RESTRICTED  
  
G/IT/M/69  
 
30 April 2019  
(19-2950) Page: 1/13 
Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in 
Information Technology Products    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETI NG OF  30 OCTOBER  2018  
CHAIRPERSON: MR MUHAMMAD NUR HADRI B IN SOPRI  
INTRODUCTION  
The Committee adopted the proposed agenda for the meeting circulated in document  WTO/AIR/IT/ 8, 
dated 19 October  2018. An annotated agenda for the meeting was circula ted in 
document  JOB/IT/2 2, dated 23 October  2018. The Chairperson stated that he would take up  
one issue under "Other Business" : the date of the Committee's next m eeting.  
 
INTRODUCTION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  1 
1   REVIEW OF THE STATU S OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MINISTERIAL DECL ARATION 
ON TRADE IN INFORMAT ION TECHNOLOGY PRODU CTS (G/IT/1/REV.58)  .......................  2 
1.1   Request by Canada, China, the European U nion, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Norway, 
Chinese Taipei, and the United States Regarding an Implementation Issue Concerning India 
(G/IT/W/42 and G/IT/W/45)  ................................ ................................ ................................  2 
1.2   Request by the European Union, Japan, Chinese Taipei, and the United States Regarding an 
Implementation Issue Concerning China  ................................ ................................ ................  7 
2   REVIEW OF PRODUCT C OVERAGE  ................................ ................................ ................  8 
3   NON-TARIFF MEASURES  WORK PROGRAMME  ................................ ..............................  9 
4   EMC/EMI PILOT PROJE CT – DRAFT LIST OF T YPES OF CONFORMITY A SSESSMENT 
PROCEDURES FOR EMC/E MI USED BY ITA  PARTICIPANTS (G/IT/W /17/REV.22)  .........  10 
5   DIVERGENCES IN CLAS SIFYING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS 
(G/IT/14/REV.1/ADD.1 , G/IT/W/6/REV.3, G/ IT/W/33, G/IT/W/34, G/IT/27, 
JOB/IT/12, G/IT/29, G/IT/W/40/ADD.1 –G/IT/W /40/ADD.21, AND 
G/IT/W/40/SUPPL.4)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 11 
5.1   Implementation of the Decision for the Classification of 18  Attachment  B  
Products (G/IT/27)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 11 
5.2   Implementation of the 2016  Decision for the Classification of an Additional  15  
items (G/IT/29)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 11 
5.3   The remaining 22  Attachment  B items as contained in document  G/IT/W/40 and its 
supplements and addenda ................................ ................................ ................................ ...11 
6   DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT  (2018) OF THE COMMI TTEE TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE  
IN GOODS (G/IT/W/48)  ................................ ................................ ................................  12 
7   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 13 
7.1   Date of next meeting  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..13 
 G/IT/M/69  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1  REVIEW OF THE STATUS  OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MINISTERIAL D ECLARATION ON 
TRADE IN INFORMATION  TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS  (G/IT/1/REV.58)  
1.1.  The Chairperson  informed Participants that an overview of the status of implementation of the 
Ministerial Declaration on Information Technology Prod ucts could be found in 
document  G/IT/1/Rev.5 8. 
1.2.  He indicated that, under this agenda item, and in addition to an overview of the status of 
implementation, two  sub-agenda items had been added. The first -sub agenda item had been added 
at the request of Canada, China, the E uropean Union, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Norway, Chinese 
Taipei, and the United States,  regarding an implementation issue c oncerning India. The second 
sub-agenda item had been added at the request of the European Union, Japan, Chinese Taipei, and 
the U nited States, regarding an implementation issue concerning China.  
1.3.  Regard ing the review of the status of implementation, he recalled that two issues were 
pending: (i)  the completion of El Salvador's domestic legal procedural requirements; and (ii)  the 
submi ssion of Morocco's final ITA  Schedule of Concessions . 
1.4.  He reported that El Salvador had complete d its domestic legal procedural requirements  in 
relation to its participation in the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information Technology 
Products, and its  ITA Schedule had been certified on 29  June 2018. Therefore, one of the 
outstanding issues concerning the 1980  Procedures for the Rectification and Modification of 
Schedules ha d now been resolved.  An updated "Status of Implementation" was conta ined in 
document G/IT/1/Rev.58.  
1.5.  The representative of El Salvador  was delighted to inform the Committee that El Salvador had 
indeed completed its domestic legal procedures relative to the Agreement.  
1.6.  The Chairperson  then turned to the pending issue of the submission of  Morocco's final 
ITA Schedule of Concessions . He recalled that , as stated at previous meetings of the Committee,  
Morocco had become a participant to the ITA on 14  November  2003. However, Morocco had not yet 
submitted its final ITA  Schedule of commitments, despite outreach to Morocco on several occasions 
by the Chair's  predecessors, including a letter that his immediate predecessor had sent to the 
Minister of Economy and Finance of Morocco in the autumn of 2017, to which no formal response 
had been received.  The Chair proposed to raise this issue again at the Committee's next meeting.  
1.7.  He proposed that the Committee take note of the statements made.  
1.8.  It was so agreed . 
1.1  Request by Canada, China, the European Union, Japan, the Republic of K orea, Norway,  
Chinese Taipei, and the United States  Regarding an Implementation Issue Concerning 
India (G/IT/W/42 and G/IT/W/45)  
1.9.  The Chairperson  moved to the first  sub-agenda item, the request by Canada, China, the 
European Union, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Norway, Chinese Taipei, and the United States, 
regarding an implementation issue concerning India. In this context, he referred to 
document  G/IT/W/42, which had be en circulated at the request of the delegations of the European 
Union, Japan, and the United States,  and to document  G/IT/W/45, circulated at the reque st of the 
delegation of India.  
1.10.   The representative of the United States  commented that it was unfortunate to have to raise 
yet again the issue of India's tariff increases on telecommunications and ICT  products.  She pointed 
out that , rather than responding to the concerns already raised by the United States and numerous 
other Members, India ha d undertaken addit ional concerning actions in the past month  alone . Just 
the previous week, India had announced another round of tariff increases on telecommunications 
equipment. Tariffs were being increased on base stations (8517 .61) and certain telecommunications 
equipmen t (8517.69), from 10 % to 20%. These increases further raise d import tariffs on products 
for which India appear ed to have a WTO  binding commitment  to provide  duty-free access.  For 
example, India had a duty -free commitment for base station (8517.61) at the H S 6-digit level. With 
this latest customs notification, the import duty rate for base station would be increased to 20%. G/IT/M/69  
 
