W

Over the past few years, India’s textile exports to the European Union have been facing anti-dumping investigations of the European Commission (EC). In recent times, 3 textile product categories, namely (i) Unbleached Cotton Fabrics (UCF) (ii) Cotton Type Bed-liner and (iii) Polyester Texturised Filament Yarn (PTFY) orginating from India have been subjected to anti-dumping action by the EC. India’s exports to the European Union of certain textile products are already under quantitative restrictions under the Indo-EU bilateral textile agreement. As a result of various initiatives taken either through intensive diplomatic efforts or legal course of action to defend the cases, the Unbleached Cotton Fabrics-III anti-dumping case of the EC was turned down.

In the cotton type bed-linen anti-dumping case, Government of India decided to contest the EC’s action and initiated the process as a prelude to raising this issue under the Dispute Settlement Mechanism of the WTO. Two rounds of consultations with EC have already taken place and DSB proceedings initiated.

The European Commission had initiated two parallel investigations, namely, anti-dumping proceedings and anti-subsidy, concerning import of PTFY orginating, among others, from India. The complainant has since withdrawn the case.

Turkey has recently initiated anti-dumping investigations on import of Polyester Texturised Yarn (PTY) from India, Republic of Korea, Thailand and Chinese Taiwan. The Silk and Rayon Textiles Export Promotion Council (SRTEPC) is coordinating the defence of Indian producers/exporters in the case and taking necessary steps to contest the proceedings.

The Board of Tariff and Trade (BOTT), South Africa, had received complaints against large quantity of imports from India and also received requests for initiating anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings against the following two items being exported from India : firstly, printed and dyed bed linen and secondly, acrylic fibre blankets. Although Bott has not initiated any anti-dumping and anti subsidy proceedings against imports of printed and dyed bed linen, in case of acrylic fibre blankets definitive anti-dumping duties have been imposed by the South Africian authorities

The US has changed its Rules of Origin (RO) with effect from July 1, 1996. According to the old US Rules of Origin, for processed fabrics and made-ups (e.g. sheets, pillow cases, terry towels, toilets & kitchen linen), the country of origin was the country where transformation of the fabric into processed fabric/made-ups took place (i.e. the country where the processing of the grey fabric or the stitching operation for conversion into made-ups took place). For garments, it was the country where the fabric was cut (but not necessarily stitched). But now, for processed fabrics and made-ups, the country of origin is the country where the fabric is made. For garments, it is the country where the fabric was substantially converted into a garment and not necessarily where it was cut. Since we currently have zero or negligible off-shore production (third country production) of garments produced from fabrics cut in India, the change in the US Rules of Origin may not affect us at this juncture, although it may affect us adversely at a later stage. But, we are likely to be affected by the application of new rules on the exports of fabrics and made ups as it gets debited against our quota utilisation. A substantial quantity of our fabrics is going to countries like Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Hong Kong for conversion into processed fabrics /made-ups for re-export to the US. As per the new rules, these value added products require to be accompanied by an Indian visa and/or Indian quota for clearance by the US Customs. India has been so far clearing such cases by giving Indian visas/quotas under protest. Rules of Origin continue to be an important issue of concern to India in the textiles sector which has been conveyed on several occasions.

1. Recent years have seen increasing resort to anti-dumping actions. In a number of cases investigations are started even in cases where the industry claiming injury has not been able to produce, before the investigating authorities, satisfactory evidence of dumping or injury. New investigations have often been started on the same products immediately after the termination of an investigation. This is particularly true of exports of developing countries which are being subject to more and more anti-dumping and countervailing measures. The frequent use of anti-dumping actions against exports from developing countries by major trading countries has become a matter of serious concern. The uncertainty and restrictiveness of these measures has created trade disruption affecting not only particular consignments but also longer-term trade in the targeted product. Benefits from trade liberalisation have been considerably neutralised by the unfair use of anti-dumping measures, including back-to-back anti-dumping investigations on the same products which have frustrated the expectations created during the Uruguay Round.

