RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/IT/M/23
8 November 2000
(00-4726)
Committee of Participants on the Expansion of
Trade in Information Technology Products
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 3, 13, AND 26 OCTOBER 2000
Chairperson: Ms. Elizabeth Chelliah (Singapore)
Agenda of the Meeting  Page
1. Review of the Status of Implementation of the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in
Information Technology Products (G/IT/1/Rev.15)...........................................................1
2. Consultations on Non-tariff Barriers (G /IT/13, G/IT/15, G/IT/16, G/IT/17, G/IT/18)...2
3. Divergences in Classifying Informatio n Technology Products (G/IT/14, G/IT/5/Rev.1,
G/IT/5/Rev.1/Add.1) ............................................................................................................ .7
4. New Participants............................................................................................................. ......8
5. Other Business............................................................................................................... ........9
Introduction
The Chairwoman stated that the proposed agenda for this meeting was circulated in
WTO/AIR/1384 on 15 September 2000.  Furthermore, she noted that not all of the documents were
available in the French and Spanish languages today due to the large workload in the translation division.
This concerned documents G/IT/14, G/IT/5/Rev.1, and G/IT/5/Rev.1/Add.1, all of which would be takenup under agenda item 2.C.  She asked if there were any other matters to be raised under "Other
Business".  Hearing no requests, she stated she would take up the "review of product coverage" and
the date of the next meeting of the Committee under this agenda item.  The agenda was adopted.
1. Review of the Status of Implementation of the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in
Information Technology Products (G/IT/1/Rev.15)
1.1 The Chairwoman pointed out that an overview of the implementation of the  Ministerial
Declaration on Trade in Information Technology Products was contained in G/IT/1/Rev.15. She noted
that at the last meeting a number of implementation issues were raised, both in respect of the WTO
procedures and with respect to domestic implementation matters.  Additionally, she noted the useful
discussion on this matter at the informal meeting last Friday.
1.2 The delegate of the European Communities recalled that in June, his delegation had raised
implementation problems with respect to some countries.  There had been implementation delays, as
concerned tariff reductions, with respect to Indonesia and Thailand.  He was able to report today that as a
result of recent information and assurances provided by these countries, the matter had been resolved, and
the tariff levels were up to date and being implemented accordingly.  However, while he thanked thesecountries, he asked them to provide to the Committee assurances that measures had been taken at an
administrative level so that future tariff concessions would be implemented on time at the required date.
Secondly, he noted the problem of the requirement of certificates of origin by Thailand in order for IT
products to obtain the requisite tariff treatment.  His delegation had received a number of complaints from
the industry, who believed that this requirement as put in place by customs regulation 132543, was anG/IT/M/23
Page 2
obstacle to trade.  His delegation wanted to raise this concern with the Committee, and asked Thailand
what was the reason for such a requirement, as the tariffs were applied on an MFN basis, and one did not
have to identify origin in this respect.  Moreover, he noted it was a new requirement.  He sought
assurances from Thailand that, in practice, the requirement was easy to meet, and that a document
prepared by the importer would be enough to meet the requirement..
1.3 The delegate of the United States noted also his delegations' continued concern with respect to
certificates of origin required by Thailand.  He stated, that as of last week, the imposition of certificates of
origin continued to be a problem despite assurances from Thailand that these would be lifted.  He asked
Thailand what the prospects were to resolve this issue.  Secondly, his delegation noted that document
G/IT/1/Rev.15 continued to show that El Salvador and Poland had not completed domestic ratification
procedures, and that Panama had yet to submit its formal ITA documentation.  He asked these delegationsfor clarification on their status.