- 3 - 
 
  These increases c ame on top of India's submission of a proposed rectification and modification of its 
WTO Schedule  XII (G/MA/TAR/RS/572), which propose d to unbind several concessions relating to 
subheadings in Chapters  84 and 85.  
1.11.   After careful review, her delegation believe d that the proposed modifications would adversely 
affect the scope of its concessions with  regard to the goods concerned and, as such, these  
modifications  could not be considered to be rectifications. As a result , her delegation considered that 
the propose d modifications were not within the terms of paragraph  2 of the 1980  Decision on 
Procedures  for Modification and Rectification of Schedules of Tariff Concessions . 
 
1.12.   She stated that t he United States had formally registered its objection to India's proposed 
rectification that same  month.  Indeed, her delegation had serious systemic concerns with regard to 
India's proposed rectification.  
1.13.   She stated that t he very work of this Committee, as well as the Committee  on Market Access , 
was based on the foundation that , with each set of HS  nomenclature changes, Participants undert ook 
the necessary technical work and Member review to ensure that each Member 's tariff concessions 
remain ed unchanged.  
1.14.   She felt that India's  rectification suggest ed otherwise and could thus have a significant impact 
on the nature and meaning of India's WTO binding tariff commitments.  India' s proposed rectification 
include d many products for which India ha d binding WTO commitment s, as per Schedule  XII, to 
provide duty -free access , as previousl y discussed at meetings of this Committee , the Committee on 
Market Access , and the Council for Trade in Goods.  Base stations, mentioned earlier , were one 
example. In another example, 8517 .62, India' s commitment for this tariff line was at the HS 6 -digit 
level, so any national tariff line, or ex -out, which India might propose would need also to be bound 
at zero.  However, if her delegation had underst ood India' s proposal  correctly , it suggest ed that a 
new ex -out for 8517 .62 would be "unbound" . 
1.15.   As her delegati on and numerous other Members ha d noted many times at countless previous 
meetings of this Committee, the Council for Trade in Goods , and the Committee on Market Access, 
she felt that there were obvious discrepancies between India' s WTO  bound commitments to provide 
duty-free access to certain products, and the non -zero import duties that India was actually charging 
imported products at the border.  She found it deeply troubling that India would suggest that these 
discrepancies could someho w be justified on the basis of a proposed schedule d modification.  
1.16.   The representative of the European Union  noted that I ndia's excessive applied tariffs on 
certain ICT  products ha d been on the agenda of the Market Access Committee, the Council for Trade 
in Goods, and the ITA  Committee, for several years now.  He recalled that , since 2014, India ha d 
progressively increased its customs duties on ICT  products  and that, as pointed by the 
US delegation, the latest increase had occurred just one  week before . He fel t that t hese import 
duties constitute d prima facie  violations of India's WTO  commitments, given  that the tariff lines in 
question were subject to duty -free commitments in India's GATT  Schedule of Concessions.  
1.17.   He stated that o n several occasions in bilateral and WTO  Committee meetings, as well as in 
an exchange of letters, his delegation had raised the issue of basic customs duties on products that 
the EU conside red to have been bound at zero in India's GATT  Schedule, and which were, in their 
view, covered by the ITA  Agreement, to which India was a party.  
1.18.   He reiterated that India should reconsider its duty increases  on ICT products  because they  
contradict ed its WTO commitments.  
1.19.   Regarding In dia's draft rectification of its Schedule of Concessions, as communicated to 
WTO Members on 25 September 2018, he stated that , after careful assessment of 
document  G/MA/TAR/RS/572 , his delegation b elieve d that the proposed changes in India's Schedule 
would alter the scope of India's concessions on the goods concerne d. 
1.20.   His delegation also believe d that the tariff lines in the draft rectification correspond ed to 
India's commitments in the framework of the ITA, as modifi ed in India's Schedule in 199 7, and the ir 
successive evolution to the HS2002 and HS2007  nomenclatures . As a consequence, the EU G/IT/M/69  
 
