the intention of the Brazilian Goverrnment to set the situation
aright and, in view of this intention, he accepted the report.
On a question by Mr. MULLER (Chile) the Chairman said that
the matter before the meeting was simply the approval of the
recommendation contained in paragraph 19 of the report.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ (Brazil), after expressing his thanks to the
Chairman of the Working Party, wished to insist on the fact that;
despite the statements in the press, there had been no violation of
the Agreement on the part of his Government. Even before the question
had been brought up by the Government of France, steps had been taken
by his Government to set the situation aright. Had discriminatory
intention been held, the weapon of tariff increases could easily have GATT/CP.3/SR. 30
Page 3.
been resorted to, as the majority of the items in question had not
been bound in the Geneva negotiations. In those cases where the
Brazilian laws had brought about a discriminatory situation, his
delegation had pointed out that they would recommend appropriate
legislation to their Government. The details of the question
were not being investigated at the moment so he would not go into
a discussion as to whether one could speak of discrimination when
no party had suffered damage: in his opinion, when a contracting
party could not prove that it was materially affected, no grounds
for complaint existed. With regard to the recommendation, he
suggested the amendment of paragraph 19 to begin with the words "In
view of the statements contained in paragraphs 17 and 18 ......"
Mr. HERRERA ARANGO (Cuba) moved that the recommendation of
paragraph 19 of the report and the report itself be adopted by
the Contracting Parties.
Miss FISHER (United Kingdom) agreed that paragraphs 17
to 19 went together and that it would be wrong to separate them
but did not think the report itself needed amendment. She suggested
however that the Contracting Parties either accept the proposal
of Cuba or find a formulation which would give satisfaction to
the representative of Brazil.
The amendment to paragraph 19 proposed by Brazil was adopted
and the Chairman suggested that it be put on record that the
Contracting Parties, having considered the report of Working Party 7
on Brazil an internal taxes and having taken note of its contents,
accepted the recommendation of paragraph 19 of the report. The
report as a whole was adopted. GATT/CP. 3/.SR.30
Page 4
Mr. RODRIGUEZ (Brazil) said he had since been informed
that press releases were drawn up only after the meetings of the
Contracting Parties and with the approval of the Chairman. He
had no intention of making accusations but said he had received
press cuttings from many countries which showed that the press
releases had not been followed in its contents. He suggested
therefore that if no agreement were reached in drawing up a
press release together with the Chairman of the Working Party,
the delegate of France and himself, he be authorized to make a
statement to the press.
Mr. LECUYER (France) wished to make it clear that
information had not been given out by his delegation.
The meeting rose at 11.25 a.m. |
GATT Library | dj805zb3115 | Summary record of the Thirty third Meeting : Held at the Hotel Verdun, Annecy on Thursday, 21 July 1949 at 2.15 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, July 21, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 21/07/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.33 and GATT/CP.3/SR.33 SR.34 + Corr.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/dj805zb3115 | dj805zb3115_90060138.xml | GATT_144 | 2,931 | 17,795 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR LIMITED B
GATT/CP.3/SR. 33
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS 21 July 1949
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Contracting Parties
Third Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE THIRTY THIRD MEETING
Held at the Hotel Verdun, Annecy
on Thursday, 21 July 1949 at 2.15 p.m.
Chairman. Mr. E. WYNDHAM WHITE (Executive Secretary)
Subjects discussed:
1. Report of Working Party 1 on Accession on the Draft
Protocol Modifying Article XXVI of the GATT.
2. Arrangements for Termination of Third Session.
3. Financial Implications of Extension of Session beyond
31 July.
4. Budget Estimates for 1950.
1. Report of Working Party 1on Accession on the Draft Protocol
Modifying Article XXVI of the GATT (GATT/CP.3/49/Rev.1)
The text of the Protocol was approved and the CHAIRMAN informed
the committee that the Protocol would be put into form for signature
and open for signature at the end of the Session.
2. Arrangements for Termination of Third Session
The CHAIRMAN said that this meeting had been prompted by the
suggestions made at the Tariff Negotiations Working Party where the
view had been expressed that the Contracting Parties should conclude
the business of the Third Session as soon as possible in order to
enable delegations to dispense with personnel not required for the
tariff negotiations, For the purpose of the meeting he had made a GATT/CP.3/SR.33
page 2
summary of the status of outstanding items on the agenda. These
were the following:
1. Item 3, Arrangements for the Conduct of the Tariff
Negotiations and the Incorporation of the Results
of the Agreement:
Action on this was completed except for the formal approval
of the Annecy Protocol of Accession in its amended form.
2. Item 6, Report on Negotiations affecting the Schedules
to the Agreement:
This was still awaiting the completion of the renegotiations of
Ceylon and Cuba.
3. Item 7, The Examination of Statements submitted in support
of Measures notified under Article XVIII:
The Working Party had almost completed consideration of all its
agenda items except the Ceylon measures, and should be able to report
on the former very shortly. With regard to the Ceylon measures there
was a time limit as an engagement had been made to render a decision
on these by 7 August.
4. Item 13, Adoption of Emergency Measures to resolve the crisis
of the Cuban Textile Industry:
He asked for comments by the Chairman of the Working Party dealing
with this question.
5. Item 18, Arrangements for a Third Set of Tariff Negotiations:
It seemed improbable now that there could be useful discussions
on this item at the present session owing to the difficulties of the
United States delegation in taking part in such a discussion until
its legislative position was clearer. It would perhaps be desirable
to remove this item from the agenda and agree upon some sort of GATT/CP.3/SR.33
page 3
procedure for discussing it at a later date.
6. Item 19, The date for the Fourth Session of the Contracting
Parties:
This item should cause no delay and could be discussed near the
and of the meeting.
7. Item 20, Other Business:
The Contracting Parties might wish to decide whether to close
this item now and admit no further questions under it. There were
two questions pending under this item now: (a) the budget and
programme for 1950, which was on the agenda of this meeting, and
which now included the provision for inter-sessional procedures and
studies under Articles XII (5) and XIV (1) (g), and (b) the United
Kingdom statement regarding Newfoundland which was circulated some
time ago. This latter question could probably be cleared without
difficulty, or if it seemed that it would give rise to any
controversy, it might better be left over to a later session.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) said that it seemed to him
that there were only three substantial outstanding items, namely,
the Ceylon application under Article XVIII, the Cuban textile industry,
and the third round of tariff negotiations. On the last it seemed
clear that this must be dealt with between sessions. For the
Ceylon question, there was the deadline mentioned by the Chairman,
and as to the Cuban matter, it seemed to him that this would continue
as long as it was permitted to do so and therefore a deadline was
necessary. He proposed Saturday, 6 August, as the close of the
Contracting Parties.
Mr. PHILIP (France) said that in the Working Party on
Cuban textile industry, it had become clear that in spite of abundant GATT/CP.3/SR.33
page 4
documents submitted, a decision would be impossible without a
serious inquiry on the spot. The Working Party, therefore, was going
to propose this course, and also that a special meeting of the Working
Party be called before the next session of the Contracting Parties
in order to consider the results of the inquiry. The Cuban delegation
had said, however, that it could only accept this solution provided
that it were now permitted to take certain measures releasing it
provisionally from some of its obligations. In connection with this
latter course, talks were going on between the United States and Cuba
and at the next meeting the results of these talks would be considered,
but he thought that there was at least a week's work for the Working
Party.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) thought that there was one other
item pending under Item 5(e) of the Agenda and that the Contracting
Parties had deferred taking a decision regarding the entry into force
of the Protocol Modifying Part I and Article XXIX and the date of
the meeting referred to in Article XXIX.
With regard to the work of Working Party 2 on Article XVIII,
speaking as Chairman, he thought this could be finished by 25 July,
except for the Ceylon measures. Sir Oliver Goonetilleke was
returning to Annecy on 1 August and it might be possible for some
useful and informal discussions among members of the Working Party to
take place in the interval between 25 July and 1 August. If the
Working Party resumed its consideration of the Ceylon measure on
1 August, he did not think it possible that a report could be prepared
and a decision made by the Contracting Parties by 6 August. He hoped
that the Ceylon application could be finished by 13 August thus
avoiding the need for any further inter-sessional procedures and as GATT/CP.3/SR.33
page 5
Chairman, therefore, suggested that if the Contracting Parties
wished to avoid leaving unfinished business and the need for a
special session to give a decision on the Ceylon case, they should
not decide to terminate the session on 6th August.
Mr. HOLLIS (United States) thought it preferable not to
set a definitive closing date, but if one were required he preferred
13 August. He also wished to retain Item 18 on the agenda, as it
was possible that some useful discussion of this item might take
place even if a decision could not be reached.
The CHAIRMAN said that it had not been his intention to
suggest the deletion of Item 18 from the Agenda. He had only
intended to say that the likelihood of reaching a decision seemed
remote due not only to the difficulties of the United States delegation
but also to the fact that other delegations would require time to
consider any proposal put forward under this item. He did not think
that the Session should be prolonged in order to reach a decision
on this Item.
Mr. STEYN (Union of South Africa) supported the August 6th
date.
Mr. HERRERA ARANGO (Cuba) thanked Mr. Philip for his
presentation of the situation of the Working Party on the Cuban textile
industry, and although his delegation must apologize as causing part
of the delay, he preferred 13 August in order to avoid inter-sessional
meetings.
Mr. BRAGA (Brasil) and Mr. LECUYER (France) preferred the
date of 13 August. GATT/CP.3/SR.33
page 6
Mr. COUILLARD (Canada) suggested that the 6th be adopted
as the closing date, but that if the Ceylon case were not finished
at that time and it appeared that it could be finished within the weak
following, an extension of the closing date to 13 August should be
granted. He inquired whether the protocols would be open for
signature on the last day of the Session. With regard to the last
item of the agenda, he said that is was possible that there might be
a question to be brought up concerning Canada and Cuba, but that
notice could be given before the and of the month of July.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) said he would be prepared to
accept the Canadian compromise although he strongly felt that the
6th of August was preferable.
The CHAIRMAN inquired whether the meeting would be prepared
to accept the compromise suggested by Mr. Couillard, and suggested
possibly including the Cuban textile question in the items to be
dealt with during the weak granted as an extension.
Mr. THOMMESSEN (Norway) was in favour of 6 August.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) as Australian delegate preferred the
31st of July, but as Chairman of Working Party 2 he considered that any
date earlier than 13 August would mean inter-sessional procedures. He
also pointed out that determination of the Ceylon case rested with the
members of the Working Party who were present at this meeting. As
soon as they agreed upon a decision, action in the Working Party could
be very rapid. There would be time that could be usefully employed
by them in meeting informally before the representative of Ceylon
returned to Annecy. GATT/CP.3/SR .33
page 7
Mr. NICOL (New Zealand) supported the date of 6 August.
With regard to the difficulty in the Ceylon case. he suggested (a) that
there be night meetings, and (b) that Sir Oliver be requested to return
to Annecy before the 1st of August.
Mr. RODRIGUES (Brazil) agreed with Mr. Shackle, but
unfortunately his delegation had just received an extensive cable
containing an item to be raised under Other Business, and he was
therefore in favour of extension to 13 August.
Mr. BOEKSTAL (Netherlands) agreed with Mr. Nicol.
The CHAIRMAN suggested that the Chairman of Working Party 2
might advise Sir Oliver of the situation and suggest that either he
or another member of his delegation return earlier to Annecy to
discuss the matter.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) thought that there was a general
impression that the week beginning July 25th would be devoid of
meetings and that the members of Working Party 2 would be disengaged.
His impression was, however, that the Contracting Parties would be
meeting in order to take up the report of Working Party 2 which would,
of course, occupy the members of that Working Party and that there
would be other meetings as well. Consequently the time available
in that week for the Working Party to discuss the Ceylon matter would
be limited. He reiterated his suggestion that the members of the
Working Party might profitably engage in informal discussions before
the leader of the Ceylon delegation arrived. He would also be glad
to inquire whether another member of the Ceylon delegation could take
part in these consultations. GATT/CP .3/SR.33
page 8
The CHAIRMAN said that Mr. Hewitt was clearly right in his
assumption that the week would not be free of meetings, but he did
think it would be proper to inform Sir Oliver of the situation and
suggest that he advance the date of his return. He wished to underline
the suggestion of the Chairman of the WorKing Party that a part of the
responsibility for the delay necessarily was the amount of time
required by other delegations to make decisions on the principles
involved in the application of Article XVIII.
He then proposed to put to a vote the three separate
propositions regarding the closing dates
1. Closing date 13 August.
2. Compromise suggested by Canadian delegation of a closing date
of 6 August with a possible extension to 13 August.
3. Closing date 6 August.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ (Brazil) said he would be in favour of the
second alternative provided that the item which was about to be raised
by Brazil could also be included with the Ceylon measures and the Cuban
textiles.
The second alternative was accepted by the Contracting Parties and
it was also agreed that a letter should be sent by the Executive Secretary
to Sir Oliver Goonetillake informing him of the decision to conclude the
Conference by 6 August and that only in exceptional circumstances would
an extension to 13 August be granted.
3. Financial Implications of the Extension of the Session beyond
The DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY referred to document
GATT/CP.3/55 which gave a chart concerning the expenditures up to 31 July,
and also the estimated expenditures if the Conference were to continue GATT/CP.3/SR .33
page 9
until the end of August. It could be seen from these figures that if
no other meeting were held in 1949 the savings effected by the
Secretariat would be sufficient to compensate for the extra expenditure
incurred by the extension of the Conference to 31 July. However, the
decision to extend the Conference into August altered this situation.
In addition to this, it was necessary to provide a margin for inter-
sessional meetings, the proposed inquiry into the Cuban textile
question and the printing of the results of the Annecy Conference.
There were three possibilities of covering these extra expenditures:
1. To ask for an increase in the 1949 contributions.
2. To ask the acceding governments to send their 1949
contributions as soon as possible and use these to
cover the deficit.
3. To ask the Interim Commission to advance funds for the
1949 budget to be reimbursed out of the 1950 budget.
He thought the last two possibilities could be excluded as for
one thing the budget for 1950 was already large and it would be
difficult to further increase it, and for another, it was very doubtful
if the contribution of the acceding governments could be received before
the end of 1949.
There were ways that the Contracting Parties could reduce
expenditures after the 31st of August - by delegations contributing
directly to the charge of the conference rooms and the roneo work done
by the Secretariat. It would also be helpful if the Anncy Protocol
and schedules were printed by governments rather than by the Secretariat.
The CHAIRMAN thought that only the first and last of the
three alternatives would be practicable. It was possible to consider
another means of using the 1949 contributions on acceding governments; i.e.
a further advance could be requested from the Interim Commission, this GATT/CP .3/SR .33
page 10
advance to be reimbursed in 1950 with the contributions of the acceding
governments in respect of 1949 although these would only be received
in 1950) rather than out of the 1950 budget.
In response to a question from Mr. Shackle, the CHAIRMAN said that
although there was no formal engagement on the part of the acceding
governments to pay contributions for 1949, the proposal, to do this
had been known by the acceding governments for some time and he had
heard no objections. In any case it was a matter that would be taken
up at the next meeting of the Tariff Negotiations Committee.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) was in favour of the first
solution as he thought it advisable to pay debts as they arose. Also
he was doubtful that the amount contributed by the acceding governments
would be adequate to cover the deficit.
The DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY thought that the total
contributions of the acceding governments ($15,350), provided that
printing of the Annecy Protocols and Schedules were abandoned, would
be just adequate to cover the remainder of 1949. If these contributions
were not received until 1950, however, there would be a cash deficit
at the end of the year.
Mr. LEWIS (United States) suggested that this question should
also go to the budget working party since the details were not available
at this meeting.
The CHAIRMAN agreed that it would be advisable to take up
means for financing the deficit in this working party. With regard to
the Deputy Executive Secretary' s suggestion for delegations to contribute
to expenses of committee rooms and roneo work, he wished to make it
Clear that these were not proposals but rather indications of what GATT/CP.3/SR .33
page 11
the Secretariat intended to request during August.
4. Budget Estimates for1950 (Budget/1)
The CHAIRMAN thought there was no advantage in discussing
this paper at the present meeting since it required preliminary study
by a small working party. Unless there were any general remarks which
might serve as guidance he proposed that it be immediately referred to
a working party.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) agreed and only wished to remark
that he hoped every effort would be made to hold the next round of
tariff negotiations in Geneva to avoid the extra cost of per diem
allowances.
It was agreed to set up Working Party 9 on Budget and Programme
to be composed of Belgium, Brazil, Canada, France, India, United
Kingdom and United States.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ (Brazil) inquired whether Item 20 "Other
Business" would remain open.
The CHAIRMAN replied that he had made no formal proposal
and as his suggestion had not been taken up by any Contracting Party,
the item could be regarded as open and any Contracting Party could
raise a question under this item provided it received the concurrence
of the Contracting Parties and was consistent with the decision
regarding the closure of the Third Session.
The meeting adjourned at 4.40 p.m. |
GATT Library | wz758hf5432 | Summary record of the Thirty-eighth Meeting : Held at the Hotel Verdun, Annecy on Tuesday, 9th August, 1949 at 10 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, August 9, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 09/08/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.38 and GATT/CP.3/SR.37 + Corr.1,2,3 SR.38 + Corr.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/wz758hf5432 | wz758hf5432_90060153.xml | GATT_144 | 3,066 | 19,079 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR LIMITED B
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS GATT/CP.3/SR.38
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE 9 August, 1949
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Third Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE THIRTY-EIGHTH MEETING
Held at the Hotel Verdun, Annecy
on Tuesday, 9th August, 1949 at 10 a.m.
Chairman: Mr. L. D. WILGRESS.
Subject discussed: Cuban Statement on Margins of Preference
negotiated at Annecy (continued)
Mr. LECUYER (France) expressed his great regret that the
Cuban request for a working party to examine the question had not been
accepted. It was too late at the present stage to do so. But the
matter was of such importance that it could not be left pending in view
of its direct bearing on the validity of the Annecy negotiations.
Although he saw drawbacks in taking a vote on the Norwegian proposal,
he saw no alternative unless the Cuban statement were withdrawn.
Mr. COELHO (India) said the question raised in the Norwegian
proposal had not simply arisen out of the Cuban paper but had been
before them since the discussions in the Working Party on accession,
but even then no decision had been arrived at because of the complexity
of the matter. It had been suggested that because the report of the
Working Party had been approved by the Contracting Parties, the matter
had been decided but, as such, this had not been a matter for the
discussion of the Contracting Parties and, rather than approved, he
would say that the matter had been noted. He submitted that the
question was still very much open.
With reference to the first point of the Norwegian proposal, he
thought two possibilities might arise:
a) a bilateral treaty contravened the provisions of Agreement.
This case was foreseen in the Norwegian paper. GATT/CP .3/SR.38
page 2
b) a bilateral treaty explicitly provided for the jurisdiction
of the Contracting Parties. The question then was: could the
Contracting Parties accept to exercise jurisdiction in such a case?
This point was not raised in the Norwegian paper, although it might
conceivably arise.
Passing to the second decision of the Norwegian paper, he said the
words used in Article XXX as well as in Article XXVIII were "amendment"
and modifications". It might be that in drafting the Agreement, the
word "reduction" was not contemplated as falling within the scope of
these words; this seemed hardly likely to him. The mere fact that it
was found necessary to use a system of collateral agreement and
collateral schedules for the Annecy acceding governments made him feel
that there was some doubt in the Working Party on Accession as to the
point. The fact that accession of governments and acceptance of the
new schedules could be secured on the basis of two-thirds majority did
not prejudice this aspect of the question. Another question was
whether point 2) of the Norwegian paper implied interpretation of
Article XXX. To his mind this was the case, and as such it would
require unanimous acceptance. He would like to put the following
question: if the m-f-n rate and preferential rates were both bound
in a schedule was the difference between the two rates variable or not?
Furthermore, as far as he could see, the question of binding of margins
of preferences did not arise in the General Agreement. Binding was in
terms only of a prohibition against increase and in the case of margins
of preference. This was all that was provided for in the General
Agreement. To refer, therefore, to binding against decrease seemed to
him to suggest a case which could never arise.
He recognized that the spirit of the GATT was to eliminate
preferences but as preferences formed part of the mosaic of balanced,
multilateral trade negotiations, they could not be destroyed without
corresponding compensation.
In his opinion, the Norwegian paper seemed to suggest a step back
to bilaterism from the multilaterism which had been developed in the
last few years of the working of the GATT.
Mr. EVANS (United States of America) put forward a tentative
solution which he thought might provide a basis for discussion: GATT/CP .3/SR.38
page 3
(i) The Delegation of Cuba would agree not to press at this session
the issues raised in their statement but to consider in
bilateral talks with the United States its future position.
(ii) The Contracting Parties to consider the basic legal issues
with relation to accession as already decided, i.e. to confirm,
as regarded accession, the relevant passage in pages 6 and 7
of Document GATT/CP.3/37.
(iii) The United States would accordingly be entitled to proceed
with the application of the concessions negotiated at Annecy.
As regards the second point, Mr. Evans added that it would mean
that the United States could put into effect their Annecy concessions,
although he realised that Cuba would make reservations on their legal
validity. He would nevertheless agree, provided no Contracting Party,
other than Cuba, were to make reservations.
Mr. THOMMESSEN (Norway) said that in the previous meeting, in
reply to India, he had signified Norway's readiness not to press their
proposal, provided Cuba withdrew its paper. He was prepared to accept
the United States proposal.
Mr. VARGAS GOMEZ (Cuba) stated that his delegation was not in
a position to accept either the United States or the Norwegian proposals.
If they did accept such decisions of the Contracting Parties on the legal
issues discussed by the Working Party on Accession, they would be placed
in the position which they were now fighting. That was to say, that
the legal issue would be decided against them. His delegation would
only be prepared to withdraw its paper if, 1) the Contracting Parties
did not consider the legal issues to be decided at this session;
2) the United States withdrew the offers made at Annecy affecting
preferences, or 3) the United States maintained their offers but
lowered their preferential rates so as to preserve the margins of
preference.
Mr. NICOL (New Zealand) referred to the basic principle of
jurisprudence, that wherever there was any obscurity in the law, the
intention of the legislator should be decisive. He submitted that the
intention of the drafters of the Agreement was clear and that there was
no legal substance in the Cuban case. GATT/CP.3/SR.38
page 4
The CHAIRMAN repeated the points raised by the representative
for Cuba, and Mr. EVANS (United States of America) said that his
previous statements on the matter made it clear that they could not
accept them.
The CHAIRMAN stated that as he understood the United States
proposal; they wished to consider the legal issues as already decided
as regards accession and he asked the representative for Cuba if, in
the light of this, he did not foresee the possibility of accepting the
proposal of the United States.
Mr. VARGAS GOMEZ (Cuba) regretted he could not accept the
proposal, because the United States would then have the right to put
Annecy concessions into effect without the concurrence of Cuba.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) thought it was of the greatest
importance that agreement be reached if at all possible. He therefore
wished to comment upon some aspects of the United States proposal. The
Contracting Parties had already agreed that the United States could
reduce their most-favoured-nation rates, since the Agreement fixed
maximum and not also minimum rates. Rates could therefore be reduced
even by action taken outside the General Agreement. The Cuban Govern-
ment would then be left to consider the effect of this reduction on
its own economy. He also thought that the fact that the reduction in
m-f-n rates of duty was being questioned should not be allowed to
obstruct the accession of other countries to the General Agreement. Two
additional points could be considered in relation to the United States
suggestion:- 1) the action which might be taken between sessions if
bilateral discussions with the United States did not succeed, 2) the
position regarding the use of Article XXIII. The delegations could
engage in bilateral discussions, failing which the matter could be
considered urgently by the Contracting Parties acting jointly in the
light of the bilateral discussions and of Article XXIII.
The CHAIRMAN stated that in his understanding, Mr. Hewitt's
was a modification of the United States proposal in that the United
States and Cuba should consider the possibilities of a solution in the
light of Article XXIII, and that an inter-sessional procedure be set up
if the bilateral negotiations did not succeed. GATT/CP .3/SR.38
page 5
Mr. VARGAS GOMEZ (Cuba) wished to thank Mr. Hewitt for his
effort at conciliation, but he feared he could not accept any solution
which implied a unilateral reduction of margins of preference, as he
was acting on precise instructions from his Government. He agreed
that m-f-n rates could be reduced outside the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade but it was the intention of his delegation that
preferential rates were guaranteed by agreements which could not be
modified unilaterally.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) asked if he were right in
believing that the effect of the United States proposal would be that
Cuba could reserve its position on the understanding that this should
not operate to prevent the accession of countries to the GATT.
Mr. EVANS (United States) thought the United States position
was slightly different. His proposal was based on Cuba not pressing
for further action at this session. If the Cuban delegation wanted
to resort to Article XXIII, then they should go through the procedure
and in case of a failure, the matter would come back to the Contracting
parties, but that they should not attempt to block accession.
Mr. MULLER (Chile) envisaged the possibility of the failure
of the bilateral discussions and a subsequent decision of the
Contracting Parties in favour of Cuba. In such a case the decision
would not redress the position. He wondered, therefore, whether the
legal issue could not be kept pending. His suggestion was that the
United States should commit themselves now to renegotiate the
advantages granted to other countries if no agreement were reached
in bilateral discussions with Cuba and if a subsequent decision of the
Contracting Parties were to be in favour of Cuba. This, in his
opinion, would allow Cuba to reserve its position and the legal issues
would be left unprejudiced.
Mr. EVANS (United States of America) said that the United
States proposal did not contemplate leaving the legal issues pending.
They recognized Cuba's right to reserve its position. They agreed
that Cuba might subsequently persuade the Contracting Parties that the
decision was wrong, but they wanted to go ahead and consider the legal
issues as having been decided at least once. GATT/CP. 3/SR.38
page 6
Mr. WUNZ KING (China) thought it was important to avoid
getting lost in the legal issues. The first point in the Norwegian
proposal was a legal one and was quite clear but he thought the second
and third points provided matter for discussion between Cuba and the
United States in the light of Article XXIII.
The CHAIRMAN said the shortage of time required an effort on
the part of the Contracting Parties in order to reach their objective.
There were before the meeting the proposal of the United States and the
counter-proposal of Cuba. The United States had put forward their
proposal subject to its acceptance by Cuba; if the acceptance were not
forthcoming, then it would be considered as withdrawn, Nor had the
counter-proposal put forward by Cuba been accepted by the United States.
He asked whether his understanding was correct that the two proposals
were to be considered as no longer before them.
Both Mr. EVANS (United States of America) and Mr. VARGAS
GOMEZ (Cuba) agreed.
The CHAIRMAN then asked whether the Norwegian delegation
maintained their proposal and Mr. THOMMESSEN (Norway) replied in the
affirmative.
Mr. COELHO (India) asked whether the Chilean and Chinese
proposals had been withdrawn.
Mr. MULLER (Chile) said that he had made an effort to find a
compromise and he repeated his previous suggestion that the United
States should commit themselves to renegotiate the concessions granted
at Annecy in the event that a subsequent decision of the Contracting
Parties should go against them.
The CHAIRMAN said that Mr. Muller's words confirmed his
understanding that they were not confronted with a formal proposal
but with an effort at conciliation. The same applied to the
representative of China. Neither having met with success the
Contracting Parties were therefore left with the Norwegian proposal
and as the time had come to take a decision, he proposed, in accordance
with the suggestion at the previous meeting of the representative of
Australia, to take the points of the Norwegian proposal one by one. GATT/CP .3/SR .38
page 7
The CHAIRMAN asked whether there were any objections to the
opening sentence.
Mr. COELHO (India) asked if the points he had raised earlier
in the meeting could be elucidated by the representative for Norway
and Mr. THOMMESSEN (Norway) replied that the footnote to his paper
clearly answered his questions.
The CHAIRMAN proposed to take the footnote in conjunction
with the first sentence.
Mr. COELHO (India) asked whether such a decision would
preclude the jurisdiction of the Contracting Parties, even in a case
in which such a jurisdiction had been foreseen by a bilateral treaty.
The CHAIRMAN replied that obviously a bilateral treaty which
made reference to the Contracting Parties would entitle the Contracting
Parties to take note of such an agreement.
The first sentence, together with the footnote, was approved by
15 votes in favour, none against and two abstentions (Brazil and Cuba)
Mr. COELHO (India) said that his vote in favour was given on
the understanding that his question to Mr. Thommessen and Mr.
Thommessen's reply would be recorded.
The second sentence was approved by 15 votes in favour and one
against.
Mr. COELHO (India) referred to the question he had earlier put,
whether this sentence involved an interpretation of Article XXX. In
his opinion this was the case and it followed that the decision would
have to be approved unanimously.
The CHAIRMAN said that Article XXX only spoke of "amendments"
and not of "interpretations", which fell under Article XXV and which did
not require unanimity.
Mr. COELHO (India) in connection with the third sentence of the
Norwegian proposal repeated his earlier remarks to the effect that there
being a provision in the agreement that margins could not be increased, GATT/CP .3/SR.38
page 8
he could not understand how such margins could be "bound against
decrease". He suggested the term "a preferential rate" instead of
"a margin of preference".
The CHAIRMAN thought this was contrary to the intentions of
the representative for Norway and Mr. Thommessen of Norway agreed. He
added that there was nothing in the agreement to prevent the binding of
a margin against decrease.
Mr. COELHO (India) said he would abstain from the vote on
this sentence because he could not envisage the case in which this
could arise.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ (Brazil) did not press his proposal of the
previous day but said he would abstain from voting because it was the
feeling of his delegation that if the m-f-n rate could be reduced the
country enjoying the preferences should be entitled to compensation.
Mr. MULLER (Chile) asked that the third point and the
following sentence be taken together. The two sentences were put to
the vote and approved by 14 votes in favour, one against and two
abstentions.
Mr. VARGAS GOMEZ (Cuba) read a statement which is being
circulated separately and which announced the Cuban decision that in
view of the vote taken, his delegation considered that it must withdraw
from the present session of the Contracting Parties for the purpose of
informing its government. At the end of his statement Mr. Vargas
Gomez withdrew from the meeting.
Dr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) wished to explain his vote
on this question. When the Norwegian proposal had been presented,
he had found himself in a difficult position. He was concerned with
the legal situation and with the consequences of the Annecy negotiations
which should not be endangered. At the same time, he had the greatest
sympathy for the damage suffered by Cuba. His vote on the Norwegian
proposal had been given after full consideration of the importance of
the matter to the General Agreement and of its possible consequence.
He could not take into consideration an exclusive agreement between the GATT/CP. 3/SR. 38
page 9
United States and Cuba, but, as that agreement had been mentioned here
in the meeting, he wished to say that that Agreement had misguided the
Cuban delegation into believing that they had certain rights which in
his opinion they had not. He wished to say that the agreement was
contrary to the spirit of the General Agreement and contrary to the
principles which had always been proclaimed by the United States. He
therefore hoped that Cuba would receive same compensation, but as the
exclusive agreement mentioned was outside the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade, the compensation to be granted should also be outside
the General Agreement.
Mr. WOODBURY WILLOUGHBY (United States of America) expressed
the regret of his delegation for the decision of Cuba to withdraw from
the present session and reiterated the willingness of his delegation
to discuss the matter directly with Cuba in order to reach a solution.
While the United States delegation found themselves in a position of
difference on a number of points with the Cuban delegations he wished
to acknowledge that the latter had presented its case before the
Contracting Parties with great dignity and in a manner which was a
credit to the Contracting Parties.
The CHAIRMAN stated that all Contracting Parties would share
with him and with the United States delegation the greatest regret
for Cuba's decision. He also felt sure that the Contracting Parties
in taking the decision proposed by the Norwegian delegate had no other
intention but to give clarity to the position. The legal issue having
been resolved, the way was left open to resort to the provisions of
Article XXIII. He felt that they should now consider the proposal of
the representative of China that discussions be held in the light of
paragraph 1 of Article XXIII.
The Contracting Parties agreed to recommend that the United
States and Cuba undertake bilateral discussions as envisaged in paragraph
1 of Article XXIII with a view to reaching a satisfactory solution.
The meeting adjourned at 1.00 p.m. |
GATT Library | dh412sp2100 | Summary record of the Thirty-fifth Meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy on Monday, 1 gust, 1949 at 10 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and, August 1, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 01/08/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.35 and GATT/CP.3/SR.35 SR.36 + Corr.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/dh412sp2100 | dh412sp2100_90060144.xml | GATT_144 | 1,993 | 12,388 | RESTRICTED
Limited B
GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR
GATT ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~G.;,TT/CP.3/SR.35
O TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS 1 August 1949
TtD ORIGINAL :ENGLISHoo ET LE COMMERCE
CONTRCTING P
Third Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE THIRTY-FIFTH M IN
Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy on
Monday, 1 gust, 1949 at 10 a.m.
Chaiman: Hon. L. D. VIGRESS (Canada)
Subject discussed:
ban statement on margins of preference at Annecy.
(Continued)
The Chairman said that in the light of the discussion at the
previous meeting in which the Cuban Delegation had presented its
case and the Uniteand States Delegation had indicated the points
which they would base theirs, it would appear that the Cuban state-
ment gave rise to a clear cut legal issue relating to the inter-
pretation of the General Agreement. He thought the representatives
of the Contracting Parties would ree that this legal issue raised
by Cuba should be first of all discussed by the Contracting Parties.
With reference to the statement issued by Cuba and circulated to
delegations, he urged that in view of the mention in that document
of particular offers made by the United States at Annecy, the
document should be treated as secret.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) thought that a number of
legal issues were raised by the Cub- statement which concerned: the
effect of scheduling rates of duty, the bearing of Article 17 of
the Havana Charter on the question, and the possibility of resorting
to Article XXIII. This was really a matter of such complexity that
the Contracting Parties could not be expected to pronounce themselves GATT/CP.3/SR.35.
page 2
off hand and he consequently could not help feeling, although with
great regret at this late stage of the session, that the only poss-
ibility of adequately examining the matter would be to set up a
Working Party. He wished to add a few general remarks representing
his views on the question. In the first place, he shared the views
of the United States thet the duties bound in the schedules were
maxima with no implication of a binding of the margins of preference.
With regard to any "prior obligations" if such existed, they were not
embodied in any GATT document and were to be considered as a bilateral
agreement between the parties and it was questionable whether this
fell within the competence of the Contracting Parties. Another point
which might have to be investigated would be whether, from the point
of view of reciprocal advantages, a case could be made out under
Article XXIII.
Mr. THOMMESSEN (Norway) said that though he might agree that
there were more than one legal issue, there was no need for a Working
Party to go into them. It was clear in his mind that the rates
scheduled were maxima and could be reduced without consent, as Part II
of Schedule XX made no mention of any binding of specific margins.
The Contracting Parties might wish to go into the question of nullifi-
cation under Article XXIII, but he did not think this possibility had
been foreseen by Cuba.
Mr. COUILLARD (Canada) wished to state the position of the
Canadian Delegation in relation mainly to the basic and well
established principle involved in the specific case before them. He
stated that the views of his delegation did not correspond to those
contained in the Cuban statement. It was their understanding that the
provisions of the General Agreement did not bind margins of preference
and that, therefore, unless the margins were otherwise bound, consent
was not required for their reduction. Nor did the provisions of the
Agreement provide for obligatory direct compensation in case of
reduction or elimination on a margin of preference. This was a
question that could only be settled in negotiations. Three funda-
mental questions were involved in the general. matter of preferences
and in the case before the Contracting Parties. GATT/CP .3/SR. 35.
page 3
1. The first concerned the status of the margin of preference
maintained by two countries and permitted by GATT. These margins
were either bound or they were not and the question was one of legal
fact. There was nothing in the Agreement to say that margins of
preferenceswere bound against decrease. Furthermore, whereas
Article 17 of the Charter prohibited an increase it did not prohibit
a decrease of margins. There were two ways in which a margin of
preference could be bound against decrease:
a) by pr vision to the effect in the relevant
schedule annexed to GATT and this was not so
in the case before them.
b) by a separate bilateral agreement between the
countries concerned.
This latter, however, would be outside of GATT and consequently a
matter for settlement between the two countries. Such bilateral
agreements were, of course, public and must not conflict with
provisions of the Agreement and the Charter.
ArticlesI and II of the General Agreement were clear on the
point that a country was not prevented from reducing a rate, either
M-F-N or preferential. Had the opposite been intended, prevision
would have been made. It followed that if margins of preference were
bound, consent would have to be obtained for their reduction; if
they were not bound, no consent was necessary. The Cuban statement
on page 8 referring to Article 17, paragraph 2(e) of the Havana
Charter on "prior international obligations" was a correct statement
of fact but the question which had to be answered was whether the
obligation provided for binding of the margins of preference. The
provisions of the General Agreement did not bind such margins nor did
the Cuban statement offer indication as to how they were bound by
such provisions. In any case, it was not for the Contracting Parties
to determine whether or not "prior international obligations" in the
form of a bilateral agreement bound margins or not.
With regard to the points made on pages 15 and 16 of the Cuban
statement concerning of the GATT schedule this had
been fully debated at this session in connection with the Protocol of
Accession, and a decision taken providing for accession by a two-thirds
majority. It could therefore not be held that a M-F-N rate at present GATT/CP .3/SR. 35.
page 4
in a schedule could not be reduced without the consent of all
Contracting Parties. Article II did not in fact place any limitation
on the reduction of rates and it would be anamolous if it had.
2. The second fundamental question was with regard to the meaning
of the term "concessions", As used in the Cuban statement it referred
to margins of preference exchanged between two countries in the
process of tariff negotiations. The Canadian delegation could not
concur with this usage of the term. Concessions under the agreement
were multilateral concessions extended to all Contracting Parties.
The preferential rates exchanged between two countries like the
preference margins which two countries might agree to bind in each
others' favor were the result of a bilateral agreement between two
countries. This bilateral agreement was a public document, the
terms of which had to conform to the General Areemgent and to the
Charter. This was borne out further by the fact that whilst two
countries could negotiate further tariff concessions, they could not
negotiate for the establishment of new preferences since this would be
forbidden by Article 17 oft he Charter In the course of negotiations,
no new preferences were granted but the preference remaining after
the negotiations could bere retained. The only" concessions" which
could result from such negotiations would result from a bilateral
arrangement in which countries agreed to bind these residual margins.
