RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/IT/M/25
14 March 2001
(01-1255)
Committee of Participants on the Expansion of
Trade in Information Technology Products
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 27 FEBRUARY 2001
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.17)...........................................................1
2. Non-tariff Measures Work Programme (G/IT/19) ............................................................23. Divergences in Classifying Informat ion Technology Products (G/IT/14/Rev.1,
G/IT/W/6) ...................................................................................................................... ........4
4. New Participants............................................................................................................. ......6
5. Election of Chairperson...................................................................................................... ..6
6. Other Business............................................................................................................... ........6
Introduction
The Chairperson stated that the proposed agenda for this meeting was circulated in
WTO/AIR/1488 on 14 February 2001.  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 productcoverage" and the date of the next meeting of the Committee under this agenda item.  The agenda was
adopted with these additions.
1. Review of the Status of Implementation of the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in
Information Technology Products (G/IT/1/Rev.17)
1.1 The Chairperson 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.17. This
document showed the implementation issues pertaining to the WTO procedures for implementation, and
was slightly revised in its format to reflect the clarifications sought at the last meeting of the Committee.
She hoped it was clearer and noted that it correctly reflected the participants to date, and their respective
procedures for implementing the Ministerial Declaration.
She pointed out that since the issuance of the document, two items should be updated to reflect
the current situation.  First, the letter of acceptance had been received from Oman, so therefore the
number of outstanding acceptances, as noted in paragraph five should be "five" instead of "six".
Secondly, the certification of the Polish ITA schedule was currently in progress in the Secretariat
following a notification from Poland that 'internal domestic procedures' relating to the Declaration were
completed.  Therefore, 'Poland' should be removed from the last sentence of the second paragraph, andinstead added to footnote number five.  Poland should also be reflected in the list of countries in
paragraph six, with the same footnote as was indicated for Cyprus.
1.2 The Committee took note of the Chairperson's statement.G/IT/M/25
Page 2
2. Non-tariff Measures Work Programme (G/IT/19)
2.1 The Chairperson stated the Committee had moved ahead with the Non-Tariff Measures' Work
Programme, as contained in G/IT/19.  The important  work at this time concerned the inventory (Phase
I) of the work programme which was envisioned to be completed in March 2001. She noted that from
the discussions last time, it was decided that 'guidelines' would be circulated so that participant'smaking submissions would do so in a similar format.  These 'guidelines' were circulated by fax to all
participants on 22 December 2000.  At the last meeting, she also encouraged submissions by 15
February so that the Committee could take an assessment of the situation prior to this formal meeting.
She informed the Committee that as of this date, there had been two very recent submissions received
in the Secretariat which were being circulated today in the room in the format received.  The formal
documents would be forthcoming.  She also recalled that her informal consultations indicated that
some delegations would be in a position to make submissions in the coming weeks.  Thus, this wasencouraging, but she hoped to hear more directly from participants on how the inventory phase was
coming along, and thoughts for how to proceed, especially as Phase II was not too far in the distant
future.
Secondly, she informed the Committee of the related work on this matter currently being
undertaken by the OECD.  She stated that the OE CD was an observer to this body and had been
following the matter of non-tariff measures.  She had recently been informed of  the in-depth work and
research that had been undertaken by them on this subject of non-tariff barriers to IT trade and
thought it would be useful for the Committee to hear about the work being undertaken there, as it
directly related to the work here.  She noted that a representative of the OECD was in the room and
would make a short statement after the participants had spoken on this agenda item.
2.2 The delegate of Australia noted his country's keen interest in the matter, and was encouraged by
the two submissions received to date.  Australia had been in the forefront to make sure that this matter
was addressed in the Committee and momentum was not lost.  He noted that his government was not in a
position to submit their contribution today, but noted that a draft was prepared, but was subject to internalclearance procedures, so he hoped to submit it in the next two weeks.  For transparency, he noted that
their future submission covered 1) deficiencies in some standards, 2) deficiencies in regulatory
procedures, and 3) lack of acceptance of conformity assessment test reports and certification.  In
accordance with the 'guidelines' issued, his delegation took a generic approach to ensure that all
participants felt comfortable that Phase I (inventory) would not identify particular vulnerabilities in
particular markets.  He urged that all participants take the same approach in drafting their submissions.