- 4 - 
 
  consider ed that this draft rectification did not represent a change of purely formal character but 
rather that it would alter the scope of India's 1996 ITA and GATT  1994 commitments.  
1.21.   He said that t he EU ha d already objected in writing to the certification of India's draft 
rectification as it was not within the terms of paragraph  2 of the 1980  Decision on the Procedures 
for Modification and Rectification of Schedules of Tariff Concessions.  
1.22.   The representative of Japan  stated that , together with the other co -sponsors, his delegation 
continue d to be concerned  over India's customs duties on ICT  products.  
1.23.   Japan underst ood that, under India's WTO  bound schedule, mobile phones  (HS8517.12)  and 
their parts (HS8517.70) were classified as zero  duty goods at the six -digit level.  However, as a result 
of a series of duty increases, mobile phones ha d in fact become subject to 20%  customs duties, and 
mobile phone parts to 15%  customs duties.  
1.24.   As pointed out by the US and the EU , on 12 October 2O18, India had again  raised its tariff 
rates for base stations (HS8517.61) and certain telecommunication products  falling under 
HS8517.62.90 and HS8517.69.90 from 10%  to 20% . In addition, on the same day, India had 
introduced a 10%  tariff on certain types of printed circuit board assembly  (HS8517.70.10) . Japan 
considered that these duties clearly violate d India's binding commitment s. 
1.25.   He reported that Japan and India ha d held several expert -level meetings and that Japan 
continue d to wait for a response from India to its questionnaire , sent to India in April 2018. 
1.26.   Referring to India's circulation of  a propos ed rectification and modification of its ITA  Schedule  
(G/MA/TAR/RS/572)  on 25  September  2018, he considered that the proposal altered the scope of 
India's concessions and so could not necessarily be considered rectifications of a purely formal 
character . 
1.27.   He informed the Committee that internal consultations on this matter  were continuing in 
Capital , and that his delegation would revert to this issue if necessary.  
1.28.   He urged India immediately to withdraw the tariffs on the ICT  products at issue.  
1.29.   The representative of Canada  expressed  Canada's  ongoing disappointment that, despite the 
concerns raised by Members in this Committee, at th e Council for Trade in Goods , and at the Market 
Access Committee, India not only had maintained tariffs on ICT  products above its bound 
commitments but  had also continue d to announce additional tariff increases on ICT  products above 
its bound rates.  
1.30.   He noted that, on 11 October  2018, India had further increased applied tariffs , from 10 % to 
20%, on certain I CT products, including base stations.  He felt that t he application of tariffs above 
India's bound rates on a broad range of ICT  products remain ed inconsistent with India's 
WTO commitments and r an contrary to the objectives of multilateral tariff liberalization.  
1.31.   He stated that Canada continue d to have both systemic and commercial concerns over India's 
decision to introduce tariffs on these products in excess of India's bound commitments.  He pointed 
out that India's attempt  to address this situation by unbinding its commitments through a notification 
of rectification and modification of schedules of tariff concessions had only further exacerbate d 
Canada's concerns.  Thus, Canada d id not accept ; (i) India's justification for applying tariffs above 
its bound commitments ; and (ii)  India's attempt to modify its bound commitments.  
1.32.   He once again call ed upon India immediately to rescind the se tariff increases and to refrain 
from pursuing any further tariff increases above its WTO  bound commitments.  
1.33.   The representative of Norway  repeated Norway's  statement on this issue that he had already 
delivered in this and other Committees several times before . He echoed the concerns of other 
Members and urge d India to bring its tariff regime on ICT  products into conformity with its 
ITA commitments . G/IT/M/69  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.34.   The representative of Switzerland  echoed the comments made by previous speakers, having 
for some time shared and similar concerns regarding the duty treatment of certain 
telecommunication and IT  equipment in India.  She noted that t he recent notification under the 
1980 Decision on Procedures on Rectification and Modification of Tariff Concessions, dated 
25 September  2018, for 15 tariff p ositions , had not alleviate d their concerns ; to the contrary , the 
products mentioned in India's communication were IT products listed in India's Schedule for which 
the bound duty rate should be zero, and therefore these products should not be s ubject to any 
import duty when imported into India. In short , she was of the  view that India's published tariff for 
these products was inconsistent with its commitment s in its WTO certified Tariff Schedule  of 
Concessions . She was also of the view that t he recent rectification notification by India altered the 
balance of concessions and c ould therefore not be considered to be of a purely formal character.  As 
other Members had also done, she requested  India to abide by its WTO  commitments.  Switzerland 
expressed its reservation on India's notification for systemic and commercial reasons.  
1.35.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  share d the concerns of other Members  regarding  India's  
increased import duties on several telecommunication s and ICT  products , which  dated back to 2014.  
She noted that, one month before , India had further proposed, in document  G/MA/TAR/RS/572, to 
make certain rectifications to its WTO  Schedule in which several items relating to sub -headings in 
Chapter s 84 and 85 of India's WTO  Schedule  had been changed to unbound ; the items concerned 
were mainly the ITA products on which tariffs had been raised.  She believed that India's proposal 
would adversely affect India's WTO  and ITA commitments . She argued that , according to 
document  JOB/MA/108 , circulated on 9  July 2013, the methodological notes by the Secretariat on 
HS2007  transposition in the case of heading  8486 (for example, subheading  8486.10 , in HS2007 ) 
include s many ITA  items under HS2002, such as ex 8421.19 and ex 8456.10, at a zero-tariff rate. 
However, she noted that, in Appendix  2 of India's proposal, the bound duty rate for certain of the 
ICT products at issue had further increased in 2017, and had been changed to unbound. Obviously, 
the unbound rate for 8486.10 was not correct. This was also the case for other subheadings  in 
Appendix  2, including subheadings  8486.20, 8486.30, 8486.40, and 8486.90.  
1.36.   In her view, India's proposed modifications negative ly change d the scope of India's 
concessions on the goods concerned ; therefore, the propos ed rectifications c ould not be considered  
to be of a purely formal character within the terms of paragraph  2 of the 1980 Decision on Procedures 
for Modifications and Rectifications of Schedules of Tariff Concessions . In this regard, she reported 
that her d elegation had submitted an official letter of objection to India,  on 19 October  2018. In 
addition, she requested India,  for clarification  purpose s, to provide a written transposition correlation 
table between the HS2007 and HS2002 transpositions of the products concerned.  
1.37.   The representative of China  noted that India ha d increased its applied tariff rates on mobile 
phones and related parts , and that some of these tariffs had exceeded India's WTO bound rates.  He 
considered that these tariff increases were inconsistent with the ITA and GATT  Article  II, and India's 
Schedule of Concessions.  China had also noted that, on 25 September  2018, India had circulated a 
communication requesting rectification of its HS2007  Schedule on certain ITA products.  China 
believe d that the draft rectification requested by India was not a change of purely formal character, 
and that it would alter the scope of India's ITA and GATT  commitments,  and adversely affect the 
concessions on the products concerned . China was of the view that  India's measures were 
inconsistent with its commitment s under the ITA and its WTO  Schedule  of Concessions,  and that 
they violate d WTO rules.  He urged India to withdraw the customs duties on the products at issue, 
and to abide by its WTO  bound rates.  
1.38.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  stated that , as a co-sponsor of this agenda item, 
Korea, too,  had serious systemic concern s about India's continuing imposition of tariffs  on a number 
of ICT  products. Korea call ed upon India to give duty -free ac cess to any goods belonging to HS  lines 
on which India had committed to provide duty -free access.  
1.39.   The representative of Thailand  stated that her delegation remain ed concerned over India's 
re-imposition of customs duties , above its bound commitments,  on an increasing number of 
ICT products.  Thailand j oined other delegations in requesting India to abide by its 
WTO commitments.  Thailand w ould continue to monitor this matter closely.  
1.40.   The representative of Singapore  share d other Members ' concerns  over India's  increased tariff s 
on products covered under its ITA  commitments.  She urged India to make the changes necessary G/IT/M/69  
 