3. The third fundamental question concerned the concept of compens-
ation. The concept of "mutually advantageous" in relation to the
reduction of unbound margins of preference could be positive or it
could be negative. If a country reduced a margin of preference by
reducing the M-F-N rate, the country enjoying the preferential rate
had no legal right to claim compensation but it was free to seek
compensation by reducing the margin of preference enjoyed by the other
country in the process of negotiations with other contracting parties.
It could to some extent restore the balance in this way, by obtaining
concessions from thire countries. In conclusion he thought the case
was clear and he supported the statement of the delegate of Norway
to the effect that a Working Party was not needed for the settlement
of this question.
Mr.WUNZ KING (China) said that the question had legal
aspect and a factual one. He would ony ldeal with the legal aspects GATT/CP.3/SR.35.
page 5
although the two were closely bound. With regard to the legal issue,
he thought the majority of the Contracting Parties agreed that the
rates contained in the schedules, whether M-F-N, or preferential
rates, were maxima and could, therefore, be reduced without prior
consent. He wished to make it clear that his country had always
been opposed to preferential systems and he feared that as things
stood at present, China with the exception of a few other countries
would constitute the M-F-N oasis in the desert of preferential
arrangements. He was nevertheless in favor of keeping as a final
aim the gradual elimination of preferences. He was not quite clear
about the interpretation given to the consept of compensation given
by the delegation of Canada and would have to study the matter
further, but while agreeing that in the present case, the legal
aspect was quite clear he thought the question of fact should be
given full consideration. He wished to refer to the effect on the
Cuban economy of the reduction of the United States M-F-N rates.
The Cuban national economy was essentially based on the production
and export of a small number of products and any change in the
situation would undoubtedly constitute a grave hardship. He, there-
fore, proposed that the Cuban and the U.S. delegations should make
another attempt to clear their differences.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ (Brazil) had not wished to speak at this stage
but the Delegate for Canada had put forward several concepts which
he thought required further Examination with respect to the applic-
ation of the schedules. He wished to make it quite clear that the
attitude of his government was strongly op posed to preferential
systems and that anything he might say in the specific case was
independent of their attitude towards the general problem. He agreed
with the Canadian delegation that the rates contained in the schedule
were maxima. He did not agree that preferential arrangements were
merely bilateral and thought that further consideration should be
given to this matter. A preferentialrate was a very real concession,
His conclusion was that the U.S. could reduce their M-F-N rates at
any time, but that a country which suffered materially would be
entitled to fair compensation if its margins of preference were
reduced. GATT/CP.3/SR.35.
page 6
Mr. VARGAS GOMEZ (Cuba) then read a statement which is
being separately circulated. He wished to add that it could not
be argued that the General Agreement was not concerned with
preferences or that they were simple bilateral agreements because
they were the result of negotiations conducted within the framework
of the agreement and approved by the Contracting Parties. Not did
it follow that they could be reduced unilaterally. He admitted
that the aim of the GATT was to seek reduction of preferences but
this could not be done at any moment and without following the
established procedure. He was making brief remarks on some of the
points raised but he thought that the discussion in the meeting was a
clear demonstration of the complexity of the matter and of the fact
that there was not only a legal aspect to be considered. He would
also like to speak of the substantial aspect which could not be
separated from the legal aspect and appealed to the responsibility
of the Contracting Parties for the setting up of the Working Party.
The meeting was adjourned at 12.45 p.m. |
GATT Library | pc949mr4631 | Summary record of the Thirty-fifth Meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy on Monday, 1 gust, 1949 at 10 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and, August 1, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 01/08/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.35 and GATT/CP.3/SR.35 SR.36 + Corr.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/pc949mr4631 | pc949mr4631_90060144.xml | GATT_144 | 0 | 0 | |
GATT Library | tj493sy8423 | Summary record of the Thirty-fourth Meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy on Saturday, 30 July 1949, at 10 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, July 30, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 30/07/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.34 and GATT/CP.3/SR.33 SR.34 + Corr.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/tj493sy8423 | tj493sy8423_90060139.xml | GATT_144 | 2,475 | 15,429 | GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS AND
RESTRICTED
ACCORD GENERAL SUR LIMITED B
LES TARIFS DOUANIERS GATT/CP.3/SR.34
ET LE COMMERCE
ORIGINAL : ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Third Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH MEETING
Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy on
Saturday, 30 July 1949, at 10 a.m.
Chairman:
Hon. L. D. WILGRESS (Canada)
Subjects
discussed:
1. First report of Working Party 9 on the Budget
(document Budget/3).
2. Cuban statement on margins of preference
negotiated at Annecy.
1. First Report of Working Party 9 on the Budget
Mr. RODRIGUEZ (Brazil). Chairman of the Working Party,
summarized the report which he recommended be accepted by the
Contracting Parties.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) thought they had a judicious
report before them and asked for some clarification on the total
expenditure for 1949, which was supplied by Mr. ROYER, Deputy
executive Secretary.
Mr. de VRIES (Netherlands) found some difficulty in giving
judgment on the Budget for the Contracting Parties because its
intimate connection with the ICITC and the unforeseeable volume of
business the latter would have in 1950 complicated the setting of even
the percentage charges. In fact the percentages of 50% and 90% would
bear very heavily on the Contracting Parties if the work of the ICITC
should become very extensive. To solve the difficulty he proposed
the acceptance of the above percentages, provided that the actual
expenditure should not exceed a "ceiling" figure. GATT/CP.3/SR. 34
page 2
The CHAIRMAN suggested that the details of the question
which was dealt with in paragraph 7 of the Report be discussed when
the Report was examined in detail. In the meantime he asked the
Deputy Executive Secretary to reply to the general points raised by
Mr. de Vries.
The DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY said that the figures
contained in Annex II did represent a "ceiling", in that the
Executive Secretary would not be authorized to commit the Contracting
Parties to any payment beyond these figures. The item "Experts and
Consultants" referred to personnel which would be engaged in work for
the Contracting Parties. If there were a conference of the ITO in
1950 this would not imply a charge for "Common Staff Costs" to the
Contracting Parties. These coats were limited to established
posts to the exclusion of temporary assistance which was budgeted
separately for each meeting.
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) thought a better balance of charges
could be struck if the percentages could be set at 90% during
Sessions of the Contracting Parties, 50% between Sessions and at 10%
during Sessions of the ICITO. He further wished to ask what
provisions had been made for the reimbursement of any balance which
might result from the estimates exceeding actual expenses.
The DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY agreed that a perfectly
watertight business deal - if such were possible - would require
certain adjustments in the proposal before them, but he wished to
point out the intricacy, and the costliness for the United Nations
accounting services, of any change in the suggested distributions
The bookkeeping costs might conceivably amount to more than the
actual saving. Moreover, the charge of 50% between sessions was a
low one. It should also be borne in mind that the ICITO had
financed the Contracting Parties at the rate of $70,000 a year in
1948. With respect to Mr. Cassiers' second point, the answer was
that the Contracting Parties would receive at the end of the year an
account of the actual expenses. Any surplus would be disposed of by
the Contracting Parties as they might themselves decide. GATT/CP. 3/SR. 34
page 3
Mr. NICOL (New Zealand) referred to the provision for
tariff negotiations in 1950 and asked whether they were likely to
take place.
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that the fixing of a third round
of negotiations was an item on the agenda and provision therefor had
to be made for it in the budget.
The report was then taken paragraph by paragraphs
Paragraphs 1 to 6 were approved. With reference to the first
part of paragraph 7 and to the earlier remarks of the Deputy
Executive Secretary, Mr. CASSIERS said he did not believe that if his
proposal were accepted the ICITO might ask for 60% between sessions
instead of 50%. If this arrangement was thought to be a short-lived
one he would not insist in his proposal, but if it should acquire any
degree of permanence, he would press for a revision of the terms.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) informed the meeting that he had
sought instructions from his Government but had not yet received
them.
The first part of paragraph 7 and paragraph 8 were approved.
On paragraph 9 the Deputy Executive Secretary had a technical
point to make to the meeting on the repayment to ICITO of services
rendered in 1949. Authority would have to be given to the Executive
Secretary to repay such services during the first quarter of 1950,
on the basis of the verified accounts for 1949. The contributions
of the Contracting Parties were now in a suspense account and the
Executive Secretary would transfer these amounts to the ICITO
account at an appropriate time. The monies could then be used by
the ICITO to meet its liabilities towards the United Nations in 1950.
If the Contracting Parties accept the recommendation that these
contributions for 1950, should, as a rule, be remitted by
1 April, 1950, the Executive Secretary would be in a position to
finance expenditure out of current contributions and to use the 1949
contributions for repayment to the ICITO of services rendered in 1949,
on the basis of verified accounts for the present budgetary year. GATT/CP.3/SR.34
page 4
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) pointed out that the United
Kingdom financial year began on 5 April and that a week's delay
might be necessary to avoid paying two contributions in the same
year.
The DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY pointed out that in the
present year advances had been received from the United Nations to
cover the gross expenditure of ICITO and the Contracting Parties.
The most that could be expected next year was an advance to cover
ICITO expenditure alone. In order to avoid very serious cash
difficulties it was necessary that sufficient contributions should
be received before 1 April to cover the expenditure incurred during
the first quarter of 1950.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) said he would recommend
payment as soon as possible but could not commit himself to any
date. He suggested that Governments be informed and replies
obtained from them.
The DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY said that the recommendation
of paragraph 9 was flexible; it provided that, if countries could not
obtain authority to remit their contributions before 1 April 1950,
they should make their contribution as soon as possible thereafter.
Paragraph 9 was approved.
The Executive Secretary was authorized to transfer the 1949
contributions of the Contracting Parties and the Acceeding Governments
to the ICITO account during the first quarter of 1950 on the basis of
verified account for the period 16 August 1948 to 31 December 1949.
Mr. de VRIES (Netherlands) proposed the insertion of the
words: "for 1950" after the word. "estimates" in the first line of
paragraph 10. Referring to the remarks which suggested that "per
diem" charges might be saved by arrangements with an inviting
government or authority, he asked whether invitations had actually
been received.
The DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY replying to Mr. de Vries
said that several members of the Working Party had considered the
provision for Tariff negotiations somewhat inelastic. The budget GATT/CP.3/SR.34
page 5
provided only for one session of the Contracting Parties, although
it was possible that the latter might decide to meet concomitantly with
the tariff negotiations. It was felt however to be undesirable to
plan for tariff negotiations lasting more than five months. With
respect to offers from inviting governments no firm proposals had been
received but it seemed possible to make an arrangement along the lines
suggested in the Working Party's report.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) considered it in principle
undesirable to depend on the favour of particular governments.
Mr. de VRIES (Netherlands) agreed with Mr. Shackle and
thought some changes should be made. He thought it might be
possible to find a place near Geneva where "per diem" charges
would not be necessary.
Mr. LEWIS (United States of America) agreed with
Mr. Shackle and thought the last sentence might be deleted entirely
after ... "allowances";
The CHAIRMAN thought it would perhaps be best to delete
the whole sentences starting from the word "moreover" and, with
this amendment, paragraph 10 was approved.
Paragraph 11 was approved.
Paragraph 12 was approved in the following form:
"The budget estimates contained in Annex II provide for the
services of two consultants being employed for four months on special
preparatory work required for the proper discharge of the functions
of the Contracting Parties."
Paragraph 13 and the two annexes were approved.
The report as a whole was approved.
2. Statement of the Delegation of Cuba on Margins of
Preference Negotiated at Annecy.
Mr. VARGAS GOMEZ (Cuba) wished to express the regret of
his Delegation that this matter had to be brought before the
Contracting Parties. GATT/CP. 3/SR.34
page 6
It was particularly regrettable for them that this difference
should have arisen with the United States of America, a country
with which Cuba had the most friendly relations. Every effort had
been made to obtain a settlement directly but with no success. He
hoped the Contracting Parties would understand their position in this
matter of the greatest importance to his country.
He then proceeded to read the statement which had been previously
circulated to all Contracting Parties and which is here briefly
summarized. The Cuban Delegation informed by the US Delegation of
the latter's intentions to grant certain reductions in its most-
favoured-nation rate which were also the object of preferential rates
granted to Cuba at Geneva, asserted its point that no such reductions
could be granted without its consent. This consent would only be
given by Cuba through negotiations leading to compensation from the
United States of America to such an extent as would restore the
equilibrium set up by reciprocal concessions at Geneva in 1947.
The US Delegation however had concluded bilateral negotiations
the result of which had been to reduce the Cuban margin of preferences
on a certain number of items.
This implied changes in Schedule XX which could not be made
effective, in accordance with Article XXX unless unanimous agreement
of the Contracting Parties were secured.
With respect to Article 17 of the Havana Charter, there was
no mention in that article of an obligation to eliminate preferences
or to reduce Tariffs, rather the obligation was to enter into
negotiations for those purposes.
"Prior international obligations", which, according to Article 17,
could not be invoked by any Contracting Patty to refuse to negotiate
with another Contracting Party on preferences, might well be the
obligations towards Cuba undertaken at Geneva in 1947 by the United
States of America. That is to say, the United States of America
could not invoke its "prior obligations" to refuse to negotiate with
an acceeding government but if the results of the negotiations were in
conflict with these "prior obligations" they could "not require the
modification or termination of such obligations, except (1) with the
consent of the parties to such obligations, or, in the absence of such GATT/CP.3/SR.34
page 7
consent, (ii) by modification or termination of such obligations
in accordance with their terms.
Independently of the above, the unilateral modification of
the margins of preference would leave in the hands of the United
States of America the possibility of impairing, or even annulling,
the compensations obtained by Cuba at Geneva, in exchange for which
Cuba had made its concessions to the United States of America.
Apart from the legal aspects of the question it should be
remembered that a preferential system had existed between the
United States of America and Cuba ever since the latter's inception
as an independent republic in 1902; that the economy of Cuba was
based on this relationship and that it could not consequently be
changed once the two countries had agreed to eliminate all
preferences - except through a period of preparation and transition.
The CubanDelegation therefore requested that the CONTRACTING
PARTIES declare that the negotiations, carried out hy the United
States of america at Annecy and eliminating the margins of preference
maintained in force since the Geneva negotiations, be declared
"lacking in efficacy or validity pursuant to GATT unless the previous
and express consent of Cuba is obtained".
At the end of his statement Mr. Vargas Gomez added that in view
of the complexity of the matter, which had not only a legal but a
substantial aspect, a working party would be best qualified to deal
with it.
Mr. EVANS (United States of America) expressed the regret
of his delegation that it had not been possible to find a satisfactory
solution in the course of the conversations which had been going on
for some time. As there had not been time to prepare a complete
statement he would at this stage give a brief summary of the position
of the United States of America. In his opinion the question was a
simple one. Did the General Agreement preclude a Contracting Party
from reducing a most-favoured-nation rate of duty so as to reduce a
margin of preference?
The Cuban contention was based on the assumption that the
answer was in the affirmative. The US Delegation had never doubted
that it was in the negative, because
(1) the specific language of the Agreement made it clear
that the rates in the schedules were ceilings. GATT/CP. 3/SR.34
page 8
(2) the whole purpose of the Agreement was the reduction
of trade barriers.
A different conclusion would be so opposed to the spirit of
the agreement that one would have to think of some drafting error.
Article II, paragraph 1 (b) made it quite clear that no rates
higher than those contained in the schedules could be charged but
nothing prevented a Contracting Party from changing lower rates.
In point of fact, Contracting Parties were in many cases charging
rates lower than those contained in their schedules.
If the language of the GATT were not conclusive, the whole
history from Article 7 of the Lend-Lease agreements, to the
original draft charter and its subsequent development into the
Havana Charter, and finally, the preamble to the Agreement itself.
A document whose purpose was to reduce trade barriers would have been
badly drafted indeed if its effect had been to prevent such reduction.
In reply to Mr. EVANS who asked whether the Cuban statement which
had been distributed was to receive a symbol; the Chairman stated
that the circulation had been made at the request of the Cuban
delegation and that it was to be considered "restricted" as any
other document.
The meeting adjourned at 1.10p.m. |
GATT Library | jc123cp5309 | Summary record of the Thirty-ninth Meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy, on Wednesday, 10 August 1949 at 2.30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, August 10, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) | 10/08/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.39 and GATT/CP.3/SR.39 - 41 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/jc123cp5309 | jc123cp5309_90060160.xml | GATT_144 | 0 | 0 | |
GATT Library | cq001tt7419 | Summary record of the Thirty-ninth Meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy, on Wednesday, 10 August 1949 at 2.30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, August 10, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) | 10/08/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.39 and GATT/CP.3/SR.39 - 41 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/cq001tt7419 | cq001tt7419_90060160.xml | GATT_144 | 1,866 | 11,913 | GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON. TARIFFS AND
TRADE
ACCORD GENERAL SUR
LES TARIFS DOUANIERS
ET LE COMMERCE
RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP.3/SR .39
10 August 1949
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE THIRTY-NINTH MEETING
Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy,
on Wednesday, 10 August 1949 at 2.30 p.m.
Chairman:
Subjects discussed:
Hon. L.D. WILGRESS (Canada)
1. Supplementary report of Working Party on
the Budget (Budget/4/Rev.1)
2. Intensification of United Kingdom Import
Restrictions (GATT/CP.3/68).
3. Fourth and Fifth Reports of Working
Party 2 on article XVIII
(GATT/CP.3/60 and 64).
1. Mr. RODRIGUEZ (Brazil), Chairman of the Working Party,
introduced the report. He emphasized that the plan was based on
volume of trade taking into consideration the years 1938 and 1946.
He also emphasized that this plan was limited to the coming year
and did not constitute a precedent.
The CHAIRMAN thanked Mr. Rodriguez and the members of
the Working Party for their work in drawing up the budget. He
called attention to an alternative proposal (BUDGET/5) distributed
by the Czechoslovakia. delegation at the meeting.
Dr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) pointed out that his
proposal had the advantage of not depending in any way on the number
of countries involved. He suggested another formula which
would entirely eliminate categories of countries., which has
been incorporated in document BUDGET/5.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ (Brazil) explained that the WorKing Party
had tried to follow a practical method as it did not believe that
any scientific principle could be absolutely correct or equitable.
Furthermore, the countries with the largest contributions under
the Working Party plan had already received the approval of their GATT/CP.3/SR .39
page 2
governments and it would cause delay to change the plan at this
stage. He did not think the Czechoslovak plan entirely free
of criticism which could be made of the Working Party plan as it
also had a certain arbitrary basis.
Mr. REISMAN (Canada) supported the Working Party
proposal chiefly on the purely practical grounds of the delay
involved in pursuing other suggestions. He thought perhaps the
Czechoslovakian proposal had certain advantages but preferred not to
alter the plan at this stage.
Dr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) pointed out that the
difference in the amount of contribution for his country between
the two planned was minor and had had no bearing on their
calculations. He believed, however, that it was an advantage
to have a formula that could be adhered to regardless of the
number of countries involved.
Mr. ROYER (Deputy Executive Secretary) said that the
adjustment required in the Working Party plan should some of the
acceding governments not become contracting parties was not a
difficult one. It would only involve dividing the total budget
by smaller number of countries.
Mr. BURR (Chile) thought the Czechoslovak plan a sound
and appropriate one. He suggested for the practical reasons
previously referred to by other speakers that it be kept in the
records for consideration in the course of any future discussion
of the question of contributions.
Mr. HSUEH (China) also thought the Czechoslovakian plan an
improvement since it was entirely based on volume of trade, and
provided easier calculation.
Mr. LEWIS (United States) agreed with the Chairman of the
Working Party and the representative of Canada that it was preferable
to adopt the Working Party suggestion because of the time element.
Mr. THOMMESSEN (Norway) supported the Czechoslovak
proposal. GATT/CP. 3/SR. 39
page 3
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) thought that the apparent
logicality of the Czechoslovak plan was slightly deceptive. It
was in fact based on total volume of trade i.e. a combination of
import and export trade. This, however, masked a difference in
different countries as to their actual balance of trade. It was
consequently not necessarily more correct than the Working Party
proposal. Also, for the practical reasons earlier mentioned, he
opposed the Working Party proposal.
Mr. JAYASURIYA (Ceylon) was in favour of the
Czechoslovakia plan. In order to obviate the practical difficulties,
he suggested that payment of the contributions be made on the basis
of the Working Party proposal with subsequent adjustments should the
Contracting Parties adopt the Czechoslovak proposal.
Dr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) agreed that the entire
volume of trade was not the best scale of measurement and added that
in reality what should be calculated was the total volume of trade
within the Contracting Parties. This, however, would be very
complicated. He suggested that the decision on his proposal
be deferred until the next session of the Contracting Parties and
in the meantime, countries pay one-half their contribution as
fixed by the Working Party proposal. At the next session the
complete contribution could be decided upon.
Mr. ROYER (Deputy Executive-Secretary) pointed out that
this would put the Secretariat in a very difficult cash position.
For instance, in 1949 it would not have been possible to hold
this meeting but for the advances by the UN due to the delay in
paying contributions by Contracting Parties. In 1950 there
will be no advances from the UN. Furthermore, countries could
only go to their parliaments once for the allocation of funds. He
suggested, as a possible solution, that the full amount as decided
in the Working Party proposal might be remitted subject to
adjustment at the end of the year should the plan be changed.
Mr. REISMAN (Canada) pointed out that this was in any
case only a temporary arrangement pending the establishment of the
I.T.O He thought the proposal by the delegate of Chile that
the Czechoslovakia plan be kept on record for the next meeting,
shoult it be again necessary to provide a budget, a vary sound
one and wondered if it could not be agreed to. GATT/CP .3/SR.39
page 4
Mr. LECUYER (France) said that Mr. Royer's point regarding
the fact that Parliaments could only be approached once for the
amounts was correct. He also agreed with the practical
difficulties mentioned by other delegates.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ (Brazil) agreed with Mr. Lecuyer that the
proposal of Ceylon would raise practical difficulties in view of
the fact that estimates must be made by individual countries each
year in advance.
Mr. NICHOL (New Zealand) supported the statement of the
delegate of Canada.
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) also supported this statement.
Although the Czechoslovakia system was not without merit, the
Working Party plan had the advantage of providing a somewhat
higher basic contribution to be paid by all countries toward the
work of the Secretariat. This work, after all, did not depend
upon the size of the country involved.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) did not think the
difficulties for the various countries so great. They would in
any case have to put their estimates at the highest figure since
they must provide for the eventuality of some countries not
becoming Contracting Parties. If the mount estimated were
diminished there would certainly be no objections.
The CHAIRMAN said that a majority of those who had taken part
in the discussion had spoken in favour of the Working Party solution.
He suggested that the Chilean proposal which had been supported by
the delegates of Canada and France be adopted, that is, that the
Working Party report be approved and the Czechoslovakia proposal kept
upon the records for examination at the next session of the
Contracting Parties at which budget contributions were discussed.
This was agreed.
The CHAIRMAN called the attention of the Contracting
Parties to document GATT/CP.3/55/Add.1 which listed the countries
which had paid and those which had not paid their contributions to
the 1949 budget. He asked those in the latter category to take GATT/CP.3/SR .39
page 5
immediate steps to notify their governments of the pressing need
for early payment.
2. INTENSIFICATION OF UNITED KINGDOM IMPORT RESTRICTIONS
(GATT/CP.3/68).
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) said that he had little to
add to the latter and its Annex which had been circulated. He
emphasized that until the important conversations which were due
to take place in Washington in September had been concluded, it
would not be possible to produce a definitive import programme.
Once this was ready, his government would, of course, be willing
to enter into consultation.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY (United States) said that his government
attached much importance to the consultation procedure, as the
Contracting Parties were aware, and consequently welcomed the
statement by the United Kingdom. He suggested that its contents
be noted and the question of the timing of any consultations be
left to the Chairman to work out with the interested parties,
particularly with United Kingdom.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) said that this was agreeable
to him.
In reply to a question from Dr. Augenthaler, the CHAIRMAN said
that the procedure for intersessional consultations adopted earlier
in the session (document GATT/CP.3/50) could if necessary be
invoked in this case.
The procedure suggested by the United States was agreed.
3. FOURTH AND FIFTH REPORTS OF WORKING PARTY 2 ON ARTICLE XVIII.
(GATT/CP.3/60 and 64).
a) The Chairman suggested taking the Fifth Report on the
date of decision on the Ceylon application first.
The Fifth Report was approved.
b) Fourth report of Working Party 2.
Mr. HEWITT, Chairman of the Working Party, summarised the
contents of the report. GATT/CP. 3/SR .39
page 6
The CHAIRMAN thanked the Working Party and its Chairman for
the excellence of the intensive work accomplished and the great
care which had been devoted to it.
He stated that the report would be taken up section by
section and he would ask the Chairman of the Working Party to
indicate the significant parts, and decisions required, in each
section.
Paragraphs 1 to 5 were purely factual statements and required
no action.
Section A on the Measures Notified by the Government of the
Netherlands in respect of Indonesia was approved.
Section B on the Measures Notified by the Government of Chile
was approved.
Section C on the Measures Notified by the Government of United
Kingdom in respect of Mauritius, and the decision contained in
paragraph 11 were approved.
Section D on the Measures Notified by the United kingdom in
respect of Northern Rhodesia, and the decision contained in
paragraph 20 were approved.
Section E on the Measures notified by the Government of Cuba and
the decision contained in paragraph 30 were approved.
Section F on the measures notified by India and the decision
contained in paragraph 39 were approved.
Section G on the Measures notified by the Government of Lebanon
and Syria and the decisions referred to in paragraphs 49 (Citrus and
Other Fruits), 52 (Wheat); 54 (Barley), 56 (Wheat Flour), 59 (Sugar)
61 (Chocolate), 65 (Preserves of Vegetables and Fruits), 68 (Cement),
71 (Raw Cotton), 73 (Cotton Yarn or Thread), 76 (Cotton Textiles) and
paragraph 83 (Glass and Glassware) were aproved. The recommendations in
paragraphs 79 and 81 (Natural and Artificial Silk and Hosiery)
involved the granting of a waiver under Article XXV (5)(a) which
required A two thirds majority of the votes cast, such majority to
comprise more than one-half the contracting parties. This GATT/CP.3/SR .39
page 7
waiver in the decision set forth in Annex A was granted by
sixteen votes to none.
The substance of paragraph 84 was accepted by the Contracting
Parties.
The Chairman again expressed the appreciation of the
Contracting Parties for the work of Mr. Hewitt, the Chairman of
the Working Party.
The meeting adjourned at 5.30 p.m. |
GATT Library | ny177dx8706 | Summary record of the Thirty-second Meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy on Friday, 8 July 1949, at 2.30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, July 8, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 08/07/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.32 and GATT/CP.3/SR.29 - SR.32 + SR.31/Corr.1,2 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/ny177dx8706 | ny177dx8706_90060131.xml | GATT_144 | 430 | 2,855 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR RESTRICTED LIMITED B
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS GATT/CP.3/SR.32
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE 8 July 1949
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Contracting Parties
Third Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE THIRTY-SECOND MEETING
Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy
on Friday, 8 July 1949, at 2.30 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. Eric Wyndham White (the Executive Secretary)
Subject discussed: Re-negotiation of Items in the Schedule
of Pakistan (GATT/CP3/57)
The CHAIRMAN recalled that the withdrawal of certain
concessions which had been initially negotiated by Pakistan with
Czechoslovakia, France and the United States had already been
reported to the CONTRACTING PARTIES, and had been approved in
accordance with the procedure laid down at the Second Session; the
representative of Pakistan now reported the result of re-negotiations
with China and he enquired whether the CONTRACTING PARTIES would agree
that the proposed modification of Schedule XV should be regarded as
approved if no objections were received within 14 days.
THIS PROPOSAL WAS AGREED.
The CHAIRMAN then referred to the proposal concerning
Item 73(4) - wireless receivers - which had been the subject of
discussions with the delegations of the Netherlands, the United
Kingdom and the United States.
Mr. J.W. EVANS (United States) said his government had approved
the withdrawal of this concession but he was not certain of the exact
nature of the proposal now put forward. GATT/CP.3/SR.32
page 2
Mr. S.A.. HASNIE (Pakistan) explained that his government had
sought the deletion of this item from both Part I and Part II of Schedul
XV, but when the government of the Netherlands had objected to the
withdrawal of the obligation affecting the preferential margin they had
endeavoured to find some compromise between the wishes of the Netherland
and the United Kingdom; this had been achieved and his delegation would
endeavour to ensure that the rate of duty would be less than 60%
ad valorem and in that case the preferential margin would not exceed 8%.
Mr. R.J. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) thought that his government
would be agreeable to the deletion of the item from both Parts of the
Pakistan Schedule if the undertaking proposed by Mr. Hasnie were
accepted as a gentlemen's agreement.
Mr. LAMSVELT (Netherlands) said he would agree to the deletion.
of the item on the understanding proposed by Mr. Shackle.
Mr. S.A. HASNIE (Pakistan) expressed the appreciation of his
government for the understanding and co-operation of all the governments
concerned in the re-negotiations, and Mr. HSUEH (China) expressed the
pleasure of his delegation at being able to collaborate with the
Pakistan representatives in dealing with this matter.
The meeting rose at 3.30 p.M. |
GATT Library | qm625tn4047 | Summary record of the Thirty-sixth Meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy on Tuesday, 2 August 1949, at 2.30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, August 2, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 02/08/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP3/SR.36 and GATT/CP.3/SR.35 SR.36 + Corr.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/qm625tn4047 | qm625tn4047_90060145.xml | GATT_144 | 3,162 | 19,644 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR GATT/CP3/SR.36
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS 2 August 1949
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Contracting Parties
Third Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE THIRTY-SIXTH MEETING
Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy
on Tuesday, 2 August 1949, at 2.30 p.m.
Chairman: Hon. L.D. WILGRESS (Canada)
Subject discussed: Cuban Statement on Margins of
Preference (GATT/CP.3/59)
(Continuation)
Mr. DE VRIES (Netherlands) considered that this question raised
a number of very difficult legal issues. He thought that the
interpretation of the General Agreement by the Cuban Delegation,
particularly with regard to the Annecy tariff negotiations, should be
considered both from the point of view of the General Agreement itself
and in the light of the memorandum adopted unanimously by the
Contracting Parties on 1 September 1948 concerning tariff
negotiations (GATT/CP.2/26). It was on the basis of this
memorandum that governments had been invited to negotiate and the
rights of the acceding governments as well as of Cuba and the United
States must be taken into accounts He agreed with other delegates
who had previously spoken that the objections of the delegation of
Cuba could not be based on Article XXX or Article XXVIII. Nor did
he believe that Article XXVIII provided a legal basis for objection
to changes in the United States tariff resulting from negotiations
with the Dominican Republic and Haiti as Article XXVIII was not
intended to prevent the lowering of any most-favoured-nation rates.
Also, it was specifically set out on Page 2 of the memorandum on
tariff negotiations that no acceding government could be prevented
from asking for concessions on products already appearing in the
Geneva schedules. Consequently, the Dominican Republic and Haiti
were entitled to ask concessions on the most-favoured-nation rate.
Whether the United States required the concurrence of Cuba before
giving these concessions did not depend on the General Agreement but
on specific bilateral arrangements between the United States and Cuba. GATT/CP3/SR.36
page 2
Such a case could not be dealt with in this meeting but required
extensive research into Cuban-United States relationas. For that
reason he considered that it would be advisable to set up a working
party to go into the details of the question. Furthermore even if
the result of the investigation should prove that the United States
margin of preference in the case of these particular items was not
bound to Cuba he thought that the latter might still have a case
although not the one which they had presented. They might still
have the right to resort to the procedures of Article XXIII.
Article 17 (c) (1) of the Havana Charter provides for automatic
reduction of margins of preference. This Article is quoted in its
entirety in document GATT/CP.2/26 and he called attention
particularly to sub-paragraph (iii) which provides that reductions
negotiated in both the most-favoured-nation and preferential rates
shall be agreed by the parties to the negotiations. The difficulty
of Cuba in this case arose out of the fact that whereas in 1947 there
were negotiations between the United States and Cuba, here the
negotiations were between the United States and two new countries.
It has always been realized that there would be advantages and dis-
advantages to the various countries arising out of the fact that
some were original contracting parties and some acceding countries,
but care has always been taken that there should be no systematic
disadvantage for any group.
He considered that if Cuba had requested from the beginning of
the Session that the most-favoured-nation rate as well as the
preferential rate be negotiated, they would probably have been
invited to take part in these particular negotiations. There was
still, however, a recourse for Cuba - that provided in the last page
of GATT/CP.2/26 where it is set forth that lists of concessions
shall be circulated to all countries at the end of each
negotiation and these results would be subject to revision and
adjustment in the light of other negotiations. He thought that the
results of the Annecy negotiations should be subject to this review
not only in the light of other negotiations at Annecy but of all the
negotiations which had taken place both at Annecy and Geneva. GATT/CP3/SR.36
page 3
He envisaged three possible adjustments by the United States and
Cuba:
1. That in the discussions between the United States and the
three other countries it be agreed not to lower the most-
favoured-nation rate as far as negotiated.
2. That the preferential rate between United States and Cuba
have some lower adjustment so that it would not be lowered
as far as with these negotiations.
3. Or, the solution already suggested by the delegation of
Canada of a release by the United States to Cuba for the
latter to change its margins of preference granted to the
United States.
Mr. LECUYER (France) agreed that it was certainly a very
complex problem and that it seemed impossible to study the question
fully in the Contracting Parties. There were not only legal
difficulties but also economic difficulties, and he considered that
the Contracting Parties should fulfill the role of an arbitration
commission in this matter. It was the function of the Contracting
Parties to try and find solutions to just such difficulties through
the General Agreement, and even if the working party were unable to
find a solution, its debates might be of assistance to the countries
in settling the matter bilaterally.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) also agreed that the most expeditious
course would be to examine at least some of the issues raised in a
small group. The importance of determining the form of taking a
decision on the legal issue had already been demonstrated with regard
to one of the issues already raised by the Cuban delegation in the
Working Party on Accession. That particular matter had already
received careful consideration by the Contracting Parties as a whole.
The other legal issues required careful examination in a working
party in order that the form of presentation might be narrowed down
for consideration by the Contracting Parties.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) thought that the purpose of the
working party should be to find cut what legal recourse was open to
Cuba in the General Agreement and if agreement were not possible
within the working party, an analysis of the different aspects could GATT/CP3/SR.36
page 4
be prepared setting forth the differing points of view. He
considered that the terms of reference should be limited so that the
working party should not discuss the question of whether the
reduction of an most-favoured-nation rate included in a schedule to
the GATT was modification requiring unanimous consent as that had
already been decided negatively by the Contracting Parties in their
consideration of the Report on Accession. Neither should it be a
function of the working party to consider the rights and
obligations arising out of the bilateral agreement between the
United States and Cuba of October 1947. He proposed that the
working party report back to the Contracting Parties by 5 August.
Mr. EVANS (United States) supported the suggestion of a
working party subject to being satisfied with its terms of reference.
He thought those proposed by Mr. Shackle in general satisfactory.
He was not sure, however, that the question of unanimous consent
had definitely been decided by the Contracting Parties. If there
were any doubt as to that, he thought it important that the
Contracting Parties make this decision now. Otherwise the working
party would be operating without knowing whether or not the Cuban
claim on one of its bases was founded. He also emphasized Mr.
Shackle's statement regarding the exclusion of the bilateral
agreement between United States and Cuba from the scope of the
working party.
Mr. VARGAS GOMEZ (Cuba) made a statement which has been
circulated as document GATT/CP.3/63).
He disagreed with the proposal of the United Kingdom that the
working party be limited in its terms of reference. The case was
a very serious one for Cuba and he considered they should have the
right to discuss their problem in its widest aspects. With regard
to the question of modifications of schedules, he pointed out that the
delegation of Cuba had reserved its right to raise this matter again
in the Contracting Parties. Consequently it should not be excluded
from the terms of reference of the working party. As to the
bilateral treaty, he wished to point out that it was a treaty made
as a supplement to the General Agreement and consequently ought to be
taken into account in the consideration of the question by the GATT/CP3/SR.36
page 5
Contracting Parties. He hoped that the Contracting Parties would
insist that the working party deal with this whole matter with wide
terms of reference.
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) thought the suggestion recently made
that the working party go beyond. the legal basis of the claim and
attempt to give satisfaction on other than legal grounds very
dangerous. The purpose seemed to be to find means for any
contracting party to redress a disequilibrium arising out of
negotiations. If the rules set forth in the General agreement
were ignored all negotiations in the future would be impossible as
it would be necessary to have after each one an endless
meeting to see whether the prior equilibrium had been upset. Every
negotiation would, of course, by its nature upset the previous
equilibrium but there was no provision in the Agreement that the
relationship between the schedules was permanently bound. He
considered the Cuban case should only be considered on the legal
principles set forth in the Agreement and that it was the function
of the Contracting Parties to see whether Article XXIII would in
fact apply to this case. He considered that it did not in its
present form and since it was limited he agreed that the working
party's terms of reference should be limited as suggested by the
representative of the United Kingdom to finding legal recourse for
Cuba within the General Agreement itself. The only thing
consolidated in the General Agreement is the rate included in the
Schedules and that this is a maximum and not also a minimum rate.
The original compromise in the drawing up of the General Agreement
was between those who considered that preferences should be
abolished and those who were in favour of their maintenance - that
certain preferences would be allowed to continue but should slowly
disappear by negotiation. Consequently it was rather those who
suffered from margins of preference than those who enjoyed them who
could invoke Article XXIII.
Mr. COEHLO (India) proposed to speak only with regard to the
working party, reserving the right to speak on the substance later.
He thought that the Contracting Parties had previously attempted to
reach acceptable solutions within the General Agreement but without GATT/CP3/SR.36
page 6
confining themselves to legal grounds, and he thought that to set
themselves up as a court or to separate the legal from the other
grounds would be against the spirit of the General Agreement.
Mr. EVANS (United States) said that he had hitherto refrained
from going into the actual merits of the complaint, but in view of the
Cuban statement on this matter he thought he should make a few replies.
