WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/TBT/W/195/Add.1 
16 March 2004 
 
 (04-1142) 
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade Original:   English 
  
 
FOLLOW-UP REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF  
SUPPLIER’S DECLARATION OF CONFORMITY 
 
Submission by the Separate Customs Territo ry of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu
 
 
Addendum  
  
1. In the first submission (G/TBT/W/195) made to the Committee on 12 March 2003, the 
Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Ki nmen and Matsu described experiences gained 
from the first year of implementation (2002) of the supplier’s declaration of conformity (SDoC).  The 
first market surveillance review, carried out in Au gust 2002, found that 30 per cent of the SDoC 
products did not bear the required inspection mark.  One possible reason for such a high rate of non-
compliance could have been a lack of awareness of the requirements of this newly introduced system.  
Manufacturers could have misinterpreted the chang es in the deregulation process - in our case a shift 
from pre-market control to post-ma rket surveillance - as being relaxation of regulatory controls and 
enforcement.  Therefore, further efforts were ma de to emphasize to manufacturers the requirements of 
the SDoC system and explain the enforcement tools available to the regulator.  A second review of 
SDoC’s effectiveness was then ca rried out in December 2003.  
2. The Third Triennial Review by the Committee in November 2003 includes an item calling for 
the exchange of information and experiences on the implementation of SDoC in the Work Programme 
in the area of Conformity Assessment Procedures.   As a contribution to the discussions on this 
particular topic, the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu would like to 
take the opportunity to report on the practical experiences of SDoC implementation so far.   
3. The results of the second review of SDoC’s effectiveness identified areas that significantly 
affect the success of the system, therefore we have included details of the procedures and analysis of 
the results, in the hope that Members reaching a si milar stage in their implementation of SDoC might 
find our experience to be a useful reference. 
I. BASIC ELEMENTS OF THE SECOND SDOC MARKET SURVEILLANCE REVIEW 
4. Adjustments were made to existing market su rveillance practices and a course of action was 
developed to help market surve illance staff conduct the review.  The review was in two parts: (1) 
Appearance checks
 were carried out by the same method used in August 2002, i.e. by checking 
whether the inspection mark was affixed to the pr oducts.  The main purpose of the appearance checks 
is to determine the effectiveness of the awar eness-building programmes. (2) Sample testing,  
consisting of purchasing samples from the open market and verifying whether the purchased sample is 
consistent with the information contained in the rela ted declaration of conformity and technical report. 
It also involves physical testing of the product against the relevant standards.  
5. Exchangeable power supply, a key component th at affects the electro magnetic compatibility 
performance of a computer, was the product selected  as the subject of this review.  Appearance 
checks were made on 187 exchangeable power supp lies from 91 manufacturers.  Sample testing was G/TBT/W/195/Add.1 
Page 2  
 
 conducted on 21 exchangeable power supplies from 13 manufacturers, purchased from different 
distributors across the country. 
II. RESULTS OF THE REVIEW 
6. From the appearance checks
, it was found that only 1 out of 187 examples of the product did 
not bear the required inspection mark - a non-complia nce rate of 0.5 per cent.  This means that 
virtually all exchangeable power supply manufacturers (hereinafter referred to as “the 
manufacturers”) are aware that their products are s ubject to mandatory inspec tion and should bear the 
inspection mark. Out of the186 items bearing an  inspection mark, 114 carried the SDoC mark, 
indicating that around 60 per cent of the manufacturers were also aware that the conformity assessment procedure had changed from t ype-approved batch inspection to SDoC. 
7. From the sample testing
, 10 out of the 21 items were found not to be in compliance with the 
requirements - a non-compliance rate of 47.7 per cen t.  The reasons for non-compliance included lack 
of a declaration of conformity, inconsistency between  the information contained in the declaration of 
conformity and the technical reports, declarations of conformity signed after the purchase date and 
failure to pass the inductive test required by CNS 13438 (equivalent to CISPR 22).  
III. ANALYSIS OF THE REVIEW RESULTS 
8. In the second review, the appearance checks  showed satisfactory results in comparison to 
those conducted in 2002, where the non-compliance rate  was 30 per cent.  We were pleased with the 
apparent effectiveness of the programmes designed to raise manufacturers’ awareness of the new system. These emphasized the responsibility of manufacturers to comply with the requirements and explained the enforcement tools available to regulators.  
9. The high rate of non-conformity in sample testing,
 however, raised serious concerns about the 
effectiveness of the SDoC system to meet legitimate objectives, particularly when these non-conformities could no longer be attributed to lack  of awareness, as confirmed by appearance checks 
results.  The non-conformities can be further classified  into three types: (1) inconsistency between the 
purchased sample and information in the related docu ments, but without test failure; (2) consistency 
of information, but with test failure; and (3) inco nsistency of information and test failure.  Although 
these three situations all constituted violations of regulations, a list of possible reasons was developed 
to see what measures could be taken.  Reaso ns included the following: negligence on the 
manufacturer’s part by mixing up similar products ta rgeted for different markets; ineffective quality 
control in the manufacturing process where it was not  possible to produce products that were in 
conformity with the sample being tested; the problem  of “golden samples”  deliberately produced for 
testing purposes; the inspection mark being affixe d dishonestly; and products placed on the market 
without testing.  
10. Measures under consideration for correcting su ch a high-rate of non-conformity include 
providing assistance to manufacturers in taking co rrective action, strengthening the surveillance 
programme and imposing penalties according to th e nature and source of non-conformities. Although 
the imposition of penalties could be the most effect ive tool in discouraging manufacturers/importers 
from violating laws or regulations, we also belie ve that the relationship between regulators and 
manufacturers and/or importers should be collaborativ e.  Penalties for violations were prescribed in 
Articles 59-64 of the Commodity Inspection Act.  Violations that involve a lack of technical documents, no testing at all or making false or incorr ect statements shall be subject to a fine of not 
less than NT$ 200,000 (approximately US$ 5,970) but not more than NTD$ 2,000,000 (approximately 
US$ 59,700).  In addition, relevant  laws and regulations were review ed to see whether deficiencies 
exist and how amendments could be made to correct them.    G/TBT/W/195/Add.1 
 Page 3 
 
 
 IV. CONCLUSION 
11. Because of the limited amount of empirical in formation available, we decided to adopt a 
“trial-and-error” process in the implementation of SDoC.  We felt that even though the results may 
not be very successful at this stage (with a non-confor mity rate of 47 per cent), it would still be useful 
to share experiences to date with Members, espec ially in view of the future discussions on SDoC 
planned by the Committee. It is evident that, along w ith the benefits that the SDoC system can bring 
in terms of facilitating trade, there are constraints that  need to be taken into account in order to have a 
successful system without compromising the protecti on of consumers.  These constraints vary in 
different societies and it is only through the excha nge of empirical experience that a comprehensive 
understanding of the SDoC system can be developed. 
__________