RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/IT/M/4
11 March 1998
(98-0983)
Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade
in Information Technology Products
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 12 FEBRUARY 1998
Chairman:  Mr. A. Hoda
Agenda of the Meeting Page
1. Review of the status of implementation of the Ministerial Declaration
on Trade in Information Technolo gy Products (G/IT/1/Rev.3) .................................... 1
2. Future work programme  of the Co mmittee ................................................................... 2
2.1 Divergences in classifying information technology products
(G/IT/2, G/IT/2/Corr.2 and G/IT/2/Add.1) ...................................................... 2
2.2 Review of product coverage ............................................................................. 2
2.3 Consultations on non- tariff barr iers ................................................................. 5
3. New partic ipants ........................................................................................................... 5
3.1 Schedule of Latvia ............................................................................................ 5
3.2 Schedule of Panama ......................................................................................... 6
4. Other bus iness .............................................................................................................. .6
5. Election of Chairperson ................................................................................................ 7
Introduction
The Chairman welcomed participants to the third formal meeting of the Committee of
Participants on the Expansion of Trade in Information Technology Products.  He said that the proposed
agenda was circulated in airgram WTO/AIR/767 of 26  January 1998.  He asked if there were any other
matters to be raised under "Other Business".  Hearing no requests, he stated that he would take up under
"Other Business" the issue of election of chairperson and the date of the next meeting.  With these
additions, 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.3)
1.1 The Chairman drew participants' attention to document G/IT/1/Rev.3 which updates the status of
implementation.  He noted that at this time, all the participants had submitted their necessary
documentation for the formal rectification and modification to their schedules pursuant to the Decision of
26 March 1980 on Procedures for Modification and Rectification of Schedules of Tariff Concessions.G/IT/M/4
Page 2
This, with the exception of the two acceding c ountries, who implemented these measures on an
autonomous basis, pending completion of their WTO accession.  He furthermore stated that this
demonstrated the will of the participants to comp ly with the commitments undertaken last year with
respect to the initiative in trade in information technology products.
1.2 The delegate of Turkey stated that the internal procedural requirements had been finalized for the
ITA; with respect to implementation, the first and second reductions were made on 1 January 1998.
1.3 The delegate of Romania stated that the acceptance procedures had been finalized; the first and
second tariff reductions had been implemented on the 31 December 1997 and on 1 January 1998
respectively, as indicated in their schedule of commitments.
1.4 The delegate of Poland stated that the commitments made under the ITA came into force on
1 January 1998, and that the domestic ratification procedures were ongoing.2. Future work programme of the Committee
2.1 Divergences in classifying information technology products (G/IT/2, G/IT/2/Corr.2 and
G/IT/2/Add.1)
2.1.1 The Chairman recalled that at previous meetings no agreement was reached on the future
direction of this matter in the Committee.  A number of delegations indicated that consultations were
ongoing and the delegation of the United States stated that a paper would be forthcoming on the issue.
To assist delegations in their work, there were two sets of documents prepared by the Secretariat whichoutlined the divergences in classifying information technology products.  Furthermore, he pointed out that
three participants had noted the importance of continuing the work on divergences in classification or had
sought clarification on classification issues in their recent submissions on the review of product coverage.
2.1.2 The delegate of Singapore suggested that a meeting of experts be convened to examine the
classification issues.  The results of the meeting could be forwarded to the WCO for further clarification.
2.1.3 The delegate of the United States, concurring with the statement made by Singapore, stated that a
paper was in preparation and that a number of bilateral consultations were ongoing on the matter.
Furthermore, she noted that this issue related not only to the current list of products, but also to the
expanded product coverage.
2.1.4 The Chairman summarized that there was agreement on the proposal by Singapore to have a
meeting of experts on classification.  The date of the meeting would be fixed after consultations with
delegations.
2.2 Review of product coverage
2.2.1 The Chairman, referred to the ongoing review of product coverage, as envisioned in paragraph 3
of the Annex to the Ministerial Declaration and paragraph 7 of the document on the Implementation of
the Ministerial Declaration (G/L/160).  He recalled that beginning 1 October 1997 and no later that 31
December 1997, participants were expected to submit to the Committee lists of additional information
technology products for possible additional tariff conce ssions.  He informed the Committee, that thus far
there were 14 submissions by participants which had been circulated.  A few of these submissions were
received after the deadline of 31 December 1997, but this should not effect the important work ahead.