1.4 The delegate of Thailand stated that his government had implemented the agreement and was in
compliance with its obligations under the agreement.  In response to the EC's concern over delay of
implementation, he noted that according to his records, there was no such delay of implementation, butperhaps there were other issues in another area.  As concerned the matter of certificates of origin, he
stated that it was true that Thailand had made a requirement for a certificate of origin to accompany the
imports of IT products into Thailand.  He noted that his government had held a number of meetings with
importers, exporters, and the business community in order to minimize and resolve the matter since the
beginning of the year.  So far, it had been quite successful.  Furthermore, the certificate of origin was arequirement, but it was not imposed so as to create an undue burden on traders.  In practice, the exporter
could provide a self-declaration for the certificate of origin requirement, which did not require the
importer to go to other entities.  He did not have a technical explanation as to why the certificate of origin
was imposed, but noted that a certificate of origin could be important for the IT sector as the value of the
products was often very high; up to 1 million USD for a computer server for example.  Perhaps the highvalue of the goods would warrant a certificate of origin.  His authorities were continuing to work with the
customs administration to minimize and eventually resolve the issue.  Pursuant to the requirements under
the agreement, Thailand would not cause undue burden to the participants.  Furthermore, he welcomed
comments from other participants on this matter if they had any problems with the implementation by
Thailand.  His delegation would continue to monitor the progress.
1.5 The Committee took note of the statements made.
2. Consultations on Non-tariff Barriers (G/IT/13, G/IT/15, G/IT/16, G/IT/17, G/IT/18)
2.1 The Chairwoman stated that Australia had submitted a proposal for an NTM work programme
at the last meeting of the Committee which was circulated in G/IT/13.  Furthermore, she recalled that
responses to the Australian proposal, in writing, were requested by the first week of September.  Atthe present time there were four replies received:  from Korea, Japan, EC and Canada, which had been
circulated in documents G/IT/15, G/IT/16, G/IT/17 and G/IT/18.  On a technical matter she noted that
G/IT/17 and G/IT/18 were received after the airgram was issued, but should equally be included with
the other documents for consideration on this agenda item.
After consultations and an informal meeting, she noted that important progress was made
towards ultimately adopting a work programme.  However, there were still some issues to be further
discussed.  She also noted that while the informal meeting was a useful way to move things forward,
it was not a forum where decisions took place, and the discussions held there were not part of the
official record of proceedings.
2.2 The delegate of Australia thanked the Chairwoman for her consultations and also those
delegations that provided comments in writing.  He encouraged others to send in comments or replies as
soon as possible, so that a work programme could commence.  He hoped the work programme could beG/IT/M/23
Page 3
as all-encompassing as possible so that it could take into account the concerns on  non-tariff measures of
both developed and developing countries alike.  He believed that through an examination of non-tariff
measures that impede IT trade,  IT trade could be facilitated to the benefit of all.  As concerned the
comments received and the discussions at the informal meeting, he noted that Australia was flexible, and
therefore he agreed to move the timeframe forward to 2001.  As concerned the structure of the workinggroups, in his view two working groups would not be too burdensome.  However, taking into account the
concerns of others, he could agree to one group in the form thought most appropriate by the participants.
Furthermore, he emphasized that the work on NTMs should not duplicate the work in other WTO bodies,
and therefore he thought the work in other Committees should be followed so as to ascertain whether
these might impact on IT trade.  He hoped that consultations could continue and that the Committee could
take a final decision on the work programme as soon as possible.
2.3 The delegate of the Philippines thanked Australia for the proposal and those delegations that
provided written comments.  She stated that her delegation attached priority to an inventory of NTMs as
the first step in the process.  There should be deadlines in the process, and delegations should submit their
lists of NTMs to the Secretariat, and thereafter, the issue of prioritization and future timelines could be
decided upon.  With respect to the work streams, she was glad to hear that Australia was flexible, as toomany bodies and too many meetings created resource problems for developing countries.