- 6 - 
 
  to allow Participants to find a way forward on this  issue. Singapore would continue to engage with 
India bilaterally on this issue, and to monitor any developments closely.  
1.41.   The representative of Australia  echoe d other Members' concerns regarding India's 
modification of its tariffs beyond its bound rates.  He noted that this ha d been an issue for some 
time, and that there was a clear systemic interest in ensuring that Members uph eld their tariff 
commitments , and the basic principles of the WTO  Agreements.  He called upon India to amend its 
tariff increases and to refrain from pursuing any further  tariff increases above its WTO  bound 
commitments.  
1.42.   The repr esentative of New Zealand  echoed the concerns raised by other Members and 
register ed its ongoing systemic interest in this issue , as it had done at previous meetings of this and 
other Committees . 
1.43.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  echoed the concerns r aised by other delegations on 
India's tariff hike on products covered by its ITA  commitments.  She said that Hong Kong, China had 
systemic concerns over India's proposed modification to its Schedule of Concessions , in 
document  G/MA/TA R/RS/572 , dated  25 September  2018, which would . in effect , unbind India's list 
of concessions in Chapter s 84 and 85.  She felt that a ny tariff rise that was not consistent with a 
Members' bound tariff commitments ran contrary to the objectives of multilateral tariff liberaliz ation.  
For this reason, she urged India to honour its tariff elimination commitments under the ITA.  Her 
delegation l ooked forward to hearing India's substantive response s to Members' questions.  
1.44.   The representative of India thank ed those delegations that had  intervened for their continued 
interest in India's customs duty regime on certain telecommunication and other products.  He said 
that o n the issue of duties imposed on certain telecom products , which were alleged to be 
ITA-I products by some Members, India  would repeat its previous statements , and comment s on 
subsequent developments by way of preliminary observations.  
1.45.   He stated that India was fully aware of its obligations and commitments under the ITA  and 
had been abiding by the same.  India had signed the ITA in 1997 , and had presented its Schedule of 
Commitments, which had subsequently been certified in document  WT/Let/181.  India had not 
intend ed to commit there to anything that went beyond the scope of the 1996 ITA commitments 
inscribed in that document . 
1.46.   In addition, i n document  G/MA/TAR/RS/24 , dated 2  April 1997, India had made it clear that 
it reserve d the right to make technical changes to its Schedule to correct any errors, omissions, or 
inaccuracies , as necessary . 
1.47.   India consider ed that the item s on wh ich duties ha d been raised did not form part of the ITA 
that India had signed.  India ha d been seeking input from other delegations as to their perception of 
these items relative to the coverage of these products under the ITA, as well as on the customs 
duties imposed by other Members on such products.  
1.48.   On the general concerns raised by Members regarding the measures taken by India, vis -à-vis 
its ITA commitments, India ha d already provided both its written responses , and its replies in various 
meetings of the ITA Committee, the Committee on Market Access, and the Council for Trade in 
Goods . 
1.49.   India ha d reiterated in its earlier interventions that Members ha d the right to revisit any errors 
or mistakes committed in assigning bound tariffs while transposing their latest schedules , and to 
place the necessary rectification request before the relevant Committee.  Accordingly, India ha d filed 
its rectification request for the purpose of correcting certain errors in its HS2007  Schedule.  This 
request was in accordance wit h the Procedures for Modification and Rectification of Schedules of 
Tariff Concessions , contained in the Decision of 26  March  1980, under the category "Other 
rectifications".  
1.50.   India's rectification request was contained  in document  G/MA/TAR/RS/572 , dated 
25 September  2018.  It ha d been made clear in the detailed explanatory note attached to th e 
rectification request that , while transposing the tariff lines and the description of products 
recommended by WCO for HS2007, or from HS2002 to HS2007 transposition, I ndia had G/IT/M/69  
 