Furthermore, he recalled that the Annex to the Implementation of the Ministerial Declaration provided
that beginning 1 January 1998 and no later than 31 March 1998, participants shall consult in order toclarify information and exchange views on the documentation submitted, and that no later than 30 JuneG/IT/M/4
Page 3
1998, the Committee shall meet to decide whether to revise Attachment A or B to the Annex to the
Ministerial Declaration.  He also noted that the 14 submissions received contained two types of
information--those of a general nature, and those concerning specific products.
2.2.2 The delegate of the Philippines stressed the importance of the deadlines outlined by the
Chairman.  She proposed that a consolidated list of the 14 proposals be prepared by the Secretariat so that
all participants could work from a common document.  For the purposes of the domestic consultativeprocess, she asked for an indication whether there were still other submissions to be made, keeping in
mind that there was the 31 December 1997 deadline.
2.2.3 The delegate of Israel provided additional clarification with respect to the first two items listed in
Israel's proposal:  for HS 852719, the product description was as follows:  "Reception apparatus, capable
of operating without an external source of power, but can also be installed in vehicles or aircraft", i.e. it is
multi-purpose.  With regard to HS 8526, he explained that Israel had intended to propose HS 852610
"Radar apparatus" and HS 852691, "R adio navigational aid apparatus".
2.2.4 The delegate of Singapore agreed with the proposal made by the Philippines with respect to a
consolidated list.  He pointed out that the consolidation should also contain, in addition to the specific
products, the general statements made in the proposals.
2.2.5 The delegate of Canada agreed with the statement by the Philippines and suggested that the
document be structured in five parts, as follows:   Attachment A-Section 1, Attachment A-Section 2,
Attachment B, Part 4 to cover classification issues, and Part 5 to cover other issues and general proposals.
2.2.6 The delegate of the United States supported the statement of the Philippines that there was a need
for a consolidated document.  She stressed that the document should include all aspects of the proposals
and be issued as soon as possible.  She furthermore stated that the consolidated list would be useful in the
domestic consultative process that many delegations would undertake.  The consultative process in theUnited States had resulted in a very positive response to the request for comments for the expansion of
the ITA.  The domestic consultative process was required by statute to be an open process in which the
submissions were available to the public.  Additionally, the International Trade Commission was asked to
provide advice with respect to the requests received.  This process allowed for public comments even by
foreign governments.  She proposed to create an electronic bulletin board in order to assist thenegotiations.  Furthermore she pointed out that the Integrated Data Base was an important resource for all
to use in conducting analyses.
2.2.7 The delegate of Norway  supported the proposal for a consolidated list.
2.2.8 The delegate of Canada stated that his authorities were obliged to consult domestically and
intended to publish, in the Canada Gazette, the full list of proposals, but without attribution to the specific
country that made the proposal.  This would allow the public to comment on the proposals.
2.2.9 The delegate of the European Communities supported the idea of a consolidated list and
suggested that the list be appropriately structur ed so as to distinguish Attachment A-Section 1,
Attachment A-Section 2, and Attach ment B items.  He further stressed the importance that no editing or
cleansing of the information occur and that the proposals be kept anonymous.  With respect to the
domestic process he stated that there would be a wide consultative process in the EC where the paper
would be made widely available.  He supported the proposal by the United States on an electronic
bulletin board.
2.2.10 The delegate of the Czech Republic stated that consultations with industry were ongoing which,
while not adding any new products,. would likely confirm the interest in some items in the existing lists.G/IT/M/4
Page 4
2.2.11 The Chairman summarized that there were no indications that participants would be submitting
additional lists in the future, noting that the deadline was 31 December 1997.  There was agreement to
draw up a consolidated list which would be struct ured in five parts, would provide anonymity with
respect to the country making the proposal, and would not be edited by the Secretariat.  With respect to
the proposal for an electronic bulletin board, he stated that the technical possibilities would be examined
to see if this was feasible.  With respect to the issue of domestic consultations, he noted that someparticipants were required to have these as they had a statutory basis while others may not have a
statutory requirement but nevertheless intended to have consultations with their industry.