He welcomed information from others on the status of their submissions, so that the Committee
could determine if Phase I could be completed by the stipulated deadline of March 2001.  He pointed out
that his delegation supported the outcomes of the discussions in the General Council on implementation
and the triennial review of the TBT Agreement.  His delegation did not seek to re-open these discussions
in this Committee.  Thus, he emphasized that the work here should not be a duplication of the work
undertaken in other bodies, but that the Committee should be mindful of these other outcomes.  In respectof standards-setting organizations, he noted the importance of document WT/GC/42, which proposed
actions to increase the participation of developing-country Members in the work of relevant international
standards-setting organizations.
2.3 The delegate of Canada indicated that his authorities had made their submission which consisted
of two papers, one on import licensing and the others on standards and conformity assessment in the area
of EMC for IT products.  It was not their intention to present these papers in substance at this time, but to
join Australia in encouraging others to submit papers so that the inventory would have significant
submissions by the March 2001 deadline.
2.4 The delegate of Japan stated that his delegation had also submitted a paper on this subject, as
they wanted to show their strong support for this exercise.  The paper they had submitted concerned the
requirement of a certificate of origin.  He noted that the paper submitted was an aid for this discussion,
and that it would be revised and re-submitted so as to put it in a generic format for formal circulation.G/IT/M/25
Page 3
2.5 The delegate of Switzerland stated that they had held consultations with industry but so far there
had been little response.  At the present time, they were continuing consultations and hoped that a
constructive contribution would be submitted.
2.6 The delegate of the European Communities indicated that their formal submission was being
finalized and hoped to be finished before 9 March 2001.   The Commission had closely consulted with
industry and their contribution was close to being finalized following their internal procedures.  Without
prejudice to the final contribution, the EC submission would focus on 4 main areas: 1) regulatory
environment and level of regulation, 2) disparity of national standards, non-use of international standards
and non-harmonized radio spectrum use, 3) conformity assessment and testing requirements, and 4)
customs procedures, local establishment and related requirements.  A main theme of the contribution wasrelated to the appropriate and proportionate level of technical regulations for ITA products.  The
document would also raise the issue of transparency, coherence, and predictability in the transposition of
international standards.  The NTMs identified by the EC were also obstacles that the Commission and the
EC Member States faced in creating the 'Single Market'.  The paper therefore contained information on
the experience gained by the EC in dealing with the issue at hand in an international environment withdifferent traditions, languages, administrative cultures etc…  As part of its contribution to Phase I of the
NTM work programme, the EC hoped to share this experience in the hope that it could assist in the
ensuing analysis and discussions.
2.7 The delegate of Norway congratulated those who had already submitted papers and noted that
Norway was consulting industry with the aim of submitting a contribution in March.2.8 The delegate of New Zealand stated that her delegation hoped to be in a position to make a
contribution today or in the next couple of weeks, but unfortunately they were not clear at this time if that
would be possible.  The two areas they were examining for a potential submission were technicalstandards and conformity assessment, and government procurement.  Currently, they were in the process
of surveying New Zealand businesses on NTM issues across all product groups and hoped to collect data
from this exercise for the IT sector.  With respect to government procurement, she raised the problem of
'buy local' requirements, and this experience was consistent with some previous OECD work with respect
to the telecommunications sector.  She would keep the Committee informed of developments and
thanked those who had already made submissions, while she encouraged others to do so as well.
2.9 The delegate of the United States stated that his delegation attached great importance to this work
and gave his support for Phase I.  His delegation was consulting with industry and expected to make their
submission shortly.
2.10 The delegate of Thailand recalled the submission of Japan which noted the problem of
certificates of origin in Thailand.  He stated he would convey the submission of Japan back to his capital
so that a solution could be found soon.
