RESTRICTED  
  
WT/GC/WPEC/M/4  
 
5 May 2023 
(23-3223) Page: 1/44 
Work Programme on Electronic Commerce  
20 April 2023  Original: English  
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING  
DEDICATED DISCUSSION ON ELECTRONIC COMMERC E 
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD AND IN VIRTUAL FORMAT ON 20 APRIL  2023 
Chairperson: H.E. Ms Usha Dwarka -Canabady  (Mauritius) , Facilitator of the  
E-commerce Work Programme and the Moratorium  
1.1.  The Chairperson  welcome d delegations to the fourth Dedicated Discussion of the year  and 
recalled that,  as indicated in the convening notice of 11 April, the session would  focus on the 
moratorium  on customs duties on electronic transmissions . At MC12, Ministers had instructed 
Members  to intensify discussions on the moratorium , including on its scope, definition and impact.  
Members had identified these elements  during the consultations held in 2022. There was also some  
interest  expressed in sharing experiences on the imposition of internal, non -discriminatory taxes on 
electronic transmissions.  She noted that this was not a new issue and that Members ha d been 
discussing the moratorium since 1998 . Following MC12, Indonesia  had circulated a paper  titled 
Indonesia's Perspective on Customs Duties on Electronic Transmission  (WT/GC/W/859). She also 
recall ed that a group of Members had earlier circulated a paper titled Ideas to Reinvigorate the Work 
Programme on Electronic Commerce  which included a section on the moratorium (WT/GC/W/855 
and its revision). This paper had been  introduced and discussed in November 2022.  
1.2.  She was pleased to note that , following the circulatio n of the invitation notice in which she had 
encouraged delegations to submit relevant documents and papers, additional submissions were 
received from Singapore (RD/GC/22) and the OECS  (RD/GC/23 ) circulated on 14 April  and 17 April  
respectively . She then invite d the respective delegations to introduce their submissions  and noted 
that she would then open the floor to all Members to share their experiences and views on the 
moratorium.  She emphasise d the need to  be pragmatic and to avoid repeating well -known positions. 
She encourage d them to be forward -looking and to be guided by the MC12 Decision which specifically 
instruct ed Members to "intensify" discussions including on scope, definition and impact of the 
moratorium. The Chairperson informed Members  that the Secretariat had recently circulated a 
compilation of Members'  submissions  under the Work Programme on E -commerce  since 1998 , 
including on the moratorium (RD/GC/24).  
1.3.  The representative of Indonesia  delivered the following statement:1  
1.4.  Before inviting our  colleague  in Jakarta to present our submission , let me just make a brief 
statement about what we are trying to do in this paper. Madam Facilitator from our previous 
discussion on this topic, it is clear that the issue of e -commerce continues t o be of great importance 
to many of us. Indeed,  at yesterday's TNC meeting, many Member s highlighted the importance o f 
the ongoing e -commerce process , including the issue of the moratorium. In this regard it is important 
to note that WTO Members have agree d to a moratorium on customs duties since 1998 , as a 
temporary  measure. This agreement was meant to ensure a period of stability and predictability for 
the growth of the digital economy. While the WTO can continue its work in developing more 
comprehensive  rules and agreements for e -commerce , there has been no agreement on the scope, 
definition and impact of the moratorium  to date . With this background, Indonesia attempts to 
contribute to the ongoing discussions through  its paper which conveys our perspectiv e on customs 
duties on electronic transmissions. We hope that the paper could bridge the differences of views 
among Members on this issue. It sets out Indonesia's perspectives and views on the reasons 
 
1 The presentation is attached in Annex  I. WT/GC/WPEC/M/4  
 
- 2 - 
 
  underlying the need to manage the entry of digital good s, namely (i)  to record trade statistics, (ii)  to 
promote a level playing field, (iii) to promote the growth of SMEs, (iv) to provide certainty for 
government and businesses, and (v) to assess  the digital goods risks. Madam Facilitator, to provide 
more inf ormation to Members regarding our proposal contained in document WT/GC/W/859 , today 
we have the pleasure to announce the participation of the Director of International Affairs of 
Indonesia's Directorate General of Customs and Excise, Ms. Anita Iskandar, wh o is present online.  
1.5.  Since 1998 the World Trade  Organization (WTO) has implemented a moratorium on customs 
duties on electronic transmissions. However, this policy has sparked lengthy debates among 
Members, particularly regarding the inclusion of electronically transmitted content. This is due to the 
lack of clarity on its definition, as well as the lack of consensus on  the scope related to 
implementation of this moratorium.  As the digital goods market continues to expand rapidly, it is 
important to take into account the significant impact of the moratorium on certain countries, 
particularly those that are developing and  least developed countries. For example, small and 
medium - sized domestic retailers in these countries may not be able to fully benefit from tax -free 
and duty -free policies for electronic transmission s due to the nature of their business sectors.  The 
absen ce of customs duties on electronically transmitted content can create an unfair trade 
environment among WTO members. This is particularly relevant in light of rapid technological 
advancements  and widespread Internet use, as the exclusion of electronic tran smission s from 
customs duties moratorium could widen the gap between developing/least developed and developed 
countries.  In this presentation , we will offer a brief overview of Indonesia’s proposal for customs 
duties on electronic transmission s, as well as  the reasoning behind the call for the regulation of 
digital product imports.  
1.6.  On slide 4a of the presentation, t here are several domestic regulations that govern Importation 
of Digital Goods, which I will briefly explain . According to Customs Law Number 17  Year 2006, 
Article  2 Paragraph (1) stated that "Goods brought into the Indonesian customs territory shall be 
treated as imported goods and are imposed on import duties".  This implies that all goods imported 
into Indonesia’s customs territory are subject t o customs duties. Any tangible or intangible goods 
obtained from outside of Indonesia n territory are considered "imported goods" and are thus subject 
to customs duties.  In Article 8B , Paragraph  2 stated that" Import or export software and/or electronic 
data can be done through electronic transmission" . Accordingly , software and electronic data are 
considered goods that fall under this law, and their transportation or delivery can be done through 
electronic transmission such as via the Internet.  As indicated  in slide 5b, Indonesia  has presented a 
proposal on Customs Duties to the WTO Joint Statement Initiative (JSI) on E -Commerce 
negotiation s. Our position is that customs duties should not be imposed on electronic transmissions, 
but this exclusion should not extend to electronically transmitted content or products. In other 
words, the moratorium should only apply to electronic transmissions themselves, and not to the 
contents or products being transmitted electronically.  As I mentioned  earlier in the previous slide, 
our customs law draws an analogy between electronic  transmission  with a pipe transporting  gas. 
This analogy  can help to illustrate the concept of electronic transmission. Just as a pipe is used to 
transport gas or liquids from one place to another, electronic transmission is used to transport data 
from one electronic device to another. I hope this comparison helps to clarify the concept of 
electronic transmission.  
1.7.  On slide 6c of the presentation, Indonesia has recently issued the Minister of  Finance Regulation 
Number 26 of 2022, which  replaces  the previous  regulation  (Number  17 Year 2018)  and provides  
guidelines for the classification and customs duties on imported goods. The regulation includes 
specific provisions for digital goods and creat es a new tariff heading for such goods in Chapter 99 
(Heading 99.01) of the Indonesia Customs Tariff Book.  Currently , digital  products  transmitted  
electronically  under  Heading  99.01  are subject  to an MFN tariff of zero percent (0%) in Indonesia. 
This heading includes five tariff lines: Operating System Software (9901.10.00), Application 
Software (9901.20.00), Multimedia (9901.30.00), Supporting or Driver Data (9901.40.00), and 
Other Software and Digit al Product (9901.90.00).  It is important to note that Heading 99.01 applies 
only to software and other digital products transmitted electronically and does not cover machines 
or devices that are imported  or will be imported.  For example , software  that is imported  in the form 
of a CD is classified under Heading 85.23, not in Heading 99.01.  Moving on to slide 7d, I wish to 
share  some  insights  about  the current  state of physical  and electronic imports of digitizable products 
during the period of 1998 -2025.  According to the South Center 157 Research Paper (2022), the 
import  of digitizable products  has shifted  from physical  to digital  form in recent  years.  The research  
paper estimates that there is a difference of approximately USD 139 billion between the estimated 
import value of digitizable products and the import value of physical digitizable  products.  This WT/GC/WPEC/M/4  
 
- 3 - 
 
  number  represents  the import  value  of digitizable  goods  that are imported through electronic 
transmission.  This trend  has also been observed  in Indonesia  between  2010 and 2020,  resulting  in 
a 1.39 billion  USD gap between  the estimated  total import  value  and the physical  import value of 
digitizable goods.  Moreover,  estimates  suggest  that developing  countries  could  potentially  lose at 
least USD 25 billion  in tariff revenue  annually  due to the moratorium,  while LDCs could  lose at least 
USD 5.3 billion per year in 2025.  
1.8.  On slide 8e, a s shown  in the table, there has been a significant increase in import value of 
digital goods  in Indonesia  from 2018 to 2022,  with the value  increasing  from USD 7.9  million in 2018 
to USD 56 million in 2021. The increase is attributed to the fact that many companies have started 
to voluntary declare the importation of digital goods.  Moreover,  the trend  of shifting  from the import  
of physical  goods  to digital  goods  has been further shown by the data until September 2022, in which 
the import value has reached USD 66.5 million. This indicates that the demand for digital goods has 
continued to grow in Indonesia.  Slide 9f outlines  various  reasons  why the administration  of digital  
goods  importation  is important for Indonesia. The rationale behind this is not solely  for revenue 
collection purpose but also for more significant reasons, namely :  
a. To keep a record  of trade statistics  - Indonesia  believes  that administering  digital  goods  
importation  is essential  to monitor  the flow of digital content across its borders and 
collect statistical data. This information is crucial for public policy making purposes and 
would aid in formulating future policies related to the trade of digital goods.  
b. To promote a  level playing field. Another reason why Indonesia thinks th at 
administering customs duties on digital goods is important to eliminate  tax treatment 
discrimination between e -commerce and conventional stores. Currently, imported 
physical goods are subject to customs duties, while digital products transmitted 
electro nically are exempt from such charges. This creates  an unfair  business  
environment  and customs  duties  on digital  goods  would  create a more robust business 
environment by preserving fairness in tax treatment between physical and digital 
products.  
c. To support small medium enterprises (SMEs) . Indonesia believes that administering 
customs duties on digital goods would support domestic creative  industries, particularly 
SMEs, such as software developers, to strengthen  their competitive  strength  towards  
global  e-retailers.  This is because  global  e- retailers typically offer more competitive 
prices and convenience, resulting consumers shifting form brick -and-mortar stores to 
online stores. Administering customs duties on digital goods would help maintain the 
comp etitiveness of domestic SMEs.  
d. To provide certainty for government and business in customs procedures is critical  for 
both government  agencies  and businesses  in term of customs  duty and import tax 
collection, digital goods classification, as well as the imp ort declaration procedure.  
Administering customs duties on digital goods would simplify the customs declaration 
process for importers  by providing a simplified customs declaration with minimal 
element  data and exception  of several  customs  measures  such as manifest  declaration  
and physical inspection compared with the conventional import of physical goods.  
e. To assess digital goods risk. Indonesia  believes  that assessing  the risks associated  with 
digital  goods  is essential  for the  customs  administration . These risks include  tax 
avoidance,  IPRs infringement,  and transnational organized crime such as creating 
weapons using 3D printers, illegal material smuggling, and money laundering.  By 
monitoring  the flow of digital  content,  customs  administrations  can control  the flow of 
content that is harmful to society, such as digital materials for terrorist attacks.  
Administering  customs  duties  on digital  goods  would  help mitigate  the risks associated 
with transnational crime.  
1.9.  On slide 10, af ter discussing  the considerations  earlier,  there are several  concerns  that WTO 
members should take into account, including : 
a. The importance of maintaining policy space - WTO Members  should  recognize  the 
significance  of maintaining  a certain  level of policy space  that allows  necessary  WT/GC/WPEC/M/4  
 
- 4 - 
 
  adjustments  for the imposition  of customs  duties  on digitally transmitted goods. This 
policy space encompasses both financial and regulatory aspects, and customs duties 
are one of the means to exercise state fiscal rights.  
b. The need for a c ommon understanding on scope, definition, and impact of the 
moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions ( CDET ). Although  the 
moratorium  on customs  duties  for electronic  transmission  was agreed  upon by  WTO 
Members  in 1998, there  is still a lack of clarity  regarding  its definition,  scope  of 
implementation and impact on CDET. Therefore, it is crucial to establish a common 
understanding among the Members to avoid potential disputes in the future.  
c. The relevance of the UN Declaration on the Right to Development (41/128)  - the 
termination of th e moratorium is also in line with the principles enshrined in  the 
UN Declaration  on the Right to Development.  Given  that developing  countries  and LDCs 
face challenges in catching up with developed countries, cooperation and mutual 
understanding are require d to remove barriers to development. The Declaration also 
emphasizes that development should aim to enhance the well -being and equitable 
distribution of benefits.  
1.10.  In conclusion , I would  like to emphasize  the following  points.  Indonesia  fully supports  the 
global  development  of e-commerce  and the digital  technology. However, Indonesia is of the view 
that the  imposition of  customs duties should only be imposed to content transmitted electronically 
in accordance with domestic laws and regulations.  As per Indonesia  Customs  Law, digital  goods  
delivered  via electronic  transmission  are subject to customs duties, and a specific tariff heading for 
digital goods has been introduced  in the Indonesia  Customs  Tariff Book, with MFN Tariff of zero 
percent for software and other digitally transmitted goods under HS Code Heading 99.01 . Secondly, 
the imposition of customs duties on digital goods is not solely aimed at state revenue, but it also 
has other important objectives, such as recording data sta tistics, creating a level playing field for 
domestic and foreign firms, promoting the growth of local SMEs, providing business certainty, and 
assessing digital goods risks including IPRs to establish state sovereignty.  Furthermore, we firmly 
believe that c ustoms duties represent the most precise and effective policy tool for the government 
to regulate the importation of electronically transmitted digital goods, serving as one of the primary 
forms of fiscal rights of a state. Imposing customs duties on such goods will not lead to any trade 
distortions at the global level, nor will it create any undue administrative burdens for the importation 
process of digital goods that are transmitted electronically.  Finally, Indonesia anticipates that WTO 
Members will tak e a comprehensive approach in analysing  the implementation of this moratorium, 
and to do so, we must have access to crucial elements, such as a multilaterally agreed scope, 
definition and assessment of the impact of imposing a moratorium on customs  duties.  
1.11.  The Chairperson  invited delegations with specific questions to Indonesia to raise them at this 
stage given the time difference in Indonesia.  
1.12.  The representative of Singapore  delivered the following statement:  
1.13.  We just want to comment on what we have heard from the Indonesian presentation. Thank  
you for sharing your insights and perspectives . We want to revisit some of these points , perhaps  
later in the discussion , but would like to raise the following  as we recognize that the Indonesian 
colleague is dialling in from Asia . On the first point regarding the policy objective of promoting a 
level playing field , we wonder whether imposition of customs duties is indeed  the most optimal and 
direct policy tool to achieve that, as opposed to a robust competition policy . On the second point on 
how to provide certainty for businesses and governments , I will address  this in my presentation 
later. But I also want to raise th is question in terms o f how we assess  the impact of un certainty 
when we are talking about creating a tax ation system from afresh and there is very limited ability 
from the government to enforce and really measure electronic transmission . The third point is on 
assessing digital risk, or digital goods risk . Why the need t o use  the customs duties as a policy tool 
as opposed to really assessing the digital goods risk , which many  Members are already embarking 
notwithstanding the lack of customs duties system ? 
1.14.  The representative of Senegal  delivered the following statement:  WT/GC/WPEC/M/4  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.15.  Thank you, Madam Facilitator, for having convened this discussion on e -commerce and 
particularly on the moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmission s. My delegation aligns 
itself with the statements to be delivered by the Africa n, ACP  and LDC Group s. Madam Facilitator, 
after 25 years of the application of the moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions, 
it is time to take stock. It is important to underline that customs duties are , and should remain , an 
area of concern to Members . It is important to find a balance between the need to promote electronic 
commerce and the need to provide Members with the necessary policy space to safeguard their 
interests , where necessary . That is the core of the issue raised by Indonesia  in their document  
WT/GC/W/859 . This document underlines some of the consequences  and losses  that could be arise. 
It also explains the need to distribute digital goods and statistics for reasons linked to security , 
equity and the need for public authorities to have some wiggle  room in order to address challenges 
in the digital economy. The creation of tariff lines for digital  goods would be an important area to 
explore. If we want to tax a product,  we need to know its origin and worth , among other things. 
That is why it is important that developing countries look at the potential loss of revenue associated 
with the absence of duties,  particularly when digitalized products take over the position traditionally  
held by physical products. This is an additional concern for developing countries.  To conclude, I 
would like to raise a question to  Indonesia . Are the tariff lines that hav e been created standardized 
by the WC O? 
1.16.  The representative of Barbados  delivered the following statement:   
1.17.  Moving away from the structure of our prepared statement on behalf of the ACP group , we 
are mindful of the difference in time zones and would want to  take advantage, if possible, of the 
presence of our colleague in Indonesia to respond to some of our questions. We would also be open 
to receive answers to these questions at a later time. First,  we wish to express our appreciation for 
the information that has been provided by Indonesia on the creation of an HS line to impose duties 
on electronic transmissions . As indicated , we do have a few questions: What methodolog y does 
Indonesia use to actually collect t he duties ? Has Indonesia explored collecti ng VAT or other internal 
charges ? We notice that the actual tariff listed in the schedule is 0  percent. I n paragraph 2.3 
Indonesia indicates these " physical import of those digitizable goods was USD 16 billion ". What was 
the context of the goods captured in the calculation of the tariff  or was the tariff based on the 
physical med ium? In paragraph 2.6, Indonesia  describes import value and tax revenue . This is the 
VAT and income tax of digital goods importation HS Code 99, during the period 2018 -2022, leading 
to voluntary declarations from its consumers. Did Indonesia collect that revenue from HS  Code 99 
or as a tax, VAT or otherwise? In the projected estimates of future revenue, based on past growth 
rates, we would li ke clarification as  to whether the value of the content has been included in the 
calculation of the tariff on the digital good . Does the estimated revenue loss to developing countries 
and LDCs take into account the change technology related to the transfor mation from physical 
medium goods to digitized form? Can that revenue also have been collected if the physical goods 
continued to be traded?  
1.18.  The representative of Australia  delivered the following statement:  
1.19.  We also  have a question for our Indonesian friends, and I hope we will be given the 
opportunity to make our other statement later. Thanks to our Indonesian friends and neighbours for 
their comprehensive  presentation. We think these kinds of detailed discussions  about what Members 
really intend to do in this space, in considering the moratorium conversation and getting into what 
products they would like to impose customs duties  on if indeed the moratorium expires , is the only 
way we are going to get any clarity a round impact . As I will mention in our statement later, the only 
relevant impact is the impact on customs duties . We know the impact o f the moratorium  because it 
has been in place for 25 year s. My question to Indonesia is , in setting out the impact of the change 
in the number of digitizable goods and therefore the revenue impact over recent years, there was a 
table for  the VAT collected, which was also going up as more good s were digitized. My question is 
and I think Barbados  asked this as well , how is the VAT being applied to these digitizable products ? 
It seems to us that this has an impact not only on the revenue argument but also on the compliance 
argument. One of the five priorities was to be able to track when products came into the country . 
Australia has a VAT and a good compliance rate with our VAT or GST . This has certainly help ed us 
with those compliance issues. We are curious to explore the interaction there.  
1.20.  The representative of the United States  delivered the following statement:   WT/GC/WPEC/M/4  
 