- 7 - 
 
  inadvertently included tariff subheadings given in that table of the Appendix under zero bound 
commitments. While noting that it was important to keep in perspective both technological 
progression as well as the expan sion of telecom and IT  product s. India encourage d Members to 
study its rectification request and, in case a Member ha d other views on any of the technical aspects 
of the products  at issue , or their classification, India w ould be happy to discuss these  with the 
Member concerned.  
1.51.   He woul d forward Members' statements to Capital for examination and consideration.  
1.52.   The Chairperson  proposed that the Committee take note of all the statements made.  
1.53.   It was so agreed . 
1.2  Request by the European Union, Japan, Chinese Taipei, and the United States 
Regarding an Implementation Issue Concerning China  
1.54.   The Chairperson  turned to the second sub -agenda item, the request by the European Union, 
Japan, Chinese Taipei, and the United States,  regarding an implementation issue concerning China.  
1.55.   The representative  of Japan  expresse d his appreciation to China for its detailed explanation s 
of its  classification of Insulated Gate Bipolar Transistors  (IGBT) , and for providing the relevant 
documents throughout their bilateral consultations.  
1.56.   However, he stated that his d elegation continue d to have concerns . One of Japan's concerns 
was over the classification of the Intelligent Power Module  (IGBT -IPM). Japan underst ood that, in 
accordance with the WCO's Classification Opinions, it was to be classified as a Power Module under 
HS8542.39. China, however, treat ed the IGBT -IPM differently , by classifying it under HS8504.40 at 
import clearance , and by imposing , after HS2017  transposition,  a customs duty rate of 5%. He asked 
China to provide a detailed explanation of its practi ce in this regard . Japan also noted China's remark , 
made  at the most recent meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods, that all the MCO products in 
question would be at zero duty by July 2021. Japan would continue to monitor this issue  closely . 
1.57.   The represe ntative of  the European Union  stated that they had addressed this issue several 
times , in this body and in other WTO  committees , which indicated  that WTO  Members were yet to 
develop a thorough understanding of how duties on certain MCO  semiconductors had increased in 
China upon the introduction of changes to the HS  nomenclature.  She thank ed China for its 
engagement both bilaterally and in other contexts , such as the GAMS  meeting , but her delegation 
wished to discuss this matter still further, and to receive further clarification of the issue . China ha d 
shared with other Members an overview of its tariffs on MCOs following transposition towards tariff 
heading 8542 under HS2017, as well as additional elements concerning  the division of MCOs into 
different categories , and the respective allocati on of the different duty rates.  However, EU  experts 
consider ed that, notably in relation to IGBT (which China classifie d under 8504. 40.91), the 
WCO guidance had not been followed.  She said that her delegation intended to continue to engag e 
with China on th is issue in all appropriate for a, and that the EU continue d to think that it would be 
useful for the WTO  Secretariat to prepare guidance on how the transposition should have taken 
place, although such guidance w ould go beyond this particular case and therefore be to the benefit 
of all ITA  Members.  
1.58.   The representative of the United States  support ed the statements and questions raised by 
Japan and the EU, and  reiterate d their concern about  a change in China' s applied duty rates for 
semiconductor products, which was an issue that her delegation had raised previously in the 
Committee , as well as the Committee on Market Access and the Council for Trade in Goods.  The US 
continue d to assert, in line with the Gener al Council Decision on HS  transpositions, that the  scope 
of China's concessions ha d substantially  changed , and that the value of the concession ha d been 
impaired, given that these semiconductor products , which had been duty-free for over a decade , 
were now facing duties.  
1.59.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  thank ed China for its engagement on this issue bilaterally 
and for sharing information regard ing the calculation of its tariff transposition. However, he again 
recalled that the results of the HS2 017 transposition should be tariff-rate neutral, meaning that the 
value of th e tariff concession for the MCO  products concerned, which were effectively duty -free, G/IT/M/69  
 
- 8 - 
 
  should not be impaired as a result of a change in HS  nomenclature. He noted that China had recent ly 
announced tariff cuts on imports of industrial machinery, construction materials , and other good s, 
as of 1 November 2018. Unfortunately , the MCO  items had not been included. He recommend ed 
that China further eliminate the tariffs on the MCO products at issue in any future import tariff cuts.  
1.60.   The representative of Thailand  register ed its systemic concern over China's duties on 
MCO products , and stated that Thailand would continue to monitor the development of this issue 
closely.  
1.61.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  share d the concern s of other Members on this 
issue. Korea believe d that the transposition process ha d fully to respect the spirit and principle s of 
the ITA by maintaining a balance of commitments among Members. In this regard, Korea hoped that 
the concerns raised by Members would soon be clarified by China.  
1.62.   The representative of China  thank ed delegations for raising their concerns.  He stated that 
China ha d commented on this issue at previous meetings of th e Committee , as well  as at the Market 
Access Committee  and the Council for Trade in Goods. China had conducted several bilateral 
consultations with interested Members to clarify the technical questions  at issue . In the transposition 
of MCO  products, China reiterated that it had used the me thod suggested by the WTO  documents, 
which was fully consistent with the WTO  rules on HS2017  transposition. China ha d undertaken its  
ITA Expansion  tariff reduction commitments seriously, and since 1 July 2018,  China's duty rates on 
MCO products ha d been fu rther reduced , to 2.1%, 1.9% , and 5% , respectively. China would continue 
to fulfil its tariff reduction commitments in the context of the ITA Expansion Agreement . All duties 
on MCO  products w ould be eliminated by July 2021.  
1.63.   Regarding the new technical questions raised by certain Members, he said that he would 
forward these to Capital for consideration, and provide further clarification s in the context of bilateral 
consultations. He told the Committee that China stood ready to  discuss bilaterally with any Member 
any further techni cal questions on MCO  products  that Members may have . 
1.64.   The Chairperson  suggest ed that the Committee take note of the statements made.  
1.65.   It was so agreed . 
2  REVIEW OF PRODUCT CO VERAGE  
2.1.  The Chairperson  recalled  that, since the Committee meeting of 15  May 2012, and as requested 
by some delegations, the "review of product coverage" ha d been included as a regular item on the 
Committee 's agenda . It provide d an opportunity for the Committee to receive reports and updates 
from those participants that were engaged in bilateral and plurilateral consultations relative to the 
review of product coverage pursuant to paragraph  3 of the Annex to the ITA. 
2.2.  The represent ative of Canada , speaking on behalf of the ITA  Expansion Participants, report ed 
that almost all participants to the ITA  Expansion Agreement had implemented , on an MFN  basis,  
their tariff reduction and elimination commitments under their national ITA Expans ion schedules.  In 
addition, since the previous ITA Committee meeting, one additional Member, Albania,  had submitted 
its modification and rectification to its respective Schedule of Concessions to the GATT  1994, in 
accordance with the 1980  Decision . Albania 's certification document w ould be circulated shortly . 
2.3.  He observed that, as  mentioned at past meetings of this Committee, the ITA  Expansion 
Agreement was open to all WTO  Members, and all WTO  Members were strongly encouraged to 
consider participation in thi s important initiative.  
2.4.  He said that the Group would c ontinue to reach out to other Members and to provide them with 
information on the ITA Expansion Agreement and its benefits . The Group stood  ready to provide 
more information to any WTO  Member that might be interested in joining.  
2.5.  The Chairperson  proposed that the Committee take note of the statement made and agree to 
revert to this matter, as appropriate, at its next meeting . 
2.6.  It was so agreed . G/IT/M/69  
 