Firstly, he wished to assure the contracting parties, although it was
probably not necessary, that the United States was not trying to
injure Cuba; if it were, there were other very much more effective
means of doing so, for instance, in the matter of sugar quotas. He
was also afraid that the meeting had received the impression that the
preference reductions were seriously damaging ones. The United
States Delegation was prepared to show that they were not so serious.
Moreover, he wished to point out that the United States had invited
the Cuban delegation to discuss the United States offers to acceding
countries concerning margins of preference and that this invitation
had not been accepted, apparently because the Cuban delegation had,
as a condition of the discussion, insisted on the acceptance of the
legal issue based on Article XXX to which the United States could not
agree. He pointed out that the working party would have the same
difficulty if this were not settled. It would be impossible for any
working party to discuss the problem adequately without knowing
whether margins of preference were bound by the General Agreement or
not. This question concerned not only the United States and Cuba
but also every negotiation that had taken place in Annecy as all
involved some change in the Geneva balance.
Mr. VARGAS GOMEZ (Cuba) in reply to Mr. Evans' remarks, said
that his delegation had submitted on May 13th to the United States
delegation an extensive document comprising 100 points on the question
of preferences; in which were raised not only the legal issues but
also economic, historical and political reasons for the maintenance
of the preferential system. This memorandum was not answered until
a few days ago and consequently the ample discussion which the Cuban
delegation had hoped to have never materialized. With regard to the
statement that the elimination of these preferences was not seriously
prejudicial, he wished to reply that the preferential system had been
in effect during the entire existence of the Cuban Republic GATT/CP3/SR.36
page 7
and the United States now proposed to alter it without giving Cuba
any transitional period in which to adjust itself to the change.
So radical a change in the entire economic system of a country must
inevitably injure it. He said that if the working party were not
permitted to discuss this question in all its aspects, his delegation
would prefer to continue discussing it before the Contracting Parties.
Mr. COUILLARD (Canada) agreed that it would be preferable
to set up a working party and suggested that the following questions
be excluded from its terms of reference:
1. The question of veto right with regard to modification of the
schedules. This had already been discussed in the accession
working party whose report had been approved by the
Contracting Parties and the Tariff Negotiations Committee; it
was unnecessary to raise it again.
2. The bilateral agreement between the United States and Cuba on
which the Contracting Parties could hardly sit as judges.
3. The legal question of binding margins of preference -
There was nothing in the general provisions of the Agreement
which bound margins of preference and the inclusion of
preferential rates would not automatically bind the margin
between that rate and the most-favoured-nation rate.
With regard to considering the matter in its moral aspects he
agreed that such an approach would be ideal, but thought it
impracticable to leave the legal basis and the rules of the General
Agreement itself. He agreed with the United States delegate that the
first issue concerning modifications of schedules must be settled here
before the Working Party was set up.
The CHAIRMAN thought that a very useful discussion had been
held and, until the last statement by the Cuban delegation, he had
thought there was agreement on the setting up of a working party and
that the only difference concerned the terms of reference, However,
the Cuban delegate had stated that he would prefer to discuss the matter
in the Contracting Parties if the terms of reference of the working
party were not sufficiently wide. He felt bound to say in the light of
the discussion at these meetings and at the time the working party on GATT/CP3/SR.36
page 8
accession was set up and made its report, that the Contracting Parties
had already decided on the question of modification of schedules by
reductions in tariff rates which was the basis of the Cuban case.
In this connection he read the relevant passages in the report of the
Working Party on Accession (GATT/CP.3/37) which had been accepted by
the Contracting Parties with a reservation on the part of Cuba to
raise the question again. This they had now done in their statement
on margins of preference.
In the ensuing discussion all the speakers but one were opposed
to the Cuban legal interpretation, and that one did not speak on this
aspect of the argument. He could only conclude that the Contracting
Parties had decided to confirm their earlier decision. However, he
considered the request of the delegation of Cuba to have a further
discussion in the Contracting Parties of this question rather than
referring it to a working party, to imply that they had further
arguments to present and he believed that the Contracting Parties
would wish to give them full opportunity to present their arguments.
He therefore proposed adjourning the discussion and continuing it on
6 August.
Mr. VARGAS GOMEZ (Cuba) thanked the Chairman for his
suggestion and requested two further days to prepare the Cuban case,
i.e. until 8 August.
Mr. THOMMESSEN (Norway) thought it unlikely that any new
arguments would change the view of the majority and thought this
postponement would only jeopardize the chance of the Contracting
Parties finishing by 13 August. He, therefore, proposed that a
working party be set up now, on the basis of the following decisions
by the Contracting Parties:
1. That the reduction of tariff rates constitutes no
modification of schedules.
2. That the United States - Cuba bilateral agreement was
outside the scope of the General Agreement.
3. That the inclusion of preferential rates in the
Schedules do not bind preferential margins.
He also formally moved the closure of the debate in accordance
with Rule 19. GATT/CP3/SR.36
page 9
The CHAIRMAN read Rule 19 and said that Mr. Thommessen's
proposal would be voted upon after the motion for closure had been
voted and provided it were accepted.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ (Brazil) spoke against closure. He said he
was also of the opinion that there was no provision in the General
Agreement forbidding reduction either of the most-favoured-nation
or preferential margins, but he thought it was necessary to have more
time to consider the full implications of such a decision as proposed
by the delegate of Norway in his third point. He did not think that
the debate had yet been exhausted.
In reply to a point of order raised by M. COEHLO (India) the
CHAIRMAN replied that closure could be moved on one aspect only of a
question.
Mr. VARGAS GOMEZ also spoke against closure. He said he
did not understand the objection to further consideration by the
Contracting Parties. The seriousness of the case for Cuba alone
should be enough justification for the fullest consideration by the
Contracting Parties. He said that his delegation had not yet had
time to give all the arguments both on the legal and the substantive
aspects of the case.
A vote was taken on the proposal for closure, the result of
which was 4 to 12 against closure.
The CHAIRMAN stated that the question would be adjourned until
the next meeting where the Norwegian proposal would also be taken up.
The meeting adjourned at 6 p.m. |
GATT Library | nr327bd4548 | Summary record of the Twelfth Meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy, on Saturday, 14 May 1949 at 10 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, May 14, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 14/05/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.12 and GATT/CP.3/SR.11 + Corr.1 SR.12 + Corr.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/nr327bd4548 | nr327bd4548_90060061.xml | GATT_144 | 1,973 | 12,385 | RESTRICTED LIMITED C
GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR
GATT/CP .3 /SR. 12
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS 14 May 1949
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE Original: ENGLISH
Contracting Parties
Third Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWELFTH MEETING
Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy,
on Saturday, 14 May 1949 at 10 a.m.
Chairman: Hon. L.D. WILGRESS
Adoption of Emergency Measures to resolve the crisis of the
Cuban Textile Industry.
Mr. PANDO (Cuba) presented the case for his Government.
(See GATT/CP.3/23).
The CHAIRMAN said that the Cuban representative had mentioned
two Articles, XVIII and XIX, by virtue of which a release from
negotiated obligations was requested. In view of the different
procedures provided in the two Articles, it would be necessary first
to determine which Article was the more appropriate, before a Working
Party was appointed to take up the problem. It seemed that the request
would be more appropriately considered under Article XIX.
Mr. PANDO (Cuba) said that it was possible that some measures
which might be needed to meet the crisis might affect products not
included in the Cuban Schedule. The proposed Working Party, if it was
to study the problem in all its aspects, should be given a comprehensive
mandate; its terms of reference should not be limited to the provisions
of a single article. The wording of the agenda item, which had been
hastily drafted, was no guide as to the scope and nature of the problem,
which should be left unprejudiced for the Working Party to examine. GATT/CP .3/SR. 12
page 2
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) pointed out that the terms of
Article XIX, as was clearly stated in its paragraph 1 (a), was not
limited to the effect of tariff concessions, but covered all unforeseen
developments, and the effect of all obligations incurred under the
Agreement. He therefore favoured the view that the Working Party
should study the problem under Article XIX. However, Working Party 2
of this Session, which had been studying measures maintained under
Article XVIII, could be consulted when necessary.
Mr. OLDINI (Chile) thought that the circumstances indicated
that governmental assistance would be needed to support the industry
in the course of its development. Hence, it was likely that measures
permissible under Article XVIII might be found to be more appropriate
or preferable. The proposed Working Party should therefore be directed
to take into account the provisions of Article XVIII.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY (United States) found it difficult to comment
on the question in hand without having first examined the Cuban statement.
He also felt that the question would seem to be too technically involved
to be thrashed out without prior meditation. However, a Working Party
appointed to review the problem under Article XIX, should not regard
itself as being precluded from referring to Article XVIII.
Mr. PANDO (Cuba) still felt that there was no need to refer
the Working Party explicitly to Article XIX, since some aspects of the
problem might be caused by events other than the kind of increased
import referred to in paragraph 1 (a) of that Article. He therefore
agreed with the suggestion of the representative of Chile.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom), although agreeing in principle
with the representative of Cuba, still felt the Working Party should be
required to confine its study at first under Article XIX. GATT/CP .3/SR. 12
Page 3
It should not be given the impossible task of reviewing a very
wide range of provisions of the Agreement. He therefore proposed
that the Working Party should examine the problem in the first instance
under Article XIX, but it would not be precluded from examining it under
other articles.
Mr. RODRIGUES (Brazil) thought that in view of the
complicated and far-reaching nature of the problem, Article XIX should
not be given priority over other articles in the Working Party's
consideration, since such a mandate might be construed to require that
all arguments be exhausted under Article XIX, before reference could
be made to another article, whereas by the nature of the problem,
discussion could be started with advantage even with Article XVIII.
As to consultation with Working Party 2, that Working Party was
instituted to examine only those measures which were notified under
paragraph 11 of Article XVIII, it would be going out of its way to
discuss any new measures applied under the preceeding paragraphs of
that Article.
Mr. LECUYER (France) also felt that the Working Party should
not be restricted to refer only to Article XIX . It had been
demonstrated that there was urgent need for industrialization and
particularly for development of the textile industry, to ensure economic
stabilization. Therefore, the absence of accurate and complete data
should not deprive the case of being studied in the light of Article
XVIII.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY (United States) said that the United States
delegation would be prepared to accept the United Kingdom proposal.
However, it should be clearly decided first as to which Working Party
would deal with the Article XVIII aspects of the problem. GATT/CP. 3/SR.12
page 4
The CHAIRMAN summed up the discussion and noted that there
seemed to be a general accord to give the case a full examination in a
Working Party; the difficulty in agreeing upon the terms of reference
arose from the absence of a definite reference in the Cuban statement to
a specific article. As a compromise, he would suggest that the Working
Party should have a free scope for its deliberations, but should direct
its attention in the first instance to Article XIX. In order to avoid
overlapping spheres of interest; the Working Party should refer to
Working Party 2 for advice on matters relating to Article XVIII.
The proposed terms of reference would therefore read:
"(a) to examine all the relevant facts submitted by Cuba, in
the light of Article XIX;"
"(b) if such examination reveals that certain aspects of the
action taken by Cuba are not covered by Article XIX, but fall
more appropriately under other articles, to refer for further
information and consideration to the CONTRACTING PARTIES;"
"(c) if Article XVIII is appropriate, to refer to the Working
Party on Article XVIII."
Mr. PANDO (Cuba) thought that the representatives of France and
Brazil had rightly interpreted the situation. To take a decision at this
stage would be prejudicing the case; the questions of appropriate
application of the Agreement should itself be left for the Working
Party's consideration. As regards Working Party 2, that Working Party
had already enough tasks to cope with, and the magnitude and complexity
of the present case demanded that it should be considered separately in
order to avoid confusion and delay.
The CHAIRMAN commented that the difficulty arose chiefly from
the insufficiency of information. To meet the situation, he therefore
suggested that a two-stage procedure be adopted; that is, a Working GATT/CP.3/SR.12
page 5
Party should be appointed first to consider the question of procedure.
When the Working Party had examined all the relevant facts and reported
back, the CONTRACTING PARTIES, equipped with a better knowledge of the
Cuban Statement and any supplementary information that the Cuban
delegation might be able to supply, would be in a better position to
decide upon the correct procedure to be followed in dealing with the
substance of the problem. The work could then be delegated either to
the same Working Party or a new Working Party set up for the purpose.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) thought this procedure would
involve a range of inquiry so wide as to cover the whole Agreement.
The lengthy study could be avoided if the Cuban delegation could
indicate the type and nature of the measures to be applied. In the
absence of such an indication, the Working Party would have to examine
the whole situation with reference to many articles.
Mr. REISMAN (Canada) thought that it would be difficult to
separate questions of procedure from matters of substance. If the
Cuban delegation indicated under which article the measures should be
reviewed in the first instance, it could be provided at the same time
that consideration under any other article should not be precluded.
Mr. RODRIGUES (Brazil) thought that it would be unfair to
require the Cuban delegation to limit its application to a single
article. The Cuban Government, not being so well acquainted with the
General Agreement as some other government, would be put in a difficult
position if it were required to specify its wish under such a complicated
instrument without having first heard the opinion of the more experienced
delegations. Its difficulty lay not so much in the knowledge of its own
economic situation as in the possible interpretation of the Agreement of
other countries. The procedure proposed by the Chairman would enable
such consultation and help the Cuban delegation to define its application. GATT/CP. 3/SR.12.
page 6
Mr. COREA (Ceylon) supported the Chairman's proposal for a
two-stage procedure. The first Working Party would provide an
opportunity to the Cuban delegation to find the most suitable provision
within the General Agreement and would therefore dispel the fear of the
Cuban delegation that some aspects of the problem might be relegated
because they might be found inapplicable under a given Article.
Mr. PANDO (Cuba) agreed with the representative of Brazil in
the view that it was difficult for his delegation to be more precise
about its application before consultation with other contracting
parties. His delegation was presenting the proper problem for advice
and it would be up to the CONTRACTING PARTIES to find an appropriate
solution.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) referred to the earlier suggestion made
by the Chaiman for the establishment of a Working Party. The
representative of Cuba had asked that the problem be reviewed under
Articles XIX and XVIII. This seemed to him to be a satisfactory
procedure, and it should be left to the Working Party itself to decide
whether Article XIX or Article XVIII should be taken up first. As
regards the activities of Working Party 2 in dealing with matters
falling under Article XVIII, there was in this respect no intrinsic
difference between measures notified under paragraph 11 of that Article
and new measures. Measures notified under paragraph 11 were to be
examined, by the terms of paragraph 12, as if they had been submitted
for consideration under paragraphs 1 - 10 of that Article. The
consideration given by the Working Party to measures notified under
paragraph 11 had resulted in the experience which should be utilised
for the examination of the present problem in so far as the provisions
of Article XVIII were relevant. By these means uniformity and
consistency in the application of the Article would be achieved. He GATT/CP.3/SR.12
page 7
thought that it would be in the interests of Cuba that those aspects
of the case relating to Article XVIII should be considered in
conjunction with Working Party 2.
Mr. van BLANKENSTEIN (the Netherlands) pointed out that five
weeks had elapsed since the Item was placed on the Agenda, and the Cuban
delegation ought to be able to present the case in more precise terms.
The multi-stage procedure would cause an unnecessary extension of the
Session. The Contracting Parties should therefore insist that the
nature of the measures to be taken and the Article to be applied should
both be clearly indicated before consideration was given to it. The
Cuban delegation would have the opportunity of consulting other
delegations in the course of the next few days before the question
was taken up again by the CONTRACTING PARTIES.
Mr. OLDINI (Chile) proposed adjournment of the meeting in
order that more thought could be given to the matter before the
CONTRACTING PARTIES took a decision.
The CHAIRMAN agreed that a decision should be deferred until
fuller discussion had taken place at another meeting. It was hoped
that the Cuban delegation might be able to indicate more precisely its
wishes after a few days. |
GATT Library | bk599pj2788 | Summary record of the Twentieth Meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy, on Thursday, 2 June, 1949, at 2.30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, June 14, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 14/06/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.20 and GATT/CP.3/SR.19 + Corr.1 SR.20 + Corr.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/bk599pj2788 | bk599pj2788_90060091.xml | GATT_144 | 1,900 | 11,744 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS AND
TRADE
ACCORD GENERAL SUR
LES TARIFS
DOUANIERS
ET LE COMMERCE
LIMITED B
GATT/CP.3/SR . 20
14 June 1949
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Contracting Parties
Third Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWENTIETH MEETING
Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy,
on Thursday, 2 June, 1949, at 2.30 p.m.
Chairman:
Mr. L. D . WILGRESS (Canada)
Subject discussed:
THE REQUEST OF THE GOVERNMENT OF CZECHOSLOVAKIA FOR
A DECISION UNDER ARTICLE XXIII AS TO WHETHER OR NOT
THE GOVERMENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS FAILED TO
CARRY OUT ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE AGREEMENT THROUGH
ITS ADMINISTRATION OF THE ISSUE OF EXPORT LICENCES.
(Continued). GATT/CP. 3/SR .20
page 2
Mr. EVANS (United States of America) replied to the speech
made by the head of the Czechoslovak delegation. (Document GATT/CP.3/38).
Dr. AUGNTHALER (Czechoslovakia) said that he would like to
continue the discussion another day so as to have time to study the
statement made by the representative of the United States. He
wished to limit himself for the time being to only a few points.
With regard to the question of United States export licences which
had been under discussion at the last meeting of the General Assembly
of the United Nations he stated that it had not been brought up by
his Government or by the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics but by the Government of Poland. He felt proud that the
United States representative considered his country so dangerous
from the military point of view although Czechoslovakia had no
fleet, nor the atomic bomb, nor any bases in any part of the globe.
He stressed that Czechoslovakia had no political or military
obligations against any country and it was only committed to prevent
any possible new aggression by Germany, and such a commitment could
not endanger the security of any country. He was surprised that
the representative of the United States did not answer the point he
had raised with regard to the Comprehensive Export Schedule No. 26
whereby, for the purpose of export control, all foreign destinations
except Canada were classified by the Office of International Trade
into groups. It appeared to him, therefore, that all countries
except Canada were suspect to the United States to varying degrees.
He wished to enquire whether the CONTRACTING PARTIES thought it
permissible, on the basis of the General Agreement, that a distinction
be made with regard to exports and imports in the case of one country
and not in the case of another country. GATT/CP. 3/SR .20
page 3
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) said that his country did not
conceal the fact that it had a list of goods the export of which was
closely controlled on security grounds by means of export licensing.
That list covered both war material and materials which in the
judgment of his Government could be of direct use in increasing
military potential. His delegation did not seek to deny that
export licensing control over those goods was discriminatory in its
effects, since controls exercised for security reasons were by their
nature discriminatory. No country could deny, or be expected to
deny, itself the right to exercise such control where matters of
national security were concerned. The United Kingdom asked for
nothing better than the opportunity to trade as widely and as
freely as was possible. If it were possible to dispense with
security controls his Government would be happy to do so, but it
had to face the facts of life in the contemporary world as it found
them. In imposing those restrictions on security grounds his
Government maintained that it was not going outside its obligations
under the General Agreement. Articles XXI(b) of that Agreement laid
down that nothing in the Agreement should be construed to prevent
any Contracting Party from taking any action which it considered
necessary for the protection of its essential security interests
relating inter alia to the traffic in arms, ammunition and implements
of war and to traffic in other materials carried on directly or
indirectly for the purpose of supplying a military establishment.
The representative of Czechoslovakia had sought to draw a distinction
between, on the one hand, traffic "directly or indirectly for the
purpose of supplying a military establishment" and, on the other
hand, "war potential". This distinction seemed to him entirely
artificial. Goods which were of a nature that could contribute
to war potential might evidently be used at any time, e.g. to construct GATT/CP .3/SR .20
Page 4
factories which are supplying, or may be intending some day to supply,
an establishment - whether that was in fact the intention or not
no-one but the importing country could know, but the exporting country
was fully within its rights in declining to take a risk wherever
there was room for doubt. It was, he thought, a principle well
recognised internationally, that it was for each country to judge
for itself of its own security interests. Of course no one would
deny that there was an extensive field of commodities which were
capable both of war-like and peaceful uses, but where there was doubt
his Government was obliged to reserve to itself fully the right to
judge whether to give an export licence in any given case or not.
This was not to say that his Government would refuse to consider
representations that particular consignments of dual purpose materials
were destined for peaceful uses. At the same time the United
Kingdom system of control was designed to reduce uncertainty to a
minimum and to put both would-be importers in other countries and
their own exporters on notice as fully as possible of the restrictions
and requirements that his Government applied. In this way it was
careful to reduce interference with normal trade to a minimum.
It had often been alleged, and he thought to some extent implied
by the representative of Czechoslovakia, that the United Kingdom was
not its own master in this matter and that it was being constrained by
outside pressure to pursue a course which was contrary to its own and
other countries' interests. That suggestion was unfounded. The famous
Article 117(d) of the United States Economic Co-operation Act laid no
obligation upon the United Kingdom and any decision regarding its
export control was purely a United Kingdom responsibility. Nor was
any obligation in this matter laid upon the United Kingdom by the
Economic Co-operation Agreement signed between the United Kingdom
and the United States of America in July of last year. In brief, GATT/CP. 3 /SR .20
page 5
his country had a clear conscience in this matter. As had been said
in the recent debates in the Economic Commission for Europe by the
United Kingdom Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr.
Mayhew, the United Kingdom in insisting on the maintenance of its
rights not to sell war-like materials and supplies to certain
Governments was animated by a desire for peace and not by any
disinclination to trade.
Mr. PHILIP (France) said that he had examined the complaint
lodged by the representative of Czechoslovakia with the greatest possible
objectivity. He had clarified a point made by the representative of
Czechoslovakia regarding the political party of M. Chambeiron to whose
interpellation in the French National Assembly the representative of
Czechoslovakia had referred. He had come to the conclusion that he
should ask himself three questions, namely, (a) was damage the
criterion for lodging a complaint, (b) was damage indicated by a
decrease in the volume of trade and (c) was a decrease in the volume
of trade caused by discrimination? He wished to draw attention
to the table that the representative of Czechoslovakia had annexed to
his statement (Document GATT/CP.3/33, page 14). He regretted that
the figures for imports into Czechoslovakia were given only in
percentages and not in real volume. What struck him was that imports
into Czechoslovakia had not only decreased in 1948 as compared with
1947 in the case of the United States of America but also with all
the other countries mentioned in that annex with the only exception
of Greece. He also noted that the largest reduction in trade, given
in percentages, had not taken place in the case of the United States
but in the case of Denmark. He concluded therefrom that the greatest
decrease in trade given in percentages, had not been caused by what
the representative of Czechoslovakia called discrimination. He GATT/CP .3/SR .20
page 6
recalled that at the recent meeting of the Economic Commission for
Europe all countries of Eastern Europe had invited the attention of
all governments to the considerable increase of production and intra-
Eastern European trade. He wondered whether it had not been that
intra.-Eastern European trade which was responsible for the reduction
of Czechoslovakia's imports from the countries mentioned in the table
given by the representative of Czechoslovakia. He suggested that
the Czechoslovak delegation should give up the usage of only percentages
in that particular case and that it should show figures indicating
the volume of trade and the corresponding trade relationship with the
countries of Eastern Europe. On the other hand, the representative
of the United States had given figures for 1937/38 and for 1947/48
and had proved conclusively that imports from the United States into
Czechoslovakia for the post-war period were higher than those of the
pro-war period. For that reason he thought there was no basic
evidence for any complaint and suggested that the investigation of
the matter be discontinued.
Dr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) referring to the reference
made by the representative of France to M. Chambeiron of the French
National Assembly, said that M. Chmabeiron, as he could see from the
summary records of the French Nationa lAssembly, was not a.communist
as the representative of France had implied but an independent
republican. The important point however was not the political
affiliation of M .Chambeiron but the nature of his question and the
answer which the Chairman of the French National Assembly had given
him, namely, that he had been grateful to M. Chambeiron for adhering
to the five minutes limit. Since then he was not aware that any
French authority had confirmed or denied the statement made by
M. Chambeiron in the French National Assembly on 17 May, 1949. GATT/CP .3/SR.20
page 7
In the annex to which the representative of France had referred
there was no complaint against any country. He understood that the
United States Government had given a secret list to the Marshall
countries and nobody knew what the Marshall countries intended to do
with that list. He recalled the uncertainty under which Czechoslovakian
importers had to send money abroad and he was certain that any other
of the Contracting Parties that found itself in a similar position
would bring up the matter in a similar way. The fact was that
Czechoslovakian imports from the United States were in 1948 reduced
by 53% and he was quite prepared to give exact figures later. Referring
to the statement made by the representative of the United Kingdom, he
said that he had neither mentioned nor implied any outside pressure on
the United Kingdom.
The CHAIRMAN suggested that sufficient time be given to the
representative of Czechoslovakia to study the statement made by the
representative of the United States and that a very full summary of
the proceedings of the meeting be given to the press. It was so agreed.
The meeting rose at 4.45 p.m. |
GATT Library | rg407qq1442 | Summary record of the Twenty-fifth Meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy on Friday, 10 June 1949, at 2.30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, June 10, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 10/06/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.25 and GATT/CP.3/SR.24 SR.25 + Corr.1,2 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/rg407qq1442 | rg407qq1442_90060109.xml | GATT_144 | 2,219 | 14,204 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR RESTRICTED LIMITED B
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS GATT/CP.3/SR.25
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE 10 June 1949
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Contracting Parties
Third Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWENTY-FIFTH MEETING
Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy
on Friday, 10 June 1949, at 2.30 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. L.D. WILGRESS (Canada)
Subject discussed:
Report of Working Party 3 on Consultation Procedure
Under Article XII (GATT/CP.3/30).
Mr. PERRY (Canada), Chairman of Working Party 3, presented
the report on consultation procedure under paragraph 4 (a) of
Article XII. The proposals contained in the report were intended
to constitute an interim arrangement which could be reviewed at
a subsequent session. The report distinguishes between prior
consultation and post consultation and also contains suggestions
for the preservation of secrecy. The Working Party recommended
that the chairman should be given authority to inaugurate con-
sultations between sessions by appointing ad hoc committees to
deal with requests for consultations which might be submitted to
him by contracting parties. Alternatively, several members of
the Working Party proposed that a committee, which would be
responsible for conducting consultations between sessions, should
be appointed by the Contracting Parties at the present session.
Mr. Perry pointed out that the ad hoc committees would not be given
authority to carry any consultation to a conclusion but merely to
consult and report to the next session. GATT/CP.3/SR.25
page 2
Mr. CLARK (Australia) asked for an explanation of the words
"and if necessary to modify the terms of the consultation" in paragraph 7
of the report, and Mr. PERRY stated in reply that these words were
intended merely to enable the chairman to take cognizance of changing
circumstances during the course of any consultation which he might
inaugurate.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) suggested that the possibility
of restrictions being imposed for reasons of national security had been
overlooked by the Working Party, but in reply, the chairman drew attention
to the fact that restrictions imposed for security reasons would fall
under the provisions of Article XXI and could not lead to a request for
consultation under Article XII which dealt only with restrictions
imposed to safeguard the balance of payments of the contracting party.
Mr. MACFARANE (Southern Rhodesia) asked for an explanation
of the words "through a representative designated by each of them" in
paragraph 7 (a) of the report, and in reply Mr. PERRY explained that the
Working Party had not wished to anticipate the desires of contracting
parties as to the method by which they should be notified of consultations
inaugurated by the chairman; they might designate the person to be
notified or, alternatively, the occupant of a certain office, and,
therefore, the proposal left the decision with each contracting party.
The CHAIRMAN then called for a discussion of the alternative
proposals contained in paragraph 8 of the report concerning the
appointment of a committee.
Mr. CLARK (Australia) said that for reasons put forward at
length at meetings of the Working Party, his delegation was of the
opinion that the committee should be appointed by the Contracting Parties
at the present session. GATT/CP.3/SR.25
page 3
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) agreed, but suggested that
the committee should be limited in number to ten members, including
representatives of China, France, India or Pakistan, United Kingdom
and the United States, with the remaining members being chosen by
rotation.
Mr. MULLER (Chile) expressed agreement with the views of
the Australian delegation.
Mr. JOHNSON (New Zealand) thought that the Contracting
Parties should take the responsibility of appointing the committee
and that any contracting party should have the right to be represented
at meetings by an observer.
Mr. USMANI (Pakistan) also expressed agreement with the
representative of Australia but did not agree with the suggestion
that the chairman should be authorized to invite contracting
parties which might be affected to join the committee.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) said he would prefer a
flexible arrangement; in view of the varying circumstances of
requests for consultations it should be left for the chairman to
appoint ad hoc committees. He thought that a committee of 10 would
be too large, and also that it might sometimes be desirable for the
chairman to invite certain contracting parties to participate even
though they were not seriously affected by the proposed measures,
Mr. LAMSVELT (Netherlands) said that, although he was not
strongly opposed to the appointment of a committee, he agreed with
the representative of the United Kingdom that it would be best to
leave the appointment in the hands of the chairman.
Mr. MACFARLANE (Southern Rhodesia) also agreed with the
majority view of the Working Party on the ground that it is desirable GATT/CP.3/SR.25
page 4
in the interest of secrecy that the committee should not be large,
that no 10 contracting parties would be interested in all consultations
which might take place, and that if a committee of 10 were appointed
and other contracting parties which thought they were seriously
affected were invited to join, the committee would be unwieldy,
Mr. WILLOUGHBY (United States) agreed with the majority view.
A committee appointed to deal with all possible requests would be too
large whereas the chairman could select ad hoc committees in the light
of each particular case as it arises. He said he would welcome any
means of ensuring that the contracting parties particularly interested
would be selected as members.
Mr. PANDO (Cuba) inquired whether the proposal that contract-
ing parties seriously affected should be asked to join the committee re-
ferred to in each of the two plans, to which Mr. PERRY replied that
this proposal was associated only with the alternative plan of appoint-
ing a committee at the present session.
Mr. AMANRICH (France) also supported the majority view
though without objecting strongly to tho alternative. He thought
the appointment should be left to the chairman for the sake of
flexibility, but as a compromise he suggested that a contracting
party which considered that its interests were soriously affected
could attend the meetings and participate in the work of the
committee. He distributed a draft revision of the paragraph as
follows:
"Paragraph 8: In order to implement the recommendation
set out in paragraph 7 (b) (iii) above the CONTRACTING PARTIES
should authorize their Chairman to nominate and assemble an
ad hoc committee or committees (which should be a representative
sample of the CONTRATING PARTIES) in order to facilitate the
conduct of consultation under paragraph 4 (a) of Article XII. GATT/CP.3/SR.25
page 5
"Any contracting party, not a member of the Committee
or Committees, which considers itself likely to be seriously
affected would on its representation, be given an opportunity
to participate in the consultation as an observer.
"Paragraph 9: If the Chairman decides to refer the matter
to an ad hoc committee, he should notify the contracting
parties the composition of such committee, and when and where it
will meet."
Mr. MULLER (Chile) said that full responsibility to decide
on the composition of committees should not be left to the chairman,
which then might not be constructed in accordance with Article 78
of the Havana Charter. He thought that ad hoc committees should be
appointed like Working Parties during sessions of the Contracting
Parties to which those who had shown an interest in the subject
were appointed as members.
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) supported the French proposal, but
suggested that the words "likely to be seriously affected would,
on its representation, be given an opportunity" should be replaced
by "interested in the question, will be invited".
Mr. CURY (Brazil) drew attention to paragraph 2 of the
report in which it was stated that the Working Party's proposals
were intended to supply a simple and flexible procedure merely as an
interim arrangement. Accordingly, he favored the majority view of
the Working Party but would have no serious objection to the French
proposal if that were found to be more acceptable.
Mr. PANDO (Cuba) agreed with the representative of Chile,
but since it was to be only an interim arrangement he was prepared
to leave the appointment of committees to the chairman; at the same
time he would oppose the French proposal so as to relieve the chairman
of the responsibility of deciding which contracting parties were
seriously affected. GATT/CP .3/SR.25
page 6
Mr. CLARK (Australia) stated that the General Agreement
requires the Contracting Parties to act jointly in such consultations,
and, therefore, the proposed authority should not bedelegated to the
chairman. The majority proposal would leave the whole selection
to the personal discretion of the chairman, whereas if a committee
were appointed by the Contracting Parties, the chairman would have the
benefit of the committees advise in inviting other interested parties
to join the committee.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) said that since it was only
an interim arrangement he had opposed the French proposal but he would
like to have the words "in the sense of Article 78 of the Havana
Charter" inserted at the end of the phrase in parentheses.
Mr. KING (China) suggested that the appointment of
committees should be left to the chairman on the understanding
that appointments would be made in accordance with the plan set out
in Article 78 of the Charter; nevertheless, the Contracting Parties
might appoint a panel from which the members of ad hoc committees
might be selected, for example, the members of the interim commission
which arecontracting parties might constitute such a panel.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) thought that Article 78 was
not necessarily a good guide for this purpose though no doubt the
chairman would keep the terms of that Article in mind when appointing
committees. He emphasized that the ad hoc committees would not
conclude the consultations for which they were appointed, and he
drew attention to the fact that there would be an opportunity under
the procedures provided for in paragraph 7 for contracting parties
to inform the chairman if they were likely to be affected by measures
which were the subject of consultation. GATT/CP .3/SR. 25
page 7
The various proposals were then put to a vote.
The minority proposal contained in sub-paragraphs
8 (a) and (b) of the report was defeated by 12 votes
to 5.
The proposal of the representative of China was defeated
by 13 votes to 3.
The Czechoslovakian amendment of the French proposal
was approved by 9 votes to 6.
The Belgian amendment of the French proposal was
defeated by 9 votes to 4.
The French proposal as amended was defeated by 10 votes
to 9.
The majority proposal of the Working Party, namely that
ad hoc committees should be appointed by the chairman,
was approved by 10 votes to 7.
Mr. COELHO (India) inquired whether possibly some guidance
should be given to the chairman as to the desirable composition of
committees that he might appoint, but Mr. PERRY replied that the Working
Party had not wished to anticipate the decisions which the chairman
would take in this connection.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY (United States) drew attention to paragraph 14
of the report which suggests that the consultation procedure recommended
by the Working Party might be suitable if the need should arise for
consultations under Article XIV or Article XV, and inquired whether
the Contracting Parties would agree that the same procedures should
be used; and Mr. PERRY remarked that the Working Party had put forward
this proposal merely as a tentative suggestion since it considered
that it was not called upon by its terms of reference to submit
definite recommendations on these matters. GATT/CP .3/SR.25
page 8
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) said that there was no doubt
about the clarity of the provision for consultations under Article XV,
but he thought that the arrangements for consultations should be
used sparingly and unless questions which arise require urgent
action they should be held over for discussion at the next session
of the Contracting Parties. With this Mr. WILLOUGHBY agreed, but
he thought it should be understood that the procedures were available
in Case of need.
Mr. JOHNSON (New Zealand) supported the opinion expressed
by the representative of the United Kingdom.
Mr. PANDO (Cuba) opposed the suggestion that the procedures
agreed upon at this meeting should be extended to cover consultations
under provisions of the agreement other than those obtained in
Article XII.
Mr. PERRY, (speaking as the representative of Canada)
said that there should be no delays in setting up procedures for
consultations that might be found necessary under Articles XIV and
XV and, therefore, it was his view that the proposal of the repre-
sentative of the United States required careful consideration.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) said that Working Party 3
had been constituted to consider procedures under Article XII: 4 (a),
and for the suggestion that had now been made a new Working Party
would be required.
The CHAIRMAN said that the United States proposal was a
matter arising out of the report now before the Contracting Parties.
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) favored the United States proposal. GATT/CP .3/SR.25
page 9
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) said that this question
was not on the agenda and he would be opposed to its acceptance as
an additional item for discussion.
The CHAIRMAN inquired whether it was the desire of the
Contracting Parties to discuss the United States proposal under
Item 4 of the agenda and this was approved by 9 votes to 6.
The meeting adjourned at 6.15 p.m. |
GATT Library | gy418ph1686 | Summary record of the Twenty-first Meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy, on Tuesday 7 June 1949, at 2.30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, June 7, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 07/06/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.21 and GATT/CP.3/SR.21 + Corr.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/gy418ph1686 | gy418ph1686_90060096.xml | GATT_144 | 5,969 | 37,817 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR GATT/CP.3/SR.21
7 June 1949
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Third Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWENTY-FIRST MEETING
Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy,
on Tuesday 7 June 1949, at 2.30 p.m.
Chairman: Hon. Dana WILGRESS (Canada)
Subject discussed: Revised Report of Working Party 1 on
Accession. (GATT/CP.3/37 and Corr.1)
At the invitation of the CHAIRMAN, Mr. SHACKLE (United
Kingdom) as Chairman of Working Party 1, introduced the revised report
and outlined briefly the important changes which the Working Party had
made therein taking account of the discussions at the 15th and 16th
meetings of the CONTRACTING PARTIES when the original report (GATT/
CP.3/26) was considered. The representatives of certain contracting
parties had indicated that their governments would need time after
the conclusion of the session to appraise the results of the
negotiations. Others had suggested that separate decisions should
be taken in respect of the accession of each acceding government in
the light of the results of the negotiations. It had also been
pointed out the legislative procedures in some countries might require
a period of time for the sanction of the results before these could
be put into force. In response to these points raised at previous
meetings, the Working Party had devised the scheme set forth in the
Report. GATT/CP .3/SR. 21
page 2
In order to provide time for the present contracting parties to
evaluate the concessions ensuing from the negotiations, it was
recommended that the Protocol of Accession would be open for signature
until the end of October 1949. The arrangement enabling a separate
decision to be taken in respect of each acceding government was set
forth in section 2(a) of the Report.
To meet the third point mentioned above, a two-stage procedure was
recommended for decisions under Article XXXIII to be taken by the present
contracting parties without delay so as to enable the immediate
extension to individual according governments of the existing Geneva
concessions and for notifications to be given at any time up to the end
of April 1950 for the bringing into force of the Annecy concessions,
which might require legislative proceedings.
