RESTRICTED
UNDER ARTICLE 5, AND THE WAY IMPORTERS ARE MADE AWARE OF THESE CRIT- ERIA.
3. WE SAID THAT THE PHRASE ''STATUTORY INSTRUMENT' HAD A SPECIFIC
MEANING IN THE UK AND WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE TO DESCRIBE THE MEANS
BY WHICH DECISIONS ON INDIVIDUAL CASES UNDER ARTICLE 5 ARE PROMUL-
GATED. WE ALSO SAID THAT LEGAL INSTRUMENTS'', WHILE BETTER, WAS
STILL NOT ACCPETABLE, SINCE WE DID NOT KNOW IF THESE WOULD BE
LAGAL INSTRUMENTS. WE LIFTED OUR RESERVE ON THE DOCUMENT AS SUB-
MITTED TO THE GATT WHEN THE COMMISSION STATED THEY UNDERSTOOD OUR
DIFFICULTY AND WOULD BE PREPARED TO SUGGEST AN AMENDMENT, AS MIGHT SEEM APPROPRIATE, IN THE GATT DISCUSSIONS.
4. A NUMBER OF DELEGATES EXPRESSED CONCERN OVER THE ROLE OF THE
CUSTOMS CO-OPERATION COUNCIL. CHUMAS SAID HE APPRECIATED THIS CONCERN BUT, IT WAS FOR THE CCC TO MAKE A CASE FOR A ROLE IN RELATION TO THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW CODE.
5. CHUMAS SAID THAT IN CIRCULATING THE DRAFT TO MEMBERS OF THE MTN
CUSTOMS GROUP THE COMMISSION WOULD EMPHASIZE THAT THE DRAFT WAS
SUBJECT TO AMENDMENT AND ELABORATION IN THE COURSE OF DISCUSSION WITH
OTHER MEMBERS.
6. IT WAS AGREED THAT THE DRAFT AS AMENDED COULD BE PREPARED FOR
DESPATCH TO THE CUSTOMS GROUP, BUT HELD SUBJECT TO THE LIFTING OF
THE FRENCH RESERVE.
FCO COPY TO ·
CUS
MAURY, PIPER
MAITLAND
FRAME EXTERNAL
EID (E)
- 2
RESTRICTED
ADDITIONAL DISTRIBUTION
FRAME
COPIES TO:
MR MAURY) MR PIPER)
CUSTOMS & EXCISE
5