2.11 The observer from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
stated that his organization aimed to provide a good analytical foundation to the discussions here and
elsewhere.  He noted that he had submitted a short paper for the benefit of participants, thus his statement
would be brief.  In the context of their regulatory reform project, the OECD was in the process of
carrying out various programmes on the regulatory barriers to trade.  The work on this project seemed to
suggest that significant barriers to trade may derive from differing regulatory requirements in different
markets.  On the other hand, they had also acknowledged that regulation has its regulatory objectives,reflecting social needs and public concerns.  The question would arise on how they could reach both
objectives and satisfy regulatory concerns.  The OECD had examined various standards-related barriers
according to different regulatory objectives.  In fact, they recognized that standards-related barriers had
often been confused with different regulations for the different objectives, which could often be
overlapping on the product.  In the telecom sector, there could be various kinds of regulatory objectives,G/IT/M/25
Page 4
for example, electrical safety and EMC, protection of the public network, interoperability, quality of radio
spectrum management, and health.  For some objectives, there may already be good international
standards but for others, it may be too difficult to reach such harmonization.  Also, for conformity
assessment, different approaches have been taken such as type approval, third party certification, and
suppliers' declaration of conformity.  Based on these considerations, they had been asked by OECDMembers to conduct fact-finding work on the regulatory practices in OECD members.  This included lists
of regulatory objectives where governments adopted mandatory regulations, voluntary schemes, or how
they used voluntary standards in technical regulations, or how they were using national standards, and
what approaches were taken in respect of conformity assessment procedures.  The initial results were
already discussed at an OECD meeting, and a revised paper will be discussed at the next OECD meeting
in March 2001.  He expected the whole project would be completed in the final quarter of the year.    He
hoped this information would be useful to the Committee especially as concerned possible links orsynergies to the NTM work programme here.
2.12 The Committee took note of the statements made.
3. Divergences in Classifying Information Technology Products (G/IT/14/Rev.1, G/IT/W/6)
3.1 The Chairperson recalled that the Committee had proceeded with its work on this agenda item--a
meeting of the customs experts was held in December 2000, with a revised report issued as
G/IT/14/Rev.1; a communication from Macau, China was received and informally circulated to the
Committee; and an informal meeting was held the previous week on this matter.  She was happy to report
on the good work and progress for a way forward that was proposed at that meeting last week.  Thus, shesummarized the main points from that meeting for the benefit of all participants.
First, she recalled to the Committee the contents of paragraph 3 of the Annex to the Ministerial
Declaration which guided the participants in their work in this area.  This paragraph noted the "common
objective of achieving, where appropriate, a common classification for these products within existing
HS nomenclature".  It also stated that "In any in stance in which a divergence in classification remained,
participants would consider whether a joint sugge stion could be made to the WCO with regard to
updating existing HS nomenclature or resolving diverg ences in interpretation of the HS nomenclature."
Thus, these were the important points noted in the Decl aration with respect to this matter, and in which
the "customs experts" had kept in mind in doing th eir work.  The culmination of their work and their
recommendations to the Committee were contained in document G/IT/14/Rev.1, which was before the
Committee today.  Thus, this had been a long pro cess and had culminated in, what she viewed as--
achievable results.  The discussions during the previ ous week noted the progress that had been made and
the outcomes which were reflected in the report.  These could be summarized as follows:
many of the classification divergences were narrowed down, divergences where no narrowing-down
was possible due to a variety of reasons were identified and it was noted that the matter may best be
referred to the WCO, divergences where no further progress could be made were identified, and the
importance and implications of broader issues were noted.
Thus, as a way forward, participants asked for the preparation of various 'lists' outlining the
particular situation for each Attachment B item.  This would allow participants to see and examine the
situation with respect to each category.  So, in preparation for this meeting, document G/IT/W/6 was
prepared which outlined four categories, as follows:   1) those items where divergences were narrowed
to one classification option, 2)those items where divergences were narrowed to two or more possibleclassifications, 3) those items which were recommended to be sent to the World Customs
Organization (WCO) Harmonized System Committee (HSC), and 4) those items where no further
progress could be achieved due to a number of circumstances.  She stated that it was also noted at the
informal meeting that the Committee would need to examine these lists with a view to establishing a date
on which to review these and take the necessary next steps.  Thus, she believed the Committee was in aposition to take this work forward based on what had recently been done.