2.4 The delegate of Canada thanked Australia for its efforts on developing the NTM work
program. Canada had provided written comments on the Australian proposal (G/IT/18).  His
delegation believed that these were fairly explicit and should come as no surprise as these concernswere raised before - both with regard to ensuring that all the stakeholders and players were involved
and with regard to the fact that many NTMs had legitimate policy goals and the Committee should be
focusing on the undue trade distorting affects.  In addition to the written comments, he also wished to
make a number of comments on the how the Committee should proceed with developing the work
programme.  His delegation believed it was important to underline that the ITA was just one of manyagreements in the WTO and that the main disciplin es covering issues related to NTMs lay within
other Agreements and Committees, such as TBT and Import Licensing.  Therefore, while he believed
that the ITA Committee could play an important role in examining NTMs from the perspective of  IT
products, it was important that work under this Committee be appropriately focused and realistic.
In this regard, he believed the Committee needed to establish up front the specific details of
the scope and objective of the work programme, including stating the criteria for achieving thoseobjectives.  For example, a number of participants had indicated their desire to examine
standards-related issues.   This was a very broad area.  He asked whether this concerned technical
regulations, standards and conformity assessment, or just technical regulations, which were
mandatory as opposed to voluntary.  In his view, since governments were responsible for technical
regulations, work should focus on these.   Within the information technology sector, standards,technical regulations and conformity assessment covered a range of areas, such as EMC,
harm-to-network, electrical safety.  From his delegations' view point, he could see the utility of the
ITA Committee looking at the first two areas, but not at electrical safety.  He believed it was very
important that the Committee determine up front, in the mandate, what the focus and specific subjects
would be.  He did not believe that the determination of the specific subjects and parameters should beleft to the working groups after the work programme had been established.  As his delegation had
indicated repeatedly, it was important to involve all key players -- regulators, industry, etc -- but they
needed to know upfront what the Committee would be looking at specifically, so that the right players
could get involved.
His delegation also agreed strongly with Japan that the work program should be an
investigatory/fact-finding exercise and no more.  As Japan noted in its written comments, “it would
not be appropriate to aim at making binding ru les.”  His delegation saw the work programme as
fact-finding only – drawing on existing expertise a nd focusing on the information technology sector –
that could feed into the cross-cutting work underway in other Committees. As stated earlier, hisG/IT/M/23
Page 4
delegation supported including import licensing in the work programme.  He continued to believe this
was a relevant subject for the ITA NTM work programme.  But he wished to underline, that he saw
any work on import licensing in the ITA Committee as proceeding under the same parameters as any
other issue – including the work being limited to fact-finding.
He reiterated his delegation's view that the time lines were too ambitious; however he had
noted Australia’s proposal to extend the time lines to the end of 2001 and would further think about
this.  He also wanted to take the opportunity to comment on the comments made by the EC, Japan and
Korea.  First, he thanked all three for providing their comments in writing.  Secondly, as concerned
the EC comments, his delegation agreed with the first EC point that any work on standards and
conformity assessment must take into account the work being done in other relevant WTO,
intergovernmental or industry bodies.  He wanted to ensure that there was no duplication of workbeing conducted in other arenas.  The ongoing work of the TBT Committee was particularly relevant
in this regard, but it was also worth noting that fact-finding work on telecoms standards-related issues
was also being discussed in both the APEC and OE CD contexts.  Turning to the EC’s third point
regarding resource implications, his delegation agreed that the EC made a valid point.  But he
questioned whether the EC’s proposed solution would produce the desired outcome.  He was notconvinced that folding the work into a single wo rking group or doing the work in informal Committee
sessions would produce the desired effect.  The real issue was to get the right structure to produce
something tangible in a reasonable period.  He was ready to look at other ideas, but at this stage he
thought the  Australian proposal of two working groups  was the most effective.  As regarded the EC’s
fifth point on the standards workplan, the EC suggested that the review of activities in the global,regional and bilateral fora should focus on progress in  “aligning standards”.  It was not clear what was
meant here.  He asked if the EC was suggesting that the Committee look at equivalency,
harmonization, adoption of international standards or something else.  He wanted greater clarity as to
what was to be looked at before considering anything in this area.  Moreover, it was Canada’s view
that work in this area was not the role of the WTO.  Most standards in the IT area were voluntary.Where they were not (e.g. in the ITU), work was undertaken by other intergovernmental bodies.  With
respect to the EC's sixth point  regarding the workplan on conformance for multiple testing and
certification, the EC suggested examining the possibil ities for deregulation in the field of standards
and certification of conformity.  His delegation strongly disagreed with this being included in the
workplan.  The correct forum for this  discussion was in the TBT Committee.
