/T/TACY
21
E/PC/T/TAC/PV/22
rter ret
e could
ould be
parate
› cona
A Te
t have
to add
ey woul
thout
sub-para
a prov
d Articl
rds.
o thist
rnment
→ the
been
le cond
ters
contra
in
.ated
they
have to adhere to the club of the General Agreement on the sam ditions as any non-negotiating Government or any Government
hich has not taken part in the negotiations in Geneva,
Furthermore, we thought that P-ragraph 3 (u) should alsɔ
શ
dified.
be
We therefore proposed a modification on the lines put
forward by the Delegate of the Netherlands, which now appears af
second proviso in Paragraph 3 (a).
The Netherlands Delegation pointed out that if any separate
customs territory were included now in the list of the metropol-.
ten territories at the time of the Signature of the Aereement,
and if such territory should acquire complete autonomy in the
future regarding the matters which now appear in the Agreement and
therefore become a separate customs territory, with full autonomy
meant here, this should be provided for. If it happened
Zuring the period of the application of the Agreement, it ought to
be provided for and the same treatment ought to be given to that
new separate territory as that which existed at the time of the
Agreement if that separate customs territory were included in the
list of the metropolitan territories.
This is the object of the second proviso appearing in Fragraph 3 (a), stating that "Provided further that if any of the
customs territories on behalf of which a contracting party has
accepted this Agreement possesses or acquires full autonomy in the conduct of its external commercial relations and of the other
matters provided for by this Axreement," etc.
The Sub-committee further thought that the provision included in Peragraph 3 (), stating that the separate customs territories should be allowed tɔ send representatives to the Contracting Parties (with capital letters), was insufficient, because it did not take into account the rights and obligations of