111. The representative of the European Union first referred to his delegation’s initial invitation to all Members, and to the Joint Proposal Group in particular, to describe how they would implement the TN/C/W/52 proposal. The representative of Switzerland had said that TN/C/W/52 was never aimed at being a legal text, but a draft modalities text. He did not think that that in itself should prevent delegations from describing how, for example, the concept of "prime facie" would work in their system. He said that even if the European Union did not like the joint proposal it had made the effort to examine how it could be implemented. He would ask the Joint Proposal Group to do the same with TN/C/W/52 even if it was not a full legal draft. He hoped in that spirit they could approach the question as well and endeavour to make a good faith effort to describe how it would be implemented.
112. As regards the questions raised by New Zealand and Canada, he said that his delegation had the beginning of a response, but would need some verification. He would come back to it at the next meeting.
113. On the US questions, he asked the delegation of the United States to clarify the context of their questions (d) and (e) as that of an administrative procedure or that of a legal challenge subsequent to the administrative procedure. Further clarifications would help his delegation look at a possible answer.
