KARACHI, Dec 21: The quota-free regime is fast approaching and only 10 days are left. There are, however, concerns about its implementation in letter and spirit by developed countries. They have already devised some indirect safeguards and regulations to check the flow of textiles and clothing from developing countries.

Despite the fact there will be no quota ceilings from January 1, 2005, still the importing countries are expected to limit the flow of textiles and clothing by imposing different safeguards and regulations which the exporting countries fear could be discriminatory and specific.

The initial three months for the quota-free era would be crucial to settle the concerns of both the exporting and importing countries of textiles and clothing which are based on genuine fears and apprehensions. While the importing countries fear unbridled flow of goods, the exporting countries expect a tough competition from their competitors locally and internationally.

In order to forestall the looming danger, the European Union has resorted to amendments in the Council Regulations 3030/93 and 3285/94, a document which has so far regulated the quota regime under the Multi Fibre Agreement (MFA).

It is unfortunate that the EU only removed quota ceilings from the document and kept all the other harsh clauses fully intact that speak about their future line of action.

On the contrary, the EU added some clauses which could be helpful, when needed, in checking the flow of textile goods from developing countries. The most astonishing move is that the EU did not even bothered to enter into negotiations on the proposed amendments in its Regulations 3030/93 and 3285/94. It is being viewed by exporters as a 'shady' method of continuation of the quota regime beyond 2005.

The amended document is almost carrying all those provisions that seek consultations with the authorities of a supplier country in question in accordance with the respective article.

The documents states that when prices of textile products in EU member states are effected at abnormally low rates, the European Commission, acting on its own initiative or at the request of a member state, can request consultations with the supplier country.

Yet another harsh and punitive section with regard to Article 10, under the heading, "Safeguard measures" has been left fully intact in the new document. The objective of this article is to restrict import of those categories which are not subjected to quantitative limits.

This safeguard measure also calls for consultations with the supplier country with a view to reaching an arrangement or joint conclusions on a suitable level of restriction for the category or products.

It also allows the EU to limit imports for a provisional period of three months from the date on which the request for consultations was made with the supplier country of that product.

The EU Regulation Article No.15 governing the 'circumvention' also remains in its original form in the new and amended document. The article has been widely violated. It seeks a resolution to dispute and methods when exporters tranship or reroute textile products that are subject to quantitative limits by the EU.

Above all, the EU did not made any changes in the Article 16 meant for 'consultations'. The amended document lays down exactly the same terms and conditions for consultation with the country violating any of the set rules governing textile imports into EU member states. There are many other articles and clauses embodied in the new EU Council Regulations but were also part of the previous regulation governing the quota regime.

There is a strong notion that a sort of "price-war" may break out amongst the exporters who will be having a cutthroat competition from "within" and competitors of other countries.

This will ultimately invite such measures from the EU which may have been in practice during yesteryears of quantitative restriction and quotas. It is feared that this may even result in the adoption of unhealthy business practices, including compromise in quality and covering up of losses by resorting to tax evasions and other illegal means.

Consequently, if the importing countries are adopting such methods, which could minimize the possibility of 'dumping' of goods, it would be in the best national interest that the exporting countries should also adopt such measures that could help contain unbridled exports at dumping margin.

If a mechanism of this sort was adopted at the ensuing of the free market era it will help serve dual purpose. Firstly, it will help to avoid any regulatory measures from importing countries, and secondly it will forestall a "price-war" among exporters themselves.