2. The lack of clarity in certain provisions has compounded the problem, including the fact that Article 15 of the Agreement which provides the only reference to the special situation in developing countries is ambiguous and practically inoperative. Furthermore, in cases where there are no sales, or the sales in the domestic market are low, the investigating authorities rely on "constructed value" calculated on the basis of cost of production, even where data on price charged by the exporter to third-country markets may be readily available for price comparison purposes. Experience has shown that the determination of the construction value is often not fair and results in harassment of exporting firms that are alleged to be dumping. Moreover, certain provisions, particularly those relating to de minimis dumping margin and the threshold volume of imports below which no anti-dumping duty shall be levied, need to be revised in view of the changed global trade and economic scenario, especially for export from developing countries. The concerns arising out of increased susceptibility of developing countries to the incidence of dumping into their economy, as they liberalise their import regimes, also needs to be addressed.

3. The special provisions in the Agreement relating to settlement of disputes in the anti-dumping area which inter alia require panels not to challenge "the evaluation of facts" made by the investigating authorities, where "establishment of facts was proper and the evaluation was unbiased and objective" needs to be modified to provide that the common rules provided by the Dispute Settlement Understanding apply to disputes relating to anti-dumping actions. The following amendments are therefore necessary in order to ensure that developing countries receive the due benefits of global trade liberalisation.

4. Article 15 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI is only a best-endeavour clause. Consequently, Members have rarely, if at all, explored the possibility of constructive remedies before applying anti-dumping duties against exports from developing countries. Hence, the provisions of Article 15 need to be operationalised and made mandatory.

5. In order to restrict the initiation of back-to-back investigations, it should be provided that no investigation would be initiated for a period of 365 days from the date of finalisation of a previous investigation for the same product resulting in non-imposition of duties. However, if for any exceptional reasons such an investigation has to be initiated it must have the support of at least 75 per cent of the domestic industry.

2 per cent of export price below which no anti-dumping duty can be imposed (Article 5.8), needs to be raised to 5 per cent for developing countries, so as to reflect the inherent advantages that the industries in these countries enjoy vis-à-vis comparable production in developed countries.

de minimis only in newly initiated cases, not in review and refund cases. It is imperative that the proposed

de minimis dumping margin of 5 per cent is applied not only in new cases but also in refund and review cases.

7. The threshold volume of dumped imports which shall normally be regarded as negligible (Article 5.8) should be increased from the existing 3 per cent to 5 per cent for imports from developing countries. Moreover, the stipulation that anti-dumping action can still be taken even if the volume of imports is below this threshold level, provided countries which individually account for less than the threshold volume, collectively account for more than 7 per cent of the imports, should be deleted.

8. The lesser duty rule should be made mandatory while imposing an anti-dumping duty against a developing- country Member by any developed-country Member. Article 9.1 needs to be modified accordingly.

9. The definition of "substantial quantities" as provided for in Article 2.2.1 (footnote 5) is still very restrictive and permits unreasonable findings of dumping. The substantial quantities test should be increased from the present threshold of 20 per cent to at least 40 per cent.

10. In cases where there are no or low sales of like product in the domestic market, resort to constructed value on the basis of cost of production (Article 2.3) should only be made where the investigating authorities find that prices charged by the same exporter to third-country markets are not available or are not representative.

11. As developing countries liberalise, the incidence of dumping into these countries is likely to increase. It is important to address this concern, since otherwise the momentum of import liberalisation in developing countries may suffer. There should therefore be a provision in the Agreement, which provides a presumption of dumping of imports from developed countries into developing countries, provided certain conditions are met.

12. Presently there is a different and more restrictive standard of review pertaining to adjudication in anti-dumping cases. There is no reason why there should be such a discrimination for anti-dumping investigations. Hence, Article 17 should be suitably modified so that the general standard of review laid down in the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism, applies equally and totally to disputes in the anti-dumping area.

The annual review provided under Article 18.6 has remained a proforma exercise and has not provided adequate opportunity for Members to address the issue of increasing anti-dumping measures and instances of abuse of the Agreement to accommodate protectionist pressures. This Article must be appropriately amended to ensure that the annual reviews are meaningful and play a role in reducing the possible abuse of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

The textile industry in India is preparing to meet the competition expected in the post-MFA era. The government is trying to help the industry to meet the situation and has recently given a favourable Exim Policy as well as various other schemes through Budget notifications. In order to provide easy access to raw materials required for export production, the government has recently introduced a scheme of granting Annual Advance Licences by which exporters can continue to import their input requirements throughout the year and simultaneously, export garments made out of them. This scheme will reduce the transaction time and cost to enable the garment exporters to devote themselves to the job of producing and exporting their products. Various types of trimmings and embellishments have been allowed to be imported by the industry free of licence as well as import tariffs. Most of the fabrics have been brought into the free list of imports. Arrangements are also being worked out by taking policy initiatives so that quality fabrics produced by the mill sector in India are made available to the garment makers.