2.2.12 The delegate of Korea stated that while not submitting a proposal, Korea expected to play a
positive role in the second phase of the ITA.  He noted that paragraph 3 of the Annex to the Ministerial
Declaration stated that participating countries will m eet periodically to revise the product coverage of the
agreement in the light of technological developments , experience in applying the agreement, or changes
to the HS nomenclature.  He believed it would be very useful for more effective discussions in the ITA IIif the participating countries that had provided additional products provided the other countries with an
explanation as to how the products were related to the criteria described in these provisions.  Korea
considered that the product lists proposed for ITA II contained not only items with the scope of IT
products, but also a number of items outside of that scope.  There appeared to be no rationale to include
some of these products.  He suggested that the concept of what was an IT product be clarified and thatcountries submitting additional products provided the other countries with an explanation as to why they
regarded them as IT products.
2.2.13 The delegate of Malaysia indicated that consultations with industry were ongoing on the request
lists submitted by participants.2.2.14 The delegate of India supported the statement of the Philippines and of Korea.  He noted that a
number of products that were not directly related to IT products were included in some of the lists, and
that an exclusivity of end-use should be looked at as a criteria for consolidating the lists.  He further
pointed out that multiple end-use products, when included, may create problems.
2.2.15 The Chairman, noting the statement made by Korea, suggested that this issue would likely be
addressed by other delegations during the process of consultation and clarification, which was already
underway since the beginning of January.  Furthermore, more clarification could be sought during the
informal bilateral and plurilateral meetings which were foreseen in the coming period.
2.2.16 The delegate of Canada pointed out that his delegation had circulated a room document that
further explained the clarification his authorities were seeking for parts included under the ITA.  It was
suggested to review the coverage for parts of ITA products, so as to ensure their inclusion in the ITA ifthe product itself was covered.
2.2.17 The delegate of the United States noted that there were certain issues that needed to be addressed.
One was printed circuit boards on which technical discussions may be necessary.  There were a number
of classification and other issues that should be addressed.  She suggested that some informal plurilateral
meetings be arranged that would facilitate the work of the Committee.
2.2.18 The Chairman summarized that informal bilateral and plurilateral consultations would be
convened and that it would be useful to hear from the participants what issues they would want to
discuss at these meetings.G/IT/M/4
Page 5
2.3 Consultations on non-tariff barriers
2.3.1 The Chairman stated that a number of delegations had indicated their desire to pursue discussions
and consultations on three proposals put forward by delegations:  1) a proposal by the United States on
the issue of surveying participants on their use of two specific standards; 2) a proposal by the European
Communities to enlarge this survey to include conf ormity assessment practices; and 3) a proposal by
Canada to examine import licenses with respect to IT products.  The first two proposals concernedstandards-related matters, while the Canadian proposal asked to survey what import license practices
were currently required for IT products.
He recalled that at the last meeting the proposals with respect to standards were agreed to in
principal and that a group had met informally to discuss the specific wording of the questionnaire.
However, some concerns were raised and therefore the survey had not yet been formally circulated.
2.3.2 The delegate of Thailand recalled that at the meetings of 30 October 1997 and 3 December 1997
there was agreement, in principal, to conduct a survey on standards-related matters for IT products.
However, after the 3 December 1997 meeting, informal discussions were held to draft a text for the
survey.  On 8 December 1997, Thailand had placed a reservation as his authorities needed more time to
examine the content of the draft survey.  However, in the intervening period, consultations with capital
had led to a lifting of this reservation, and therefore the survey could be circulated.  With respect to the
paper by Canada he had no reservations either.
2.3.3 The Chairman read out the text of the survey, and it was agreed  that it be circulated.  The
Chairman then turned to the issue of import licensing proposed by the delegation of Canada.