- 6 - 
 
  1.21.  We ju st have a few questions  and have a longer statement on other issues. With respect to 
what we hear d to and read in its paper , it sounds like Indonesia 's policies are driven in part by an 
interest in creating a level playing field . Would an internal non -discri minatory tax, such as VAT, not 
be a more effective  way to collect revenue and contribute to a level - playing field? It seems that a 
customs duty runs counter to th at objective . In section 2.3.5  of its submission , Indonesia raises the 
issue of  using the customs administration to enforce non -economic issues such as 3D printing of 
weapons, illegal material smuggling and digital materials for terrorist attacks. We just question 
whether a customs authority is best placed to serve this function . These types of co ncerning activities  
can just as easily originate within a country's borders or can otherwise evade customs and tax 
authorities . Given the volume of data that would need to be analysed  by customs administration and 
the possible holes in this defensive strat egy, would the damage to Indonesia's domestic businesses 
be commensurate  with the benefits ? Finally,  section 2 .6 of Indonesia's paper concerns  draft 
provisions that it has prepared for potential domestic imposition  of customs  duties on electronically 
transmitted digital products. Indonesia's plans appear to us to be impractical  - potentially e very 
smart phone user in Indonesia  would be considered an importer. According to this communication 
and the draft measures that we have reviewed, would Indonesia's 210  million users of these devices 
be required to keep records for all updates , bug fi xes and downloads ? Would the y be subject to 
potential  audit?  
1.22.  The representative of Switzerland  delivered the following statement:  
1.23.  We would li ke to thank Indonesia for the insightful  presentation today. While e choing 
questions raised by previous speakers, we would  also like to ask Indonesia whether it has assessed 
the impact on its own consumers  and the MSMEs  who rely on digital imports for thei r innovation . 
Has Indonesia assessed  the impact on the start-up environment?  
1.24.  The representative of Mexico  delivered the following statement:  
1.25.  We would also like to thank Indonesia for its input to  our discussion on customs duties on 
electronic transmissions and for sharing its  perspective. We also thank Singapore and the OECS  
Members  for sharing their views and for contributing to today 's discussion. With regard to 
Indonesia's presentation, we would like to know in greater detail how we can provide incentives for 
the voluntary declaration of digital goods and if these voluntary declarations are reflected in the 
trade statistics using  a different methodology .  
1.26.  The representative of Canada  delivered the following statement:  
1.27.  This intervention will focus on Indonesia's submission and presentation  for which we thank 
them. We wanted to share some questions that we have about its submission . While the submission  
notes potential loss of government revenue, the statistics provided in Figure 3  suggest that, for 
imports of digital goods in 2022 under HS Code 99, the import value pales in comparison to the 
revenue raised through  income tax and value -added tax. If our numbers are correct , the import 
value would appear to be 0.003  percent  of all government revenues. Furthermore,  expert studies 
such as the 2019 paper by  Mr. Hosuk Lee -Makiyama  and Mr. Badri Narayanan  suggest that more 
tax revenues would be lost due to the decreased consumption resulting from higher price.  In 
addition, Members would lose benefits resulting from trade digitization, such as lower trade costs.  
Those consequences do not appear to be reflected in this submission . Additional custom  procedures 
can increase trade and administrative costs , thus  affecting competitiveness, particularly for MSMEs. 
Finally, we wish to call on Indonesia to refrain from imposing customs duties on digital products and 
to remain consistent with its WTO commitment.  
1.28.  The representative of the European Union  delivered the following statement:  
1.29.  We will deliver a more comprehensive statement at a later stage of the meeting. For now, we 
wanted to r eact to Indonesia's presentation . We thank them for explaining their policy considerations 
on customs duties and electronic transmissions , and for explaining its concerns  and underlining the 
thinking behind its policy choices . We believe  that there are more suitable and reliable policy tools 
to address some of the conc erns raised and  to support digital development rather than imposing 
customs duties which  would go against the current WTO commitment . It would create an enormous 
burden and uncertainty on governments, businesses and consumers. We were wondering whether  WT/GC/WPEC/M/4  
 
- 7 - 
 
  Indonesia ha d assessed this. W hat are the reactions of the business community on the 
considered  actions?  
1.30.  The representative of Indonesia  delivered the following statement:  
1.31.  We can make another presentation if delegates wish to learn  about our policies  in more detail . 
We would like to thank delegations for all the comments and concerns already raised. Our policies 
are not new . We have had this practice since 2018 , when we issued the Indonesian customs tariff 
book in which we included HS 99.01. More and more  companies already make voluntary declarations 
to us. The y face difficulties given that the declaration format that we have is not suitable; it is not a 
normal declaration in that it does not concern physical goods. Businesses  have asked us how to  
make suc h declarations,  as this also relates to their tax obligations. When they declare customs 
duties , they can have the tax reimbursement from the tax office . That is why they need to declare.  
In the past, we did not have an adequate  format , but now, after five  years, we adopted  policies for 
businesses to declare the importation of digital goods.  We also coordinated with the tax office to 
make sure that the new format of the declaration will not place the tax obligation at the same time 
as their payment from cus toms duties. This format will now be separated. You will see from 2023 
onwards that the industry will need to pay VAT when they declare customs duties.  This is to simplify 
processes for the government and the industry. Other questions were raised, includin g how the 
industry declares its digital goods and how to collect the tax revenue and customs duties. W e are 
ready to provide written response s at a later stage . If it is for personal use, you do not need to 
declare anything if you download on your smartpho ne. This is what is required for industry and 
industry use. This is what we can do right now  for traceability. But, as technology develops rapidly, 
we cannot predict the future. What we can do now , however,  is detect the software that is  
downloaded by the industry. If Members wish to  learn more about the technicalities, we would be 
happy to  engage further and provide more technical information . 
1.32.  The Chairperson  thanked Indonesia for its presentation  and noted that this was the beginning 
of a dialogue and discussion on Indonesia's paper . Any additional information that Indonesia wished 
to provide would be  appreciate d. She invited Members to  turn to the second submission circulated 
by Singapore on 14 A pril in document RD/GC/22 .  
1.33.  The representative of Singapore  delivered the following statement:2 
1.34.  We would like to extend our appreciation  once again, to Indonesia for its presentation.  We 
will not  go into the history but , broadly  speaking , we all know that the benefits of the moratorium 
have helped us support a predictable trade environment. It has actually lowered barriers to entry 
for small and micro -businesses to tap on the opportunities in a growing digital economy. In terms 
of scope, this was a point r aised earlier . This includes everything from e -mails, text messages, 
videos, application software and that it should not be applied to the content as well as the 
transmissions . From a development perspective, w hy do we think the moratorium is important? The 
key development across developing countries and LDCs is that they are trying to shift towards a 
services -oriented model and a services -oriented economy is largely based on data flows and 
electronic transmissi on. It really does not make sense from a policy point to impose customs duties 
to achieve the other policy objectives which could actually impede the broader economic 
development of these Members. We believe that it is especially pertinent to small, open, developing 
and LDC Members and there would be a detrimental impact on development outcome if the 
moratorium were to lapse. There was a point raised on the fiscal implication as well, and there are 
many other Members who believe that there are existing taxa tion tools that we can rely on to make 
up for the revenue loss. I would actually go in -depth into this on the comparison between the various 
policy tools to actually achieve fiscal revenue and collection objective on digital trade later on as 
well.  
1.35.  I cann ot emphasise enough what the broader economic and social implications are if the 
moratorium w as to lapse . The economic and social benefits on businesses and consumers are 
important  and we need to focus on the individuals on the ground at the end of the day , including 
the small micro -businesses. In a discussion at the JSI meeting last month, micro businesses from 
Asia, Africa and Latin America were quite concerned that governments have the power to impose 
custom duties on electronic transmissions. It has nev er come across to them that this was something 
that was even possible  and it an interesting discussion for them. Needless to say, MSMEs stand to 
 
2 The presentation is attached in Annex  II. WT/GC/WPEC/M/4  
 
- 8 - 
 
  benefit the most, as they do not have resources to meet the compliance requirements if every 
Member was to set up customs duties requirements at the border. This is something we have to 
take into account when we think about the implications of the customs duties moratorium. In 
addition, from the consumer's end we see that the imposition of customs duties could actu ally lead 
to higher prices, lower consumption and impede economic growth. In our consultation with 
businesses, whether big or small, many noted that this would be passed onto the consumers.   
1.36.  Why do we believe that existing internal taxation mechanisms woul d be far more effective in 
achieving the policy objectives of revenue collection? If we look at the left side of page 7  of our 
presentation , different criteria are listed. I n terms of operational visibility, if you have a VAT system, 
a GST system, it would  be much easier to set up a mechanism to collect taxation on some of the 
items mentioned , be it digital books or even online services for example. But when it comes to a 
customs duties system, it is extremely low in terms of operational feasibility because  we are looking 
at setting it up entirely new. On the issue of enforceability, Indonesia just mentioned that if you 
were to have that system in place, companies would have the obligation to the tax office  - they 
would have to report the data. From Singapor e's perspective and also experiences, we have launched 
an overseas vendor registration system  which is part of our GST system. Since we launched it in 
2020 it was highly impossible because it was built on top of a system that we already ha d. It is 
highly o perational as there was minimal costs in setting it up . It includes the sale of e -books, sale 
of online streaming services and even distance learning classes. I hope that also puts into 
perspective what we are looking at when we are talking about using exi sting internal tax mechanisms 
to collect revenue. It does not mean that we do  not collect revenue on things like e -books for 
example , but there might be more effective tools for us to achieve that.  The third criteri on is on the 
impact  to the economy. I wish to stress that there is a distinction and small, open, services -driven 
economies need to really think about it when considering setting up this customs duties system. The 
impact on your economy is going to be disproportionately large. This is something w e need to bear 
in mind as we cannot just focus on a single sub -dimension of the policy tool . There is need to actually 
think about the systems ' impact  when  discussing this issue. The last point in terms of revenue 
collection, from Singapore's view, as well as that of m any Members, is that there have been positive 
experiences in terms of how we are able to collect revenue using existing internal tax mechanism s. 
The question revolving around setting up a customs duties system  is that there is a big question 
mark as we do not really know because the estimates range and differ drastically. Taking into 
account the third factor , we might see a highly limited impact  in terms of what governments can 
actually collect from the revenue standpoint.  
1.37.  In the last slide, you will see the three guiding questions that we have put out for Members 
to think about. The first being, what are the implications for businesses, particu larly MSMEs, in terms 
of operations and cost s? This goes back to the point just made in terms of how small businesses and 
micro -entrepreneurs would have to face , overcome and access new markets. The second question 
is how would the moratorium support digit al inclusion? This is a question that many developing 
countries and LDC s are thinking about as they move towards a services -oriented economic model to 
leapfrog development phases . Would putting in place customs duties impact that outcom e? The last 
question  is how do Members consider various policy tools to achieve the policy objectives, including 
that of revenue collection or industry development? Indonesia just mentioned a few of these policy 
objectives on which there may be other objective policy rules to  achieve them. On digital 
industrialisation , some Members have said that a policy too l of customs duties might help to facilitate 
digital industrialisation . However , we wish to caution against  oversimplifying because the issue of 
digital industrialisation is highly complex, and it cannot be addressed by customs duties alone . 
Customs duties  is a relatively simple policy tool that just looks at revenue collection. If we want to 
develop the domestic digital economy ecosystem, there are many dimensions to look at which we 
can share at a later stage . There is education, capacity building, infrastructure development, which 
we have covered in earlier dedicated sessions, and these are some of the more sali ent policy tools 
that might help us to achieve that policy ob jective.  
1.38.  The Chairperson  thanked Singapore for its presentation  and then invited Members to turn to 
the submission  circulated by the OECS on 17 April in document RD/GC/23.  
1.39.  The representative of Antigua and Barbuda , on behalf of the OECS , delivered the following 
statement : 
1.40.  I am making this intervention on behalf of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States 
(OECS) WTO Members. Today's topic , the moratorium on customs duties on electronic WT/GC/WPEC/M/4  
 
- 9 - 
 
  transmissions, is a critical one, and perhaps the topic under these structured discussions on which 
Members remain furthest apart. The OECS has long been a supporter of the moratorium, which we 
see as an important cog in the broader e -commerce and digital trade ecosystems. The moratorium 
also contributes to legal certainty and predictability which are two fundamental principles of the 
WTO. As demonstrated in our Room Document, RD/GC/23, OECS member countries have collectively 
been net exporters of telecommunications, computer and information services over the past decade. 
Furthermore, in the decade preceding the COVID -19 pandemic, OECS member countries registered 
growth in exports of digitally deliverable services (DDS). This growth intensified during the most 
intense phase of the pandemic and , for some Mem bers, DDS exports exceeded their pre -pandemic 
levels. OECS countries continue to face a range of challenges which limit their ability to fully capitalise 
on the benefits of digitalisation and digital trade. These reflect, at least partially, a lack of digi tal 
readiness and deficiencies in digital infrastructure that constrain successful digital transformation. 
However, we fear that removing the moratorium, especially in the absence of further analytical work, 
can set us back even further. The study which we  have proposed in our Room Document could shed 
much needed light on the impact of the moratorium, specifically on government revenue, business 
performance, especially MSMEs, consumer welfare and digital industrialization. We are pleased that 
the Secretaria t has joined the World Bank, UNCTAD and the IMF in undertaking a broader piece of 
work on the moratorium . We believe that the findings that will emerge from that work will be 
instructive. It will also offer some baselines for the work we are now proposing.  Furthermore, the 
outcomes of this work will be of particular benefit to SIDS, LDCs and SVEs in strengthening their 
understanding of the relationship between the moratorium and efforts at enhancing digital trade. 
Additionally, WTO Members should also engag e in further structured exchanges on issues of scope 
of the moratorium and definition of terms such as electronic transmissions, which can also benefit 
from the expertise of relevant international organisations, academia and the private sector.  
Notwithstan ding all of this, we do share concerns regarding the impact of the moratorium on 
revenues, policy space and digital industrialisation. These are important considerations which 
nonetheless ought to be balanced against the net positive impact of the moratori um on the growth 
and development of global e -commerce.  
1.41.  There are also a number of practical challenges which we may have to work through to make 
customs duties workable. For instance, would a Member be required to apply duties on every 
individual electron ic message, digital download (including music, movies and video games), web and 
mobile applications , among others? Furthermore, how do we determine the rules of origin for a 
digital transmission, as well as the exact physical place of origin of a transmiss ion, especially given 
the extent to which the typical transmission may involve multiple creators in multiple countries?  We 
will also have to take into account the potential burden on small customs administrations to 
implement systems to effectively and eff iciently collect duties on electronic transmissions. 
Furthermore, would customs duties on electronic transmissions disrupt the global digital economy 
to the extent that it limits the ability of SIDS, SVEs and MSMEs to participate adequately and 
effectively  in the digital economy? These are all important considerations, and it is unlikely that any 
of us has definitive answers. Therefore, let us continue the constructive discussions on this topic, 
and let us invite further objective analytical work so that an y decision made on the future of the 
moratorium is steeped in objective facts. Finally, we align with the statement to be delivered on 
behalf of the CARICOM and ACP Groups. We also thank Indonesia and Singapore for their 
submissions which have made vital c ontributions to our discussions. As always, we are grateful to 
you, Ambassador Dwarka -Canabady , for your work, which is all volunteer, but which you continue 
to do with tremendous drive. Many thanks also to the continued dedication of the Secretariat team 
to support our work, notwithstanding the competing demands on their time and the limited resources 
available to them. Thanks also to the interpreters.  
1.42.  The Chairperson  thanked the delegations for their introductions and contributions to the 
discussion  and opened the floor to other delegations .  
1.43.  The representative of Barbados  delivered the following statement :  
1.44.  The ACP Group commends you Madam Facilitator and your continued stewardship of our 
discussions under the rubric of the moratorium and the Work Programme on E -Commerce. The fact 
that the moratorium was shortlisted as one of the priority areas for inter -sessional work in the MC12 
Decision is clear evidence that this is an important aspect of our overall work here in the WTO. Our 
group is t herefore pleased to be part of this engagement today and in so doing thank Members for 
their continued enhanced engagement on the Work Programme. Questions have been raised about 
the definition and scope of the moratorium, on the imposition of customs duti es on electronic WT/GC/WPEC/M/4  
 