A scheme of setting up Apparel Parks is being worked out whereby the State Governments will be asked to set up such Parks in areas which are near the existing garment production centres as well as the fabric trading or manufacturing industries so that garment exporters can set up and relocate their manufacturing facilities to places where they can get cheaper labour and cut down costs. This cluster development approach will enable the Apparel Parks to be used as an instrument for guiding technology upgradation and export culture.

A Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme has been launched with effect from April 1,99 with a view to making the Indian textile industry globally competitive and bringing in the desired level of investment for the technological upgradation of the textile sector, covering spinning, weaving, processing and the garment manufacturing sectors.

The key areas of infrastructural concern for textiles are ports, power (both availability and price), highways, telecommunications and FDI. Certain steps have been taken to encourage private investment in segments like ports (on build-operate-transfer basis), power generation and distribution etc. The pace of investment in infrastructure for the export-related segments needs to be enhanced through both public and private efforts including FDIs. Higher budgetary support through the Ministry of Textiles is envisaged for providing better infrastructure in the clusters of textiles and garment production.

Reservation for garment and knitting in the SSI sector could be eased in order to provide the Indian industry a level playing field to compete against imported garment and knitted products and face the post-quota regime in 2005. This would also help in attracting foreign direct investment and joint ventures, besides proper utilisation of the Textile Upgradation Fund Scheme.

The competitiveness of the domestic industry has to be strengthened to withstand the increased import of textile products. Therefore, a detailed view of various issues relating to the domestic textiles industry such as excise and other duties applicable to raw material, infrastructural problems, interest rates etc. have to be undertaken for revamping in order to increase the competitiveness of the domestic textile industry.

• The Ministerial Meeting of the Group of Fifteen (G-15), in preparation for the Third Ministerial Conference of WTO at Seattle, was held at Bangalore, India on 17-18 August, 1999. Mr. Ramakrishna Hegde, Commerce Minister of India, chaired the meeting. India hosted this preparatory meeting in pursuance of the decisions taken at the IX Summit of the Heads of State and Government of the Group of Fifteen at Montego Bay, Jamaica, in February 1999. Reaffirming the importance of a transparent, fair and equitable rule-based multilateral trading system under the WTO, the Summit had highlighted the legitimacy of the development objectives of developing countries.

• Against the backdrop of the above guidelines provided by the Montego Bay Summit, the delegates had detailed discussions with reference to the current stage of preparations in Geneva. The objective was to ensure that the interests of developing countries were fully taken on board and that the gains of the multilateral trading system contributed positively to the economic development of developing countries.

• In the first Session, the focus was on issues and concerns arising out of implementation of existing agreements, as well as mandated reviews referred to in para 9(a) of the Geneva Ministerial Declaration.

• The delegates recognised three facets of implementational issues and concerns. The first is the removal of inequities in the existing agreements to restore the balance of rights and obligations forged in the Uruguay Round. Second is the non-realisation of benefits by many developing countries in areas of interest to them, such as agriculture and textiles and clothing sectors, because of the failure of developed countries to fulfil their obligations in spirit. Third is the special and differential provisions in the Uruguay Round Agreements which have remained unimplemented. These provisions, including those of a best endeavour nature, have to be operationalised if the developing countries are to derive the intended benefits of these provisions.

• Developing countries are facing difficulties in effective and timely implementation of their commitments because of resource and institutional constraints and lack of adequate technical assistance. There are also many specific implementation problems. For instance, non-operationalisation of the transfer of technology provisions and lack of benefit sharing on biological resources and traditional knowledge accessed for innovations under the TRIPs Agreement; inability of developing countries to use regulations necessary to accelerate their industrialisation process because of the TRIMs provisions and inability to use subsidies for development and diversification and upgradation due to the subsidies Agreement were pointed out. Similarly, special provisions in the Anti-dumping Agreement, the Dispute Settlement Understanding and the SPS and TBT Agreements meant to benefit developing countries have been virtually ignored by the developed countries. The repeated and unreasonable imposition of anti-dumping and countervailing duties by developed countries; lack of meaningful implementation of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing and non-reduction of tariffs in areas of interest to developing countries showed lack of concern of developed countries for the core interests of developing countries.