2.3.4 The delegate of India did not support the proposal by Canada.  He noted that India had made the
import licensing notifications as required to the Committee on Import Licensing and therefore the
information sought was already available in the WTO Secretariat.
2.3.5 The delegate of Malaysia supported India's view.
2.3.6 The delegate of Canada noted that he would like to  return to this matter in  future;  he took the
opportunity to encourage those Members who had not made the required notifications to do so.
2.3.7 The delegate of the United States concurred with the statement by Canada and expressed also
concerns with respect to import licenses for IT products.  She further noted that there was a need to
discuss the practical aspects of import licenses.
2.3.8 The Chairman said that some delegations had expressed concern about a duplication of work with
respect to the survey proposed by Canada.  As there was no agreement, the survey would not proceed at
this stage.  He noted the point made by Canada wi th respect to the need to fulfil the notification
obligations in the Import Licensing Committee, and the request by the United States to have detaileddiscussions in the future on this matter.
3. New Participants
3.1 Schedule of Latvia
3.1.1 The Chairman recalled that at the last meeting, the schedule of Latvia had been before the
Committee, but agreement was not reached to approve the schedule as many delegations sought
clarification on the meaning of a headnote in the schedule.G/IT/M/4
Page 6
3.1.2 The delegate of Latvia  explained that implementation of the ITA in Latvia was not linked to its
accession to the WTO.  However, for practical purposes the Latvian government would like to submit to
Parliament the ITA and accession schedules at the same time.  However, if the accession of Latvia was
delayed for a long time, he saw no obstacle for an early ITA schedule ratification.
3.1.3 The delegate of the European Communities stated that he would see no problem in approving the
schedule of Latvia if the headnote was removed.
3.1.4 The delegate of the United States, asking for further clarification on the implementation of the
ITA commitments, wondered whether the schedule would be implemented on an autonomous basis like
the other acceding countries had done, or whether this would be linked to Latvia's accession.
3.1.5 The delegate of Latvia responded that it was not Latvia's intention to retain the headnote;
however any change to Latvia's tariff schedule required ratification by Parliament and this could take a
long time.  He stated that Latvia would implement the ITA commitments only after parliamentary
ratification.
3.1.6 The delegate of Canada asked for further consultations in order to clarify the situation with
respect to implementation.3.1.7 The delegate of Korea sought clarification from the WTO Secretariat as to whether the tariff
schedules of non-WTO Member countries were legally binding or not.3.1.8 The Chairman replied that with respect to the ITA schedules of non-WTO Members, the
schedules did not go through the certification process, but that these participants had bound themselves in
the ITA to make the necessary tariff reductions.  The difference was that these countries were
implementing the concessions on an autonomous basis until they become WTO Members.  He further
noted the need for additional informal clarifications  and consultations with Latvia to clarify their
situation.
3.2 Schedule of Panama
3.2.1 The Chairman recalled that with respect to the schedule of Panama, the Secretariat had performed
an electronic verification and the resulting discrepancies were conveyed to the delegation of Panama.
Panama had submitted a revised schedule to the Secretariat for verification and again a few discrepancies
were noted.  At present clarification on these issues was sought before the schedule would be circulatedto all the participants.
3.2.2 The delegate of Panama stated that authorities in capital were examining the second set of
discrepancies in order to resolve them and expected to submit a new list soon.4. Other Business
4.1 The Chairman pointed out that the period for consultation and clarification ended on
31 March 1998.   He proposed that the next meeting of the Committee be held on 30 March 1998.4.2 The delegate of the United States suggested that the Committee meet on 27 March 1998.
4.3 It was agreed that the meeting would be held on 27 March 1998, subject to the availability of a
room.G/IT/M/4
Page 7
5. Election of Chairperson
5.1 The delegate of the European Communities proposed Mr. Martin Harvey (New Zealand) as
Chairman of the Committee.
5.2 The delegate of the Philippines, speaking on behalf of ASEAN, seconded the nomination of Mr.
Harvey.5.3 It was agreed that Mr. Martin Harvey would serve as Chairman of the Committee.
5.4 A number of delegations expressed appreciation and gratitude to Mr. Hoda for his work as
Chairman since the inception of the Committee.
__________