- 10 - 
 
  transmissions and the scenarios about estimated revenue loss from goods that have moved from 
being traded physically across borders to being traded digitally. Despite our discussions over the 
years, including in analysing the studies that have been completed, Members ' views continue to 
diverge on the core issues of definition and scope of the moratorium as well as its impact on WTO 
Members.  
1.45.  On each occasion that the renewal of the decision governing the moratorium comes before 
us, we are t herefore faced with the challenge of whether  or not,  to exten d the moratorium. What 
we note is that the moratorium as agreed to by our Ministers is, and I quote, 'to maintain the current 
practice of not imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions'.  It therefore stands to reason 
that the current practice of Members has been not to impose customs duties. We also know that 
duties are essentially not charged on the content of the physical version. Rather tariffs were imposed 
on the carrier media of soft ware. This practice in the context of the GATT/WTO was based on the 
GATT Decision 4.1 Valuation of Carrier Media Bearing Software for Data Processing Equipment, dated 
24 September 1984, for Members that were party to the Decision. That Decision provided th at only 
the cost or value of the carrier media itself shall be taken into account. The question of whether 
content is included in the value of the product or within the definition of electronic transmissions has 
also been an issue of divergence amongst Mem bers. For products that are traded both physically 
and digitally, for example, books and music, it would be interesting to know if the tariff on the 
physical product has changed based on the content. Assessments of revenue loss would require a 
deeper analy sis of the actual tariff imposed by each Member on the content of the now digitized 
products. The trends at the time of imposition of tariffs on physically traded good s could be 
considered. Such analysis on revenue loss could also examine the practice of e ach WTO Member at 
the time and what was happening when the physical media started to transform to only the content 
transmitted electronically to the consumer. What costs would have been paid by our consumers 
when the physical media was the leading technolo gy?  
1.46.  Madam Facilitator, the ACP Group welcomes the submissions by Indonesia, Singapore and the 
OECS as well as the Secretariat 's compilation of Member s' submissions under the Work Programme 
since 1998. In an effort to further explore the issues raised and improve our awareness we would 
like to pose a few questions to Singapore, in this instance, given that we have already posed them 
to Indonesia. We would like clarification on paragraph 1.2 of the submission in RD/GD/22, where it 
states, and I quote, 'the o bligation sets out that WTO Members are required to refrain from imposing 
customs duties on electronic transmissions. In addition, it sets out clearly that Members retain the 
right to impose internal taxes on electronic transmissions, e.g., Goods and Servi ces Taxes (GST) or 
Value Added Taxes (VAT)'. Is this obligation, that Singapore is referring to, in the MC12 Decision on 
E-Commerce? We do not see such wor ding in the Decision. Madam Facilitator, we understand that 
the Secretariat is preparing information that can be circulated to us on what Members and 
international organizations, such as the UN, are doing on internal taxes and e -transactions. We hope 
that all Members, including developing Members, will share information on their practices. While 
internal taxes may not solve all of the questions before us, it would be important for WTO Members, 
especially developing Members, to have full information before us in the discussions under the Work 
Programme. These elements are important for our examination of th e development aspects. 
Developing countries should examine their technology needs, innovative systems, including for 
tariffs and taxes that respond to the balance of e -commerce opportunities and challenges for 
governments to collect revenue from this type of trade activity with the participation of consumers, 
including enterprises, households, government agencies, school s, municipalities etc. We have heard 
the debates on the moratorium and have participated in the workshops and seminars. We must be 
pragmati c and methodical in our approach. This means a real orientation towards a balanced 
approach to developing the studies that will serve as groundwork  for our continued discussions. As 
in other areas that were the subject of these Dedicated Discussions, the W TO's work on this area 
can benefit from inputs from other international organizations, including UNCTAD and the ITC. The 
OECS has mentioned some work that has already started. The ACP Group stands ready to continue  
engagement on the moratorium and the othe r aspects of the Work Programme.  
1.47.  The representative of Canada  delivered the following statement:  
1.48.  Canada is pleased to continue our collective discussions around the moratorium on customs 
duties on electronic transmissions. Over the past years, Members have been engaging constructively 
on further deepening the understanding of the broad positive impacts of the moratorium and its 
application, supported by several studies  and Members' own submissions. The discussions that led 
to the extension of the moratorium and the Work Programme, which we strongly welcome, also WT/GC/WPEC/M/4  
 
- 11 - 
 
  further demonstrated that the acceleration of e -commerce, supported by the non -imposing of 
customs duties on e-transmissions, has created economic opportunities for MSMEs, including in 
developing Members. This is a strong message that we believe was again reflected in the two recent 
communications from Singapore and the OECS. We thank them for their constructive contributions, 
as well as Indonesia for its submission.  For Canada, the scope and definition of the moratorium is 
clear. Canada has a long history of including a permanent prohibition against the application of 
customs duties on electronic transmissions in  its FTAs. While Canada has taken various approaches 
with respect to the terminology used in its commitments, our understanding remains the same 
across each of our FTAs, that no customs duty shall be applied to either the content of the 
transmission or the  transmission itself. Canada has the same understanding of the WTO moratorium. 
More information on Canada's approach is available in the room document RD/GC/8 which was 
presented in the November 2018 informal open -ended meeting . By seeking to include this 
commitment in all of our comprehensive FTAs since the early 2000s, we believe that Canada has 
provided our consumers and businesses operating in the digital trading environment, including 
MSMEs, with the certainty and stability required to actively engage in the global digital economy, 
thereby facilitating further growth – both in Canada and abroad. Based on that longstanding 
experience, we support with confidence a permanent multilateral prohibition.  
1.49.  In addition to amplifying these benefits, the moratoriu m has lessened the risk of market 
distortion and fragmentation and supported innovation and investment. We would invite all Members 
to consider the significant benefits such a permanent multilateral prohibition would bring. For 
instance, according to the O ECD, out of 105 FTAs with e -commerce chapters, 100 of them included 
provisions on not imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions.  At the same time, we 
acknowledge the concerns raised by some Members. We welcome and encourage hearing more 
about the  specific circumstances and challenges faced by developing Members, including LDCs, to 
fully benefit from the opportunities offered by digital trade. More discussion on the alternative 
options, such as internal taxes, accompanied with discussion on the bro ader aspects under the Work 
Programme can help to identify tools to address these issues. We remain convinced that imposing 
notional tariffs on electronic transmissions is not the solution to support growth, as it will 
disproportionally affect MSMEs, and w ill be transferred to consumers worldwide. This is a lesson we 
can learn from our collective experiences under the GATT. Since 1998, the WTO has demonstrated 
having a role in supporting electronic commerce through the moratorium and the Work Programme. 
We strongly believe that the role of the WTO is to ensure an open, free, non -discriminatory trading 
environment and to continue to promote trade liberalization. As our implementation of the MC12 
Ministerial Decision continues, we welcome the possible 2 -day ev ent with international organizations. 
To maximise the value of this event, we believe it would be important to have a subsequent 
discussion among Members on the moratorium before any  potential  stocktaking exercise. The 
document WT/GC/W/855/Rev.2, for which  we welcome Saudi  Arabia as a new co -sponsor, provides 
concrete suggestions on how to deepen the conversation and cover s elements of importance to 
developing -country Members, including the domestic experience of applying internal taxes. To 
further enrich M embers' discussion, we remain convinced about the need to hear from the private 
sector in an informal setting, as per the engagement with international organizations. We believe 
that our suggestions are in alignment with the OECS' own submission, and on wh ich we are 
supportive of considering the development of a matrix that compile s the various studies 
already  done.  
1.50.  The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  delivered the following statement:  
1.51.  The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would like to thank Indonesia, Singapore and the OECS Members 
for their useful  proposals on the Work Programme on e -commerce and the moratorium. These 
proposals will be assessed attentively by our related government authorities in the capital. We wish 
to thank the WTO Secretariat for the compilation of proposals made under the Work Programme on 
e-commerce. Before I briefly share with M embers our taxation system on electronic transactions, I 
would like to highlight some important points.  Our Vision 2030 has paved the way for robust and 
efficient telecommunications and IT sectors, thus creating an ambitious strategy for digital 
transformation.  According to the report published by the International Telecommunication Union, 
the Kingdo m of Saudi Arabia ranked second among the G20 members and fourth globally in its level 
of preparedness in digital systems as a result of its sustainable regulatory framework, its 
empowerment of the digital economy, and its success in boosting its telecom i nfrastructure.  As a 
strong supporter to the multilateral trading system, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has traditionally 
supported the extension of the Work Programme on e -commerce including the moratorium, since 
its adoption by the  General Council in 1998. We have recently co-sponsored the proposal contained WT/GC/WPEC/M/4  
 
- 12 - 
 
  in document WT/GC/W/855/Rev.1 which sets out ideas to reinvigorate the Work Programme on 
electronic commerce and the moratorium.  It encourages Members to intensify discussions o n the 
moratorium and to focus on how the moratorium contributes to ensuring certainty and predictability 
for businesses and consumers.   
1.52.  With regard to the discussions on the moratorium, we believe that they should be based on 
evidence and facts, including inputs from other relevant international organizations and academia. 
Discussions would allow Members to share views on the definition and scope of the moratorium and 
should cover the impacts of the moratorium on businesses, especially MSMES.  In this regard , we 
believe that the WTO, in collaboration with other re levant i nternational organisations , can conduct 
the necessary stud y to assist Members to better understand the impact and the scope of the 
moratorium and to work on a clear  definition for electronic transmissions.  We note that some 
Members have raised concerns regarding the potential loss of government revenue associated with 
the digit alisation of goods and the non -application of customs duties on their cross -border trade. 
From our perspective, we bel ieve that the moratorium does not preclude Members from considering 
other sources of fiscal revenue, such as GST and VAT.  In this context, it is worth highlighting that 
Saudi Arabia's General Authority of Zakat, Tax and Customs Authority has published a va lue added 
tax (VAT) guide to provide clarification on the application of VAT in relation to the digital economy. 
The guide covers a range of issues, including the VAT obligations of resident and non -resident  
suppliers for the supply of goods sold via e -commerce, the supply of e -services, and the supply of 
goods or services via intermediaries, such as online platforms.  We are ready to share more 
information about our domestic VAT system, perhaps at a future dedicated discussion to be held on 
this topic. To conclude, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia remains ready to engage with Members towards 
positive and constructive discussions ahead of MC13.  
1.53.  The representative of Trinidad and Tobago , on behalf of CARICOM , delivered the following 
statement:  
1.54.  I make this statement  on behalf of the CARICOM Group. First, Madam Facilitator, we wish to  
commend you for your stewardship of this process. We thank you for convening us for consultations 
on how to proceed with our work following t his De dicated Discussion. We also wish to tha nk 
Indonesia, Singapore and the OECS for their submissions, as well as the Secretariat for the 
compilation of Members' submissions since 1998 . We note that our Ministers made a commitment 
intensif y our discussions on the moratorium and, as such, we welcome this  first d edicated discussion 
since MC12 on this particular subject. It would be recalled that, in the lead -up to MC12 and in the 
context of inadequate time for a fulsome discussion on its scope, definition and impact, the CARICOM 
Group expressed  the view that pragmatism dictated that the moratorium should be extended up 
until MC13. Ministers ultimately agreed on the extension of the moratorium with certain 
conditionalities that are outlined in the Ministerial Decision. It would be important for u s to deepen 
and perhaps even reorient our discussion with a view to avoiding another stalemate on this matter 
at MC13. As such, we welcome this discussion today as the first of a series of discussions on this 
topic. The CARICOM Group has underscored , in our contributions to date , the value we attribute to 
electronic commerce, while describing the impediments that limit our capacity to access its benefits. 
We are keen to better leverage the opportunities arising from the digital enabling of cross -border 
trade, especially insofar as it equips small, developing economies such as ours  to contend more 
effectively with limitations associated with small size and scale, as well as  high production costs , to 
improve our  global market reach , penetration  and competitive ness. As a key feature of the global 
e-commerce and digital trade landscape for the last two and a half decades, the moratorium  has 
facilitated opportunities relating to digitalisation for  businesses across the globe and allowed for legal 
certainty and pre dictability regarding cross -border trade in digital goods and services. Overall, we 
are more inclined to see the moratorium as a facilitator, as opposed to a hindrance, in respect of 
our efforts to leverage e -commerce in pursuit of our trade policy and sus tainable development 
objectives and of the growth of global e -commerce more broadly.  Having considered the three most -
cited studies in this house on the moratorium, namely those conducted by UNCTAD, the OECD and 
the ECIPE, it is not clear to us that discon tinuation  of the moratorium would have positive 
implications for the efforts of CARICOM Member States to better access the benefits of electronic 
commerce as we pursue economic and export diversification and seek to build resilience in our small 
and vulner able economies.  
1.55.  We are not convinced that our discussion on this subject has matured fully or been fully 
informed by exhaustive, nuanced technical work that takes into account the significant economic 
heterogeneity amongst the WTO Membership . To date, the  CARICOM Group has not had sight of WT/GC/WPEC/M/4  
 
- 13 - 
 
  sufficiently  compelling analysis to warrant support for the discontinuation of the moratorium that 
has been a constant over the last 25 years, during which the possibilities and opportunities of digital 
trade and electro nic commerce have grown exponentially. Moreover, from a practical and technical 
standpoint, questions remain regarding how customs duties on electronic transmissions would be 
applied. It is our assessment that our capacity constraints would significantly l imit our ability to 
administer customs duties on electronic transmissions and to collect the revenue to be derived 
therefrom. We also have difficulty reconciling the introduction of an inherently trade -restrictive 
approach, namely the imposition of new tar iffs on electronic transmissions, with the fundamental 
principles of the WTO relating to the progressive removal of barriers to trade. Even as the Group 
recognises the valuable research and analysis contained in the three studies mentioned previously, 
and even as we acknowledge previous indications of a lack of appetite for additional assessments, 
it is not clear to us that we could escape our cyclical discussions to date and meaningfully deepen 
our discussion on the moratorium on the basis of existing stud ies. In other words, if we are to have 
any hope of reconciling the differing perspectives on the moratorium and outlining a mutually 
acceptable  approach for our Ministers' consideration, it would be useful if our trade policy 
considerations on this subject  could be situated within the context of deeper, nuanced, even -handed 
and detailed technical analysis commissioned based on guidelines agreed by Members and ultimately 
capable of withstanding the scrutiny of all Members.  
1.56.  So, what can the WTO do? First, we welcome indications that our upcoming dialogue with 
pertinent international organisations will allow for engagement on all the topics we have addressed 
to date in the context of our dedicated discussions, including on the moratorium. On availing 
ourselves of new technical work on the moratorium to allow for more -informed trade policy 
considerations, the CARICOM Group would welcome a scenario where the Membership agrees to 
commission the WTO Secretariat to conduct a technical, analytical study on the morator ium, 
including on its impact, and perhaps drawing on inputs from relevant international organisations. 
We believe our dialogue could benefit from a Secretariat study that provides nuanced insights on 
implications of the moratorium as they relate to consume r welfare, tariff revenue, policy space, 
digitalisation and digital industrialisat ion efforts, cost s of doing business, competitiveness and 
growth. In such circumstances, the Membership would coalesce around agreed guidelines for the 
conduct of the study, the findings of which would inform and orient considerations relating to 
continuation or discontinuation of the moratorium.  
1.57.  The representative of India delivered the following statement :  
1.58.  Thank you Chair, for organizing this fourth dedicated session on the Work Programme on 
E-Commerce under the General Council. The topic of the scope and the definition of the moratorium 
on customs duties on electronic transmissions is essential to address in this forum. A s per the 
Ministerial Decision (WT/MIN  (22)/32 ), the moratorium is set to expire by MC13 if the ministerial 
took place by December 2023 or else by March 2024.  Together with South Africa, we  have already 
conveyed our understanding of the scope and the defin ition in March 2020 in WT/GC/W/798 and 
later in November 2021 in WT/GC/W/833. Thus far, there has been no credible submission from the 
proponents of the moratorium on what they believe is  the scope and the definition.  In fact, what we 
have heard multiple t imes is rhetorical arguments and claims that this moratorium has been 
immensely beneficial. Essentially, for the proponents of the moratorium, this is the case of arbitrarily 
deciding on the supposed benefits and then working scope and definition backwards . Even this 
retrofitted understanding of the scope and definition has not been formally communicated.  Let us 
examine real data points on the global state of electronic transmissions. In the past three Dedicated 
Discussions , we heard Members say about e -commerce, which is a larger universe of which electronic 
transmissions is a sub -set:  
• "The issue of consumer protection in electronic commerce intersects closely with and 
cannot be divorced from a number of other topics relevant to trust and electronic 
commer ce, including business trust, privacy and cybersecurity ".  
• "As is the case with many other developing countries, the digital divide is pervasive, 
meaning that there are many gaps and limitations which prevent us from fully 
maximizing the benefits of e -comm erce and digital trade. "  
• "In Africa in 2021, only 33  percent  of the population was using the internet, meaning 
an estimated 871 million people are not realizing digital dividends ".  WT/GC/WPEC/M/4  
 