3.2 The delegate of the European Communities stated his delegation's appreciation to the Secretariat
and the customs experts for their work in this area.  As a suggestion, he asked if the Chairperson couldG/IT/M/25
Page 5
circulate her statement to all participants, as in his view, this summarized the current situation and it
would help all delegations report this matter to capitals.  He referred to documents G/IT/14/Rev.1 and
G/IT/W/6, and hoped that all delegations could examine these with a view that the Committee could
formally endorse the recommendations found therein at their next meeting.
3.3 The delegate of the Philippines, in supporting the EC statement, thanked the Secretariat for the
document of the 'compilation of lists' (G/IT/W/6) which was requested at the informal meeting.  She
agreed to many of the points in the Chairperson's speaking notes on how the Committee could proceed
with this work.  She referred to document G/IT/W/6, and with respect to List I, she noted that this was the
list of items having one classification option, and stated that it would be ideal at the next meeting if the
Committee could agree on this list.  With respect to List II, she understood that the list of possible HS
classifications were listed here, and she noted to other participants that this was not a problem as theycould classify the product in any number of HS possibilities.  This would still meet the mandate of the
Committee as well.  For List III, she pointed out that it would be ideal if the Committee could agree to
send these items to the WCO.  With respect to List IV, she was not sure how to react to this list at this
time.
3.4 The Chairperson responded to the Philippines and explained that some of the reasons why no
more progress could be made with respect to those items in List IV could be found in the explanations in
document G/IT/14/Rev.1.
3.5 The delegate of the United States supported the statement of the Philippines, and agreed that the
Committee should consider Lists I, II, and III at the next meeting.  He pointed out that in some ways List
I was the hardest, as divergences would be narrowed down to one possible alternative.  If this was not the
option participants used, they would thus need to change their practice.  With List II, the situation would
likely be easier, as there were more classification possibilities.  He noted the problems associated with
List III, as this was the list customs experts noted they had problems with and needed further guidancefrom another body.  He stated there was nothing to be lost in consulting with the WCO to see if the issues
could be clarified.  He noted that while there was not a strong sense of urgency, there was a risk of losing
momentum if the matter carried on for a long time, as a lot of work had gone into producing Lists I, II,
and III.
3.6 The delegate of Australia thanked the customs experts and the Secretariat for the two documents.
Like others, he noted the importance of not letting a lot of time pass, and welcomed the possibility to
review these lists in advance of the next meeting so that some form of decision could be taken on a way
forward.
3.7 The observer from the World Customs Organization (WCO) stated that his organization had
studied very carefully document G/IT/14/Rev.1 as it was very important for their work in the
classification of merchandise.  He noted with satisfaction that the group of experts had turned to the
WCO for problems with product classification, as the WCO Harmonized System Committee was legally
empowered to give binding information on the classification of products.  The Harmonized System
Committee (HSC) usually met twice a year at the WCO in Brussels and had 102 Contracting Parties, who
were obliged to abide by classification decisions emanating from the HSC, however, each ContractingParty retained the right to lodge a reservation.  He noted that it would seem logical that this Committee
would turn to the WCO HSC to examine some classification divergences.  Noting document G/IT/W/6,
he stated that this matter would seem to involve sending 8 product descriptions to the HSC.  He noted that
the work of the HSC was highly technical and required a lot of information, and time to reach a decision
on issues of this kind, so he asked that if the Committee had reached agreement, this should be sent to theHSC as soon as possible.  Furthermore, he noted that the next meeting of the Committee would be in May
2001 and the next after that would be either in October or November 2001.  Normally, difficult issues
were not decided in the time span of a single meeting, and it was not unlikely that decisions could take a
year or more to be finalized.  Thus, he expressed an interest in receiving these matters as soon as possible
so that an answer could be given in a timely manner.  On a related matter, he noted on page 2 ofG/IT/M/25
Page 6
document G/IT/14/Rev.1 that the custom experts proposed that the Committee submit proposals for
amendments to the HSC.  This was a different matter than the one just discussed and would involve
proposals for amendments to the Harmonized System nomenclature for 2007.  For these proposals, the
timing was short as well, and it would need to reach the WCO Secretariat as soon as possible as there
were only six sessions before June 2004, which was the deadline at which time the Council would beadopting the recommendations for HS 2007 amendments.  Therefore he asked this Committee to be in
contact with the WCO with respect to any new proposals for the HS 2007 amendments.  Furthermore, he
noted that his organization had sent information concerning the classification of IT products up to the 25
th
Session of the HSC and he would be sending the update from the latest meeting shortly.  He lookedforward to working with the Committee on issues of classification.