Mr. SHACKLE then drew attention to, and summarised, the salient
points on pages 2 to 5 and 11 of the Report, including important
consideration of the existing and indirect benefits, the manner in which
the separate decisions were te be taken and incorporated, the definition
of the two-thirds majority for taking a decision, the date of decision,
the interpretative reference regarding the phrase "enter into
negotiations" and the understanding behind the choice of April 30, 1950
as the last date for signature of the Protocol of Accession; other
changes in the Protocol being mostly of a consequential nature.
There being no general comments on the Report or on the Protocol
as a whole, the Protocol was read paragraph by paragraph.
The title and preamble of the Protocol were approved without
discussion.
With reference to paragraph 1 (a) (ii) of the Protocol,
Mr. GARCIA OLDINI (Chile) contended that there were no solid grounds
for inferring, as was done in the Report on paces 5-6, that the
expression "existing legislation" in paragraph 1(b) of the Protocol GATT/CP .3/SR. 21
page 3
of Provisional Application, meant necessarily legislation existing at
the date of that Protocol. Such an interpretation was untenable,
especially in view of the specific phrasing elsewhere in the Agreement
in which everytime such was the intention, some such words as "on the
date of this Agreement" were used. The absence of such words in this
instance could therefore not but be regarded as implying a date other than
the date of the Protocol, or in other words, the date on which a
government assumed obligations under the Protocol. It was on this
legal understanding that the Chilean Government had accepted that
Protocol and the Chilean Parliament had approved it. In his view, the
same formula should be applied to the Protocol under consideration. His
delegation would have to register a formal reservation if the present
report was to provide an unacceptable interpretation of the Protocol
of Provisional Application.
Mr. RODRIGUES (Brazil) thought that the question of inter-
pretation concerning the Protocol of Provisional Application should be
raised elsewhere in connection with the specific case of Chile, when
the divergent views of many delegations might be revealed and considered;
at present, attention should be confined to paragraph 1 (a) (ii) of the
Protocol of Accession under consideration. In his opinion, although there
seemed to be little doubt that the intended meaning was in agreement
with the interpretation given by the Working Party, yet in the absence
of an explicit indication, the principles of law would not permit any
conjectural inference of legislative intentions or enlargement of a legal
text without substantive proof. In his view, therefore, no decision
could be taken at this point on the Chilean case, and the meeting should
go on with its proper task of examining the Annecy Protocol.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) said that the wording in the
draft Protocol was chosen with a view to clear the kind of doubt which GATT/CP.3/SR. 21
page 4
had been made possible by the unqualified wording of the Geneva
Protocol. It had to be the date of the Protocol because it was against
the ascertainable background of national legislation existing at a
certain fixed date that the schedules and the instruments had been
finalized. To permit any later legislation to be regarded as "existing"
for the purposes of the paragraph in question would give occasion to
legislation being purposefully introduced or changed in order to benefit
from this provision to the detriment of the balance reached at the
conclusion of the negotiations and would not be equitable or justifiable.
The CHAIRMAN thought that there should be little doubt that
the date of the instrument itself was implied in the case of the Protocol
of Provisional Application, the reason having been clearly expounded
by the representative of the United Kingdom. There being no need to
examine that instrument here, it could be studied later if the Chilean
delegation raised the question as a separate case, especially in
relation to the Protocol for the Accession of Signatories of the Final
Act which had enabled Chile to accede to the Agreement after June 30,
1948.
Mr. USMANI (Pakistan) felt that the Chilean case was a
pertinent one in view of its bearing on the obligations of the present
contracting parties. The present report implied an interpretation of
the Protocol of Provisional application, which was contrary also to the
understanding of his delegation. Even though it might be desirable
to adopt the recommendation of the Working Party in the present case of
the Annecy Protocol, his delegation would understand that paragraph 1
(b) of the Protocol of Provisional Application referred to legislation
existing at the date of signing of that Protocol by an individual
country. There was no evidence that that was not even the intended
meaning of the drafters of that instrument. GATT/CP.3/SR. 21
page 5
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that the last paragraph of that
Protocol clearly read "Done at Geneva .... this thirtieth day of
October, one thousand nine hundred and forty-seven".
Mr. KING (China) stated that the Chinese delegation were
of the same opinion as the representatives of Chile and Pakistan. As
for the date mentioned at the end of that Protocol, this should have
the effect of requiring the legislation referred to in paragraph 1 (b)
thereof to be existing on that date, but only as far as the countries
enumerated in paragraph 1 of that Protocol were concerned; it would be
too onerous an obligation on any country which signed the protocol
subsequently if it were required that their legislation, to be governed
by paragraph 1 (b), should also have existed at that date. Moreover,
the Working Party's recommendation and interpretation, if adopted,
would also beg the question of equity in regard to the position of the
present contracting parties viz-à-viz acceding governments. For, the
inflexible interval between the fixed dates of the two Protocols would
mean a divergence between the obligations assumed by the present
contracting parties and those to be assumed by the acceding governments.
Mr. HOLLIS (United States) recalled the history of the
drafting of the documents; the Agreement was formulated over a lengthy
period but the Protocol of Provisional Application was given birth at
the last stage of the Geneva negotiations to meet the difficulties of
certain governments. The circumstances being so different, one could
not conclude that different meanings were intended because there was
a divergence in the texts of the two documents. The signing of that
Protocol by six governments at the outset was an irrevocable act to apply
the provisions of the Agreement with the qualification regarding Part II,
and the definite obligations assumed by these governments made it
inconceivable that they should have intended that later adherents could GATT/CP. 3/SR.21
page 6
change their legislation inconsistently with the provisions of the
Agreement. Furthermore, this would also give rise to the possible
situation in which those who had signed the Protocol at any time would
have given each of those which were yet to sign the Protocol a "blank
Cheque" or complete latitude to alter their legislations at any time
prior to their signature.
Mr. VARGAS GOMEZ (Cuba) supported the views of the represen-
tatives of Chile, Pakistan and China, adding that the support was given
on principle and not out of any consideration of interests to Cuba.
The CHAIRMAN drew attention to the fact that only the Annecy
Protocol of Accession was under discussion.
Mr. OLDINI (Chile) replied that although there was a specific
case for Chile which could be discussed separately, nevertheless, in
view of the prejudicial effect of the note in the report (pp. 5-6)
drawing an analogy between the two Protocols, the question also called
for consideration at this point. Whatever had been the intentions of
their drafters, the divergence in wording between the Geneva, Protocol
and the Agreement could not be overlooked. If Chile had taken
advantage of the so-called blank cheque during the interval to change
its laws, it was because economic, financial and social conditions
had dictated the need for so doing. Moreover, the Chilean case was
not an isolated one, and even some major countries had to modify their
tariffs subsequently to their becoming contracting parties.
The CHAIRMAN proposed that to settle the question regarding
the Report in hand a note should be entered in the record of the
present meeting to the effect that certain delegations reserved their
position on the interpretation of the word "existing" in the Protocol GATT/CP. 3/SR. 21
Page 7
of Provisional Application. Certain representatives having expressed
their desire to avoid registering a formal reservation, and having
suggested various solutions, it was agreed to record that:
"The delegations of Ceylon, Chile, China, Cuba, India,
Lebanon, Pakistan and Syria whilst accepting the wording
of paragraph 1 (a) (ii) of the Annecy Protocol of Terms
of Accession, did so without prejudice to the interpre-
tation of the expression "existing legislation" in the
Protocol of Provisional application, and to the validity
or otherwise of the interpretation given in pp.5 and 6 of
the Report of Working Party 1 on Accession (GATT/CP.3/37)".
Paragraph 1 was approved.
Paragraph 2 was approved without discussion.
With reference to paragraph 3 of the Protocol, Mr. VARGAS
GOMEZ (Cuba) made a declaration concerning the modification of the
Schedules incorporating the results of the negotiations, which at the
request of Mr. OLDINI (Chile) was annexed to the summary record.
Mr. JOHNSEN (New Zealand) questioned the appropriateness
of the use of certain words in paragraph 3. First, the expression
"any acceding government" in the 9th line of that paragraph would seem
to need qualification to restrict the reference to those acceding
governments with respect to which the Protocol had entered into force
and not to any other acceding governments. Secondly, the word
"application" in the 5th line of the paragraph should have been
"intention of application" or "intended application"; this was borne
out by the next sentence in which it was said that such concessions
would enter into force thereafter. Thirdly, the words "these
concessions" in the 14th line should have been "such concessions" as the
latter was used throughout the paragraph. Finally, since Article II
referred to only one appropriate schedule for each Contracting Party,
it would be inconsistent with the provisions of that Article if a new
schedule were added in respect of a contracting party. The question GATT/CP.3/SR. 21
page 8
was of special interest to New Zealand as a new Schedule would,
according to the laws of that country, involve new legislation for its
enforcement whereas the administrative authorities would be competent
to enforce an addition to a schedule which had been established
through legislative procedures.
The CHAIRMAN suggested adjourning discussion on the questions
raised by Mr. JOHNSEN until the next meeting, when the Chairman of
Working Party 1 would be requested to reply.
The meeting arose at 5.45p.m. GATT/CP.3/SR .21
Annex
page 1
ANNEX
STATEMENT BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF CUBA
CONCERNING THE TERMS OF ACCESSION.
The Delegation of Cuba earnestly wished to co-operate with the
other Contracting Parties in the endeavour of establishing an
expeditious procedure that will facilitate the accession of the eleven
new countries to the General Agreement. It is unquestionable that
as the number of member countries to the GATT increases, the purposes
of this Organization will become more feasible and the objective of
commercial expansion will be nearer. At the same time, the Delegation
of Cuba feels compelled to defend a sound interpretation of the
Agreement because those very purposes of encouraging the development
of trade would be frustrated if the international structure which has
been created for its achievement does not operate on minimum bases of
equilibrium and stability.
For these reasons the Delegation considers it timely that the
possible modifications of the Agreement resulting from the application
of the terms of accession should be examined fully.
The background of the question
The first discrepancies which manifested themselves in the
Working Party with respect to the problem of the terms of accession
and their implications arose from the different points of view
expressed with respect to the interpretation of Articles XXX and
XXXIII of the Agreement. Some members of the Working Party were of
the view that the terms of accession to which reference is made under
Article XXXIII, even if they implied modifications of Part I of the GATT/CP.3/SR. 21
Annex
page 2
Agreement would only require approval by a two-thirds majority of the
Contracting Parties in order to become effective, and not the
unanimity which is demanded under Article XXX to modify that part of
the Agreement.
The Delegation of Cuba formulated its absolute opposition to
this criterion, on the following basis:
Article XXXIII contemplates solely the terms of accession that
must be approved by the Contracting Parties and the acceding govern-
ments in order that the incorporation of the latter to the Agreement
should be effected, it being impossible to accept that this provision
should also refer to modifications of the Agreement.
It is true that among the terms of accession that must be agreed
to between the Contracting Parties and the acceding governments,
there may be included provisions which imply modifications to the
text of the Agreement, or which determine certain changes in the
schedules of concessions negotiated at Geneva in 1947. But, in
those cases, before those provisions can become effective and before
they are incorporated in the Protocol that must be signed by the
Contracting Parties and by the acceding governments, it is necessary
to effect such modifications under the rules for amendments
established under Article XXX of the Agreement.
Any other interpretation of Article XXXIII would lead to the
absurd conclusion that the present schedules of concessions which are
an integral part of Part I of the General Agreement could be
modified by a two-thirds majority, a situation which is altogether
incompatible with the unanimity required under Article XXX to amend
that part of the Agreement.
The rule of unanimity incorporated into Article XXX was
included in the text of the Agreement as an indispensable requisite
to guarantee the stability of the concessions which were negotiated GATT/CP. 3/SR. 21
Annex
page 3
at Geneva in 1947. And the consent of all the Contracting Parties
was demanded in order to introduce modifications in the schedules and
not a simple authorization of the Contracting Parties which have
negotiated the concessions directly because in a multilateral treaty
such as the General Agreement in which the concessions as a whole are
taken into consideration in order to balance the benefits received by
each country, the slightest modification introduced in the schedules
may affect the position of a given Contracting party.
For this reason the Delegation of Cuba is of the opinion that
the interpretation that other delegations wish to attribute to
Article XXXIII of the Agreement not only creates theoretical
difficulties, but also weakens one of the fundamental principles of the
Agreement, one of the requirements which definitely must be kept if
it is desired to guarantee existing concessions and the equilibrium
of each country with respect to the total value of the benefits
received at Geneva.
No one is in a position to predict what the final results will
be of the tariff negotiations which are now under way at Annecy between
the Contracting Parties and the acceding governments. It is however
possible to assert that in the course of these negotiations offers may
be exchanged tending to nullify the benefits previously acquired by a
given Contracting Party. And if such a supposition should actually
occur and such modifications of the schedules be approved by a
majority of two-thirds, it is unquestionable that the letter and the
spirit of Article XXX insofar as amendment to Part I of the Agreement
is concerned would be violated and the necessary stability and
equilibrium of the concessions negotiated at Geneva frustrated.
On the other hand, a rigid interpretation of Article XXX would
not affect the cession of new governments at all. From this point GATT/CP .3/SR. 21
Annex
page 4
of view the rule of unanimity incorporated into this Article could
not be employed to reject the incorporation of a given country into
GATT, but only to make impossible the negotiations of concessions
negotiated at Annecy affecting the benefits obtained by a Contracting
Party in the Geneva negotiations. In this manner, the unanimity
rule would only have the effect of avoiding any additions to the
schedules or the entry into force of concessions which in any concrete
manner impair the rights of a Contracting Party.
It is evident, therefore, that if confronted with a situation
such as the one that has just been described, a Contracting Party
makes use of the powers which are implicit in Article XXX, it cannot
be said that it is exercising them in order to obstruct the accession
of a new government, but rather to prevent the illegitimate elimination
of concessions previously granted to it, the suppression of which
cannot be considered as a condition "sine qua non" for the incorporation
of a new government into the Agreement.
The system of double schedules and the attacks on the stability of
the Agreement
The Working Party did not adopt the criterion that when
modifications of Part I of the Agreement are included in the terms of
accession they may be approved by a two-thirds majority required under
Article XXXIII, on the other hand it introduced a provision in the
draft Protocol presented for the consideration of the CONTRACTING
PARTIES which establishes a much more dangerous precedent.
In substance, paragraph 3 of the draft Protocol tends to establish
two series of schedules for the present Contracting Parties: the
existing schedules, resulting from the Geneva negotiations of 1947,
and the new schedules that will be drawn up as a result of the new
negotiations with the acceding governments. With this formula the GATT/CP .3/SR . 21
Annex
page 5
Working Party has tried to avoid the difficulties of interpretation
presented by Article XXX and to offer a possibility of making
effective the negotiations being carried on at Annecy without
modifying in a formal way the schedules of concessions which are in
force at present among the Contracting Parties.
The Delegation of Cuba considers that in practice this procedure
settles no problems whatsoever, for if in the new schedules
concessions are included which affect those which are already set
forth in the existing schedules, the legal question may be raised
that while formally the latter are not being modified they are in
fact and for all legal and practical effects being modified sub-
stantially and the rule of unanimity set forth in Article XXX is also
being violated.
Furthermore, aside from the danger that through this twin
schedule system for each Contracting Party modifications may be
effected in Part I of the Agreement and benefits enjoyed by any
Contracting Party impaired, the Delegation of Cuba considers that
this procedure will complicate the mechanism and the operation of the
General Agreement in an unnecessary manner.
But this measure alone proposed by the Working Party is not the
sole source of preoccupation for the Delegation of Cuba; the
Delegation of Cuba is also preoccupied by the criteria which have
been expressed with respect to the concept of the modifications of
the Agreement requiring unanimity.
The provision of the Protocol which has been quoted as well as
the transcendence and the far-reaching consequence of the criteria
expressed by the Working Group with respect to the modification that
may be introduced in Part I of the Agreement without the requirement
of unanimity under Article XXX deeply preoccupied the Delegation GATT /CP . 3/SR. 21
Annex
page 6
and the Government of Cuba, for both these matters tend to destroy
the stability of the schedules of concessions attached to the
Agreement. When we speak of the stability of the schedules of
concession, we are not stating a mere phrase. That principle of
stability of the benefits exchanged by the Contracting Parties during
the Geneva negotiations is the corner-stone on which the Trade
Organization created under the General Agreement rests. The under-
standing of what we might properly call the essence of the Agreement
is so important that without that concept of stability it would
have been impossible to agree on a multilateral trade treaty such
as our Agreement.
Guarantee of stability in the text of the General. Agreement
The Geneva Agreement was conceived from the beginning as a
trade structure which was to remain frozen, stabilized during at
least three years. The immobilization of a new trade structure
created through the negotiations of 1947 is moulded in the text of
the Agreement through Articles XXVII and XXX.
The firmness of the assertions made by us concerning the
freezing or immobilization of the Schedules of concessions is
immediately understood by the simple reading of these provisions.
The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which technically was
to become effective January 1, 1948, would remain stabilized, in
so far as the tariff treatment is concerned, provided in the
Schedules, until January 1, 1951, i.e., during a period of three
years. And only after the expiration of this term would the
Contracting Parties be entitled to modify or discontinued the application
of the treatment which in the proper Schedules had been granted.
The exception to this freezing rule of the Schedules formulated
under Article XXVIII, is foreseen in Article XXX, and is established GATT/CP .3/SR .21
Annex
page 7
under the following conditions:
"Article XXX. 1) Except in the cases foreseen in other
provisions to introduce modifications in the present
Agreement, amendments to the provisions of Part I of the
present Agreement or to those of Article XXIX or to those
of the present Article shall become effective after being
accepted by all contracting parties."
Inasmuch as pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 7, Article II,
the Schedules of Concessions accompanying the Agreement are considered
incorporated in Part I thereof, it is clear that no modification or
alteration is possible in their structure without the unanimous
consent of all the Contracting Parties. That is to say, that the
refusal of only one country to grant approval to any modifications
intended to be made to the "Schedules" is sufficient to prevent
that such modifcations be carried into effect. The foregoing state-
ment shows clearly the sternness of the conception concerning the
freezing of the Schedules containing the tariff commitments, since
in order to allow any change in them it is necessary to count on
the unanimous consent of all the parties to the same.
Concept of the modifications of Part I of the Agreement
We have already seen how the rules of Article XXVIII of the
Agreement stabilize the concessions negotiated at Geneva in 1947
during a period of three years; and also how it is necessary to
have the consent of all the Contracting Parties each time that a
modification of the schedules is intended, in the light of the requisite
of unanimity established under Article XXX.
Nevertheless, we consider it convenient to study in a more
profound manner the nature of the modifications which could be intro-
duced in the schedules in order to understand more clearly the GATT/CP . 3/SR . 21
Annex
page 8
fundamental reason which makes it necessary to have a rigid
conception with respect to these modifications.
In all multilateral treaties such as the GATT any modification
in the list of concessions, in the sense of increasing or reducing
them, would determine, undoubtedly, the unbalancing of the
equilibrium of the negotiations which took place at Geneva and would
create also situations by which those negotiations would cease to
be mutually advantageous.
With respect to the possibility of increasing the duties which
were included in the schedules of the different countries, modifying
concessions previously negotiated, there cannot be any doubt
regarding the fact that such action would throw out of balance the
equilibrium of the negotiations in which those duties were negotiated.
The point more difficult to understand, and which was the
subject of many discussions in the Working Party, is whether or not
a reduction in the duties included in the schedules of any contracting
party constitutes a modification which could evolve the possibility
of throwing out of balance existing concessions and consequently
would be prohibited under the provisions of the Agreement, unless
that reduction is made effective by the procedure established in
Article XXX of the Agreement which, as is well known, requires the
unanimity vote for these cases.
The arguments formulated by the Delegation of Cuba during
the discussions in the Working Party are sufficiently clear to
illustrate the matter; it is possible to consider two similar
products described in the rnost-favoured-nation tariff of any
schedule annexed to the Agreement, and to establish the assumption
that one of those products receives the benefit of a reduction in
its duties, without the other product receiving at the same time GATT/CP.3/ SR. 21
Annex
page 9
a proportional reduction. It is easy to understand that the
competitive position of the latter will suffer from prejudicial
treatment in the market of the country to which the schedule belongs.
It is possible to quote many cases in which similar products
are produced in different countries and for these reasons the duties
imposed on them are negotiated by different contracting parties.
We may mention some alcohol products, such as rum and whisky, certain
textile products, manufactured with rayon and cotton fibres; and
some food products such as butter and oleomargarine.
When those antecedents are studied, it is necessary to conclude
that within the framework of a multilateral agreement such as the
GATT it is not possible to permit those arbitrary and unilateral
reductions of duties, because they may destroy the minimum basis of
stability which was infiltrated in the structure of the General Agree-
ment.
When the Contracting Parties were incorporated to the Agreement
in 1947, they took into consideration not only the concessions that
they received through direct negotiations with other Contracting
Parties, but also the total benefits which corresponded to them through
the application of the principle of the unconditional most-favoured-
nation clause. Besides, due to the multilateral nature of the
Agreement, it is right to affirm that the Contracting Parties at the
Close of their negotiations evaluated, as a fundamental question, not
only the tariff benefits that they obtained directly or indirectly,
for their products, but also the proportional level existing between
the duties that they obtained for their products, and the duties enjoyed
by other Contracting Parties for similar products that were in a
position to compete with them.
For that reason, if after the negotiations at Geneva, and at any GATT/CP.3/SR.21
Annex
page 10
time before January 1, 1951, any Contracting Party suffered a dis-
proportional reduction in the duties of the most-favoured-nation
tariff in such a way as to place any of its products in an inferior
competitive position in a determined market, it is unquestionable
that the value of the direct concessions that that Contracting Party
obtained during the negotiations are frustrated.
From the text on page 7, paragraph 1, document GATT/CP.3/37,
we have come to the conclusion that the Working Party is not in accord
with our interpretation regarding modifications of Part I of the
Agreement, based on the assumption that, according with provisions of
Article II, Contracting Parties have only committed themselves not
to increase their tariffs.
The isolated consideration of the contents of a legal text is
a method entirely disqualified in legal interpretations. To affirm
that in the General Agreement only exist the compromise of not
increasing the tariffs, because this is what is stipulated in Article II,
is to mystify the mechanism of the Agreement, and to disintegrate the
unity of the different provisions of this instrument. Article II
cannot be understood fully if it is not related with Article XXX.
It is true that the first of these articles contemplates only the
supposed increase of the duties but, the second article restricts in
general, with an ample text, all the modifications of the schedules,
thus guaranteeing a complete stability for all concessions, even
against the possibility of reducing duties without previous consultation.
if this was not the correct interpretation, Article XXX would have
never been drafted expressing such ample aims. Instead of discussing,
as is the case, modifications which are not limited by any additional
concept, a distinct reference to the increase in the duties would have
been made. GATT/CP .3/ SR. 21
Annex
page 11
The question of compensation
In the course of the discussions which have taken place in the
Working Party, it has been expressed that although the dangers
pointed out by the Cuban Delegation were well founded, Contracting
Parties affected by a reduction of the duties could make use of
the provisions of other articles of the Agreement to which they are
entitled, such as Article XXIII, through which adequate compensation
could be obtained to counteract the loss sustained. The necessity
to maintain the principle of stability of the concessions within
the structure of the Agreement, and of preserving the equilibrium
of the interests between the different Contracting Parties, in order
that the Agreement may always operate on a mutually advantageous
basis for all concerned, is more clearly understood if we were to
study the situation confronted by countries not highly industrialized.
When a Contracting Party only has available a limited number of
products for export, for which it has made efforts to obtain certain
concessions, it would not be fair to apply to that country the
criterion that if any of the concessions obtained is lost it should
look for compensation in other provisions of the Agreement. To
these countries, of limited economical development, the possibilities
of obtaining adequate compensation is out of the question.
A highly industrialized country that loses concessions on certain
of its products, may immediately obtain adequate cornpensation on a
great number of other products which the country in question exports
to that same market. But, when the affected country only has at its
disposal a limited number of exportable products the situation is
entirely the opposite and, therefore, will find itself in a very
difficult position inasmuch as it will be practically impossible to
find benefits which in reality are compensatory, Taking into GATT/CP.3/SR. 21
Annex
page 12
account the aforementioned facts, when we consider the situation of
these countries, we have come to the conclusion that their main
interest is that the permanency and stability of the concessions which
they are enjoying are fully guaranteed, being fundamental that their
right to enjoy the benefits obtained are not violated during the
terms of the negotiations.
If it is true that the General Agreement is an instrument whose
aim is to find the necessary equilibrium between the economies and
the interests of all Contracting Parties, if it is also true that the
GATT is a trade structure which is governed by principles of real
Co-operation in the economic sense, it is essential that the stability
of the concessions which small countries are enjoying is fully
respected, at least during the terms of said concessions.
In Conclusion
The Cuban Delegation has made a great effort in order to
explain to the CONTRACTING PARTIES the questions of substance which
are involved in the interpretation of Article XXX. Other delegations
have asked us, in spite of the explanations which we have made, if
there existed more concrete questions which would reveal more clearly
that the points of view maintained by the Cuban Delegation were not
merely of a legal nature. The Cuban Delegation is of the opinion
that the examples we have set forth are sufficiently clear in order
to prove that in the bottom of this discussion there are substantial
points of great importance which cannot be overlooked by the
CONTRACTING PARTIES. Furthermore our Delegation considers that it
would be illogical to assume "a priori" the innumerable cases involving
modifications which could arise, different to the cases that we have
mentioned covering increases or reductions, and which could also bring
about grave disadvantages to the CONTRACTING PARTIES due to the GATT/CP .3/SR.21
Annex
page 13
maladjustment of the schedules. The possibilities of modifications
which could create the situation referred to are so extensive as to
make it impossible to foresee them, inasmuch as a guess of this sort
would mean to tell what is going to happen in the future.
Undoubtedly the considerations made by us eloquently reveal that the
only way to guarantee the stability of the concessions is by means of
a rigid interpretation of article XXX and of the rules of unanimity,
with respect to the modifications which may be introduced in Part I
of the Agreement. In our opinion this is a question so evident that
we do not think it necessary to insist with further arguments in
order to make our interpretation more understandable. And if this
conclusion is accepted, it is easily understood also that any device
which would facilitate the throwing out of balance of the principle
of stability must be rejected in the Protocol of Provisional
Application which contains the terms of Accession. As we have already
stated, the principle just mentioned is one of the basic points of
the Agreement. For this reason the Cuban Delegation has already
stated its disagreement to the wording of paragraph 3 of the Protocol,
for the simple reason that the two schedule systems which would be
introduced, with respect to actual CONTRACTING PARTIES, could create
very difficult situations, which would facilitate throwing out of
balance tariff concessions which are being enjoyed since the last
negotiations at Geneva in 1947. |
GATT Library | dc005rq3359 | Summary record of the Twenty-first Meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy, on Tuesday 7 June 1949, at 2.30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, June 7, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 07/06/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.21 and GATT/CP.3/SR.21 + Corr.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/dc005rq3359 | dc005rq3359_90060096.xml | GATT_144 | 0 | 0 | |
GATT Library | pw605ws9852 | Summary record of the Twenty-first Meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy, on Tuesday 7 June 1949, at 2.30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, June 7, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 07/06/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.21 and GATT/CP.3/SR.21 + Corr.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/pw605ws9852 | pw605ws9852_90060096.xml | GATT_144 | 0 | 0 | |
GATT Library | vx863pb3131 | Summary record of the Twenty-fourth Meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy, on Thursday, 9 June, 1949, at 2.30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, June 9, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 09/06/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.24 and GATT/CP.3/SR.24 SR.25 + Corr.1,2 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/vx863pb3131 | vx863pb3131_90060108.xml | GATT_144 | 1,857 | 11,557 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR LIMITED B
GATT/CP.3/SR.24
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS 9 June 1949
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Contracting Parties
Third Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWENTY-FOURTH MEETING
Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy,
on Thursday, 9 June, 1949, at 2.30 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. L. D. WILGRESS (Canada)
Subjects dscussed:
1. Continuation of Discussion of Report of Working Party
1 on Accession (GATT/CP.3/37)
2. Report II of Working Party 1 on Accession - Contribution
of Acceding Governments to the financing of Secretariat
Services for the Contracting Parties (GATT/CP.3/27)
Draft Annecy Protocol of Terms of Accession to (GATT/CP.3/37 )
PARAGRAPH 10 (a) continued
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) considered that to defer until
January 1 the date by which the Acceding Governments could first
become contracting parties would be a considerable delay, and he
thought that even that date might not over-come the difficulties
expressed by the Delegates of Chile and Brazil.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) insisted on the date of
1 January for the technical reasons already mentioned.
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that this paragraph related only
to the signature of the protocol and not to the entry into force
of the Annecy concessions, and that what was here proposed should
be contrasted with the earlier suggestion that a decision be taken
at the end of the Annecy meeting. GATT/CP.3/SR. 24
page 2
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) said that this was
equivalent to new Commercial treaties and required from Governments
the same treatment.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) suggested the date of 30
November as a compromise.
Mr. GARCIA OLDINI (Chile) agreed to this date provided that
it were also placed on record that sympathetic consideration would be
given to those countries unable to sign by that date.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) said that, as already pointed out
by the Chairman, the date had been altered from the close of the
meeting to 31 October following objections to the earlier report and
he thought this had been agreed in the Working Party. This date
was of concern to the acceding governments and it might perhaps be
better to leave the problem for the moment and see at the time whether
or not two-thirds of the Contracting Parties had signed each signature
sheet. If not, then the problem of extending the date for signatures
to the decisions could be considered in the light of the facts. If
any acceding government were able and willing to become a contracting
party by December 1 then this was a fact which should be considered
before there was any agreement to accept a later date.
Mr. LARRE (France) thought that if two-thirds of the
Contracting Parties had signed the protocol in respect of any acceding
government by 31 October, that government should be able to become a
contracting party within thirty days.
Mr. SANTOS VERAS (Brazil) wished to know whether the change
of the date replaced mention in the record of sympathic consideration. GATT/CP.23/ SR.24
page 3
The proposed postponement of the date would not necessarily solve
the Brazilian problem, and in any case he wished to make it clear
that it was not certain that Brazil would be unable to approve the
protocol by 31 October.
The CHAIRMAN stated that the United Kingdom proposal to
extend the date of 30 November had been made to meet the case of the
Czechoslovak delegate concerning technical difficulties and that the
SUMMARY Record would still contain the statement desired by the
Chilean and Brazilian delegates.
Mr. COUILARD (Canada) questioned the advisability of still
further retarding the date of 31 October which was already a compromise
and seemed acceptable to the majority.
Mr. LAMSVELDT (Netherlands) agreed with Mr. Couillard.
Mr. GARCIA OLDINI (Chile) pointed out that the proposed
reference in the record of the meeting took care of the problem of
possible inability of governments such as his own to sign by the
date provided. However, a decision by that date of two-thirds of
the contracting parties would oblige other contracting parties to
extend the indirect concessions to the acceding government involved,
whether or not the other contracting parties had agreed. This
question was not provided for.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) thought that the main point
was that acceding governments should be able to become contracting
parties at an early date and suggested that it might be possible to
alter the first date to 30 November in paragraph 10 (a) and also
retain the date of 1 December in paragraph 12 (a). GATT/CP.3/SR.24
page 4
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) pointed out that the period of
thirty days in paragraphs 12 (a) and (b) had been provided because
of the technical difficulty of communicating with all governments
and putting the decisions into effect any earlier. If it were
technically possible for all contracting parties and the acceding
government to implement the decisions by the day following their
being made at Lake Success then it seemed unnecessary to provide
any such period and Mr. Shackle's last suggestion to retain the date
of 1 December might be practicable.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) said he had not intended to
change the thirty days' notice and thought that with some drafting
changes it could be retained.
As a result of a vote of nine in favour, to six against,
the date of 31 October was replaced by 30 November.
The proposal of the United Kingdom to insert a note in
the Summary Record that sympathetic consideration would be given
to a request for a waiver from countries unable to sign by the date
mentioned was also approved.
Mr. LARRE (France) thought that the sympathetic consider-
ation should be extended to all countries, not only to Brazil and
Chile, and Mr. SHACKLE replied that that had been his intention.
Paragraph 10 (a) was approved as amended.
Paragraph 10 (b) and (c) and paragraph 11 were approved.
Paragraph 12: The CHAIRMAN thought that the date of 1
December should be altered to 1 January in order to avoid complications. GATT/CP.3/SR.24
page 5
Mr. HOLLIS (United States) suggested that it would be
possible for an acceding government to become a contracting party
by 1 December although leaving the protocol open for signature
until 30 November, by the following method: if it had been signed
in respect of one acceding government by two-thirds of the
Contracting Parties and that acceding government by 31 October, it
would then enter into force for that acceding government on 1
December. If it were signed in the same manner between the two
dates of 31 October and 30 November, it would enter into force
thirty days after signature. Mr. HOLLIS then suggested some
drafting alterations.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) speaking in his capacity as rapporteur
of the Working Party, said that this paragraph had been drafted
with some difficulty in relation to points raised by Mr. Usmani
(Pakistan), and it would be advisable that the latter have an
opportunity to comment on the proposed changes. He also wished
to inquire whether as a result of the proposed drafting changes
the interval of thirty days before the protocol entered into force
was to be retained.
Mr. GARCIA OIDINI (Chile) pointed out that the only reason
for retaining the date of 1 December was to expedite an acceding
government becoming a contracting party, and if as it appeared,
only one acceding government would be able to become a contracting
party earlier than 1 January in any case, there seemed little point
in retaining the date of 1 December; particularly in view of the
fact that the replies received from acceding governments regarding GATT/CP.3/SR.24
page 6
the time at which they would be able to put the Agreement into
effect had been made on the assumption that the conference would
end in June and would probably be modified owing to its extension.
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) and Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom)
agreed that it would be simpler to adopt 1 January.
This was approved.
Mr. COELHO (India) wondered whether the first phrase of
paragraph 12 was not redundant since Paragraph 3 already stated
"not withstanding the provisions of paragraph 12".
Mr. GARCIA OIDINI (Chile) thought the phrase indispensable
to the equilibrium of the text and the orderly application of the
protocol.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) said that this phrase together with
that in paragraph 3, was part of the agreement reached in the
Working Party and he therefore thought it advisable to retain it.
Mr. Coelho did not press the point.
Paragraph 12 was approved with the changes in the dates.
The CHAIRMAN inquired whether the Protocol was a whole was
then approved.
Dr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) said that he would have
to reserve his position with regard to the whole protocol. As a
result of the previous day's meeting of the Contracting Parties his
delegation had been placed in a very difficult situation and he did
not yet knon the reactions of his Government. However, he wished
to state that in his opinion. the m-f-n clause of the General GATT/CP.3/SR.24
page 7
Agreement had lost its meaning and as his Government had commercial
treaties with most of the countries concerned with classical m-f-n
clauses which would be supported by the International Court, he was
not sure that his Government would wish to continue further with the
present negotiations and thereby lose the advantages of existing
commercial treaties.
The protocol as a whole was approved subject to the
reservation of Czechoslovia.
Mr. VAYAS GOMEZ (Cuba) wished to add that the point raised
by the Cuban Delegation in relation to paragraph 3 of the protocol
would not be continued at the present time as the delegation had not
yet received instructions. However, he wished to reserve the right
to raise the question at a later date and to have the statement
incorporated in the Summary Record of the meeting at which it was
made.
The CHAIRMAN replied that this would be done.
He then took up the Annexes to the report and pointed
out that Annex A would now contain the Contracting Parties' schedules
and Annex B the schedules of the acceding governments. They would
have the same form as the Geneva Schedules.
These were approved.
Page 20 - Certification by the Chairman of the Contracting
Parties, was approved.
Page 21 - Specimen signature page -was approved.
The report as a whole subject to the reservations indicated
above and the changes consequential upon the alterations in the
protocol, was approved. GATT/CP.3/SR.24
page 8
The CHAIRMAN stated that the report would now be directed
to the Joint Working Party on Accession which would then report to
the Tariff Negotiations Committee.
2. Report II of Working Party 1 on Accession - Contributions
of acceding Governments to the financing of Secretariat
Services for the Contracting Parties (GATT/CP.3/27)
This report was approved and also directed to the Joint
Working Party on Accession from which it would go before the Tariff
Negotiations Committee.
The CHAIRMAN thanked the Working Party for its long and
arduous work and expressed the special thanks of the Contracting
Parties to the Rapporteur, Mr. C. C. Hewitt.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) thanked the Chairman and
also added his thanks to the Rapporteur.
The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m. |
GATT Library | mh128qq2721 | Summary record of the Twenty-ninth Meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy, on Wednesday, 29 June 1949, at 2.30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, June 29, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 29/06/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.29 and GATT/CP.3/SR.29 - SR.32 + SR.31/Corr.1,2 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/mh128qq2721 | mh128qq2721_90060126.xml | GATT_144 | 457 | 2,957 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR RESTRICTED LIMITED B
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS GATT/CP.3/SR.29
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE 29 June 1949
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Third Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWENTY-NINTH MEETING
Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy,
on Wednesday, 29 June 1949, at 2.30 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. E. Wyndham White - Executive Secretary
Subject discussed:
Request by the Delegation of Cuba regarding
adjustment in certain tariff items (GATT/CP.3/45)
Mr. MARTINEZ (Cuba) informed the Contracting Parties that,
following negotiations with the delegations of Canada and the
United States, and also consultations with the delegations of Chile
and the Netherlands which indicated that they might have an interest
in the adjustment proposed, a mutually satisfactory agreement had
been reached. He expressed the appreciation of his delegation for
the collaboration it had found.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY (United States of America), Mr. COUILLARD
(Canada), Mr. MULLER (Chile) and Mr. BOEKSTAL (Netherlands) expressed
their agreement to the changes in the Cuban Schedule,
The Contracting Parties approved unanimously the results of the
negotiations between the Delegations of Cuba on the one hand and the
Delegations of Canada and the United States on the other. GATT/CP. 3/SR/29
Page 2
The CHAIRMAN suggested that to give effect to the decision of
the Contracting Parties the changes should be included to a Protocol
to be signed at the end of the present session. Such a Protocol
could not, however, be signed until the end of the present session,
which would not meet the Cuban requirement that the changes be put
into force by 1 July 1949. To obviate this difficulty, the Chairman
proposed that, either the agreement, which had just been confirmed by
the Contracting Parties, be considered as effective, pending entry
into force of the Protocol which would give the formal sanction to the
modifications; or the Cuban Government be given a waiver under para-
graph 5 (a) of Article XXV until the Protocol came into effect. In
his view the first alternative would be preferable.
