Shortly before the Ministerial Conference in Bali in December, the development process, with the direct assistance of the Director-General, had resulted in a quasi-clean text. Until now, differences of opinion have been limited to a small number of members who were able to find a solution at a bilateral meeting that allowed them to return as members. The former litigation and discontent groups such as S-D and Customs Cooperation were now in brackets. Although the trade facilitation agreement has not yet been fully finalized by the Ministerial Conference, it was in good shape to be brought to and concluded. The ministerial conference led to new rounds of negotiations and differences of opinion, but the members finally reached agreement on a text on the agreement. After a decade of negotiations, the WTO finally concluded its trade facilitation agreement at the end of 2013, which was extended to 2014.  The first discussions on trade facilitation began in the mid-1990s. In 1996, the Singapore Ministerial Conference gave the WTO its original directive, but under a different conceptual title.  The language used in the letter reflected a possible compromise between those who wished to renegotiate the terms of an agreement and those, particularly those in developing and least developed countries, who had doubts about the success of new negotiations and preferred a much tighter/limited agenda. Many of the doubts about a new multilateral trade agreement in the future related to the fact that they did not have the capacity to meet additional commitments, particularly for developing and least developed countries. All developed countries supported the trade facilitation agreement there, as well as a number of developing countries such as Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Republic of Korea, Paraguay and Singapore.
 However, it remained difficult to convince affiliated nations to agree on multilateral negotiations. However, there was no opposition to the work and development of the Trade Facilitation Act. The law promised to reduce customs barriers and non-tariff issues. However, most developing and least developed countries have instead advocated an approach that encourages compliance with these guidelines against the mandate of disciplines. Take a legal look: once a country has adopted its Class C designations, it should consider putting in place a legal framework for the implementation of these measures. The first step is to conduct a thorough analysis of legal loopholes to determine where changes or new rules are needed.