• In the light of the concerns expressed, the delegates agreed that these issues should be addressed appropriately in the preparatory process in Geneva on priority and emphasised the need for adoption of coordinated and mutually supportive positions by G-15 countries, particularly through their Geneva based Permanent Representatives accredited to the WTO, so that the necessary corrective measures could be taken by the Seattle Ministerial Conference.

• On mandated negotiations in the Agreement on Agriculture, the delegates observed that any delay in pursuing further liberalisation is unwarranted and highlighted the need to work towards introducing greater equity and balance in the Agreement and dismantling of trade-distorting measures. The importance of providing necessary flexibility to developing countries for the adoption of domestic policies for improving the general levels of production, achieving food security and enhancing the income levels of the rural poor was recognised.

• In the services sector, importance was laid in the discussions on the liberalisation of areas of interest to developing countries, particularly movement of natural persons.

• Developing countries, including several G-15 countries had agreed in Singapore to launch educative programmes on certain new subjects like Trade and Investments, Trade and Competition Policy, Trade Facilitation and Transparency in government procurement. The work on Trade and Investment had shown that the issue was complex and multifaceted. Given the complexity of the task, members of the OECD had not been able to reach any agreement on a discipline on investment. Several delegations while noting that developing countries had been pursuing an autonomous policy of investment liberalisation suited to their specific needs emphasised that this trend should be allowed to evolve. A few delegations, however, said that while they were not

de mandeurs of a multilateral regime in this area they could go along with a consensus.

• On Competition Policy, delegates were of the view that it would be premature to talk of a multilateral competition framework at present, given the complexities of the issue shown during the discussions in the WTO working group, which was still in an analytical phase. Delegates also emphasised the need to address the issue of restrictive business practices by transnational corporations as well as anti-competitive effects of certain trade remedial measures. The delegates rejected any move to gradually multilateralise the existing Plurilateral Government Procurement Agreement.

• Delegates recognised that urgent steps were needed to integrate the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) into multilateral trading system.

• Over and above the Singapore issues, there are certain other issues which are being suggested for inclusion into the negotiating agenda of WTO such as industrial tariffs, electronic commerce, trade and environment, transparency in WTO functioning and global policy coherence. There are even attempts to reintroduce the social clause.

• The delegates observed that the benefits of tariff reduction commitments undertaken in the last round have not accrued to the developing countries to the extent anticipated, in view of the prevalence of tariff peaks, tariff escalations and non-tariff barriers in respect of items of particular interest to developing countries. Some delegations, therefore, were not in favour of a new round of tariff negotiations. Certain delegations stated that in order to address these issues they would favour negotiations on industrial tariff reductions without excluding any industrial sector. Some delegations said that while they were not de mandeurs of such negotiations, they were not opposed to it either. It was observed that the issues of tariff peaks, tariff escalations and non-tariff barriers in the developed countries overhanging from the Uruguay Round must be addressed effectively for market access to be meaningful. Many delegations affirmed the need for due credit to tariff reductions already effected autonomously by developing countries. Many delegations strongly opposed any concept of standstill on tariff reduction based on applied tariffs or a commitment to harmonise tariffs.

• On electronic commerce, it was noted that a work programme to examine all trade-related issues relating to global electronic commerce has been launched. This work programme has identified many complexities involved in electronic commerce. Many delegates emphasised the need to look at electronic commerce from the perspective of developing countries and the need to address the important issues raised in the Work programme.

• Most delegates agreed that environment is ab initio a non-trade issue, and that all legitimate environmental concerns can be accommodated within the existing WTO provisions, including Article XX of GATT 1994. Delegates agreed that the work programme in the Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE) should continue. Since trade is seldom at the root of environmental problems, they were particularly concerned with attempts to give legitimacy to protectionism in the garb of environmental concerns. Delegates urged the Ministers at Seattle to clearly recognise that environmental standards differ from country to country and that the solution lies in mutual recognition of only product-related standards rather than harmonisation of environmental standards. The delegates also recommended that in case of proprietary technologies or substances mandated for use by international agreements or national environmental laws, owners of intellectual property should be required to sell them at fair and most favourable terms and conditions.

• The call by some developed countries for a greater coherence between WTO and other inter-governmental organisations was noted. It was noted that the Marrakesh Ministerial Declaration ruled against the imposition of any cross conditionalities or additional conditions being imposed by such organisations. It was agreed that closer relationship between institutions cannot relieve members of the WTO from their own responsibility to keep markets open and avoid recourse to trade distorting measures.