- 9 - 
 
  3  NON-TARIFF MEASURES WORK PROGRAMME  
3.1.  The Chairperson  turned to the Work Programme on Non-Tariff Measures  (NTMs) and reminded 
the Committee that paragraph  3 of the Annex to the 1996  Ministerial Declaration required that 
"Participants […] meet periodically … to consult on non -tariff barriers to trade in information 
technology products."  He recalled that t he Committee ha d attached great importance to NTBs and  
that, since 2000, NTBs ha d become an essential part of the regular work of the Committee.  
3.2.  He further recalled that, on 7  May 2015, an industry -driven workshop dedicated to NTBs 
affecting trade in ICT  products had been organized. The main issues raised at that workshop by 
industry representatives were: (i)  transparency; (ii)  standards for recog nition of test  results; 
(iii) e-labelling; and (iv)  energy efficiency. A factual report by the Chair person  had been circulated 
in document  G/IT/28.  At subsequent meetings of the Committee, the Chairperson had been tasked 
to continue consultations on follow -up to the ITA NTB Workshop.  
3.3.  He also recall ed that NTBs had also been extensively discussed at the ITA 20th Anniversary 
Symposium , which had been held in June  2017.  
3.4.  He dr ew the Committee's attention to the report by Switzerland given at the  meeting of the 
ITA Committ ee of 17 May 2018. In that report, Switzerland, as coordinator of the informal 
consultations on NTBs among a small group of participants , consisting of 15  Members , had stated 
that the main purpose of the group was  to advance the work on NTM -related issues within the 
context of the ITA  Agreement. The group ha d been working more specifically on such issues as 
conformity assessment procedures; test results; e -labelling; and transparency. In past years, their 
discussions had continued mostly in bilateral and in formal formats on various elements between 
interested parties on each specific issue.  
3.5.  In this context, he invite d Switzerland to provide an update of their work . 
3.6.  The representative of Switzerland  informed the Committee that her delegation had coordinate d 
an informal group , consisting of 15 Members , that were interested in the advancement of 
NTM-related issues within the context of the ITA  Agreement. The group worked more specifically on 
issues relating to conformity assessment procedures linked to test results , e-labelling , and 
transparency.  
3.7.  She informed Participants that t he current state of play remained the same as that indicated 
at the Committee 's previous  meeting. Her delegation intend ed to continue these discussion s of the 
three  areas outlined abov e, in bilateral and informal exchanges in various formats between 
interested parties. Switzerland  would continue to keep the Committee inform ed of any 
developmen ts. 
3.8.  She recall ed that participation in the informal  group was open to all Members being part y to 
the ITA  Agreement and expressing an interest in NTM  issues. In this regard , if any delegation had 
questions concerning the work of this group, or was interested in participating, they should not 
hesitate to contact the Swiss delegation or one of the othe r members of the group at any time . 
3.9.  Switzerland wished also to reiterate the importance of NTMs affecting trade in ICT  products, 
which were nowadays one of the main obstacles to trade given that tariffs were now at zero or close 
to zero for most ICT  produc ts. She encourage d WTO Members to work together on the advancement 
of NTM -related issues, which f ell within the mandate of the Committee.  
3.10.   The representative of the European Union  thank ed Switzerland for its work on this matter.  He 
stated that t he EU consider ed that the removal of non-tariff barriers ha d become critical to further 
facilitating trade in IT  products . His delegation was aware of the challenges involved in moving 
towards commitment s in regulatory areas under the umbrella of the ITA, but r emain ed fully engaged 
in all efforts to make progress in this area. 
3.11.   The Chairperson  proposed that the Committee take note of the statements made and agree 
to revert to this matter, as appropriate, at its next meeting . 
3.12.   It was so agreed . G/IT/M/69  
 