Dr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) agreed with the Chairman and
thought it would be dangerous to bring in Article XXV. Changes in
schedules could not be made by a 2/3 majority. He suggested the
inclusion of the changes in a protocol of modifications, it being
understood that no objection would be raised at the time of signature.
The meeting decided that, the agreement having been confirmed by
the Contracting Parties, the Cuban Government be free to act upon it
as from 1 July 1949, and that the agreement itself be incorporated in
a protocol to be signed at the end of the present session by all the
contracting parties, who, as a result of the decision, had already
bound themselves to the acceptance of the Protocol.
The meeting rose at 3.15 p.m. |
GATT Library | ym772jq8974 | Summary record of the Twenty-second Meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy on Wednesday, 8 June 1949, at 3.15 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, June 8, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 08/06/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.22 and GATT/CP.3/SR.22 + Corr.1 SR.23 + Corr.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/ym772jq8974 | ym772jq8974_90060100.xml | GATT_144 | 2,817 | 18,155 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR LIMITED B
GATT/CP. 3/SR. 22
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS 8 June 1949
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Third Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWENTY-SECOND MEETING
Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy
on Wednesday, 8 June 1949, at 3.15 p.m.
CHAIRMAN: Hon. L.D. WILGRESS (Canada)
Subjects discussed:
1. Report on the negotiations affecting Schedule III
between Brazil and United Kingdom and United States
of America.
2. Report of Working Party 2 on date of decision on
proposal of the Government of Ceylon.
3. Request of the Government of Czechoslovakia for a
decision under Article XXIII.
Report on the negotiations affecting Schedule III between Brazil and
Mr. RODRIGUES (Brazil), introducing the report, expressed his
satisfaction with the agreement reached after negotiations lasting three
months on the compensation to be offered for the withdrawal by Brazil of
certain concessions. He took this opportunity to recall to the
CONTRACTING PARTIES that the compensatory concessions offered to the
United Kingdom and to the United States, and mentioned in the report
before them, were not the only tariff reductions made by Brazil since
1947. In the previous year, the National Congress had authorized the
Brazilian Executive to reduce provisionally, from 40% to 10% or 20% the
adjustment on some items so as to provide a more favourable tariff
treatment and conform more closely to the ultimate aims of the General GATT/CP. 3/SR.22
page 2
Agreement. This represented a substantial benefit for signatories of
the Agreement since they would be receiving additional concessions
covering a large part of the total imports of Brazil; it should be
understood that these additional concessions were to be regarded as
temporary, the Brazilian Government reserving its right at any time to
increase the rates up to the amounts shown in Schedule III.
The CHAIRMAN submitted to the Committee the recommendation
of the three governments that the CONTRACTING PARTIES approve the
agreement reached as set forth in document GATT/CP.3/24; the terms of
the Agreement would be incorporated in a protocol of modifications.
The CHAIRMAN's proposal was approved.
With respect to the other negotiations included in the same
item of the Session Agenda, the CHAIRMAN informed the meeting that the
reports would be heard as each negotiation was completed and the results
of all would be incorporated in a protocol of modifications.
Mr. HASNIE (Pakistan) informed that his delegation had made
considerable progress in its re-negotiations, but feared it could not
submit its report for some tine to come. He was concerned, however,
about the possibility of obtaining the required unanimity for the
approval of the modifications because he gathered some delegations were
about to leave Annecy.
The CHAIRMAN said he was confident that all delegations would
make arrangements for signature of the protocol.
Mr. HERRERA-ARANGO (Cuba) suggested for future cases where
unanimity was required, the adoption of the United Nations principle
that, in the absence of a negative vote, unanimity should be taken as
achieved. GATT/CP .3/SR. 22
page 3
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that the general rule, according
to paragraph 4 of Article XXV, was for decisions to be taken by a majority
of the votes cast, while in some cases a two-thirds majority, and in
other cases unanimity, was required. In the case in point, unanimity
would be prescribed by the instrument itself.
Mr. HERRERA-ARANGO (Cuba), while expressing his agreement with
the procedure followed in this case, wished to reserve his country's
position with regard to the application of the unanimity rule for amend-
ments of Part I of the Agreement.
Report of Working Party 2 on date of decision on proposal of the
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) (Chairman of Working Party 2)
introduced the report. He stated that the Working Party had first
considered the obligation in paragraph 10 of Article XVIII, that the
Ceylon Government should be notified without delay of the date on which
it would be released from the relevant obligation of the Agreement.
Although the Head of the Ceylon Delegation had advised the Chairman of
the CONTRACTING PARTIES that the answers to certain agreed questions
would not be available until a later date than that contemplated, the
recommendation made in the present report was not affected by this
change. By the terms of paragraph 10, a decision under paragraph 7
must be given not later than 7 August. The Working Party, therefore,
had recommended that the decision be given as early as possible and not
later than the conclusion of the present session of the CONTRACTING
PARTIES. Attention was drawn to the last paragraph of the report in
which it was stated that the Working Party would report later on the
problem raised by the representative of Pakistan regarding the
interpretation of paragraph 10. GATT/CP.3/SR. 22
page 4
Mr. JOHNSEN (New Zealand) suggested to amend the last phrase
of paragraph 3 of the report to read:
"... not later than the end of the present session, or
7 August 1949, whichever is the earlier."
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) agreed to this change and the report
was adopted as amended.
Request of the Government of Czechoslovakia for a decision under
Article XXIII as to whether or not the Government of the United States
obligations under the Agreement
through its administration of the issue of export licenses. (of. GATT/
CP. 3/23 and GATT CP.3/38 and GATT/CP.3/39).
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) read a reply (GATT/CP.3/39)
to the speech by the representative of the United States (GATT/CP.3/39),
and in addition called attention to the possible effects on international
trade if an unfaovurable decision were given ot the Czechoslovakian
application. He said it was not only exports that might be unduly
controlled on the pretext of national security; on the ground that security
could be undermined by dependence on foreign supplies, a country might
similarly restrict its imports, either discriminatorily or otherwise, by
invoking the security clause of the Agreement. This would encourage the
tendency towards autarky which the Agreement professed to elmiinate.
Mr. EVANS (United States of America), referring to the last
section of teh 4th paragraph of Mr. Augenthaler's reply, said that if at
any time it were thought that a decision had been based on false premises,
the interested party could have recourse to the appeal board which was
instituted for that purpose. In reply to the question asked by Mr.
Augenthaler as to whether the regulations requiring export licences for
the export of goods to certain countries but not to others, did not
contravene the provisions of Article I, Mr. Evans remarked that the
provisions of article I would not require uniformity of formalities, as GATT/CP.3/SR.22
page 5
applied to different countries, in respect of restrictions imposed for
security reasons. In conclusion he said that since no new facts had been
presented by the Czechoslovakian representative beyond what had already
been given in the original statement, he would repeat his proposal that
the CONTRACTING PARTIES dismiss the request on the ground that the charge
was not supported by facts.
Mr. HERRERA-ARANGO (Cuba) supported the United States proposal.
He said that his personal experience in dealing with the United States
Government had convinced him that the difficulties referred to by the
Czechoslovakian representative were due to the rigour of the officials
and their stringent way of administrating the issue of licenses. The
officials might be tenacious in their quests for information and were
often hard to convince, but this provided no ground for the accusation
put forward by the Czechoslovakian representative. On the basis of his
experience, it seemed that the appeal board would be an effective means
of redressing any erroneous decisions. The question asked by the
Czechoslovakian representative in relation to the provisions of Article I
did not require an answer since the United States representative had
justified his case under Article XXI whose provisions overrode those of
Article I. His delegation therefore thought that the question should be
decided at the present meeting and the request by the Czechoslovakian
delegation should be dismissed because of the lack of factual basis for
the charge.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) replied that the appeal
procedure referred to by the United States representative was available
only to exporters of the United States, and it was often inoperative
because in the event of a refusal of an export licence, an exporter, in
order to avoid displeasure was likely to choose not to resort to that
procedure. Article I stated clearly that the provisions of non-discrimination GATT/CP.3/SR.22
page 6
were to be observed with respect to all rules and formalities in
connection with importation and exportation. If exports were to be
controlled, the same formalities must be applied to all countries
wishing to purchase from the country concerned. Article XXI referred
to the traffic in arms, ammunition and implements of war and other
goods and materials for the purpose of supplying a military establishment,
but the United States Government had used and interpreted the expression
"war material" so extensively that no one knew what it really covered.
The filing of an application for an export licence was therefore no mere
formality. As regards the Cuban proposal, Mr. Augenthaler maintained
that abundant facts had been supplied to the CONTRACTING PARTIES in the
successive documents submitted by the Czechoslovakian delegation and
the request could not be refused on the ground of insufficient information.
Mr. HASNIE (Pakistan) said he was glad that the question had
been narrowed down to the provisions of two Articles. As regards
Article I, it was the opinion of his delegation that the United States
Government, as a pioneer of the General Agreement, would not have seen
fit to violate the provisions of such a fundamental Article and thus
deliberately destroy the structure of the Agreement. Article XXI,
embodying exceptions to all other provisions of the Agreement, should
stand by itself notwithstanding the provisions of other Articles including
Article I, and therefore the case called for examination only under the
provisions of that Article. While admitting that the Czechoslovakiah
case deserved careful and sympathetic consideration, Mr. Hasnie was
convinced that the action taken by the United States Government was in
the interest of security and peace. He thought the matter should not be
delegated to a Working Party because he did not believe that tangible
results could be produced by deliberations in a sub-group and that no
economy of time would be justified in dealing with a matter of such great
. . GATT/CP. 3/SR. 22
page 7
importance. He suggested that the information supplied was contradictory
and too scanty to justify a sweeping decision by the CONTRACTING PARTIES.
Since the United States had affirmed that its intention was merely to
prevent the disruption of peace and order and had assured that it had
no desire to interfere with ordinary trade, and since the Czechoslovakian
Government had complained about restrictions being placed on goods which
were not imported for war purposes, it appeared that the dispute had
arisen from a misunderstanding of facts by one party or the other and
should be resolved by detailed consultation between them. In his
opinion, the CONTRACTING PARTIES should suggest that the two governments
approach each other through diplomatic channels and seek a solution.
Commenting on the complaint that the United States appeal procedure was
only available to its exporters, he thought this was in accord with the
general practice in jurisprudence and there would seem to be no way of
providing complaint facilities for people other than residents of the
country. If an exporter refused an order by an importer, it would seem
to be the end of the matter except for negotiations to be carried out by
the governments. In view of the importance of the question, the
CONTRACTING PARTIES should not decide upon the request, but should try
to bring about an understanding between the two parties which was not an
objective achievable by deliberations in sub-committees.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) thought that since the question
clearly concerned article XXI, the United States action would seem to be
justified because every country must have the last resort on questions
relating to its own security. On the other hand, the CONTRACTING PARTIES
should be cautious not to take any step which might have the effect of
undermining the General Agreement. The nature of the question seemed to
suggest that it should be examined in detail by the two governments
concerned, and that no purpose would be surved by a general decision given GATT/CP. 3/SR. 22
page 8
by the CONTRACTING PARTIES. Therefore, so far as the CONTRACTING PARTIES
were concerned, the request by the Czechoslovakian delegation for a
decision should be dismissed.
Mr. HERRERA-ARANGO (Cuba) agreed with the representative of
Pakistan that the importance of the case called for a full investigation,
but he would not think that practical results could be produced.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) reaffirmed that the provisions
of Article XXI were misapplied because the narrow reference in the text
to war materials had been construed by the United States Government to
cover a wide range of goods which could never be so regarded.
Mr. EVANS (United States of America) replied that this was a
distortion of facts; the United States Government had never denied
export licences to Czechoslovakia on any item on the positive list.
Out of 3,000 group items under the export classification, only 200 were
affected by export control. Therefore there were no grounds for the
accusation that the provisions of Article XXI were extended to cover
everything; for the commodities thus controlled constituted an extremely
small proportion of the exports of the country.
The CHAIRMAN, in summing up, concluded that if a decision must
be made under paragraph 2 of Article XXIII, it should be understood that
the consultation referred to in paragraph 1 of the article had already
taken place. Under paragraph 2, the CONTRACTING PARTIES should promptly
investigate, and should either make an appropriate recommendation to the
contracting parties concernded or give a ruling on the matter as
appropriate. The complaint made by Czechoslovakia was based on Articles
I and XXI and the United States justified any discrimination which might
have occurred on the basis of Articles XX and XXI and particularly on the
ground of security covered by the latter. The proposal for a Working GATT/CP. 3/SR. 22
page 9
Party to be set up to examine the issue had not found support during the
discussions, and the representatives of Cuba and Pakistan has spoken
against this suggestion. The CONTRACTING PARTIES, therefore, should
give a decision in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article XXIII at the
present meeting. The Czechoslovakian representative had posed the
question of whether or not such regulations conform to the provisions of
Article I. The Chairman, however, was of the opinion that the question
was not appropriately put because the United States Government had
defended its actions under Articles XX and XXI which embodied exceptions
to the general rule contained in Article I. The question should be put
as expressed in the Agenda item, i.e. whether the Government of the United
States had failed to carry out its obligations under the Agreement through
its administration of the issue of export licences.
A vote was
Czechoslovakia,
1 affirmative:
Czechoslovakia
put by roll-call, as requested by
with the following results:
17 Negatives: 3 Abstentions:
Australia India
Belgium Lebanon
Brazil Syria
Canada
Ceylon
Chile
Cuba
France
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Pakistan
S. Rhodesia
South Africa
United Kingdom
United States
the representative of
2 Absent:
Burma
Luxembourg
Mr. HASNIE (Pakistan) explained his vote by saying that it was
necessary for him to vote against the charge because this was not proved
by factual evidence, and according to the principles of common law
innocence would have to be presumed unless it was proved otherwise. GATT/CP.3/SR. 22
page 10
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) stated on behalf of his
Government that it could not consider that the CONTRACTING PARTIES had
made a legally valid decision or correct interpretation of the General
Agreement. In consequences his Government would regard itself free to
take any steps necessary to protect its national interests. He
enquirer whether the decision could not be communicated to all members
of the Interim Commission for the International Trade Organization, so
that they would be informed of the interpretation given by the
CONTRACTING PARTIES of the provisions of the Havana Charter.
Mr. EVANS (United States of America) thanked the majority of
the representatives on behalf of his delegation and expressed his
understanding of the position of those representatives who abstained.
He requested that the proceedings of this meeting be released to the
press.
The CHAIRMAN said, in reply to the Czechoslovakian representa-
tive, that the summary record of this meeting would be sent, according
to the usual practice, to all signatories of the Havana Final Act and
to other members of the United Nations. The meeting agreed that a
press release should be issued at the authorization of the Chairman.
The meetng rose at 6 p.m. |
GATT Library | yk045gy6719 | Summary record of the Twenty-seventh Meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy, on Friday, 17 June 1949, at 2:30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, June 17, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 17/06/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.27 and GATT/CP.3/SR.27 + Corr.1 SR.28 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/yk045gy6719 | yk045gy6719_90060120.xml | GATT_144 | 3,287 | 20,935 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR LIMITED B
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS GATT/CP.3/SR.27
17 June 1949
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Third Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWENTY-SEVENTH MEETING
Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy,
on Friday, 17 June 1949, at 2:30 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. G. N. PERRY (Canada)
Subjects discussed:
Report of Working Party 3 on Procedure for Consultation
under Article XII (4) (a) (GATT/CP.3/30).
(Continued discussion).
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) recalled the discussion at the preceding
meeting at which the need had been recognized for a working group or
committee to conduct consultations between sessions when urgent cases
arose. Such a procedure would not involve any delegation of powers.
To clear away any misunderstanding, he would propose adding the
following sentence to the United States amendment:
"In such a case, however, the ad hoc Committee would not
be authorized to take any decision in respect of the
action to be taken by the CONTRACTING PARTIES as a
consequence of the consultations initiated."
Mr. CASSIERS explained that this would help to define the status and
functions of the Committee. If a decision indeed needed to be made
before an ordinary session, the existence of such a Committee would
provide the advantage that a special session would not be called until
the preliminary stages of consultation and studies had been carried out
and a stage had been reached where a full session of the Contracting
Parties could take prompt decision. The Committee was not intended to
take any decision on behalf of the CONTRACTING PARTIES, but would merely page 2.
serve to fill the gaps in the Agreement in cases of emergency.
Mr. OLDINI (Chile) felt that proposal of extending the scope of
the procedure had not been supported by weighty arguments. A means
for solving practical problems should not be sought outside the purview
of the Agreement, and if there were any gaps in the Agreement, they
should not be filled by arbitrary procedural provisions; the provision
for anything which had not been foreseen in the Agreement would constitute
en amendment to the Agreement. The strict observance of legality and
sovereignity was of vital concern to the small nations, which had nothing
apart from this for their protection, and which could not watch without
concern their rights being infringed by excessive requiremets. As for
the exercise of a joint limited sovereignty referred to by the
representative of France, it could not be carried out without safeguards
in the interest of the smaller nations and should be in strict accordance
with the provisions of the Agreement; there could be no legitimate joint
action outside the scope of the Agreement contrary to the will of some
contracting parties. The original proposal together with the additional
sentence proposed by the representative of New Zealand, being both in
need of further careful study, should be referred to a working party.
With reference to the proceedings of the 25th meeting, Mr. OLDINI
concluded that an incomplete solution might be reached by a majority
decision, but the principle of balanced representations
Article 78 of the Havana Charter would never be attained.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) maintained that any gaps that might.
be found in the Agreement could not be filled by the provision for a
procedure; for it would need an amendment to supplement what was wanting
in an international treaty. It was a well established Principle in
International law that the interpretation of any intended agreement, if
it involved obligation, must be done in the most restrictive way. The
proposed committee, if established against the will of some contracting GATT/CP.3/SR .27
page 3.
parties, would have no right to compel the appearance before it of those
who did not accept its establishment. Mr. AUGENTHALER Concluded by
commenting on the remarks by the representative of Canada and suggested
that the bona fide intentions of a contracting party must be presumed
unless proven otherwise.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) thought that in cases like those
arising under paragraphs 4 (a) and 4 (c) of Article XII where an
individual contracting party should or might consult the CONTRACTING
PARTIES when a certain action was contemplated, the proccedure recomended
by the Working Party would appropriately apply. But in cases where the
CONTRACTING PARTIES were to take initiative in instituting consultations,
such as cases covered by paragraphs 4 (b) and 5 of Article XII and
paragraph 1 (h) of Article XIV, such a procedure would not seem to be
appropriate. In such cases, the right of initiative of the CONTRACTING
PARTIES should not be delegated and the CONTRACTING PARTIES ought to
consider each case before referring it to a subsidiary body. Mr. SHACKLE
felt that the proposal by the representative of New Zealand would cover
the case and should be given careful consideration. For this purpose,
he would support the representative of Chile in his proposal that the
matter be referred to Working Party 3, subject to any changes in its
composition as the Chairran might feel to be necessary, or a similar
Working Party.
Mr. KING (China) referred to the legal point raised by the
representative of Chile that there could be no basis under the provisions
of paragraph 4 (a) of Article XII for the establishment of such ad hoc
committees or for their inviting contracting parties to partake in
consultation, and said that he felt the Chiloan representative had been
labouring under a misapprehension. The false supposition was that a
contracting party which was most directly affected might not be invited
to partake in the work of the ad hoc Committee, which in his opinion was GATT/CP .3/SR. 27
page 4.
inconceivable. Since the party was one of the hosts extending such
invitations, the problems connected with the delegation of functions
must be more apparent than real. The Chilean representative should
therefore have no difficulty in accepting the proposal especially as it
was intended to be merely an interim arrangement involving no decision
to be taken by any but the CONTRACTING PARTIES themselves and providing
for practical procedures to be resorted to only in exceptional and
urgent cases. On the outstanding question of who was to decide upon the
urgency and exceptionality of each case, Mr. King would be agreeable to
either suggestion but supported the proposal that the whole of paragraph
14 and the proposed amendments be referred to Working Party 3 for further
study.
Mr. LAMSVELT (Netherlands) said he would have no difficulty in
accepting the United States proposal, but he would prefer to see the
proposal referred to Working Party 3.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY (United States) pointed out that a practical
procedural proposal was made by his delegation merely for the purpose of
filling a lasuna. Since there was a divergence in opinion on its merits,
it might be studied further by the Working Party. The Working Party,
however, should be requested to complete the study as soon as possible.
Mr. LECUYER (France) indicated that his delegation was also in favour
of the amendments being referred to the Working Party for further study.
As regards the amendment of the Belgian delegation, though its substance
was acceptable, some drafting changes were still called for.
Mr. REISMAN (Canada) in giving his support for the proposal to refer
the question to the Working Party, expressed the hope that the study would
be completed as promptly as possible and that the CONTRACTING PARTIES
would dispose of the remaining part of the Report without awaiting the GATT/CP.3/SR.27
page 5
outcome of the Working Party's deliberations on this point.
It was agreed that the whole question be referred to Working
Party 3 for further study and recommendations. The CHAIRMAN introduced
the following draft terms of reference:
"In the light of the discussion in the CONTRACTING
PARTIES, to examine the extent to which the procedure
proposed in GATT/CP.3/30 should also be used in
appropriate cases arising under provisions of GATT
other than Article XII (4) (a); and to make
recommendations to the CONTRACTING PARTIES. "
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) made certain general comments on the proposed
terms of reference. In the first place, he felt that the CONTRACTING
PARTIES should not be influenced in considering procedures between
sessions in these cases by the recommendation regarding the application
of the procedure under paragraph 4(a), which, he pointed out, had passed
the Working Party by a very narrow margin of majority. That report of
the Working Party should not prejudice consideration of the application
of procedures under other provisions, which should be examined and
discussed objectively. The proposed terms of reference which presupposed
the applicability of the procedures adopted for Article XII 4 (a) and
which would confine the examination to the degree of applicability of
those procedures, was therefore inappropriately worded. He also stated
that though ways and means should always be looked for at this stage of
the session to expedite the work, yet if there was substantial disagreement
on an important question of this nature there should be adequate time
for its proper consideration and there should not be an attempt to dispose
of it as if it were a matter of little importance. As the draft terms
of reference now stood, it would be presumed that the question of
procedure in between sessions under all provisions of the General
Agreement other than Article XII (4) (a) was to be reviewed, among which
not the least important would be those under Article XVIII of the
Agreement. GATT/CP.3/SR.27
page 6.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY (United States) thought, however, that nothing was
really at stake if the proposed terms of reference were adopted. The
wording was quite unprejudicial; the Working Party would be perfectly
free under these terms of reference to recommend that the procedure
should not be used at all.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) proposed the following amendment
with a view to limiting explicitly the reference to certain Articles:
"... to examine if and to what extent procedures analogous
to those proposed in GATT/CP.3/30 should also be used in
appropriate cases arising under similar provisions...."
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) thought that different procedures
should apply under the different groups of provisions in the Agreement.
In the present case, consideration and reference should be limited to
the group of Articles generally known as the balance-of-payments group.
The terms of reference would be more definite if they referred either
specifically to "Articles XII, XIV and XV" or alternatively to "those
Articles referred to in paragraph 14 of the Report".
Mr. OLDINI (Chile) and Mr. REISMAN (Canada) both supported limiting
the reference to the group of Articles, but the latter felt that
Article XIII also belonged to the group and should be included.
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) was in agreement with this suggestion and
thought that the terms of reference should simply read:
"... in appropriate cases arising under the provisions of
Articles XII to XV..."
Mr. LAMSVELT (Netherlands) supported the suggestion.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) said that though he was opposed to any
mention of the Working Party report in the terms of reference which
would impair objectivity, he would have no special objection to the
proposal put forward by the representatives of Czechoslovakia and the GATT/CP .3/SR. 27
page 7.
United Kingdom. Moreover, as the United States supported the broad
reference of procedure between sessions under all other provisions of
the Agreement, he wished to point out that he had not opposed it. His
criticism was of the introduction of the reference to procedures under
Article XII 4 (a) which would impair an objective consideration of the
problem.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) accepted Mr. SHACKLE's amendment
to his proposal, but suggested that Article XVI might also be included
with advantage.
Mr. JOHNSEN (New Zealand), in giving his support to the proposal
of the United Kingdom representative, felt that a word like "could" or
"might" would be less prejudicial than the word "should".
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) agreed with the representative of Canada
that Article XIII could be included in the terms of reference and felt
in common with the representative of Australia that paragraph 14 of
the Report should not be referred to and the terms should therefore read:
"... the provisions of Articles XII to XV other than
paragraph 4 (a) of Article XII..."
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) suggested the words "may also be
utilized in..." to meet the point raised by the representative of New
Zealand.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) enquired whether the procedure which had been
laid down at the last session between the CONTRACTING PARTIES and the
Fund and embodied in an exchange of letters, would be open to
reconsideration by the Working Party if Article XV was included in the
terms of reference.
Mr. SAAD (Observer for the international Monetary Fund), at the
invitation of the Chairman, advised the meeting that Article XV, which GATT/CP.3/SR.27
page 8
provided for consultation between the CONTRACTING PARTIES and the Fund,
should not be included for consideration by the Working Party, which was
to deal with procedures for consultation between the CONTRACING PARTIES
and one or more of the contraciting parties. The exchange of letters
which provided for consultations of the former category had only taken
place a few weeks ago, and it would not be advisable at this stage to
reopen the question, since to do so would involve further consultation
with the Board of Directors of the Funds. Furthermore, it was not envisaged
in the Working Party Report that the relations between the CONTRACTING
PARTIES and the Fund would be affected.
at present concerted only with the procedures of consulation between the
CONTRACTING PARTIES and one or more contracting parties. If so, he wished
to enquire which was the paragraph in Article XV which provided for such
consultation. As a matter of information, he would also like to know the
kind of consultation contemplated by those who proposed the inclusion of
Article XV in the terms of reference.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY (United States) agreed both to the amendment to
include Article XV and the points raised by the observer for the Inter-
national Monetary Fund. To meet these points, he would suggest altering
the terms of reference to read
"... in appropraite cased of between the
CONTRACTING PARTIES and one or more parties
arising under the provisions of ...."
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) inquired again which provisions of Article
consultation of this nature.
In reply, Mr.SHACKIE (United Kingdom) suggested that paragraph 5
and paragraphs also paragraph 2 might involve such consultation
Mr. JOHNSEN (New Zealand) felt that there was no such consultation GATT/CP.3/SR. 27
page 9
envisaged in Article XV, which provided exclusively for consultation
with the Fund.
Mr. REISMAN (Canada) supported the view of the representative
of the United Kingdom that paragraph 5 of Article XV might under
certain circumstances involve consultation between the CONTRACTING PARTIES
and contracting parties.
The CHAIRMAN, speaking as Chairman of Working Party 3, explained
that consultations between the CONTRACTING PARTIES and a contracting
party under a special exchange agreement was under the purview of
Article XV. However, the Special Exchange Committee had decided to
postpone the consideration of the procedural arrangements relating
to these consultations.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) drew attention to the course of the
discussion at the present meeting and particularly to the starting
point, that consideration would be confined to exceptional and most
urgent cases for consultation. All had agreed that Article XV did not
refer to any consultation between the CONTRACTING PARTIES and a contracting
party with the possible exception of its paragraph 5. The representative
of the fund had expressed his disagreement with the final sentence of
paragraph 14 of the Report. In consequence, the meeting had been on the
verge of agreeing to including Article XV in the terms of reference in
the belief that in doing so no other provisions than those of paragraph 5
were involved. At this point, it had now been revealed that certain
representatives Intended to cover under the terms of reference the
discussions under special exchange agreements, documents which were
certainly referred to in the Article, but which had previously not been
regarded as being in the terms of reference. He would therefore wish to
have a clarification as to what was really being considered and to be
referred to the Working Party. GATT/CP.3/SR. 27
page 10
Mr. JOHNSEN (New Zealand) said that consultations under special
exchange agreements being of an entirely different nature from
consultations envisaged in the present discussion, shbuld be separately
discussed in an appropriate report and should not be confused with
consultations referred to in Articles XII and XIV.
Mr. OLDINI (Chile) agreed that it would be logical to leave out
Article XV. The CONTRACTING PARTIES could consider what steps ought
to be taken when the report on special exchange agreements was
available. He therefore proposed the deletion of Article XV from
the terms of reference on the ground that the Article did not provide
for consultations between the CONTRACTING PARTIES and contracting
parties.
Mr. REISMAN (Canada) asked the representatives of Australia and
Czechoslovakia whether they also considered that paragraph 5 of Article
XV did not provide for consultations which might be needed by the
CONTRACTING PARTIES in formulating their report to the Fund.
Mr. OLDINI (Chile) replied that whether consultations would need
to take place would depend on the circumstances.The present terms
of reference were intended to provide for defined cases and not
hypothetical cases.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) thought that confused terms of reference
which were not clearly understood by this meeting would to
burden the Working Party with the impossible task of interpretation.
It was clear that the last sentence in paragraph 14 of the Report was
not acceptable to the meeting in so far as it referred so consultation
with the Fund. He saw no great purpose in including paragraph 5 of
Article XV in the terms of reference but if it should be examined in
greater detail he would not object to that being specified in the
terms of reference. GATT/CP.3/SR. 27
page 11.
Mr. SAAD (observer for the International Monetary Fund) pointed
out that the amendment proposed by the representative of the United
States had definitely ruled out the inclusion of Article XV because
even in paragraph 5 there was no explicit reference to consultations
to be taking place between the CONTRACTING PARTIES and contracting
parties before a report could be submitted to the Fund. The other
case of consultation under Article XV would come appropriately under
special exchange agreements. As for discussion on the exchange
agreements, this had been postponed till next year an he would have
to refer to Washington if any change in the procedure were contemplated.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) agreed that article XV should be
omitted on the ground that even under paragraph 5 of that Article
the question would not arise until the CONTRACTING PARTIES had con-
sidered that certain conditions obtained; it was therefore implied
that the initiative rested with the CONTRACTING PARTIES.
Mr. REISMAN (Canada) said that since no matters of urgency would
arise under paragraph 5 of Article XV, he would not insist on his
opposition to the deletion.
The following terms of reference were unanimously approved:
"In the light of the discussion in the CONTRACTING PARTIES,
to examine if and to what extent a procedure analogous to
that proposed in GATT/CP.3/30 may also be utilised in
appropriate cases arising under the provisions of Articles
XII to XIV, inclusive, other than Article XII (4) (a); and
to make a report to the CONTRACTING PARTIES."
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) drew attention to the fact that
the non-discriminatory administration of export restrictions was
referred to in Article XIII, an article covered by the terms of
reference of the Working Party.
The meeting also agreed that the question discussed at the
meeting should be referred to Working Party 3.
The meeting rose at 5.45 p.m |
GATT Library | yy049yv7340 | Summary record of the Twenty-seventh Meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy, on Friday, 17 June 1949, at 2:30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, June 17, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 17/06/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.27 and GATT/CP.3/SR.27 + Corr.1 SR.28 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/yy049yv7340 | yy049yv7340_90060120.xml | GATT_144 | 0 | 0 | |
GATT Library | vt005yf1329 | Summary record of the Twenty-sixth Meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy, on Thursday, 16 June 1949, at 2.30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, June 16, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 16/06/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.26 and GATT/CP.3/SR.26 + Corr.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/vt005yf1329 | vt005yf1329_90060116.xml | GATT_144 | 3,523 | 22,408 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR RESTRICTED
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS LIMITED GATT/CP.3/SR.26
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE 16 June 1949
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Third Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWENTY-SIXTH MEETING
Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy,
on Thursday, 16 June 1949, at 2.30 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. G.N. PERRY (Canada)
Subjects discussed:
1 Withdrawal from the Agenda of Item 12 on the Most-Favoured-
Nations Treatment for Occupied Areas.
2. Report of Working Party 3 on Consultation Procdure under
Article XII (4) (a). (Continued discussion).
3. Announcements relanting to Reports of Working Parties 4 and 6.
Withdrawal from the Agenda of Item 12 on Most-Favoured,-Nations
Treatmet for Occupied Areas (GATT/CP.3/41)
Mr. CLARK (Australia), commenting on the letter from the
United States delegation withdrawing the Item, said that his delegation
would have no concern over the withdrawal, had it not been for the
positive views expressed in the letter. In taking note of this letter,
it should therefore be clearly Understood that these were the views
of the United States delegation and not those of the CONTRACTING PARTIES.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) was of the same opinion. He
suggested that the CONTRACTING PARTIES take note of the withdrawal and
make no comment on the substance of the letter so as to leave no room
for inferences.
Mr KING (China), Mr. LAMMSVELT (Netherlands) and later, Mr
MACFARLANE (Southern Rhodesia) indicated that they wished to associate
themselves with the view expressed by the representatives of Australia
and the United Kingdom. GATT/CP .3/SR. 26
page 2
Mr. WILLOUGHBY (United States) said that the document did
not purport to represent the views of any but his own delegation. He
inquired whether there was any objection to this restricted document
being made available to the public.
Mr. CLARK (Australia) asked if this step could be deferred
till a later date as he would wish to consult his Government on the
question.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY (United States) explained that it had been
suggested that a press release should be issued after the meeting and the
request to release the document was made because it was thought
advantageous to publish it at this time and because it was a restricted
document. Since each delegation had the right to publish its own views
whenever it liked, he could see no point in the request of the Australian
representative. If the document was published, the views of other
delegations could also be communicated to the public in a press release.
Mr. PHILIP (France) said he had no objection to the release of
the document, but thought that, as there was a divergence of views on the
substantive question, it would be better for the United States delegation,
to communicate the content of the letter to the public on its own
authority since a release by the Secretariat would lend it an official
air, in which case any opposite views would have to be equally published.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) supported this suggestion and
pointed out that it was perfectly within the right of the United States
delegation to publish its own views. As for a release by the Secretariat
relating the opinion of certain contracting parties, this might give the
impression that the other contracting parties had no opinion on the
matter. GATT/CP .3/SR.26
page 3
Mr. REISMAN (Canada) said that although there could be no
objection to the United States issuing to the public its own views, it
might be an inopportune action when the item was still on the Agenda.
The correct procedure would be for the Secretariat to announce to the
public that the item had been withdrawn from the Agenda and thereafter
all delegations, including that of the United States, would be free to
voice whatever they might wish to address to the public on this question.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY (United States) expressed his satisfaction with
the general procedure suggested by the representatives of France and the
United Kingdom, As for the Canadian proposal ,he would have no objection
if it was understood that no substantial interval must elapse after the
Secretariat announcement before his delegation could publish its views.
Mr. REISYAN (Canada) replied that the sole purpose of his
suggestion was to avoid creating a precedent contrary to the principle
that no delegation might express its opinion to the public while a case
was still under consideration by the CONTRACTING PARTIES. He therefore
would agree that although theoretically the Secretariat announcement must
precede such releases, there would be no need for an interval intervening
between them.
The meeting approved the withdrawal of the item from the Agenda and
gareed that a short announcement be issued by the Secretariat to the press
to that effect.
Report of Working Party 3 on Consultation Procedure under Article XII(4) (a)
(GATT/CP .3/30) Cotinued discussion).
Mr. PHILIP (France) introduced an amendment submitted by his
delegation to the effect that the following two paragraphs be added to
paragraph 9 of the Report: GATT/CP .3/SR. 26
page 4
"The Chairman should simultaneously inform the contracting parties
not invited to send representatives) of the composition, date and
venue of the Committee meeting.
On the request of any contracting party which is not a member of
the Committee and which is probably seriously affected or on
the request of the Committee itself, the Chairman should be
authorized to send a subsequent invitation to that contracting
party to join the Committee as an observer."
Mr. PHILIP explained that the amendment covered two questions, In the
first place it was to make explicit what was intended in the original
paragraph 9, that is to say, the principle of full information to all
contracting parties as embodied in paragraph 7 (a) of the Report should
apply also to matters concerning the ad hoc Committee. Secondly, it was
designed to meet the situation in which the Committee, after its
constitution, found another contracting party interested in the question
or in which a contracting party not originally invited to the Committee,
upon receipt of the notification from the Chairman, found itself interested
in the matter for consultation. It was therefore proposed that the
Chairman should be authorized in such circumstances to extend invitations
as necessary.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY (United States) supported the proposal and
suggested certain drafting changes in the English version, viz. the first
paragraph to read:
"...of the composition of the Committee, and the date and place
of its meeting."
and the second paragraph to read:
"... is likely to be seriously affected..."
Mr. LAMSVELT (Netherlands), while supporting the proposal and
agreeing to drafting changes in general, suggested to substitute in the
second paragraph the following words:
"...consider itself to be seriously affected..." GATT/CP .3/SR 26
page 5
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) supported the French proposal, but
agreed that some drafting changes might be needed; he was not sure whether
the suggestion of the Netherlands representative would change the substance
of the sentence, but would subscribe to the United States suggestion.
Mr. JOHNSEN (New Zealand), while supproting the French proposal
in principle, had misgivings as to the drafting of the last paragraph.
He feared that it might be inferred from the language used that a
contracting party professing itself to be affected, might bo excluded from
the Committee.
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) was in full agreement with the first
paragraph of the amendment. As for the second paragraph, he felt that
improvements could be made along the lines suggested by the representative
of the Netherlands and New Zealand. The word "affectedd' could be
substituted by the word "concerneded," since it was difficult to imagine
that any contracting party which was seriously affected would not be
invited by the Chairman to be represented on the Committee.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) agreed with the representative of
Belgium in the use of such a word as "concerned" or "interested".
After further discussion on the text, in which Mr, LAMSVELT
(Netherlands), Mr MACFARLANE (Southern Rhodesia), Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium),
Mr. RIESMAN (Canada), Mr, PHILIP (France) and Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom)
participated, the second paragraph of the proposed amendment was changed
to read:
i".. and which is seriously concerned..."