Turning to Korea’s written comments, he agreed with the second comment on the importance
of not duplicating work, but he also agreed this could be managed well by focusing the work on
specific mandates and keeping in close contact with the relevant WTO bodies.  Regarding Korea’s
first comment, he asked if Korea could provide further clarification on its comment that “we believe it
(the work programme) could go beyond standards and conformance”?
Finally, as concerned Japan’s comments, as he ha d indicated earlier, he agreed with Japan that
the objective of this work programme should not be the creation of binding rules on standards and
conformance in a specific sector, given the cross-cutting work which was ongoing in the TBT
Committee.  He also noted that Japan had suggested that services be excluded from the work
programme.  Before deciding on this question, he would appreciate learning more from Australia as towhy it had proposed this be included.   Furthermore, he did not share Japan's view that the final
paragraph of the Australian proposal on prohibiting the introduction of new regulatory measures
should necessarily be deleted.  He believed that the word “unduly" in the sentence should give
adequate cover for legitimate measures.
2.5 The delegate of the European Communities thanked Australia for its proposal, and strongly
supported an NTM work programme.  He noted his delegation's written comments and  was glad to hear
that Australia had taken these into account, particularly as concerned the overall deadline and the way in
which the work would be carried out.  Furthermore, his delegation supported the initiative of an inventory
of NTMs which would indicate which NTMs the Committee could concentrate on.  If this was deemed anG/IT/M/23
Page 5
appropriate way to proceed, he would like to see it as an integral part of the work programme, so that the
decision to launch the work programme would be taken before the inventory.
2.6 The delegate of Malaysia restated the important points he had raised at the earlier informal
meeting.  He thanked Australia and those delegations that submitted written comments.  With respect to
substance, he was concerned over the incorporation of import licensing in the work programme, as there
was the WTO Import Licensing Agreement, and it provided concrete rules for obtaining licences, both in
terms of automatic or non-automatic licenses.  Notwithstanding this, he noted that the preparation of an
inventory was the first phase of the proposal.  As it was important to identify all the different types of
NTMs that existed, he could go along with this next step.  With respect to the inventory, it was important
that it be precise, and not just say "import licensing" for example.  He wanted to know what was behind
the import license, if perhaps a certificate of origin was the real problem.  If, for example, an importer hadto get the clearances from 10 agencies before being issued a license, perhaps this was something to look
at further.  But it was important to keep in mind the provisions of the Import Licensing Agreement.
Noting the comment made by the EC, he was concerned that if the Committee had to endorse the entire
programme before the inventory started, it could delay things.  He urged the EC and others to reconsider
and go ahead with the inventory.  As concerned the process, he preferred that the work be carried out ininformal meetings of the Committee, not in working groups.  This was due to resource constraints for
smaller delegations.  Finally, he supported the earlier statements that the work programme be fact-finding
in nature, and not intended to create any binding rules.
2.7 The delegate of Japan recalled the fruitful discussions held at the informal meeting, and his
delegation gave broad support to the Australian proposal.  However, it was important that the work
programme be fact-finding, and not aim towards binding rules.  He noted the wide support for an initial
inventory process, as stated by the Philippines.  Japan was willing to participate constructively in
finalizing the work programme as soon as possible.
2.8 The delegate of India recalled the importance her delegation attached to the NTM work
progamme, thanked Australia for the proposal, and hoped that the Committee could agree to a work
programme as soon as possible.  In substance, it was important for her delegation that there was no
discrimination on the type of NTMs that would be looked at, either through the exclusion of some or
limiting the scope of others.  She supported the proposal of the Philippines, and noted that the inventory
was the first element of the Australian proposal.   As a way forward, she proposed a time-sequential
stream for the work programme where the first phase was the inventory which would be based on theinput of members.  Noting the Malaysian comment, she suggested launching a work programme that
would examine all NTMs, then revisit the work programme and review its design for its second phase.
