RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/IT/M/34
17 April 2003
(03-2118)
Committee of Participants on the Expansion of
Trade in Information Technology Products
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 28 JANUARY 2003
Chairman: Mr. Preben Gregersen (Denmark)
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.26)...........................................................1
2. Non-tariff Measures Work Programme (G/IT/22, G/IT/SPEC/Q3/6,
G/IT/SPEC/Q4/20, G/IT/SPEC/Q4/21)...............................................................................1
3. EMC/EMI Pilot Project Work shop (G/IT/SPEC/Q3/4)....................................................3
4. Divergences in Classifying Information Technology Products.........................................4
5. New Participants............................................................................................................. ......5
6. Other Business............................................................................................................... ........6
Introduction
The Chairman stated that the proposed agenda for this meeting was circulated in
WTO/AIR/2012 on 17 January 2003. With reference to the agenda, he asked if there were any other
matters to be raised under "Other Business".  He stated the review of product coverage and the date of
the next meeting of the Committee would be taken up under "Other Business".  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.26)
1.1 The Chairman stated that an overview of the implementation of the Ministerial Declaration on
Trade in Information Technology Products was contained in G/IT/1/Rev.26. This document showed the
participants and the implementation issues pertaining to the WTO procedures for implementation.  He
recalled the two outstanding matters that conti nued to be shown in document G/IT/1/Rev.26 relating
to the outstanding formal procedures for implem entation by two participants.   He had no new
information to report from the Chair, but continued to urge those delegations to finalize theseprocedures as soon as possible.
1.2 The Committee took note of the Chairman's statement.
2. Non-tariff Measures Work Programme (G/IT/22, G/IT/SPEC/Q3/6, G/IT/SPEC/Q4/20,
G/IT/SPEC/Q4/21)
2.1 The Chairman recalled that the Committee had proceeded simultaneously with a number of
matters as concerned the NTM work programme.  First, there was the issue of the EMC/EMI pilot
project workshop, which would be discussed separately under the next agenda item.  Secondly, there
was the survey on EMC/EMI, in which many responses had now been submitted.  And finally, therewere the submissions on analysis and ways to proceed with the NTM work programme.G/IT/M/34
Page 2
2.2 He noted that since the last meeting, there had been the formal circulation of the US paper on
ways to proceed, this was in document G/IT/SPEC/Q3/6.  There had also been two more responses to
the EMC/EMI survey, which were circulat ed in documents G/IT/SPEC/Q4/20 and 21.
2.3 Next, he took the opportunity to provide an overview of the work programme.  There were 11
original submissions from participants on identification of NTMs which were circulated in the
G/IT/SPEC/Q2 series of documents.  The Secretar iat had summarized these submissions in document
G/IT/SPEC/Q2/11 with the exception of one which was circulated after the issuance of the
Secretariat's summary.  There had been four submissions on analysis and ways to proceed; these were
circulated in the G/IT/SPEC/Q3 series.  And there were 20 responses to the EMC/EMI Survey, which
were circulated in G/IT/SPEC/Q4 series. The Secretariat had summarized these submissions in
document G/IT/SPEC/Q4/19 with the ex ception of two that were circulated after the issuance of the
Secretariat's summary.
2.4 He encouraged all delegations to continue to make contributions to the work programme to
the extent they had not already done so, or if they had additional information to so contribute.  He also
looked forward to a full response to the EMC/EMI su rvey, so that everyone could benefit from the
information of all participants.
2.5 From his point of view, he thought that for next steps, it might be useful to have updated
summary papers for the Committee to examine.  He noted that there had been some submissions
circulated after the original overview paper by the Secretariat was prepared.  Thus, he suggested thatthe Secretariat could update document G/IT/SPEC/Q4/19 which contained the survey responses, and
G/IT/SPEC/Q2/11 which listed the NTMs identified by participants.  Furthermore, it could be useful
to discuss some of the papers on analysis and ways to proceed, if the Committee so desired.  He
believed there was some very good information that had not yet been discussed in depth.
2.6 The delegate of Canada thanked delegations that had contributed to the work programme,
both with the responses to the survey and the submissions on NTMs.  With respect to the survey, he
noted that about half of the participants had responded, and this was encouraging but he hoped others
would respond as well.  In light of the upcoming workshop on EMC/EMI, he hoped all could respond
because the surveys provided a better understanding of the different regimes for all participants and
could provide a way forward.
2.7 With respect to the papers recently submitted, he noted the appreciation for the US paper and
his delegation shared the concerns about the lack of harmonized conformity assessment procedures
and the resulting market access difficulties.  He hoped the EMC/EMI pilot project would indicate
some ways to further facilitate market access of IT products.  The comments on the regulatory process
and procedures mentioned in the US paper were thoug htful and he thought that the work done in other
forum, for example in OECD and APEC, could be of assistance in this area.  In particular, he noted
the 1995 OECD Recommendations on Improving the Quality of Government Regulations as a useful
starting-point.  In summary, the US paper was a very useful contribution to the NTM work
programme.  He thought the idea of updating the papers was good, as this would be helpful for the
upcoming workshop.