• The delegations rejected any linkage between trade and core labour standards. They recalled that this issue had been finally settled in the Singapore Ministerial Declaration. They decided to resolutely oppose any renewed attempt to raise this issue in the WTO.

• All delegates agreed that the resolution of the implementation issues and concerns should be treated as a priority issue in the Seattle Ministerial Conference. Many delegates expressed the view that mandated negotiations and mandated reviews should constitute the core agenda for the next round of negotiations. Some delegates were prepared for limited add-ons like tariff negotiations. It was stated by many delegates that overloading of the agenda would definitely cause delay in the fructification of negotiations as happened in the Uruguay Round. Regarding the issue of a single undertaking, most delegations were of the view that it has both advantages and disadvantages and that a final view could be taken only after the scope of negotiations is determined. All delegations agreed that the final outcome of the Seattle Ministerial Conference should be based on consensus.

• In conclusion, the meeting reaffirmed its commitment to a rule-based and equitable multilateral trading system resulting in full integration of developing countries into the system for their economic development and for global trade expansion. The meeting reiterated the importance of greater and easier market access for the products of interest to developing countries.

The General Council met for a prolonged session stretching over six days in the second fortnight of July 1999, to continue the discussions on the preparatory process for the 1999 Seattle Ministerial Conference. Since this was the last meeting before the summer break, the focus was on all issues covered under para 9 and para 10 of the Geneva Ministerial Declaration.

The emphasis, as before, was on what should be included in the work programme to be initiated after the Seattle Ministerial Conference. Developing countries, including India, continued to emphasise the importance of addressing implementational concerns. They also expressed hesitancy on the inclusion of any issue other than what is already a part of the built-in agenda. On the other hand, most of the developed countries and, in fact, some developing countries also feel that the built-in agenda would not be sufficiently comprehensive and that some other issues, particularly negotiations on industrial tariffs, should be included in the post-Seattle basket of issues.

More than 150 proposals have so far been submitted by Members in this preparatory process. However, it was evident from the statement made by a number of Members in the concluding session of the General Council that they are yet to submit some more proposals. In fact, one major player stated that their consultations with their domestic constituency are still continuing and that they would be in a position to finalise their remaining proposals only after the summer break. Consequently, even though it is generally felt that 3rd phase of the preparatory process will start early in September, it is also a fact that the proposal driven second phase will stretch into the first few weeks of September 1999, that is for some time the two phases will run concurrently.

The General Council is to reconvene in the first week of September. The Chairman has indicated that he would, on his own responsibility, prepare a draft outline of the Ministerial Declaration and submit it for Members’ consideration in the meeting to be held in early September. While a number of Members have expressed certain reservations on this, stating that it would be best to enter the drafting stage only after all proposals have been tabled, a large number of Members feel that the two exercises i.e. submission of new proposals and the drafting of the Ministerial Declaration, can go on simultaneously. In the meanwhile, the Secretariat has also been asked to prepare a more functional and detailed checklist of the proposals submitted by Members so that proposals submitted under various areas/agreements are available at one place for a more focussed discussion.

After more than nine months of protracted negotiations, the General Council finally agreed to a compromise formula for the new DG of the WTO, under which Mr. Mike Moore of New Zealand and Dr. Supachai of Thailand would both hold the post of DG for three years each. In an endeavour to overcome the impasse, Dr. Supachai also agreed to be the DG for the second term which would start from 1st September 2002. The General Council decision also clearly specifies that in case Dr. Supachai is for some reason not available, at the time that Mr. Moore relinquishes office, then the next DG would necessarily be from a developing country. In effect, this means that the WTO would for the first time have a DG from a developing country, albeit after three years.

The twenty-ninth council meeting of the International Textiles and Clothing Bureau (ITCB) took place in Bhurban, Pakistan from July 12-15, 1999. The meeting called on the textile importing countries to make commercially meaningful integration and improved growth rates in favour of exporting countries.

In a formal meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) on July 26, 1999, the United States submitted its first status report on the implementation of the DSB’s recommendations in the Shrimps-Turtle dispute. The US argued that it had already made the "guidelines" for the administration of certification more transparent and had taken into account comments made by its trading partners. The US maintained that it was under no obligation to change its law i.e. Section 609 which imposes an import ban on shrimps under certain circumstances. India, Malaysia, Thailand and Pakistan while noting that the guidelines were more transparent, nevertheless pointed out that it was their interpretation of the recommendations of the DSB that the US should do away with the import prohibition of shrimps altogether. The US has time until 6th December 1999 to implement the DSB’s recommendations.