Furthermore, as concerned the substance of the work programme, she agreed that the programme should
be fact-finding, and not result in any binding commitments.  As concerned the EC comment on the
aligning of standards which would likely be a natural outcome of the work programme, she stated thatthis was the responsibility of other WTO bodies, but not of this Committee.  It was premature to debate
such an issue before one found out what really was at issue with the standards and conformity
assessment.  As for the forum of the work programme, she preferred discussions in the Committee itself,
and not in working groups.  She was concerned about the participation of NGOs, as contained in the draft
text, as this would go beyond the rules and practices of the WTO, and her delegation may have littleflexibility here.  As concerned the timeframe, she took note of the flexibility of Australia, and supported
that the timetable be amended to the end of 2001 for the completion of the work programme.
2.9 The delegate of New Zealand thanked Australia for the proposal and looked forward to
agreement of an NTM work programme as soon as possible.  She supported the draft text, as provided by
Australia, but noted a number of comments that she had made at the informal meeting.  While the
existing timeline was too ambitious, she noted the flexibility by Australia to extend it to
October/November 2001.   The scope should not be limited to standards and conformance.  She did not
want any NTMs to be excluded as long as some Members thought they were important to the ITA
industry.  As for process, she supported the statement of the Philippines with respect to an inventory as aG/IT/M/23
Page 6
first step, which she did not find at odds with the Australian proposal which included this as a first phase.
As a way forward, she hoped that a decision on a text could be taken soon and proposed to amend the
operational aspects of the text, and amend the attached timeline.  She hoped that the final end date of
October/November 2001 could be maintained.
2.10 The delegate of the United States strongly welcomed Australia's efforts to establish a work
programme on NTMs.  His delegation put the highest priority in the areas of standards and
conformance.  However, as had been stated by othe rs, he noted that the mandate of the ITA pertaining
to non-tariff measures was not limited to just those areas.  He welcomed an ambitious programme but
also a programme that would proceed towards achievable results.  He believed the ITA Committee
could make a great contribution towards addressing problems identified.  There were substantial gains
to be made in terms of facilitating trade and minimizing any undue burdens.
He saw no need at this time for discussion or debate about the relationship of this work to that
of the Committee on TBT or the negotiating group on services.  His delegation did not see this work
as duplicative, but ultimately as complementary, since the ITA Committee concerned itself with a
defined range of products and with a specific mandate to consult on NTMs in this sector.Furthermore, any questions of executing or otherwise addressing the results of the work programme
were most effectively answered upon completion of the work programme, not at its commencement.
Generally, he thought that the timeframe proposed by Australia was ambitious.  He noted that
there was now a proposal on the table that this should be extended to the end of 2001 which he couldsupport.  His delegation was flexible with respect to the number of working groups.  His preference
was for two working groups.
2.11 The delegate of Switzerland thanked Australia for its proposal, and supported the work
programme.  She noted the flexibility of Australia with respect to the timeframe, structure, and the
inclusion of an inventory in the work programme, and hoped that a work programme could be agreed to
shortly.
2.12 The delegate of Norway thanked Australia for its proposal and noted they were flexible with
respect to the modalities contained therein.  His delegation supported New Zealand's statement on the
useful proposals on how to bring this forward.  He looked forward to the adoption of a work programme
in the near future.
2.13 The delegate of Hong Kong, China thanked Australia for its proposal.  He commented on the
statement of India and noted that the involvement of industry could create implications for rules and
practices of the WTO.  Therefore, other ways, such as a symposium or government consultations with
industry, might be more appropriate.
2.14 The delegate of Malaysia noted the discussion on NGOs, and supported the statement of India,
and largely that of Hong Kong, China as well.  He noted that the interaction with industry was a matter to
be done by governments back home.  In addition, he noted that a symposium was held already, and the
respective outcome reflected the views of the private sector.  Thus, another symposium was not needed.Furthermore, he thanked the US for its flexibility but asked what was meant by his statement that 'it was
too early to decide what to do'?
2.15 The delegate of the United States responded that once the work programme was completed, it
could be decided if a harmonization programme should be launched.  This would depend on what the
Committee was able to agree.  His delegation supported the initiative to have a work programme that
began with an inventory, but one that also provided steps to go beyond this first phase.
2.16 The delegate of Canada made two points with respect to the recent discussions.  First, with
respect to NGO participation, he noted the comments and concerns of others, but also stated that it wasG/IT/M/23
Page 7
important to have the right people in the room for the work and thus there may be a need to talk to some
non-governmental representatives at some point, so he wanted to be flexible.  Secondly, with respect to
the process, he hoped to participate in further consultations in order to get the work programme up and
running.  Thus, noting the comments of India, he thought the Committee could begin with the inventory,
and when that was complete, discussions could take place to determine where to go next.
2.17 The delegate of Australia thanked New Zealand for the views on how to go forward, which was
similar to what his delegation had in mind.  He noted the concerns of India, Malaysia, and Hong Kong
China, and noted that his delegation suggested wide participation because this involved highly technical
matters.  Furthermore, he noted the sensitivities and noted that some, such as regulators, could perhaps be
invited on an 'as needed' basis to provide information of a technical nature.  He suggested, that as a next
step, the Chair could consult with delegations, and that the meeting be suspended so that a revised
proposal could be circulated.
2.18 The Chairwoman proposed that the Committee take note of the statements made and suspend  the
meeting for this agenda item.  Australia and New Zealand were to prepare a revision of the proposed
work programme that would be circulated in advance of the resumed meeting, tentatively scheduled totake place on 13 October 2000.  It was so agreed and the meeting was suspended
.
2.19 The discussions were resumed on 13 October 2000.  After some informal discussions, it was
agreed that those proposing changes to the text provide written comments by 16 October, and that furtherconsultations would ensue. It was agreed that the meeting be further suspended.
2.20 The meeting was reconvened on 26 October 2000.  After informal deliberations over an informal
draft text by the Chairwoman, the Committee agreed to an NTM Work Programme on an ad referendum
basis.   Delegations were given until 10 November 2000 to further consult with capitals on the text, after
which it would be deemed approved and issued as a formal document.  The amended version of a drafttext was circulated in the room at the end of the meeting.
3. Divergences in Classifying Information Technology Products (G/IT/14, G/IT/5/Rev.1,
G/IT/5/Rev.1/Add.1)
3.1 The Chairwoman recalled that the Committee had proceeded with its work on this agenda item
and a second meeting of the Customs Experts was held in the summer.  As a result of their meeting, a
document had been produced, G/IT/14, which contained the outcome of their work.  In addition, shenoted that the Committee had also received the updated information from the WCO as concerned the
classification of IT procucts, which was contained in documents G/IT/5/Rev.1 and G/IT/5/Rev.1/Add.1.
She believed that these were both useful contributions to further advance the work in this area.
3.2 The delegate of the European Communities stated that document G/IT/14 explained the work
that was done by the customs experts.  He also noted work that some divergences still remained, either
due to lack of agreement by the experts present, or to external circumstances such as work still pending in
the WCO.  He noted the statement on page 2 of the document, which asked all participants to endorse the
work, and invited all to examine the recommendations in the document.  Furthermore, he stated that the
provision of technical assistance was something to consider.  Referring to the document, he said it wasimportant to pay attention to the codes in square brackets, as the customs experts agreed that these were
inappropriate.  As a way forward, he suggested a further technical meeting be arranged as soon as
possible so that the experts could explain the work and technicalities to those who had not previously
participated.  It would also allow the experts to revert to any unfinished work.  He encouraged the
Committee to endorse the work in G/IT/14, and then decide on the changes to be made to the schedules.He also noted that there may eventually be a need to send some issues to the WCO HSC to be studied
there.  He noted the timeline of events for the WCO, stating that the work for the HS 2007 nomenclature
changes had begun and that the deadline was in 2002 for proposals.G/IT/M/23
Page 8
3.3 The delegate of the United States thanked the delegations that participated in this exercise, and
noted that his delegation was studying the recommendations made in the report.  He asked that
delegations circulate the report to the experts in capital for their consideration.  He thought that a further
meeting was necessary so that the Committee could reach a common position.