- 14 - 
 
  • "Our countries are constantly playing catch -up in light of the dynamic na ture of 
technology advancements. The digital divide does not mean for us that we have no 
access or participation in e -commerce. What we are seeing is the need to find ways to 
alleviate and reduce the digital divide in a manner that allows for sustained acc ess and 
participation of our regions ."  
1.59.  We have had this moratorium for 25 years. If it was solving the issues related to the digital 
economy, why are we hearing these statements quoted above from Members in the year 2023? Not 
a single Member in the last three sessions has said that they are able to re duce the digital divide or 
improve consumer protection or improve their regulatory bandwidth because the moratorium is 
helping them.  In the first Dedicated Discussion , the word moratorium was mentioned once in the 
context of a later discussion to be organi zed. In the second Dedicated Discussion , the very important 
session on the digital divide, the word was mentioned twice by just one developed Member . Not a 
single developing -country  Member put its hand up in the session of  the d igital divide and averred 
that the moratorium was their most potent and preferred tool for solving their digital  divide 
problem s. Not one. In the third Dedicated Discussion , the word moratorium was mentioned nine 
times, but mostly in the context of scheduling today's  session. Even as  a regulatory intervention, 
there is hardly any resonance for this idea. A regulation that is not prominently mentioned in a 
dedicated session on regulatory frameworks – that is the real credibility and utility of th is idea. In 
fact, the proponents of the moratorium criticize our earlier papers on the grounds that technologies 
like 3D printing and additive manufacturing are not going to advance. And yet , they also say in the 
same breath that this moratorium is helping  the development of n ew technologies.  Who exactly is 
benefiting from the moratorium and in what ways? The only clear deduction that is possible here is 
that the moratorium benefits the incumbent businesses and existing big players who use their scale 
and contract design, somet imes at the cost of MSMEs. This may kick the ladder for the 
developing -country Members  seeking digital industrialization. The moratorium continues to promote 
discrimination between the importation of physical products in comparison to their digital 
counter parts. However, as we have observed in this statement, for solving digital divide  issues, the 
moratorium is neither necessary nor sufficient as a policy tool. Further, we observe that the vocal 
proponents of the moratorium in the WTO tend to ring -fence the ir audio -visual industries by keeping 
the flexibility of blocking access to their markets. On the one hand, they want this moratorium in 
the WTO for keeping a door open for their export s but, on the other hand, they do not feel 
comfortable with imports, ev en in limited bilateral contexts.  
1.60.  Perhaps the Secretariat may confirm this , but it appears that there have been periods where 
there was no moratorium in the past and no Member moved to impose any customs duties on 
electronic transmissions  then. In 2003, th e Cancun Ministerial Declaration (MC5) was not adopted , 
so there may not have been a moratorium in place between 15  September 2003 to 31  July 2 004. 
Similarly, in 1999, the Seattle Declaration (MC3) was not adopted , so there may not have been a 
moratorium i n place between 4  December 1999 to 13  November 2001.  We urge the Membership 
and specifically the proponents of the moratorium, to present their understanding of what they are 
seeking. If there is no clarity on what is being sought, it would be against the spirit of evidence -based 
and data -driven policymaking to continue with a trade tool which is bereft of causal evidence of its 
benefits.  Finally, we thank Indonesia for its detailed presentation explaining their national approach 
on this subject. We welcome  the submissions made by Singapore and  the OECS  and we are in the 
process of studying them. We welcome the excellent compilation of documents circulated by 
the Secretariat.  
1.61.  The representative of the Philippines  delivered the following statement :  
1.62.  The Philippines joins Members in thanking you , Chair,  for leading these dedicated discussions. 
Members ' active engagement in the first three sessions have demonstrated the significant interest 
and value that they attach  to electronic commerce. Today 's discussions are  of crucial importance 
given that the issue of the moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmission s has significant 
implications for international trade and the digital economy, particularly for devel oping -country 
Members . We expect our discussion  this afternoon to be multifaceted given the very nature of 
taxation in the digital economy.  We join Members in thanking Indonesia, Singapore and the OECS 
for their written communications, which are useful tou ch points in stimulating our discussion. The 
questions , domestic experience sharing and recommendations can help Members navigate the 
complexities of this topic. We also thank Members for sharing their countr y experiences and plans 
on domestic taxation and  digitalization strategies.  In discussing this critical issue of the moratorium 
on customs duties on electronic transmissions, we must consider the rapidly evolving digital WT/GC/WPEC/M/4  
 
- 15 - 
 
  economy and the transformative impact of innovation on our daily lives. The digital  realm has grown 
exponentially in recent years as we have seen during the pandemic, transcending boundaries,  and 
revolutionizing not just trade, but also education, healthcare, and communication. As we consider 
the implications of the moratorium, it is cru cial to address key questions and concerns that impact 
key stakeholders, including our MSMEs.  
1.63.  For the Philippines, we believe that the scope, impact on businesses and consumers, feasibility 
and policy space for the government are the priority areas of cons ideration in discussing the 
moratorium. Research from the Philippine Institute for Development Studies estimates that the 
foregone revenue of the moratorium on digitizable products represents about 0.10  percent  and 0.65  
percent  of national government reven ues, using the average MFN rate and the bound tariff rate, 
respectively.  In our domestic consultations, the concerns raised by our stakeholders include the 
definition of "electronic transmission ; the methodology to capture and implement tariffs on digital 
products ; capacity of digital infrastructure ; additional cost ; equitable treatment of physical imports 
vis-à-vis imports through electronic means ; and impact on innovation. Correspondingly, tax 
neutrality between online and offline transactions is one of t he key principles adopted as government 
policy for e -commerce promotion and adoption in the Philippines.  As mentioned in the last dedicated  
session, the Philippines is itself considering new legislation  on imposing VAT on digital services and 
we note that discussions on digital services tax are happening in several fora including under Pillar 
1 of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on Base Eros ion and Profit Sharing (BEPS). The WTO would 
benefit from learning how these related initiatives impact our consideration of the moratorium and 
the way forward. We are conceptually supportive of the OECS recommendation for a dedicated study  
but given the n arrowing timeframe it may be more realistic to conduct a literature review of existing 
studies on the subject, which could feed into a dedicated workshop on digital taxation that draws 
from the expertise of other international organizations, private sector  and the academ ia.  
1.64.  We are also keen to learn more from Members in this workshop about their experience in 
applying VAT or Goods and Services Tax to e -commerce activities, including on issues related to 
scope, registration procedures, and collection regime s. As the OECS paper correctly points out, 
Members must address the fundamental question of whether customs duties can be realistically and 
efficiently imposed on electronic transmissions. As we navigate the complexities of this discussion, 
let us not forg et the importance of collaboration and inclusivity. We must collectively work towards 
a harmonious international trade environment that benefits all stakeholders and ensures that the 
fruits of innovation and the digital economy are shared equitably across the globe.  We are optimistic 
that we can forge a path forward that upholds the interests of all Members and embraces the 
transformative power of the digital age.  
1.65.  The representative of Switzerland  delivered the following statement:  
1.66.  Like others, Switzerland welcomes the papers submitted by Indonesia, Singapore and the 
OECS . We thank these delegations for having made the effort to lay down their views, suggest next 
steps and raise questions. We also take this opportunity  to recall document WT/GC/W/855 , in whic h 
Switzerland and other Members have suggested "Ideas to reinvigorate the Work Programme on 
electronic commerce ". We welcome Saudi Arabia who has recently joined the communication as a 
co-sponsor. In 2022, the Digital Policy Alert and Global Trade Alert pu blished a joint report entitled 
"Emergent Digital Fragmentation ". This report draws attention on the risk for commercial policy 
measures (among others) to adversely impact the digital economy and slow down the access to 
digital inputs. As rightly pointed o ut in the Room Document submitted by Singapore, the imposition 
of customs duties on electronic transmissions would first and foremost hinder the development of 
the digital economy in the territory applying such customs duties, making it much harder for its  
enterprises to be part of supply chains. We would add that such tariffs would disincentivize 
connectivity and therefore contribute to increasing  the digital divide. They would disproportionately 
affect MSMEs that do not have the means of larger companies to mitigate the additional cost that 
tariffs would have on digital inputs. In this perspective, we agree with the view of the OECS that the 
moratorium can be seen as playing an important role in the broader digital ecosystem. In our view, 
Indonesia's submi ssion raises concerns. The policies as described may indeed result in unnecessary 
trade friction, and we continue to study the proposed measures against the existing trade rules.  
1.67.  Without commenting on their overall utility, import substitution policies are  particularly 
incompatible with production patterns in the digital field. Producers of software, applications or 
content rely on other digital inputs in a multifaceted ecosystem. Further to impeding access to digital 
inputs, the imposition of customs dutie s will disrupt the dissemination of innovation sustained by WT/GC/WPEC/M/4  
 
- 16 - 
 
  the circulation of digital goods and contents.  On the term "electronic transmissions", we agree with 
Singapore and others that while the term is not defined in the Ministerial decision, its scope is 
commonly held to include anything from emails to text messages, videos, application s and software. 
Switzerland also shares the understanding that the moratorium on customs duties applies to both 
the content and the vehicle of transmission.  We would also  underline that the moratorium leaves 
ample policy space for fiscal policy measures. Like many other Members, Switzerland imposes VAT 
tax on both domestic and imported digital services. The current Ministerial Decision does not affect 
this policy. Let me r ecall that our tax authorities have presented Switzerland 's VAT collection scheme 
on digital services on 5 July 2021 in the context of an open -ended meeting under the Work 
Programme.  We remain ready to share further information with interested Members.  In conclusion, 
Switzerland considers the moratorium as a rule that contributes to the framework conditions that 
have supported the development of the digital economy and economic growth more broadly.  
1.68.  Turning to the process, we wish to add a few words on  the next steps. Regarding the 
moratorium, Switzerland sees value in informing our discussion by hearing from organisations and 
academics who worked on the moratorium. We would also like to hear from the business community 
–including MSMEs representatives – on how the moratorium , or its absence , is experienced on the 
ground. Such an exchange could take place in any informal setting Members would see fit, preferably 
before the summer break. We would welcome a subsequent session for Members to discuss the 
insights gained through that workshop. Another element that could inform our discussion is how 
Members have designed the moratorium in their RTAs.  On the way forward proposed by the OECS, 
Switzerland can positively consider further building the evidence base on the  moratorium, as long 
as such studies take into account the multi -faceted nature of the digital ecosystem. We would also 
note that a significant and growing body of evidence exist ing at present, which  already  informs our 
thinking. Finally, Madam Chair, we w elcome your stewardship in this process and believe that there 
is ample scope to continue on the constructive path that the dedicated discussion s have been 
following so far. In Switzerland 's view, this will be achieved most effectively by focusing our 
resources and attention. Thus far , Members  have had the opportunity to exchange on each of the 
four topics selected  only once . We therefore welcome an opportunity to hear from different 
organisations  about  their contribution on the moratorium and on consumer p rotection, and to further 
discuss how global rules can be conducive to reduc ing the digital gap.  
1.69.  The representative of Chile delivered the following statement :  
1.70.  Chile would like to thank those delegations that submitted papers and delivered presentations 
on this topic. We hope that the presentations will be made available and circulated after this session. 
Our delegation wishes to reiterate its support for maintaining the moratorium on customs duties on 
electronic transmissions. From our point of view, it helps digital trade to continue to grow and benefit 
our citizens.  The vast majority of our bilateral and plurilateral trade agreements contain an obligation 
to make permanent the non -imposition of customs duties on electronic transmissions. Our objective 
has always been to help our small and medium -sized enterprises (SMEs) enter other markets with 
as few barriers as possible. We therefore believe that the benefits of this approach are greater than 
the costs.  We understand the concerns of some Members regard ing the loss of revenue as a result 
of not imposing these duties. However, from our perspective, the benefits for exporting businesses, 
in particular SMEs, outweigh such concerns. Similarly, in terms of taxation, our country stands to 
benefit from income t axes, by allowing companies to grow and increase revenue.  For our part, we 
are concerned about the implications that the non -renewal of the moratorium may have for 
businesses. For example, businesses may need to increase their prices significantly to meet tax 
obligations or potentially implement forced localization measures (in order to avoid cross -border 
trade of their digital products).  We are also concerned that the technical structure of the Internet, 
which has greatly helped our SMEs to enter new marke ts, will end. For instance, Members  offering 
the most favourable duties would be used for exports as opposed to those Members  offering the 
quickest route, which is currently the case. Such a move would lead to concerns about net neutrality, 
where Chilean d igital products may be slower or have less market accessibility than the competition.  
We therefore continue to advocate keeping the moratorium on customs duties on electronic 
transmissions in place. For Chile, the moratorium is one of the cornerstones of d igital trade, which 
has and will continue to benefit SMEs, especially those that have less access to traditional exports. 
In this regard, we will continue to make the moratorium permanent in our trade practice and we 
hope that it can become a cross -cutting  WTO decision.  
1.71.  The representative of China  delivered the following statement : WT/GC/WPEC/M/4  
 
- 17 - 
 
  1.72.  Thank you, Madam Chair, for you r efforts in promoting these dedicated discussions. We also 
thank Indonesia, Singapore and the OECS for their proposals  which we  will carefully study. We wish 
to thank the Secretariat for the useful compilation. China attaches great importance to discussing 
e-commerce issues in the WTO and has always supported reinvigorating the Work Programme . China 
supports the exten sion of  the m oratorium to the next Ministerial Conference at MC13. China is willing 
to work with all parties to faithfully implement the MC12 Ministerial Decision  and to seriously conduct 
moratorium discussions with a view to delivering an outcome at MC13.  To this end,  we should assess 
the impact of the moratorium from three dimensions . Firstly, from the dimension of inclusiveness 
and development -oriented policies. The d igital economy is rapidly developing and evolving, 
becoming a new driving force of global economic gr owth. The m oratorium has contributed a lot to 
the sound development of the global digital economy, including by fostering global integration, 
sparking innovation,  and enabling MSMEs. However, it is worth noting that WTO Members have 
different levels of dig ital development, regulatory concepts and systems. Therefore, while 
recognizing the important role that the moratorium plays in responding to calls of the business 
community and in promoting the inclusive development of the global digital economy, we shoul d 
also consider the differences among Members, the practical needs and difficulties of developing -
country  Members and provide them with the necessary technical assistance.  In that regard, China 
is pleased to announce that in July 2023, the Chinese governme nt will jointly host an E-commerce 
for development study tour with the International Trade Centre,  in Beijing. It is open to 
representatives of developing and least-developed M embers. This study tour is relevant to the Work 
Progra mme on Electronic Commerce . It will includ e field visits and sessions /discussions on key policy 
issues such as legal and regulatory frameworks, digital infrastructure and connectivity, cross -border 
e-commerce and digital trade, online consumer protection, data privacy, cybersecurit y, 
among  others .  
1.73.  Second, the moratorium should be assessed from the dimension of maintaining the relevance 
of the multilateral trading system. Since 1998, the moratorium has been one of the most important 
multilateral achievements of the WTO in the area of the digital economy . It has  helped the WTO to 
keep up with the times and has had  systematic importance to WTO 's relevance. In addition, 
continuing the moratorium can provide more time for harmonizing the global digital rules in the 
future.  Third, the moratorium should be assessed from a technically practical dimension. China 
believes that all Members should conduct in -depth discussions on the scope, definition, and impact 
of electronic transmission to lay a technical foundation for rule negotiations . At the same time, it 
should be clear that the moratorium does not restrict Members' policy space regarding domestic 
taxes. It is necessary to comprehensively assess the impact of the moratorium from various 
perspectives, such as government revenue, the development of Members ' industries, economic 
development, as well as developing and least -developed Members' digital technology capabilities. 
China hopes that the Secretariat can carry out a technical analysis and evaluation with other 
international organiz ations ; provide objective and neutral assessment and suggestions,  such as 
calculating the impact of taxation on downstream consumers and users, on social welfare, etc. This 
would help Members to evaluate potential economic costs and benefits  and provide so lid technical 
support for further discussions . To facilitate  subsequent discussions, China wishes to raise some 
qestions . Based on the existing technology and systems, it seems that the cost of levying tariffs on 
electronic transmission is high and technic ally complex. Moreover, there is no customs infrastructure 
or process to collect tariffs other than  on products that are not  traditional tangible goods. Is it 
feasible to design a specialized taxation system for electronic transmission ? What would be the 
associated costs and benefits?  If such a specialized taxation system is feasible, how would different 
countries' tax systems be coordinated?  How would potential tax competition and transfer issues be 
solved through international cooperation and relevant rulemaking ? In today 's discussion s, more 
technical questions seem to have been raised on this important issue. We suggest further in -depth 
structur ed discussions on the moratorium be conducted in the future.  
1.74.  The representative of the United States  delivered the following statement:  
1.75.  The United States continues to support the practice of not imposing customs duties on 
electronic transmissions, as reflected in the most recent Minister ial Decision from MC12 also k nown 
as the customs duty moratorium. In our view, not imposing customs duties on electronic 
transmissions has supported the rapid growth of the digital economy  over the past two decades  and 
the United States continues to believe that WTO Members should be ready to make this practice 
permanent.  While the Work Program serves an important role in expanding our collective knowledge 
on trade-related e -commerce issues, the most concrete step that WTO Members could take to foster 
a robust digital economy is to ext end the moratorium on a permanent basis.  This would provide WT/GC/WPEC/M/4  
 