The first paragraph as redrafted and the second paragraph as
reworded, of the French amendment to paragraph 9 of the Report, were
unanimously adopted. GATT/CP.3/SR.26
page 6
Mr. WILLOUGHBY (United States) proposed to add the following
sentence to paragraph 14 of the Report:
"The Chairman should accordingly be authorized, exceptionally
and only if most urgent circumstances require it, to make
use of the procedure outlined in this report in appropriate
cases of consultation arising under provisions of Article XII
other than paragraph 4(a), cr under Article XIV or XV."
He explained that no new elements were introduced by this amendment,
the purpose of which being merely to express more clearly what had
already been said in paragraph 14. Owing to its limited terms of
reference, the Working Party could not make a recommendation in such
specific terms. The extended application of the procedure as proposed
would go a long way to filling the serious gap in the General Agreement
which, not like the ITO Charter, provided no machinery to meet emergency
situations between sessions. However, application of the procedure under
Article XII (4) (a) would be limited because most countries were at present
applying restrictions for balance-of-payments reasons and the recourse to
that procedure was not likely to be extensive. In contrast to this,
paragraph 4(b) provided for consultation with contracting parties
substantially intensifying such restrictions which muts be a situation more
frequently confronting the contracting party and calling for greater
caution in the application of the procedure. He therefore agreed with the
representative of the United Kingdom that the procedure proposed by the
Working Party should be used only in exceptional and most urgent cases
whilst ordinary cases should be considered by the CONTRACTING PARTIES
themselves in session. The Committee would in any case be an ad hoc and
interim instrument which would not be authorized to conclude consultations.
Subject to this limitation and on this understanding, his delegation had
proposed to extend the procedure to cover the cases which were likely to
arise under the provisions of ArticlesXII, XIV and XV other than paragraph
4 (a) of Article XII. GATT/CP.3/SR.26
Page 7
Mr. PHILIP (France) said he was glad to support the proposal
and suggested certain drafting improvements in the French text of the
proposal.
Mr. OLDINI (Chile) said that as he had already expressed on
earlier occasions he could not agree to any delegation of authority by
the CONTRACTING PARTIES to a subsidiary body. He also took exception to
the CONTRACTING PARTIES interpreting paragraph 14 in this extraordinary
manner and considering the question of extended application of the
procedure on the basis of the Working Party report, which in his view
contained no concrete proposal to that effect since it had no mandate to
consider any provisions other than those of paragraph 4 (a) of Article XII.
Although the Working Party had attempted to by-pass the limitation by a
roundabout introduction in paragraph 14 of its Report, it had refrained
from making a formal proposal but had been content with a tentative
suggestion. In considering the proposed procedure under paragraph 4 (a)
of Article XII, it had been reasoned that the right of a contracting party
to consult the CONTRACTING PARTIES on the nature of its balance-of-payments
difficulties etc.., with a view to introducing new restrictions, would be
impaired if mechanism for such consultations were lacking when the
CONTRACTING PARTIES were not in session. Clearly, no such right would be
impaired by. the lack of such a procedure under paragraph 4 (b), which
prescribed the prerogative of the CONTRACTING PARTIES as a whole, and was
different from paragraph 4 (a) altogether, Contracting parties which had
given up a part of their sovereign rights upon the acceptance of the
Agreement, on the assumption that this limitation of sovereignty was
strictly defined by the terms of the Agreement, were now asked to undertake
the additional obligation of having to appear before a committee the
composition of which was not even known to them. The idea of providing
a procedure for the implementation of the provisions of paragraph 4 (b) GATT/CP. 3/SR.26
page 8
between sessions, being an utterly new idea, would need to be studied by a
new working party to be constituted for the purpose, rather than to be
decided upon by the CONTRACTING PARTIES on the basis of the incidental
remarks of a working party whose mandate was unrelated to this question.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) felt that the significance of the
proposal which was merely intended to fill the gaps in the provisions of
Articles XII, XIV and XV in emergency circumstances, should not be magnified
beyond its true proportions. The purpose of the amendment was no more than
to enable the Chairman to appoint a committee when necessary, in order to
avoid the necessity of calling a special session. He would assure those
against the amendment that the powers of the Committee would be very limited,
as indeed, it would not even be empowered to conclude consultations. As for
any decision, this would in any case have to be made by the CONTRACTING
PARTIES in session. If there had been any dangers in such delegation of
functions, the French proposal considered earlier at the meeting would serve
to mitigate them, As regards the question of the competence of Working
Party 3 in recommending procedures under provisions other than those of
paragraph 4 (a), he would agree with the representative of Chile in his
contention,but the document being now before the CONTRACTING PARTIES, there
was nothing that would preclude the latter from making any definite
recommendations to themselves. In conclusion, Mr. SHACKLE said he would
support the United States proposal because to restrict the application of
such procedures to exceptional and urent cases would save the contracting
parties from being overburdened with frequent inter-session meetings.
Mr. PHILIP (France) said he was surprised to hear the
representative of Chile refer repeatedly to national sovereignty in the
discussion as if he believed that a country could do whatever it liked under
the Agreement. The General Agreement required no contracting party to give
up its sovereignty but had provided for the exercise by participating
countries of a joint limited sovereignty. There was no question of sacrifice GATT/CP .3/SR. 26
page 9
on the part of the contracting parties, but each agreed to restrict its
actions for the commen weal and interests. The practical procedure
proposed was merely to enable the continuing operation of the General
Agreement and to help avoiding unnecessary loss of time. In studying the
United States amendment, one should not lose sight of the French amendment
which ensured the fullest knowledge and information for all contracting
parties, and this should have adequately reassured the representative of
Chile. There was therefore no reason why the procedure to be adopted
under paragraph 4 (a) of article XII should not be equally applied under
other similar provisions of the Agreement. He hoped that the Chilean
representative would be able to accept the amendment.
Mr. CLARK (Australia) pointed out that the proposed procedure
under paragraph 4 (a) of Article XII had been very carefully considered
which gave the precise circumstances in which an ad hoc Committee could
be set up. The new proposal for the procedure to be applied under paragraph
4 (b) was not and could not be provided with specific conditions. To
empower the Chairman to appoint a committee upon the receipt of a request
without previous consideration of the matter by the CONTRACTING PARTIES
would be tantamount to giving a blank authorization to the Committee in
advance. In the belief that the CONTRACTING PARTIES should give
consideration to a request before referring it to a subsidiary body, he
would agree with the representative of Chile that the proposal was
entirely unacceptable.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) felt that such a procedure
was necessary under paragraph 4 (a) of Article XII because prior consultation
was required under that paragraph. There was no such provision in
Article XIV, except perhaps for paragraph 1 (g) and in that case,
consultation would not need to occur until March 1952. Nor was such
consultation provided for in Article XV, unless it were in paragraph 5, GATT/CP .3 /SR.26
page 10
and in such a case, no question of prior or post approval was involved.
Therefore he could see no reason why such a procedure should be provided
at the present stage. Any consultation which might be necessary in
exceptional circumstances could be carried out through diplomatic channels,
and the institution of a committee for which there was no provision in the
Agreement must be regarded as an extension of the obligations of the
contracting parties to which the Czechoslovakian Government could not but
strongly object,
Mr. JOHNSEN (New Zealand) was glad to note that the proposal
put forward by the United States representative and supported by the
United Kingdom representative emphasized that the procedure would be
applied only in exceptional and urgent cases. This was desirable because
the contracting parties appointed to such a committee would have to send
experts to the meeting and these would not be easily available while there
were such a multitude of international conferences as there were to-day.
The Committee, in order to be a representative sample of the contracting
parties, would have to draw its members from countries in different
geographic areas and this would give rise to considerable difficulties in
arranging transport for experts supplied at short notice. However, it
would be too extensive a responsibility to be put on the Chairman if he
were required to decide which cases arising under paragraph 4 (b) were
exceptional and urgent and called for emergency action. The decision
should more appropriately be made by the CONTRACTING PARTIES themselves.
He would therefore suggest that the following should be added to the
paragraph proposed by the representative of the United States:
"Except where the request for consultation in accordance with
the provisions of the Agreement is made by a contracting party
applying the restrictions, no consultation shall be initiated
by the Chairmam unless he has first communicated with the
contracting parties and has obtained their agreement to such
consultation."
Mr. REISMAN (Canada) felt there had been a consensus of
opinions that there might be gaps in the provisions of the Agreement GATT /CP . 3/SR.26
page 11
which should be filled by a procedure providing for joint action, the
question being only one of choice between the different ways of
fulfilling this requirement. Certain representatives were opposed to
the procedure suggested, but had presented no alternatives. This would
give the wrong impression that these contracting parties were not
anxious to provide for the machinery which might be necessary to
implement these provisions. In the absence of such a procedure, the
Chairman would have to call a special session for consultation unless
it could be postponed till the following regular session. The latter
method was impracticable in dealing with urgent matters and the former
would be uneconomical. As for the contention of the representative of
Australia that the Chairman would thus be given a blank authority, he
would point out that the Committee would be entrusted with very limited
functions and would not even be empowered to conclude consultations.
As regards questions arising under Articles XIV and XV which could not
be acted upon until the CONTRACTING PARTIES had decided to take action,
these were clearly not matters appropriate for consultation in any case.
In conclusion, Mr. REISMAN stressed the view that the proposed procedure
had no other purpose than to make the Agreement workable between sessions
as well as during sessions.
Mr. CLARK (Australia), referring to the remarks of the repre-
sentative of Canada, said that he saw no point in appointing a committee
to deal with hypothetic cases.
It was agreed to adjourn discussion on this item until the next
meeting.
Announcements relating to Reports of Worlding Parties 4 and 6.
The following announcements were made by the Chairman:
(a) At the 13th meeting of the present session on 18th May, the
CONTRACTING PARTIES adopted the report of Working Party 4 on the South
Africa - Southern Rhodesia Customs Union. During the discussion, the GATT/CP. 3/SR. 26
page 12
representative of India stated that he had not had sufficient time for
consultation with his Government and that he might wish to state the
view of his Government at a later meeting. The leader of the Indian
delegation has now advised that his delegation withdraws its reservation
to the Working Party.
(b) At the 14th meeting of the present session on 19th May, the
CONTRACTING PARTIES approved the report of Working Party 6 on the
revision of the Schedule of Australia. During the discussion, the
representative of India stated that he was awaiting definite instructions
from his Government and that he might wish to revert to this question at
a later meeting. The leader of the Indian delegation has now advised
that his delegation withdraws its reservation to the Working Party's
report.
Mr. COELHO (India) confirmed the statements and thanked the
CONTRACTING PARTIES for their attention.
The meeting rose at 6 p.m. |
GATT Library | zh269yb8177 | Summary record of the Twenty-third Meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy on Thursday, 9th June, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, June 9, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 09/06/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR/23 and GATT/CP.3/SR.22 + Corr.1 SR.23 + Corr.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/zh269yb8177 | zh269yb8177_90060102.xml | GATT_144 | 1,900 | 11,738 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR RESTRICTED LIMITED B
GATT/CP.3/SR/23
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS 9 June, 1949
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Contracting Parties
Third Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWENTY-THIRD MEETING
Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy
on Thursday, 9th June,1949
Continuation of Report of Working Party 1 on Accession
(GATT/CP.3/37)
Draft Protocol of Terms of Accession to GATT
Paragraph 3.
The CHAIRMAN reminded delegations of the changes suggested by
the New Zealand delegation.
Mr. JOHNSON (New Zealand) wished to explain that his point
regarding the enumeration of the schedules were merely that the
Contracting Parties' schedules should be given the same numbers as
at present and schedules of acceding governments should start with
the number 24. He did not think that this involved drafting
changes in paragraph 3.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) agreed with the drafting changes
proposed and suggested also that the words "pursuant to paragraph
12" be substituted for the words "with respect to any acceding
government" in line 9 of the paragraph. He also pointed out that
with the change in the numbering of the schedules, Annex A would
become Annex B and vice versa.
Paragraph 3 was approved with these amendments.
Paragraph 4 was approved with minor drafting changes
consequential on the new enumeration of the schedules.
Paragraph 5 (a) and (b) were approved. GATT/CP.3/SR/23
page 2.
Paragraph 5 (c)
Mr. COELHO (India) wondered whether the May and June dates
mentioned were not too early in view of the extension of the
conference. He also considered that acceding governments should
have the same interval of 40 days between the two dates as had the
original contracting parties.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) stated that the two dates had
been suggested by Working Party 2 on Article XVIII. The date of
June 15th was recommended because it was desirable to have a certain
amount of time for consideration of the notifications between the
last date and the end of the conference.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) agreed that there might be some merit
in extending the date if it were objectionable to acceding govern-
ments but that decision might well be left to the Joint Working
Party on Accession.
In reply to a question by Mr. Larre (France) the CHAIRMAN
stated that the Contracting Parties might agree at this meeting
that if the acceding governments wished to extend the date and it
were so agreed in the Tariff Negotiations Committee, a further
decision by the Contracting Parties would not be necessary.
Mr. GARCIA OLDINI (Chile) thought that Mr. Hewitt's suggestion
was a practical one but that, in order to be fair, conditions for
the acceding governments should be exactly the same as those for
the contracting parties. The latter had had until the end of the
conference to give notifications and he considered that the Working
Party had proposed this date of June 15 with this intention. With
the extension of the conference, the date should be altered.
Mr. RODRIGUES (Brazil) pointed out that the acceding govern-
ments were in a better position now than the contracting parties
had been then, having all taken part in Havana and being aware of
the situation. He considered the date quite fair. GATT/CP.3/SR/23
page 3.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) pointed out that for the con-
tracting parties there had also been an interval of some 20 days
between the date of notification and the end of the conference.
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that this draft Protocol was intended
to serve as a basis for discussion in the Joint Working Party and
the Tariff Negotiations Committee and this particular point con-
cerned chiefly the acceding governments. It would be best to
await their views.
Paragraph 5 (c) was approved
Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 (a) were approved.
Paragraph 8 (b)
Mr. USMANI (Pakistan) called the attention of the Contracting
Parties to an anomaly that might arise out of this provision as
drafted. As a result of article XXVI, paragraph 5, it would be
possible for a small number of countries which had accepted or
acceded definitively to decide that other contracting parties
applying the Agreement provisionally should cease to be contracting
parties. He suggested that this might be overcome by substituting
in line 3 of paragraph 8 (b) "pursuant to paragraph 5" instead of
"paragraph 3".
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) agreed that this was theoretically
a possibility but considered that it arose from the terms of
paragraph 5 of Article 26 and he did not believe that the situation
would be altered by changing the reference in paragraph 8 (b).
The only way to deal with this question would be either by drawing
up a new Annex H with new percentages which would be very complicated
or by substituting for the phrase "at any time after the entry
into force" at the beginning of the paragraph a definite period of
time. He thought, however, that it might be best to wait and see
whether any acceding government raised the point. GATT/CP.3/SR/23
page 4.
The CHAIRMAN said that the second suggestion could not be
followed without amending paragraph 2 of Article XXXII and he
hoped this would not be done. The fact that there are acceding
governments would not alter the position under Article XXVI
paragraph 5, and the Annex H figures. He considered that it should
be left to the acceding government to accept or not the General
Agreement as it exists at present.
Mr. USMANI (Pakistan) agreed that it was an academic question
but thought it might prove embarrassing as such a decision must be
taken by a majority of all the Contracting Parties whether
applying the Agreement provisionally or definitively.
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that Article XXV, paragraph 4, to
which Mr. Usmani was referring, specifically says "except as
otherwise provided for in this agreement" and Article XXXII,
paragraph 2, is such an exception.
Mr. HOLLIS (United States) drew attention to the fact that
there was a technical difference between paragraph 8 (b) of the
Protocol and paragraph 2 of Article XXXII.
Under the former it would be possible for all Contracting
Parties, including acceding governments which had definitively
acceded to the Agreement, to determine that an acceding government
which was still applying the Agreement provisionally should cease to
be a contracting party. On the other hand, under the provisions
of paragraph 2 of Article XXXII, the right to determine that a
contracting party which was applying the Agreement only provisionally
should cease to be a contracting party, was restricted to such
contracting parties as had accepted the Agreement definitively
and did not include acceding governments which had acceded
definitively under the provisions of paragraph 8 (b) of the
Protocol. GATT/CP.3/SR/23
page 5.
Mr. USMANI (Pakistan) made some drafting suggestions and it
was finally decided to amend paragraph 8 (b) by the addition of
the words "paragraph 5 of" in the second sentence after the words
"pursuant to paragraph 8 (a) above" in the fourth line after the
words "instrument of accession."
Mr. LARRE (France) considered it indispensable to establish
a new Annex H as he did not see otherwise how Article XXVI could
be applied.
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that unless it were proposed to amend
the General Agreement, a new Annex was not necessary because
Article XXVI, paragraph 5, referred specifically to the signatories
of the Final Act at Geneva and the 85 percent referred to their
trade only. The trade of acceding governments depositing instruments
of accession would not contribute to the 85 percent.
Mr. GARCIA OLDINI (Chile) considered the point raised by the
delegate of France an important one and wondered whether there was
any reason not to amend Article XXVI at this time.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) saw no need for any amendment.
Article XXXIII provides for accession to this Agreement and the
Agreement itself provides for coming into force under the Terms
of Article XXVI. An amendment should, in fact, result in a
new Agreement between the various countries with a new provision
for coming into force rather than accession to the General
Agreement itself.
Paragraph 8 (b) was approved as altered.
Paragraph 9 was approved.
Paragraph 10 (a)
Mr. GARCIA OLDINI (Chile) inquired as to what would be the
situation of governments unable to sign by the date provided, as
he considered it unlikely that his own government would be able
to do so. GATT/CP.3/SR/23
page 6.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) said that the difficulty arose
only in the case of those governments which required a special act
of their legislatures in order to extend most-favoured-nation
treatment to acceding governments. He considered it a pity to
delay any further the date for signature and thought it likely that
sympathetic consideration would again be given to any request for
extension of time for signature by countries unable to sign by
the date specified in the Protocol.
Mr. SANTOS VERAS (Brazil) pointed out that his government
was in the same situation as Chile and he thought it more
practical to fix a later date.
Mr. GARCIA OLDINI (Chile) understood the drafting difficulty
of providing for this in the protocol but it was nonetheless
necessary to provide for the problem and perhaps it could be done
in the record of the meeting. This would be preferable to the
granting of an extension of time by the Contracting Parties later,
as a special concession to governments unable to sign by the date
fixed. It was not a question of making concessions but of
recognising facts.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) wished it placed on record that
sympathetic consideration would be given to a request for a waiver
under certain circumstances but hesitated to go so far as to say
definitively in advance that the waiver would be granted.
Mr. SANTOS VERAS (Brazil) agreed with Mr. Shackle's
suggestion.
In reply to a question from Mr. Hewitt, Mr. SANTOS VERAS
(Brazil) replied that the Brazilian Parliament recessed on 15
November and if approval was not given by that date, it could not
be given before Parliament reconvened on 31 May; Mr. GARCIA
OLDINI replied that the Chilean Parliament recessed on 15 September. GATT/CP.3/SR/23
page 7.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) said that, in the light of these
replies, it did not seem that a later date would help the situation.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) pointed out that, due to the
possible extension of the conference into august, it would be
technically very difficult for those countries which had to
prepare the text in their own languages to sign by October 31st.
The CHAIRMAN called the attention of the meeting to the
purpose for which this session of the Contracting Parties had
been called. It was to coincide with the Tariff Negotiations
and to permit the new countries to adhere to the General Agreements.
In the first draft of the Protocol, the date of signature was set
for the end of the session and all contracting parties were aware
before the beginning of the session that they would be expected to
take a decision at the end of the session under Article XXXII.
The three months' delay beyond the end of the session had been
accorded in order to give governments time to consider their decision.
It would be most undesirable, however, that this delay should be
unduly extended and the accession of governments which had been
invited to this session for that very purpose be thereby unduly
delayed.
The meeting adjourned at 12.30. |
GATT Library | st151zh1321 | Summary record of Thirty-seventh Meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy, on Monday, 8 August, at 2.30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, August 8, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 08/08/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.37 and GATT/CP.3/SR.37 + Corr.1,2,3 SR.38 + Corr.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/st151zh1321 | st151zh1321_90060150.xml | GATT_144 | 2,787 | 17,121 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR LIMITED B
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS GATT/CP.3/SR.37
8 August 1949
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Third Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THIRTY-SEVENTH MEETING
Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy,
on Monday, 8 August, at 2.30 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. L. D. Wilgress
Subject discussed: Cuban Statement on Margins of Preference
(continued)
The CHAIRMAN said that at the last meeting it had been
decided to give the Cuban delegation the opportunity to make a
further statement in support of their views. Before the close of
the meeting the Norwegian delegate had made a proposal on the legal
aspects of the case. This was the first item before the CONTRACTING
PARTIES, but decision on this would not mean that the Cuban delegation
and other delegations, in discussing the matter later, would be
restricted in the field of the discussion.
Mr. VARGAS GOMEZ (Cuba) thought that decision on the
Norwegian proposal first would have the effect of closing the debate.
After some discussion it was decided to hear the Cuban
statement first.
Mr. VARGAS GOMEZ (Cuba) made a statement which was
circulated as an unnumbered document to all delegations at the
meeting.
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that pages 26 and 27 of the
statement contained definite proposals on the part of Cuba which,
together with the Norwegian proposal, were before the meeting. He
pointed out that although the bilateral agreement between the United GATT/CP.3/SR.37
page 2
States and Cuba was outside the purview of the CONTRACTING PARTIES,
since it was included in the statement it could be referred to by
delegations but could not be taken into consideration in reaching
a decision. Any decision must be reached in the light of the
provisions of the General Agreement itself. With regard to the
proposal of the Cuban delegation in paragraph 68 (b) that the
CONTRACTING PARTIES submit the legal aspects of the case to an
International Court, he wished to explain that the CONTRACTING
PARTIES were not an organization authorized by the United Nations
to request advisory opinions from the International Court of
Justice. Advisory opinions from the Court may only be sought
by the United Nations and by specialized agencies authorized to
do so by the Assembly of the United Nations.
Mr. VARGAS GOMEZ (Cuba) reserved the position of his
delegation for further investigation to try and find a formula
whereby the CONTRACTING PARTIES could bring this case before the
Court.
Mr. EMANS (United States) said that his delegation was
unable to present a complete answer at this stage and, for the
sake of expeditions termination of the work of the CONTRACTING PARTIES,
hoped either to refrain from presenting an answer, or to reserve
their right to submit a reply at a later date. He wished, however,
to make a few points. 1) The bilateral agreement was, as the
Chairman said, outside the scope of the CONTRACTING PARTIES.
However, since much of the Cuban paper had been devoted to this,
he wished to point out that his delegation did not consider the
Cuban statement a complete presentation of all the pertinent facts
of the bilateral agreement. 2) With regard to the effect of the
reduction of these particular preferences, he had stated in the
preceding meeting that in the opinion of the United States they
would not have any major effects on the Cuban economy. For instance,
the products whose preferences were effected constituted 9.7% of
the total United States imports from Cuba, and of this percentage
only a small fraction consisted of imports where the preference was
eliminated entirely. In the other cases the margins of preference
remained and in some cases these were substantial. He also read a GATT/CP .3/SR.37
page 3
decision just reached by the United States to withdraw the offer
made to the Dominican Republic involving a reduction in the sugar
preference. This statement, he said, should be considered as
secret, as all offers were considered secret. 3) With regard
to the charges that the United States had refused to negotiate at
Annecy, he explained that the Cuban Embassy had sent a note expressing
concern that sugar was on the list of items to be negotiated at
Annecy and requesting that negotiations be carried on with Cuba as
well. The State Department had replied that negotiations had been
carried on with Cuba in Geneva and it was not intended to reopen
these negotiations. However, the United States would be glad to
consult with Cuba on any product in which that Government had
expressed an interest. The impossibility of carrying out these
consultations arose from the fact that the Cuban request was not for
consultation but a demand based on the legal principles they had
presented here, and on which the CONTRACTING PARTIES were now asked
to take a decision. The United States was unable to accept their
interpretation. 4) The present statement of the Cuban delegation
again raised the same legal issues on which there had already been
much discussion. The Cuban paper raised one new legal argument on
page 20, paragraph 53, namely, that the inclusion of preferential
rates in the schedule implies the maintenance of the preferential
margin. He wished to state that at the time of the negotiations in
Geneva, preferential rates were in effect and where they were not
immediately eliminated it was in the interest of the country enjoying
the preferential rate to have it stated in the schedule. The only
mechanism whereby it could be shown was in a separate part of the
schedule embodying preferential rates. Furthermore, he pointed out
that in Geneva the Cuban delegation had been very interested in the
actual rates of preference and their reduction and it was not only
the margins of preference that they were concerned with. 5) With
reference to the establishment of a working party, he said he had
objected and would have to continue objecting to the establishment
of a working party which attempted to interpret the bilateral treaty
or to discuss the legal interpretations proposed by the Cuban
delegation. He would not object to a working party being established
eventually to consider the Cuban case under Article XXIII. However, GATT/CP.3/SR.37
page 4
this was not the proper time for such a working party. Article XXIII
calls for an effort by countries to reach a bilateral solution and
only after the failure of such an effort to take the case to the
CONTRACTING PARTIES. There had been no claim by Cuba for consideration
of the case or for compensation under Article XXIII and, consequently,
a working party could not be set up at this stage. 6) He had
little to add to the Chairman's remarks concerning the International
Court but he did wish the CONTRACTING PARTIES to keep clear the
difference between submitting a case of the interpretation of the
General Agreement to the Court by the CONTRACTING PARTIES and the
submission by the United States and Cuba of the bilateral agreement
for interpretation. The fact that the CONTRACTING PARTIES could
not present the case as drawn up at present would not preclude
submission of the case by the United States and Cuba. Finally, he
wished to support the Norwegian resolution.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) considered the Norwegian proposal
in its amended form acceptable. He thought that the three paragraphs
contained clear and correct statements of fact. He did suggest,
however, that the last sentence of the footnote be eliminated as,
although correct, it was irrelevant to the present case. He also
pointed out that the draft decision did not purport to relate to all
the issues involved, as was shown in the last sentence, and he was
confident that the CONTRACTING PARTIES would be glad to give full
consideration to any claims brought under Article XXIII. He hoped,
however, that Cuba and the United States would be able to reach a
solution between themselves. With regard to resort to the Court, he
thought that it would be useful, if the case were presented to the
Court, that it be presented in such a way that the Court's decision
would be helpful to the future work of the CONTRACTING PARTIES. If
there were any question of resort to the Court, however, he thought
it should not be permitted to delay accession of any new countries.
Mr. COELHO (India) enquired whether Norway still wished to
press for a decision on the legal issues, as he understood that Cuba
had removed the legal issues from the debate. With regard to the right
of the CONRACTING PARTIES to seek a ruling of the Court, he thought
that if this right did not exist it was a serious lacuna in the General GATT/CP .3/SR.37
page 5
Agreement. He enquired whether it was not rather a case of the
competence of the Court to take up such a matter than of the right
of the CONTRACTING PARTIES to present it.
The CHAIRMAN said that Mr. Coelho's interpretation was
correct. There was nothing in the General Agreement preventing
reference to the Court. However, the CONTRACTING PARTIES acting
jointly were precluded from presenting a case by the Statute of the
Court itself. Article XXV of the Agreement provides for joint action
by the CONTRACTING PARTIES and he interpreted the words "with a view
to facilitating the operation and furthering the objectives of this
Agreement", in paragraph 1, as enabling the CONTRACTING PARTIES acting
jointly to interpret the Agreement whenever they saw fit. It was
open to any government disagreeing with an interpretation to take the
dispute which had given rise to such an interpretation to the
International Court, although neither a government nor the CONTRACTING
PARTIES acting jointly could take ruling of the CONTRACTING PARTIES
to the Court.
Mr. THOMASSEN (Norway) said that he had no explanations of
a general nature with regard to his proposal. In reply to Mr. Coelho,
he stated that, in view of the remarks of the United States, and
provided the Cubans would withdraw the item from the Agenda of the
present session and undertake bilateral talks with the United States,
it was not the wish of the Norwegian delegation to press for a decision
on the legal questions now.
Mr. JAYASURIYA (Ceylon) thought it inappropriate for the
CONTRACTING PARTIES to debate the Norwegian resolution at this stage,
in view of the various possibilities that had been presented. A
decision on the legal issues would inevitably prejudice one of the
parties to any bilateral attempt to reach a settlement. He suggested
postponing consideration of the Norwegian proposal until the results
of any bilateral negotiations were known.
In reply to a question from Mr. Reisman (Canada),
Mr. VARGAS GOMEZ (Cuba) said that his delegation was not prepared to
withdraw the item from the Agenda. They had suggested a procedure in GATT/CP .3/SR.37
page 6
the conclusions to the paper.
Mr. REISMAN (Canada) said that the Cuban paper concerned
itself mainly with the bilateral agreement between the United
States and Cuba, which was not capable of being judged by the
CONTRACTING PARTIES. He thought that, consequently, it raised no
new matters. With regard to the suggestion on page 16, paragraph
41, that there be two interpretations, one for all contracting
parties and one for the United-States and Cuba, he thought this
impossible as there must be one set of rules for all and, if such
an alternative interpretation were to be based on the bilateral
agreement, the CONTRACTING PARTIES were not competent to make it.
With regard to setting up the working party, he thought it seemed
clear that the legal issues had been considered in great delail and
settled in the Working Party on Accession. If a working party were
set up under Article XXIII, he agreed with the United States that
this could not occur before bilateral talks had taken place between
the two governments. As to the International Court, this might perhaps
be a solution, but he hoped that it could be settled without this
recourse. On paragraph 68 (c), which was one of the solutions
proposed by the Cuban delegation, the CONTRACTING PARTIES should
take a decision now and this involved acting on the Norwegian proposal.
If that were agreed to, it would mean rejecting paragraph (c). He
considered that a decision should be taken now on the Norwegian
proposal and his delegation would support it.
In reply to a question by the Chairman, Mr. THOMMESSEN
(Norway) agreed to the proposed elimination of the last sentence
of the footnote.
Mr. MULLER (Chile) thought that a decision could be taken
now on paragraphs 2 and 3 and the last sentence. However, he thought
paragraph 1 should either be eliminated or, if it were retained, the
entire footnote should be retained. Otherwise it would be dangerously
general.
Mr SHACKLE (United Kingdom) said he would not press his
suggestion. GATT/CP .3/SR .37
page 7
Mr. RODRIGUEZ (Brazil) said he was in general in favour
of the suggestion but not completely so of its form. He thought it
particularly dangerous to accept paragraph 1 without instructions
from his Government, as it was such a broad statement. He suggested
some drafting modifications in paragraph 3. Namely, the deletion
of the last sentence and the addition of the words "being understood,
however, that a country which enjoys preferential treatment is
entitled to receive compensation in accordance with Article XXIII".
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) thought that the suggested
change would make a general affirmation which was not necessarily
correct in all cases.
In reply to a question from the Chairman, Mr. RODRIGUEZ
(Brazil) said he would not press his amendment but would then have
to abstain from voting on the proposal.
Mr. COELHO (India) proposed postponing, if necessary until
after the close of the session, a decision on the Norwegian proposal
in order that instructions might be received from governments.
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that this was in effect a proposal
to adjourn discussion on the Cuban statement as a whole, as the
Chair had already ruled that the Norwegian proposal must be considered
first.
Mr. EVANS (United States) spoke against the motion for
adjournment. He explained that either the Cubans would have to
withdraw their paper or the CONTRACTING PARTIES take the decision
proposed in the Norwegian paper here, otherwise the Cuban paper
would cast doubt on all the negotiations carried on in Annecy.
Mr. REISMAN (Canada) spoke against the motion for adjournment
and pointed out that there had been adequate time to receive
instructions.
Mr. JAYASURIYA (Ceylon) spoke in favour of the motion for
adjournment for the reasons he had expressed previously, that such
a decision taken now would prejudice any bilateral negotiations. GATT/CP .3/SR.37
page 8
The result of the vote on the motion was two in favour to
eleven against, and it was defeated.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) thought that the merit of the
Norwegian proposal was that it made clear, simple statements of
fact and did not necessarily dispose of the whole case, as in the
last paragraph it recognized the right of resort to Article XXIII.
It also had the merit that, against the background of such a decision,
other means of deciding upon the Cuban and United States statements
would be isolated, such as by means of the provisions of Article
XXIII. He disagreed with the change suggested by the delegate of
Brazil, as he thought it inadequately referred to Article XXIII. He
suggested that the document be taken section by section, which method
would enable the differing points of view on the various statements
to be isolated.
The CHAIRMAN said he would regard Mr. Hewitt's proposal as a
request under Rule 26 that parts of a proposal could be decided upon
separately.
Mr. WUNZ KING (China) appealed to the two parties to make a
further effort for bilateral settlement. At one point, he considered,
they were close to agreement. The Cuban delegation had suggested
resorting to Article XXIII and the United States delegation had agreed
that this was a possibility. The Norwegian delegate had also stated
that he would withdraw his proposal if the Cuban delegation would withdraw,
its paper, and the Cuban statement that they would have recourse to
Article XXIII was tantamount to withdrawal. If this view were accepted,
the way was open for the CONTRACTING PARTIES to give a ruling to request
that the two parties attempt to reach an agreement under Article XXIII.
Both could reserve their right in the event of failure to return to the
original Cuban paper and the Norwegian proposal. He therefore formally
proposed that the CONTRACTING PARTIES request the two countries to make
another attempt to settle the question under Article XXIII, the first
stage of which was direct consultation.
The CHAIRMAN proposed adjourning the discussion.
The meeting rose at 6.15 p.m. |
GATT Library | bg746zx3857 | Summary records of the Forty-fourth Meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy on Saturday, 13 August 1949 at 2.30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, August 13, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 13/08/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.44 and GATT/CP.3/SR.42, 43, 44 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/bg746zx3857 | bg746zx3857_90060168.xml | GATT_144 | 0 | 0 | |
GATT Library | rb500yh5125 | Summary records of the Forty-fourth Meeting : Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy on Saturday, 13 August 1949 at 2.30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, August 13, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 13/08/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/SR.44 and GATT/CP.3/SR.42, 43, 44 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/rb500yh5125 | rb500yh5125_90060168.xml | GATT_144 | 3,424 | 21,832 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR LIMITED GATT/CP.3/SR.44
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS 13 August 1949
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE Original: English
CONTRACTIG PARTIES
Third Session
SUMMARY RECORDS OF THE FORTY-FOURTH MEETING
Held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy
on Saturday, 13 August 1949 at 2.30 p.m.
Chairman: Hon. L.D. WILGRESS (Canada)
Subjects Discussed:
1. Third Set of Tariff Negotiations (Continued)
2. Sixth and Seventh Reports of Working Party 2 on
the Ceylon Application.
3. Report on the Work of the CONTRACTING PARTIES.
4. Activities of the International Custom Tariff Bureau.
5. Resolution of Gratitude to the French Authorities.
6. Closing Speech of the Chairman.
1. Third set of Tariff Negotiations (GATT/CP.3/77) (continued)
The CHAIRMAN summarized the conclusions reached at the
preceding meeting. As for the countries to be invited, he thought the
negotiations should be as universal as possible, to cover all de Jure
and de facto authorities customarily independent in the conduct of their
diplomatic or trade relations. The procedure followed prior to the
second set of negotiations would still leave out certain areas and
de facto governments. It was therefore proposed that in addition to
the participants in the Havana Conference and the members of the United
Nations, countries like Israel should be approached which had subsequently
become members or were seeking membership of the United Nations. A
question would arise in regard to Korea and Germany; the former was
listed in the Annex to the Secretariat Note because the permanent
observer of that country at Lake Success had approached the Executive
Secretary on the question of membership in the I.T.O., and the
Executive Secretary had replied that he would bring the matter to the
attention of the contracting parties. GATT/CP.3/SR.44
page 2
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) thought it would be
sufficient to inform all the countries which had participated in the
Havana Conference and members of the United Nations. As there were at
present two Germanies and two Koreas it was doubtful whether the
contracting parties should deal with authorities in de facto control
of a part of a country whose status was unrecognized. Even though
an enquiry is not an invitation it would not be consistent with
international courtesy not to invite any country if it had replied
affirmatively to an enquiry as to its desire to participate in such
negotiations. He therefore proposed that neither Korea nor Germany
should be taken into consideration by the Working Party.
Mr. LECUYER (France) supported the reference of the whole
matter to the Working Party for detailed and careful study. The
remarks by the CHAIRMAN and the representative of Czechoslovakia had
provided a sound guidance for the Working Party on the question of the
list of countries to be invited. His delegation would have to make
a reservation with regard to the inclusion of Germany on the
invitation list in view of the unstable economic and political
situation of that country which made it difficult for his delegation
to partake in a decision. Article XXVI of the Agreement, in his
opinions indicated that no country could participate in such
negotiations unless it enjoyed some degree of autonomy.
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) said it was difficult to say whether
Germany should be invited or not. In the first place, Germany was not
at present an independent state and since there would eventually be a
German state, the result of any negotiations with the present authorities
would be purely temporary. It would be essential to have Germany
participate in the negotiations as soon as there was a German government,
but not before that. Besides, it would be unprofitable to negotiate with
the present authorities as the trade of that country was still highly
unstable.
Mr. BOEKSTAL (Netherlands) referring to his earlier proposal
in relation to the provisions of Article 71 of the Havana Charter,
enquired whether the Chairman upheld his proposal. GATT/CP .3/SR . 44
page 3
Mr. RODRIGUES (Brazil) was of the opinion that since the
GATT as well as the future I.T.O. was of the nature of a specialized
agency functioning under the auspices of the United Nations, it might
be useful to request the United Nations for guidance on the political
aspect of the question on hand. If that should not be feasible, the
Secretary-General of the United Nations might be approached for
advice. As regards the economic aspect, all economists were agreed
that there could be no stability for the European economy without
trade with Germany. On the question of procedure, Mr. RODRIGUES felt
that the draft report or memorandum of the Working Party should also
be circulated among the invited countries; difficulties might arise
if they were not allowed to participate in the formulation of the
rules of procedure for the negotiations.