3.4 The delegate of India stated that her delegation had examined G/IT/14 and agreed with the EC
that another meeting of the customs experts would be useful in order to further discuss the outstanding
issues and those codes that were deemed inappropriate.  With respect to the issue raised by the EC, her
delegation did not agree, as the HS 2002 was being de alt with elsewhere and it was premature to look at it
now.  The two issues were different, and it was not appropriate to examine it in this Committee.
3.5 The delegate of the Philippines noted that the aim of the work was not to determine one HS
number for each description but to minimize the divergences.  She recalled this point from the EC and
stated that it was important to recall this as delegations looked through the recommendations and passed
along the information to their capitals.  Furthermore, for those that did not participate in the discussions,
she asked that they be invited to comment on G/IT/14 and then another meeting could be convened and
eventually recommendations made to the Committee.
3.6 The delegate of the European Communities responded to the point made by India and stated that
there may be a misunderstanding because he was not saying that the HS 2002 exercise was relevant to
this exercise, but pointing to the fact that the WCO would soon start work on HS 2007, and thought that
through this process, there may be the need for the customs experts to make proposals or suggestions forthe new nomenclature to accommodate some of the concerns and problems that had been identified.  The
deadline for the HS 2007 nomenclature was 2002, and this was something to think about.  Furthermore,
he supported the statement of the Philippines.
3.7 The delegate of Canada stated that the experts meeting was very useful and it was important to
make progress here and he was supportive of the other suggestions that were already stated.3.8 The Chairman noted that as a next step, there was support to hold another meeting with the
customs experts and suggested that the future date be determined after consultations with delegations.
She encouraged delegations to submit written comments so that the process could continue.  It was so
agreed, and the Committee took note
 of the statements made.
4. New Participants
4.1 The Chairwoman noted that there had been one new schedule, the one of Cyprus, submitted to
the Committee for consideration.  The schedule was circulated to all participants on 19 September.  The
Secretariat had performed the electronic verification of the schedule which had shown that there were no
discrepancies.  This had also been circulated along with the schedule.  She furthermore pointed out, thatin its communication, Cyprus stated that "Cyprus already implements the provisions of the Ministerial
Declaration and applies zero duties on the list of products covered by the said Declaration".  Thus, she
believed that the Committee was now in a position to take up the schedule of Cyprus for approval.
4.2 The delegate of Cyprus stated that it was her pleasure today to submit the candidature of her
country to become a participant to the Minist erial Declaration on the Trade in Information
Technology Products.  The schedule of Cyprus had already been circulated.  In view of Cyprus'
accession process to the European Union--the EU-Cyprus Association Agreement, Cyprus was
already implementing the provisions and the tariff concessions had been at a zero-duty level since 1
January 2000.  She believed that this part of the process was a formality for Cyprus, and hoped thatthey would be admitted to be a participant in the Committee.G/IT/M/23
Page 9
4.3 The delegate of the European Communities stated that his delegation would like to see
Cyprus participate in this Agreement, and noted that the Cyprus' schedule was identical to the EC
schedule.
4.4 The Committee approved the schedule of Cyprus, and welcomed Cyprus as the fifty-fourth
participant in the Committee.
5. Other Business
5.1 The Chairwoman referred to the issue of 'review of product coverage', and stated that
consultations between delegations were continuing.
5.2 Furthermore, she proposed that the Committee's next regular meeting be held on 22 November
2000, subject to confirmation.  It was so agreed.
__________