- 10 - 
 
  4  EMC/EMI PILOT PROJEC T – DRAFT LIST OF TY PES OF CONFORMITY AS SESSMENT 
PROCEDURES FOR EMC/E MI USED BY ITA  PARTICIPANTS (G/IT/W /17/REV.22)  
4.1.  The Chairperson  turned to the EMC/EMI  Pilot Project and recalled that one of the outcomes of 
the NTM Work Programme had been the completion of the pilot project that had led to the adoption 
of the "Guidelines for Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) and Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) 
Conformity Assessment Procedures". Upon adoption of those "Guidelines ", the Secretariat has 
prepared a note on the "Draft List of Types of Conformity Assessment Procedures for EMC/EMI used 
by ITA  Participants", as contained in document  G/IT/W/17 and its subsequent  revisions.  The note 
contain ed the responses to the survey an d other notifications received from Participants on the type 
of assessment procedures  for EMC/EMI that they use d. ITA Participants had indicated on several 
occasions that they had found the information contained in this document to be very useful and that 
they wished to have it completed.  
4.2.  He reported that, to date, of the 53  ITA Participants, 39 had provided information on their 
conformity assessment procedures for EMC/EMI. The latest submission had been received from 
Switzerland,  on 25  October  2018, which was an update on Switzerland's EMC /EMI conformity 
assessment procedures.  A revision of document  - G/IT/W/17/ – would shortly be issued to reflect the 
update  from Switzerland . 
4.3.  He reminded the Committee that there were still 14  Participants that ha d not yet provided any 
information on their conformity assessment procedures.  He reminded the 14  Participants concerned 
to submit their information as soon as possible and to contact the Secretariat if they needed any 
further information or clarification.  He also announced that he was planning to send a  remind er to 
the 14  Participants , as his predecessors had done , to urge them to provide this information  as soon 
as possible . 
4.4.  The representative of Switzerland  also indicated  that her delegation had just submitted an 
update of the information regarding the Swiss conformity assessment procedure s for EMC and 
EMI products , which were aligned with EU regulation s. The main modification relate d to the transfer 
of wired telecommunication terminal equipment to a telecommunication network, which constitute d 
the basis for any groundwork in this important area given that our communities were becoming ever  
more interconnected.  
4.5.  She agreed with the Chair that it was important to provide  the relevant information on 
EMC/EMI conformity assessment procedures so as to keep Participants fully informed in this regard . 
She strongly encourage d all Participants to reply to the survey  and to keep their 
EMC/EMI  information updated . 
4.6.  The representative of Canada  expressed his support for the Chair's efforts to reach out to the 
14 Participants that had not yet provided any information on their conformity assessment 
procedures . He considered that the Secretariat note on "Draft List of Types of Conformity 
Assessment Procedures for EM C/EMI used by ITA  Participants"  was not a new  document , and that 
the list on the front page of the Secretariat note was  itself fairly self -explanatory . Therefore, he 
considered that it should be straightforward for Participants t o provide their information  to the 
Secretariat , thus enabling  the Committee to complete this project and move forward . He encourage d 
the Chair to make every effort to reach out to the Participants  concerned . If necessary, Canada 
would be willing to provide support and assistance.  
4.7.  The representative of the European Union  echoed the comments made by Switzerland and 
Canada. He called upon the Participants that had not yet responded to do so as soon as possible in 
light of the importance of this  transparency exercise . 
4.8.  The Chairperson . noting  that the Committee was drawing closer to finalization of th e Pilot 
Project , asked Participants to reflect upon what steps, if any, that they would be prepared to consider 
with a view to maximizing the usefulness of the information on EMC/EMI  conform ity assessment 
procedures that ha d been provided.  Participants were invited to share their insights in this regard 
with the Chair and with the Secretariat at any time.  
4.9.  He proposed that the Committee take note of the discussion under this agenda item.  G/IT/M/69  
 
- 11 - 
 
  4.10.   It was so agreed . 
5  DIVERGENCES IN CLASS IFYING INFORMATION T ECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS 
(G/IT/14/REV.1/ADD.1 , G/IT/W/6/REV.3, G/ IT/W/33, G/IT/W/34, G/IT/27, 
JOB/IT/12, G/IT/29, G/IT/W/40/ADD.1 –G/IT /W/40/ADD.21, AND 
G/IT/W/40/SUPPL.4)  
5.1.  The Chairperson  then turned  to the a genda item on divergences in classifying information 
technology products. Under this agenda item , there were three  sub-items : (i) the implementation 
of the 2013  Decisi on for the classification of 18  Attachment  B products ( document  G/IT/27); (ii)  the 
implem entation of the 2016  Decision for the classification of  an additional 15  items 
(document  G/IT/29); and (iii)  the "Note by the Secretariat on the Divergences of Classification" of 
the remaining 22  Attachment  B items , as contained in document  G/IT/W/40 and i ts supplements  
and addenda.  
5.1  Implementation of the Decision for the Classification of 18  Attachment  B Products 
(G/IT/27)  
5.2.  The Chairperson  recall ed that, on 20  July 2013, the Committee adopted a Decision for the 
HS1996 classification of 18  Attachment  B items,  which were included in the List I -A of 
document  G/IT/W/6/Rev.3. The Committee Decision had been circulated in document  G/IT/27. As 
required by th e Decision, each participant shall reflect the agreed classifications in its WTO  Schedule 
of concessions, as appropriate, following the 1980  Decision on Procedures for the Modification and 
Rectification of Schedules  of Tariff Concessions (BISD  27S/25) . 
5.3.  He stated that, s ince the last meeting  of the Committee , no Member ha d approached the 
Secretariat for assistance.  beat the same time, he  noted that the technical work involved in this 
exercise was very time -consuming and thus could only be undertaken on a gradual basis. In 
anticipation of additional requests, the Secretariat had undertaken a preliminary analysis of t he 
remaining developing country participants. He urged these developing country participants to 
contact the Secretariat if they required technical assistance with the modification of their schedules.   
5.4.  He proposed that the Committee take n ote of his stateme nt. 
5.5.  It was so agreed . 
5.2  Implementation of the 2016  Decision for the Classification of an Additional 15  items 
(G/IT/29)  
5.6.  The Chairperson  turned  to the second sub -item, which was the implementation of the 
2016 Decision  on the cla ssification of an additional 15  items . He recall ed that, on 18  April 2016, the 
Committee had adopted the "Decision for HS2007  Classification of 15  Additional 'Attachment  B' 
Products", which had been circulated in document  G/IT/29. Most of the items covered by  the 
Decision had relate d to HS2007  heading  8486 ( machines and apparatus for the manufacture of 
semiconductor boules or wafers) and one item had related to heading  8471 (automatic data 
processing machines and units thereof).  
5.7.  He reported that, regard ing the implementation of the 2016  Decision, no new Member has 
approached the Secretariat for ass istance since the Committee's previous meeting.  
5.8.  He suggest ed that the Committee take n ote of his update.  
5.9.  It was so agreed . 
5.3  The remaining 22  Attachment  B items as contained in document  G/IT/W/40 a nd its 
supplements and addenda  
5.10.   The Chairperson  turned to the third sub -item, concerning the remaining 22  Attachment  B 
items as contained in the Note by the Secretariat on "Divergence s of Classification: Possible 
HS2007  Classification for the Remaining 37  "Attachment  B" Items" . This document had been G/IT/M/69  
 