3.8 The Chairperson stated that she would circulate her speaking notes on this item to all delegations,
and as a next step she proposed that the Committee follow the suggestions of the Philippines and the
United States and take a decision with respect to Lists I, II and III in document G/IT/W/6 at the next
meeting of the Committee scheduled for 10 April 2001.  This was also keeping in mind the deadline of
the WCO, whose next meeting was scheduled for May 2001.  It was so agreed and the Committee took
note of the statements made.
4. New Participants
4.1 The Chairperson noted that there had been one new schedule, that of Bulgaria, submitted to the
Committee for consideration.  The schedule was circulated to all participants on 19 February 2001.  The
Secretariat had performed the electronic verification of the schedule which had shown that there were nodiscrepancies.  This had also been circulated along with the schedule.  She furthermore pointed out, that
in its communication, Bulgaria stated that "the elimination of customs duties on information technology
products covered by the Declaration took place on 1 January 2001 with the exception of one product, for
which the first stage of tariff reduction took place on the same date".  She believed that the Committee
was now in a position to take up the schedule of Bulgaria for approval.
4.2 The delegate of Bulgaria stated that since 1998, Bulgaria had autonomously applied
significantly reduced or zero duties on imports of IT products.  Since 2000, there were zero duties
applied for all ITA products, with one exception which was HS 847050 – cash registers, and which
duties were proposed to be eliminated in 2004.  He hoped that the Committee would approve their
schedule and they looked forward to becoming an ITA participant.
4.3 The Committee approved the schedule of Bulgaria, and welcomed them as the fifty-sixth
participant of the Committee.
5. Election of Chairperson
5.1 The Chairperson stated that the Committee normally elected a new chairperson on an annual
basis.  Pursuant to consultations by herself and Ambassador Pérez del Castillo of Uruguay, she believed
they had reached an informal consensus on the election of Mr. Hiromi Yano of Japan as the new
chairperson of the Committee.  Hearing no objections, Mr. Yano was elected Chairman.
5.2 Many delegations took the floor to congratulate and express appreciation to the incoming andoutgoing Chairpersons.
6. Other Business
6.1 The Chairperson stated that the issue of the review of product coverage continued to be under
consultation, and she encouraged delegations to continue their efforts.G/IT/M/25
Page 7
6.2 The delegate of Norway thanked the Chairperson for her efforts on consultations and encouraged
the new Chairman to continue consultations on this matter.  He also believed it would soon be time for
the Committee to move beyond consultations and look into how actual work on the review of product
coverage could be addressed in a manner acceptable to all participants, in accordance to paragraph 3 of
Annex to the Ministerial Declaration.
6.3 The delegate of the Czech Republic thanked the Chairperson for her statement on the review of
product coverage (ITA II), stated that his delegation was not consulted on this issue and noted that their
position had not changed.
6.4 The delegate of India noted the statement of Norway and hoped that the new chairperson could
take into account the suggestion of Norway in his consultations with participants.  She was aware that
some participants were consulting among themselves but was not sure what Norway meant with his
suggestion that the participants should consult with respect to paragraph 3 of the Annex to the
Declaration.  She hoped Norway could clarify this in consultations her delegation may have with Norway
on this subject.
6.5 Furthermore, the Chairperson proposed that the Committee's next regular meeting be held on
10 April 2001, subject to confirmation.  It was so agreed.
__________