- 18 - 
 
  predictability to traders, cost -savings to consumers, and facilitate the exchange of content and 
technology.  Failure to extend  the moratorium could throw economies into uncertain territory.  Those 
who lack such provisions in their FTA practice would now potentially face the threat of new costs to 
their digital exporters. Such actions could have the most significant impact on smaller economies 
trying to build digital export industries, such as softwa re or entertainment. We thank  Indonesia, 
Singapore, and the OECS for submitting communications to help guide our discussion today .  
1.76.  Singapore 's first question asks Members about the implications for businesses, particularly 
MSMEs, in terms of operations  and costs.  In the United States, small businesses generate more than 
40 percent  of economic output and create two -thirds of net new jobs, making their success a critical 
part of our economic health .3 When we assess the impact on US MSMEs, there are three key factors 
that support our conclusion that not imposing duties on electronic transmissions helps support small 
business growth.  They are: (i) improving predictability; (ii) ensuring cost -savings ; and (iii) lowering 
barriers to trade.  The customs duty moratorium relieves businesses from having to undertake 
significant burdens in developing their business plans. The current practice of not facing customs 
duties means that these business with lean resour ces do not need to invest in specialized legal, 
customs, or consulting services to navigate shifting tariff landscapes. It also means that they can 
access digital tools and services that they require  without additional costs or potential disruptions 
due to  newly imposed customs duties.  It also means that their customers abroad will be able to 
purchase their products without additional discriminatory costs imposed. We believe that these 
factors are just as important for developing countries ' MSMEs and their economies. In a 2019 study 
of four economies, ECIPE found that customs duties on electronic transmissions would do far more 
harm than good for the economies that they analysed . For example, India would lose 49 times more 
GDP than it would generate, Indones ia 160 times as much GDP as it would collect, and South Africa 
25 times. According to the WTO, MSMEs represent 95% of all companies worldwide and contribute 
to around 35% of GDP in developing economies.4 We can therefore assume that a great deal of the 
pain caused by imposition of customs duties would be felt by MSMEs.  
1.77.  Singapore 's second question concerns digital inclusion and supporting services -led growth for 
developing and LDC Members.  Again, we view the moratorium 's contribution to the predictability 
and cost -savings in global trade as a key ingredient for helping all firms navigate the digital trade 
landscape.  With respect to US minority and underserved communities, ensuring that no new trade 
barriers are created can help our content creators from thes e communities  find new markets abroad, 
including in diaspora communities. In addition to important economic benefits, these trade flows 
also boost cultural exchanges and understandings. Importantly, the benefits of this trade do not flow 
in one direction a nd the United States remains a strong market for foreign content. US  streaming 
platforms are increasingly investing in the production of content in foreign markets. In 2014, Netflix 
spent about 7  percent of its budget on original content (both foreign and domestic). By 2021, Netflix 
was estimated to have spent USD 17 billion on original programming, with one -half of such 
programming developed outside the United States and more than one -third consisting of non -English 
TV and movie program ming. Underserved co mmunities face a broad array of challenges to doing 
business domestically and internationally. It is important that we , at the WTO , reduce  –rather than 
add– to their trade burdens.  
1.78.  On Singapore 's third question regarding policy tools and objectives, including revenue 
generation , we see the potential revenue generation gains to be short -sighted. The revenue captured 
in the short -term would likely be eroded over time by the economic losses caused by  retaliatory 
tariffs, less competitive domestic firms and a diminished tax base to draw traditional 
non-discriminatory taxes.  With respect to arguments that imposing customs duties on electronic 
transmissions could somehow support growth of a domestic indu stry, we are sceptical . First, 
imported digital products and services often complement rather than substitute for domestic digital 
products. Artists, programmers, and developers around the world rely on other software products 
and services to produce and d istribute their songs, games, and applications. Disrupting access to , 
and the ability to download from such shared resources, through imposition of duties, could severely 
disadvantage developers, both start -ups and established players.  Second, traditional import 
substitution policies aimed to replicate domestically existing , well-established, mature foreign 
industrial sectors  such as auto production or shipbuilding. The targeted production technology, end 
 
3https://www.sba.gov/article/2021/dec/08/op -ed-administrator -isabella -casillas -guzman -liberty -justice -
contracting -opportunities -all-our. 
4https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/msmesandtra_e/msmesday20_e.htm#:~:text=MSMEs%20are
%20the%20backbone%20of,developed%20countries%2C%20around%2050%25.  WT/GC/WPEC/M/4  
 
- 19 - 
 
  product, and market were well defined.  Digital produ cts, by contrast, are not static. As we all know, 
digitization is changing every industry . New, digitally native products often represent new -to-the-
world ideas or new markets – not just copying what other countries have done. Cutting a market off 
from thi s more dynamic market is tantamount to cutting oneself off from innovation.  
1.79.  Third, it is important to state clearly that ISI strategies favour  big countries with large 
domestic markets that allow their own producers to reach economies of scale. Countries w ith smaller 
markets have fewer domestic consumers, which is one important reason why many successful 
smaller economies have pursued outward facing development strategies.  Compounding this problem 
is that digital products, such as new software applications,  are often quite specialized or targeted at 
niche audiences. This is another reason that companies must look abroad for customers. In the case 
of business -to-business software, much of which is customized, the domestic market may not 
provide sufficient cus tomer base for businesses to grow.  Finally, with respect to scope and definition, 
our longstanding position and today 's comments make it clear that we understand these concepts 
to be quite broad.  In 1998, our ministers arrived at phrasing that appropriatel y captured the current 
nature of electronic trading. This language has been sufficiently flexible to adequately and 
meaningfully adapt to the evolution of digital trade.  Certainly, the electronic transmissions capture 
content, which is likely to be the lar gest commercially meaningful component of the moratorium.  
But it also should be understood to capture other types of electronic transmissions that pass through 
our borders.  This includes maps and payment information that local apps, such as Indonesia 's Gojek, 
weave into their transportation and food delivery platform. It also includes services delivered in 
real-time using audio and video. Many of us will recall a presentation the Bangladesh Association of 
Software and Information Services (BASIS) made in 2020 as part of a CTS LDC webinar . They shared 
that business -to-consumer platforms, particularly those caterin g to the North American medical 
sector, were experiencing unprecedented growth largely due to their ability to find markets outside 
of their home country. Applying new tariffs to such services would thwart such growth opportunities.  
1.80.  To India, with respect  to the number of times that the moratorium was mentioned  in past 
Dedicated Discussions, we are unsure whether this is a good metric to assess its importance. We 
are not saying that the moratorium is a panacea for all issues. It is just one important tool.  We have 
certainly been trying to keep these sessions focused on the topic contained in a session's particular 
agenda. We wish to thank the facilitator for convening today 's Dedicated Discussion and look forward 
to hearing from others.  
1.81.  The representative o f Bangladesh  delivered the following statement:   
1.82.  Thank you, Chair,  for steering this work . These are really helpful discussions. We wish  to 
thank  the Secretariat for the useful compilation of Members' submissions contained in document 
RD/GC/24 . We also  thank Indonesia , Singapore and the OECS for their submissions . As these were 
recently submitted our delegation needs some time to examine  them. We wish to  thank Indonesia 
for bringing a new dimension  in the discussion and food for thought on electronic transm ission and 
electronically transmitted goods . Since this an informal session, I do not have any comments or 
proposals at this moment, but we wish to ask a question to Singapore . In its submission , specifically  
in paragraph 2.3 , it is written that the imposition of customs duties on electronic transmissions could 
lead to higher price s, lower consumption and slower economic growth . However,  in paragraph 3.2 , 
it is also written that Members can consider other efficient tools, such as VAT and GST. From a 
consumer point of view,  and from a domestic perspective, will prices not be higher in both cases ? 
What benefit s would this  bring to domestic consumer s? In addition , we welcome the three questions 
raised by Singapore in its submission . We look forward to continued constructive discussion s on 
this topic.  
1.83.  The representative of South Africa  delivered the following statement:  
1.84.  We make this statement in our national capacity . We commend the manner in which you 
Madam Chair, and your team hav e facilitated the dedicated discussions in the four thematic areas. 
We also thank the Secretariat for circulated the useful compilation of submissions made by Members 
under the Work Programme  on E-commerce (WPEC) , and which is  contained in document RD/GC/24. 
South Africa's  position on the moratorium is well -known. It is reflected among others , in our joint 
submission with India in document WT/GC/W/833. Like many other submissions , it calls for the 
scope and impact of the Moratorium to be cla rified. On policy space , e-commerce is a reality,  and 
we all recognize that it will continue to drive global trade. It is not a matter of being for or against 
it. The question is about the developmental implications of it. It is about exploring the differe nt WT/GC/WPEC/M/4  
 
- 20 - 
 
  possible pathways, along with mapping different ial interests that are involved. 'Development 
agendas ' in trade must take account of differential contexts and interests of developing countries. A 
development agenda needs to be articulated clearly, based on the mandate in the WPEC and must 
be done in a way that takes proper account of developing country interests. The more fundamental 
concern we have about the moratorium is its impact on domestic industries. The current moratorium 
on customs duties on elec tronic transmissions will not only negatively impact the efforts of many 
developing countries to industrialize digitally , but it could also undermine their existing industries. 
This is due to the fact that physical exports are subject to duties, while electronic transmissions (ET) 
of which many developing countries are net importers , are not subject to tariffs thus creating an 
unlevel playing field. Tariffs play an important role in protecting infant domestic industries from more 
established overseas compet itors until they have attained competitiveness and economies of scale. 
Importantly, digital inclusion will depend on the ability of many developing countries and LDCs to 
develop their digital capacities. In view of the first mover advantages, technology, d ata and the 
digital divide, developing countries need appropriate legal frameworks and policy discretion to 
strategically deploy tariffs as an industrial policy tool in line with their development objectives. In 
doing so, countries will consider the needs of consumers, industries and broader social welfare. A 
moratorium in the WTO forecloses any policy choices in this regard and disproportionately benefits 
the net exporters in an area where there is great potential for economic growth.  
1.85.  The core concern is t herefore the impact of losing policy space to develop digital capabilities 
and software sectors with significant implications for digital industrialization. Customs duties are the 
most simple and effective policy tool in the hands of governments to regulat e conspicuous 
consumption through imports and channelize scarce domestic financial resources towards more 
productive investments.  Domestic digital industry will not develop unless some amount of protection, 
and appropriate government support, is provided. This is true for most industries, but it is even truer 
for the digital industry because of  its special structural features that are well known, including the 
dominance by a few powerful digital platforms that increasingly control the whole value chain and 
sectors of the economy.  With no clarity on the definition of ET and thereby on the scope of the 
moratorium, the continuation of the WTO moratorium on customs duties on ET can lead to 
substantive losses for developing and least -developed countries. The lack  of clarity on the scope and 
definition leaves us concerned and runs contrary to what the WTO aims to espouse which is about 
predictability in trade rules. Aside from the revenue and policy space implications in the realm of 
goods, there is also the danger  of losing the flexibility offered by the GATS if the scope of the 
moratorium is widened to include services delivered via Mode 1. GATS provides the flexibility of 
regulating digital trade in services according to domestic laws and regulations. Irrespectiv e of the 
categorization, it is imperative for developing countries to have policy instruments to regulate digital 
trade.  The WTO moratorium is not only depriving all developing and least -developed countries of 
much -needed tariff revenue , but it is also lim iting their regulatory space for providing a level playing 
field to their domestic small and medium and micro enterprises ( MSMEs ) in the digital sector while 
contributing to the ever -growing profits of the digital platforms.  
1.86.  We believe that we should focus  the discussion on the scope and definition of the moratorium 
as this will enable , once agreed, Members to assess for themselves what the revenue implications 
will be. In addition, there are already studies that are looking at this from different perspectives. 
While Members ' views may differ on the extent of the revenue implications, wh at is clear is that 
there are fiscal implications that manifest through tariff revenue losses. This dynamic applies more 
sharply to developing countries given their higher dependence on tariff revenue for Government 
revenue compared to developed countries.  The extent of these losses depends on the scope of 
products covered or the approach and the methodology used. Thus, rather than arguing  about which 
study is correct or not  -a debate which is unlikely to be resolved – we need to spend our energ y on 
the scop e and definition. We call on the proponents of the moratorium to put proposals on the table.  
We want to remind Members that , in our view , there is an end date to the moratorium , as per the 
decision at MC12. Lack of  clarity on this important issue makes con tinuation of the moratorium 
difficult to sustain.  In this context the following questions need to be addressed by the proponents 
of the moratorium . What is the scope of the WTO moratorium? What items are identified as ET and 
included in the scope?  What is the extent of "online imports " of electronic transmissions in different 
countries and how fast have these imports increased, especially in the period after the COVID -19 
pandemic hit the global economy?  Why should applying domestic taxes be sufficient for d igital 
traders while physical traders face both domestic taxes and customs duties?  Developed countries 
already have almost zero bound duties on digitizable products, so the removal of the WTO 
moratorium will impact mainly developing and least developed cou ntries  who currently have high 
customs duties on these identified digitizable products. These higher duties indicate that there is a WT/GC/WPEC/M/4  
 
- 21 - 
 
  need for developing and least -developed countries to provide a level playing field to their domestic 
producers in these sec tors. What instruments will developing and least -developed count ries have at 
their disposal to provide this level playing field to their domestic producers in digital sectors since 
domestic taxes are non -discriminatory between foreign and domestic producer s? Written answers 
would be appreciated.   
1.87.  The representative of Chinese Taipei  delivered the following statement : 
1.88.  We wish to thank  Indonesia, Singapore and the OECS for their contributions. The moratorium 
has been a core pillar of the global foundation to develop digital economy and e -commerce over the 
past 25 years. Its continuous implementation has shown the WTO 's commitment to maintaining 
global policies that boost  the digital economy 's growth for all Members.  Extending the moratorium 
would provide a stable and predictable trade environment for businesses and consumers, particularly 
in the interest of MSMEs. We also see the need to make the moratorium  permanent to ensure 
long-term legal certainty and predictability.  From the p revious discussions, we agree that a brutal 
termination of the moratorium would impose lead to significant risks of devastating consequences 
for some economies.  We also note that in Singapore 's document, most researchers agree that the 
moratorium brings wi der economic and social benefits for businesses and consumers, which far 
outweigh marginal gains in potential tariff revenues.  We understand that revenue loss and 
industriali sation policies are of major concern to some Members. However, imposing such dutie s is 
already considered technologically and administrative ly challenging.  We share Singapore 's views 
that Members should consider alternative tools consistent with WTO rules, such as applying internal 
taxes (VAT/GST), to address policy concerns in a more effective and sustainable way.  We highly 
value the idea of sharing experiences and best practices from the Members who have adopted or 
assessed such approaches so as to deepen future discussions.  We are interested in learning more 
about this issue which is still an emerging issue for most Members, including our delegation. Overall, 
we consider that there is a sense of urgency to accelerate discussions and consider a pragmatic 
approach to reach a feasible solution before MC13.  
1.89.  The representative of Peru delivered the following statement:  
1.90.  Like various other Members, Peru considers that the imposition of customs duties on electronic 
transmissions would have an economic impact on our businesses, in particular small and 
medium -sized enterprises (SMEs), which accou nt for 98.7% of all businesses in our economy and 
employ more than 90% of the workforce.  For Peru, the non -imposition of customs duties on 
electronic transmissions has been a major driver of growth for SMEs and development s in the 
creative industries, such  as video games or software development, which are closely linked to 
services. Peruvian SMEs operating in these industries have been able to enter new markets at no 
additional cost and have even been able to increase their level of competitiveness and inno vation. 
Similarly, businesses will have greater access to electronically transmitted content at no greater 
cost. However, it is important to note that imposing such customs duties would mean limiting trade 
in digital products and services at a time when th ere is significant growth in demand following rapid 
digitization driven by the pandemic. Such action would lead to higher prices and, as a result, reduced 
demand.  In our view, it is therefore important to extend the moratorium on imposing customs duties 
on electronic transmissions, which provides greater certainty and predictability for businesses 
and consumers.  
1.91.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  delivered the following statement :  
1.92.  This year marks the 25th anniversary since WTO Members committed to the practice of not 
imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions.  The moratorium, being an integral part of the 
Work Programme, is the most notable free trade policy that has helped ensure stability and 
predictability for e -commerce . It is the very foundation on which digital trade has thrived. In view 
of the "sunset " clause in the MC12 Ministerial Decision, there is an imminent need for Members to 
work together towards a longer -term solution, so as to maintain a conducive environment fo r digital 
trade.  Hong Kong, China  welcomes the submissions by Indonesia, Singapore and the OECS , as well 
as the  Secretariat  compilation of Members ' submissions under the Work Programme The se are all 
very useful  elements and serve as solid foundation for ou r discussion today. Hong Kong, China  
shares the view expressed by previous speakers that no customs duties should be applied to the 
entire body of electronic transmissions, including both the carrier medium as well as the content 
transmitted. In fact, the term "electronic transmissions ", adopted in the 1998 Ministerial Declaration , 
does not come with a clear definition. Hong Kong, China  sees merit in the broad coverage of the WT/GC/WPEC/M/4  
 