2.8 The delegate from the European Communities agreed with the statement of Canada, as they
were of the same view regarding the topics mentioned.  Furthermore, they were grateful to those
participants who had contributed to the survey, and noted that there was still time for others to
contribute before the EMC/EMI Workshop.  His delegation also welcomed the contribution from theUnited States that was introduced at the last meeting, noting that this contribution also highlighted
many of the same issues as the EC contribution.  He encouraged participants to make similar
contributions to the work programme.G/IT/M/34
Page 3
2.9 In summary, the Chairman noted agreement that the Secretariat would update the documents
G/IT/SPEC/Q4/19 and G/IT/SPEC/Q2/11, and the Committee  took note of the statements made.
3. EMC/EMI Pilot Project Workshop (G/IT/SPEC/Q3/4)
3.1 The Chairman addressed the issue of the workshop on EMC/EMI, which emanated from the
work in the NTM work programme.  He recalled from previous meetings that there was a proposal by
Canada for this Workshop which was circulated in document G/IT/SPEC/Q3/4.  The Committee
agreed on the format and modalities contained therein, however, the Committee was awaiting the
provision of technical assistance funding to better enable the participation of developing countries. 
He recalled that that funding for 2002 could not be secured at that time as the activity was not
foreseen in the 2002 budget, but that it could be proposed for 2003.
3.2   He noted that as concerned the funding, the item was proposed and included in the 2003
Technical Assistance Plan, as contained in document WT/COMTD/W/104/Add.1/Rev.2.  The
Secretariat had informed him that background preparations had been underway since December for
the Workshop that was scheduled for 4-5 March 2003, and that the funding for the workshop was
approved.  Thus, the invitations were in the process of going out to the developing countryparticipants to the Committee so that they could nominate the appropriate person from their capital. 
Furthermore, he noted that as was agreed, there was funding for only one capital based person, but of
course, participants could send as many representatives as they wished, but only one would be funded
by the WTO.
3.3 Furthermore, he noted that the document circulated on the workshop did not address the issue
of international inter-governmental observers.  The Secretariat had informed him that they had
received an inquiry from an international inter- governmental organization, in this case the OECD,
about the possibility of attending the workshop.  From his position as Chair, he thought the
Committee would like to be open in this respect, especially as contributions from other internationalinter-governmental organizations were important to  broaden the body of knowledge of the NTM work
programme.  Of course it was up to the Committee to decide on this, but he thought it would be
beneficial that interested international inter-governmental organizations could attend as observers if
they desired.  That was his opinion from the Chair, but he hoped the Committee could react, so that an
appropriate response could be given to the OECD and any other international inter-governmental
organization.
3.4 Finally, as to the structure of the Workshop, he asked the Secretariat to prepare a draft
programme of the workshop based on the proposal of Canada.  This was circulated informally in the
room today.  Of course, it was only through the contributions of each participant representative that
the programme could be filled.  He hoped that the Committee could work with the Secretariat to
identify persons who could present their regulatory regimes for the first day of the workshop.  In thatrespect, he asked delegations to be in contact with the Secretary of the Committee, Ms. Denby Probst
to propose possible speakers or agenda items of interest.
3.5 Furthermore, he noted from previous discussions, there were some questions raised on the
product coverage of the workshop.  He believed that it was not the intent of the Committee to listproducts of coverage, rather the subject would enco mpass the products falling within the coverage of
the ITA, as determined by each participant.  He hoped the Committee would not have to dwell on this
matter, and he noted that each participant had a unique Attachment B part of their schedule, and that
this issue of classification was still being addr essed through the work with the customs experts.
3.6 The delegate of the United States stated that his government attached great importance to the
workshop as trade in IT products provided growth potential for all WTO members and NTMs were
one of the remaining barriers to this trade.  Given the complexity of the subject, it did not lend itself
easily to negotiators here in Geneva, rather outside participation by experts was necessary to makeG/IT/M/34
Page 4
progress in this area.  He informed the Committee that his delegation would participate fully in the
workshop, and he encouraged developing countries to participate fully, especially as technical
assistance funds were available.  He hoped that developing countries could take advantage of the
opportunity to participate and their concerns known so that concrete work could be done to progress
trade liberalization in the future.  With respect to IGO participation, his delegation could support their
participation as observers.
3.7 The delegate of the European Communities stated their support for the workshop and interest
in sending regulators.  He was glad to hear that funding was available for developing countries and
hoped that this would be utilized extensively, as it would be a unique opportunity to help broaden the
understanding on how to treat NTMs in the ITA context.  He noted that NTMs were probably the last
remaining obstacle to the expansion of trade of IT products.