- 12 - 
 
  prepared based on the Swiss proposal for a three -step procedure ( document  JOB/IT/12), and had 
been circulated as document  G/IT/W/40  and its supplements  and addenda . 
5.11.   He recalled that, a t the Committee meeting of  31 October  2014, it had been agreed that: 
"Participants are expected to submit a communication to the Secretariat no later than 30  June 2015, 
indicating: (a)  the items that, in the participant's opinion, should be classified differently from the 
HS2007  codes listed in column  8 of the Annex to this document; and (b)  the HS2007  subheading(s) 
that, in the participant's opinion, are relevant for the classification of the item s in question." It was 
also agreed that " [T]he Secretariat will compile communications  received in a separate document. 
On that basis, participants would then be expected to assess the next steps that could be taken to 
reduce any remaining divergence in classification."  
5.12.   He reported that, so far, the Secretariat ha d received comments from 21  participants . These 
had been circulated as addenda to document  G/IT/W/40 , as follows: : Norway (G/IT/W/40/Add.1); 
Chinese Taipei (G/IT/W/40/Add.2); Switzerland (G/IT/W/40/Add.3); the European Union 
(G/IT/W/40/Add.4); Hong Kong, China (G/IT/W/40/Add.5); Chi na (G/IT/W/40/Add.6); Japan 
(G/IT/W/40/Add.7); Canada (G/IT/W/40/Add.8); the United States (G/IT/W/40/Add.9); India 
(G/IT/W/40/Add.10); Macao, China (G/IT/W/40/Add.11); El Salvador (G/IT/W/40/Add.12); the 
Republic of Korea (G/IT/W/40/Add.13); Panama (G/IT/ W/40/Add.14); Thailand 
(G/IT/W/40/Add.15); Guatemala (G/IT/W/40/Add.16); Mauritius (G/IT/W/40/Add.17); Montenegro 
(G/IT/W/40/Add.18); the Russian Federation (G/IT/W/40/Add.19); Seychelles (G/IT/W/40/Add.20); 
and New Zealand (G/IT/W/40/Add.21).  
5.13.   All these co mments ha d been consolidated into and reflected in 
document  G/IT/W/40/Suppl.4, which also t ook account of the 2016  Decision on the clas sification of 
the additional 15  items. Therefore, as participants could see from th at document, there remain ed 
22 Attachment  B items for which Participants should provide their comments with a view to arriving 
at a common HS  classification.  
5.14.   In this regard, he invite d delegations that ha d not yet provided their comments  on the possible 
HS2007  classification of the rema ining 22 items to do so as soon as possible with a view to arriving 
at a common classification for th ese products within existing HS  nomenclature , and to fulfil the 
mandate of para graph  5 of the Annex to the Ministerial Declaration  on Trade in Information 
Technology Products.  
5.15.   The representative of India stated that the issue of divergence in classification of the 
remaining 22  items was being considered  by his authorities and India would be providing its views 
on the same . 
5.16.   The Chairperson  suggest ed that the Committee take n ote of his update s and of the statement 
made by India . 
5.17.   It was so agreed . 
6  DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT (2018) OF THE COMMIT TEE TO THE COUNCIL F OR TRADE IN 
GOODS (G/IT/W/48)  
6.1.  The Chair person  then turned to the Committee's draft a nnual report  to the Council for Trade 
in Goods. The Committee 's draft annual report  was contained in do cument  G/IT/W/48  and would be 
updated to reflect developments from this meeting.  
6.2.  The draft annual report was approved , with the inclusion of updates and modification s, where 
appropriate, to reflect the discussions that had taken place at this meeting.  
6.3.  It was so agreed . G/IT/M/69  
 
- 13 - 
 
  7  OTHER BUSINESS  
7.1  Date of next meeting  
7.1.  The Chairperson  informed the Committee that its next meeting would be held in the spring 
of 2019.  
7.2.  It was so agreed . 
__________