- 22 - 
 
  term to cater for technological developments.  Having a specific definition narrow the scope of 
"electronic transmissions ", create uncertainty  and might not be future proof at a time of rapid 
technological advancement.  Some Members consider that the greatest impact of the moratorium is 
the potential loss of government revenue as a result  of the non -imposition of customs duties. This , 
however , could only shed light on one of the many aspects of the overall impact of the moratorium, 
not to mention that some of these estimates of the revenue foregone are over -estimations.  
According to a 2019 OECD study, the moratorium has enabled businesses, in particular those in 
developing countries and MSMEs, to engage in global markets through improved export capability, 
productivity growth, and lower barriers such as high transportation costs.5 MSMEs, new start -ups 
and under -represented groups could leverage digital tools to conduct business with customers in 
different parts of the world. The moratorium has enabled developing countries and MSMEs to reap 
the fruits of e -commerce.  
1.93.  A tariff -free e -commerce environment could also facilitate easier and more affordable access 
to high -end technologies, improve domestic digital literacy, and accelerate the development of digital 
infrastructure and regulatory framework s. As developing countries are shifti ng towards 
services -based economies which rely more heavily on digital technologies, the moratorium could 
provide a more conducive environment  for their domestic digital transformation and digital inclusion 
into the global e -marketplace and supply chains. In the long run, the moratorium could help narrow 
the digital divide and drive economic development for all.  Given the  clear benefits brought by the 
moratorium, the global business community has been calling for its continuation.  As Members would 
recall, a  self-initiated statement in May 2022 , by 110 trade associations from around the world was 
in clear support for the extension of the moratorium.  Putting an end to the moratorium evidently 
works against the interests of the international business community at large.  Some Members 
consider customs duties as a tool to achieve policy objectives such as revenue collection and 
domestic industry protection, with the support of some studies.6 However, when analysing these 
research results, one should be aware of th e possible over -estimation in potential revenue foregone 
with the use of certain less realistic underlying assumptions, such as assuming that all goods that 
can be digitised will be digitised, as well as the use of bound tariff rates, among others . More re cent 
studies point to a much -reduced estimate, accounting for a negligible share ( i.e., between 
0.01 and 0.33 percent ) of the overall government revenue.7 In this connection, we would like to 
bring to Members ' attention that the OECD Working Party of the Trade Committee is conducting a 
study on "The Potential Implications of the E -commerce Moratorium ". It aims  to re-assess the 
potential foregone revenue implications of the moratorium , with a view to providing more realistic 
estimates, taking into account actual trade flows, commitments undertaken in regional trade 
agreements, and the extent of digitalisation of physical goods. When completed, the study will 
provide useful reference for  evidence -based discussions, with a view to facilitating Members ' 
deliberations and convergence on these issues in the run -up to MC13.  Given the high relevance of 
this research with our current discussions, Hong Kong, China  supports inviting the OECD Secre tariat 
to present their findings in the proposed two -day workshop scheduled for early June.  
1.94.  The moratorium brings wider benefits to the economy as a whole and might as well offset the 
potential tariff revenue foregone.  The potential revenue generated from a thriving e -commerce 
through non -tariff sources should not be ignored. In addition , the moratorium does not preclude 
Members from imposing other types of internal taxes, fees or charges on electronic transmissions , 
as suggested by previous speakers, insofar as they are consistent with WTO Agreements . Apart from 
the above -mentioned measures, a wide range of policy tools are in place to facilitate Members ' 
development of  their domestic digital industry . These include,  for example , investment in digital 
public infrastructure, capacity building programmes organised  by international organisations, 
financial incentives for businesses to enhance their digital capabilities, exchange of best practices 
and experience sharing among  Members . To conclude, a tariff -free e -commerce environment 
encourages free flow of digital goods and services across borders, sparks creativity and innovation, 
enhances productivity and export competitiveness, improves consumer welfare , and brings about 
economic growth. As a small and open economy as well as a staunch supporter of free trade, Hong 
Kong, China  fully supports the continuation of the moratorium and considers customs duties a barrier 
to trade. Letting the moratorium lapse at MC13 would run aga inst the commercial realities and 
aspirations of the international business sector (including MSMEs) and backtrack on the free trade 
 
5 OECD trade policy paper “Electronic Transmissions and International Trade - Shedding New Light on 
the Moratorium Debate " (2019).  
6 WT/GC/W/798 , WT/GC/W/833  and WT/GC/W/859 . 
7 OECD scoping paper TAD/TC/WP(2023)1 “The Potential Implications of the E -commerce Moratorium ". WT/GC/WPEC/M/4  
 
- 23 - 
 
  policy that the WTO has been maintain ing to facilitate global e -commerce. The non-renewal of the 
moratorium would have a far-reaching negative impact which would be borne by all WTO Members 
and businesses of all sizes, in particular for developing countries that are lagging behind as a result 
of the digital divide.   
1.95.  In light of the irreversible paradigm shift towards the growt h of e -commerce, it is imperative 
for the WTO to play a leading role in creating a predictable and facilitating environment for digital 
trade in post-pandemic economic recovery . Hong Kong, China  stands ready to work closely with all 
Members, including on t he issue of  tasking the Secretariat to conduct dedicated studies . We also 
stand ready to  participat e in more focused discussions after the summer break , as suggested by 
previous speakers, in the run -up to MC13.  
1.96.  The representative of Australia  delivered the following statement:  
1.97.  Thank you, Chair, for your able leadership in the Work Programme. We think it is important 
to be very precise and clear with our language and focus on the moratorium. I would like to thank 
our colleague from India for hi s question to the proponents about the utility of the moratorium, but 
I would caution that we do not over -simplify. Saying that there is no point in the moratorium because 
it has not fixed the digital divide is like asking why use solar panels when they ha ve not fixed climate 
change. The moratorium is absolutely not a cape that is going to change the world, but it is a very 
important trade facilitative commitment that the globe has maintained for 25 years. After all, that 
is what we are here to do, at the W TO.  
1.98.  It is useful to take a step back in considering what we mean by the "impact" of the 
moratorium. If the moratorium lapses and no Member imposes customs duties on electronic 
transmissions, there will be no revenue impact. What we are actually talking ab out in terms of the 
impact of the moratorium is the potential impact of Members imposing customs duties on electronic 
transmissions. We need some intellectual honesty about what academic work, if any, we still need 
done. The research to date has had to ass ume in what sectors countries might want to apply customs 
duties. The Rashmi Banga study, for example, used "bound", not "applied", tariffs, without projecting 
any corresponding decline in trade volumes. In the case of Nigeria, this gap was as much as 
12 percent "applied" to 80 percent "bound" rates. It is very optimistic to assume that lifting tariffs 
on 12 to 80 percent would have no corresponding impact on trade volumes.  
1.99.  We also thank Indonesia for their very generous presentation today. If we are to ha ve an 
honest and genuine discussion about the impact of imposing customs duties on electronic 
transmissions, it is good that we look at what we are talking about. It was also very interesting to 
hear that Indonesia does not propose to charge VAT where they  are charging customs duties. These 
are the discussions that we will have to have if Members want to model the likely impact of imposing 
customs duties on electronic transmissions.  
1.100.   We thank the OECS, Singapore and Indonesia for their submissions and prese ntations. In 
particular, we welcome the submission by the OECS ( RD/GC/23 ) which recognises that the 
moratorium has offered predictability and scope for the development of the global digital market, 
especially  for micro -small-and-medium -enterprises (MSMEs) , and which also recognises that ending 
the moratorium could have devastating consequences. In terms of industry views, including small 
and micro businesses in both developed and developing countries, many stressed how difficult and 
complex it would be to t ry and grapple with customs duties at the border on data. We  heard from 
entrepreneurs and micro enterprises  on this issue  recently in a session convened by the ICC.  The 
continuation of the moratorium is at the top of their wish list. This was demonstrated by the 
significant support we witnessed for the rollover of the moratorium at MC12. In addition, Australia 
continues to hear regularly from the private sector, particularly from entrepreneurs, about the 
importance of the moratorium for the growth of their businesses. We think it is really important, in 
terms of next steps, that we continue to hear these voices, especially from the developing world.  
1.101.   We are particularly worried about the impact of widespread customs duties on electronic 
transmissions for cou ntries without many trade agreements. For Australia's part, most of our trade 
is already covered by permanent commitments not to impose customs duties on electronic 
transmissions in our FTAs. However, there are many countries for whom that is not the case.  Looking 
at relevant literature, it is likely that widespread duties will be most damaging domestically in the 
countries imposing those duties. For example, in a 2019 study by the National Bureau of Economic WT/GC/WPEC/M/4  
 
- 24 - 
 
  Research at Cambridge found that  the burden of c ustoms duties falls mainly on domestic consumers 
paying higher prices, rather than foreign firms funding duties from revenue share . A ECIPE 2019 
study found that if imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions , the loss in GDP would be 
49 times larg er than the tariff  revenues for India, over 160 times larger for Indonesia, and over 
25 times larger for South Africa.  
1.102.   Australia remains open to participating in discussions on further studies and data that can 
be looked at. In fact, Australia is looking closely at the evidence base of the benefits of the 
moratorium for women and other underrepresented groups, as we feel this is a missing angle to the 
debate, and look forward to being able to update work programme colleagues on this research. We 
would welc ome a further session on these detailed economic issues, including the views of the 
private sector particularly micro businesses.  
1.103.   The representative of The Gambia  delivered the following statement:  
1.104.   Thank you, Madam Chair, for convening this very important meeting. I have been listening 
to the exchanges very keenly and appreciate the submissions and presentations by Indonesia, 
Singapore and the OECS as inputs into this discussion. What I wanted to say is more of a plea to 
the Secretariat. To avoid over -simpl ifying and reducing the matter to a question of revenue loss, in 
deciding on whether to maintain the moratorium or not, we should be motivated by analytics and 
evidence. Given that there is a dedicated division within the Secretariat that deals with econom ics 
and statistics, I think it would be very helpful to have an analytical report looking at the impacts and 
implications since 1998 as it relates to revenue loss or revenue gains. I think it would be overly 
simplistic to just look at short -term gains that  the moratorium, or lack thereof, is providing for the 
global community or for developing countries looking at it from the perspective of foregone revenues. 
We can be influenced if that is backed up by true evidence and true analytics. If not, we will cont inue 
this anecdotal back and forth. I would appreciate consideration to engage in an analytical exercise 
to look at these issues more deeply and more thoughtfully.  
1.105.   The question I wanted to ask is: to what extent does the moratorium take into consideration 
the realities within developing Members? Here, I refer to the realities in terms of lack of digital 
infrastructure, the digital divide, the lack of inclusion, the imbalance between imports and exports, 
the emergence of technology in the digital trade and e -commerce realm. This is a totally different 
reality than that in 1998. How will keeping the moratorium influence our ability to strengthen and 
build our digital infrastructure, solve the digital divide, and access digital goods and services that 
will enab le us to build up our ecosystem? I think that is the question. What is the value impact of 
that vis a vis  the much -talked -about revenue loss? The other perspective I wanted to share is: to 
what extent does the moratorium impact our domestic industries, whi ch are emerging recently? The 
digital eco -system has been growing rapidly in most of our countries. How much of that is influenced 
by the moratorium? What would the implications be if the moratorium is abruptly lifted? Will it lead 
to increased competition  from foreign businesses? Would it ensure that our emerging digital 
industries are protected and have a level playing field to compete?  
1.106.   With respect to the tax and revenue implications, can Members consider the tax and revenue 
implications on customs duti es on digital goods and services? Will the moratorium have a negative 
impact on our government revenues, as it limits Members' ability to impose customs duties on goods 
and services? Should we consider alternative sources of revenue, such as digital taxati on, to make 
up for the potential revenue loss? Is this triggering a different mindset in terms of analytical 
approaches and methodologies regarding taxations and custom duties than we have seen before? 
With respect to compliance issues, how do we ensure th at compliance with the WTO e -commerce 
moratorium and other relevant trade Agreements will be triggered by keeping the moratorium or 
lifting the moratorium? What about trade polices? What about regulations? How consistent are they 
with the moratorium?  
1.107.   The o ther point I wanted to raise is: how do we improve the Work Programme on Electronic 
Commerce to make it fit -for-purpose? How can it be meaningfully impactful for developing countries 
who currently are consumers? We want to be on the production side of e -commerce, not just on the 
consumption side. What is the implication of the moratorium in that reality? One of the outstanding 
questions, in my view, is: to what extent is the progress made within this continuum, within the 
GATS framework? In that context, sh ould it be noted that the Work Programme is not mandated to 
conduct rulemaking but rather to examine all trade -related matters? It was never meant to establish 
new rules and thereby directly address the big lacuna in the legal framework. So, if the Work WT/GC/WPEC/M/4  
 
- 25 - 
 
  Programme remains, it should retain an important role in clarifying the applicability of the existing 
legal frameworks, and in identifying the substance of this lacuna; something it has only achieved to 
a limited extent. It is clear that e -commerce is nothin g new and is going to continue. So, should we 
really continue the e -commerce moratorium without it being backed -up with analytics and evidence 
that will give us the comfort ? As Members, it is important to know what the revenue losses that 
countries are suf fering from  are as well as the valuable gains of keeping the moratorium . We look 
forward to reviewing the contributions from Indonesia, Singapore and the OECS.  
1.108.   The representative of Japan  delivered the following statement:  
1.109.   Thank you, Madam Chair, for conv ening today's Dedicated Discussion. Japan welcomes the 
achievement of the extension of the moratorium on customs duties with the reinvigoration of the 
Work Programme on Electronic Commerce at MC12, even though Japan believes that the moratorium 
should even tually be made permanent. At the same time, we fully recognize that our Ministers have 
instructed us to deep -dive into the discussions on the moratorium, and we would like to 
constructively participate in the discussion. We thank Indonesia, Singapore and t he OECS for their 
submissions prior to this session. We will express our opinion regarding the moratorium in light of 
those proposals. Japan understands that the moratorium has assured a free trade environment and 
the sound development of electronic commer ce and digital trade. We believe that the moratorium 
has provided certainty and predictability for both consumers and businesses, including MSMEs. As 
the United States' Chamber of Commerce recently pointed out, global exports of digitally delivered 
service s have grown in value nearly fourfold since 2005, and the longstanding moratorium on 
customs duties on electronic transmissions has played a catalytic role in this growth. Particularly 
against the backdrop of the COVID -19 pandemic, the moratorium has been essential to ensure a 
sound and liberalized environment through electronic commerce and digital trade, and to promote 
safe, or less -risky, socio -economic activities in order to contribute to economic recovery and growth.  
1.110.   As Singapore has pointed out in its  paper, we too are convinced that the definition of 
"electronic transmission" does include content, such as video and software applications. Therefore, 
we believe that customs duties should not be imposed neither on content nor on the transmission. 
We reco gnize that some Members are concerned about the fiscal implications of the moratorium. On 
this point, we see some existing research argue that the moratorium would potentially be beneficial 
for society and the economy as a whole. For example, in a 2019 pub lication, the European Centre 
for International Political Economy claimed that the socio -economic loss following the expiration of 
the moratorium would outweigh the potential revenue gain by the imposition of customs duties on 
electronic transmission. It a lso highlighted that the imposition of customs duties would increase 
domestic prices and the cost of private consumption and industry inputs, leading to reduced 
economic output, corporate profits, consumption and employment. This would eventually give rise  
to a loss of domestic tax revenue. The OECD, in 2019, also pointed out that, even if all digitizable 
goods were transmitted electronically without the imposition of customs duties, the increase in 
consumer welfare would outweigh the potential tariff reven ue loss, which would lead to a net positive 
impact on the overall economy. In our view, we should focus more on the net positive impact of the 
growth and development of global electronic commerce and digital trade. In this regard, it is 
important to focus on the broader benefits that the moratorium brings about for Members, such as 
an increase in domestic consumption, opportunities for domestic firms, including MSMEs, and 
economic growth.  
1.111.   We suspect that the end of the moratorium would undermine predictabil ity for MSMEs and 
consumers, due to the technological difficulties posed by the imposition of customs duties on 
electronic transmissions. As the OECS points out, the imposition of these duties will give rise to 
several difficult questions, including whethe r it is possible to impose customs duties by identifying 
individual electronic transmissions, how the origin of electronic transmission could be defined, and 
who is responsible for paying the customs duties. If the imposition of customs duties is 
technolog ically difficult or unstable, there would be a more detrimental effect from a business 
perspective than we could expect. Now, electronic transmissions via the Internet have been already 
widely incorporated into businesses and trade all over the world. For this reason, the end of the 
moratorium will give rise to significant negative effects on the current state of the economy and 
international trade. We would like to stress our concern that small and medium enterprises or 
consumers with lack of access to ple nty of alternatives or resources, rather than large and global 
enterprises, would be significantly influenced by the potential disorder created by the expiration of 
the moratorium.  WT/GC/WPEC/M/4  
 