Mr. MULLER (Chile) agreed with the representative of Belgium
that it would be unnecessary to invite countries possessing no
international status but he felt that as such status might undergo
changes in the meantime, decision on the question could be left until
the Fourth Session. Mr. MULLER, whilst agreeing to the appointment of
a Working Party to study the Memorandum contained in the Secretariat
Note, felt that a thorough discussion by the CONTRACTING PARTIES
was indispensable before any decision could be taken. Since no
opportunity would be provided for such discussion if a vote was to be
taken by post, certain general limitations should be laid down to the
terms of reference of the Working Party which by necessity must be very
broad. For instance, he would suggest that no recommendation should be
made by the Working Party contrary to the suggestions in paragraph I
(a), (b) or (c) of the draft Memorandum.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) supported the suggestion
of the Chilean representative and agreed that the question connected
with unrecognized governments should be left for consideration at the
Fourth session. He pointed out that the question of recognizing a
part of Germany as a member of an international organization was an
entirely different one from the question of trade with Germany. There
was no intention to interfere with the flow of trade with Germany, but
it was not necessary to confer on that country the status of a
recognized political entity until its government was stabilized. It GATT/CP.3/SR.44
page 4
would he politically prejudicial for its future to recognize any
of its present administrative authorities or to sponsor negotiations
therewith.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY (United States) felt, however, that the
trade problems were not less real than political and constitutional
problems. It was the view of the United States delegation that no
action should be taken by the CONTRACTING PARTIES at present that
would have the effect of precluding Germany from participating.
Even though for various reasons it was not known whether that country
would be able to accept an invitation, the possibility of its
participation should not be ruled out. The recommendations of the
Working Party should therefore provide for the possibility of inclusion
of Western Germany in the list of countries to be invited and the
possibility of further discussion on the question at the Fourth Session.
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that it had been the practice of
the United Nations to invite any authorities which had a direct
interest in the subject matter of a particular conference. This
was examplified in the Resolution of 1 August 1947 of the Economic
and Social Council convening the Havana Conference. In referring the
question to a Working Party, a general guidance should be provided to
the Working Party, and the Working Party could, whenever there should
be a doubtful case arising, consult with the contracting parties.
Following the suggestion of the Netherlands representative, he would
formulate the general principle as follows: That is, invitations should
be sent to:
a) those countries which accepted the invitation to participate
in the Havana Conference provided they are eligible for
membership of the I.T.O. under Article 71 of the Havana
Charter, and
b) those countries which were not invited to the Havana
Conference but which would be eligible for membership
of the I.T.O. under the provisions of Article 71 of the
Havana Charter.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) said that in view of the
complicated nature of the problems referred to the Working Party, it
seemed impracticable for a final decision to be taken by postal ballot. GATT/CP.3/SR. 44
page 5
He, therefore, suggested that discretion should be left with the
Chairman and the Executive Secretary and at least in regard to the
question of invitation, the Chairman and the Executive Secretary
should be empowered to take the necessary steps under the guidance
of the principles of the Havana Charter and the criterion of tariff
and trade autonomy.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) was agreeable to the
suggestions to leave the responsibility to the Chairman and the
Executive Secretary but added that they should inform all contracting
parties and seek their opinion in regard to any doubtful cases.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) said that the views of the
Australian government regarding occupied areas had already been
expressed on certain occasions but in the absence of instructions
his delegation was unable to take a definite stand at present on the
specific question connected with the tariff negotiations. He felt
that no decision should be taken at this stage and that the Working
Party should also be entrusted with the study of the means by which
a decision on this question could be taken.
The CHAIRMAN concluded that the concerns of opinion at
this meeting had indicated that the question could be left entirely
With the Working Party which could consult with the contracting
parties in case of doubt, and the contracting parties could give
their views to the Working Party if they so wished. It was understood
that the Working Party should send invitations to all countries with
an unquestioned status, but it should consult the contracting
parties in regard to any marginal cases.
The terms of reference proposed by the Chairman were adopted, as
follows:
(a) To study the possibility of arranging for a third set of
tariff negotiations on the basis of the draft Memorandum
attached to document GATT/CP.3/77 and in the light of the
discussion at the meeting of the CONTRACTING PARTIES on
13 August 1949; and GATT/CP .3/SR . 44
page 6
(b) To instruct the Executive Secretary to circulate the
report on or about 30 September to the contracting parties
and to request a reply by 30 October 1949 as to whether or
not they are prepared to arrange for a third set of
negotiations on the basis of that report.
Upon the proposal of the CHAIRMAN, and several supplementary
suggestions having been taken into account, the following countries were
appointed to the Working Party:
Australia Netherlands
Belgium Norway
Canada United Kingdom
Czechoslovakia United States
France
Mr. KING (China) wished it to be placed on record that the
Chinese government would welcome an invitation to Korea if it should
be so recommended by the working Party.
The CHAIRMAN said that the remark of the Chinese representative
would no doubt be taken into account by the Working Party.
2. Sixth and Seventh Report of Working Party 2 on Ceylon Application
(GATT/CP.3/73 Rev. 1 and 85)
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) as Chairman of Working Party 2,
presented the last two reports of the Working Party. He pointed
out that of all the items in the Ceylon application five were
found at the end of the Annecy re-negotiation to remain in the
Ceylon Schedule. These were considered under paragraph 5 of
Article XVIII and the recommendations of the Working Party were
set out in paragraph 59 of the report. The other items were
considered under paragraph 7 of article XVIII, and recommendations GATT/CP.3/SR.44
page 7
regarding these were set forth in the Sixth Report, with
the exception of one item which was examined under paragraph 8,
and the recommendations thereon were made in the separate Seventh
Report.
Mr. DESAI (India) said that his delegation had willingly
agreed to the granting of the releases, as the economic development
of Ceylon was also of interest together neighbouring countries.
However, since it had been difficult for the Working Party to
Formulate conditions for the operation of the releases which
would preclude any abuse, it was sincerely hoped that in
administering the Industrial Products Act, the Ceylon Government
would keep in mind the provisions of paragraph 7 (b) of
Article XVIII and endeavour to reduce any ensuing dislocation
in trade to a minimum.
Mr. JAYASURIYA. (Ceylon) assured the representative
of India that due regard would be paid to the provisions of
paragraph 7 (a) in the administration of the Act.
Section A of the Report was considered and the granting
of a release in respect of plywood panels and ornamental plywood
as recommended in paragraph 16 of the report was approved. GATT/CP. 3/SR. 44
page 8
Section B was considered and the release in respect of boots,
shoes and sandals as recommended in paragraph 20 was approved.
Section C was considered and the release in respect of volley
balls as recommended in paragraph 22 was approved.
Section D was considered and the release in respect of acetic
acid and wood preservative recommended in paragraph 27 was approved.
Section E was considered and the release in respect of shark
liver oil as recommended in paragraph 30 was approved.
Section F was considered and the release in respect of pyrodite
as recommended in paragraph 33 was approved.
Section G was considered and the release in respect of iron and
steel products as recommended in paragraph 38 was approved.
Section H was considered and the release in respect of cotton
textiles and cotton lace as recommended in paragraph 42 was approved.
Section I was considered and the release in respect of rubber
products as recommended in paragraph 45 was approved.
Section J was considered and the release in respect of paper
as recommended in paragraph 50 was approved.
Section L was considered and the release in respect of ink as
recommended in paragraph 56 was approved.
Section M concerning the five items considered under paragraph
5 of Article XVIII was considered and the recommendations set forth
in paragraph 58 were approved. The release in respect of these
five items as set forth in sub-paragraph 59 (e) was accordingly
granted.
At the suggestion of Mr. EVANS (United States) the meeting also
took note of the statements in paragraph 12 of the report regarding
the conditions under which the releases were to be granted.
The Sixth Report was approved.
Mr. RODRIGUES (Brazil) stated that the use of the expression
"comparable quality" in sub-paragraph 12 (a) and in the preamble to
the Annex should have no effect on the position which his delegation
had always been taking. GATT/CP. 3/SR .44
page 9
The Seventh Report was considered and the recommendations of
the Working Party as contained in paragraph 2 thereof were approved.
The decision annexed to the report permitting Ceylon to introduce
the proposed measures pending a decision by the CONTRACTING PARTIES
at their next session was also approved, by 16 votes to none.
The Seventh Report was approved as a whole.
Mr. JAYASURIYA (Ceylon) expressed on behalf of his
delegation its gratitude to members of the Working Party for the
objective way in which the meetings of that Working Party had been
conducted and especially to its Chairman for the moderation and
dignity he had shown in handling the application.
The CHAIRMAN expressed on behalf of the contracting parties
their appreciation of the achievement of the Working Party and
especially paid tribute to its Chairman.
Mr. EVANS (United States) felt that such success as was
found in the work of the group was chiefly due to the perseverence
and diligence of its Chairman.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) thanked the representatives for
their commendation.
Mr. DESAI (India) said he shared the same sentiments with
the representative of Ceylon.
3. Report on the Work of the Contracting Parties.
The CHAIRMAN brought to the attention of the representatives
that a draft of the report has been circulated to the heads of
delegations and comments had been requested; the report had been
amended to the satisfaction of the delegations which had proposed
changes. The publication of the report was approved.
4. Activities of the International Customs Tariff Bureau
(GATT/CP. 3/86)
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) proposing the adoption of the draft
resolution, outlined the activities of the Bureau and the purposes of
the Resolution. GATT/CP. 3/SR. 44
page 10
With reference to paragraph (1) of the operative part of the
Resolution, he stated that all information was available at his
delegation for consultation regarding the arrears of subscriptions
due to the Bureau.
Regarding the third point, he said that tariff modifications
were notified to the Bureau by most countries in a manner exceedingly
inconvenient for their incorporation in the publications of the
Bureau. Only the United Kingdom and Canada had established the
practice of sending regular notifications in an easily accessible
form. He would, therefore, urge that contracting parties should
communicate any changes in their customs tariffs schedules by means
of a standard form of notification or index cards instead of
despatching bulky literature.
Mr. LECUYER (France) said that the French delegation would
give strong support to the proposal in view of the importance of the
work performed by the Bureau to governments and to the public at
large. He also gave assurance that the French government would
participate in the conference referred to in paragraph (2) of the
Resolution.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) said his delegation was
unable to support the Resolution because he felt it was difficult
to commit his government to increase its subscription without
prior consideration. The budget which had been presented to
governments in the previous years had been involved and did not
bear out clearly the need for an increase in the Bureau's budget
in relation to its activities. Furthermore, the world situation
had changed so much since the turn of the century that the work
performed by the Bureau along the lines set down in 1890 hardly
corresponded to the present requirements. In particular, the
translation of tariffs into certain languages had become unnecessary
and, therefore, reconstruction and adaptation of the Bureau was
needed before any consideration could be given by his Government to
the financial requirements of the Bureau.
Mr. RODRIGUES (Brazil) supported the French representative
and said that the financial support proposed in the Resolution was GATT/CP.3/SR .44
page 11
necessary to see the Bureau through the interim period before the
establishment of the I.T.O. without which it would be unable to
continue its useful work, for which commendation had been almost
universal. He would therefore recommend to his Government the
acceptance of the Resolution.
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) thanked the representatives of France
and Brazil and said he also agreed with the criticism of the Czecho-
slovakian representative. Accordingly, he proposed to amend
paragraph (2) to read : ..... "its agenda to include the examination
of the method for financing the Bureau, pending ....". The
Resolution concerning the granting of financial assistance and the
furnishing of documentation to the International Customs Tariff
Bureau in the amended form was unanimously approved.
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) expressed his gratitude for the
consideration of the contracting parties.
5. Resolution of Gratitude to the French Authorities (GATT/CP.3/87)
The CHAIRMAN introduced the draft Resolution and proposed
its adoption.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) suggested substituting the
words: "The people in Annecy" for "the very many individuals and
organizations" in the last paragraph.
The Resolution as amended was unanimously approved.
Mr. LECUYUR (France) said that the remarks and the
Resolution would be greatly appreciated by the local authorities and
the people of Annecy.
6. Closing Remarks by the Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN delivered a closing speech (see document
GATT/CP.3/90). GATT/CP. 3/SR. 44
page 12
Mr. WILLOUGHBY (United States) said that he was in full
agreement with the CHAIRMAN' remarks. He would like to say that
the success of any conference was due in large measure to its officers,
and the contracting parties had been extremely fortunate in having a
chairman who was capable of keeping their discussions in their right
course and of conducting the meetings in an impartial and unaffected
manner.
The CHAIRMAN expressed gratitude on behalf of all the
officers.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) associated himself with
the remarks of the United States representative regarding the ability
of the Chairman and also of the Vice-Chairman.
Mr. DESAI (India) was of the same opinion.
The CHAIRMAN said that he would convey the sentiments
of the representatives to Mr. BLANKENSTEN and declared the close
of the third session of the CONTRACTING PARTIES.
The meeting rose at 6:30 p.m. |
GATT Library | st188wx9896 | Supplementary report of the joint working party on accession to the contracting parties and the Tariff Negotiations Committee | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, August 12, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 12/08/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/83, GATT/TN.1/32, and GATT/CP.3/83 + Add.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/st188wx9896 | st188wx9896_90320328.xml | GATT_144 | 3,072 | 19,718 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS
GATT/ CP. 3/83
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE GATT/TN.1/32
12 August 1949
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Tariff Negotiations Committee
SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT OF THE JOINT WORKING PARTY
ON ACCESSION TO THE CONTRACTING PARTIES AND THE
TARIFF NEGOTIATIONS COMMITTEE
1. Protocol of Accession - Statement by the United States
Delegation (GATT/CP.3/70)
The Working Party, having heard further explanations by the
representative of the United States regarding the difficulties
the Annecy Protoocl of accession as at present drafted might
present to his Government, recommends to the Tariff Negotiations
Committee and the CONTRACTING PARTIES the attached draft documents:
The first is a draft of a decision of terms of accession to
be known as the Annecy Decision on Terms of Accession to the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, This Decision embodies the terms
of accession in substantially the same form as these included in
the former draft protocol. Annexed to the Decision would be the
schedules of present contracting parties (Annex A), with the same
numbersas other existing schedules and with Schedule XX (United
States of Amerioa) containing a separate division for each acceding
government. There would also be annexed the schedules of the
acceding governments (Annex B). In addition to the Decision,
there would be a separate protocol for the accession of each
acceding government. This protocol would contain provisions for
the entry into force of the concessions contained in a Schedule
containing separate divisions for individual acceding governments,
The concessions of other contracting parties would enter into force
in accordance with paragraph 3 of the Decision. The separate - 2 - protocol would also contain any special provisions regarding
preferences which were previously in the Draft Protocol of Terms
of Accession. It is provided in the Decision that, upon signature
by two-thirds of the present contracting parties of the Protocol
for the accession of a particular acceding government, it (the
Decision) shall constitute a decision taken under Article XXXIII
of the General Agreement relating to the accession of that
government.
In summary, the present proposal does not differ in any
substantial degree from the scheme of the present Draft Protocol.
All contracting parties who wish to do so will be able to embody
their Annecy concessions in consolidated schedules, whereas it will
be open to any of them to have a schedule with a separate division
for each acceding government. The terms of accession embodied in
the Decision are incorporated by reference in each separate protocol.
2. Protocol embodying results of United Kingdom/Norway negotiations
(GATT/CP/3/74).
In view of the recommendation in 1) above, the United Kingdom
and Norwegian delegations have withdrawn their proposal for a
separate protocol to embody the results of the negotiations
between the United Kingdom and Norway (GATT/CP/3/74).
3. Import restrictions on items which may be included in the
Italian Schedule of Concessions (GATT/CP.3/81).
The Working Party considered that the objective aimed at in
the suggestion contained in GATT/CP.3/81, i.e. the insertion of
a paragraph in the Protocol of accession or in the Italian Schedule,
could be more simply achieved by a waiver under Article XXV (5) (a)
of the General Agreement. They therefore recommend the adoption by
the CONTRACTING PRTIES of the following Decision:
"The CONTRACTING PARTIES, on the basis of Article XXV (5) (a)
of the General agreement on Tariffs and Trade, decide that,
notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph 13 of - 3- Article XVIII, the Italian Government may continue to apply
to radio electric apparatus listed in Items .........................*
of the new Italian tariff , on which the duties are consolidated
in che Schedule of tariff concessions negotiated by the
Italian Government at Annecy, the measures which it has
notified to the CONTRACTING PARTIES under the terms of
paragraph 11 of Article XVIII, pending e. decision by the
CONTRACTING PARTIES under paragraph 12 of particle XVIII."
* The tariff items will be inserted at the time when the Decision
is considered by the CONTRACTING PARTIES. - 4 -
ANNECY DECISION ON TERMS OF ACCESSION TO THE
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
WHEREAS Article XXXIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade (hereinafter referred to as "the General Agreement")
enables a government not a party to the General Agreement to
accede to it upon terms to be agreed between such government and
the CONTRACTING PARTIES to the General Agreement, and
HAVING REGARD to the results of the negotiations directed
towards the accession of the Governments of
(horeinafter referred to as "the acceding governments") to the
General Agreement,
THE CONTRACTING PARTIES DECIDE, by two-thirds majorities,
in the manner provided in paragraph 11 of this Decision, upon
the accession to tho General Agreement of the acceding govern-
ments on the terms set forth in this d cision and in the respective
protocols for the accession of such governments which are
annexed hereto.
1. (a) Subject to the provisions of this decision and of the
protocol for the accession of a particular acceding
government, that acceding government shall, upon the
entry into force of such protocol, apply provisionally:
(i) Parts I "nd II of the General Agreement, and
(ii) Part II of the General Agreement to the fullest
extent not inconsistent with its legislation
existing on the date of this Decision.
(b) The obligations incorporated in paragraph I of Article
I of the General Agreement by reference to Article
III thereof and these incorporated in paragraph 2(b)
of Article II by reference to Article VI shall be - 5 -
considered as falling within Part II of the General
Agreement for the purpose of this paragraph,
(c) For the purposes of the General Agreement, the schedules
contained in Annex B to this Decision shall be regarded
as Schedules to the General Agreement relating to
acceding governments.
2. Upon the entry into force of the protocol for the accession
of a particular acceding government, that government shall
become a contracting party as defined in Article XXXII of the
General Agreement.
3. If the schedule relating to a government which is a
contracting party to the General Agreement on the date of
this Decision (hereinafter referred to as a "present"
contracting party") has separate divisions for individual
acceding governments, the concessions provided for in such
schedule shall enter into force as provided for in the
respective protocols annexed hereto. The concessions pro-
vidod for in each other schedule relating to a present
contracting party and contained in Annxe A to this Decision
shall not enter into force for that contracting party unless
notification of the intention to apply these concessions has
first been received by the Secretary-General of the United
Nations from, that contracting party. Such concessions shall
thereafter enter into force for that contracting party either
on the date on which a protocol annexed to this Decision
first enters into force or on the thirtieth day following
the day upon which such notification is received by the
Secretary-General, whichever is the later. Such notifica-
tion shall only be effective if received by the Secretary- - 6 -
General not later than April 30, 1950. Upon the entry
into force of such concessions, the appropriate schedule
shall be regarded is a Schedule to the General Agreement
relating to that contracting party.
4. Any resent contracting party which has given the
notification referred to in paragraph 3 with respect to
any schedule which does not contain divisions for separate
acceding governments, any acceding government which has
signed the protocol for its accession, shall be free at
any time to withhold or withdraw in whole or in part any
concessions, provided for in the appropriate schedule
contained in Annex A er B to this Decision in respect of
which such contracting party or acceding government
determines that it was initially negotiated with an
acceding government which has not signed the protocol for
its accession or present contracting party which has
not given such notification; Provided that the present
contracting party or acceding government withholding or
withdrawing in whole or in part any such concession shall
give notice to all other present contracting parties and
acceding governments within thirty days after the date of
such withholding or withdrawl and, upon request, shell
consult with the contracting parties which have a sub-
stantial interest in the product concerned; and Provided
further that, without prejudice to the provisions of
Article XXXV of the General Agreement, any concession so
withheld or withdrawn shall be applied from the thirtieth
day following the day upon which the acceding government
or present contracting party with which it was initially
negotiated signs the protocol for the accession of such
government or gives the notification referred to in
paragraph 3. 5. (a) In each case in which Article II of the General
Agreement refers to the date of that Agreement, the
applicable date in respect of the schedules annexed
to this Decision shall be the date of this Decision.
(b) In cach case in which paragraph 6 of Article V, sub-
paragraph 4 (d) of Article VII and sub-paragraph 3 (c)
of Article X of the General Agreement refers to the
date of that Agreement, the applicable date in r esps et
of cach acceding government shall be March 24, 1948.
(c) In the case of the references in paragraph 11 of
Article XVIII of tho General Agreement to September 1,
1947 and Octobor 10, 1947, the applicable dates in
respect of each acceding government shall be May 14,
1949 and July 15, 1949, respectively.
6. The provisions of the General Agreement to be applied by
an according government shall be those contained in the text
annexed to the Final Act of the Second Session of the Pre-
paratory Committee of the United Nations Conference on
Trade and Employment as rectified, amended, or otherwise
modified on the say on which the protocol for its accession
is signed by such government. Signature of such protocol
by an acceding government to be effective, shall be
accopanised by appropriate action accepting any rectification
amendment, or other modification which has been drawn up
by the CONTRACTING PARTIES for submission to governments
for acceptance but which has not become effective by the
date of signature of such protocol by that encoding
government.
7. Any acceding government which has signed the protocol for its
accession shall be free to withdraw its provisional appli-
cation of the General Agreement and such withdrawal shall
take effect on the sixtieth day following the day on which
- 7 - - 8 -
written notice of such withdrawal is received by the
Secretary-General of the United Nations.
8, (a) Any acceding government which has signed the protocol
for its accessionn and has not given notice of with-
drawal under Paragraph 7, may an or after the date
on which the General Agreement enters into force
pursuant to Article XXVI thereof, accede to that
Agreement upon the terms of this Decision by deposit
of an instrument of accession with the Secretary-General
of the United Nations. Such accession shall take
effect an the say on which the General Agreement enters
into force pursuant to Article XXVI, or on the thirtieth
day following the day of the deposit of the instrument
of accession , whichever shall be the later.
(b) Accession to the General Agreement pursuant to paragraph
8 (a) of this Decision shall, for the purposes of
paragraph 2 of Article XXXII of that Agreement be
regarded as acceptance of the Agreement pursuant to
paragraph 3 of Article XXIV thereof.
9. (a) Each acceding Government signing the protocol for its
accession, or depositing an instrument of accession
under paragraph 8 (a), and each present contracting
party giving the notification referred to in paragraph
3, does so in respect of its metropolistan territory
and of the other territories for which it has inter-
national responsibility, except such separate customs
territories as it shall notify to the Secretary-General
of the United Nations at the time of such signature,
deposit,.or notification under paragraph 3. - 9 -
(b) Any acceding government or present contracting
party which has notified the Secretary-General,
under the exception in sub-paragraph (a) of this
paragraph, may at any time give notice to the
Secretary-General that such signature, accession,
or notification under paragraph 3 shell be effective
in respect of any separate customs territory or
territories so excepted and such notice shell
take effect on the thirtieth day following the
day on which it is received by the Secretary-General,
(c) I any of the customs territories, in respect of
which an acceding government has made the General
Agreement effective, possesses or acquires full
autonomy in the conduct of its external commercial
relations and of the other matters provided for
in the General Agreement, such territory shell,
upon sponsorship through a declaration by the
responsible acceding government establishing the
above-mentioned fact, be deemed to be a contracting
party.
10. (a) The protocols annexed hereto shall be open for
signature at Annecy in accordance with their terms, - 10 -
The original text of this Decision and of the protocols
annexed hereto shall thereafter be deposited with
the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the
protocols shall remain open for signature in accordance
with their terms.
(b) The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall
promptly furnish certified copies of this Decision
and of the protocols annexed hereto, and a notifica-
tion of ,ach signature to such protocols, of each
deposit of an instrument of accession under paragraph
8 (a), and of each notification or notice under
paragraph 3, 7, 9 (a), or 9 (b) o each Member of
the Unitod Nations and to each other government which
participated in the United Notions Conference on
Trade and Employment.
(c) The Secretary-General is authorized to register this
Decision and the protocolss annexed hereto in
accordance with Article 102 of the Charter of the
United Nations.
11. Upon signature by two-thirds of the present contracting
parties of the protocol for the accession of a particular
acceding government, this decision shall constitute a
decision taken under Articl- XXXIII of the General
Agreement agreeing to the accession of that government.
12. The original of this Decission shall consist of a single
copy, in the English and French languages, both texts
authentic except as otherwise specified with respect to
schedules annexed hereto. The late of this Decision
shall be September 10, 1949. - 11 - ANNEX A
(Schedules of present contracting parties, with the same
numbers as their existing schedules, and with Schedule XX
(United States of America) and any other Schedules for
which it is desired containing a separate division for
each acceding government.)
ANNEX B
(Schedules of acceding governments.) - 12 -
MODEL PROTOCOL FOR THE ACCESSION OF AN ACCEDING GOVERNMENT
TO THE GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE *
The Governments of ................................., which
are the present contracting parties to the General Agreement on
Tariffs add Trade (hereinafter called "the present contracting
parties" and "the General Agreement," respectively), and the
Government of Còlombia.
HAVING regard to the results of the negotiations directed
towards the accession of the Government of Colombia to the General
Agreement,
HEREBY AGREE to the accession of the Government of Colombia
to the General Agreement upon the terms embodied in the Annecy
Decision on'T.rms of Accession to the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade (hereinafter referred to as "the Annecy Decision on
Accession") and upon the following additional terms:
1. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 1 of the General
Agreement, signature of this Protocol by the Government of
Colombia shall not require the elimination of any preferences
in respect of import duties or charges which do not exceed the
levels provided fcr in paragraph 4 of Article I of the General
Agreement, as modified, and which are in force exclusively
between Colombia on the one hand and Ecuador and Venezuela
on the other hand.
2, The concessions provided for in the Division for the Govern-
ment of Colombia of any Schedule relating to a present con-
* Colombia has been selected as an example because of the special
provision in paragraph 1, which would be suitably modified in
the case of Uruguay, and omitted in the case of each other
acceding government. - 13 -
tracting party with divisions for separate acceding govern-
ments and contained in annex A to the Annecy Decision for
Accession shall not enter into force for that contracting
party unless notification of the intention to apply these
concessions h .s first been received by the Secretary-General
of the United Nations from that contracting party. Such
concessions shall thereafter enter into force for thaw
contracting party either on the day on which this Protocol
enters into force or on the thirtieth day following the day
on which such notification is received by the Secretary-
General, whichever is the later. Such notification shall
only be effective if received by the Secretary-General not
later than April 30, 1950. Upon the entry into force of such
concessions, the Division for Colombia of such Schedule shall
be regarded as a Schedule to the General Agreement relating
to that contracting party. The Secretary-General of the
United Nations shall promptly furnish a notice of each
notification under this paragraph to each Member of the
United Nations and to each other government which participated
in the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment,
3. This Protocol shall be open for signature at Annecy until
. The original text of this Protocol
shell thereafter be deposited with the Secretary-General
of the United Nations and shall remain open for signature
at the Headquarters of the United Nations by present
contracting parties until November 30, 1949 and by
acceding governments until april 30, 1950.
4. It this Protocol has been signed by November 30, 1949 by
two-thirds of the present contracting parties, it shall enter
into force -- 14
(a) on January 1, 1950, if it has been signed by the Govern-
ment of Colombia by November 30, 1949, or
(b) on the thirtieth day following the day on which it shall
have been signed by the Government of Colombia, if it
has not been signed by that Government by November 30,
1949.
DONE at Annecy, in a single copy, in the English and French
languages, both texts authentic except as otherwise specified with
respect to schedules to the Annecy Decision on Accession, this
10th day of September, one thousand nine hundred and forty-nine.
For Here would For the Government
be listed of Colombia
the present
contracting
For parties. |
GATT Library | gp348zw9356 | Tableau III. Décision prise par les Parties Contractantes le 7 Septembre 1948, à l'égard de la demande présentée par le Gouvernement du Brésil et tendant au retrait de certaines concessions | Accord General sur les Tarifs Douaniers et le Commerce, February 17, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization), Parties Contractantes, and Contracting Parties | 17/02/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP/10 and GATT/CP/10 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/gp348zw9356 | gp348zw9356_90070121.xml | GATT_144 | 147 | 1,020 | LIMITED B
GATT/CP/10
17 février 1949
FRENCH
ACCORD GENERAL SUR LES TARIFS Original:ENGLISH
DOUANIERS ET LE COMMERCE
Parties Contractantes
Décision prise par les Parties Contractantes le
7 septembre 1948, à l'égard de la demande présentée
par le Gouvernement du Brésil et tendant au retrait
de certaines concessions.
Les négociations entre les Gouvernements du Brésil,
des Etats-Unis et du Royaume-Uni, prévues par la Déci-
sion que les Parties Contractantes ont adoptée au cours
de leur deuxième session (Document GATT/CP/1, p.29),
n'ont pu se terminer pour la date fixée, à savoir,
celle du 15 décembre 1948. Les trois Gouvernements
participant à ces négociations ont demandé que le délai
qui leur était imparti soit prolongé jusqu'au 15 mars
1949, et les negociations se poursuivront conformément
au calendrier révisé qu'elles ont proposé.
Les Parties contractantes seront informées des
résultats de ces négociations, conformément aux termes
du paragraphe 4 de la Décision. |
GATT Library | gg734df5445 | Terms of Reference | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, April 26, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization), Contracting Parties, and Working Party 5 on Rectifications | 26/04/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/WP.5/1 and GATT/CP.3/WP.5/1-11, WP.5/3/Corr.1,WP.5/11/Add.1/3 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/gg734df5445 | gg734df5445_91870546.xml | GATT_144 | 90 | 616 | GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS AND
TRADE
ACCORD
GENERAL SUR
LES TARIFS DOUANIERS
ET LE COMMERCE
RESTRICTED
LIMITED C
GATT/CP . 3/WP. 5/1
26 April 1949
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Contracting Parties
Contracting Parties
Third Session
Working Party 5 on Rectifications
Terms of Reference
To examine and make recommendations concerning the proposal
of the Government of Brazil for rectifications in Schedule III
and other proposals that may be referred to the Working Party
from time to time.
Membership
Benelux
Brazil
United Kingdom
United States
France
The Working Party will, elect its own Chairman. |
GATT Library | vm331fs0121 | Terms of Reference | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, April 26, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization), Contracting Parties, and Working Party 6 on Revision of Schedule I | 26/04/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/WP.6/1 and GATT/CP.3/WP.6/1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/vm331fs0121 | vm331fs0121_91870561.xml | GATT_144 | 84 | 586 | GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS AND
TRADE
ACCORD GENERL SUR
LES TARIFS DOUANIERS
ET LE COMMERCE
RESTRICTED
LIMITED C
GATT/CP.3/WP.6/1
26 April 1949
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Contracting Parties
Third Session
Working Party 6 on Revision of Schedule I
Terms of Reference.
To examine and make recommendations concerning the proposal
of the Government of Australia to replace Schedule I by a revised
schedule adjusted to a new value-for-duty basis.
Australia
Benelux
Czechoslovakia
France
New Zealand
United Kingdom
United States
The Working Party will elect its own Chairman. |
GATT Library | rh082sq3283 | Terms of Reference | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, April 26, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization), Contracting Parties, and Working Party 4 on the South Africa - Southern Rhodesia Customs Union | 26/04/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/WP.4/1 and GATT/CP.3/WP.4/1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/rh082sq3283 | rh082sq3283_91870544.xml | GATT_144 | 118 | 803 | GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS AND
TRADE
ACCORD GENERAL SUR
LES TARIFS DOUANIERS
ET LE COMMERCE
RESTRICTED
LIMITED C
GATT/CP.3/WP.4/1
26 April 1949
ORIGINAL : ENGLISH
Contracting Parties
Third Session
Working Party 4 on the South Africa -
Southern Rhodesia Customs. Union
Terms of Reference.
To examine the Agreement for the re-establishment of a
Customs Union between South Africa and Southern Rhodesia, in the
light of the provisions of Article XXIV and taking account of the
remarks made' during the discussions and of the statements by the
representatives of South Africa and Southern Rhodesia, and to
submit a report and recommendations to the Contracting Parties
Membership
Benelux
France
South Africa
Southern Rhodesia
United States
Chairman
Mr. L. COUILLARD (Canada) |
GATT Library | jd676dk3123 | Terms of Reference | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, August 22, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization), Contracting Parties, and Working Party 10 on New Tariff Negotiations | 22/08/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/WP.10/6 and GATT/CP.3/WP.10/1,3-7 WP.10/4/Rev.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/jd676dk3123 | jd676dk3123_91870587.xml | GATT_144 | 131 | 802 | GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS AND
TRADE
ACCORD GENERAL SUR
LES TARIFS DOUANIERS
ET LE COMMERCE
RESTRICTED
Limited C
GATT/CP.3/WP.10/6
22 August 1949
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Contracting Parties
Third Session
Working Party 10 on new tariff negotiations
Terms of Reference
a) To study the possibility of arranging for a third set
of tariff negotiations on the basis of the draft memorandum
attached to document GATT/CP.3/77 in the light of the
discussions at the meeting of the Contracting Parties
on 13 August 1949; and
b) to instruct the Executive Secretary to circulate the
report on or about 30 September to the Contracting Parties
and to request a reply by 30 October 1949 as to whether
or not they are prepared to arrange for a third set of
negotiations on the basis of that report. |
GATT Library | yr431tm3249 | The annecy protocol of terms of accession to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, July 11, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 11/07/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/56 and GATT/CP.3/56 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/yr431tm3249 | yr431tm3249_90320254.xml | GATT_144 | 2,141 | 13,603 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR LIMITED B
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS GATT/CP.3/56
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Contracting Parties
Third Session
THE ANNECY PROTOCOL OF TERMS OF ACCESSION
TO THE GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND
TRADE
Attached hereto is the Annecy Protocol of Terms of Accession
as approved by the Tariff Negotiations Committee on 11 July. This
will be submitted at an early meeting of the CONTRACTING PARTIES
for final approval. At that meeting the CONTRACTING PARTIES will
also be asked to consider the following recommendations of the Joint
Working Party on Accession which have been referred to them by the
Tariff Negotiations Committee without discussion:
1) "that representatives of the contracting parties should if at
all possible obtain authorization to sign the Protocol before leaving
Annecy, or alternatively that they should recommend to their
governments that the Protocol be signed soon thereafter instead of
waiting for the final date of November 30, 1949".
2) "that the CONTRACTING PARTIES decide at the present session that
the failure of any contracting party to sign the Protocol in respect
of a particular acceding government by November 30, 1949, shall be
deemed to be a negative vote on the decision contemplated by
paragraph 11 of the Protocol and shall be so recorded". GATT/CP.3/56
page 2
ANNECY PROTOCOL OF TERMS OF ACCESSION
TO THE GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
(As approved by the Tariff Negotiations Committee on 11 July 1949)
The Governments of ........................ ....... .. , which are
the present contracting parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs aaid
Trade (hereinafter called "the present contracting parties" and "the
General Agreement" respectively), and the Governments of ..............
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. .. .. .. .... . .. . .. . . . . . hereinafter
called 'the acceding governments"),
HAVING regard to the results of the negotiations directed towards
the accession of the acceding governments to the General Agreement,
In accordance with the provisions of Article XXXIII of the
General Agreement :-
HEREBY AGREE upon the terms on.which the acceding governments
may so accede, which terms are embodied in this Protocol,
AND the present contracting parties DECIDE by decisions of
two-thirds majorities, taken in the manner provided in paragraph 11
of this Protocol, upon the accession to the General Agreement of the
acceding governments.
1. (a) Subject to the provisions of this Protocol, each of the
acceding governments shall, upon the entry into force of
this Protocol with respect to it, apply provisionally
(i) Parts I and III of the General Agreement, and
(ii) Part II of the General Agreement to the fullest
extent not inconsistent with its legislation existing
on the date of this Protocol.
(b) The obligations incorporated in paragraph 1 of Article I of
the General Agreement by reference to Article III thereof GATT/CP.3/56
page 3
and those incorporated in paragraph 2 (b) of Article II by
reference to Article VI shall be considered as falling within
Part II of the General Agreement for the purpose of this
paragraph.
(e) For the purposes of the General Agreement, the Schedules
contained in Annex B to this Protocol shall be regarded as
Schedules to the General Agreement relating to acceding
governments.
(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article I
of the General Agreement, signature of this Protocol by an
acceding government shall not require the elimination of any
preferences in respect of import duties or charges which do
not exceed the levels provided for in paragraph 4 of Article
I of the General Agreement, as modified and which are in
force exclusively between Colombia on the one hand and
Ecuador and Venezuela on the other hand, and between
Uruguay and Paraguay.
2. Upon the entry into force of this Protocol with respect to each
acceding government, that government shall become a contracting
party as defined in Article XXXII of the General Agreement.
3. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 12, the-concessions
provided for in the Schedule relating to each present contracting
party and contained in Annex A to this Protocol shall not enter
into force for that contracting party unless notification of the
intention to apply these concessions has first been received by
the Secretary-General of the United Nations from that contracting
party. Such concessions shall thereafter enter into force
for that contracting party either on the date on which this GATT/CP.3/56
page 4
Protocol first enters into force pursuant to paragraph 12 or on
the thirtieth day -fllowing the day upon which such notification
is received by the Secretary-General, whichever is the later.
Such notification shall only be effective if received by the
Secretary-General not later than April 30', 1950. Upon the entry
into force of such concessions the appropriate Schedule shall be
regarded as a Schedule to the General'Agreement relating to that
contracting party.-
4. Any present contracting party which has given the notification
referred to in paragraph 3 or any acceding government which signs
this Protocol shall be free at any time to withhold or to withdraw
in whole or. in part any concession, provided fox' in the appropriate
Sehadule contained in Annex A or B to this Protocol, in respect
of which such contracting party or government determines that
..it was initially negotiated with an acceding government which
has not signed this Protocol er a present contracting party
which has not given such notification; Provided that the present
contracting party or acceding government withholding or with--
drawing in whole or in part-any such concession shall give
notice to all other present contracting Parties and acceding
governments within thirty days after the date of such withholding
or withdrawal arid, upon request, shall consult with the contracting
parties which have a substantial interest in the product Concerned;
and Provided further that-, without prejudice to the 'provisions of.
