. /.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/VAL/M/30/Add.1
10 September 2002
(02-4751)
Committee on Customs Valuation Original:  English
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 3 JULY 2002
Chairman:  Mr. Raimundas Karoblis (Lithuania)
Addendum
Resumption of the meeting on 26 July to discuss item I, Technical Assistance
1.1 The Chairman informed Members that he wished to discuss the programme for the seminar
on technical assistance, planned for 6-7 November 2002.  Following the meeting of 3 July and
Members' reluctance to adopt the proposed struct ure incorporating "break-out" sessions into the
seminar, the Secretariat had prepared a second revised programme.  This revision was faxed to allMembers and circulated as document G/VAL/W/96/Rev.2.  He wished to work on the basis of this
revision with a view to incorporating comments and views into a final version.  He added that the
timing of the sessions would also have to be revised according to the interpreters' schedules.
However, this would not change the substance of the programme which was to be the focus of the
Committee's discussion.  Finally, he added that there was still no decision on the matter of fundingcapital-based participants.  Several requests for funding had been received which would be held on
file until the matter was resolved.
1.2 The representative of the European Communities asked that the words "and providers" be
incorporated into the second session of the first day and the first session of the second day of the
programme in the phrase, "Issues for technical assistance donors".  She also asked that in the second
session, a sub-item be added on what was the most appropriate type of technical assistance to addressspecific areas such as risk analysis, post-importer audit, or administrative know-how.  Finally, she
asked that the concept of scheduling technical assi stance activities be incorporated into the second
session of the second day.
1.3 The representative of Pakistan asked what was meant by the word "provider"?
1.4 The representative of the European Communities replied that it was a more general term and
also covered private persons.  Technical assistance might be received not only from the WTO but
from other governments or from private persons.
1.5 The representative of Australia stated that certain building blocks needed to be in place in
order to facilitate implementation of the Agreement such as capacity and training.  While his
delegation did not believe that the draft programme needed to be revised, it assumed that the
Secretariat would provide some guidance for presenters at the seminar to give consideration to these
particular building blocks which supported implementation of the Agreement.
1.6 The representative of Guatemala agreed with the draft programme and the suggestions by the
EC and Australia.  He emphasized that his delegation was very interested in participating in the
seminar but would need funding to send an expert from its capital.  He asked whether it would be
necessary to write a letter to the WTO Secretariat or simply mention this in the meeting?G/VAL/M/30/Add.1
Page 2
1.7 The Chairman noted that he was consulting with the Techncial Cooperation Division on the
matter.  He advised Members to write a letter explaining their financing needs, to be kept on file.
1.8 The representative of the Philippines noted the importance of the topic of coordination among
the various donors and providers.  This would assist  recipients in coping with their needs.  She
supported the statement by Guatemala and added that the seminar would only be useful if it benefited
from the widest participation of developing countries as well as from the participation of capital-based
experts.
1.9 The representative of Bolivia considered the draft programme balanced and appropriate.  Her
country was in the midst of reforming its customs administration in order to be able to apply the
Agreement.  It would, therefore, be very interested in participating in this seminar but would also need
funding.
1.10 The representative of India asked what form the summary of the seminar would take.  She
noted that it should be in a form that would allow easy extraction of elements which could be put to
practical use.
1.11 The Chairman understood that the summary would be a factual statement regarding the
problems raised and possible solutions proposed or  tried.  He added that the Committee could meet
afterwards to follow-up the issues rais ed at the seminar in concrete terms.
1.12 The representative of Canada agreed with the programme and with the EC's suggestions.  His
delegation agreed on the need for the widest part icipation by developing as well as developed
countries in this seminar.  His delegation believed that the seminar should conclude with a factual
summary highlighting the key elements as well a compendium of the documents presented by the
presenters, to be circulated.  This latter document would be useful as working material and wouldform the basis for further discussions in the Committees.
1.13 The representative of Honduras said his delegation would like to send an expert from its
capital. However, it would need funding and supported the statements made by Guatemala and the
Philippines.
1.14 The representative of Pakistan supported the suggestion by Canada to disseminate the
documents as wide as possible, particularly to audiences in capitals.  He also suggested video-taping
the seminar and providing the tapes to capitals for people to view.
1.15 The representative of China asked if the panel discussions would be in groups or in plenary
sessions?1.16 The Chairman confirmed that presentations by panellists would be in the plenary sessions as
would the question and answer sessions.  The seminar would not break into groups.  He added that
Members should inform the Secretariat if they wished to participate as panellists and indicate in which
session of the programme they would wish to partic ipate.  A revised programme would be issued after
the summer break.
1.17 The meeting was adjourned.
__________