- 26 - 
 
  1.112.   In terms of ensuring government revenue, as pointed out by other Members, d omestic 
taxation seems to be a more practical approach than imposing customs duties on electronic 
transmissions. For this reason, it would be useful for Members to share their experiences related to 
internal taxation in future discussions. Regarding the ne cessity of having policy space for digital 
industrialization, we suggest focusing on the singularity of the digital industry. In our view, how 
digital -related business and industry are developed would be quite different from traditional 
industries, for exa mple, in manufacturing industries, such as the automobile industry, where a 
careful alignment and coordination of modules and functions is required. In general, we see that the 
technology and business landscapes are rapidly changing and evolving in the dig ital industry. 
Therefore, we believe that, in the digital industry, it would be important to purchase, or make use 
of, a wide variety of existing modularized digital products or services, give additional value to them 
quickly, and expand the final products  or services swiftly and actively to markets, hopefully spurring 
market growth. Taking the example of software development, we recognize that a relatively common 
approach in the software industry is to create software as a final product by utilizing a wide  variety 
of existing software libraries and collections of coding elements that are already open to the public 
on the Internet, in the interim process. In this regard, the moratorium guarantees a business 
environment where small and medium enterprises in p articular can purchase, subscribe or make use 
of a wide range of digital products or services all over the world at lower prices, or even for free, 
through the Internet as a basis of their business. This also allows them to participate as suppliers in 
the global digital market, which has grown rapidly. This would contribute to the development of 
service -oriented and digital -oriented industrial structures in each country as well. Furthermore, the 
moratorium enables businesses to benefit from both the worldwi de development of digital 
technologies and the rapid growth of the digital market. In this sense, the moratorium would underlie 
a business environment where novel and unique digital businesses are developed in each country, 
and those businesses could solve  various worldwide social problems.  
1.113.   Lastly, we believe that the moratorium on customs duties is essential to small and medium 
enterprises in Japan. There are 3.67 million enterprises, including private business owners, in Japan, 
and 80  percent  of the total number of enterprises have only less than 10 employees. Given  the 
penetration of the digital economy, the moratorium has enabled small and medium enterprises, 
including woman entrepreneurs, to achieve the sustainable development of their busi nesses. We 
would like to reiterate that there are a countless number of people who benefit from the moratorium 
at this moment.  
1.114.   The representative of European Union  delivered the following statement:  
1.115.   I would like to start thanking the Facilitator for organi sing this session in the context of your 
work plan for the reinvigoration of the e -commerce Work Programme. In the EU 's view, these 
discussions on the challenges and opportunities of e -commerce are extremely important for 
developed and developing countries  alike. I would also like to express our gratitude to those 
Members who have tabled their written communications related to the e -commerce moratorium, 
which helps shape our discussions. In our intervention today, we would like to recall the EU 's position 
on the coverage of the moratorium on customs duties on e lectronic transmissions and share our 
perspectives on the implications and the importance of this commitment for businesses and 
consumers, not just those in the EU, but around the globe.  
1.116.   In terms of w hat the moratorium covers, for us it is clear that the moratorium applies to all 
electronic transmissions, meaning electronic transmissions themselves but also all digital content 
that is transmitted electronically, including books, music, video, or softwa re that might previously 
have been delivered on a physical support, as well as newer types of activities such as a live online 
lesson s or training session s. The moratorium does not distinguish between different categories of 
electronic transmissions, and, in our view, there is no reason to do so, particularly given the fast -
developing digital economy and trade. We are well aware that some WTO Members treat electronic 
transmissions as goods in their own jurisdictions. While , for others like the EU , these are  services. 
We do not need to harmonise our understanding and create a single definition in the WTO. We 
believe that we should continue to be pragmatic and maintain the WTO commitment that no customs 
duties will be imposed on electronic transmissions, while  leaving policy space for Members to define 
electronic transmission –as goods or as services – in their own domestic jurisdictions.  
1.117.   What does the moratorium achieve and what are its implications? The moratorium supports 
all users and consumers of electroni c transmissions. It provides certainty and predictability by 
keeping electronic transmission free of extra costs and customs procedures.  With that, the WT/GC/WPEC/M/4  
 
- 27 - 
 
  moratorium helps to ensure that all consumers and companies –and especially those in developing 
countrie s– have access to a wide choice of digitally transmitted content and technology, for example 
software, at competitive prices. The moratorium also helps all companies access a wide pool of 
customers. This does not only benefit the large digital companies. D igital businesses , such as 
innovative software developers around the world, including in developing countries , tell us that 
customs duties on electronic transmissions would interfere with their ability to scale regionally, which 
is crucial to their ability  to grow, and hamper s their ability to access regional and international 
markets.  On the contrary, the imposition of customs duties would bring a series of negative 
implications. Studies by the OECD and other research bodies confirm that the imposition of duties 
tends to increase the cost of accessing the wide array of technologies and data sources which are 
critical for growth and innovation, business operations, and the transfer of technology. In addition 
to the financial cost, the requirement to pay cust oms duties on electronic transmissions would 
impose a huge administrative burden on companies – in order to enable authorities to collect 
customs duties, some sort of complex reporting or tracking system would have to be established 
and followed by the com panies. This would have a direct negative impact on all sectors of the 
economy. Therefore, maintaining the moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions is 
of key importance to the development of digital trade and indeed all types of trade world wide, also 
as noted in the Global Industry Statement issue d in advance of MC12. By contributing to the effective 
digitalisation of the global economy, the moratorium contributes to worldwide growth, and this 
includes developing countries.  
1.118.   The EU notes wide  ranging support by WTO Members in continuing with this longstanding 
WTO commitment. At the same time , we take careful note of the concerns that a few WTO Members 
continue to raise. However, we strongly doubt that any of the concerns raised so far could be  
addressed by imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions more effectively than through 
other policy tools, including internal taxation, which would provide more clarity for businesses and 
would be less trade distorting. We are therefore greatly co ncerned with the move of some Members 
towards the possibility of customs duties collection in this area, as we have heard in the first 
presentation today. Any government revenue from possibly collected customs duties – which 
according to existing studies w ould be relatively small in the range of 0.01 -0.33 percent,  as also 
mentioned by Singapore , would come at a cost to domestic businesses, in particular small ones , 
which would be likely to pass this cost on to consumers, or pay it themselves if the market p rice is 
not flexible. Businesses need more transparency and predictability and easier ways of doing business 
– and we have different policy tools and measures to facilitate business, but not additional costs and 
red tape. Here , we can just recall that the moratorium does not prevent the imposition of 
non-discriminatory taxes on electronic transmissions to raise revenues. In fact, we strongly believe 
that internal taxes provide more predictability and are more effective than custom duties. This issue 
could b e useful ly discussed in a follow -up meeting, based on best practices by WTO Members . The 
EU would stand ready to elaborate on the ways this is addressed in the EU.  
1.119.   We also hear concern that customs duties on electronic transmissions make up for the impact 
of increased product digitisation , potentially substituting high -value imports and the consequent 
reduction in customs revenues. In this context, new technologies such as 3D printing are sometimes 
identified. However, existing studies suggest that t he adoption of new technologies like 3D printing 
seems rather to result in increased trade in goods and higher customs revenue collection – because 
3D printing factories may bring physical investment to developing countries and actually increase 
trade in g oods. When it comes to supporting  the development of new digital industries, such as 
innovative software developers or digital content creators, we are of the view that discriminatory 
customs duties will not help to attract much -needed investment, nor do  they help to ensure that the 
products/services developed domestically are of a standard to compete internationally. There is also 
economic evidence that , when governments choose to protect domestic companies by imposing 
discriminatory taxation on foreign im ports, domestic businesses are removed from the pressures of 
competition. They will have less incentive to innovate, and there will be less downward pressure on 
domestic prices. Although this artificial "boost " can have short -term benefits for some domesti c 
companies, it could jeopardize their medium - and long -term competitiveness and the country 's 
economy by hindering exports, as well as harming consumers by reducing choice and the quality of 
products, and by increasing domestic prices.  
1.120.   In conclusion, the EU is ready to engage in any necessary discussions and preparations to 
see the moratorium made permanent , or at least extended at MC13, along with the e -commerce 
Work Programme that has been historically renewed as part of the same Ministerial Decisions.  It 
seems relevant to remind Members that the moratorium would expire only if it is not extended by WT/GC/WPEC/M/4  
 
- 28 - 
 
  Ministers or by the General Council. The MC12 Ministerial Decision is very clear in that regard.  The 
continuation of the moratorium is of key importance for t he multilateral trading system. This is also 
one of the most important WTO ministerial issues for our business stakeholders , as noted in multiple 
statements made at different occasions, including ahead of MC12 . In terms of next steps,  the EU is 
open to con tinue discussions in the context of the Dedicated Discussions under the W ork Programme, 
including on the implications of the moratorium, also as requested in the very useful communication 
by the OE CS Members, based on existing and possibly new evidence. We  would also find it useful to 
have an opportunity to hear stakeholders on this important topic, including international 
organisations , academia and the business community , also taking into account requests by a number 
of Members for more concrete evidence .  
1.121.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  delivered the following statement:  
1.122.   At the outset, I would like to thank Indonesia, Singapore and the OECS delegations for 
sharing their view s and circulating submissions. I also appreciate the Secretariat for p reparing the 
compilation of Members ' submissions under the Work Programme on E lectronic Commerce , which is 
helpful to understand development s in the discussion.  On Singapore's submission , I would like to 
express Korea 's support for  the position and evaluat ion contained  in that communication. Let me 
broadly respond to the questions from the communication and further share our views and 
experience.  First, Members have maintained the moratorium on customs duties on electronic 
transmissions for more than 20 yea rs, providing predictability to the multilateral trad ing system. It 
is indisputable that we are living in a time when cross -border digital transactions and data transfer 
are ever growing. My delegation believes that ending the moratorium at this critical juncture will 
cause considerable confusion  and thus bring  about  negative impacts on industries, economies, and 
on the multilateral trade system. Technical complexity in impos ing tariffs, costs associated with 
designing and setting up new tariff system, potential inconsistency among countries and authorities 
would throw businesses into confusion that could contract global digital trade. As the world economy 
should be directed t o a recovery phase after the COVID Pandemic, we are concerned that even 
discussing ending the moratorium would provide a negative signal and uncertainty to businesses 
and the global economy.  
1.123.   Second,  Korea would like to echo Australia and other previous spe akers  on the benefits that 
the moratorium brings in terms of economic gains and consumer welfare , which are well supported 
by studies and empirical data. Today, businesses are largely depending on digital tools and cross -
border information transfer , regard less of their size. By making the best use of digitalized 
telecommunication and financial services free of tariffs, entrepreneurs can reduce their production 
and logistics costs , further improving their efficiency and competitiveness. This favourable situa tion 
for the  digital economy would provide MSMEs with new opportunities to expand their business across 
border s. These benefits from the Moratorium are particularly larger for MSMEs in developing 
economies where financial and administrative costs stemming from customs duties, when imposed , 
vary from one  market  to another,  and are relatively heavier burdens for businesses with small 
margin s and size s who wish to  expand to overseas markets. Furthermore, the costs will lead to 
higher prices that will eventuall y shift the burden on consumers , as others have already rightly 
pointed out.  
1.124.   Third, the moratorium 's positive impact on industry innovation and market growth is another 
important aspect that we should pay particular attention to. We all learned from experi ence that 
innovation is made when a market ensures freedom and creativity. Korea provides  a stark example 
of this case. You may have heard of the K -pop band BTS . It would be difficult to imagine that the 
band's production and management company was also a start-up in its beginning in the Korean 
entertainment market , where there were a couple of dominant producers. With custom s duties on 
electronic transmission on their songs, performance s, etc., start -ups would have faced higher 
entrance barriers and huge c hilling impacts on creators. The company of BTS would have had little 
opportunity to become a leading business in the K -pop industry, contributing almost five billion USD 
to Korea 's GDP as it is now.  We believe BTS is not a rare case in the digital economy . The video clips 
of people dancing to the Indian song Naatu Na atu from the Bollywood movie RRR went viral by 
connecting people around the world. We are convinced that we will observe more and more similar 
cases to BTS with the  continuation of the  moratori um, as it was done in  the past years.  
1.125.   To conclude, my delegation once again emphasizes that the moratorium on customs duties 
on electronic transmission s should be permanently extended considering its positive impact on 
predictability, stability, and other benefits to businesses, consumers, and economies. We are WT/GC/WPEC/M/4  
 
- 29 - 
 
  convinced that this is clear to entrepreneurs that are actually affected by the discussion s we are 
having. To this end, we support the idea of hearing the voices of the private sector and businesses 
later this year.  
1.126.   The representative of Brazil  delivered the following statement:  
1.127.   Brazil would like to thank all Members for their  engagement and inputs  in today 's Dedicated 
Discussion on the moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions. We would also like to 
thank the OECS countries, Singapore and Indonesia, as well as other Members, for their earlier 
submissions and contributions on the subj ect. Brazil has supported the renewal of the moratorium, 
including at MC12 last June. We share the understanding that the moratorium has benefited WTO 
Members, businesses and consumers, in a period when the digital economy, and particularly 
e-commerce, has  experienced significant development and gone through unprecedented challenges.  
Brazil believes that the ongoing discussions on customs duties are timely and appropriate, in light 
of our expectation of a positive outcome at the next Ministerial Conference.  The debate shall focus 
on the moratorium impact on growth and employment. It shall also take into consideration the 
interests and concerns of developing countries, such as preserving policy space for internal  taxation.  
Brazil remains open to engaging in f urther assessment of questions pertaining to the scope and 
definition of the moratorium. We encourage WTO Members, with the support of the WTO Secretariat, 
to build on this session 's discussions as we work on identifying common ground going forward. We 
also support seeking inputs from the relevant stakeholders and authorities in order to clarify pending 
issues before MC13.  
1.128.   The representative of Jamaica  delivered the following statement:  
1.129.   Jamaica appreciates the ongoing work on this file and commends you, Cha ir, for your efforts 
and leadership. This Dedicated Discussion focuses on an issue which is of great interest for all 
Members, especially developing countries. As would have been highlighted in previous sessions, the 
volume of digital trade and online busi ness-related activities have increased exponentially. According 
to the World Economic Forum, cross -border e -commerce has ballooned some 45 -fold in a decade to 
an estimated USD 2.7 trillion.8 It is therefore pertinent that we intensify our discussion on th is issue, 
as requested by Ministers at MC12.  
1.130.   Jamaica, as a small island developing state, understands that our survival is dependent on 
our ability to engage in international trade. It is for this reason that we continue to actively 
participate in these d iscussions. As we would have highlighted in previous sessions, notwithstanding 
our ongoing efforts at the national level, we are faced with capacity constraints both in terms of 
infrastructure and expertise. An assessment of the full impact of the moratori um would take some 
time to estimate. First, the country would need to ascertain the value of e -commerce transactions 
each year, the data of which is not easily accessible. This is primarily due to the fact that such data 
does not reside with the Jamaica Cu stoms Agency, nor any government agency. As a result, with so 
many unknowns and ambiguities, there is a need for further study and discussions on this issue 
given that any multilateral decision for a permanent moratorium must be made from an informed 
persp ective. In the lead up to MC13, it would be prudent for the WTO to have dedicated engagements 
with stakeholders, such as the World Bank, the World Customs Organization and UNCTAD, to guide 
our discussions. The World Customs Organization could be invited to  brief us on its work in this area 
and to indicate to us the role that the WTO can play. W e have also heard extensively from other 
Members regarding the invitation of other stakeholders such as academia and the private sector. 
Based on feedback from capita l, these are some of the issues  which are important to take 
into consideration.  
1.131.   One has to carefully consider whether the removal of the moratorium would result in a shift 
from e -commerce to physical trade. The elasticity of the shift would be a contributo r in determining 
the impact. Additionally, it has to be borne in mind that the removal of the moratorium could affect 
the current demand for e -commerce transmissions . With ordinary goods, an increase in tax would 
result in an increase in the price of the g ood and eventually lower the demand for said good. It  cannot 
be taken for granted that the current tariff rate on physical trade would be used for e -commerce 
trade. Hence, the likely rate that would have been imposed would assist in determining the impact.  
The reality is that the impact of the moratorium cannot be easily determined at this point. Apart 
 
8 https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/01/data -flows-cross-border -wef23/ . WT/GC/WPEC/M/4  
 
- 30 - 
 
  from the factors directly affecting revenues, we are conscious that Jamaica does not have a 
structured platform to monitor e lectronic transmissions in order to effectively tax them . 
1.132.   It is necessary for all Members to have complete clarity on the definition of electronic 
transmissions, consensus on the scope of the moratorium and a comprehensive understanding of 
the impact of the moratorium especially on develo ping countries. As we do not currently have all the 
answers and bearing in mind the increasing reliance on electronic commerce in Jamaica, we support 
a temporary extension of the moratorium at MC13. We do hope that we can advance our work at 
the WTO to tak e a more informed decision on the future of the moratorium at MC14.  
1.133.   In closing, Jamaica thanks Singapore, Indonesia and the OECS for presenting interesting 
ideas as well as their national experiences. These submissions will be shared with capital for furth er 
review. As has been mentioned by Canada and other delegations, based on a preliminary review of 
the OECS submission, there is merit in some of the ideas proposed, including a dedicated study or 
the creation of a matrix of the various studies already don e including with respect to key findings. 
Jamaica aligns itself with the statements by Trinidad and Tobago on behalf of the CARICOM Group 
and Barbados on behalf of the ACP Group.  
1.134.   The representative of Mexico  delivered the following statement:  
1.135.   We wish to t hank to Indonesia for encouraging the discussion on customs duties on electronic 
transmissions and for sharing its views on the subject. Last but not least, we thank Singapore and 
the Members of the OECS for sharing, both in writing and in this session, th eir views on the 
moratorium and for putting forward elements for discussion. With regard to Indonesia's perspective 
and the information it provided in its submission (WT/GC/W/859, specifically on paragraph 2.6), 
Mexico would welcome further details on how companies have been encouraged to voluntarily 
declare the importation of digital goods since 2021. We would like to know whether these voluntary 
declarations are reflected in Indonesia's trade statistics and records and wish to know more about 
the compilat ion methodology.  
1.136.   We will now touch upon Mexico's general perspective regarding the imposition of customs 
duties on electronic transmissions. For several decades now, Mexico has continued its practice of 
not imposing customs duties on electronic transmissi ons, in view of the importance of electronic 
commerce for Mexico and its trading partners worldwide. We would therefore like to take the 
opportunity in this Dedicated Discussion to acknowledge that, while electronic commerce practices 
have evolved, the pra ctice of not imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions, as such, 
prevents unnecessary barriers to trade that is conducted via electronic means, and helps to provide 
certainty and predictability for businesses and consumers in our country. We ther efore emphasize 
the importance of continuing to collaborate with the World Trade Organization, which monitors the 
trade policies governing trade between our nations. We also stress the need to step up the 
discussions on the moratorium, promoting public -private dialogue as a suitable space in which 
businesses, in particular micro, small and medium -sized enterprises (MSMEs), can share information 
with Members on specific cases in which this practice has contributed to cross -border trade in digital 
services an d products.  
1.137.   The representative of New Zealand  delivered the following statement:  
1.138.   New Zealand welcomes increased engagement on the moratorium in this forum, and thanks 
Indonesia, Singapore and the OECS for their presentations. We continue to support the moratorium. 
As Singapore's and the OECS' papers noted, the Moratorium is especially important for small, open 
economies, including developing and least -developed Members. Its lapse could consequently have 
a detrimental impact on development outcomes, which  is a concern we have heard equally from a 
broad range of both developing and developed Members today. The OECS' paper also raised an 
important point that the moratorium offers predictability to business, both temporally and across all 
164 WTO economies. T his certainty of operating conditions provides scope for the development of 
the digital market for global businesses, including MSMEs. Singapore's paper suggested that 
Members consider other revenue collection means, such as value -added tax.  Being geograph ically 
isolated, New Zealanders have been early adopters and users of electronic commerce as both 
exporters and consumers. As such, we hear frequently from our business community –the 
overwhelming majority of whom are MSMEs – regarding the value they place on the moratorium and, 
as such, have a long history of such provisions in our FTAs both with developing and developed WT/GC/WPEC/M/4  
 
- 31 - 
 
  partners. New Zealand exporters with an interest in the moratorium are not just exporters of digital 
products, but also exporters of physi cal goods (including agricultural products) which shows that 
this is of broad interest across the economy. New Zealand has also included a provision in FTAs with 
a range of developed and developing country partners to not impose customs duties on electroni c 
transmissions.    
1.139.   New Zealand has a flat 15  percent  Value‐Added Tax (VAT) that is applied to the final good, 
or service supplied to a consumer, which applies to imported digital and remote services since 2016. 
New Zealand 's rules are based on the OECD Int ernational Guidelines.  To reduce compliance costs, 
New Zealand 's tax on imported digital and remote services excludes business ‐to‐business services 
as well as offshore suppliers with annual sales of less than NZ$  60,000.  New Zealand 's tax collected 
on digi tal services increased significantly from $138.4  million  in 2018 to $332.8  million  in 2022, 
which is significant in our context and shows the potential for a growing revenue work stream as 
trade evolves.  In summary, our experience is that imposing internal  value -added taxation on digital 
goods and services is a fair, transparent, and non ‐discriminatory alternative to customs duties and 
tariffs that is also workable from a practical perspective, and commercially meaningful.  Finally, we 
wish to add our view t hat no one policy intervention will address the global digital divide; we echo 
the United States and Australia's comments in this regard. It is clear that the moratorium is a tool 
at our disposal that supports global trade, development and predictability, and that is also consistent 
with Members' rights to adopt their own internal taxation policies.  
1.140.   The representative of United Kingdom  delivered the following statement:  
1.141.   We welcome the contributions to this session from all Members. I do not want to repeat 
well-rehearsed positions given the time constraints  but rather offer some brief reflections on the 
constructive contributions we have received.  That said, I just  wish to  underline that the UK strongly 
supports the moratorium on customs duties on electronic  transmissions and its renewal at MC13 and 
beyond.  The first point I wanted to make is on the impact, and in particular the impact on business.  
I was  struck by the presentation from our Indonesian colleagues that part of their rationale for 
considering the imposition of customs duties is to create a more robust business environment and 
to provide certainty to business sectors.  As others have asked, I would be interested to hear more 
from Indonesia about the feedback they are receiving from businesses on these points  because this 
seems to run counter to what we are hearing from businesses , large and small, from developed and 
developing countries.  What we are hearing is that businesses , including MSMEs, are calling for a 
permanent moratorium f or predictability and certainty. This will enable more effective longer -term 
planning and reduce the cost of engaging in digital trade.  We are really interested in continuing that 
discussion and l ooking ahead,  we would really welcome bringing in business v oices, particularly 
MSMEs from developing countries, to hear about the impact on the ground.   
1.142.   The s econd point I want to make is around alternatives to customs duties.  We would align 
ourselves with the points made by Singapore in their paper that applying customs duties is an 
unsustainable, costly, and technologically challenging measure.  We consider that alternative sources 
for revenue collection, such as VAT, would be a more efficient and practical source of fiscal revenue. 
As Singapore , Barbados , the Philippines and others have mentioned , we would welcome sharing 
experiences on these alternatives  under the Work Programme in future discussions. Thirdly, I would 
like to thank the OECS for their constructive proposals on the way forward. Given the wide range of 
analysis and data that already exists, we can positively consider their idea of a matrix of the existing 
studies to help guide our future discussions. Finally, with respect to institutional impacts , as others 
have highlight ed, the moratorium has been in effect since 1998  – a quarter of a century.  Terminating 
the moratorium would take the WTO backwards. The main goal of this Organization is to ensure that 
trade flows as smoothly, predictably and freely as possible. We should be working to remove barriers, 
not to erect new ones. From the United Kingdom's  perspective, ensuring the renewal of the 
moratorium at MC13 and beyond is key to delivering on the WTO D irector General' s vision of a 
WTO responsive to a future that is "digita l, services, green, and inclusive ". 
1.143.   The representative of Pakistan  delivered the following statement:  
1.144.   First, we wish to thank and congratulate you, Chair, for having successfully steered us 
through these Dedicated Discussions under on the Work Programme, w hich have all brought several 
important ideas to the fore and promise an engaging discussion ahead. At the onset, I would like to 
echo the statement delivered by the Indian delegation and wish to recall a solemn vow of the WTO WT/GC/WPEC/M/4  
 
- 32 - 
 
  that treats Members in view o f their capacity and development; from GATT to GATS, Members, 
whether developed, developing or least -developed, are encouraged to take part in the liberal global 
economy while being simultaneously allowed to only gradually open up their domestic markets to  
global competition. This is verily in acknowledgement of the scale of development of all Members. 
However, the moratorium, since 1998, has become one stark contradiction. It expects all Members, 
irrespective of their capacities, to open and keep open thei r local markets for global competition. It 
remains a confusion  how the notion of "market access" in e -commerce is not expected to stand the 
limitations which it has always been subjected to in GATT and GATS. Consequent to this, the 
moratorium has benefitte d the developed economies more than it has contributed to the developing 
economies globally.  
1.145.   Extending the same argument, allow me to add that we see promises of special and 
differential treatment, transfer of technology and/or transition periods in even the latest WTO 
Agreements, such as the Trade Facilitation Agreement and the Fisheries Subsidies Agreement. 
However, the same level of room for development has never been afforded to developing and 
least-developed Members in the case of e -commerce. Let us n ot forget that this inarguably is the 
leading sector of economies in times to come and by insisting on having the moratorium and 
disallowing Members the right to apply customs duties at all, the Membership may perhaps be laying 
the foundations for an unequ al world. When I say "unequal", I refer to several asymmetries amongst 
which I believe it is important to mention that the lack of fiscal muscle and policy space has kept 
the developing world at bay from establishing a digital infrastructure which is essen tial to thrive at 
parity with the contemporary and future competition from the developed world. This digital divide 
makes the demand for the extension of the moratorium untenable for economies like ours. Pakistan 
hence would like to sensitize the Membershi p that the debate surrounding the moratorium has to 
expand from just fiscal limitations to also creating unequal opportunities for the digital 
industrialization of developing and least -developed Members, as Indonesia very precisely identified 
towards the c lose of their presentation earlier this afternoon.  While the suggestions made by certain 
Members to complement fiscal deficits by raising domestic taxes is understandable; it may be noted 
that local taxes will not serve to provide the developing Members wi th the time required to develop 
digital competences of their own. Thus, to allow for digital growth in developing countries, 
particularly in absence of substantial transfer of technology and other enabling factors, Pakistan is 
of the view that the moratori um needs to be considered for termination, as has been indicated in 
the MC12 Decision as well, by March 2024 at the latest.  
1.146.   The representative of Brunei Darussalam  delivered the following statement:  
1.147.   At the outset, Chair, allow me to express Brunei Darussalam's appreciation and support for 
your excellent work as the Facilitator of the E -commerce Work Programme and the moratorium. I 
wish to thank Indonesia, Singapore, and the OECS for their submissions that help provide a setting 
for our discussions t oday on this very important topic. We also appreciate the Secretariat for the 
compilation of related documents. Brunei Darussalam continues to support the extension of the 
moratorium on custom s duties on electronic transmissions to provide our businesses w ith greater 
legal certainty. Brunei Darussalam does not have plans in the near future to impose customs duties 
on electronic transmissions, as the imposition is seen to be complex. However, we are keen to learn 
more from Members on how revenues can be sour ced alternatively. On the way forward, Brunei 
Darussalam supports the suggestion by the OECS to conduct a dedicated study involving relevant 
international organisations to assess the impacts of the moratorium in all relevant sectors. We also 
support having  further discussions on the scope of the moratorium and the definition of 
electronic  transmissions.  
1.148.   The representative of Norway  delivered the following statement:  
1.149.   Norway is strongly in favour of a continuation of the moratorium that has provided 
predicta ble conditions for digital cross -border trade for more than 20 years. We believe a 
discontinuation will disrupt digital trade, to the detriment of e -commerce sellers, consumers, as well 
as other stakeholders. A disruption will be severely felt by all busin esses, not least MSMEs. It will 
affect all WTO Members and, we believe, particularly developing country Members, including LDCs, 
by deepening the digital divide. The issue of lost revenues has been mentioned. We would like to 
echo Australia's very good poi nts on calculating these. A continuation of the moratorium does not 
mean that WTO Members are left with no ways to tax electronic commerce. We would be happy to 
share information about the Norwegian VAT on e -commerce (VOEC) scheme after this meeting.  WT/GC/WPEC/M/4  
 
- 33 - 
 
  1.150.   The representative of Singapore  delivered the following statement:  
1.151.   I will respond quickly to the comments made and will also engage bilaterally with Members. 
Regarding Barbados' question on the paragraph in our communication that states that the relevant 
obliga tion does not preclude a party from imposing internal taxes, or internal charges , I wish to 
clarify that this relates to our general FTA practice –including with India – where there is a permanent 
prohibition o n customs duties on electronic transmissions an d a mention that this does not preclude 
a party from imposing internal taxes or internal charges, provided that they are imposed in a manner 
that is consistent with Article  III of GATT. A question was also raised by Bangladesh on the difference 
between the  two sorts of mechanisms (duties and internal taxes) and their benefit. In terms of costs, 
there will be additional costs to consumers as a result of both systems. I want to flag that the benefit 
lies in how the government administers the internal taxation  system, which is clearer, easier and 
offers business much more certainty in terms of how governments are planning to actually impose 
internal taxation. If there are any further questions, we are happy to engage on a bilateral basis.  
1.152.   The representative of  St. Vincent & the Grenadines, on behalf of the OECS , delivered the 
following statement:  
1.153.   We are pleased with today's engagement. We think it was a very fruitful exchange. It is 
evident that there is need for some additional discussions and perhaps for more  analytical work to 
be done amongst the Membership on the issue of the moratorium. We want to thank delegations for 
their positive feedback on our submission. We are also looking closely at the submissions from 
Indonesia and Singapore. We believe that all of the submissions combined, including previous 
submissions from other delegations, provide a solid basis for us to continue the discussion. We look 
forward to a constructive debate going forward and we will continue to play our role in that regard. 
Finally, Facilitator, we want to thank you and the Secretariat again for all of your efforts. We will 
continue to be engaged in this process in a very constructive spirit.  
1.154.   The representative of Indonesia  delivered the following statement:  
1.155.   Indonesia thanks Sing apore and the OECS for their presentations which constitute very 
valuable inputs for us . We also wish to thank all Members for their constructive engagement as well 
as the WTO Secretariat for preparing today's meeting. Since 1998, the policy regarding the 
moratorium has been related to technology. Since then , technology has developed non -linearly. 
However, in our view, th e moratorium approach is linear, so we are open whilst still maintaining the 
function of trade facilitation by implementing policies regar ding customs duties, one of which is 
through electronic transmissions , to ensure that technology products can be transferred from one 
end to the other . We began to witness the rise of the dot.com era in the early 2000s followed by its 
crash in the mid -2000s, the rise of social media in the early 2020s and finally the emergence of the 
AI today. For example, social media provides progress for society, but it can also have negative 
impacts if not well regulated . This is an example of non -linear development and  frankly we do not 
know where they will lead us. Therefore, it is essential, in our view, to have flexible policies in place 
to deal with unexpected technology development whilst still maintaining trade facilitation functions. 
The fact that future technolo gy remains uncertain we believe that it will be premature to make any 
decision on a permanent moratorium of customs duties for electronic transmissions. Once such a 
decision is made it will be challenging to reverse it in the face of unforeseen technologic al 
development. Madam Chair, Indonesia acknowledges the significance of the e -commerce discussion 
in the WTO and recognizes that electronic commerce can be a catalyst for economic growth among 
many Members. As such , we place great importance on the need to  end the moratorium o n customs 
duties on electronic transmissions and facilitate discussions under the multilateral framework as 
under the 1998 Work Programme on E -Commerce. We firmly believe that such an approach will 
enable us to maximise the potential b enefits of e -commerce for all WTO Members and create a fair, 
transparent and balanced trading environment that fosters sustainable economic development for 
all WTO Members. In summary , it is crucial to have adaptable policies in place to regulate technolog y 
development and maintain trade facilitation functions given the non -linear nature of 
technology  development.  
1.156.   The Chairperson  thanked all Members for their statements and invited delegations to send 
their statements to the Secretariat for them to be reflected in the minutes of the meeting. She also 
thanked Indonesia, Singapore and the OECS for presenting their useful submissions.  She noted that 
there were many questions raised, and that some had been answered but perhaps not all, in part 
due to time constraints. This meant that there was significant room for further discussion on the WT/GC/WPEC/M/4  
 
- 34 - 
 
  moratorium, in line with the request by Ministe rs to intensify these discussions. She further  noted 
that discussions at the present meeting did not represent a situation of "great minds think alike". 
However, she welcomed Members' constructive and interactive engagement on certain issues. While 
Members  did not totally agree, it seemed that they agreed on the need for deeper analysis, more 
factual data and having a pic ture. It was also noted that while Members may not have everything 
ready by MC12, there might be a need to take temporary decisions. Howev er, in her view, the focus 
should be on how to advance on the issue of the analysis and on how to slate in further discussion 
on this matter. Members needed to take the work further and continue to engage in these 
discussions, including bilaterally.   
1.157.   In closing, t he Chairperson recalled that the next General Council meeting would take place 
on 8-9 May 2023, and that she would provide a factual report of the work undertaken  since her last 
report in March. Members had now discussed four topics  since the begin ning of the year. However, 
Members still needed to agree on how to take the work forward after May. More thought had been 
given to the question of inviting intergovernmental organisations to participate in a workshop to 
address these four issues and the ro le that each institution might play. The workshop would be held 
on 1 and 2 June.  She further  recalled that she had held consultations and had invited all Members. 
She hoped to hold a brief informal open-ended meeting on 4 or 5 May 2023 to report on these 
consultations. The informal meeting would also be an opportunity to further discuss  how Members 
wished to move the work forward before the summer break , as well as post -September . She 
encouraged Members to start reflecting on  areas of convergence and , at least, working on  some 
recommendations to the upcoming Ministerial  Conference,  or to the General Council.  
_______________   WT/GC/WPEC/M/4  
 
- 35 - 
 
  ANNEX  I 
INDONESIA 'S PERSPECTIVE ON CUSTOMS DUTIES ON  ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION  
 
 
 
WT/GC/WPEC/M/4  
 
- 36 - 
 
   
  
WT/GC/WPEC/M/4  
 
- 37 - 
 
   
  
WT/GC/WPEC/M/4  
 
- 38 - 
 
   
 
WT/GC/WPEC/M/4  
 
- 39 - 
 
   
 
WT/GC/WPEC/M/4  
 
- 40 - 
 
   
WT/GC/WPEC/M/4  
 
- 41 - 
 
  ANNEX II  
SINGAPORE'S PRESENTATION: MORATORIUM ON CUSTOMS DUTIES ON ELECTRONIC 
TRANSMISSIONS  
 
 
 
 
 
WT/GC/WPEC/M/4  
 
- 42 - 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
WT/GC/WPEC/M/4  
 
- 43 - 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
WT/GC/WPEC/M/4  
 
- 44 - 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
__________