. . Article XXXV of the General Agreement, any concession so withheld
.or withdrawn shall be applied from the thirtieth aay following
.the day upon which the acceding government or present contracting
party with which it was initially negotiated, signs this Protocol GATT/CP. 3/56
page 5
or gives the notification referred to in paragraph 3.
5.(a) In each case in which Article II of the General Agreement refers
to the date of that Agreement, the applicable date in respect of
the Schedule annexed to this Protocol shall he the date of this
Protocol.
(b) In each case in which paragraph 6 of Article V, sub-paragraph
4 (d) of Article VII and sub-paragraph 3 (c) of Article X of the
General Agreement refers to the date of that Agreement, the
applicable date in respect of each acceding government shall be
March 24, 1948.
(c) In the case of the references in paragraph ;:. of Article XVIII
of the General Agreement to September 1, 1947 and October 10,
1947, the applicable dates in respect of each acceding government
shall be May 14, 1949 and July 15, 1949, respectively.
6. The provisions of the General Agreement to be applied by an
acceding government shall be those contained in the text annexed
to the Final Act of the Second Session of the Preparatory
Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employ-
ment as rectified, amended, or wise modified on the day
on which this Protocol is signed by such acceding government.
Signature of this Protocol by an acceding government, to be
effective, shall be accompanied by appropriate action accepting
any rectification, Amendment, or other modification which has
been drawn .:p by the CONTRACTING PARTIES for submission to
governments for acceptance but which has not become effective
by the date of signature of this Protocol by that acceding
government.
7. Any acceding government which has signed this Protocol shall be
free to withdraw its provisional application of the General GATT/CP.3/56
page 6
Agreement and such withdrawal shall take effect on the sixtieth
day following the day on which written notice of such withdrawal
is received the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
B.(a) Any acceding government which has signed this Protocol and has
not given notice of withdrawal under paragraph 7, may, on or
after the date on which the General Agrement enters into force
pursuant to Article XXVI thereof, accede to that Agreement upon
the terms of this Protocol by deposit of an instrument of
accession with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Such
accession shall take effect on the day on which the General
Agreement enters into force pursuant to Article XXVI, or on the
thirtieth day following the day of the deposit of the instrument
of accession, whichever shall be the later.
(b) Accession to the General Agreement pursuant to paragraph 8 (a)
of this Protocol shall, for the purpose of paragraph 2 of
Article XXXII of that Agreement, be regarded as acceptance of
the Agreement pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article XXVI thereof.
9.(a) Each acceding government signing this Protocol, or depositing
an instrument of accession under paragraph 8 (a), and each
present contracting party' giving the notification referred to
in paragraph 3, does so in respect of its metropolitan territory
and of the other territories for which it has international
responsibility, except such separate customs territories as it
shall notify to the Secretary-General of the United Nations at
the time of such signature, deposit, or notification under
paragraph 3.
(b) Any acceding govermnent or present contracting party which has
notified the Seoretary-General, under the exception in sub-
paragraph (a) of this paragraph, may at any time give notice :to GATT/CP. 3/56
page 7
the Secretary-General that such signature, accession, or
notification under paragraph 3 shall be effective in respect
of any separate customs territory or territories so exeepted
and such notice shall take effect on the thirtieth day following
the day on which it is received by the Secretary-General.
(c) If any of the customs territories, in respect of which an
acceding government has made the General Agreement effective,
possesses or acquires full autonomy in the conduct of its
external commercial relations and of the other matters provided
for in the General Agreement, such territory shall, upon
sponsorship through a declaration by the responsible acceding
government establishing the above-mentioned fact, be deemed to
be a contracting party.
1O.(a) This Protocol shall be open for signature at .Annecy until
. The original text of this Protocol
shall thereafter be deposited with the Secretary-General of
the United Nations and shall remain open for signature at the
Headquarters of the United Nations by present contracting
parties until November 30, 1949 and by acceding governments
until April 30, 1950.
(b) The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall promptly
furnish a certified copy of this Protocol, and a notification
of each, signature thereto, of each deposit of an instrument of
accession under paragraph 8 (a), and of each notification or
notice under paragraphs 3, 7, 9 (a) or 9 (b), to each Member
of the United Nations and to each other government which
participated in the United Nations Conference on Trade and
Employment. GATT/CP .3/56
page 8
(c) The Secretary-General is authorized to register this Protocol
in accordance with Article 102 of the Charter of the United
Nations.
11. Upon signature of this Protocol in respect of an acceding
government by two-thirds of the present contracting parties,
it shall constitute a decision taken under Article XXXIII of
the General Agreement agreeing to the accession of that
government.
12. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 3, this Protocol shall,
for each acceding government in respect of which it has been
signed by November 30, 1949 by two-thirds of the present
contracting parties, enter into force -
(a) if it has been signed by that acceding government by
November 30, 1949, on January 1, 1950, or
(b) if it has not been signed by that acceding government
by November 30, 1949, on the thirtieth day following
the day upon which it shall have been signed by such
acceding government.
DONE at Annecy, in a single copy, in the English and French
languages, both texts authentic except as otherwise specified with
respect to Schedules annexed hereto, this ........... .. day of
** **@ e###.ve*....I... ..., re* one thousand nine hundred and forty-nine.
A N N EX A.
( to be inserted )
A N N E X B.
( to be inserted ) GATT/CP .3/56
page 9
CERTIFICATION BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES
AUTHENTICATING THE TEXT OF THIS PROTOCOL:
I, L. Dana Wilgress, Chairman of the CONTRACTING PARTIES to the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, being dulJe authorized
thereto by the CONTRACTING PARTIES, hereby certify as authentic
the text of this Protocol.
(date)
Chairman
SPECIMEN SIGNATURE PAGE
SIGNATURES IN RESPECT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF
) Here would For
) be listed
_) the present
) contracting
) parties.
),
) Here would
) be named
) the
) acceding
) government
) referred
) to in the
) heading.
For
For
A -
. .
_ |
GATT Library | bt406cf8962 | The annecy protocols | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 12, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 12/09/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP/31 and GATT/CP/31 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/bt406cf8962 | bt406cf8962_90300111.xml | GATT_144 | 217 | 2,130 | GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS AND
TADE
ACCORD GENERAL SUR
LES TARIFS DOUANIERS
ET LE COMMERCE
LIMITED B
GATT/CP/31
12 September
1949
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
ThE ANNECY PROTOCOLS
The five Protocols which were opened for signature at
the close of the Third Session are being transferred to the
Secretary-General of the United Nations and will henceforth
be open for signature at Lake Success. Each of these Protocols
bears the date of 13 August, 1949.
As of 12 September, 1949, these Protocols have been signed
by the following governments:
No, 7 Protocol Modifying Article XXVI
Australia France
Belgium India
Brazil Lebanezr,
Burma (ad ref.) Norway (ad ref.)
Canada Southern Rhodesia
China (ad ref.) United Kingdom
No. 8 Protocol Replacing Schedule I (Australia)
Australia France
Belgium India
Brazil Lebanon
Burma (ad ref.) New Zealand
Canada Norway (ad ref.)
Chile Southern Rhodesia
China United, Kingdom GAT/CP/ 31
PAGE 2
No. 5 Protocol Replacing Schedule VI (Ceylon)
Australia India ( ad ref.)
Belgium Lebanon
Brazil New Zealand
Canada Norway (ad ref.)
China Southern Rhodesia
France United Kingdom
Third Protocol of Reotificatcons
Australia India
Belgium Lebanon
Brazil New Zealand
Burma (ad ref.) Norway (al ref.)
Canada Southern Rhodesia
Chile South Africa
China United Kingdom
Francs
First Protocol of Modifications
Australia France
Belgium India (ad ref.)
Brazil Norway (ad ref.)
Canada Southern Rhoiesia |
GATT Library | zw160ds0372 | The Position of Palestine in Relation to the Agreement. Item 8 of the Agenda (GATT/CP.3/2.Rev.2 and CP.3/2.Rev.1 Add.3) : Note by the Secretariat | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, April 29, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 29/04/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/17 and GATT/CP.3/17 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/zw160ds0372 | zw160ds0372_90320137.xml | GATT_144 | 712 | 4,686 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR LIMITED B
GATT/CP.3/17
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS 29 April 1949
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Contracting Parties
Third Session
The Position of Palestine in Relation to
the Agreement. Item 8 of the Agenda.
(GATT/CP.3/2.Rev.2 and CP.3/2.Rev.1 Add.3)
Nate by the Secretariat
Having given careful consideration to the question raised by the
representative of Czechoslovakia, the Secretariat submit the following
for consideration by the Contracting Parties;
1) The first question to be answered is whether or not the State of
Israel may be regarded as being bound by obligations under GATT
contracted by the Government of the United Kingdom acting as the
mandatary power for Palestine. It is considered that Israel should
not be regarded as hound, The doctrine of State succession in inter-
national law is not well defined but, generally speaking, the
authorities agree that there is no automatic succession to obligations
arising from commercial treaties such as the GATT. The fact that the
obligations under GATT are far-reaching and important reinforces the
conclusion that there should be no succession, It appears, moreover,
that the Government of Israel has not made any declaration indicating
that it is willing to be regarded as bound by obligations under GATT.
It is therefore suggested that the answer to the first question must be
that Israel could not be regarded as being bound by obligations under
the GATT.
2) The second question is, what is to be done in the light of this
conclusion. In this connection it is relevant to record that the GATT/CP.3/17
page 2
United Kingdom negotiated in Geneva on behalf of the mandated territory
and the concessions negotiated on behalf of Palestine are contained in
a separate section of Schedule XIX. Moreover, the concessions were
applied separately in respect of Palestine by notice on March 20, 1948,
to the Secretary-General of the United Nations,.in accordance with
Paragraph 2 of the Protocol of Provisional Application.
Accordingly, it is considered that the case falls to be dealt with
in accordance with the principles embodied in Article XXVII of the GATT
and that the United Kingdom should be regarded as having ceased to be a
contracting party with respect to the customs territory formerly
included in the Palestine mandate, on 15 May, 1948, at which date the
United Kingdom ceased to be responsible for the mandated territory of
Palestine. Accordingly, any contracting party is free at any time to
withhold or withdraw, in whole or in part, any concession included in
the appropriate schedule annexed to the GATT which was negotiated with
the United Kingdom in respect of products of the territory then included
in the'Palestine mandate. The contracting party taking such action
must give notice to all other contracting parties and, upon request,
consult all the contracting parties which have a substantial interest in
the product concerned.
If this view is accepted by the Contracting Paties it is suggested
that a declaration to this effect be made in the following terms:
WHEREAS the Government of the United Kingdom in the course of
the negotiations leading to the drawing up of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in Geneva in 1947, negotiated
on behalf of the mandated territory of Palestine for concessions
to be accorded to products originating in such territory and
for concessions to be accorded to the products of other
Contracting Parties entering such territory, and
WHEREAS the Government of the United Kingdom ceased to be GATT/CP.3/17
page 3
responsible for the mandated territory of Palestine on
15 May, 1948, the Contracting Parties declare that the United
Kingdom ceased, as from 15 May, 1948, to be a contracting
party in respect of the territory formerly included in the
Palestine mandate, and accordingly that any contracting party
shall, in accordance with Article XXVII of the General
Agreement, be free at any time to withhold or to withdraw, in
whole or in part, any concession provided for in the
appropriate schedule annexed to the GATT which such contracting
party determines was initially negotiated with the United
Kingdom on behalf of Palestine, provided that the contracting
party taking such action shall give notice to all other
Contracting Parties and, upon request, consult with the
Contracting Parties which have a substantial interest in the
product concerned. |
GATT Library | zy420tc8484 | The Position of Section B (Newfoundland) of Schedule XIX (united Kingdom) : Note by the Secretariat | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, August 8, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 08/08/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP/3/75 and GATT/CP.3/75 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/zy420tc8484 | zy420tc8484_90320310.xml | GATT_144 | 331 | 2,220 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS GATT/CP/3/75
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Third Session
The Position of Section B (Newfoundland)
of Schedule XIX (united Kingdom)
Note by the Secretariat
Document GATT/CP./26 contains a statement by the
United Kingdom Delegation to the effect that as from
March 31, 1949 the United Kingdom Government ceased to
be responsible for Newfoundland and arccordingly Section
B of Schedule XIX ceased to have effect.
This statement has been discussed with representatives
of the countries principally conceornod, namely, with Canada
of which Nowfoundland became a prevince on 1st April 1949,
and with the United States and Australia with which tho con-
cessions in Section B of Schedule XIX were initially nego-
tiated. As a result of those discussions it is suggested
that the CONTRACTING PARTIES might deal with this question
by making the following declaration: WHEREAS the Government of the United Kingdom, in the
course of the negotiations loading to the drawing up of the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in Geneva in 1947,
negotiated on behalf of Newfoundland, as a separate customs
territory for which the United Kingdom had international
responsibility, and
WHEREAS the concessions to be accorded as a result
of such negotia-tions to the products of other contracting
parties entering Nowfoundland constituted Section B of
Schedule XIX of the General Agreement, and
WHEREAS after becoming a contracting party to the
General Agreement the government of the United Kingdom,
under paragraph 2 of the Protocol of Provisional Applica"
tion, notified the Secretary General of Unitod Nations
on February 17, 1940 of the application of the General
Agreement to Newfoundland, and
WHEREAS the Govornment of the United Kingdom coased
to be responsible for Newfoundland on 31 March 1949
and Newfoundland became a part of the customs territory
of Canada, which is also a contracting party.
The CONTRACTING PARTIES declare that Section B shall
be deemed to be no longer a part of Schedule XIX. |
GATT Library | js693fn6563 | Third Meeting held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy, on Friday , 22 July 1949 at 3 p.m | Interim Commission for the International Trade Organization, July 22, 1949 | Interim Commission for the International Trade Organization (ICITO/GATT) and Emergency Session of the Executive Committee | 22/07/1949 | official documents | ICITO/1/19 and ICITO/1/17-27 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/js693fn6563 | js693fn6563_90180033.xml | GATT_144 | 1,966 | 12,273 | RESTRICTED
ICITO/1/19
INTERIM COMMISSION COMMISSION INTERIMAIRE DE 22 July 1949
FOR THE INTERNATIONAL L'ORGANISATION INTERNATIONALE
TRADE ORGANIZATION DU COMMERCE ORIGINAL:ENGLISH
EMERGENCY SESSION OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Third Meeting held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy,
on Friday , 22 July 1949 at 3 p.m.
Chairman: Mr E. Wyndham White, Executive Secretary
Subject discussed:
Means for implementing Chapter VI of the Charter
The CHAIRMAN reminded the members of the discusion at the
previous meeting and of the request by the United Kingdom delegate
for an informal discussion of methods for putting Chapter VI into
provisional effect as suggested in Sir James Helmore's letter before
holding a more definitive meeting on 1 August.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) repeated and elaborated the
views he had expressed in the earlier meeting. There was real danger
that agreements contrary to the spirit or letter of the Charter would
come into being for lack of an authoritative governmental body
concerned with preserving the principles agreed upon in Chapter VI. He
wished to emphasize that his delegation did not necessarily believe
that the time was now ripe for a number of commodity agreements. They
were concerned, however, that when commodity agreements were made they
should conform to the of Chapter VI, In order to ensure this,
some action must now be taken by the Interim Commission in view of the
delay in entry into force of the Charter as a whole. His Government
had always considered that commodity agreements should be negotiated on
the basis of individual commodities, but it would also be a great
saving of time and effort if there were. co-ordination among them and
some kind of organization concerned with all commodity agreements and
thus familiar with the process of their negotiation. Chapter VI was not
only concerned with the strict control type of commodity agreement but
also with stimulation and expansion of production, and there was a great
danger that if some means were not now found for putting Chapter VI into
effect, the latter aspect would be neglected. There was need of
extensive study in the field of commodity agreements which was not ICITO/1/19
page 2
possible with the present small staff of ICCICA and although the FAO was
doing considerable research it was only competent to deal with
agricultural commodities. It was necessary now to begin to train a
secretariat in this field.
He did not agree with the argument advanced that it was inadvisable
to put into effect one chapter of the Charter before the entire Charter
had been approved. Chapter VI was one of the least controversial
chapters and also one of the most self-contained. Moreover, insofar as
it constitutes an exception to rules relating to quantitative restrictions,
this exception is also relevant in the General Agreement and therefore
affects an instrument now in operation.
Mr. Shackle then referred to the d raft protocol (ICITO/1/W.1)
submitted by the United Kingdom delegation as a basis for discussion.
This was not necessarily the only means of achieving the objective.
He now thought, however, that the alternative he had mentioned in the
previous meeting that of extending the General Agreement to cover
commodity agreements - would be unsatisfactory. There would probably
be legal difficulties and the parties to it would be limited quite
arbitrarily to the Contracting Parties. The protocol submitted was
modelled on the protocol of provisional application of the GATT and
had certain provisions modelled on the Annecy Protocol and on
Article XXVI of the GATT, together with a few purely verbal adaptations
of Chapter VI.
Mr. SCHWENGER (United States) informed the Committee that he
had in fact received his instructions earlier than his delegation had
previously thought possible, and that essentially the position of his
delegation was the one indicated at the previous meeting. The
administration's position with regard to the Charter was somewhat
delicate since the Charter had been placed before Congress and was
therefore in the hands of the legislative body, After a careful
consideration of the developments in the commodity field as well, his
delegation thought it inappropriate to take any such action as proposed
at the present stage. It did not consider the emergency sufficient to
warrant acting in an executive capacity on a matter now before the
legislature, and feared that to move more rapidly on one part of the
Charter fight jeopardize the passage of the rest. He considered that ICITO/1/19
page 3
as far as any specific action on the commodity problem was concerned a
mechanism did exist in the form of ICCA to advise governments and give
them means for collaborating in forming commodity agreements in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter VI. With regard to
Sir James Helmore's letter concerning further action to be taken at
this stage, he had been advised informally that the United Nations
had indicated that it would be willing to call a commodity conference
or initiate consultation if ICCICA considered it necessary. Under
the circumstances he considered that the urgency of pressing the
matter now was questionable.
M. PHILIP (France) regretted that he had not yet received
his instructions and he therefore spoke again unofficially and as an
individual. He wished to make three points. Firstly, this body
had been faced with a number of problems for which it was seeking
individual solutions. He thought that this method of trying to solve
the problems piecemeal risked undermining the entire organization as
behind them all there ran a basic problem. It was the responsibility
of the delegations to these meetings to tell their governments and their
people that, as a result of their examination and analysis of the
various individual problems, they saw a general world problem which
must be approached as a whole. Countries were now reacting to the
general situation in a manner contrary to the spirit of the Charter and
the General Agreement. They were in fact faced with the situation
envisaged in Article XII(5) of GATT, of general disequilibrium where
solution must be looked for to the problem as a whole, Secondly,
insofar as it was now recognized that there was a general problem,
there was a danger in trying to seek a solution solely through monetary
means and exclusively through the International Monetary Fund. It was
the duty of the delegates to this meeting to say that the general problem
could not be solved by monetary means alone. It is more far reaching
than a monetary question and is a commercial and industrial problem as
well, closely bound up with primary products. The Monetary Fund
could not solve this problem alone, but the ITO must take part in its
solution and see that that solution is reached within the spirit of the
Charter. Finally, he disagreed with the United States delegation that
the question of primary commodities was not an urgent one. The whole ICITO/1/19
page 4
problem of the stabilization of prices of primary products must be
regarded as one of the basic reasons for the present disequilibrium.
He did not wish it to be thought that he was very pessimistic or that
he considered that there was at the present time a general crisis in
the world, but if no co-ordinated action were taken on the basic cause
of all the small problems now, they would eventually become a general
and a serious problem.
He thought that the text submitted by the United Kingdom Delegation
suggested a useful means of accomplishing something in this field and also
that it took into account the difficulties of the United States Government
of which he was very well aware.
Mr. PATIJN (Benelux) stated that he had received his
instructions from the Netherlands but not from Belgium.
Speaking for the Netherlands he welcomed the United Kingdom proposal
to put ChapterVI into force. In reply to the United States
representatives remarks with regard to the machinery at present available
he thought it could hardly be adequate in view of the letter by the
Chairman of ICCICA itself; with regard to the urgency of the question,
the Committee at present charged with these matters who should surely be
competent judges, considered the matter an urgent one. He was hopeful
that the proposal of th United Kingdom would receive the support of the
United States: in a short time and was confident that this would occur
since the question of cummodity arrangements was so closely related to
President Truman's 4th Point. Surely the prices of primary commodities
was intimately related to economic stability and development; the latter
two were impossible of achievement without some sort of guarantee to the
under-developed countries of equitable and stable prices of primary
products. In view of Mr. Therpe's encouraging remarks at the ECOSOC in
Geneva concerning the 4th Point, he was hopeful that the energy being
devoted to economic development would also be applied to the connected
question of primary products.
Mr. THOMMESSEN (Norway) said that his Government had misgivings
about putting the Charter into force piecemeal by executive action as it
was now before Parliament. The Norwegian Government hoped that the ITO
would soon be established to deal witn these matters. However, he did ICITO/1/19
page 5
realize the urgency of the problem and the lack of adequate machinery,
and he would be glad to support any suggestion for widening the terms of
reference of ICCICA and, if necessary, for expanding that body.
Mr. POLITIS (Greece) had not received any instruction but
agreed with M. PHILIP that it was the responsibility of delegations to
explain to their people and governments the situation as they saw it.
He also agreed that the problem was an urgent one requiring study and
some immediate decision.
The .CHAIRMAN wondered, for these countries which felt that the
main obstacle to taking any action at the present time was a
constitutional one, how far the problem arose out of the proposal to put
a chapter of the Charter into effect. Would it be possible to
accomplish the result in the form of a provisional agreement referring to
the resolution of the Economic and Social Council and stating that it was
proposed to give effect to the following principles and rules, then
enumerating the principles set forth in Chapter VI. This would avoid
the appearance of implementing a portion of another instrument at present
before the various legislatures.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) thought that the discussions
showed a general agreement that there was a real problem and that there
should be serious consideration of possible action to be taken. He
suggested that a working group be set up to consider the means by which
action could be taken. With regard to the difficulties of executive
action he did not see why a government could not submit such a matter to
its parliament if it considered it necessary
Mr. COUILLRD (Canada), Mr. Abd-El-ATY (Egypt) and
Mr. BRAGA (Brazil) agreed that a working party would be useful.
Dr. CARRENO (Colombia) repeated that his Government would not
be able to separate one portion of the Charter from the rest and was
consequently against the proposal of the United Kingdom.
It was agreed to set up a working party to consider possible
alternative methods to give effect to the provisions of Chapter VI
pending the entry into force of the Charter but without prejudice to IsITO/1/19
page 6
the final decision as to whether the Chapter should be put into
effect or not, in order that this final decision could be taken in
the light of the alternative methods proposed; the working party
to consist of Australia, Benelux, Canada, Colombia, Egypt, France
Norway, United Kingdom and United States.
The CHAIRMAN informed members that the agenda of the August 1st
meeting of the Executive Committee would also include the 1950 Budget and
questions concerning the establishment of a Spanish text of the Charter.
The meeting adjourned at 5 p.m. |
GATT Library | zm763dq8493 | Third Meeting held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy, on Friday, 22 July 1949, at 3 p.m. Corrigendum | Interim Commission for the International Trade Organization, July 28, 1949 | Interim Commission for the International Trade Organization (ICITO/GATT) and Emergency Session of the Executive Committee | 28/07/1949 | official documents | ICITO/1/19/Corr.1 and ICITO/1/17-27 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/zm763dq8493 | zm763dq8493_90180034.xml | GATT_144 | 221 | 1,420 | RESTRICTED
INTERIM COMMISSION
COMMISSION INTERIMAIRE DE
FOR THE INTERNATIONAL L'ORGANISATION INTERNATIONALE
ICITO/1/19/Corr. 1
28 July 1949
TRADE ORGANIZATION
DU COMMERCE
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH/FRENCH
EMERGENCY SESSION OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Third Meeting held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy,
on Friday, 22 July 1949, at 3 p.m.
Corrigendum
Page 4, paragraph 4, line 11:
Delete the sentence beginning with the words "Surely the
prices ..." and insert the following:
"On the one hand the low pressure areas of the world were
in need of economic development, but at the same time they were
badly in need of stable and equitable prices of their primary
commodities. The first would be impossible of achievement
without some sort of guarantee of the latter,"
SESSION EXTRAORDINAIRE DU COMITE EXECUTIF
Troisi?me s?ance tenue à l'Hôtel Verdun, à Annecy, le
vendredi 22 juillet 1949, à 15 h.
Corrigendum
Page 4, paragraphe 4, ligne 12:
Supprimer la phrase commen?ant par les mots "il. existe des
rapports intimes" et la remplacer par la phrase:
"D'une part, les zones de basse pression du monde ont besoin
de se d?velopper sur le plan ?conomique, mais en même temps il
est de premi?re n?cessit? pour elles que les prix de leurs
produits de base soient stables et ?quitables. La premi?re de ces
affirmations est irr?alisable sans l'existence de certaines
garanties de la r?alisation de la seconde." |
GATT Library | vp805pj1839 | Third Meeting held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy, on Friday, 22 July 1949 at 3 p.m. Corrigendum | Interim Commission for the International Trade Organization, August 8, 1949 | Interim Commission for the International Trade Organization (ICITO/GATT) and Emergency Session of the Executive Committee | 08/08/1949 | official documents | ICITO/1/19/Corr.2 and ICITO/1/17-27 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/vp805pj1839 | vp805pj1839_90180035.xml | GATT_144 | 146 | 1,121 | INTERIM COMMISSION COMMISSION INTERIMAIRE DE RESTRICTED
FOR THE INTERNATIONAL L'ORGANISATION INTERNATIONALE ICITO/1/19/Corr,2
TRADE ORGANIZATION DU COMMERCE 8 August 1949
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
EMERGENCY SESSION OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Third Meeting held at Hotel Verdun, Annecy,
on Friday, 22 July 1949 at 3 p.m.
CORRIGENDUM
Page 5, paragraph 5
Insert after Mr, COUILLARD (Canada), the following remarks by
Mr. ABD-EL-ATY (Egypt):
"The Egyptian Government attach special importance to
Chapter 6 of the Havana Charter and consider that its
application would require detailed studies on primary
commodities to maintain equilibrium between consumption and
production in order to secure remunerative prices for
producers, e.g. the Egyptian cotton industry. These studies,
once made, could serve as bases for international agreements,
This need for further studies was expressed by Mr. Shackle in
his first statement of today. My Government has no objection
to problems affecting primary commodities being discussed by
international conferences." |
GATT Library | df395jt9252 | Third Protocol of Rectifications | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, July 27, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization), Contracting Parties, and Working Party 5 | 27/07/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/WP.5/11 Add.3 and GATT/CP.3/WP.5/1-11, WP.5/3/Corr.1,WP.5/11/Add.1/3 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/df395jt9252 | df395jt9252_91870560.xml | GATT_144 | 149 | 1,094 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR LIMITED C
GATT/CP.3/WP. 5/11
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS Add.3
27 July 1949
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE ORIGINAL : ENGLISH
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Contracting Parties
Third Session
Working Party 5
Third Protocol of Rectifications
There is being circulated one copy of the text of the
Third Protocol of Rectifications in order that Delegations
may carefully check the contents and send comments to the
Secretariat, at the latest, by Friday 29 July 1949.
Further copies may be had from the Secretariat.
----------
ACCORD GENERAL SUR LES TARIFS ET LE COMMEROE
Parties contractantes
Troisième Session
Groupe de Travail 5
Troisième Protocole de Rectification
Veuillez étudier attentivement le texte ci-joint du Troi-
sième Protocole de Recti'.. -3ation et faire parvenir au Secretariat
vos commentaires éventuels au plus tard le vendredi 29 juillet
1949.
Des copies supplémentaires pourront être obtenues du Se-
crétariat. |
GATT Library | bz644bd3175 | Third Protocol of Rectifications to the General Agreeent on Tariffs and Trade | Contracting Parties, August 5, 1949 | Contracting Parties | 05/08/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/62/Add.4 and GATT/CP.3/62 + Add.1-6 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/bz644bd3175 | bz644bd3175_90320281.xml | GATT_144 | 349 | 2,306 | Contracting Partics
Third Session
RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP. 3/62/Add .4
5 August 1949
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH/FRENCH
Third Protocol of Rectifications to the General
Agreeent on Tariffs and Trade..
The text of the Third Protocol of Rectifications has
been distributed to delegations. Page 63 of that text is
to be replaced by the page attached hereto.
Troisieme Protocole de Rectification do l'Accord
General sur les Tarifs dounicrs et le Commerce
Le toxtc du troisieme Protocole de Rectification
a ete distribue aux delegntions. Il convient de;
substituer a la page 63 le tcxtc ci-joint. - 63 -
2. After 10 September 1949 this
Protocol shall remain opcn for
signature at the Headquarters of
the United Nations.
3. The provisions of this Protocol
shall become an integral part of
the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade dated October 30, 1947, on
the day on which it has been signed
by all the governments which are at
that time contracting parties to
the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade.
4. The original of this Protocol
shall be deposited with the
Socretary -General of the United
Nations, who is authorized to
effect registration thereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF theER:OF the
e rcezceiecscntaeivcs, duly
authorized, have signed the
pecsCnt Protocol.
DOaE 0t ennccy, in a single
copy, in the English .nd French
guages,gcs both texts authentic
cxceptewecr, otherwise stated, this
day of 1949.
2. epr s Ie 10 septembre 1949,
lo present Protocole restera
ouveat h la signature aueSibge
dNas Itions Unics.
3.e Los dispositions du present
Protoeolerentrcn parties ent6grante
doAl'hccore e6n6ral sur les Tarifs,
aouenicrs oe lC Commerce du
30 octobrc 1947 le jour ot il
aueae6t' signs par tous les
geuvement nc que scroat 3 cette
date partics coatr"ctantes audit
Accord een6ral.
4e Le textc original du present
Protoeole sore d6eos6 aepr~s
decretaireire e6n6rae dcs Nations
eniqs gui oat Cutoeia6 h peoc6der
. senregistrement.nt.
EUIFuI DE QUOe los repr6-
s cutsits eumcnt autoeis6s des
geuvmentsm.c susmentienn6s ont
segle 1cepe6scntePrctoeolo.
FLaT b Annacy, en un soul
cxomplairre r6eig6 dane les
leagues frangais et anglaise,
lcs doue textos f. isaet 6galement
foi sauf indication contreiro,
l_ 1949. |
GATT Library | qn559qg1495 | Third Protocol of Rectifications to the General agreement on Tariffs and Trade | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, August 5, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 05/08/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/62/Add.4 and GATT/CP.3/62 + Add.1-6 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/qn559qg1495 | qn559qg1495_90320274.xml | GATT_144 | 360 | 2,460 | GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS AND
ACCORD GENERAL SUR
LES TARIFS DOUANIERS
ET LE COMMERCE
RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP.3/62/Add.4
5 August 1949
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
FRENCH
Contracting Parties
Third Session
Third Protocol of Rectifications to the General
agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
The text of the Third Protocol of Rectifications has
been distributed to delegations. Page 63 of that text is
to be replaced by the page attached hereto.
Troisieme Protocole de Rectification de l'Accord
General sur lee Tarifs douniers et le Commerce
Rectification de l'Accord
douaniers et le Commerce
Le texte du troisieme Protocolc de Rectification
a ete distribue aux delegations. II convient de
substituer a la page 63 le texte ci-joint. - 63 -
2. After 10 September 1949 this
Protocol shall remain open for
signataure at the Headquarters of
the United Nations.
3. The provisions of this Protocol
shall become an integral part of
the General Agrccment on Tariffs and
Trade, dated October 30, 1947, on
the day on which it has been signed
by all the governments which are at
that time contracting parties to
the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade.
4. The original of this Protocol
shall be deposited with the
Secretary-Gencral of the United
nations, who is authorized to
effect registration thereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the
respective representatives, duly
authorized, havc signed the
present Protocol.
DONE at Annecy, in a single
copy, in the English and French
languages, both texts authentic
except where otherwise statcd, this
day of 1949. _
2. Aer s le 10 septembre 1949.
le present Protocole seetcra
ouverasb la signature au Siege
des Nations Ueics.
3. eLos dispositions du esent it
Protocol front pareic iet6grante
dl 1'Accordegen6ral sur les Tarifs
douaniers et le Commerce du
30 octobre 1947 le jouru il i
aura et6 sign par tous les
goevcrnemcnts quiesontra hecoeto
date parties contractantes audit
Accord geralv..
4.eLo teetc original du erescnt
Protocole seraed6pes6 aupres
dueScer6tre.-egen6ral des Nations
Unies qui est autoresa h prec6der
. son cnregisercme.t0
N.FOI QUOITO lesercer6-
sentants mentmc autoresbs des
goevcrnemcnts suemcntioen6s ont
sien6elc erescnProtocole.ol
FAIa L necy,oc en unescul
examplaerc,er6deg6ad.nselos
langues frcngaesc ea 2nglaise,
lcs deux texts faisanegalelemcnt
foi sauf indication contraerc,
C 1949.
R-1 ---.-O |
GATT Library | jm677qq7909 | Third report of working party 2 on Article XVIII : Date of Decision en Protective Measures proposed by Ceylon | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, June 1, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 01/06/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/36 and GATT/CP.3/36 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/jm677qq7909 | jm677qq7909_90320190.xml | GATT_144 | 286 | 1,850 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR LIMITED C
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS GATT/CP.3/36 1 June 1949
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Third Session
THIRD REPORT OF WORKING PARTY 2 ON ARTICLE XVIII
Date-of Decision en Protective Measures proposed by Ceylon
1. The statement of considerations in support of the adoption
of non-discriminatery protective measures submitted by the delegation
of Ceylon on 5 May 1949, in GATT/CP.3/20, was referred to Working
Party 2 for study and recommendation at the 14th meeting of the
CONTRACTING PARTIES on 19 May 1949.
2. Paragraph 10 of Article XVIII requires that the CONTRACTING
PARTIES advise the contracting party applying for the adoption of
measures under the provisions of paragraph 7 or 8, at the earliest
opportunity but ordinarily within fifteen days after receipt of the
application, of the date by which it will be notified of the decision
of the CONTRACTING PARTIES as to whether or not it is released from
the relevant obligation,
3. The Working Party, having regard to the further provision
that this date shall not be later than 90 days after receipt of the
application on 9 May 1949, and in agreement with the representative
of Ceylon, recommends that the CONTRACTING PARTIES advise the Government
of Ceylon that any decision under the provisions of paragraph 7
will be made as soon as possible and before the end of the present
session of the CONTRACTING PARTIES. GATT/CP.3/36
page 2
4. The Working Party also agreed to return at a later stage of
its work to the question of the interpretation of the provisions of
paragraph 10 of Article XVIII in the light of the remarks made at the
meeting of the CONTRACTING PARTIES. |
GATT Library | cz018tz9339 | Third set of Tariff Negotiations | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, August 11, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 11/08/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/77/Corr.1 and GATT/CP.3/77 + Corr.1,2 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/cz018tz9339 | cz018tz9339_90320316.xml | GATT_144 | 175 | 1,154 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS RESTRICTED
AND TRADE LIMI TED B.
GATT/CP.3/ 77/Corr.1
11th August, 1949.
ORIGINAL; ENGLISH.
ENGLISH/FRENCH
Contracting Parties
Third Session
THIRD SET OF TARIFF NEGOTIATIONS
The following corrections should be made in Annex II:
1. Poland should be added to the list of European countries,
Poland is a member of the United Nations, attended the Havana
Conference but did not sign the Final Act, and was invited to
participate in tho Anncey negotiations.
2. Ethiopia was not invited to participato in the Annecy
negotiations.
3. lsrael and Siam are members of the United Nations.
TROISIEME SEBIE DE NEGOCIATIONS
TARIFAIRES
Il convient d'apporter a l'Annexe II les corrections
ci-apres:
1. Ajeuter la Pologne a la liste des pays europeens.
La Pologne est un Etat Membre d s Nations Unios. Elle a
participo a la Conference de Ia Havane sans toutefeis signer
l'Acte Final, et a ete invitee a participer aux negociations
d'Annecy.
2. L'Ethipi n'a pas ete invitee a participer aux
negociations d'Anncey.
3. L'Etat d'Israel et le Siam sent Membres des Nations
Unions. |
GATT Library | bj110rr6386 | Third set of Tariff Negotiations | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, August 11, 1949 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 11/08/1949 | official documents | GATT/CP.3/77/Corr.1 and GATT/CP.3/77 + Corr.1,2 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/bj110rr6386 | bj110rr6386_90320314.xml | GATT_144 | 173 | 1,151 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS RESTRICTED
AND TRADE LIMITED B
GATT/CP.3/77/Corr.1
11th August 1949.
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH.
ENGLISH/FRENCH
Contracting Parties
Third Session
THIRD SET OF TARIFF NEGOTIATIONS
The following corrections should be made in Annex II:
1. Poland should be added to the list of European countries.
Poland is a member of the United Nations, attended the Havana
Conference but did not sign the Final Act, and was invited to
participate in the Annocy negotiations.
2. Ethiopia was not invited to participate in the Annecy
negotiations.
3. Israel Fnd Siam are members of the United Nations.
TROISIEME SEBIE DE NEGOCIATIONS
TARIFAIRES
I1 convient d' pporter à I'Annexe II les corrections
ci-aprés:
1. Ajouter la Pologne à la liste dos pays ouropéens.
La Pologne est un Etat Membre d s Nations Unies. Elle a
participé à la Confference do la Havane sans toutefois signer
l'Acte Final, et a été invité à participer aux négociations
d'Annecy.
2. L'Ethiopic n'a pas été invitée participer aux
négociations d'Arnecy.
3. L'Etat d'Israöl ot le Siam sont Membres des Nations
Unios. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.