3.8 The delegate of Canada agreed with the statements of the United States and the European
Communities.  He was glad that planning was moving ahead within the Secretariat and that funding
was available to developing countries.  Thus, he hoped there would be significant participation by all
countries so that an exchange could take place on the different regimes in place, leading to a betterunderstanding of the rationale for the diversity, including ways to further facilitate trade for IT
products.  Canada would send regulators to participate in the workshop, including panelists.  As
concerned IGO participation, his delegation noted the contributions other organizations had made to
the work programme and therefore thought they should be able to attend the workshop.  As for the
draft programme of the workshop, his delegation would examine it, but first impressions were thatthere should be a good balance of country experiences on the first day to be followed by an interactive
discussions on the specific measures to facilitate trade of IT products on the second day.
3.9 The delegate of Chinese Taipei supported the workshop, noting that their regulators would
participate and could make a presentation on the subject of telecommunications equipment.3.10 The delegate of Japan stated that the workshop would be very useful for the better
understanding of EMC/EMI issues for market access of IT products.  His delegation was glad to hear
that funding was available for developing countries to participate.  Japan hoped that the workshop
would be a success and wanted to contribute as much as possible.
3.11 The Chairman encouraged delegations to be in contact with the Secretariat concerning the
preparations for the workshop, and noted that there was no objections for international
intergovernmental organizations to participate, thus they would be able to attend if they so desired.
Furthermore, he noted that he was available for consultation regarding the workshop if any participant
thought that it was necessary.
3.12 The Committee took note of the statements made.
4. Divergences in Classifying Information Technology Products
4.1 The Chairman recalled that in previous meetings he had provided a brief report on the outcome
of the meeting of customs experts that was held during 6-8 May 2002 and at which very good progress
was made.  He had also mentioned that the Secretariat was working to complete this report in conjunction
with customs experts and that this would be available shortly.  The Secretariat was finalizing the last
aspects of the report which would need clearance from the customs experts before being formally taken
up at this Committee.  In the meantime, he gave the floor to the Secretariat, Ms. Denby Probst, who
provided a brief overview of the draft report.
4.2 The Secretariat provided a an overview of the classification issue. The report from the customs
experts was not yet before the Committee and was delayed due to some resource constraints in theG/IT/M/34
Page 5
Secretariat.  It was now in its final stages and would need to be cleared with the customs experts first,
then it will be formally issued.
4.3 There were 55 Attachment B items examined, and these could be categorized into 4 groups
based on outcome:  1) those where classification was agreed among the experts, with one or moreclassifications deemed appropriate  (approx. 34 items); 2) those that required some expert help, and
would be referred to the WCO Harmonized Syst em Committee (1 item); 3) those that would be
referred to this formal Committee, as the experts be lieved it involved an interpretation of what was
meant by the coverage of the ITA as drafted (in some cases this involved a systemic issue of one issue
but effected several attachment B items, approx. 14 items or groups of items); and finally, there were
items that remained pending or outstanding due to unique domestic processes or procedures, for
example cases before a judiciary  (in some cases this involved a systemic issue of one issue buteffected several attachment B items, approx. 6 items or groups of items).
4.4 The majority of items now fell in the first category, and therefore much has been achieved.
There was little, if anything more that the customs experts could do with respect to the outstanding
items at a technical level.  The most important work would be with the items referred to this formalCommittee, and in which the appropriate background material would need to be provided.  That was
in part why the report would be very detailed and would need to provide all the information
concerning these items.
4.5 The delegate of Japan stated that one ITA participant had been treating digital cameras as
non-ITA products since January 2002.  He noted that this item was stipulated as an ITA product as it
was listed in Attachment A of the Ministerial Declaration with the description "digital still image
video cameras".  After the revision of the Harmonized System in 2002, this participant changed its
interpretation of ITA coverage and charged a tariff to imports of digital cameras noting that they were
not covered by the ITA.  Japan was holding bilateral consultations with the participant and wouldreport any progress to the formal Committee.
4.6 With that overview, the Chairman suggested the Committee take note of this information and
take up the formal report at the next meeting.
5. New Participants
5.1 The Chairman recalled there had been one schedule, that of the People's Republic of China,
submitted to the Committee for consideration since the meeting in February 2002. At that time, it was
decided to revert to the matter of this new participant at a future meeting of the Committee as some
participants needed more time to consider the matter.  The Committee did not proceed with approval of
the schedule at the meetings in 2002, due to the same issue.  He did not have much more to report, but
wanted to give participants the opportunity to report on new developments.
5.2 The delegate of the United States updated the Committee on the situation with respect to the draft
schedule submitted by China.  He stated that the end-use certificates for the 15 ITA items that was
originally required by the Ministry of Information Industries had been abolished, and were replaced by a
system of certification by the Customs Service.  This new system by the Customs Service would becompatible with the ITA from the information received, but his delegation wanted to review how the
system was operating.  He expected by the time of the next meeting there would be no impediment for
China to join the ITA.
5.3 The Committee took note of the statements and would revert to the matter
 at the next meeting.G/IT/M/34
Page 6
6. Other Business
6.1 The Chairman stated that the issue of the review of product coverage continued to be a matter
under consultation, and he encouraged delegations to continue their efforts.
6.2 Furthermore, he proposed that the Committee's next regular meeting be held on 5 March 2003,
subject to further confirmation.
__________