The DSU (Dispute Settlement Understanding) Review which was scheduled to end on July 31, 1999 did not complete its work on schedule. It was agreed that work would resume early September 1999 with a view to reaching an early consensus. One of the important issues being discussed is the relationship between Article 21 and 22 of the DSU. Article 21 deals with multilateral determination of compliance or non-compliance by an implementing Member whereas Article 22 deals with cross-retaliation. A large number of countries including India have said that without multilateral determination under Article 21,there cannot be retaliation under Article 22. This view is questioned by the US. Negotiations on this and other matters are expected to resume early September 1999.

In order to share information about the dynamism of IT and its future and to discuss the role of IT in economic growth and development and in the infrastructure for global information economy, an information technology symposium was held on 16th July 1999. The participants in the symposium were governments of WTO Members as well as of countries that have applied for accession to the WTO, large and small businesses and users of information technology. The discussions were organised in four sessions covering overview of the IT industry; technology advances/trends and innovative business practices; contribution of IT to economic growth and development and the role of trade in the mutual reinforcement of global and national IT policies; practical problems encountered in IT trade and the broader effects of non-tariff measures; and the implications of current approaches to standards making and conformity assessment. Presentations were made by IT experts from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Chinese Taipei, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, India, Israel, Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Switzerland, and USA.

"It is a matter of great advantage to us that from the date of coming into force of the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, no bilateral arrangement will exist and only the multilateral arrangement envisaged under the Uruguay Round Agreement will apply to this sector. Bilateral arbitrariness and discriminatory practices adopted by the quota countries will come to an end immediately... Our unhappiness with the Agreement is two fold: First, the ‘product coverage’ for the phasing out of MFA is inflated. The entire universe of textiles and clothing items is covered, which means that even those items that are today not covered by quotas are included in it. This would imply, for example in the case of USA, no phasing out of quota items or only marginal phasing out of the quota items till the end of the transition period, and items of export interest to us will get integrated into GATT only on the last day of the transition period. Secondly, as much as 49 per cent of the textiles and clothing sector will get integrated into GATT on the last day of the ten-year transition period which lacks credibility. As against this, it is argued - at least in the case of USA- that quotas will cease to bite by the end of six years because of the growth factors (i.e. growth in the volume of export of quota items) and domestic demand may be lower than the available quotas. Notwithstanding these deficiencies, our key gain from the Agreement is that the arbitrary system of MFA (which has remained in vogue from 1974 onwards) is at last being abolished and the textiles and clothing sector is being integrated into GATT by a multilaterally agreed treaty.... Now that the textiles and clothing agreement of the Uruguay Round is in place, what is of greater importance is the strengthening of our competitiveness in this sector. In a quota free world, we will face fierce competition from countries such as China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Vietnam. Garment units from Taiwan and Hongkong are already being moved into China, while South Korea is shifting its base to low cost Asian countries. It is of urgent importance that government and industry get together and push through a concrete programme for upgradation of technology, quality consciousness and aggressive marketing. We need to invest substantially in the modernisation of our garment industry, and also of our textile industry to get high quality fabrics. We also need to diversify our export products. Our competitive strength lies in cotton-based products, and so the enhanced production and availability of raw cotton of the requisite quality at competitive prices would need to be ensured".

(Excerpted from A.V. Ganesan’s "The GATT Uruguay Round Agreement: Opportunities and Challenges", RGICS paper, 1994)

13/9/99	Committee on Trade Related Investment Measures
13-15/9/99	Textile Monitoring Body
14/9/99	Working Group on Trade & Competition Policy
14-16/9/99	Trade Policy Review Body (Israel)
21/9/99	Council for Trade in Services
20-21/9/99	Committee on Balance of Payments
22/9/99	Dispute Settlement Body
22/9/99	Working Party Accession of Saudi Arabia
22-24/9/99	Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (24th Session)
23/9/99	Special Session of the General Council
24/9/99	Working Group on the Relationship between Trade and Investment
27/9/99	Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration
27/9/99	Working Party Accession of Croatia
27-29/9/99	Trade Policy Review Body (Philippines)
28/9/99	Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in Information Technology Products
29/9/99	Sub-committee on Least Developed Countries
29-30/9/99	Committee on Agriculture
30/9/99	Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade