RESTRICTED  
  
G/MA/M/73  
7 April 2021 
(21-2873) Page: 1/55 
Committee on Market Access  Original:  English  
 
  
MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE ON MARKET ACCESS  
12 AND 16  NOVEMBER  2020  
CHAIRPERSON: MR ANATOLY CHAPLIN  (RUSSIAN FEDERATION ) 
The Committee adopted  the agenda as reproduced in document  WTO/AIR/MA/1 3/Rev.1 , with the 
inclusion of the following items under Other Business: " Panama – Import Restrictive Practices – 
Statement by Costa Rica " and "Canada – E-Registration System" . An annotated agenda had been 
circulated in document  JOB/MA/14 6. 
 
1   INTRODUCTION OF HARMONIZED SYSTEM CHANGES TO SCHEDULES OF 
CONCESSIONS – STATUS REPORT  ................................ ................................ ....................  3 
− HS2002 ( WT/L/605 and WT/L/807)  ................................ ................................ ...............  3 
− HS2007 ( WT/L/673 and WT/L/830)  ................................ ................................ ...............  3 
− HS2012 ( WT/L/831)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 3 
− HS2017 (WT/L/995)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 3 
2   EXTENSION OF THE HS -RELATED WAIVERS  ................................ ................................  4 
3   THE HARMONIZED SYSTEM AND THE WORK OF THE WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  4 
4   OPERATION OF THE INTEGRATED DATABASE (IDB) AND THE CONSOLIDATED  
TARIFF SCHEDULES (CTS) DATABASE  ................................ ................................ ..............  6 
− STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2019 IDB DECISION (G/MA/367) .............................  7 
− STATUS OF IDB NOTIFICATIONS (G/MA/IDB/2/REV.52)  ................................ ...................  8 
− LIST OF MEMBERS' OFFICIAL WEBSITES WITH TARIFF INFORMATION AND IMPORT 
STATISTICS (G/MA/IDB/W/13/Rev.3)  ................................ ................................ ........... 10 
− STATUS  OF THE CTS DATABASE  ................................ ................................ .................. 11 
− COMMUNICATION FROM THE ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK (G/MA/W/161)  ........................ 11 
5   NOTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO THE DECISION ON NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES  
FOR QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS (G/L/59/REV.1)  ................................ ...................  11 
A. NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 12 
B. REPORT FROM THE SECRETARIAT  (G/MA/QR/9)  ................................ ............................ 19 
6   REPORT BY THE SECRETARIAT ON THE STATUS OF RENEGOTIATIONS UNDER 
ARTICLE  XXVIII OF THE GATT  1994 (G/MA/W/123/REV.7)  ................................ ..........  19 
7   TRADE -RELATED MEASURES RELATING TO THE COVID -19 PANDEMIC  ......................  20 
8   ENHANCING TRANSPARENCY IN APPLIED TARIFFS – COMMUNICATION BY THE 
RUSSIAN FEDERATION (JOB/MA/138)  ................................ ................................ ..........  24 
9   TRANSPARENCY IN TARIFF RATE CHANGES, AND THE TREATMENT OF SHIPMENTS  
EN ROUTE : MEMBERS' PRACTICES AND PERSPECTIVES – STATEMENT BY AUSTRALIA, 
BRAZIL AND CANADA (G/MA/W/160)  ................................ ................................ ...........  26 G/MA/M/73  
- 2 - 
  10   ANGOLA – IMPORT RESTRICTING PRACTICES – STATEMENT BY THE RUSSIAN 
FEDERATION AND THE UNITED STATES  ................................ ................................ .........  28 
11   CHINA - CUSTOMS DUTIES ON CERTAIN INTEGRATED CIRCUITS – STATEMENT  
BY THE EUROPEAN UNION, JAPAN AND CHINESE TAIPEI  ................................ ..............  29 
12   EUROPEAN UNION - CARBON BORDER ADJUSTMENT MECHANISM (THE  
EUROPEAN GREEN DEAL OF DECEMBER  2019) - STATEMENT BY CHINA AND THE  
RUSSIAN FEDERATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 30 
13   ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION TO INCLUDE CROATIA –  
NEGOTIATIONS UNDER ARTICLE  XXIV:6 OF THE GATT  1994 – STATEMENT BY THE 
RUSSIAN FEDERATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 34 
14   EUROPEAN UNION – RENEGOTIATION OF TARIFF RATE QUOTAS UNDER 
ARTICLE  XXVIII OF THE GATT  1994 – STATEMENT BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  ....... 34 
15   UNITED KINGDOM – RENEGOTIATION OF TARIFF RATE QUOTAS UNDER 
ARTICLE  XXVIII OF THE GATT  1994 – STATEMENT BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  ....... 36 
16   UNITED KINGDOM - RECTIFICATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS OF SC HEDULE  XIX – 
STATEMENT BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  ................................ ................................ ... 37 
17   INDIA - CUSTOMS DUTIES ON TELECOMMUNICATION AND OTHER PRODUCTS – 
STATEMENTS  BY CHINA AND CHINESE TAIPEI (G/MA/W/120, G/MA/W/128)  .............  39 
18   INDIA –IMPORT POLICIES ON TYRES, TELEVISION SETS, AND AIR  
CONDITIONERS  – STATEMENTS BY THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THAILAND  ..................  41 
19   INDIA – QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN PULSES – 
STATEMENTS  BY AUSTRALIA, THE EUROPEAN UNION, THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  
AND THE UNITED STATES ................................ ................................ ...............................  42 
20   INDONESIA – CUSTOMS DUTIES ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS PRODUCTS – 
STATEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES  ................................ ................................ ..............  44 
21   MONGOLIA – QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS ON IMPORTATIONS OF CERTAIN 
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS - STATEMENT BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  .....................  45 
22   NEPAL'S IMPORT BAN ON ENERGY DRINKS – STATEMENT BY THAILAND  ................  45 
23   RUSSIAN FEDERATION – DRAFT DECREE RESTRICTING IMPORTS BY CERTAIN 
ENTITIES – STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION  ................................ .......................  47 
24   RUSSIAN FEDERATION – TRACK AND TRACE REGIME – STATEMENT BY THE 
UNITED  STATES  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  48 
25   KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA, KINGDOM OF BAHRAIN, THE UNITED ARAB  
EMIRATES, OMAN AND QATAR – SELECTIVE TAX ON CERTAIN IMPORTED PRODUCTS – 
STATEMENT BY THE EURO PEAN UNION, JAPAN, SWITZERLAND, AND THE  
UNITED STATES  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  49 
26   SRI LANKA – IMPORT BAN ON VARIOUS PRODUCTS – STATEMENT BY THE  
EUROPE AN UNION  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  50 
27   ELECTION OF THE VICE -CHAIRPERSON  ................................ ................................ ... 53 
28   DRAFT REPORT (2020) OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN  
GOODS (G/MA/SPEC/60)  ................................ ................................ ..............................  53 
29   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 54 
29.1  Panama – Import restrictive practices  ................................ ................................ .....54 
29.2  Canada – E-Registration system  ................................ ................................ ............. 55 
29.3  E-Agenda  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 55 
29.4  Dates of the ne xt meetings  ................................ ................................ .................... 55 
 G/MA/M/73  
- 3 - 
  1  INTRODUCTION OF HARMONIZED SYSTEM CHANGES TO SCHEDULES OF CONCESSIONS 
– STATUS REPORT  
1.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that a full version of the Secretariat's reports regarding the different 
transposition of Schedules and the presentation had been made available as a room document and 
would be incorporated into the minutes of the meeting.1 
1.2.  The Secretariat  (Mrs Alya Belkhodja) informed Members that a revised version of the report 
with the overall "Status of HS  Transpositions", document  G/MA/W/158/Rev.1, had been prepared 
by the Secretariat. The report sought to provide a broad overview of the state of play of the  different 
HS transposition exercises as of 22  October  2020, and had taken into account the results of the last 
HS multilateral review which had been held on 16  October.  
− HS2002 ( WT/L/605 and WT/L/807)  
1.3.  The Secretariat  (Mrs Alya Belkhodja) recalled that the last written report on this issue had been 
issued as document  JOB/MA/42/Rev.26, dated 11  September  2019. The status of the 
HS2002  transposition files after the multilateral review of 16  October  2020 was as follows: 116  files 
had been certified or were in t he process of certification; one  draft file had been completed and sent 
to the Member for its first  review. Finally, 18  Members had not been affected by the transposition, 
as eight  Members had acceded to the WTO with a Schedule of concessions in HS2002, another 
eight Members in HS2007, and two  Members in HS2012.  
1.4.  The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report.  
− HS2007 ( WT/L/673 and WT/L/830)  
1.5.  The Secretariat  (Mrs Alya Belkhodja) recalled that a revised written report had been issued as 
document  JOB/MA/104/Rev.24, dated 21  September  2020. The status of the HS2007  transposition 
files after the multilateral review of 16  October  2020 was as follows: 110  files had been certified or 
were in the process of certification; one  file had been relea sed for multilateral review and had 
received comments from the Member concerned; six  draft files had been completed and sent to 
Members for their first  review; 8  draft files remained to be prepared. Further to the letters that had 
been sent by the Chair person of the Committee on Market Access on 4  May 2020 to remind Members 
that the Secretariat could provide assistance to finalize their files, the Secretariat received a 
submission from Morocco and comments from Malaysia,  which were being analysed. Finally, 
10 Members had not been affected by the transposition as eight  Members had acceded to the WTO 
with a Schedule of concessions in HS2007 and two  Members in HS2012.  
1.6.  The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report.  
− HS2012 ( WT/L/831)  
1.7.  The Secretariat (Mrs  Alya Belkhodja) recalled that a revised written report had been issued as 
document  JOB/MA/129/Rev.10, dated 21  September  2020. The status of the HS2012  transposition 
files after the multilateral review of 16  October  2020 was as follows: 100  files had been certified or 
were in the process of certification; three  files had been released for multilateral review and had 
received comments from other Members; seven  draft files had been completed and sent to Members 
for their first review; and 23  draft files remained to be prepared. Finally, two  Members had not been 
affected by the transposition as they had acceded to the WTO with a Schedule of concessions in 
HS2012.  
1.8.  The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report.  
− HS2017 (WT/L/995)  
1.9.  The Secretariat  (Mrs Alya Belkhodja) reported that a third  group of files had been released for 
multilateral review and announced in document  G/SECRET/HS17/3. A revised written report on the 
HS2017  transposition  had been issued as document  JOB/MA/143/Rev.1, dated 21 September  2020. 
 
1 Documents  RD/MA/71 and RD/MA/72 . G/MA/M/73  
- 4 - 
  The status of the HS2017  transposition files after the multilateral review of 16  October  2020 was as 
follows: 39  files had been certified or were in the process of certification; 15  files had been approved 
on an ad referendum  basis with a deadline to provide comments until 30  November  2020; one  draft 
file had been completed and sent to the Member for its first  review,  and 80  draft files remained to 
be prepared. Finally, she mentioned that the overall status of the different tr ansposition exercises 
had been  reflected in slide  2 of the presentation.  
1.10.   The Chairperson  recalled that, at the informal meeting of 16  October  2020, he had reminded 
Members that the next amendment of the Harmonized System would enter into force on 
1 January  2022, which meant that the Committee would soon need to start working on the 
procedures to transpose the Schedules of concessions into this new version of the HS. In this regard, 
he propose d to proceed in the same way as the Committee had handled all prev ious transposition 
Decisions , namely  to request the Secretariat to prepare a first  draft Decision based on the 
HS2017  procedures, document  WT/L/995. The Secretariat would then circulate the draft as a 
JOB document before the end of 2020, and the Committee could begin discussing it early in 2021 . 
1.11.   The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report  and agreed  to the proposal by the 
Chairperson . 
2  EXTENSION  OF THE HS -RELATED WAIVERS  
2.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that the General Council had agreed to extend the relevant waivers 
for the introduction of the Harmonized System (HS) changes into WTO  Schedules of concessions for 
a number of Members on the basis of a "collective decision". The most recent waive rs were: HS2002 
(WT/L/1082 ); HS2007 (WT/L/1083 ); HS2012 (WT/L/1084) ; and HS2017 (WT/L/1085). He noted 
that these waivers would expire on 31  December  2020 and that the Members concerned had yet to 
complete their relevant transposition procedures. Therefore,  the Chairperson proposed that the 
Committee extend all of these collective waivers until 31  December  2021. He proposed to the 
Committee to forward the draft collective waiver decisions granting such an extension, as contained 
in documents  G/C/W/782, G/C/W /783, G/C/W/784, and G/C/W/785, to the General Council, through 
the Council for Trade in Goods (CTG), for appropriate action.  
2.2.  The Committee so agreed . 
3  THE HARMONIZED SYSTEM AND THE WORK OF THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION  
3.1.  The Chairperson  welcomed Ms  Gael Groob y, Deputy Director of the Tariff and Trade Affairs 
Directorate of the World Customs Organization (WCO), who would provide an update of the work for 
the implementation of HS2022, including the recent approval of the correlation tables.  Her 
presentation woul d be made available to delegates.2 
3.2.  The representative of the WCO  (Ms Gael Grooby) recalled that  HS2022 would come  into force 
on 1 January  2022. Although there  was an obligation under the HS  Convention for countries to 
implement  it by this date, it was not always possible for all countries  to do so. HS2022 would be  one 
of the larger changes in the history of HS reviews . It had  351 sets of amendments, including the 
deletion  of two headings , the addition of eight headings, the deletio n of 147  subheadings , and the 
addition of 369  subheadings  at six-digit level. There would also be a  net increase in the six-digit 
subheadings of 222  new provisions , for a total of 5609 subheadings within HS2022 . The growth in 
the si ze of the HS  had been relatively steady . In the 2007 edition , there had been some desire to 
trim down  the HS , thinking that this would simplify it . However,  the experience had been the 
opposite , as reducing the number of categories  or reducing granularity  had in some cases made it 
more difficult to classify  the products. Thus, there  had been a tendency again to increase the number 
of categories . 
3.3.  In terms of the motivations to amend the HS, t he biggest had been the requirement for more 
precision in  the trade data for particular goods . The HS had  very broad categories , which  classified 
products by material class , or which classified products that had not been expressly covered 
elsewhere , including such examples as  "other articles of plastics ", "electro -mechan ical domestic 
appliances ", and "machines and mechanical appliances not specified elsewhere ". These broad 
 
2 Document  RD/MA/74.  G/MA/M/73  
- 5 - 
  headings capture d trade data on a broad group of good s collectively , but individual type s of goods 
were not statistically visible . For ex ample, the HS would not show  international ly comparable 
statistics for paracetamol tablets, as they would fall under one of "the other " categories. This was 
also the case for an endless conveyor belt of plastic, electric t oothbrushes, windscreen wipers for 
aircraft , and so on, and these  were just a few examples of thousands of goods on which one could  
not get statistics at the HS  six-digit level . Trade in these products w ould of course be recorded, but 
together with many ot her products . Many of the amendments  in HS2022 sought to introduce a more 
specific category  for goods of increased trade importance . For example, this was the case for 
recreational nicotine or non -combusted tobacco products , such as e -cigarette cartridges ; cell 
cultures , including cell therapy products ; artificial turf , and so on . There had also been some changes 
that had resulted from reduced  trade  in some products. Fo r example , HS2022 would eliminate the 
specific categories for globes, unbleached and other products under terry towelling and similar woven 
terry fabrics of cotton , as well as  film rolls  for cameras . In such case s, the goods covered by the 
deleted subheading s would  be absorbed by other subheadings . 
3.4.  A large number of changes had also been introduced for monitoring or control purposes . For 
example, n ew subheadings  2903.41 to 2903 .69, a new note  4 to section  VI, and a new 
heading  38.27 had been created in order to sepa rately  classify  gases covered by the Kigali 
amendments to the Montreal Protocol . Also, a  new subheading  5501.11 would be created to classify 
"filament tow of aramid ", which was a dual use item . There had also been some changes to clarify 
areas that had been  subject to significant levels of dispute , or which Members had found to be 
ambiguous . This included, f or example, new provisions for oils of microbial origin ( that is, because 
microbes were neither plants nor animals) , and a new subheading  8217.13 to specifically provide 
for smartphones as their multifunctional nature had resulted in many disputes over classification . 
3.5.  One of the main parts of the work of the Harmonized System Committee (HSC) had been the  
correlation tables , which had been drawn up by the Secretariat in accordance with the instructions 
received from the HSC. The HS2022  correlation tables would be  released on 13  November  2020 on 
the WCO  website, www.wcoomd.org . She recalled that working  out the movement of goods between 
different versions of the classification  could be a very difficult task, and t he correlation tables were 
published in order to show the se moveme nts. They were examined by the HSC  before release  and 
could not be released until the examination had been completed. While the  correlation tables  were 
not legal instruments and d id not constitute decisions of the HSC, they were the principal tool 
normally  used by Customs administrations to assist in developing their national correlations . 
3.6.  Given the interest of  this Committee on th e issue, she wanted to mention some correlations 
that had been particularly difficult  for HS2022 . For example, s ome goods ha d been grouped together 
for the first time  in HS2022 , some of which had been previously scattered across multiple headings . 
For some  of these  products , it had not been possible to determine  exact correlations . One of these 
was "placebos and clinical trial kits", which were currently classified by composition, components , or 
even in some cases by form. The complete range of materials and components that were used in 
these goods was unknow n and, in fact,  they were usually a closely guarded commercial secret . As a 
result, t here existed a wide range of possible classification s. In the correlation tables, the HS C had 
only included those classifications that were known, but since it did not know all the main ingredients 
or components that could potentially be used, the correlation tables could not cover all possibilities . 
3.7.  Another product category with a similar issue was "flat panel display modules , whether or not 
incorporating touch -sensitive screens ". These included all the intermediate products used to 
manufacture anything with a flat panel display , ranging  from a flat panel display in a microwave to 
those in  a laptop . These were the modules that were the essential intermediate part s to manufacture  
such touch screens . The problem in the current version of the nomenclature was that they were to 
manufacture other goods and were currently classified as "parts" of those goods . The classification 
of these parts was in  the heading of the machine for which  they were intended , or under the relevant 
parts of the classification of that device . This included an exceptionally wide range of possible 
classification s and the HSC did not know all the possible finished goods that could use these 
components and their classification . The range of goods was potentially very large. For the se 
correlations , the HSC  had included specific language , namely  "Applicable subheadings, in particular, 
those in Chapters  84, 85, 90, 93 and 95 ". This was an unavoidable problem because the classification 
of parts is quite complex in the current version of the HS. It also affected subheading  8529.90, 
"Other ", because this subheading would take on the parts of the "flat panel display modules " of 
heading  85.24. For this reason , the same wid e range of potential classifications could also potentially G/MA/M/73  
- 6 - 
  feed into this subheading . Here, too , the correlation tables had included specific language , namely  
"Applicable subheadings, in particular, in Chapters  84, 85, 90 and 95. " 
3.8.  Another very large area of changes concerned semiconductor -based transducers  of 
HS2022  subheadings  8541.51 and 8541.59 . This area related to semiconductor technology and 
extremely small parts that were used in a broad range of electronic goods and goods containing 
electronic components . Again, since these were manufacture d to be parts of other goods , they 
likewise covered an exceptionally wide range of classification possibilities . And, like previous 
examples, the correlation tables noted " Applicable subhea dings, in particular, in Chapters  84, 85, 
90, 93 and 95. " And these  complex transpositions would  probably require decision s by individual 
countries  because these particular goods , flat panel display devices and semiconductor -based 
transducers,  had very significant trade flows in terms of volume and value . 
3.9.  Another complex correlation related to the creation of heading  85.49 in HS2022, concerning  
electrical and electronical waste and scrap . This pose d a particular problem because it was not simple 
to defin e when goods become waste and scrap , and there were c urrent ly variations in how some of 
these goods were classified . The creation of a new heading  85.49 entail ed the possible transfer of 
certain products that were currently classified  within  other headings  of the Nomenclature, in 
particular, but not limited to, headings  38.25, 70 .01, 71 .12, and headings of Chapter s 84, 85, 90, 
91, and 95 . In addition, there was also the question of how to classify "obsolete " or "non-working 
but still re adily identifiable goods ", such as obsolete computers and non -working computers . The 
classification of these products would vary between Customs  administrations depend ing on whether 
they were considered to be  "computers " or "scrap metal ". This probably  cause d certain issues for 
administrations.  
3.10.   An unusual change for HS2022 had to do with edible insects , which had been included at the 
request of FAO for the purposes of monitoring food security . However , when the HSC  worked through 
the amendment in the committees and through the correlation, it became apparent that  there was 
currently a divergence  in the classification of these products between countries . This had not been 
resolved within the HSC for purposes of HS2017 or for the correlation s. For "fresh, chilled o r frozen 
edible insects ", countries were currently using two headings:  "02.08 - Other meat and edible meat 
offal, fresh, chilled or frozen " or "04.10 - Edible products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified 
or included ." And this divergence came down to a basic question of whether or not one should 
identify insects as a meat product . There were very strong ly held  views on both sides . Since the 
issue c ould not be resolved, both correlations had been included in the correlation tables. However, 
clearly only one  of them could apply in a specific country . The correlations that she had  given as 
examples of possible problems  were only a very small percentage  of the overall list  of changes in 
the HS2022  amendment . For the vast majority of the 351  sets of amendments, clear correlations 
had been  provided , which she hoped would assist the work of WTO Members . This had been a very 
brief introduction to the changes  in HS2022  and she invited Members to obtain m ore in -depth 
information  through the WCO  website , which would make available , from 13  November  2020, the 
Recommendation, the Corrigendum Recommendation , and the correlation tables. There  was a 
possibility that the correlation tables  would  be adjusted as customs administrations identified issues 
and reported them back to the HSC. Therefore , she encouraged Members to visit the WCO website  
to find the  most up -to-date version of the tables . 
3.11.   The repr esentative of the United States  thanked the WCO for the update on the upcoming 
HS amendment . Her delegation considered that  the various amendments of the HS and correlation 
tables were critical for this Committee's work in updating the WTO  Members ' Schedule s of 
concessions. The United States very much appreciate d and thank ed the WCO and WTO  Secretariat s 
for their continued collaboration on these issues.  
3.12.   The Committee took note  of the WCO  report and statements made.  
4  OPERATION OF THE INTEGRATED DATABASE  (IDB) AND THE CONSOLIDATED TARIFF 
SCHEDULES (CTS) DATABASE  
4.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that there were five issues to discuss under this agenda item, namely: 
(i) the status of implementation of the IDB  Decision; (ii)  the status of IDB  notification s; (iii)  the 
document with the list of Members' official websites; (iv)  the status of the CTS  database ; and (v)  a 
communication from the Asian Development Bank . G/MA/M/73  
- 7 - 
  − STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2019 IDB DECISION (G/MA/367)  
4.2.  The Chairperson  recalled that a full version of the Secretariat's report  and the presentation  had 
been made available as a room document and would be incorporated into the minutes of the 
meeting.3 
4.3.  The Secretariat  (Ms Adelina Mendoza) reported that additional projects had being undertaken 
by the Secr etariat relating to the implementation of provisions indicated in document  G/MA/367 , 
including development of data applications. These were the following:  
(i) The Secretariat had been working on a redesigned dissemination portal  of the Tariff 
Analysis Online (TAO)  which sought to develop an application that would improve 
user-experience with a more dynamic interface  and include improved functionalities and 
more relevant analytical reports ; 
 
(ii) Since additional elements had been  being included  by Members in the ir 
IDB notifications , aside from MFN  applied tariffs and imports, the document with the 
status of submission s had been revised to show all other notified information, which 
sometimes came as separate datasets or had been submitted by the Member at a 
different time. Revisions to the previously submitted data would be included in the new 
format of the table. The Secretariat planned to issue th is reformatted table in the next 
version of the report ; 
 
(iii) Preferential tariffs, and in particular the those relating to reciprocal arrangements , had 
been notified more often by Members since the approval of the new IDB  Decision. 
However, some of them had not been  in the same national nomenclature as the 
MFN tariffs for the same year , which meant that integrating such datasets would be 
time-consuming. The Secretariat had planned to use these preferential tariffs for 
analytical purposes at the HS  six-digit level, based on  the WCO  correlation tables if 
applicable and , where possible, to align them with the nomenclature of the MFN  duties ; 
 
(iv) The Secretariat had sent a separate " call to notify" email to the concerned delegations 
ahead of the deadline for either tariffs or imports. This separate call to notify IDB data 
had resulted in a much higher number of notifications compared to previous years , 
where the IDB  notifications had been part of a much larger li st of all outstanding 
notifications across different WTO  subjects ; 
 
(v) On the automatic submission of data provided for in paragraph  8 of the new 
IDB Decision , the Secretariat reported that it had successfully tested the process o f 
retrieving the applied tariffs of Canada from its online server and both parties were 
currently finalizing the bilateral agreement. There were also ongoing tests and 
discussions with four  African countries on how to facilitate the notification and 
integration of their applied ta riffs data from their customs databases. The Secretariat 
stood ready to engage with any other Member wishing to explore this new possibility 
for data submission ; 
 
(vi) As mentioned during the previous meeting of the Committee, the Secretariat stood 
ready t o share with interested Members a sample Memorandum of Understanding 
(MOU) to allow for automated transmission of data . In addition, the Secretariat had also 
prepared templates for an "exchange of letters " in case Members prefer red that option. 
For greater  flexibility, the provisions could be adapted to a Member's specific situation , 
in consultation with the Secretariat. Such arrangement would greatly facilitate data 
transmission and certainly ease Members ' notification burden. The se templates were 
availabl e in the three  official languages and could be shared with any interested 
Member ; 
 
(vii) Regarding the new provisions on the dissemination policy of the IDB and CTS  data, the 
two previous Chairpersons had sent official letters to the Intergovernmental 
Organizations listed in paragraph  3(d) of Annex  4 of the new IDB  Decision , requesting 
them to accept the new terms and conditions, as well as reminders for those that had 
 
3 Documents  RD/MA/71 and RD/MA/72 . G/MA/M/73  
- 8 - 
  failed to reply. In addition, the Secretariat had sent a follow -up email to these 
23 intergovernmental organizations , which had been authorized by the Committee 
under the previous policy , and informed them of the new provisions , and also to confirm 
their adherence to the latter. Thus far, the Secretariat had received posi tive replies from 
11 of these organizations4, and was still awaiting response s from the others;  
 
(viii) A new set of IDB5 and CTS6 sections had been created on the WTO  website  to better 
explain the functions of the two  databases. The new IDB  page also c ontained a more 
frequently updated status of IDB  notifications and visualization of the data 's coverage  
(i.e. its completeness) ; 
 
(ix) The Secretariat had developed a new application to facilitate tracking the amendments 
to the Harmonized System across its  different versions. The HS  Tracker was being 
tested in collaboration with the W CO and would be made available to Members early 
next year.  
 
4.4.  The representative of Switzerland  requested the WTO  Secretariat to provide further information 
on the HS  tracker application , which seemed to Switzerland like a new development . 
4.5.  The Secretariat  (Ms Adelina Mendoza)  confirmed that it was a new application , which would 
allow users  to track each HS subheading  as it evolved across the different versions of the HS . It 
would consolidate all  the available  information in the documents that had been developed by the 
WCO, including their correlation table s. For example , the application would allow  users to select a 
code in the HS20 17 nomenclature and determine  from where it had originated . That is, whether it 
was a new code in that version, or from in which previous version  it had first appeared , and whether 
it had changed in terms of composition  across HS  versions . Since the correlation tables had been  
developed by the WCO, t he Secretariat had solicited the  participation of the WCO  in this regard . 
4.6.  The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report and of the statements made.  
− STATUS OF IDB NOTIFICATIONS (G/MA/IDB/2/REV.5 2) 
4.7.  The Chairperson  recalled that a full version of the Secretariat's report  and presentation  had 
been made available as a room document and would be incorporated into the minutes of the 
meeting.7 
4.8.  The Secretariat  (Ms Adelina Mendoza)  recalled that the report by the Secretariat on the status 
of submissions to the IDB had been circulated in document  G/MA/IDB/2/Rev.52, which reflected the 
status as of 15  October  2020. An electronic copy for all years from 1996 was also available for 
download from the site https://IDBFileExchange.wto.org . As had been previously mentioned , the 
new IDB  section of the WTO  website contain ed more recent updates on the status of 
IDB submissions.8 The current notification requirements were for Members to submit the 
2020 applied tariffs (deadline of 30 March  2020) and the 2019  imports (deadline of 
31 October  2020). For the report in document  G/MA/IDB/2/Rev.52, the cut -off date for the 
document had fallen ahead of the deadline for 2019  imports in order to allow time for delegations 
to send it to their Capitals for comments. A call to notify had been sent to Members informing them 
of the earlier  cut-off date of 15 October  2020 for inclusion in the report. The Secretariat had initially 
expected a much lower number of notifications because of the current sanitary situation and the 
COVID -19 pandemic, which ha d affected the working environment worldw ide, including in Capitals . 
However, it had been pleasant ly surprise d to see  that the number of 2020  applied tariff notifications 
that had been submitted by the  30 March deadline had been  much higher than in previous years. 
For the period 2017-2019, the yearly average of datasets notified by the deadline of 30  March had 
been 17 reporters, while for 2020 28  Members had already submitted their applied tariff data on or 
before the deadline. Concerning the 2019 import data, for which the deadli ne of 31  October for all 
 
4 These are the intergovernmental organizations that have positively replied to the communication on the 
new terms and conditions of the dissemination policy: African Union, UN -ESCAP, EBRD, ECLAC, EFTA, FAO, OECD, 
South Centre, UNCTAD, and the World Bank Gr oup. In addition, the International Grains Council also accepted 
the terms and conditions following the Committee's authorization adopted at its meeting of 28  May 2020.  
5 https://www. wto.org/english/tratop_e/tariffs_e/idb_e.htm .  
6 https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tariffs_e/cts_e.htm .  
7 Documents  RD/MA/71 and RD/MA/72 . 
8 https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tariffs_e/idb_e.htm .  G/MA/M/73  
- 9 - 
  Members had fallen last year, the Secretariat was pleased  to note that  there were already 
42 Members that had notified their data. The comparative figure in the year 2019, concerning 
2018 imports , had only been 27 Members. In 2016 and 2017, when the deadlines for Members that 
had not been covered by the Preferential Trade Arrangements Transparency Mechanism (PTA -TM) 
was still 30  September, there had only been 28 and 37  Members, respectively which had  notified 
within the deadline. As  previously mentioned , the Secretariat considered that the more active 
notifications could be attributed to a separate "call to notify" specifically for IDB  data only.  
4.9.  On the 2020 MFN applied tariffs , the IDB had currently received data for 76  Members by the  
cut-off date of 31  October, which account ed for 56% of the 135 expected Members' notifications. Of 
those 76  files, 52 had been  official submissions , while the remaining 24 had been  collected by the 
Secretariat from approved "framework source s" (paragraph  20 of the new IDB  Decision). As to the 
inclusion of other types of applied tariffs  in the IDB , there had also been 57  submissions (or 75% of 
the relevant notifications) which had included non -MFN duty schemes. Further more, there had been 
five notifications which contained the optional additional import taxes. Overall, 46  Members, 
representing 34% of all notifying Members, had a  complete notification on MFN  applied tariffs. 
However, there were still 41  Members (30%  of the Members ) with six or m ore years of outstanding 
applied tariff data. These statistics represented an improvement with respect to those that had been 
reported during the June  meeting of the Committee, where only 36  Members had complete 
notifications and 49  Members had six or more  years of outstanding data.  
4.10.   On the 2019  imports, 42  notifications had been received as of 31  October  2020, which 
represented 31% of the 135  expected notifications. In comparison, import data for 2018 was 
48% complete. For all import data due from 1996 to 2019, only 45 Members, or 33% of notifying 
Members, h ad complete data. The number of Members with six or more years of data yet to be 
submitted was 46  Members, which represented 34% of the Membership . As had been the case with 
tariffs, these statistics showed a slight improvement  with respect to those report ed at the 
June meeting of the Committee, where only 39  Members (29%) had complete notifications and 
48 Members (36%) had six or more years of outstanding data.  
4.11.   On the "recomposition" of single year missing MFN  tariffs for which the imports had been 
notifie d and tariffs of the adjacent years were available, as provided for in paragraph  22 of the new 
IDB Decision, the IDB currently included 23  country periods with such data. There were an additional 
14 country -year datasets that had been sent to the concerned  Members asking for their comments 
on the recomposed datasets. The 30-day period had not yet elapsed but, in the absence of any 
comment from the Members concerned within such time, the recomposed tariff and matched import 
data would become part of the IDB.  
4.12.   Overall, as of 15  October  2020, the IDB disseminated data consisted of 2,714  country periods 
of either applied tariffs with matched imports at the national tariff line level or applied tariffs only. 
The Secretariat estimated that IDB  notifications on MFN  applied tariffs were approximately 
83% complete for data expected until 2020 , and 75%  complete for import data until 2019. Except 
for Afghanistan, all other Members and six acceding Members (Algeria, Bahamas, Belarus,  Comoros,  
Iran, and Serbia) h ad notified data to the IDB , which had been disseminated through  the WTO's 
systems ( that is,  TAO, TDF, and WTO -DATA). Overall, i n terms of the data sources, the notified tariff 
data accounted for 57% of the expected data for the years 1 996 to 2020 on tariffs, and "framework" -
sourced data accounted for an additional 25%. Approximately 17% of the expected tariff 
notifications remained outstanding. For import s, the percentage of data coming from national 
submissions was higher , at 59%, with  only 16% of the additional datasets having been sourced from 
framework sources. Finally, 25% of the imports datasets remained outstanding.  
4.13.   She recalled that the submission of mandatory data for Members covered by the Preferential 
Trade Arrangements Transp arency Mechanism (PTA -TM) should be notified as part of their 
IDB notifications . There were 23 Members (counting the EU -27 and the UK, and Switzerland and 
Liechtenstein,  as one) that had notified  data to the PTA -TM, six Members had no applied tariff 
notification yet for the year 2020, and another seventeen  Members had included the mandatory 
non-reciprocal GSP/LDC  schemes in their applied tariff notifications. The PTA -TM required that 
import data be notified with the  necessary breakdown, and in 11 out of 23  expected notifications 
received for the year 2019, two Members had submitted just the regular import data without the 
required breakdown by duty scheme, and 10  Members had not yet submitted any import data. As 
stipulated in paragraph  5 of the new IDB  decision, and in order to avoid processing the data multiple G/MA/M/73  
- 10 - 
  times, the Secretariat would await the complete PTA -TM datasets (tariffs or imports) before 
integrating the se notifications  into the IDB . 
4.14.   The following additional notifications had been received after the cut -off date of 
15 October  2020and until 8 November 2020:  
(i) Belize tariffs 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 ; 
 
(ii) Japan 2019  imports (with PTA -TM breakdown) ; 
 
(iii) Nicaragua 2019  imports (with RTA  breakdown) ; 
 
(iv) Norway 2018 impo rts (with PTA -TM breakdown) ; 
 
(v) Paraguay 2019  imports ; 
 
(vi) Singapore 2019  imports ; 
 
(vii) Thailand 2019  imports . 
 
4.15.   Since the last meeting of the Committee , in June  2020, the Secretariat had participated in 
the following online technical assistance activities concerning the IDB/CTS  databases  and related 
tools:  
(i) Training on the consolidation of bilateral agreements in a Goods Schedule for 
Uzbekistan, related to its Accession ; 
 
(ii) Negotiations on market access for goods, initial offer, Timor -Leste;  
 
(iii) National Workshop on IDB and CTS for Ecuador , with the Market Access Division ; 
 
(iv) Tariff Renegotiations for the Economic Community of West African States  (ECOWAS), 
with the Market Access Division . 
 
4.16.   Finally, t he World Tariff Profiles 2020 had bee n issued on its regular release date 
(June  2020) .9 Hardcopies in the three  official languages were available to Members upon request . 
4.17.   The representative of Canada  thanked the Secretariat for its detailed report, which had 
demonstrate d the importance of the electronic data interchange and paragraph  8 of the updated 
IDB Decision . He encourage d all Members to contact the Secretariat in order to discuss this  
opportunity to reduce the burden on Geneva delegates  and Capitals , and to work wi th the Secretariat 
to develop options to provide this information on a timely basis with the tariff and , to the extent 
possible, the trade data as well. Keeping the IDB  information up to date was very important for the 
work of the C ommittee and to delegate s, but it was also important to outside users . These external  
stakeholders included a  number of international organizations that use d the data to produce analysis 
that in turn helped our stakeholders , including small and medium -sized companies. He confirme d 
that Canada was in the process of finalizing an agreement to allow the S ecretariat to extract 
Canada's  tariff data each year. A test had already been  undertaken, which had worked very well,  so 
he encourage d the other Members to contact the Secretariat and explore if this paragraph  was an 
appropriate vehicle to provide this information to the IDB.  
4.18.   The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report  and of the statements made . 
− LIST OF MEMBERS' OFFICIAL WEBSITES WITH TARIFF INFORMATION AND IMPORT 
STATISTICS (G/MA/IDB/W/13/Rev. 3) 
4.19.   The Chairperson  recalled that the new IDB  Decision required the Secretariat to prepare a list 
of Members' official websites containing tariff information and import statistics. A third  revision of 
this document had been circulated shortly after the past formal meeting and it had not been updated 
 
9 https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/world_tariff_profiles20_e.htm .  G/MA/M/73  
- 11 - 
  since then. Given the importance that this document had for Members and trade operators, he 
invited delegations  to check the links and to inform the Secretaria t of any change.  
4.20.   The Committee took note  of the Chairperson 's report.  
− STATUS OF THE CTS DATABASE  
4.21.   The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to the Secretariat report on the status of the 
CTS database.  
4.22.   The Secretariat  (Mrs Alya Belkhodja) reported that  the Secretariat had made CTS  files 
available to all Members on the Tariff Analysis Online ( https://tao.wto.org/ ). Out of the 
135 CTS files, 99  had been made available in HS2012; 20 in HS2007; 14 in HS2002; and 
two remained in HS96. The complete CTS  database had been made available to Members on a 
USB key, which had been sent to Members in September  2019. The USB  key also included a more 
complete compilation of the original legal instruments, listed by Member. Th e full content of 
Release  16 of the CTS  USB key could be downloaded from the IDB  file exchange facility 
(https://idbfileexchange.wto.org ) in directory WTO  Documents/CTS. She also noted that all the legal 
instruments were available through the new specialized website ( https://goods -schedules.wto.org ). 
4.23.   The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report.  
− COMMUNICATION FROM THE ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK (G/MA/W/161)  
4.24.   The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to  a communication by the Asian 
Development Bank requesting access to the IDB and CTS  databases, pursuant to the terms and 
conditions in the dissemination policy in document  G/MA/238. However, t hese terms and co nditions 
had been superseded by Annex  4 of the 2019  Decision of the Modalities and Operation of the 
Integrated Database, which was contained in document  G/MA/367. The Chairperson ask ed whether, 
in case the request were to be considered favourably  by the Co mmittee , and as had been done with 
the previous year's request by the International Grains Council, the Asian Development Bank could 
be granted access on condition that it accepted the new terms and conditions  set out  in 
document  G/MA/367 . 
4.25.   The Committee  so agreed . 
5  NOTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO THE DECISION ON NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR 
QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS (G/L/59/REV.1)  
5.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that  the two  issues under this agenda item were : (a) examination of 
notifications received; and ( b) the Secr etariat's introduction of its report concerning the factual 
information contained in these notifications.  He noted that many of these new notifications had made 
reference to the COVID -19 pandemic and, on behalf of the Committee, he thanked the Members 
concerned . These timely actions supported transparency and afforded traders the opportunity to 
review changes in the trading environment. In particular, he thanked those Members that had also 
notified modifications , as well as measures that had ceased to be in  force.  
5.2.  The representative of Switzerland  noted that the Committee had 29  QR notifications to 
examine and her delegation was pleased to see that so many Members had complied with these 
notification obligations. According to the QR  decision of 3  July 2012, Members had to include several 
elements in their notifications. In particular, paragraph  (2)(v) stated that Members had to indicate 
the precise WTO  provision which the Member cite d as justification for the measure. In addition, 
footnote  3 of the QR  Decision provided that "[t]he justification is provided for transparency purposes 
only and is therefore indicative. It shall not prejudice any legal position a Member may take on the 
particular measure that the justification is intended to cover. " Going thr ough these notifications, my 
delegation had noticed that some notifications did not fulfil this  requirement , namely that the 
provision of a precise WTO  justification had not been provided . In our view, the mere indication of 
"to protect human health " lacked the required  level of specificity . It also pose d several challenges . 
First, when Members prepare d their QR  notifications , they usually looked at what others ha d done. 
If the precise WTO  justification was not mentioned, the  Member preparing its notificati on was 
likewise not encouraged to specify the relevant WTO  provision. They would question why they should G/MA/M/73  
- 12 - 
  do it if the other Members had not done so. This was the natural reaction. The second  concern 
relate d to the QR  database. Switzerland understood that the purpose of the database was to provide 
standardized information that Members could access easily. This presuppose d that  standardized data  
could be included . As some Members had indicate d "protection of human health ", the Secretariat 
could not guess which WTO  provision had been  intended and ha d no choice but to put 
"uncategorized " in the QR  database. The result was that the information could not  be aggregated 
across all Members.  Therefore , Switzerland  strongly encourage d all WTO  Member s to clearly specify  
which WTO provision they were invoking as justification for their measures, as th e QR Decision 
provided that this was without prejudice to their legal position in regard of a particular measure.  
A. NOTIFICATIONS  
− Australia (G/MA/QR/N/AU S/3/Add.1, G/MA/QR/N/AUS/3/Add. 2, G/MA/QR/N/AUS/ 5) 
5.3.  The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to  three  new notifications from Australia , two 
relating to measures introduced pursuant to COVID -19, and a third, completely new notification for 
the period 2020 -2022.  
5.4.  The Committee took note  of these notifications.  
− Brazil (G/MA/QR/N/BRA/2/Add.1 ) 
5.5.  The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to  a new notification from Brazil which relate d to 
temporary measures necessary to combat the COVID -19 pandemic. This notification had been 
submitted just prior to the previous formal meeting, and for this reason could not be considered at 
that time. 
5.6.  The Committee took note  of this notification.  
− Canada  (G/MA/QR/N/ CAN/4 ) 
5.7.  The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new notification by Canada, which was a 
complete notification for the period 2020 -2022.  
5.8.  The representative of Canada  wished to highlight that this notification had been  greatly 
improved  with respect to the previous version , as it had been updated and expanded based on past 
notifications. This had been the result of close collaboration and assistance received  from the 
WTO Secretari at, as well as from a broader consultation process that his colleagues in Capital had 
undertaken  to ensure that information provided in this notification was enriched, as well as ensuring 
that Canada  had provided all the necessary  information as per the QR  Decision. One message he 
wanted to leave was that the Secretariat ha d helped immensely in pulling it  together . He was happy 
to share his experience with  any delegations that were  interested to learn more about Canada's 
experience. His delegation had taken  inspiration from other notifications and he believed that sharing 
these  experiences could help to increase the number  of Members that submit a QR notification.  
5.9.  The Committee took note  of this notification.  
− China (G/MA/QR/N/CHN/4/Rev.1, G/MA/QR/N/CHN/5/Rev.1)  
5.10.   The Chairperson  recalled that, at its previous meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert 
to the notifications by China that had been circulated in documents  G/MA/QR/N/CHN/4/Rev.1 and 
G/MA/QR/N/CHN/5/Rev.1. Q uestions had been raised by Switzerland and the United States.  
5.11.   The representative of the United States  reiterate d her delegation 's concern s over the negative 
trade and environmental impacts resulting from China' s progressively restrictive import ban, and 
accompanying measures, on certain solid waste imports, including recyclable materials , such as 
certain plastic and paper scrap , while allowing certain "recycled raw materials ", such as copper, 
aluminium, and brass to be imported as long as those materials met strict purity standards. These 
concerns had been expressed previously in this and many other WTO  bodies. The United States was G/MA/M/73  
- 13 - 
  also concerned with what appear ed to be different requirements for foreign and domestic 
commodities. The United States asked C hina whether it had  any plan to apply the same bans and 
restrictive contaminant standards to both foreign and domestically -sourced materials, and if not, 
why that was not the case. The United States also ha d concerns that certain scrap materials , like 
bundled recycled newspaper , would be banned, whereas other more processed scrap materials , such 
as pulped paper and "smelter ready " metals  would be allowed.  She asked China to please explain 
the scientific basis that it had used to determine which categories o f scrap materials were safe and 
which were not. Additionally, she indicated that these policy measures appear ed to be contrary to 
China' s own pro -circular economy narrative , which it had been  promoting in the WTO as well as 
internationally. The United States considered that t hese measures had hinder ed China' s aspirations 
to transition to a more resource efficient, global circular economy , by directly impacting global 
recycling networks. Her de legation reiterate d its request that China immediately halt the 
implementation of its ban and revise the import restricting measures in a manner that would be 
consistent with existing international standards for trade in scrap materials, which provide d a global 
framework for transparent and environmentally sound trade in recycled commodities.  
5.12.   The representative of Switzerland  noted that her delegation did not have any pending  question 
on China's notification . 
5.13.   The representative of China  thanked  Switzerland and the United States  for their statements  
regarding China's solid waste prohibition . He recalled that China ha d responded on several occasions  
to these questions, and in order to save time, he referred Members to China's past statements in 
this Committee, the Committee on Import Licensing , and the Council for Trade in Goods . He also 
wished to  highlight some key points concerning China's  position.  Solid waste was different from 
other normal goods due to its inherent ly pollu ting attributes. Every Member ha d the obligation to 
properly handle and dispose of its domestically  produced solid waste. As a country that had suffered 
the pollution of imported solid wastes for decades, it was imperative for China to implement 
measures t o limit the negative effect from the solid waste.  
5.14.   The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed to revert to the notifications at 
its next meeting.  
− Colombia (G/MA/QR/N/COL/1 /Add.1 ) 
5.15.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new notification by Colombia, which related to 
temporary measures necessary to combat the COVID -19 pandemic.  
5.16.   The Committee took note  of the notification.  
− Costa Rica (G/MA/QR/N/CRI/3/Add. 2, G/MA/QR/N/CRI/4 ) 
5.17.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to  two new notifications by Costa Rica. The first 
notification related to temporary measures necessary to combat the COVID -19 pandemic , and the 
second was a complete notification for the period 2020 -2022.  
5.18.   The Committee took note  of the notification s. 
− Cuba (G/MA/QR/N/CUB/5)  
5.19.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new notification by Cuba, which was a complete 
notification for the period 2020 -2022.  
5.20.   The Committee took note  of the notification.  
− Egypt (G/MA/QR/N/EGY/1, G/MA/QR/N/EGY/1/Rev.1 /Add.1 ) 
5.21.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new notification by Egypt, which related to 
temporary measures necessary to combat the COVID -19 pandemic.  G/MA/M/73  
- 14 - 
  5.22.   The representative of Switzerland  asked Egypt to confirm whether  measures 2 and 3 in the 
notification were  still in force.  
5.23.   The representative of Egypt  took note of Switzerland's question s, which  would be forward ed 
to Capital  and answered in due course . 
5.24.   The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed to revert to the notifications at 
its next meeting . 
− European Union (G/MA/QR/N/EU/4/Add. 3, G/MA/QR/N/EU/ 5) 
5.25.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to two new notification by the European Union. The 
first notification related to temporary measures necessary to combat the COV ID-19 pandemic , and 
the second was a complete notification for the period 2020 -2022.  
5.26.   The Committee took note  of the notification s. 
− Georgia (G/MA/QR/N/GEO/2 /Add.2) 
5.27.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention  to two new notifications by Georgia, which related 
to temporary measures necessary to combat the COVID -19 pandemic and, in particular, the 
elimination of some of the se measures.  
5.28.   The Committee took note  of the notification.  
− Hong Kong, China  (G/MA/QR/N/HKG/5)  
5.29.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention t o a new notification by Hong Kong, China, which 
was a complete notification for the period 2020 -2022.  
5.30.   The Committee took note  of the notification.  
− India (G/MA/QR/N/IND/2, G/MA/QR/N/IND/2/Add.1)  
5.31.   The Chairperson  recalled that, at its previous meeting, the Co mmittee had agreed to revert 
to the notifications by India circulated in documents  G/MA/QR/N/IND/2 and 
G/MA/QR/N/IND/2/Add.1.  A question had been raised by the United States.  
5.32.   The representative of the United States  wished to o nce again express her delegation's  concern 
over the import restrictions that India ha d implemented on certain pulses . Although she would 
address the issue under a separate agenda item, the United States  remain ed concerned that India 
had not updated its QR  notification to reflect these restrictions . Previously, India had informed this 
Committee that its restrictions on pulses were temporary . However, some of the restrictions ha d 
been in place since August  2017 and India had extended them through March  2021. The United 
States  question ed how these measures  could be considered to be "temporary ". The 2012  Decision 
on Notification Procedures for Quantitative Restrictions d id not differentiate between temporary and 
permanent restrictions . Rather, Members were required to report "complete notifications of all 
quantitative restrictions in force ". She noted that the meeting 's agenda include d numerous 
temporary measures that Members had notified to combat COVID -19. The United States  urged India 
to update its QR  notification accordingly.  
5.33.   The representative of India thanked the delegation of the U nited States  for its comments on 
India's QR  notification . His delegation would reply to this issue under the separate agenda item . 
5.34.   The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed to revert to the notifications at 
its next meeting.  G/MA/M/73  
- 15 - 
  − Israel (G/MA/QR/N/ISR/1 /Add.1 , G/MA/QR/N/ISR/1/A dd.2) 
5.35.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to two new notifications by Israel, which related to 
temporary measures necessary to combat the COVID -19 pandemic.  
5.36.   The Committee took note  of the notification s. 
− Japan ( G/MA/QR/N/JPN/5)  
5.37.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new notification by Japan, which was a 
complete notification for the  period 2020 -2022.  
5.38.   The Committee took note  of the notification.  
− Kazakhstan (G/MA/QR/N/KAZ/3)  
5.39.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new notification by Kazakhstan, which was a 
complete notification for the period 2020 -2022.  
5.40.   The representative of Switzerland  indicated that her delegation had several questions which 
would be submitted directly to Kazakhstan in writing. Switzerland had noted that there were some 
missing pieces of information  in the notification . For instance , it seems that QR No. 20 was missing 
and QR No. 19 was mentioned twice , which seem ed to be a  numbering problem . In addition, for the 
second  QR No. 19, on page 38 of the notification,  which related to import restrictions on rough 
diamond s, she observed that the Convention on Intern ational Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 
Fauna and Flora (CITES) had been cited as the justification , which did not seem to be relevant in 
this particular context . Further down  on that page, there was an additional problem in the 
numbering , because  QR No. 19 went directly to QR  No. 22. There had been a similar problem with 
QR No. 28, which jumped to 30 , and both were mentioned after QR  31. 
5.41.   The representative of Kazakhstan  thanked  Switzerland for their statement  and asked for a 
written copy of it so that it could be forwarded  to the  competent authorities of Kazakhstan.  
5.42.   The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed to revert to the notification at 
its next meeting.  
− Republic of Korea ( G/MA/QR/N/KOR/2/A dd.2 G/MA/QR/N/KOR/2/A dd.3, 
G/MA/QR/N/KOR/2/A dd.4, G/MA/QR/N/KOR/2/A dd.5, G/MA/QR/N/KOR/3 ) 
5.43.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to five new notifications that had been submitted 
by the Republic of Korea.  Four of these new notifications related to temporary measures to combat 
the COVID -19 pandemic , and the other  was a complete new notification for the period 2020 -2022. 
He also noted that Korea had submitted a sixth  notification , where it had informed Members of the  
elimination of the COVID -19 measures , which unfortunately had arrived after the agenda  had closed; 
for this reason, it would be reviewed at the Committee's next formal meeting.  
5.44.   The Committee took note  of the notification s. 
− Macao, China  (G/MA/QR/N/ MAC/5 ) 
5.45.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new notification by Macao, China, which was 
a complete notification for the period 2020 -2022. He thanked Macao, China for having submitted 
the first  notification for this biennial period.  
5.46.   The Committee took note  of the notification.  G/MA/M/73  
- 16 - 
  − Malaysia  (G/MA/QR/N/ MYS/1) 
5.47.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new complete notification by Malaysia for the 
biennial period 2018 -2020, which was its first notification.  
5.48.   The Committee took note  of the notification.  
− Mauritius (G/MA/QR/N/MUS/5)  
5.49.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new notification by Mauritius, which was a 
complete notification for the period 2020 -2022.  
5.50.   The Committee took note  of the notification.  
− Moldova, Republic of  (G/MA/QR/N/ MDA/1/Add.2, G/MA/QR/N/MDA/2 ) 
5.51.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to two  new notifications by the Republic of Moldova. 
The first new notification related to temporary measures necessary to combat the 
COVID -19 pandemic , and the second was a compl ete notification for the period 2020 -2022.  
5.52.   The Committee took note  of the notifications.  
− Norway (G/MA/QR/N/NOR/1/A dd.1) 
5.53.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new notification by Norway, which related to 
temporary measures necessary to combat the COV ID-19 pandemic.  
5.54.   The Committee took note  of the notification.  
− Peru (G/MA/QR/N/ PER/2)  
5.55.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new notification by Peru, which related to 
temporary measures necessary to combat the COVID -19 pandemic.  
5.56.   The Committee took note  of the notification.  
− Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of (G/MA/QR /N/SAU/1)  
5.57.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new notification by the Kingdom of Saudi 
Arabia, which related to temporary measures necessary to combat the COVID -19 pande mic. This 
was the first QR  notification by Saudi Arabia.  
5.58.   The Committee took note  of the notification.  
− Switzerland (G/MA/QR/ N/CHE /3) 
5.59.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new notification by Switzerland, which was a 
complete notification for the peri ods 2018 -2020 and 2020 -2022.  
5.60.   The Committee took note  of the notification.  
− Chinese Taipei (G/MA/QR/N/TPKM/4)  
5.61.   The Chairper son drew Members' attention to a new notification by Chinese Taipei, which was 
a complete notification for the period 2020 -2022.  G/MA/M/73  
- 17 - 
  5.62.   The Com mittee took note  of the notification.  
− Thailand (G/MA/QR/N/THA/2, G/MA/QR/N/THA/2/Add.1, G/MA/QR/N/THA/2/Add.2, 
G/MA/QR/N/THA/2/Add.3)  
5.63.   The Chairperson  recalled that the Committee had agreed to revert to the notifications by 
Thailand, where questions had bee n raised by the European Union. The last two  notifications  were 
new and related to temporary measures necessary to combat the COVID -19 pandemic.  
5.64.   The representative of the European Union  recalled  that the EU had submitted a number of 
questions , which remained outstanding. S ince January  2017, Thailand ha d put in place an import 
licensing regime for wheat (animal feed) which require d the importers concerned to purchase 
three  portions of locally harvested corn for importing one  portion of feed whea t. At the last meetings 
of this Committee, the European Union had  noted that Thailand's notification did not include the 
import licensing requirements for feed wheat. Given that , in the EU's  view, these were non-automatic 
licensing requirements, they shoul d have been included in Thailand's notification.  The EU had 
expressed numerous times its concerns on the import procedures for feed wheat in the Committee 
on Import Licensing and the Committee on Agriculture. The EU wished  to remind Thailand that its 
written replies to the EU's  questions , which had been submitted to the Committee on Import 
Licensing in April  2017 and March  2018, remained pending (documents  G/LIC/Q/THA/3 and 
G/LIC/Q/THA/4). The EU wished to reiterate its interest in understanding the basis of the measure, 
which had been announced as temporary,  given that it had been maintained for so long , over 
three  years , and when it  would cease to apply. The EU was also concerned about the 
WTO compatibilit y of Thailand's import licensing regime for feed wheat. Further, given market and 
policy developments related to corn since last year, the EU understood that there were no economic 
reasons to keep the measure in place. The EU also wanted to  understand whet her, pending the 
removal of the licensing regime, Thailand intend ed to notify it in accordance with Articles  1.4 and 5 
of the Import Licensing Agreement and to add  them to its notification on quantitative restrictions.  
The EU acknowledge d that a new price support programme for corn  had been launched since 
20 December  2019 and extended until October  2021, in parallel to additional measures to support 
corn farmers. The EU sought  an update on the implementation of the price support programme and 
request ed Thailand to notify it to the WTO  Committee on Agriculture.  
5.65.   The representative of Thailand  thanked the EU for its questions and inform ed the Committee 
that, from January to August  2020, Thailand had imported approximately 1.14  million ton nes of feed 
wheat . This represented an increas e from the same period in 2019, in which the import volume had 
been approximately one million ton nes. Further more, between 2017 and 2019 , Thailand' s average 
import volume of feed wheat had been  1.72 million ton nes per year. Thailand expected  that the total 
imports of feed wheat in 2020  would be similar to previous years. Her delegation had  consulted with 
the relevant stakeholders in Thailand, including farmers and industries, with a view to improving the 
supply chain of animal f eedstuffs. Thailand  would review this measure, which need ed in-depth 
examination  of various factors , as well as a  comprehensive analysis of economic and social impact. 
Finally, she indicated that her delegation would share  further information at a later st age. 
5.66.   The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed to revert to the notifications at 
its next meeting.  
− Ukraine (G/MA/QR/N/UKR/4/Add. 5, G/MA/QR/N/UKR/4/Add. 6, G/MA/QR/N/UKR /5) 
5.67.   The Chairperson  noted that the Committee had already reviewed and tak en note of these 
notifications, which had been included in the Airgram by mistake. No action was required by the 
Committee.  
− United States (G/MA/QR/N/USA/2, G/MA/QR/N/USA/3, G/MA/QR/N/USA/4, 
G/MA/QR/N/USA/4/Add.1,  G/MA/QR/N/USA/4/Add.2, G/MA/QR/N/USA/5, G/MA/W/116, 
G/MA/W/127)  
5.68.   The Chairperson  recalled that, at its previous meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert 
to different notifications by the United States, as there were still question s from the European Union 
which had been circulated in documents  G/MA/W/116 and G/MA/W/127. Since then, the United G/MA/M/73  
- 18 - 
  States had submitted a new notification, which related to temporary measures necessary to combat 
the COVID -19 pandemic.  
5.69.   The representative of  the European Union  recalled that her delegation had been expressing  
concern  over US trade prohibitions on sturgeon products in this Committee since 2015. The EU had 
also submitted written questions to the US on two  occasions.  Given the limited explanations  that 
had been received, it still remain ed unclear to the EU why the US consider ed, first, that wild and 
farmed sturgeon and their products were not separate categories and , second, that captive -bred 
sturgeon and its products were considered detrimental to  the survival of wild stocks, which was 
against CITES and EU  criteria.  At past meetings of this Committee, the US  had informed Members 
about an ongoing review that was being carried out by the US  Fish and Wildlife Service on the listing 
of sturgeon species as endangered. Her delegation would  appreciate an update o f this review.  
5.70.   The representative of China  reiterate d his delegation 's concerns over US import quotas on 
steel and aluminium  products und er Section  232, which  had been reflected in the US  notification 
circulated as document  G/MA/QR/N/USA/4 . China asked the United States  to provide detailed 
information on these  measures, including the specific quantities and requirements for these import 
quotas. Additionally, China  hoped that the US could clarify how these import quotas could address 
its so -called national security concerns.  China believe d that these import restrictive measures were 
inconsistent with Article  XI, "General Elimination of Quantitative Restrictions" , and Article  XXI, 
"Security Exceptions" of the GATT.  
5.71.   The representative of the United States  thanked the European Union for its continued interest 
in this matter.  As had previously been indicated , there were five foreign species of sturgeon listed 
as endangered under the US  Endangered Species Act (ESA) . The ESA applie d not only to wild 
animals , but also to those in captivity . When a species was listed under the ESA, the listed entity 
include d both captive and wild animals.  The US ha d not made a finding under the ESA that farmed 
sturgeon products were considered detrimental to the survival of wild stocks , because t his was not 
a criterion under the ESA.  There were ten additional species of sturgeon under revi ew by the US 
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).  In December  2017, the USFWS had published a preliminary 
determination that one of those species, the Yangtze River sturgeon, was presently in danger of 
extinction and should be considered endangered under the  ESA. She asked Members to refer to 
82 Federal Register  61230 of 27  December  2017. The final determination was currently under 
review by USFWS  leadership.  With respect to the current status of the nine  other species under 
review, the USFWS was conducting a 12-month  status review on the petition to list those species of 
sturgeon under the E SA. The Service was collecting and evaluating information and ha d not made a 
determination regarding the listing of t hese species . She noted that a  listing determination  would be 
made on the best scientific and commercial information available . More specifically, the Service was 
currently reviewing the Amur, Caspian, and Siberian sturgeon . The Caspian sturgeon review inc luded 
Russian, Persian, ship, and stellate sturgeon . She recalled that the EU could  provide additional 
information to help us make this determination  at any time during the Service’s review . Once the 
status review was completed, if the Service found that l isting was warranted, the Service  would 
prepare a proposed rule. At that point, the public  would be given 60  days to comment on the 
proposed listing. This  would give the European Union  another opportunity to provide the Service 
with information.  Her delega tion would be happy to facilitate a discussion among the relevant 
authorities , as appropriate.  The United States had  taken note of the comments and questions that 
had been raised by China regarding the WTO  consistency of the Section  232 quotas. The United 
States ha d invoked Article  XXI(b) of the GATT  1994 and the actions were,  therefore , wholly 
WTO-consistent . Regarding questions relating to the operation of the Section  232 quotas, she 
referred Members to the proclamations that had been issued by the  President under Section  232, 
and to quota implementation information that had been published on the website of US  Customs 
and Border Protection.  
5.72.   The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed to revert to the notifications at 
its next meeting.  
− Uruguay (G/MA/QR/N/URY/4)  
5.73.   The Chairper son drew Members' attention to a new notification by Uruguay, which was a 
complete notification for the period 2020 -2022.  G/MA/M/73  
- 19 - 
  5.74.   The Committee took note  of the notification.  
− Viet Nam (G/MA/QR/N/VNM/1)  
5.75.   The Chairperson  drew Mem bers' attention to a new notification by Viet Nam, which related to 
temporary measures necessary to combat the COVID -19 pandemic , which had been removed during 
the first  part of the year.  
5.76.   The Committee took note  of the notification . 
B. Report from the Secretariat (G/MA/QR/9)  
5.77.   The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to document  G/MA/QR/9 , entitled "Status of 
Notifications under the Decision on Notification Procedures for Quantitative Restrictions 
(G/L/59/Rev.1) ", where the Secretariat had summarize d the status of notifications as of 
30 September  2020. This document showed that compliance had improved with respect to previous 
years, and in particular for the biennial period 2018 -2020, where the number of Members which had 
notified had increased by al most one  third. However, the overall compliance with this notification 
requirement remained relatively low. The Secretariat had informed him that one  Member had noticed 
that the information in the "date" column had mixed information between the date of sub mission 
and the date of circulation of the notification. The Secretariat was currently examining how best to 
resolve this problem and would issue a revision before the end of the year. The Decision on 
Notification Procedures for Quantitative Restrictions i n document  G/L/59/Rev.1 provided that: 
"Members shall make complete notifications of all quantitative restrictions in force by 
30 September  2012 and at two yearly intervals thereafter." Therefore, he urged Members that ha d 
never notified, or that ha d failed to notify for the current biennial period (2020 -2022), to comply 
with this important transparency provision and to contact the Secretariat in case they needed 
technical assistance. In addition, it was hoped that the new version of the QR  database, which now 
included additional information to help Members to prepare their notifications, would also assist 
Members in this task.  
5.78.   The representative of the European Union  noted that her delegation appreciated the increased 
notification activity in 2020, even tho ugh this had been  to a large extent due to the 
COVID -19 pandemic, during which numerous Members had taken temporary trade restrictions on , 
for example , medical supplies. The European Union wished to  express its thanks to those Members 
that had recently made their first QR  notification.  She also  noted that several Members with fewer 
capacity constraints than LDCs ha d still never submitted a QR  notification , so she encourage d them 
to provide the relevant notifications in the interest s of transpar ency.  
6  REPORT BY THE SECRETARIAT ON THE STATUS OF RENEGOTIATIONS UNDER 
ARTICLE  XXVIII OF THE GATT  1994 (G/MA/W/123/REV.7)  
6.1.  The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to  a new revision of the "Factual Report on 
the Status of Renegotiations under Article  XXVIII of the GATT  1994", which had been circulated in 
document  G/MA/W/123/Rev.7.He recalled that a full version of the Secretariat's report and 
presentation had been made available as a room document and would be incorporated into the 
minutes of the meetin g.10 
6.2.  The Secretariat  (Mr Roy Santana) recalled that the "Factual Report on the Status of 
Renegotiations under Article  XXVIII of the GATT  1994" (G/MA/W/123/Rev.7) provided an overview 
of all the renegotiations  which had been undertaken by WTO  Members pursuant to Article  XXVIII of 
the GATT  1994. There had been 49  renegotiations , at different stages of the procedures. The overall 
status , as of 20  October  2020, was as follows:  24 renegotiation procedures had been concluded and 
the modifications certified;  five renegotiations had been c oncluded (step  1), and the draft changes 
had been submitted under the 1980  Procedures (step  2), but they had not yet been certified; 
one renegotiation  had been concluded (step  1), but the Member had not yet followed the 
1980 Procedures (step  2); 11 renegot iations remained ongoing;  one request to initiate a 
renegotiation under Article  XXVIII:4 had not been approved; and  eight renegotiation procedures had 
been withdrawn.  He also provided additional information with respect to each of those categories. 
 
10 Documents  RD/MA/71 and RD/MA/73 . G/MA/M/73  
- 20 - 
  With respect to the eight  procedures which had been withdrawn, some were linked to enlargements 
of the European Union. In these cases, a Member with an individual Schedule ha d begun a 
renegotiation process on its own, but then the overall Schedule had been withdrawn when that 
Member joined the European Union. In one  case, the request for authorization to initiate a 
renegotiation under paragraph  4 of Article  XXVIII of the GATT  1994 had not been approved by the 
Council for Trade in Goods.  
6.3.  In general, it could be said that renegotiations under Article  XXVIII followed a "two -step" 
process from their initiation to their full completion. Under the first  step, Article  XXVIII procedure s 
had been  undertaken and concluded once the renegotiating Member had circulated the bilateral 
agreements with the Members holding rights in the negotiations (namely, Members holding Initial 
Negotiating Rights, principal suppliers, and Members with a subst antial interest), as well as the final 
report describing  the outcome of its renegotiation. The second  step of the procedures required the 
renegotiating Member to submit the draft modifications to its Schedule under the "1980  Procedures 
for the Modification  and Rectification of Schedules" (1980  Procedures). In the absence of objections 
within a three -month  period from the date of circulation of the draft changes, this second  step would 
result in a certification of the modifications to the Schedule by the Dir ector-General.  
6.4.  As of the date of this report, there had been one  case where the Member had concluded the 
bilateral negotiations, but the Member had failed to submit the draft modifications through the 
1980 Procedures. In five  renegotiations, Members had concluded the negotiations and consultations 
with the other Members, submitted the bilateral agreements and the final report, and had begun the 
1980 Procedures. However , four of these procedures were on hold due to reservations and the 
conclusion of one of them was subject to the completion of domestic procedures. Of the 
49 renegotiations, 24  had been successfully concluded and the modifications certified. This meant 
that approximately half of the renegotiations had been successfully concluded , and all the relevant 
procedures completed. Finally, there had been  11 renegotiations that had been la unched or 
authorized. This included a new procedure under Article  XXVIII that had been launched in the year 
2020. These procedures remained ongoing either because the negotiations and consultations had 
not yet been concluded , or the renegotiating Member ha d not taken any further action under the 
1980 Procedures.  He concluded by noting that t he Secretariat stood ready to provide technical 
assistance to Members as required.  
6.5.  The Committee took note  of the statement and the document.  
7  TRADE -RELATED MEASURES RELA TING TO THE COVID -19 PANDEMIC  
7.1  The Chairperson  recalled  that there were two  issues under this agenda item. The first  item was 
the revised document by the Secretariat with the list of all notifications and communications relating 
to the COVID -19 pandemic , which had been submitted by Members to this Committee as of 
20 October  2020 ( document  G/MA/W/157/Rev.1). The second  item concerned three  new 
communications that had been submitted by Members with unilateral measures aim ed at facilitating 
trade during the pan demic. He took the opportunity to thank those Members that had informed the 
Committee of these measures , despite the fact that no obligation to do so existed in the 
WTO Agreements. In addition, he been informed by the representative of the World Customs 
Organization that she wished to provide a short report on the WCO  work in this area . The 
Chair person  proposed to begin with this statement and then to open the floor on both sub -items.  
7.2  The representative of the WCO (Ms Gael Grooby ) noted that the WCO's response to the 
disruptions that had been caused by the pandemic continue d to be centred  around the following 
three  pillars:  (i) communication and sharing of information;  (ii) partnerships; and 
(iii) capacity -building . In terms of co mmunication and sharing of information, since 1  June, the WCO 
had issued two  updates to the HS  Classification reference for COVID -19-related  medical supplies. 
The current version was version  3.01, which had been made  available in six languages .11 On 
26 October  2020, the World Health Organization (WHO)  had published a new List  124 – COVID -19 
(special edition) under the International Non-Proprietary Names for Pharmaceutical Substances 
(INN). The new list contain ed 25 substances which had been considered to  be pertinent to the 
treatment of COVID -19. Given the importance of these substances, the WCO and the WHO had 
agreed to continue to work together by coordinating the drafting of a document on the 
HS classification of these 25  substances. This document  would be discussed at the 36th Session of 
 
11 hs-classification -reference_edition -3_en.pdf (wcoomd.org) . G/MA/M/73  
- 21 - 
  the WCO Scientific Sub -Committee from 16 to 27  November  2020, with the attendance of 
WHO experts. It was believed that guidance on the classification of these 25  substances in the HS  
would contribute to facilitating trade in products containing them if  there was progress in the 
treatment of COVID -19 by using them, as their movement across borders  would be expected to 
increase.  In early June  2020, the WCO had issued the 4th edition of the WCO  Secretariat N ote on 
"What Customs  could do to mitigate the effects of the COVID -19 pandemic ", which highlight ed and 
categoriz ed measures that Customs  could implement to mitigate the effects of the 
COVID -19 pandemic .12 Enforcement Operation STOP had been  conducted from 11  May to 
12 July 2020 with the involvement of 99  Members, the RILO  network, and a number of stakeholders, 
such as INTERPOL, the UNODC, OLAF, Europol , and the private sector , represented by Novartis, 
Servier, Pfizer, Sanofi , and UL. The scope of the operation had covered the  targeting and inspection 
of consignments that may contain counterfeit, substandard , and illicit pharmaceutical products and 
other goods posing a threat to health and safety. The report of Operation STOP had been  launched 
at a webinar held on 6  October  2020.  
7.3  With the financial support of the Government of Japan, in July  2020 the WCO had launched the 
WCO COVID -19 Project , which aimed at improving the capacity of Customs administrations in 
developing and least developed countries to address the challenges related to COVID -19 and other 
infectious diseases and disruptive events. The project had been  entrusted with the development of 
WCO Guidelines on disaster management and supply chain continuity, and with the delivery of 
capacity building activities at the regional and national levels.  The topic of the role of Customs in 
mitigating the effects of the COVID -19  pandemic had been  on the agenda of the Spring and 
Autumn  2020 Pe rmanent Technical Committee (PTC) sessions. During its 227th/228th Sessions , held 
from 15  May to 3  July 2020, the PTC had taken note of the information on WCO  instruments, tools, 
initiatives , and databases that  could be utilized in the efforts to address t he various 
COVID -19-related challenges faced by Customs and their stakeholders.  The PTC had also taken  note 
of the proposals, to be discussed further, for future WCO  work with regard to the role of Customs in 
the different phases of the disaster management  cycle, namely conducting a review and gap analysis 
of existing instruments and tools, developing a new tool dealing with business continuity and the 
role of Customs in the different phases of the disaster management cycle, as well as developing a 
database  or compendium of best practices, and agreed to keep the topic on the agenda of future 
PTC meetings.  At its 229th/230th Sessions, which had been held from 28  September until 
29 October  2020, the PTC had taken  note of the update on the progress that had been made under 
the WCO  COVID -19 Project and the development of draft WCO  Guidelines on disaster management 
and supply chain continuity . It also  noted the importance of these guidelines in view of the role of 
Customs administrations in facilitating the expected movements of vaccines around the world, and 
took note of the guidance, comments , and suggestions made by delegates.  The WCO had continued 
promoting the role of Customs in mitigating the effects of the COVI D-19 pandemic at various fora. 
The WCO had delivered a presentation at the informal meeting of the Trade Facilitation Committee 
that had been held on 30  September  2020. In addition to the WCO  report on TFA  implementation 
assistance and activities during the COVID -19 pandemic , the WCO had provided a written report on 
the Mercator Programme assistance to the  meeting of the Committee on Trade Facilitation held from 
20 to 22  October  2020.  
7.4  The representative of Colombia  thank ed the WTO Secretariat for updating the list of documents 
and notifications to this Committee with the measures that had been introduced to address the 
COVID -19 pandemic. Although it was useful to have a  centralized list of  all the notifications, her 
delegation considered it important for the document to be expanded with additional information that  
could be used by her authorities , and by all Members , to carry out an analysis and follow -up to the 
measures , thereby contributing to transparency. Colombia considered  it useful that t he document 
present ed aggregate information on the subjects covered by the communications , as well as the 
number of subheading and tariff subheadings affected by the measures. And to the extent  possible , 
to also include a factual analysis on the trade that had been affected by the notified measures . At a 
later stage, the Committee could consider the possibility of including an analysis of the trade flows 
and other elements that could be considered of interest . It would also be useful to have information  
on the duration of these measures , as well as the deadlines provided for the ir termination. This 
information could be extracted directly from the notifications and from the various communications 
that ha d been assessed by this Committee. She recalled that  Colombia had previously requested to 
 
12 http://www.wcoomd.org/ -/media/wco/public/global/pdf/topics/facilitation/activities -and-
programmes/natural -disaster/covid_19/covid_19 -categorization -of-member -input_may -29-2020_edition -
4_en.pdf?la=en .  G/MA/M/73  
- 22 - 
  have a standing agenda item on this issue, to have a clear and comprehensive  picture of all the se 
notifications , thereby  facilitating the possibility to follow -up and analyse  these measures. After 
Members had submitted  new notifications and communications on measures directly related to the 
pandemic , it was important for the Committee to review and analyse them according  to its mandate. 
She recalled  that the  pandemic would not be over soon, so the consequences of this h ealth 
emergency would be felt for many more months  to come . As a result, she made a call for 
transparency and to use the WTO  bodies to share information , undertake analysis, and to identify 
tools that would enable the Membership to face future crises . Fina lly, she thank ed the 
WCO Secretariat for its report and hoped that Members could benefit from similar reports in future  
meetings.  
7.5   The representative of Indonesia  noted that th e COVID -19 pandemic ha d created global 
uncertainty, especially in terms of trade and the economy. Indonesia was  aware that almost all 
WTO Members  had implemented certain policies and actions to deal with the impact of this 
pandemic, and Indonesia was no exception.  Her delegation  realize d the importance of transparency 
in trade policies and trade -related policies in the handling of the COVID -19 pandemic . Supporting 
this, Indonesia ha d notified seven  policies through the SPS and TBT  Committees. Indonesia had also 
actively provided information relating to measures that facilitate d trade in goods, services , and 
intellectual property , on a periodic basis , through the Trade Monitoring Report. The information 
provided in a timely and accurate manner  could provide certainty in doing business during the 
COVID -19 pandemic.  
7.6  The representative of South Africa  thank ed the Secretariat for the updated list of measures in 
Annex  1, and the trade -facilitating  measures related to the COVID -19 pandemic  in Annex  2. South 
Africa considered that t ransparency was an important aspect of the work of this Committee. In this 
respect, looking at the format and the content of the report  by the Secretariat , South Africa believe d 
that the information could be made more user -friendly by incorporating a summary  of the measures 
that had been notified for both Annex  1 and Annex  2. This would make the information more 
understandable and targeted , and it would ensure that anyone looking at the information could know 
what the notification was about without having to locate the individual notification. Furthermore, 
while it was useful to know when a measure had been  notified, the table did not always clearly 
indicate when the measure had taken effect . There was invariably a lag in time between when a 
measure had first been notified and the date from when it had first applie d. In this regard, it  would 
be more useful for the table to indicate when the measure had taken  effect. It would  also be useful 
to know whether a particular notification related to a new measure or had renewed  an existing 
measure . In the overall context , the notification probably  indicate d this already. In the context of 
the COVID -19 pandemic , the types of measure that had been notified seem ed to be more 
trade -facilitati ng and include d a wide array of facilitation measures. It could be an interesting 
exercise to have an assessment of t hose trade -facilitati ng measures to enable peer -learning  from 
them. South Africa  would welcome any work that the Secretariat could do in this regard  as it saw 
value in con tinuing the discussion given the implications of the cris is. Broadly, in relation to the 
COVID -19 pandemic , South Africa was of the view that the policy responses had to be tailored to 
the needs of each country and  that a "one-size fits all " approach was not appropriate . 
7.7  The representative of  the Republic of Korea  appreciate d the continued efforts by the Secretariat 
to update  Members on trade -related measures taken in response to the COVID -19 pandemic . Korea 
had tried to notify the relevant m easures and had update d the corresponding developments on 
six occasions  since the outbreak of the pandemic.  With a view to protecting human health and 
preventing the critical shortage of essential goods, Korea had temporarily imposed a quantitative 
restric tion on exports of filtering respirators and melt brown filters, which had been  the only export 
prohibition that Korea had introduced . As the supply and demand had improved, Korea had 
withdr awn its restrictive measures on 23  October  2020, as had been notified in 
document  G/MA/QR/N/KOR/3/Add.1.  Bearing in mind the importance of transparency in the 
multilateral trading system, Korea believe d that prompt and sincere notifications would contribute 
to the response to the COVID -19 situation . 
7.8  The representati ve of Japan  noted that his delegation also appreciated  the ongoing efforts being 
made by the Secretariat to monitor Members' trade -related measures. Japan call ed upon Members 
to make timely notifications based on the WTO  rules and promptly to provide infor mation in response 
to requests from the Secretariat.  Japan believed that a ny emergency measure designed to tackle 
the COVID -19 pandemic  had to  be targeted, proportionate, transparent , and temporary, and should 
also be consistent with the WTO  rules. Further more, it considered that these export -restricting G/MA/M/73  
- 23 - 
  measures should be lifted as soon as possible once they ha d been deemed no longer necessary.  This 
Committee could be utilized to ensure  transparency and to review whether the emergency measures 
had been lifted. Japan  expect ed the Secretariat to continue to play a central role in monitoring and 
analysing  trade -related measures. In addition, Japan  acknowledge d that some Members had 
increased their tariff rate s due to the COVID -19 pandemic  and called for prompt improvement of 
such measures , as they ha d been negatively affecting trade and trade -related business activities . 
7.9   The representative of the European Union  noted that  there was widespread recognition of the 
need for transparency , and  especially in  times of crisis . Therefore, the EU  echoed the call on all 
Members to notify all the  quantitative restrictions that had been taken in the context of the 
COVID -19 pandemic.  The European Union thanked  the Secretariat for its updated repor t, which it 
considered to have been  useful , if a bit "dry" in its current form. Her delegation would also echo 
some of the suggestions that had been made by the delegation of Colombia. In addition, the 
delegation of So uth Africa had also offered some interesting suggestions. In case there would be 
additional C OVID -19-related notifications from Members , and if the Secretariat would then produce 
further updates to the report, the European Union  suggest ed that the Secretar iat make that report 
more informative and user -friendly. The Secretariat could do so by including factual information 
contained in the notifications  and communications, namely:  (i) the start-date and envisaged 
end-date of the measures ; (ii) the products co ncerned ; and (iii) the type of measure.  Such 
information would be as described by the Member in its notification  or communication.  Regarding 
the unilateral trade-facilitating measures (item  7(b) of the agenda ), she wished to draw Members ' 
attention to the most recent EU  notification under the TFA ( document  G/TFA/N/EU/1/Rev.5 , of 
5 November  2020). Through that notification, the European Union had informed  the TFA  that the 
previously notified Commission decision to exempt certain EU  entities  procuring essential protective 
medical equipment from duty and VAT had been  extended until 31  April 2020.  
7.10  The representative of Singapore  thank ed the Secretariat for its updated report and all Members 
that had submitted  notifications. Her delegation welco med Members ' efforts to improve transparency 
even during these challenging times.  Lastly, Singapore wished to support the suggestions from 
Colombia, South Africa,  and the European Union,  to make the Secretariat's report more 
user-friendly, for example, by including factual information on product coverage, whether the 
measure was new, and the start and expected end-dates of the measure.  
7.11  The representative of China  thank ed the Secretariat for its ongoing efforts to monitor the 
trade -related measures that had been implemented by Members in responding to the 
COVID -19 pandemic , and support ed the continuing work to track and discuss these measures.  China 
believe d that transparency an d global cooperation were important during a global crisis such as the 
COVID -19 pandemic . China called upon Members to avoid unnecessary trade restrictions and to 
ensure the transparency of the measures relating to the COVID -19 pandemic . 
7.12  The representative  of Switzerland  thanked the Secretariat for the timely and useful 
information , which  had given a picture of some of the notified measures related to the 
COVID -19 pandemic. However, Switzerland thought  that the compilation would add more value  if it 
included  such additional information  as the  start and end-dates of the measure , if available, plus 
product coverage and the type of restriction ( for example, export prohibition, or non-automatic 
export licence ). This additional information would be present ed in a factual summary with no legal 
implications for the Members that had notified  them. With this additional information, it  would be 
much easier for the Membership to follow the changes that governments had implement ed. 
7.13  The representative of the United  States  thanked  the European Union for its comments and 
support ed the EU 's suggestion to add basic factual information to any future updates of the 
Secretariat report.  Her delegation  believe d that  the inclusion of that factual information to a future 
updat e of the report would add further transparenc y to COVID -19-related measures that Members 
had notified. 
7.14  The representative of  the United Kingdom  thanked the Chairperson and the Secretariat for 
convening this discussion. As had been previously outlined, the United Kingdom was a vocal 
supporter of the positive role that trade, and open supply chains,  could play in tackling this 
pandemic . His delegation  remain ed committed to  facilitating trade in personal protective equipment 
(PPE), as well as key medical and healthcare products.  As such, he wished  to reiterate the UK 's 
support for the G20  principles. As the Communiqu é by G20  leaders had set out, any 
COVID -19-related measures  ought to be targeted, proportionate, transparent, and temporary. They G/MA/M/73  
- 24 - 
  should reflect an interest in protecting the most vulnerable, not create unnecessary barriers to trade 
or disruption to global supply chains, and should be consistent with WTO  rules. Th erefore , the United 
Kingdom strongly welcome d the steps that had been taken across the Membership to facilitate trade 
– some of which ha d just been outlined by Members – as these  would also support the use of trade 
policy as a critical tool in the global fight against COVID -19. However,  his delegation considered that 
more should be done. For  example, Governments still target ed their trade barriers on exactly the 
products that were most needed to combat the virus, with tariffs on disinfectant often e xceeding 
10%, and for soap exceeding  30%. That was why, as the UK 's new applied tariff regime would enter  
into force on 1  January  2021, the UK would unilaterally remove tariffs on COVID -19-critical goods. 
His delegation would  welcome similar unilateral ste ps which had already been taken by several 
Members, and encourage d others to likewise take similar action in order to make it cheaper to export 
and import these critical products across the globe. Going forward, the UK wished to continue to 
work closely wi th all Members to improve the flow of essential goods in tackling the pandemic.  The 
UK believed that there was a real scope for collaboration on different aspects, including on tariffs, 
export restrictions , and trade facilitation.  
7.15  The representative of Australia considered that the  WTO's transparency function ha d proven 
to be valuable throughout the COVID -19 pandemic . Australia encourage d Members to ensure that 
emergency measures that had been introduced in response to the COVID -19 pandemic remain ed 
targete d, proportionate, transparent, temporary, consistent with WTO  rules, and avoid ed creating 
unnecessary disruptions to supply chains. His delegation considered it important to honour 
commitments to roll  back  COVID -19-related measures  and to ensure that the temporary measures 
did not become permanent fixtures.  
7.16  The Chairperson  noted that there appeared to be support to the idea and proposed to request 
the Secretariat to modify the report in order to include factual information based on the n otifications 
and communications by Members.  
7.17  The Committee took note  of the report and of the statements made  and agreed  to request the 
Secretariat to improve the report . 
8  ENHANCING TRANSPARENCY IN APPLIED TARIFFS – COMMUNICATION BY THE 
RUSSIAN FEDERATION (JOB/MA/138)  
8.1.  The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to a communication by the Russian Federation 
entitled "Enhancing Transparency in Applied Tariffs", which had been circulated in 
document  JOB/MA/138.  
8.2.  The representative of the Russian Fe deration  indicated that her statement would cover agenda 
items  8 and 9. She wished to provide an update on the work carried out since the Committee's 
June meeting. The Russian Federation had examined Members' schedules of tariff commitments and 
had establi shed that only in 68  schedules out of 138 had all tariff lines  been bound. In 19  schedules, 
the scope of the bound tariff lines did not exceed 30 %; in 23  schedules the scope of tariff lines 
varied between 30 % and 60 %; and in 28  cases it surpassed 90 %. This  dispersion in the scope of 
bound tariffs showed that almost a half of import tariffs around the world were not bound, which for 
businesses meant a higher risk of unpredictable trade caused by changes in market access 
conditions. This area of work had beco me even more relevant in light of the new challenges caused 
by the pandemic . Timely and accurate information with regard to tariff rates could contribute 
significantly to the predictability of trade and , therefore , to the restoration of trade flow. The Russian 
Federation wished to find a possible solution for improving transparency in applied tariffs at a 
minimum cost in terms of existing domestic practices , but with a high value -added for businesses. 
As reflected i n the submissions of Australia, Brazil, and Canada, which had been  discussed at the 
previous month's meeting of the Committee on Agriculture Special Session (CoASS), this broad topic 
had reinvigorated interest among business communities and Members. The Ru ssian Federation had 
held consultations with the proponents and stood ready to seek , together with interested Members , 
ways of improving transparency in applied tariffs in order to prepare concrete proposals for MC12.  
8.3.  The representative of Australia  suppor ted giving consideration to improving the transparency 
of Members' applied tariff schedules. Unexpected increases in applied tariffs created uncertainty for 
exporters, as well as additional costs for importers, and could be a significant disincentive to tr ade. G/MA/M/73  
- 25 - 
  Australia looked forward to working with all Members to find practical solutions to that important 
issue.  
8.4.  The representative of South Africa  thanked the Russian Federation for putting this item on the 
agenda and for the update. As had been indicated i n her previous interventions, Australia still did 
not understand what gap that the proposals were trying to close. While South Africa understood and 
appreciated the importance of transparency in applied tariffs , and the predictability it provided to 
intern ational trade, including for small and medium -sized companies (SMEs) , changes in applied 
tariffs in South Africa followed a transparent process and were published in the publicly accessible 
SARS  website. South Africa  did not see what additional value there  would be in undertaking further 
notification obligations, especially for countries which  were already experiencing capacity 
constraints.  
8.5.  The representative of Japan  understood the effectiveness of enhancing transparency in the 
area of applied tariffs in o rder to strengthen predictability for stakeholders. However, it was difficult 
for Japan to publish early notice of tariff changes for reasons related to the domestic legislati ve 
process. In Japan, change s to the  tariff rates w ere published in a timely mann er on the Customs 
website. Bearing in mind that Members had complied with the provisions of the Trade Facilitation 
Agreement, Article  X of the GATT  1994, and the Decision on the Modalities and Operation of the 
Integrated Database (IDB), Japan believed it w as important to clarify the specific difficulties the 
stakeholders were facing.  
8.6.  The representative of India thanked the Russian Federation for including the issue on the 
agenda  and noted that his statement would cover agenda items  8 and 9 . His delegation  wished to 
inform Members that all notifications affecting tariff changes in India were in the public domain  
immediately, on the same day , and could be obtained from the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and 
Customs (CBIC)'s website immediately after the impos ition of the changes . In addition, India also 
regularly notified to the WTO, including under the TFA, the websites from which such information 
could be obtained. They could also be seen in the Gazette notifications through the e -gazette system. 
Moreover, India also notified changes in MFN  tariffs to the WTO  IDB database . Such changes were 
also reflected in the WTO  Trade Monitoring Report on a regular basis. Despite all the information  
that was already available , proponents still considered that additional notification obligations relating 
to changes in applied tariffs we re required. India believed that Members were entitled to raise their 
applied tariffs, as long as those tariffs were not higher than their bound tariff commitments . 
Therefore , India  did not support additions to the notification obligations that sought to c ircumscribe 
Members' negotiated rates under the WTO  Agreements.  
8.7.  The representative of the European Union  indicated that her statement would cover agenda 
items  8 and 9 . She reiterated her delegation's  interest in all constructive initiatives to enhance 
transparency on trade measures. As the issues in the submission from the Russian Federation were 
in practice related to those in the Australia, Brazil, and Canada submission on changes in applied 
tariffs and goods en route , it could be useful to discuss them t ogether. The EU  reiterated its openness 
to engage further on these submissions in the C ommittee on Agriculture in Special Session . 
8.8.  The representative of Switzerland  thanked the delegations of Australia, Brazil, and Canada for 
their proposal. As those deleg ations had conducted numerous discussions with Members in the 
CoASS, she posed the following questions: (i)  how frequent was the change of applied duties during 
the year; (i i) whether it affected all products or only some specific product categories; (iii)  whether 
it was correct to consider that the proposal addressed the same issue as that in the Russian 
Federation's proposal, namely, the modifications of applied duties during the year; and (iv)  if not, 
what were the differences between the two  proposals.  In case they had the same scope, Switzerland 
would appreciate to have a single proposal.  
8.9.  The representative of South Africa  indicated that she was also making a statement under 
agenda items  8 and 9. She wished to emphasize a few points under agenda item  9 and thanked 
Australia, Brazil, and Canada for the revised document , which captured Members' practices and 
perspectives. She observed that Members ha d a right to change their tariff as long as they stayed 
within their tariff binding, and that Members had th e right to adjust tariffs, so that they achieved 
their developmental and strategic objectives. South Africa did not agree that Members had to look 
at lower rates and liberalize their tariffs on all products, including agricultural  products , and believed 
that it was a Member 's right to increase their applied tariffs, as long as they observed their 
WTO commitments. South Africa reiterated that it followed a very transparent and inclusive system G/MA/M/73  
- 26 - 
  when it change d its applied tariffs, in which interested parties were heard and well -informed. In 
addition, economic operators could pre -clear goods once they were loaded for shipment to a South 
African port. In the view of her delegation, there were n o other difficulties that had to be addressed 
in relation to the practices that were described in the documents . South Africa also agreed with the 
co-sponsors' view that a one -size-fits-all approach would not work, as Members had different legal 
frameworks. South Africa's domest ic processes already accommodated various flexibilities that 
enabled Members and operators to participate and be heard when tariffs were changed. Neither of 
the options provided for in the paper seemed appropriate but South Africa remained open to learn 
from the best practices of other Members.  
8.10.   The representative of Singapore  indicated that she was delivering her intervention under 
agenda  items 8 and 9. Singapore thanked Russia, Australia, Brazil, and Canada for their 
submissions, and expressed its support for the overall aim of both submissions , which was to 
improve the transparency of applied tariffs. Singapore remained ready to engage in further 
discussions on this topic.  
8.11.   The representative of the Russian Federation  took the floor to respond to the questi on by 
Switzerland and observed that both papers addressed the same issue of transparency in applied 
tariffs. However, while the paper of Australia, Brazil, and Canada addressed a specific issue of 
treatment of products en route , Russia's proposal was much broader and addressed all tariffs and 
changes , and not only changes as concerned products en route . 
8.12.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
9  TRANSPARENCY IN TARIFF RATE CHANGES, AND THE TREATMENT OF SHIPMENTS EN 
ROUTE : MEMBERS ' PRACTICES AND PERSPEC TIVES – STATEMENT BY AUSTRALIA, BRAZIL 
AND CANADA (G/MA/W/160)  
9.1.  The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to a communication from Australia, Brazil, 
and Canada entitled "Transparency in Tariff Rate Changes , and the Treatment of Shipments En 
Route : Memb ers' Practices and Perspectives ", which had been circulated in document  G/MA/W/160.  
9.2.  The representative of Canada  expressed his appreciation for the comments that had been made 
under the previous agenda item . Canada also appreciated the opportunity to bring to the attention 
of the Committee a discussion of relevance in the CoASS. The CoASS  paper was a follow -up to an 
earlier paper , document  JOB/AG/168 , which had been circulated in November  2019, and which had 
asked Members  a number of questions regarding their practices relating to applied tariff increases. 
Canada and Australia had met with a broad range of Members to discuss the questions that had 
been posed in the November  paper , and had received responses  from a wide cro ss-section of the 
Membership . The CoASS  communication circulated the previous month and duplicated in 
document  G/MA/W/160 had summarized the current practices and perspectives of those Members 
that they had heard  from, and outlined options that could serve  as a basis to enhance transparency 
and predictability when applied tariffs changed. There was no common approach considering the 
differences between Members in their domestic processes , which was a comment that had been 
made by South Africa . The CoASS  paper had presented a number of options to provide some 
predictability to both importers and exporters , which is what their approach had been about. W ithin 
these options, there was nothing that prevented Members from exercising their right to adjust 
applied t ariffs within their WTO  bindings , which was an issue that had been raised by South Africa 
and India . In response to questions that had been asked, and following on the last comment by the 
Russian Federation, Canada observed that the two  papers sought to ad dress the same issue, namely 
changes in tariff rates that affected imports of products that were already contracted and on their 
way but had not yet crossed the border and not yet been imported into that country. The paper by 
Australia, Brazil,  and Canada had offered a number of options and co -sponsors were open to other 
option s, and they had added a third  option based on Brazil's experience . They were trying to address 
the problem of importers and exporters faced with an unexpected rise in tariff rates aft er they had 
concluded a contract , but before the product had been imported  into the country . Co-sponsors hoped 
that, once the discussion in the CoASS had been concluded, they would be able to collect best 
practices that Members could utilize to increase the predictability and transparency  of their 
operations . G/MA/M/73  
- 27 - 
  9.3.  The representative of Australia  observed that the need to provide greater certainty for traders 
in cases  where tariffs changed once a shipment had departed the point of export had been a concern 
of several Members for some time. Improving predictability reduced costs and facilitated trade. In 
November  2019, Australia and Canada had circulated a paper ( docume nt JOB/AG/168) in the 
CoASS, asking Members a series of questions on their practices and perspectives regarding the 
treatment of shipments en route  when a tariff changed. Australia wished to draw attention to 
document  G/MA/W/160, which detailed the initial  findings of the survey and outlined a number of 
potential options for Members to consider for enhancing the transparency of applied tariff changes. 
The goal was to secure an outcome by MC12, but it was understood that  a one -size-fits-all approach 
would no t work. Transparency in tariff rate changes was a cross -cutting issue involving both 
agricultural and non -agricultural trade. As such, Australia encouraged Members to respond to the 
survey they had circulated in the CoA SS (document  JOB/AG/168) and to consi der the practical 
options set out by Canada, Brazil, and Australia in document  G/MA/W/160 to address this important 
issue.  
9.4.  The representative of Brazil  added that the paper acknowledged that there was no common 
definition of shipment en route  and that a one-size-fits-all approach would  not be the best approach. 
However, various options had been  included on how to move forward. For example, in the case of 
Brazil, in the context of shipment en route  there was a possibility of an anticipated declaration of 
imports that provided predictability for both importers and exporters throughout the shipment. The 
paper raised an important discussion with plenty of options with the aim of increasing transparency 
in this particular matter.  
9.5.  The representative of Paraguay  indicated that her statement covered agenda items  8 and 9. 
She thanked the delegations of Russia, Australia, Brazil, and Canada for including these items on 
the agenda and noted their interconnection. Paraguay appreciated the efforts of these delegations 
in trying to facilitate a pragmatic solution to real problems that had been faced by exporters because 
of the uncertainty created by changes to applied tariff s. Paraguay would continue to support the se 
efforts and flexible solutions to enable Members to deal with this issue within their legal systems. 
For Paraguay, early notification would be difficult, but the current system applied in Paraguay allowed 
the importer to benefit from the previous tariffs in certain conditions , which she considered could 
provide a more beneficial solution to affected exporters. Paraguay encouraged delegations to 
continue with the discussion and reiterated its commitment to collaborat ing in finding a flexible and 
adaptable system . 
9.6.  The representative of Ukraine  expressed support for document  G/MA/W/160, as his delegation 
believed on the importance of improving predictability for business es. The proposal provided for the 
possibility to examine , and potentially agree  upon, on a common set of practices appli ed by Members 
to reduce the uncertainty and negative impact of unexpected increases in applied tariffs on 
businesses, including the treatment of consignments en route . Ukraine confirmed its interest in 
exploring further the potential issues that arose in t he context  of tariff changes.  
9.7.  The representative of the United States  thanked Australia, Brazil, and Canada for their initiative 
in the CMA and the CoA SS to gather information on current Member practices regarding applied 
tariff changes and the treatment o f shipments en route , and for their determination to find 
approaches to move forward in the area. The US shared the concern that unexpected increases in 
applied tariffs created uncertainty and additional costs for traders and could be a major disincentive 
to trade. As Australia and Canada had noted, based on the responses received and their discussions 
with Members, there did not appear to be a uniform manner in which applied tariff changes were 
publicly notified. The US urged Members to continue working to gether to resolve transparency issues 
on this and other subjects.  
9.8.  The representative of Japan  believed  that the crux of the matter was the lack of predictability 
for stakeholders caused by change s in MFN tariff rates in an unpredictable manner. Japan maint ained 
transparency in the approval of tariff changes so that the business sector could predict such changes. 
In any case, it would be important to clarify the specific reasons behind what the stakeholders were 
facing prior to considering possible options t hat could impose an additional burden on Members. 
Since this proposal was also discussed in the CoASS Japan wished to know  if the co -sponsors could 
share the background to their proposal in the Committee on Market Access , and if the proposal was 
intended t o extend the range of goods covered in the discussions.  G/MA/M/73  
- 28 - 
  9.9.  The representative of Switzerland  thanked the delegations of Australia, Brazil, and Canada for 
presenting their proposal to enhance transparency on applied tariffs and shipments en route . As 
they had conducted numerous discussions with Members in the CoASS, Switzerland wished to  pose 
the following questions : first , how frequent the changes of applied duties during the year were ; 
second , whether this affected all products with no difference or only some  specific product 
categories ; and third , whether  it was correct to consider that the proposal addressed the same issue 
as that in the Russian Federation's  proposal, namely, the modifications of applied duties during the 
year. If not, what were the differences between the two  proposals.  
9.10.   The representative of Canada  thanked Members for the comments that had been made. He 
recalled that the purpose of bringing this document to the CMA was to inform Members that the 
discussion was ongoing at the CoASS , and co-sponsors did not intend to bring this discussion to the 
Committee on Market Access. For the moment, they did not see any added value in having dual 
discussions on the same topic. Co -sponsors would continue to update Members as those discussions 
went forward. Canada encouraged delegates to speak with their agriculture colleagues about the 
discussion ongoing in the CoASS. This was an information exercise to ensure that the CMA was kept 
up-to-date on these discussions.  He had taken note of the question r aised by Switzerland and would 
reply bilaterally.  
9.11.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
10  ANGOLA – IMPORT RESTRICTING PRACTICES – STATEMENT BY THE RUSSIAN 
FEDERATION AND THE UNITED STATES  
10.1.   The Chairperson  recalled that this agenda item had been included at the request of the 
Russian Federation and the United States . 
10.2.   The representative of the Russian Federation  stated that , according to Presidential Decree 
No. 23/19, Angola had introduced import restriction s on certain agricultural and industrial products. 
Under Article  1 of the Decree , the measure had established priority to domestically manufactured 
products and promoted consumption of goods produced in Angola. According to the Decree, locally 
produced goo ds had to be given priority over like products; only wholesalers and domestic producers 
were authorized to import; importers had to confirm the non -availability of locally produced products 
on the internal market that they intend ed to import; and import au thorization included submission 
of contracts on the purchase of national products. Russia was of the view that the measure at issue 
could not be justified under Articles  III and XI of the GATT  1994. The Russian Federation urged 
Angola to bring these measur es into conformity with the WTO  Agreements and to lift the import 
bans on agricultural products. For the time being, Angola had failed to provide an explanation as to 
how these measures were consistent with WTO  rules, and Russia urged it to engage bilatera lly. 
10.3.   The representative of the United States  affirmed that the US viewed Angola as a critical trade 
and investment partner , and reiterated the US  concern with Angola's Presidential Decree No. 23/19, 
issued in January  2019, as it had the potential to compromise this important relationship. The US 
remained concerned that this decree appeared to be aimed at restricting Angola's imports and 
targeted 54  products, mainly agricultural  products , with the potential to target more in the future. 
It also covered  any imports that competed with goods produced in the Luanda -Bengo special 
economic zone. Since the implementation of the decree, US  agricultural exporters had reported 
confusion over how it was being enforced and of delays facing goods at the border; they  were 
particularly concerned over delays that perishable goods faced amidst all this uncertainty. The US 
requested Angola to explain if it planned to revise the decree, or how it planned to implement it, in 
light of WTO  rules, and the potential impact on t rade, investment, and businesses operating in 
Angola. Her delegation understood that Angola could have submitted this information to the 
WTO Secretariat in September  2019, but it  was not considered a proper notification . Thus, the 
United  States  urged the A ngolan government to request technical assistance from the 
WTO Secretariat to properly notify any trade measures taken under Decree  No. 23/19 to the 
appropriate WTO  Committee. Finally, her delegation  urged the Angolan government to continue its 
work with t he US  Embassy in Luanda in developing good regulatory practices and technical standards 
cooperation. Such work would help the Angolan government to develop policies and regulations that 
considered stakeholder concerns and addressed strategic policy goals, while avoiding disruptive 
trade policies.  G/MA/M/73  
- 29 - 
  10.4.   The representative of the European Union  expressed her delegation's support for Angola's 
intention to diversify its economy and to develop its domestic industry . However, the European Union 
maintained its concern o ver Decree No. 23/19. The Decree seemed to protect domestic industries in 
a manner that was not compatible with WTO  rules and that could be very detrimental to foreign 
investments in Angola. Her delegation  urged Angola to review the relevant measures in or der to 
ensure compliance with WTO  rules. At the July  CTG meeting, Angola had referred to a notification 
that it had submitted to the Secretariat in September  2019. In this regard, t he European Union 
wished to echo the US  intervention on that aspect and urg ed Angola to provide an appropriate 
notification.  
10.5.   The representative of Angola  took note of the statements made by the United States, Russia,  
and the European Union, and was grateful for the concerns raised regarding national imports. Angola 
was a country in need of development with the support of trade partners, while complying with 
international trade rules based on mutual benefits. The declaration that had been made at the 
CTG meeting of 10  June remained v alid. However, to the extent that commercial partners and 
proponents had been precise in their findings, Angola was already taking care of the matter. Angola 
reiterated that bilateral dialogue remained the best way to resolve all concerns . Therefore , in Capital, 
technical teams were ready to work with all interested embassies.  
10.6.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
11  CHINA - CUSTOMS DUTIES ON CERTAIN INTEGRATED CIRCUITS – STATEMENT BY THE 
EUROPEAN UNION, JAPAN AND CHINESE TAIPEI  
11.1.   The Chairperson  recalled that this agenda item had been included at the request of the 
European Union, Japan, and Chinese Taipei.  
11.2.   The representative of Japan  indicated that, thanks to the modification of the insulated gate 
bipolar transistor  insulated power modules ( IGBT-IPM), the tariff lines on which Japan had previously 
expressed concern had now been classified under HS8542.39. Therefore, Japan considered this point 
to have been resolved. However, as had been reiterated on successive occasions, including at the 
most recent ITA Committee  meeting , the applied tariffs on some tariff lines that were bound 
duty-free had been increased. Hence, Japan continued to share the concern s expressed by other 
Members and was closely monitoring the situation with regard to China's commitment to abolishing 
customs duties in July  2021 on all relevant items in line with the staging of the ITA  Expansion.  
11.3.   The representative of the European Union  expressed her delegation's  continued concern  over 
Chinese duties on MCO  semiconductors, which had been raised on numerous occasions in the past, 
including at the ITA  Committee 's meeting  on 30  October. The EU welcomed the positive step  that 
had been  taken by China to adequately classify certain products (Intelligent Power Modules) in their 
schedule, free of duty. However, the EU still expected China to step up the implementation of its 
commitments and urged it to reconsider the classification of other MCO  products where duties should 
not apply, even if such duties were being gradually lowered a s the implementation of the staged 
cuts progressed.  
11.4.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  noted that her delegation  had raised this issue in 
different WTO  meetings , including in this Committee, and in meetings of the ITA  Committee and the 
Council for Trade in Goods . Since 2017, ten  tariff lines that had been bound duty -free in China's 
WTO schedule, six of them also covered by China's ITA -1 commitments, were subject to duty rates 
under heading  85.42 in China's HS2017  schedule. This could not be justified by t he 
HS2017  transposition amendment that had been claimed by China, since one  core principle was that 
the scope of Members' tariff concessions under the WTO was not to be changed during their tariff 
transpositions. Since January  2020, her delegation had note d that the applied tariff rate of the 
eight-digit product classified by China in HS8542.32.10 had been temporarily modified and reduced 
from 1.4% to zero, which was a positive step. Chinese Taipei urged China to do the same on the 
other MCO  products at iss ue without delay.  
11.5.   The representative of the United States  expressed support for the statements and questions 
that had been raised by the EU, Japan, and Chinese Taipei , and reiterated the US  concern with 
regard to a change in China's applied duty rates for certain semiconductor products. This was an 
issue the US had raised numerous times in this Committee, as well as in the ITA  Committee and the G/MA/M/73  
- 30 - 
  Council for Trade in Goods . The semiconductor products had been duty -free for over a decade yet 
were currently bei ng charged import duties at the border. The US continued to assert, in line with 
the GC  decision on HS  transpositions, that the scope of China's concessions had changed 
substantially, and the value of the concessions had been impaired.  
11.6.   The representative of China  thanked Members for raising their concerns. As he had not heard 
any new question , and in the interest s of time, he would not  repeat China's responses and 
explanations, which had been provided many times previously in this Commit tee and other 
WTO bodies, as well as through bilateral channels. China had always seriously undertaken its tariff 
reduction commitments. He confirmed that a ll tariffs on MCO  products would be eliminated by 
July 2021 as had been scheduled.  
11.7.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
12  EUROPEAN UNION - CARBON BORDER ADJUSTMENT MECHANISM (THE EUROPEAN 
GREEN DEAL OF DECEMBER  2019) - STATEMENT BY CHINA AND THE RUSSIAN 
FEDERATION  
12.1.   The Chairperson  recalled that this agenda item had been included at the request of  China and 
the Russian Federation.  
12.2.   The representative of the Russian Federation  referred to the statements that had been made 
during previous meetings of the Committee on Market Access  and the Council for Trade in Goods  on 
the plans of the European Union t o introduce a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) in 
accordance with the European Green Deal Strategy published in December  2019. The Russian 
Federation understood that the European Commission had not yet determined the final design of 
this measure , but had examined the currently available information on various options for the CBAM 
and had substantial concerns over the measure's negative influence on trade and jobs. Russia 
appreciated the bilateral contacts with the delegation of the European Union i n Russia and agreed 
on the importance of mitigating the consequences of climate change. Such comprehensive work was 
done under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 
Article  2.2 of the Paris Agreement provided t hat the parties to the Agreement should act in a manner 
that reflected "equity and principle of common but differentiated responsibility and respective 
capabilities, in light of different national circumstances". However, the Russian Federation believed 
that the climate agenda should not be used unilaterally as a pretext for introducing new import 
restrictions. The attempts to extend national regulations and norms by one WTO  Member on the 
production processes of other Members could seriously contradict WTO  rules. The E uropean Union 's 
intention to use the CBAM as a new source of budget for powering its economic recovery after the 
COVID -19 pandemic  was one of the indicators that this measure was rather aimed at economic 
objectives, including fiscal and protect ionist objectives . Russia reiterated its request for the European 
Union  to provide information on the measure and its consistency with WTO  law, and asked the 
following questions: (i)  how did the EU intend to ensure compliance of the CBAM with Articles  I, II, 
and III of the GATT  1994; (ii)  which design of the measure was most likely to be considered; 
(iii) when did the EU plan to provide Members with the list of goods , including HS  codes, envisaged 
to be subjected to the CBAM; (iv)  whether the E U intended to charge a tax on goods produced in 
the EU; (v)  whether the EU would provide a reasonable period for exporters to adapt to the CBAM; 
and (vi)  what date of entry into force of the regulation was  being  envisaged or planned. Russia would 
submit it s questions to the European Union's delegation in written form through the Secretariat  and 
was open to consultations on this issue . 
12.3.   The representative of China  wished to register his delegation's concern over the European 
Union's  plan to propose a CBAM. Th e policy options indicated in this mechanism, such as import 
carbon tax or additional import duties, risked being inconsistent with WTO  rules, creating additional 
trade obstacles, and disrupting international trade flows. China encouraged the EU to provide  
additional information in order to address the following concerns: (i)  what the updated progress of 
the relevant legislation on this mechanism was; (ii)  how to ensure the consistency of the mechanism 
with WTO  rules; (iii)  what the design of the measures u nder this mechanism was; and (iv)  which 
sectors and products would be covered by this mechanism and why. China shared the climate 
ambition of the EU and other WTO  Members. However, all actions sought to achieve  that ambition 
had to be in conformity with WT O rules and not create unnecessary barriers to trade. China 
encouraged the EU to fully consider the compatibility of the mechanism with its WTO  commitments 
and to ensure the transparency of the legislative  progress.  G/MA/M/73  
- 31 - 
  12.4.   The representative of Paraguay  thanked t he Russian Federation and China for including this 
item on the agenda. She thanked the EU for the responses that had been provided to Paraguay to 
the oral questions that had been raised at the last meeting , and appreciated the fact that they had 
been provi ded in writing, which facilitated their further analysis at Capital -evel. She also thanked  
the EU  for the estimated timelines on measures that would be implemented and the assurances  that 
these measures would be in line with WTO  rules. Her delegation was interested to know whether 
carbon credits would be provided. Paraguay understood that the measures would be applied on 
energy -intensive products and also wished to know which sectors would be affected by the 
mechanism and , in particular , how it would affect the agricultural sector. Paraguay understood that 
the EU was not able to provide responses at the meeting  because the mechanism was being 
designed,  but hoped that it would have the available information in due course.  
12.5.   The representativ e of Turkey  thanked China and the Russian Federation for including this item 
on the agenda. According to  Article  3.1 of the UNFCCC, issues related to countries' implementation 
of their climate policies within the framework of their own national conditions were based on the 
principle of " common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities". Therefore, every 
country had the right to determine its own climate policy in line with this principle and thus its own 
capabilities. While countries c arried out their own policies according to their national conditions, they 
were not to take measures that would negatively affect other countries. Just as stated in Article  3.5 
of the UNFCCC, "[m]easures taken to combat climate change, including unilateral  ones, should not 
constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on 
international trade ". In addition, in accordance with Articles  3.1, 3.5, 4.8, and 4. 10 of the UNFCCC, 
while planning a policy such as carbon bor der adjustments, it was also necessary to meet the needs 
and concerns of developing country parties arising from the adverse effects of climate change and/or 
the impact of the implementation of response measures. On the other hand, any such policy had to 
respect all the relevant WTO  rules, including but not limited to Articles  I, II, III, XI, and XX of 
GATT  1994 and the provisions of other WTO  Agreements. Turkey's comments had also been 
conveyed bilaterally to the EU within the framework of the inception im pact assessment and Turkey 
hoped that they would be duly taken into account in the ensuing process.  
12.6.   The representative of Qatar  thanked the Russian Federation and China for bringing this issue 
to the C ommittee . Qatar had taken note of the European Union's Green Deal and its ambition to 
become the first  climate -neutral continent by 2050. Qatar complimented the EU for its political 
courage in setting these objectives. Qatar had also signed and ratified the Paris Agreement and was 
equally ambitious in its clim ate change objectives. However, Qatar felt obliged to express some 
trade -related concerns over aspects of the Green Deal as reflected in the EU's "Inception Impact 
Assessment" that related to the new European Climate Law. In particular, Qatar sought furthe r 
clarification with respect to the plan to introduce a CBAM to address so -called "carbon leakage" and 
how the CBAM would be applied compatibly with fundamental principles, including MFN and N ational 
Treatment . Treating "like products" differently based on  the carbon content of the production process 
seemed to go against decades of well -considered jurisprudence. Lastly, Qatar noted that respect for 
the common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different 
national  circumstances , was at the heart of the global fight against climate change. Stated 
differently, what the EU called "carbon leakage" was simply a reflection of this differentiated 
approach and in no way frustrated the efforts of the EU to meet the global c limate objectives of the 
Paris Agreement. A Member's regulatory choices and priorities were its own to make , but it would 
not be correct to impose on others the cost of such choices. Qatar thanked the EU and looked forward 
to having a closer and fruitful d iscussion on this matter.  
12.7.   The representative of  the Kingdom of  Saudi Arabia  thanked the Russian Federation and China 
for raising the subject matter of the introduction of the CBAM under the European Green Deal 
published in December  2019. While the EU had stated that the proposed mechanism would be in 
conformity with WTO  rules and other international obligations of the EU, the EU was yet to provide 
explanations on how it aimed to achieve this . While the EU was intending to address the risk of 
investment  leakage from the EU to other countries, in fact the main objective was to maintain the 
competitiveness of EU  industries. Saudi Arabia's very preliminary review indicated that the proposed 
mechanism raised very serious concerns due to its potential long -term negative implications on 
global trade that would distort the full value chain of trade , including goods, services, and jobs. The 
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia urged the EU to further engage in consultations with Members, in order to 
ensure the full compliance  of the CBAM with WTO  rules and that the proposed mechanism would not 
create unnecessary barriers to trade, or be applied in a manner that constituted protection to G/MA/M/73  
- 32 - 
  EU domestic industries. Saudi Arabia looked forward to further details and reflections from  the EU 
on this proposed mechanism and stood ready to engage with the EU and interested Members.  
12.8.   The representative of Uruguay  welcomed the inclusion of this item on the agenda. The 
announcement of the future adoption of a CBAM by the European Commission, within the framework 
of the so -called "European Green Pact", continued to generate interest by several Members of this 
house. In this regard, Uruguay appreciated the EU  comments at the last CMA  meeting and 
recognized the indicated policy objectives, while reaffirming Uruguay's high commitment to climate 
issues. Uruguay also took note of the announcements on the carrying out of impact studies and prior 
to the adoption of the measure, including its legal feasibility in light of WTO  rules and the 
Commission's intention to present a proposal for a CBAM for selected sectors in 2021. In this regard, 
Uruguay reiterated its interest in continuing to receive updated and detailed information on the 
initiative, including on its state of development and the expected time-frame for the adoption of the 
measure, the design that it would take , and its coverage at the level of sectors and products. Finally, 
Uruguay stressed once again the importance of ensuring the compatibility of the measure with the 
commitments undertaken by the European Union at the WTO.  
12.9.   The representative of  the Kingdom of  Bahrain  thanked Russia and China for placing this issue 
on the agenda. Bahrain shared similar concerns to those raised by delegations regarding the 
proposed EU  CBAM and looked forward t o further clarifications from the EU on its application and 
WTO-consistency.  
12.10.   The representative of Armenia  shared the concerns that had been expressed by previous 
speakers  concerning the EU  CBAM  initiative, and particularly by the delegations of China and the 
Russian Federation.  This was an important and sensitive issue for a number of  Members, and 
Armenia would be carefully monitoring further developments in this regard.  
12.11.   The representative of Pakistan  thanked Russia and China for their statements on this issue 
and took note of the statements made. Pakistan was also concerned about thes e developments and 
remained keenly interested in this issue. Pakistan would continue to follow further developments 
under this agenda item.  
12.12.   The representative of Kazakhstan  urged the E uropean Union  to fully consider the 
compatibility of the CBAM with WTO  rules, so that any such measure would not create obstacles to 
trade. Kazakhstan also encouraged the EU to act transparently and notify the WTO in advance of 
draft measures and to allow a reasonable period of time for WTO  Members to comment on the draft.  
12.13.   The representative of  the Kyrgyz Republic  expressed interest in this agenda item and in the 
developments and status of this issue.  
12.14.   The representative of the United States  noted that her delegation was  monitoring the 
proposed EU  CBAM and continued to follow updates and information shared by the EU with interest. 
The United States  encouraged the E uropean Union  to share details on the proposed mechanism as 
it was developed, as well as to fully consider the compatibility of any measu re it developed with 
applicable WTO  rules, in order to ensure an open system of trade and that any such measure would 
not constitute a barrier to trade.  
12.15.   The representative of Oman  thanked the Russian Federation and China for introducing this 
agenda item. O man supported those Members that had expressed concerns over the EU  CBAM. 
Further clarity was required  with regard to the proposed mechanism and criteria, as well as the 
sectors and products covered by the measure. If the main objective of the EU  proposed measure 
was sustainability, imposing additional duties would negatively affect exporters and consumers and 
would introduce new trade -restrictive measures. Therefore, Oman urged the EU to provide further 
clarifications and information on the measure. Oman l ooked forward to further discussions on this 
issue with the EU and other Members.  
12.16.   The representative of Japan  indicated that his delegation was monitoring with interest the 
measures in relation to the environment taken by Members, including policies aimed at mitigating 
global climate change. Japan expected the EU to provide sufficient information and further details 
on this mechanism in a transparent manner.  G/MA/M/73  
- 33 - 
  12.17.   The representative of Argentina  thanked the Russian Federation and China  for including this 
item on the agenda. Argentina had serious doubts  about the design of such a complex mechanism 
and its compatibility with WTO  rules, in particular with the GATT  1994. Argentina requested the 
European Union to provide information on how the measure would be designed , as well as the 
various sectors and products that would be  affected  by the measure . Since  the public consultations 
launched by the European Commission had been concluded, Argentina would also welcome 
information on this and any potential changes to the ti me-frame that had been announced  according 
to which the measures would be announced during the second  half of 2021. Finally, Argentina 
recalled that t he measure had to be notified in due time to the WTO.  
12.18.   The representative of Canada  recalled  that Canada and the European Union had a 
long-standing history of fruitful cooperation on the environment and climate change. Like the EU, 
Canada was committed to ambitious action and global leadership on climate change. Canada was 
watching recent develop ments, such as the EU's work on a new CBAM, with great interest and 
intended to be an active participant in international discussions on these issues. Canada believed 
that a  CBAM should be designed and implemented in a fair manner, focused on achieving 
environmental outcomes. It should recognize the robust carbon pricing systems in place in other 
countries (including at the sub -national level), align with international obligations and standards, 
and avoid creating unnecessary restrictions on trade. In this context, Canada encouraged the 
European Union  to develop its CBAM as transparently as possible and to use appropriate 
WTO committee meetings as opportunities to keep the broader WTO  Membership apprised of 
developments. The Government of Canada was closely monitoring the development of the CBAM 
and looked forward to engaging with the European Commission as it developed this proposal.  
12.19.   The representative of Indonesia  noted that, while they were still studying the EU  CBAM, 
Indonesia ask ed the EU to engage with all Members in a transparent manner and provide more 
detailed information on this issue, as it would help Members' understanding. Indonesia would 
continue monitor ing the development of the issue closely and looked forward to discussing it with 
the EU.  
12.20.   The representative of South Africa  thanked China and the Russian Federation for including 
this item on the agenda and shared the concerns that had been raised by other Members on the 
EU CBAM. The E uropean Union  was South Africa's biggest trading partner. South  Africa was 
interested in receiving more information on how the mechanism would be implemented and its effect 
on trade, as well as on the compatibility of the mechanism with WTO  rules and commitments.  
12.21.   The representative of the European Union  recalled  its commitment to climate neutrality by 
mid-century and the European Commission had pledged to increase the EU's climate ambition for 
2030. As long as the EU's trading partners did not take comparable climate action, there would be 
a risk of carbon leakage that  the Commission had to address. In the European Green Deal, the 
European Commission had announced that, should differences in levels of ambition worldwide persist 
as the EU increased its climate ambition, the Commission would propose by mid -2021 a CBAM, fo r 
selected sectors, to reduce the risk of carbon leakage. The European Council of 12  December  2019 
had endorsed the objective of achieving climate neutrality by 2050, including "developing effective 
measures to tackle carbon leakage in a WTO compatible way ". In the European Green Deal, the 
Commission had announced that it would make a proposal for a CBAM for selected sectors in 2021. 
Before that, the Commission would carry out a detailed impact assessment to support the 
preparation of this initiative and to  inform the Commission's proposal, which would notably look at 
environmental, social, and financial impacts, economic efficiency , and legal feasibility, in particular 
with respect to WTO  rules and EU  trade agreements, as well as in terms of complementarity  with 
the EU  Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). As part of the impact assessment, the Commission had 
actively consulted citizens and domestic and international stakeholders and had encouraged them 
to give their views on the best option to enforce ambitious po licies against climate change in an 
open economy while addressing the risk of carbon leakage. The Commission was committed to 
transparency and the inputs for the consultation had been published on the Commission's central 
consultation page. Looking forward , the Commission would engage – in multilateral and bilateral 
forums – with other trading partners to explain the options being assessed. In addition, a conference 
on CBAM was planned for end-February  or early March  2021. More specifically, in reply to Par aguay's 
intervention, the EU had provided replies in writing bilaterally on 4  November  2020.  
12.22.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  G/MA/M/73  
- 34 - 
  13  ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION TO INCLUDE CROATIA – NEGOTIATIONS 
UNDER ARTICLE  XXIV:6 OF THE GATT  1994 – STATEMENT BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  
13.1.   The Chairperson  recalled that this agenda item had been included at the request of the 
Russian Federation.  
13.2.   The representative of the Russian Federation  reiterated her delegation's deep concerns over 
the European Union' s negotiations under Article  XXIV:6 of the GATT within the framework of its 
enlargement to include Croatia. The Russian Federation had repeatedly raised this issue bilaterally, 
as well as at the Committee on Market Access and during the meetings of the Counc il for Trade in 
Goods . Their concerns had been transmitted to the European Union in writing, as well as circulated 
among WTO  Members. Russia recalled that the Russian Federation had objected  to the conclusion 
of those negotiations  in document  G/SECRET/35/A dd.4. To date, the European Union had failed to 
enter into a constructive discussion with Russia on this issue. For this reason, Russia once again  
wished to note  that these negotiations could not be considered as complete and called upon the EU 
to engage i n compensatory adjustment negotiations with Russia.  
13.3.   The representative of the European Union  reminded the Russian Federation of the 
explanations that had been provided at previous meetings. Her delegation had  informed 
WTO Members of the conclusion and outc ome of the negotiations following Croatia' s accession to 
the EU on 26  July 2018, through  document  G/SECRET/35/Add.2, pursuant to paragraph  5 of the 
Guidelines on Procedures for Negotiations under Article  XXVIII. The outcome of the Article  XXIV:6 
process wo uld be faithfully reflected in the EU -28 Schedule  CLXXV , which was currently undergoing 
certification. As of that day , they were pleased to note that they had been able to clarify and 
accommodate the comments and questions of all Members except one. The EU  had extensively and 
repeatedly explained  to the Russian Federation , orally and in writing, the reasons for not having 
accepted its compensation claims in the context of the EU's most recent enlargement. Therefore , 
she referred Members to past statements.  
13.4.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
14  EUROPEAN UNION – RENEGOTIATION OF TARIFF RATE QUOTAS UNDER 
ARTICLE  XXVIII OF THE GATT  1994 – STATEMENT BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  
14.1.   The Chairperson  recalled that this agenda item had been included at  the request of the 
Russian Federation.  
14.2.   The representative of the Russian Federation  reiterated her delegation's  concern over the EU 's 
approach to the TRQ  negotiations in the context of B rexit. The approach of the EU-28 to the 
apportionment of TRQs could n ot be considered to be WTO-consistent, nor could it provide the EU 
with the possibility to maintain a general level of reciprocal and mutually advantageous concessions. 
Her delegation was  of the opinion that these negotiations could not be concluded withou t a respective 
agreement on compensation with the principal suppliers of the products concerned. Thus, the 
Russian Federation urged the European Union  to provide compensation in order to maintain a general 
level of reciprocal and mutually advantageous conc essions.  
14.3.   The representative of the United States  stated that her intervention applied to the several 
issues that had been raised by Russia on the EU and UK's Article  XXVIII  TRQ negotiations and the 
UK's independent WTO  schedule. The  United States  remained concerned that the approach that had 
been proposed by the EU and UK would lead to a loss of access for US  goods into both markets. 
Furthermore, the proposals failed to clarify how bilateral EU -UK trade would be treated in the 
absence of an EU -UK bilateral agreement once the transition period had ended. Currently that 
bilateral trade was not subject to the TRQs. Other WTO  Members had the opportunity to export the 
full TRQ  quantity into either the UK or EU -27, but if the UK and the EU -27 were subject to the same 
TRQs others faced, they would be quickly crowded out and lose access to both markets.  The United 
States  had identified their priorities in both markets and was ready to continue to engage with the 
EU and UK in productive negotiations that would en sure that their trade interests were maintained.  
14.4.   The representative of Uruguay  wished to reiterate  once again his country's position  and the 
concerns which had been previously expressed in this and other fora. This included  
document  RD/CTG/5, which had hig hlighted the importance for the multilateral trading system of G/MA/M/73  
- 35 - 
  resolving this matter by substantive bilateral negotiations between the parties concerned , and not 
unilaterally . It should be done  in accordance with WTO  rules, respecting timely market access 
commitments and the balance of previously negotiated  concessions . Notwithstanding the Political 
Declaration on the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom, 
according to which the aim was to form a free trade area without mutua l tariffs or tariff quotas, 
seven  weeks prior to the expiry of the transition period provided for in the withdrawal agreement, a 
significant level of uncertainty remained as to the form that this relationship would take from 
1 January  2021. In this regard,  there was a real risk that the United Kingdom and the European 
Union, which maintained significant levels of trade in a number of the products concerned in the 
tariff quotas under negotiation under Article  XXVIII, would move to access , and make use of , their 
respective erga omnes  quotas. In view of the ir geographical proximity and the well-oiled trade 
relations between  the trade operators in both Members, the latter could exhaust a large part of these 
quotas, th ereby  leaving out the rest of the Members whi ch currently made use of them , or which 
could do so in the future . This could cause clear economic damage to other Members in addition to 
the damage that would be caused by other factors , which had already been raised on several 
occasions. Insofar as the Article  XXVIII processes were taking place in parallel with the bilateral 
negotiations between the European Union and the United Kingdom, Uruguay wished to once  again 
emphasize the need to take due account of these concerns in the WTO  processes.  
14.5.   The re presentative of Canada  stated that his intervention was for this agenda item as well as 
items  15 and 16. Canada continued to have concerns regarding the UK and the EU 's approach to 
apportioning the EU -28's TRQs . Canada had made these concerns clear to the UK and the EU in 
multilateral and bilateral discussions. While these concerns remained, Canada noted the EU and UK 's 
willingness to discuss these issues. Canada looked forward to continuing these discussions with the 
UK and the EU during bilateral Article  XXVIII  negotiations.  
14.6.   The representative of Indonesia  urged the European Union to accelerate the negotiation 
process by respecting WTO  rules, and maintaining the level of concession s of affected  Member s on 
a reciprocal basis.  
14.7.   The representative of Paraguay  indicated that her statement covered  items  14 and 15. She 
thanked the Russian Federation for including this item on the agenda, and reiterated Paraguay's 
concern with regard to the market access conditions which could be negatively affected by these 
proces ses. The uncertainty surrounding Brexit was a matter of concern to the EU and UK  trading 
partners , which continued to suffer from the lack of clarity on certain issues relating to TRQs, which 
could lead to a significant loss of market  in those markets . Paraguay  called on both parties to ensure 
that they had fulfilled the commitments they had undertaken and that market access  opportunities 
would remain unaltered after this process.  
14.8.   The representative of India noted that its intervention covered i tems 14, 15 , and 16. India 
thanked the Russian Federation for including these issues on the agenda. India shared the concerns 
that had been expressed by other Members, and had previously expressed its own concerns both in 
writing and in bilateral meetings with both the EU and the UK  delegations. India had also made it 
clear to them how the apportionment methodology affected Members' rights and obligations 
undertaken by the EU -28 in relation to specific tariff lines. Moreover, the future trade relationships 
among them remained unknown, which also led to uncertainty in these areas. India expected the 
EU and the UK to provide reasonable opportunities to all WTO  Members to exercise their rights under 
the WTO  Agreements and to take into account the concerns that had been raised. India looked 
forward to fruitful negotiations with both the EU and the UK . 
14.9.   The representative of Australia  thanked the Russia n Federation  for continuing to include this 
item and item  15 on the agenda. His statement covered both of these it ems. As Australia  had 
continued to state throughout this process, and without repeating the details of their previous 
interventions, Australia remained concerned over the EU and UK 's approach to splitting the EU 's 
existing TRQs as a result of Brexit. It wa s clear that the proposed modifications to TRQs would 
diminish the commercial value of Australia' s existing market access, not only by removing the 
flexibility of where a product could be  sent year -to-year, but also by rendering some TRQ  allocations 
too sm all to be commercially viable. Australia stood ready to resolve these issues constructively and 
pragmatically before the end of the transition period , including to ensur e the implementation of any 
agreed arrangements in a timely manner.  G/MA/M/73  
- 36 - 
  14.10.   The representative of New Zealand  recalled  that these two agenda  items,  items  14 and 15 , 
had become a semi -permanent fixture on the agenda for this Committee over the last two  years , as 
had her delegation's  intervention under these items.  There was a very good reason for this. The 
clock kept ticking down even more loudly and insistently on the UK’s final departure from the 
European Union's Customs Union , with less than 50  days to go until the end of the UK  transition 
period . Yet, to date, New Zealand  had only seen limited engagement from the UK and the EU to find 
solutions to address the fundamental concerns which had been raised by a large number of 
WTO Members regarding UK and EU  proposals to cut back the market access opportunities currently 
provided under their existing  bound commitments.  The time was now for the EU and UK to 
demonstrate that they had heard these concerns and that they were ready to bring to the table 
meaningful answers to address them. This included how the EU and the UK were going to deliver – 
in their  own Schedules – outcomes that would uphold the vital principle underpinning Article  XXVIII 
that other WTO  Members should not be left worse off ; how the EU and the UK were going to ensure 
– in their own Schedules – that other WTO  Members were not "crowded out" of the access they had 
negotiated in good faith under the MFN  quotas.  As had been made clear from the outset, 
New Zealand stood ready to work with the UK, the EU , and other interested WTO  Members , to find 
practical solutions to address these concerns.  However, achieving this would take real commitment 
from all sides, including  an open attitude towards the full range of possible ways to address these 
concerns in a commercially meaningful way , and a willingness to work intensively over the remaining 
50 days to secure outcomes that preserved the full value of the existing commitments the UK and 
the EU owed to other WTO  Members.  
14.11.   The representative of China  stated that his intervention would apply to agenda items 14 and 
15. China' s concerns and  requests on this issue remained unchanged. China could not accept the 
approach adopted by the EU and UK to apportion the EU -28 TRQs, which they believed would impair 
Members ' interest s. China  encouraged the EU and UK to continue to engage and take full 
consideration of all the comments and requests raised by Members both in WTO  meetings and 
bilateral consultations.  
14.12.   The representative of Mexico  stated that her intervention covered agenda items  14 and 15. 
As had been indicated by others , Mexico  shared the co ncerns that had been expressed by previous 
speakers . Mexico reiterate d its systemic concern over the intention by the European Union and the 
United Kingdom to modify the tariff quotas that would form part of their Schedule of concessions  as 
a result of the  United Kingdom's departure  from the European Union . Mexico  remained concerned 
over the inherent problems in the proposed methodology , which would  result in the reduction and 
even elimination of market access opportunities. In their view , any methodology s hould maintain 
the balance between rights and obligations that had been negotiated and assumed by Members. Her 
delegation remained unclear about the EU's future obligations towards the UK in the WTO  context , 
and vice versa, which clearly added to their systemic concern s. She urged both the EU and the UK 
to continue their discussions with WTO  Members and to take account of the trade and systemic 
concerns that had been expressed in order to find a mutually sati sfactory solution, through 
procedures in accordance with WTO  rules.  
14.13.   The representative of the European Union  recalled  that negotiations under Article  XXVIII 
remained  ongoing with the partners who had recognized rights. The last round , which had taken 
place in October  2020, had show n some good progress in these discussions. The EU welcomed the 
increased engagement of many WTO  Members. Her delegation  aimed to make progress to pave the 
way towards a constructive finalization of discussions with as many Members  as possible by the end 
of the year.  
14.14.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
15  UNITED KINGDOM – RENEGOTIATION OF TARIFF RATE QUOTAS UNDER 
ARTICLE  XXVIII OF THE GATT  1994 – STATEMENT BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  
15.1.   The Chairperson  noted that this agenda item had been included at the request of the Russian 
Federation.  
15.2.   The representative of the Russian Federation  stated that her delegation  continued to have 
significant concerns regarding the UK 's approach to the TRQ  renegotiations. She stressed that it 
would be impossible to conclude the negotiations without having an agreement on the compensation G/MA/M/73  
- 37 - 
  to be provided by the UK. She also stressed the importance of establishing the UK 's Schedule of 
concessions  in full compliance with WTO  rules and  urged the UK to provide its compensatory 
proposal.  
15.3.   The representative of Uruguay  thanked the UK for launching a process under Art icle XXVIII 
of the GATT . Uruguay wished to highlight the importance of resolving this matter by substantive 
bilateral  negotiations between the parties concerned, and not unilaterally. Given the persistent 
uncertainty on the  future trade relation s between the EU and UK , his delegation  wished to reiterate 
the need to take into account  the significant levels of existing tra de between both parties for several 
products which had erga omnes  TRQs. There was a real risk that such bilateral trade would crowd 
out the trade from the other  Members , which risked being left outside of this process. Uruguay hoped 
that, as  a result of bi lateral and confidential negotiations , the parties would be able to agree on 
market access commitments that would be in line with the reality of bilateral trade, in line with the 
specific interest s of the parties involved, that did not undermine existing o pportunities for access , 
and that fully complied with what was set out under relevant multilateral rules.  
15.4.   The representative of the United Kingdom  thanked Members for their statements concerning  
the UK 's Article  XXVIII  negotiations on their bound tariff ra te quota commitments. In June  2020, the 
UK had  circulated document  WT/GC/206, which had set out the main implications arising  from the 
United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union in the WTO. The United Kingdom had 
undertaken its transition in the WTO with the aim of maintaining the existing balance of rights and 
obligations between the UK and its trading partners. The Uni ted Kingdom had set out its Goods 
Schedule, circulated in document  G/MA/TAR/RS/570, on that basis. His delegation  had engaged 
extensively with Members on that Schedule since it was circulated, and remained open to further 
discussions. As part of the proces s of certifying their Schedule , the United Kingdom was currently 
undergoing Article  XXVIII negotiations and consultations to seek agreement with relevant 
WTO Members on how to extract the United Kingdom’s TRQ  commitments from those of the EU -28. 
The United  Kingdom had undertaken a number of negotiation rounds and thanked the relevant 
Members for their continued and increasingly constructive engagement in resolving these specific 
concerns. This engagement had continued through the COVID -19 pandemic by conduc ting 
negotiation rounds virtually, with the most recent round having taken place in October  2020. His 
delegation was  grateful to all Members involved in this process for their flexibility and understanding 
while they adapted to the challenges presented by the COVID -19 pandemic . The United Kingdom 
was committed to engaging in good faith with Members in its Article  XXVIII negotiations and looked 
forward to building on the progress and constructive conversations of recent negotiations. On the 
issue of the EU  erga omnes  TRQs, the EU and the UK had signed a political declaration on 
24 January  2020 setting out the ambitions in the negotiations between the EU and the UK in their 
bilateral negotiations , which remained ongoing. That deal would allow duty-free and quota-free trade 
between two  equal partners. Trade between the EU and the UK would take place within the terms 
of the Free Trade Agreement  and would, therefore, not require access within the respective TRQs. 
They looked forward to continuing to engage with WT O Members on its transition.  
15.5.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
16  UNITED KINGDOM – RECTIFICATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS OF SCHEDULE  XIX – 
STATEMENT BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  
16.1.   The Chairperson  noted that this agenda item had been included at the reques t of the Russian 
Federation.  
16.2.   The representative of the Russian Federation  recalled that,  at the Committee 's previous  
meeting, the Russian Federation had raised certain questions in respect of the UK 's draft Schedule. 
These questions related, inter alia , to the methodology of apportionment of Aggregate Measurement 
of Support and the proposed currency conversion. These questions were transmitted to the UK in 
writing. However, they had not yet received a ny response. Her delegation  urged the UK to provide 
clarification on proposed modifications to its Schedule.  
16.3.   The representative of New Zealand  stated that her delegation's  concerns on this item were 
similar to those that had been referred to under agenda i tems 14 and 15. New Zealand considered 
that t ime was running out and answers remained pending to important systemic questions that her  
delegation had raised from the outset.  These included , first, when and how the UK proposed to G/MA/M/73  
- 38 - 
  engage with other WTO  Membe rs on the claim that it wished to establish a new, very large, 
entitlement to trade-distorting domestic support. As they had noted previously, the Agreement on 
Agriculture did not contain provisions that enabled a Member to amend its Aggregate Measure of 
Support (AMS) commitments. With no established process covering this, any proposals that the U K, 
or for that matter  the EU , wished  to make to alter their current Aggregate Measure of Support 
commitments would need to be fully consulted and agreed upon by other interested WTO  Members. 
It went without saying that it would not be acceptable for any such claims to be artificially boosted 
through currency conversion  either . Second, how the UK proposed to justify its claims to apply the 
special agricultural safegu ard to 685  agricultural products, including products for which it had 
indicated it intended to lower its applied MFN  tariffs in the UK 's applied tariff schedule published in 
May. And third, how the UK proposed to justify its claims to apply a "minimum entry price" and the 
"Meursing  Tables" market management systems for certain agricultural and food products once it 
was outside the EU  single market and had started implementing an applied tarif f schedule that did 
away with these trade -distorting market measures.  As stated above, New Zealand  stood ready to 
discuss and work with the UK and other WTO  Members to find ways to resolve these concerns, but 
it was important to recognize that time was now very short for the UK to reach satisfactory 
conclusions with other WTO  Members.  
16.4.   The representative of Australia  noted that his delegation  continued to be concerned that the 
issues that they, and other Members, had raised with the UK 's initial rectificatio n, which had been 
circulated on 24  July 2018, remained unaddressed. In addition to the concerns relating to the 
splitting of TRQs, which had been discussed under the previous agenda items, Australia considered 
that the UK 's draft goods schedule , which had been circulated on 24  July 2018, contained 
substantive changes to the UK 's current WTO  concessions, including the UK 's Aggregate 
Measurement of Support (AMS) commitments, and Special Safeguard (SSG) entitlements. Australia 
did not believe that the UK 's proposed changes met the requirement in paragraph  2 of the 
"1980 Decision " that any changes "do not alter the scope of a concession " and must be "of a purely 
formal character ". While the UK had demonstrated a willingness to engage on the details of, and to 
consider changes to , the proposed TRQ  splits, Australia had not seen the same constructive attitude 
or approach on these issues. As Australia had previously raised at this Committee, his delegation  
did not believe that the UK should have automatic right s to an AMS  entitlement without scrutiny 
from the Membership and potential changes. Australia was concerned about the UK 's inclusion of an 
AMS entitlement of 4.95  billion pounds Sterling, and it was worth noting that the EU had still not 
formally proposed any corresponding reductions to its AMS  entitlements. The UK needed to find a 
multilateral solution to this issue and to demonstrate to other Members that its expected future 
domestic support program mes would not unduly distort global agricultural trade. Australia  called 
upon the UK to reassure Members that the  UK was a strong advocate for domestic support reform 
and that it would be part of the solution, even if it had a large initial AMS  entitlement. Finally, 
Australia did not think that the UK should be able to simply "copy and paste" SSG rights from the 
EU's WTO  goods schedule – which had a distinct history and basis from the Uruguay Round and 
could result in the perverse outcome of providing the UK  SSG rights for products that the UK did not 
produce. Au stralia stood ready to hold constructive discussions with the UK to help resolve these 
matters and move towards certification of the UK 's goods schedule.  
16.5.   The representative of Paraguay  noted  that her delegation  shared the concerns that had been 
mentioned by other  delegations regarding the exchange rate , the AMS , and special safeguards. 
Paraguay had discussed the issues at length  bilaterally  with the UK . Her delegation  hoped for a 
satisfactory outcome in answering these  concerns, and noted that they had not seen a  proposal by 
the European Union to reduce its AMS entitlement in the same proportion as that the United Kingdom  
had proposed to establish  in its new Schedule . 
16.6.   The representative of Uruguay  recalled that,  when the United Kingdom submitted a draft 
Schedule  XIX under the 1980  Procedures , in July  2018,  its certification had been  objected to by 
several Members. These objections had led to the start of a process under Article  XXVIII  of the GATT , 
which was currently under  way, on the tariff rate quota concessions contained in that draft Schedule. 
Uruguay noted that the additional amendments which had been proposed by the United Kingdom in 
document  G/MA/TAR/RS/570/Rev.1 had added an extra layer of complexity to the procedure for 
establishing that Member's Schedule. Beyond the issue of the tariff rate quotas, Uruguay maintained 
its concerns over the UK's alleged automatic entitlement to a bound total AMS without the matter 
having being analysed by Members and without verification of compliance with the conditions 
proposed in the joint letter of the UK and EU  Permanent Representatives of 11  October  2017. In 
addition, it was questionable whether it was appropriate for the United Kingdom to seek to replicate G/MA/M/73  
- 39 - 
  the rights to invoke the special agricultural safeguard, under the terms of Article  5 of the Agreement 
on Agriculture, for all products and under the same criteria and conditions set out in the European 
Union's Schedule. Thirdl y, the proposal to introduce a currency conversion in the draft Schedule of 
concessions on the basis of the average daily exchange rate for the period 2015 -2019 was also a 
source of concern given its potential to generate bound tariffs and authorized level s of AMS which 
were higher than those that could result from consideration of other representative periods. Uruguay 
would continue to engage  constructively with the United Kingdom with a view to reaching a timely 
solution that would allow the United Kingdo m to have a separate Schedule of concessions formally 
established at the WTO, while safeguarding the rights of other interested Members.  
16.7.   The representative of China  thanked the Russian Federation for  having  includ ed this item on 
the agenda. China had alrea dy expressed its reservation to the method the UK had proposed to 
redenominate all currency components from Euro s to pounds Sterling. China also wanted to 
emphasize that its concerns regarding the UK 's initial rectification, which had been circulated on 
24 July 2018, remained unaddressed. China would continue to follow this issue closely.  
16.8.   The representative of the United Kingdom  thanked Members for their statements on the 
United Kingdom' s rectification of its goods schedule. As had been mentioned in the United Kingdom' s 
previous statement at the Committee 's meeting  on 19  May 2020, the United Kingdom had 
announced the "UK Global Tariff" . This was the long -term tariff applied to the Most-Favoured -Nation 
tariff regime that would take effect from 1 January  2021, following the end of the Transition Period 
that had been in place since the United Kingdom' s departure from the European Union earlier this 
year. As they had previously stated , throughout the transition period the United Kingdom would 
continue to apply the European Union' s Common External Tariff. As the UK  Global Tariff was a 
bespoke tariff, tailored to the United Kingdom' s economy, it was expressed in their national currency. 
As a consequence of this change, and to ensure stability and tran sparency between the UK 's bound 
and applied Schedules, the United Kingdom had circulated document  G/MA/TAR/RS/570/ Add.1, 
which had rectified its bound Goods Schedule to redenominate all currency components in Part  I and 
Part IV – Section  I of the Schedule from Euros to pound s Sterling. This had brought the United 
Kingdom in line with most other WTO  Members, who denominated their schedules in their own 
currency. As had been explained in the United Kingdom's previous statement on this issue, the 
exchange rate  at which the Schedule had been redenominated was €1 = 0.83687 GBP, which 
represented the average of the daily exchange rates between 2015 and 2019. In choosing the 
exchange rate, the United Kingdom had looked at relevant precedent and used a methodology t hat 
avoided speculation on the "natural" exchange rate, avoided the inherent volatility of day -to-day 
exchange rate fluctuations, and reflected the most recent and relevant economic conditions at the 
time. This ensured that the scope of the concessions and  commitments offered for application to the 
United Kingdom were not altered. The United Kingdom remained open to engaging with Members to 
explain its rigorous approach to the redenomination of its goods schedule, as well as answering 
questions relating to any specific concerns that Members may have had. They had already done so 
with several Members and they looked forward to continuing to engage with WTO  Members on the 
certification of the  UK Schedule. On the AMS, he noted that some Members had asked whethe r the 
European Union's AMS would be reduced proportionally to the UK's AMS  entitlement in Schedule  XIX. 
In this regard, he recalled that the UK could not comment on the EU's ongoing negotiations. 
However, it had been clear from the joint letter of 11  Octob er 2017 that the final bound commitment 
levels and the AMS would be apportioned between the EU and the UK. This had also been mentioned 
in the explanatory note of the UK's Schedule in document  G/MA/TAR/RS/570 , and it was a clear 
commitment. He also reminded Members that the explanatory notes contained details of how the 
AMS apportionment had been calculated. On the SSGs that had been mentioned by some Members, 
the UK wished to remind Members that its draft sche dule replicated the concessions and 
commitments applicable to the UK as expressed in the Schedule of the EU -28. 
16.9.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
17  INDIA - CUSTOMS DUTIES ON TELECOMMUNICATION AND OTHER PRODUCTS – 
STATEMENTS BY CHINA AND CHINESE  TAIPEI (G/MA/W/120, G/MA/W/128)  
17.1.   The Chairperson  noted that this agenda item had been included at the request of China and 
Chinese Taipei.  
17.2.   The representative of China  expressed his regret for having to raise this issue  again . China 
remained concerned over India' s customs duties on telecommunication products, in particular mobile G/MA/M/73  
- 40 - 
  phones and their components. India had increased the customs duties on these products several 
times, with applied rates in excess of its bound rates, which did not comply with WTO  rules. China 
urged India to withdraw its customs duties on the relevant products  and to abide by its 
WTO commitments. China also noted that India had been increasing customs duties on many other 
products, including edible vegetable oils, fruit juices, car e ngines, toys, and organic chemicals. India 
had also adjusted technical trade measures on toys and other products. China had both systemic 
and commercial concerns regarding these measures. He urged India to enhance the transparency 
and predictability of its  measures, including by introducing a sufficient transition period, to avoid  
any unnecessary trade restrictions.  
17.3.   The representative of Japan  echoed the concerns that had been raised by China over India' s 
imposition of tariffs on Information and Communicati on Technology ( ICT) products. Japan had  
supported the establishment of the panel in the DSB  meeting on 29  July this year, and believed that 
this measure should be withdrawn as soon as possible.  
17.4.   The representative of Singapore  indicated that her delegation  shared the concerns that had 
been expressed by previous speakers, and reiterated their systemic and commercial interest on this 
issue.  
17.5.   The representative of Thailand  stated that her delegation remained concerned over India's 
reimposition of cust oms duties on an increasing number of ICT products above its bound 
commitments and joined other delegations in requesting India to abide by its WTO  commitments. 
Thailand would continue to monitor this matter closely.  
17.6.   The representative of the United States  regretted that her delegation  had yet again to raise 
the apparent inconsistencies between India' s WTO  commitments to provide duty -free access on a 
range of information and communication technology products and the non -zero import duties , of up 
to 20%, that India continued to charge on imported products. This included commercially significant 
products from the United States. The United States had given India ample opportunity, both 
bilaterally and in the relevant WTO  committees, to address these measures an d abide by its 
commitments, yet tariff increases continued to be applied. Her delegation had  noted with interest 
the establishment of panels in disputes brought by the European Union, Japan,  and Chinese Taipei, 
seeking to address such measures by India. Th e United States  looked forward to participating as a 
third party in these disputes as they progressed. Once again, her delegation  called upon India to 
provide duty -free access for the ICT and telecommunications equipment products for which India 
had a WTO  commitment to do so.  
17.7.   The representative of Canada  recalled that his delegation  had raised the issue in this 
Committee, the Council for Trade in Goods , and the ITA  Committee , over the past several years . 
Canada viewed the application of tariffs above India's bound rates o n a broad range of ICT  products 
to be inconsistent with India's WTO  commitments. Canada had noted the ongoing dispute settlement 
proceedings on this issue , which had been brought by Japan, Chinese Taipei , and the EU , and would 
actively  participate as a third  party in this dispute.  
17.8.   The representative  of India thank ed the delegations of China, Japan, Singapore, Thailand, the 
United States,  and Canada for their continued interest in India's customs duties regime on certain 
telecommunications products. On the issue of customs duties imposed on certain products , alleged 
to be ITA-1 products by some Members, India ha d already made statements in various WTO  bodies , 
namely, the Council for Trade in Goods, the ITA Committee , and t his Committee . For the sake of 
saving time , he would not repeat those statements. However , India wished  to reiterate that it ha d 
been fully abiding  by its obligations and commitments under the ITA-1, as contained in 
document  WT/Let/181. India had also stated earlier in its initial statement that Members ha d a right 
to revisit any error or mistakes committed in assigning  bound tariff s while transposing their 
Schedules of concessions and to make the necessary rectification request s before the releva nt 
WTO body. Accordingly, India h ad filed a rectification request for correcting certain errors  in its 
HS2007  transposition Schedule. This rectification request had been in accordance with the 
Procedures for Modification and Rectification of Schedules of Tariff Concessions contained in the 
Decision of 26  March  1980 under the category "other rectifications". India urge d Members to go 
through its certification request and , in case any Member ha d any view o n the technical aspect s of 
these products , as well as their classifications , India would be happy to discuss the same with the 
Member concerned . G/MA/M/73  
- 41 - 
  17.9.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
18  INDIA – IMPORT POLICIES ON TYRES, TELEVISION SETS, AND AIR CONDITIONERS  – 
STATEMENTS BY THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THAILA ND 
18.1.   The Chairperson  noted that this agenda item had been included at the request of the European 
Union and Thailand . 
18.2.   The representative of Thailand  wished to  raise her delegation's  serious concern over India' s 
import policies on tyres, television sets, and air conditioners. According to India's Ministry of 
Commerce and Industry's Notifications No. 12/2015 -2020, dated 12  June 2020, and 
No. 22/2015 -2020, dated 30  July 2020,  the import conditions  for tyres and television sets had been  
changed from "Free" to "Restricted". These measures appeared to apply an import licensing regime 
to the tyres and television sets at issue. However,  detailed information and guidelines concerning 
the implementation of these mea sures was not publicly available . In addition, according to the Indian  
Ministry of Commerce and Industry's Notification  No. 41/2015 -2020, dated 15  October  2020, the 
import conditions for air conditioners had been  changed from "Free" to "Prohibited ". The 
three  notifications at issue did not explain the policy justifications for these amendments in India's 
import policies, nor did they elaborate on what the terms "Free", "Prohibited" , and "Restricted" 
meant under In dia's domestic law.  In 2019, Thailand' s market share in India was the largest for 
tyres, the second  largest  for air conditioners , and the seventh  largest for television sets. After India' s 
measure on tyres became effective , in June  2020, exports of tyres from Thailand to India decreased 
by 31% in July and 43% in August. Moreover, due to the import prohibition on air conditioners  with 
refrigerants, some of Thailand' s air conditioners exported to India were forced to return to Thailand. 
Also, several Thai exp orters had been  unable to export television sets to India as the Directorate 
General of Foreign Trade of India did not grant import licences to importers.  In this connection , 
Thailand sought clarification from India on the following  points : first, to clarify the import licensing 
procedures that applied to the importation of tyres and television sets ; second , to clarify the specific 
public policy justifications for the measures  concerned; third , to clarify the  specific legal acts under 
India's legislation that contained these measures ; and finally , Thailand noted that India had not 
submitted any notification of the import policies at issue. Thailand strongly encouraged India to 
comply with its notification requirements as soon as possible. Her d elegation  hoped that India would 
provide detailed responses to Thailand' s questions and review the import policies concerned at the 
earliest opportunity to resolve the negative impact on Thailand’s exporters. Thailand stood ready to 
meet bilaterally with I ndia with a view to achieving a mutually satisfactory solution.  
18.3.   The representative of the European Union  wished to address an issue that had also been  
raised at the last meeting of the Import Licensing Committee , on 9 October. On 12  June 2020, India 
had adopted  Notification No. 12/2015 -2020 on "Amendment in Import Policy of Tyres ", whereby 
imports of pneumatic tyres for motor cars, buses, lorries, motor scooters , and motorcycles had been  
moved from the "free" category to the "restricted " category. The  change in category implie d that 
tyres could be imported only pending the granting of a non -automatic licence . To the EU's  
knowledge, the measure had not been duly notified to the WTO. Given that these were 
non-automatic licensing requirements, they should  be notified as a new Quantitative Restriction to 
the Market Access Committee , as well as under the Import Licensing Agreement. The European 
Union  urged India to comply with the applicable notification requirements under the WTO. 
Additionally, importers ha d received no guidelines on how to proceed to obtain the said 
non-automatic licence . There was a need for full clarity on both the procedures and the scope of the 
guidelines. Her delegation  was concerned about the effect s of this measure on the import ation of 
tyres, which for replacement tyre manufacturers had come to a halt since June  2020. In this context, 
India ought to  provide importers with clarity on the rules and all information concerning procedures 
and requirements for the submission of application s. India also had to  inform the WTO of the recent 
changes to the administrative procedure applicable to  the importation of tyres. In addition, India 
had to  reconsider any implicit or explicit quantitative restrictions – or other restrictions ( for example, 
the end-user principle) – on the import ation of replacement tyres that could be contrary to 
WTO requirements.  
18.4.   The representative of  the Republic of Korea  thanked the E uropean Union  and Thailand for 
raising this issue  - in particular, the import policies on tyres. Korea had already expressed its 
concern s regarding this issue at the most recent meeting of the Committee on Import Licensing. 
Since India had  introduced a new import policy on tyres in June  2020, in Notification 
No. 12/2015 -2020, Korean  companies had faced difficulties concerning the  lack of information on G/MA/M/73  
- 42 - 
  the new policy and delays regarding import licensing on tyres. The chapeau of the Agreement on 
Import Licensing Procedures made it clear that import licensing, particularly non -automat ic import 
licensing, should be implemented in a transparent and predictable manner. Therefore, it was clear 
that India needed to operate its import licensing policy on tyres in a transparent way, by providing 
the relevant information on the process , such a s the detailed procedure and standards. Furthermore, 
those companies that had requested import licensing had to  be informed of the status of their 
requests. Korea urged India to promptly approve the requests for import licensing that had already 
been submi tted so as to prevent any further delay s in the importation of tyres.  
18.5.   The representative of the United States  thanked the European Union and Thailand for 
requesting the inclusion of this issue on the agenda and shared the concerns that had been  raised. 
Her delegation was monitoring this issue and was interested to hear India' s response s to the issues 
raised.  
18.6.   The representative of India thank ed the delegations of the European Union , Thailand, Korea,  
and the U nited States  for their interest in th is matter. In this regard, his delegation wished to state 
that they were  in the process of notifying to the relevant committee recent  import policy changes 
for certain specific new pneumatic tyres, certain coloured television sets , and air conditioners with 
refrigerants . Regarding the meaning of the term  restricted , which had been mentioned in the 
relevant import policy notifications for a particular item, it mean t that such items could only be 
imported into India after obtaining an  authorization from the Office of the Director General  of Foreign 
Trade. In this context , his delega tion also wished  to state that the implementation of import 
authorizations by India was transparent and predictable . The issuance of such import authorizati on 
was provided under paragraphs  2.5.0. and 2.5.1 of the Handbook of Procedures 2015 -2020, which 
was available in the public domain and could  be accessed on the website of India's Office of the 
Director General of F oreign Trade. Applications for such import authorizations could  be filed online, 
and Notice No. 49, dated 15  March  2019, provided  the procedure . After the scrutiny of applications 
regarding submissions of required documents and receipts of technical inputs from the conc erned 
administrative ministry and departments , such applications were considered by the Exim Facilitation 
Committee for the decision to grant import authorization.  As regards the other issues that had been  
raised by Members, they would be transmitted  to Ne w Delhi for examination and comment . 
18.7.   The C ommittee took note  of the statements made.  
19  INDIA – QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN PULSES  – 
STATEMENTS BY AUSTRALIA, THE EUROPEAN UNION, THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION AND 
THE UNITED STATES  
19.1.   The Chairperson  noted that this agenda item had been included at the request of Australia, 
the European Union, the Russian Federation, and the United States . 
19.2.   The representative of Australia  stated that it should come as no surprise that his delegation 
was once again highlighting India' s quantitative restrictions on a variety of pulses. Despite ongoing 
efforts by Australia and other WTO  Members, India had failed to provide a sufficient explan ation of 
the WTO -basis for its QRs, which India had implemented for more than three  years. These were no 
longer temporary and must be removed. Pulses were not a "small" commodity for India, neither by 
tonnage, value produced and consumed, nor with respect to trade. Therefore, India' s measures 
mattered in the global pulses market. India’s current suite of measures on pulses, including 
significant levels of market price support, high tariffs , and quantitative restriction s, continued to 
negatively impact the s tability and predictability of the global pulses market and were demonstrably 
ineffective. This had been  evident simply by the fact that India had continued to renew some of the 
measures, such as the quantitative restrictions on pulses, despite calling the m temporary. Putting 
aside their WTO-consistency, if the quantitative restrictions were effective, they would have 
stabilized the Indian pulses market and would have been phased out. But the reality was that the 
quantitative restrictions had only added to the problem and had made the global pulses market more 
unstable and unpredictable. Since the Committee 's June meeting , India had continued to implement 
additional changes to its existing quantitative restrictions , announcing on 1  October what appeared 
to be an additional 150,000  tonnes of Urad, with restrictive import licensing requirements. Australia 
had made it clear on numerous occasions that it was  simply seeking stability and predictability in 
the global pulses market and to ensure that the  measures were WTO-consistent. Australia  did not 
believe that this was an unreasonable request to make to a WTO  Member, and particularly to such 
an important and large country like India. It was what all Members  should strive to achieve in the G/MA/M/73  
- 43 - 
  interests of farmers, tr aders , and consumers alike. Australia had posed a series of questions at the 
last meeting in June, and in November  2019, and had provided  them to India in writing. However, 
his delegation  had still not received a response. He would avoid repeating the questions, but wanted 
it to be noted that they were requesting India to provide a detailed explanation of how India' s QRs 
satisfied the requirements of GATT  Article  XI:2(c)(ii) and Article  XX(a) and (b), which Australia did 
not believe were appropriate or legally available in respect of India' s import restrictions on pulses. 
Australia again requested India to provide prompt and fulsome responses bilaterally, and table those 
responses in this C ommittee expeditiously  or, otherwise, proceed to  remove the measures 
immediately.  
19.3.   The representative of the Russian Federation  wished to reiterate  the statement that her 
delegation had made during the previous meetings of the Committee on Market Access and  the 
Council for Trade in Goods regarding the policy applied by India with respect to the import of yellow 
peas. The Russian Federation wished to express its concern over India' s continuing restrictive trade 
policy measures on importation of yellow peas. I n particular, the application of "temporary"  import 
quotas, which had lasted for three  years, the minimum import price requirement, ports of entry 
restriction s, and the imposition of an import ban on yellow peas for the current year. Russia 
maintained its concern over the inconsistency of India' s measures on import s of yellow peas with 
the WTO  rules. Minimum import price requirement, import quotas, import prohibition s, and 
restriction s on port of entry violate d Articles  VII:2 and XI:1 of the GATT  1994, and Article  4 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture. These quantitative restrictions could not be justified under Article  XI:2(c) 
of the GATT  1994. Nor could they be justified  under paragraphs  (a) and (b) of GATT  Article  XX. The 
Russian Federation wondered  how an import ban and quotas on yellow peas could protect human 
life, health , and public morals in accordance with India' s explanation. Her delegation  looked forward 
to receiving further clarification from India regarding these issues. The Russian Federat ion urged 
India to bring these measures into conformity with WTO  rules.  
19.4.   The representative of Canada  stated that , as the largest supplier of pulses to India, Canada 
had been most negatively affected by India' s measures to limit the import ation of these pro ducts . 
Pulses were an important  source of protein for many Indian consumers and Canada was a high 
quality and reliable supplier. Canada was disappointed that India continued to use quantitative 
restrictions on the import ation of dried peas and other pulses . This situation had been on going  for 
more than two  years for peas and three  years for other types of pulses. It was difficult for Canada 
to see how India could still claim that these measures were temporary. The combination of a 
prohibitive minimum import  price, import quota of zero  tonnes , and restriction s on the port of entry 
constituted a perfect storm of measures that had blocked all access for yellow dried peas to India 
for an entire year. As had been expressed in previous committees, these measures v iolated both 
GATT  Article  XI:2(c) and Article  4 of the Agreement on Agriculture. In the meeting of the Council for 
Trade in Goods that had taken place in June 2020, India  had justified these measures by arguing 
that Article  4.2 of the Agreement on Agricult ure did not envisage the tariffication of temporary or 
short-term measures , and that , consequently , Article  4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture should 
not extend to GATT  1994 Article  XI:2(c). However, Canada questioned the validity of such a 
rationale. The Appellate Body Report in the dispute Indonesia - Import Licensing Regime s had clearly 
ruled that "Members could not maintain quantitative import restrictions on agricultural products  that 
satisfied the requirements of Article  XI:2(c) of the GATT  1994 without violating Article  4.2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture. " The elimination of quantitative restrictions was and remained  a 
fundamental principle of the GATT and the Agreement on Agri culture. Article  4.2 of the Agreement 
on Agriculture prohibited Members to maintain, resort to, or revert to agriculture -specific non -tariff 
measures. Such measures included the quantitative import restrictions, minimum import prices, and 
discretionary imp ort licensing which was currently being used by India. To conclude, Canada 
reiterated its call for India to immediately and expeditiously review the measures it had in place on 
pulse imports and to implement alternative, less trade -distorting, WTO-consiste nt policy options that 
promoted a predictable and transparent import regime for pulses.  
19.5.   The representative of the European Union  stated that , unfortunately, to the knowledge  of her 
delegation , nothing had changed since the Committee's formal meeting in June. Therefore, t heir 
previous comments remained valid. The European Union found it hard to understand why, after 
three  years, India remained  unable and unwilling to explain how its policy conformed to WTO  rules. 
For over three  years, Me mbers had repeatedly been told that the restrictions  were temporary. 
However, after three  years these restrictions could no longer be seen as temporary. Her delegation  
once again urged India to eliminate this trade -distorting measure without undue delay.  G/MA/M/73  
- 44 - 
  19.6.   The representative of the United States  noted that , as her delegation  had previously stated 
in this and other WTO  committee meetings, the United States remained concerned over India' s use 
of domestic support policies, multiple increases in tariff rates, and  the application of import 
restrictions for pulses including pigeon peas, mung beans, black gram lentils, and peas. Previously, 
India had informed this Committee that its restrictions on pulses were temporary. However, some 
of the restrictions had been in place since August  2017, and India had recently extended them for a 
full year through March  2021. Also, during the June  meeting of this Committee, India had asserted 
that it conducted periodic reviews of these restrictions, but the restriction amounts rema ined 
unchanged five  months later. The United States repeated their previous requests for information on 
how the measures reflected India' s WTO  commitments, and when and how the measures would be 
brought to an end . 
19.7.   The representative of Ukraine  indicated th at his delegation would like, once again, to reiterate 
their concerns regarding India' s restrictive measures on certain pulses.  For more than two  years, 
India had been imposing quantitative restrictions on import s together with other trade -distorting 
policies in relation to various pulses . Despite the systemic concerns that had been expressed by 
Members during this period at almost all meetings of the Committee on Agriculture, the Committee  
on Market Access , and the Council for Trade in Goods, India had not provided meaningful 
explanations as to the nature and duration of such restrictive measures. This year, the situation had 
continued  to deteriorate. On 21 April 2020, the Government of India had issued Trade Notic e 
No. 05/2020 -2021, which had introduced a quota on imports of certain pulses for the fiscal 
year 2020-2021. In particular, the permitted amount of import for Yellow Peas (0713 .10.10) had 
become zero. Such measures had a destructive effect on the internati onal pulse crop markets.  
According to the WTO  rules, quantitative restrictions had to  be justified and applied temporarily.  
India had an obligation to guarantee Members appropriate and predictable trade opportunities to 
access India's pulses market.  Ukrain e called on India to bring its trade -distorting policies into 
conformity with WTO  rules and eliminate its restrictive measures.  
19.8.   The representative of India thank ed the delegations of Australia, the Russian Federation , 
Canada, the European Union , the United States,  and Ukraine for their continued interest in th is 
matter. Many issues  had been  raised in this Committee that had also been raised in the meetings of 
other Councils and committees. In this context , India wished to  reiterate that quantitative 
restrictions  on imports of certain varieties of pulses were necessary considering the domestic 
demand and supply situation of pulses in India. The y had caused distress  to small and medium -sized 
farmers and had consequences on their food and livelihood secur ity. As regards the specific 
WTO provisions under which such measures ha d been enforced, India ha d already replied to similar 
queries from Members in earlier meetings of this Committee and the C ouncil for Trade in Goods . 
India urge d Members to refer to tho se replies . 
19.9.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
20  INDONESIA – CUSTOMS DUTIES ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS PRODUCTS – STATEMENT 
BY THE UNITED STATES  
20.1.   The Chairperson  noted that this agenda item had been included at the request of the United 
States.  
20.2.   The representative  of the United States  reiterated her delegation 's concerns because  
Indonesia had been  applying tariffs at the border on a category of ICT  products that appeared to 
exceed their WTO  bound tariff commitments. To highlight a specific example, Indonesia had a 
duty-free tariff commitment for  all products that were classified under tariff subheading  8517.62. 
However, US and Indonesian traders had reported that a 10 % duty was being levied for certain 
products in this tariff category. The  United States  had been raising this issue in this Committee, as 
well as the ITA  Committee, for over a year now , as well as bilaterally. Unfortunately, these issues 
remained  unresolved. Her delegation  would appreciate an explanation  as soon as possible  of how 
Indonesia intended to address their concerns regarding its applied rates.  
20.3.   The representative  of the European Union  recalled that, as had been mentioned on several 
occasions, and most recently at the ITA  Committee, it continued to monitor this issue close ly. They 
recalled that , in line with its commitments, Indonesia was expected to provide duty-free access for 
all tariff lines under the heading  8517.62. The European Union  looked forward to hearing from G/MA/M/73  
- 45 - 
  Indonesia on this issue and called upon Indonesia to ensure its compliance with its 
ITA commitments.  
20.4.   The representative  of Japan  echoed the concerns that had been expressed by the United 
States and the European Union  over Indonesia' s imposition of a 10%  tariff duty on certain 
telecommunication products under HS8517.62, for which Indonesia had a duty -free tariff 
commitment. Japan urged Indonesia to provide further details on the duty, including information on 
possible next steps, to allow them to scrutinize the facts in depth.  
20.5.   The representative  of Indonesia  thanked the United States, the European Union,  and Japan 
for having raised  the issue of import duties on several ITA  products. She reiterated th e statement 
that had been made at the meeting of the Committee on Market Access o f June 2020, and the 
ITA Committee meeting of October  2020, in which Indonesia had  stated that it  continued to comply 
with, and respect , the multilateral trading system in the WTO  Agreement . Internal observations and 
investigations were ongoing in order to  get to the root of the problem and to find the best solution 
going forward . Indonesia did not intend to take action beyond their commitments or obligations 
under the ITA  Agreement . Thus, Indonesia  wished to  receive information on any concerns and  to 
engag e in further discussions with other Membe rs. 
21  MONGOLIA – QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS ON IMPORTATIONS OF CERTAIN 
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS - STATEMENT BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  
21.1.   The Chairperson  noted that this agenda item had been included at the request of the Russian 
Federation.  
21.2.   The representative of the Russian Federation  reiterated the statements that had been made 
by her delegation during the previous meetings of the Committee on Market Acc ess, Committee on 
Agriculture , and the Council for Trade in Goods , concerning Mongolia' s quantitative restrictions on 
the importation of certain agricultural products, including wheat flour, wheat, milk, drinking water, 
and beef. In 2020 , Mongolia did not open quotas for the import of bottled water, liquid milk , and 
wheat flour. However, Mongolia had not exclude d these products from the list of agricultural products 
which had been subject to annual quantitative restrictions. The quantitative restrictions on  wheat 
flour and milk could be imposed at any moment and there were no guarantees that the import of 
these products would be open and fair. Mongolia' s quota regime continued to be inconsistent with 
its obligations under the WTO Agreements and, in particula r, with Article  XI of the GATT  1994, and 
Article  4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, as well as Mongolia' s accession commitments under 
paragraph  20 of the Working Party Report.  The Russian Federation urged Mongolia to promptly take 
all necessary steps to bring its measures in to compliance with the WTO provisions and to not apply 
quantitative restrictions that were inconsistent with its WTO  commitments.  
21.3.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
22  NEPAL'S IMPORT BAN ON ENERGY DRINKS – STATEMENT BY THAILA ND 
22.1.   The Chairperson  recalled  that this agenda item had been included at the request of Thailand.  
22.2.   The representative of Thailand  noted that  her delegation  had carefully examined Nepal' s 
statement at the Committee on Market Access meeting of 8  June 2020, concerning Nepal' s import 
ban on energy drinks. With respect to the justification for adopting this measure, Nepal had referred 
to various points. Nepal had indicated that the import ban sought to address a trade imbalance 
caused by an import surge. Nepal  had also asserted that it adopted this import ban because of the 
country 's unique situation as a least-developed country ( LDC) and landlocked developing country 
(LLDC) facing vari ous constraints and challenges in export performance, and to safeguard Nepal  
from a threat to its balance of payments. Furthermore, Nepal stated that, in the context of the 
COVID -19 pandemic, its authorities in Capital were assessing the potential health implications of 
energy drinks. In light of Nepal' s explanations of the reason s for adopting the import ban on energy 
drinks, Thailand appreciated  Nepal' s clarification of the precise legal basis under the 
WTO Agreements that Nepal was invoking as a justification for this measure. Thailand wished to 
recall that, absent  any justifica tion under the WTO  Agreements , an import ban would be inconsistent 
with Article  XI:1 of the GATT  1994, a provision that required WTO  Members not to impose 
prohibitions or restrictions, other than duties, taxes or other charges, on the importation of products G/MA/M/73  
- 46 - 
  of any WTO  Member. In addition, Thailand noted that Nepal had sent an official note and notification 
to the WTO  Secretariat on 21  January  2020 concerning this measure. However, that notification had 
not been circulated to Members. She asked Nepal to clarify why their notification had not been 
distributed . Thailand indicated  that its exporters had been  badly affected because their products had 
been designed specifically for the Nepal ese market  and labelled in the Nepali language. As a result, 
the exporters  would not be able to export these products to other countries. Thailand was open to 
bilateral discussions with Nepal with a view to settlin g this issue amicably.  
22.3.   The representative of the European Union  recalled  that an open and rules -based trade regime 
gave confidence to businesses to invest and engage in a country, which was key for Nepal' s economic 
development and upgrading from LDC  status . Against this background, it was very worrying that the 
Government of Nepal had set an import ban in June  2019 on energy drinks and had further extended 
it in May  2020 to alcohol and imported automobiles. Even if the ban on alcoholic drinks and a few 
other items had been withdrawn, the blockage remained for the import of energy drinks and other 
commodities. Therefore, this was only a partial and unsatisfactory solution. Even in a situation of 
worsening trade deficit, Nepal needed to comply with WTO  rules, which meant that quantitative 
restrictions should be avoided. From an economic point of view, the ban gave a very bad signal in 
terms of tourism recovery , including the prohibition against import ing energy drinks very much 
targeted at foreign tourists. Als o, on the side of the Balance of Payments, in mid -July 2020, the 
foreign reserves of Nepal reached a record USD  11.6 billion, so the argument that had originally 
been put forward for the ban was no longer valid. Furthermore, the import ban had not been notified 
to the WTO and no justification had been provided. The EU called upon Nepal to comply with its 
obligation to notify and observed that Nepal had not yet provided any notification of its quantitative 
restrictions. The  European Union  welcomed Nepal' s views and invited Nepal to abide by its 
WTO commitments.  
22.4.   The representative of the United States  supported Thailand' s concerns over Nepal' s ban on 
the import of certain energy drinks . In January  2020, the United States had requested Nepal to 
notify this measure through the WTO  Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Enquiry Point, but had not 
yet received a response. The United States  urged Nepal to notify the measure to the TB T Committee 
and to suspend the measure until WTO  Members had been given  an opportunity to review and 
comment  on it. 
22.5.   The representative  of Nepal  extended his delegation's  sincere appreciation to the Secretariat 
for sharing important information at the meeti ng. He thanked Thailand, the European Union,  and 
the U nited States  for their statements and continued interest in Nepal' s trade policy measures. Nepal 
wished to refer to its statement delivered at the meeting of the Committee held on 8  June 2020. 
The statement had clearly mentioned that Nepal had abided by its membership role at the WTO 
since its accession. Nepal was fully committed to, and understood , the necessity of balancing rights 
and obligations. However, Nepal' s export  to import ratio of trade in goods had reached 1:15.3 in 
2017/2018 from 1:2.5 in 2004/2005 , resulting in a huge trade gap. Furthermore, the world 's 
merchandise export s had increased from about US$9 trillion in 2004 to about US$19 trillion in 2018 , 
but Nepal' s export s had f or the most part remained stagnant , with just a nominal growth from 
US$730.5  million in 2004 to US$783.5  million in 2018. On the other hand, Nepal' s merchandise 
imports had significantly increased , from US$1.85 billion in 2004 , to US$12.9 billion in 2018. Such 
an import surge had resulted in a huge trade gap and posed severe challenges to the entire economic 
development process of the country. Additionally, Nepal wished to note  that the main legal basis of 
this measure was Section  3(1) of the Export and Imp ort (Control ) Act 1957, which allowed the 
Government of Nepal to take necessary measures in appropriate conditions, such as to safeguard 
the external financial position and balance of payments , to stop a serious decline in foreign currency 
reserves , and ot hers. This Act had been  under implementation during the accession period of Nepal 
and had been notified to the WTO at that time. Nepal had conveyed all of the concerns that had 
been raised by Thailand, the European Union,  and the U nited States  to the relevant Ministries in 
Kathmandu . He would share detailed information from the relevant Ministries as soon as it was 
received . He went on to say that , in its statement at the June Committee meeting, Nepal had  
underlined that this measure was neithe r concentrated on any specific area or issue, nor focused on 
only trade restrictions of a few products . Instead, it broadly covered trade regulation and facilitation 
aspects of Nepal' s international trade to make it standard and smooth. This measure had be en 
applied as a part of the Export and Import ( Control ) Act 1957 on a temporary basis and had fully 
complied with WTO  laws on an MFN  basis to all WTO  Members . The representative of Nepal stated 
that his delegation was  engaged  in consultations with the agen cies concerned and would assess this 
regulation after a detailed study had been  conducted. It could be reviewed and revised periodically , G/MA/M/73  
- 47 - 
  based on the study findings , which hope fully would provide appropriate steps forward once 
consultations and assessment s had been complete d. The process of assessment and consultation 
could take some time as the entire state mechanism was being fully engaged in the fight against the 
COVID -19 pandemic. Regarding the notification, the Permanent Mission of Nepal in Geneva had  sent 
an official note and notification to the WTO  Secretariat on 21  January  2020, and had followed up in 
June and November through email.  
22.6.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
23  RUSSIAN FEDERATION – DRAFT DECREE RESTRICTING IMPORTS BY CERTAIN 
ENTI TIES – STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION  
23.1.   The Chairperson  recalled  that this agenda item had been included at the request of the 
European Union.  
23.2.   The representative of the European Union  referred to the Russian Federal Law No.  250-FZ of 
31 July 2020 on amendments to Article  3 of the Federal Law No . 223, "On the Procurement of Goods, 
Works, Services by Certain Types of Legal Entities ", which had introduced two  elements for 
procurement by State -owned enterprises . The first  element  was an obligation to indi cate the country 
of origin , and the second was a possibility for the Russian Government to introduce a quota of 
Russian goods. A draft Government decree, which would implement these two  aspects of the law, 
had been  published for consultation in September  2020. This draft had raised a number of concerns. 
Under the draft decree, State -owned enterprises and some commercial enterprises had to make 
sure that products of Russian origin constituted no less than a fixed, minimum share of their total 
purchases. Thes e minimum shares , which ranged from 50 to 100 %, varied per product , and more 
than 300  products had been  covered under the draft decree and included items such as cars, 
bicycles , and musical instruments. The European Union  requested the Russian Federation t o clarify  
the following points:  first, when it would notify Russian Federal Law No.  250-FZ of 31  July 2020, 
which was the legal basis for the draft decree, considering that it allowed for quotas of Russian -origin 
products in State -owned enterprises procurement ; second , what was the planned scope of the 
import restrictions ; and third,  when did the Government plan to adopt the draft implementing act . 
The EU reserved the right to take action in case Russia introduced the quantitative restric tions at 
issue.  
23.3.   The representative of the United States  stated that, like the E uropean Union , her delegation 
was concerned about the draft decree that had been developed by the Ministry of Industry , which 
would establish  minimum shares of goods, works , and services that had to be purchased 
domestically. Federal Law No.  250-FZ had amended Federal Law No.  223-FZ and had established 
the right of the Russian Government to require minimum shares, or quotas, for purchases by State -
owned enterprises and certain ot her entities of Russian -origin goods, works, or services , over foreign 
goods, works, or services . Whereas the law had only created the right for the government to act, 
the draft decree had implemented the minimum mandatory shares for purchased goods that m ust 
be of Russian origin. The draft decree provided that, starting on 1 January  2021, companies would 
be obliged to source a minimum percentage of products from Russian or EAEU  sources . A few of the 
quotas started at 25 %, but most started at 50 % or higher . Some quotas even started at 100 %, 
beginning in less than 60  days. These minimum purchasing requirements applied to 293  products, 
including industrial products, measuring instruments, electronics, fabric and apparel, ores, 
appliances, heavy equipmen t, certain vehicle, furniture, and others . Whether or not a specific 
product qualified as "Russian " was apparently determined by a variety of government measures, 
many of which had been identified as raising WTO  concerns in other committees . In addition, t he 
draft decree would establish  minimum quotas for Rostelecom 's purchases of certain services. The 
draft decree applied to "certain entities ". She asked whether those "certain entities " were all and 
only those that had been identified in Art icle 1 of Feder al Law No.  223. Her delegation had  noted 
that Federal Law No.  223-FZ, in addition to governing procurement of goods, also governed the 
procurement of services and works. She asked whether the draft decree had establish ed minimum 
shares for the procurement of services and works performed and rendered by Russian entities , and 
wanted to kn ow how would the Russian Federation ensure that the draft decree was implemented 
in a way consistent with its WTO  obligations, including those under GATT  Article  III. 
23.4.   The rep resentative of the Russian Federation  thanked the E uropean Union  and the United 
States for their interest in Russia' s policy. She wished to inform Members that the Russian Federation 
currently did not have any adopted legal acts implementing such requirements.  G/MA/M/73  
- 48 - 
  23.5.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
24  RUSSIAN FEDERATION – TRACK AND TRACE REGIME – STATEMENT BY THE 
UNITED  STATES  
24.1.   The Chairperson  recalled  that this agenda item had been included at the request of the United 
States.  
24.2.   The representat ive of the United States  recalled that her delegation  had previously raised 
concerns about Russia' s Track and Trace program me in other Committees. The  United States was  
raising it again on this occasion with regard to two  specific concerns. First, the lack  of preparedness 
by the Russian Government had led to delays at the border. Her delegation understood that about 
two-thirds of foreign pharmaceutical companies had faced delays at customs . She requested the 
Russian Federation to explain what steps had been  taken  to remedy the border delays. The 
second  aspect of the Track and Trace program me that had raised questions was the process for 
obtaining an enhanced qualified electronic digital signature and whether a participant had to be 
physically present in Russ ia to obtain this digital signature . For example, she asked whether 
obtaining a tax identification number require d a foreign participant to be present in Russia for any 
period of time . Also, whether obtaining an insurance number from the Russian State Pens ion Fund 
require d a foreign participant to be present in Russia for any period of time . And also, whether 
obtaining a state registration number require d a foreign participant to be present in Russia for any 
period of time . She asked the representative of the Russian Federation to provide the citation to a 
publicly available website, or the Russian Newspaper ( "Rossiyskaya Gazeta "), that provided an 
explana tion as to how a foreign participant, whether an individual, individual entrepreneur, or 
state-registered entity, could obtain an Enhanced Qualified EDS from an approved accreditation 
centre . Finally, she asked the representative of the Russian Federation to explain whether the 
requirements for a foreign participant  differed from the requirements applicable to a Russian 
participant , whether it was an individual, individual entrepreneur, or state-registered entity, to 
obtain an Enhanced Qualified EDS, a tax identification number, or an insurance number from the 
Russian State Pension Fund, or a state registration number . 
24.3.   The representative of the European Union  stated that her delegation shared  the concerns that 
had been raised by the United States and they were also interested in Russia's replies to the 
US questions. While the European Union genuinely appreciated and supported the need to fight 
counterfeit and illegal imports, her delegation  noted that the scope of the exercise, which was 
supposed to cover all  goods in turnover by 2024, went well beyond products for which there was 
evidence of significant illegal trade. In their opinion , the focus should be put on those goods where 
the problems with counterfeit were most important, for example tobacco or furs, where the 
corresponding pilot projects in Russia had delivered very positive results. The E uropean Union  also 
had a system of individual tracking of tobacco products and of medicinal products. However, the 
benefits of labelling and tracking for goods such as textiles, tyres, perfumes, footwear, or other 
products of light industry, were more than doubtful. Furthermore, the costs linked to the labelling 
exercise that companies and consumers had to bear did not seem to be proportionate to the expected 
results and constitute d a market access barrier. Therefore, her delegation considered that these 
categories of products should be excluded from the mandatory labelling and tracking scheme. The 
European Union  would advocate a highly selective, targeted use of the l abelling and tracking scheme, 
which would not in itself constitute a market access barrier . The EU also requested that Russia notify 
these requirements to the WTO.  
24.4.   The representative of  the Russian Federation  thanked the United States and the European 
Union for their interest in Russia' s trade policy. The measure applied to both domestic and foreign 
products and was aimed at fighting against the circulation of counterfeited products in the Russian 
market and e nsuring that all taxes had been  paid. The information about Track and Trace was 
available on the website of the Operator of the System "Chestn iy Znak ". As for pharmaceuticals, the 
Government of the Russian Federation had adopted the amendments to the proce dure of application 
of the System in respect of medicines on 2  November  2020, which had facilitated  this procedure for 
manufacturers and importers. All the market participants had enjoyed the opportunity to contact the 
Operator and get all the guidelines a nd required information about the functioning of the System. 
Regarding tax identification numbers and electronic digital signatures, the  Russian Federation  stated 
that these could only be provided to residents of the Russian Federation. These issues had be en set 
in the Federal legislation of the Russian Federation, including the Law on Electronic Signature, the 
Tax Code , and the Law on Pensions of the Russian Federation. As for Track and Trace, domestic G/MA/M/73  
- 49 - 
  manufacturers and importers that were entities of the Russian Federation were responsible for the 
functioning of the system . Foreign enterprises need not obtain these instruments. Her delegation 
was open to discuss any remaining question  bilaterally . 
24.5.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
25  KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA, KINGDOM OF BAHRAIN, THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, 
OMAN AND QATAR – SELECTIVE TAX ON CERTAIN IMPORTED PRODUCTS – STATEMENT BY 
THE EUROPEAN UNION,  JAPAN, SWITZERLAND, AND THE UNITED STATES  
25.1.   The Chairperson  recalled that this item had been included on the agenda at the request of 
the delegations  of the European Union, Japan, Switzerland,  and the United States.  
25.2.   The representative of Switzerland  noted  that, since  the Committee's previous meeting , her 
delegatio n had been granted the opportunity to hold a video conference with the General Authority 
for Zakat and Tax (GAZT) of Saudi Arabia. Switzerland wished to thank the delegation of Saudi 
Arabia for this fruitful meeting  of August  2020. During the meeting, the Governor of GAZT had 
indicated that a study on the reform of the tax was under  way at level of the Gulf Cooperation 
Council (GCC), but that it had been delayed due to the COVID -19 pandemic . The Governor had also 
indicated that the study would soon be compl eted. Switzerland wished to raise the following issues . 
First, she asked Saudi Arabia and the other GCC  member States to indicate whether  or not  the study 
was under  way in all the GCC  member States, and if it had been completed . If not, when would the 
GCC member States foresee its completion, and when would the interested parties be informed of 
the study's recommendations . She noted that t he discrimination between energy drinks, on one 
hand, and carbonated soft drinks and other sweetened beverages , on the other , remained  in place, 
as these products were subject to different tax rates. Therefore, Switzerland  reiterated its request 
to harmonize without delay the tax rate at 50% for energy drinks and all other categories of 
sugar -sweetened beverages su bject to the tax, as this would be a first  step towards eliminating the 
discrimination. Switzerland  also called for an exemption of all zero  sugar beverages from the tax 
and strongly encouraged all GCC  member States to engage with private industry stakehol ders on 
revising the tax in a transparent and non -discriminatory way. Switzerland had recently been 
informed that the GCC  competent authorities foresaw a selective tax  in the form of a specific duty  
which  would replace the current ad valorem  selective tax , and this would be a welcome  development . 
Unfortunately, the specific tax would not be revenue -neutral. This mean t that the specific tax could 
be even higher than the current ad valorem  tax in order to compensate for the decrease of the tax 
on the no-sugar  or diet beverages. The GCC  selective tax was already the highest excise tax levied 
in the world and , since its introduction , a sharp decrease in Swiss  exports had occurred. An additional 
increase would again substantially and negatively impact the beverag e industry, including the 
GCC domestic producers. Switzerland sought confirmation that the specific tax that had been 
foreseen would not be higher than the current ad valorem  tax. In French  there was a saying , "trop 
d’impôt tue l’impôt " or "too much tax ki lls the tax ". A new increase in the selective tax would not 
preserve the government revenue. Switzerland also requested  the GCC to provide  enough time  to 
allow the stakeholders to prepare  for the implementation of the tax reform. Turning to the Digital 
Tax Stamp  (DTS)  foreseen  by Saudi Arabia, Switzerland appreciated that the measure had currently 
been suspended . However, Switzerland continued to strongly oppose the introduction of the DTS on 
beverages. These were not contraband goods of high value. Switzerland  encouraged the competent 
authorities to pursue their dialogue with the industry to find other less harmful alternatives  as the 
cost of the stamp system on beverages would outweigh its  benefits . Her delegation  welcomed further 
exchanges and looked forward to receiving answers to their request for information from the 
GCC member  States . 
25.3.   The representative of Japan  stated that , in spite of the concerns that had been expressed 
over the pas t year, the issue of the selective tax on carbonated soft drinks introduced  by certain 
GCC member States had not yet been resolved , to the ongoing concern of his delegation . In the 
UAE, a high tax rate was imposed on some Japanese carbonated soft drinks du e to their classification 
as energy drinks , which was a classification based not only on the ingredients  of the drink , but also 
on the marketing and merchandizing methods used to advertise them. Japan had no objection to 
the imposition of a tax for the purpose of achieving health policy objectives. At the same time, Japan  
believed that such an imposition should consist of a volume -based tax in accordance with the ratio 
of ingredients that co uld health. Otherwise, the tax system would not function as an incentive to 
control the intake of these kinds of ingredients. Japan requested that such a tax be administrated in 
a transparent and reasonable manner , based on objective evidence.  G/MA/M/73  
- 50 - 
  25.4.   The represen tative of the United States  reiterated that her delegation's  concerns remained , 
as had been stated in previous meetings of this Committee and the C ouncil for Trade in Goods . At 
the C ommittee 's meeting in June, the United States had offered to engage with t he GCC on this 
issue in more detail . She asked h ow to follow -up on that offer , and w hich GCC  member State officials 
would organize such a discussion . The United States  stood ready to engage with  GCC member State 
officials on this issue as soon as possible . 
25.5.   The representative of the European Union  noted that  the EU maintained the serious concerns 
that it had voiced in the Council for Trade in Goods, the Market Access Committee , as well in its 
bilateral contacts in relation  to the GCC  "Treaty on Excise Tax " of December  2016. The European 
Union  welcomed the expansion of the tax base to include other sweetened beverages by Saudi Arabia 
and the United Arab Emirates,  thus no longer discriminating soft drinks containing sugar. However, 
the European Union  was stil l concerned that the GCC  countries had not decreased the tax for energy 
drinks from 100% to 50% in order not to discriminate between energy drinks and other sugary 
drinks. The EU also acknowledged recent positive steps that had been taken by the GCC  countr ies 
to revise the excise tax, switching from an ad valorem  tax to a specific tax based on content, in line 
with international best practice linking the amount of tax to a product 's actual sugar content. The 
EU called for a uniform implementation of the pos itive adjustments of the excise tax in all 
GCC countries. Her delegation  looked forward to receiving the results of the study the GCC was 
currently carrying out regarding the revision of the tax. The EU strongly encouraged the GCC to 
engage private industr y stakeholders in the process for revising the tax , and also encouraged the 
GCC to provide immediate relief for industry until the revision took effect, by exempting all 
zero sugar beverages from the tax and harmonizing the tax rate at 50 % for energy drink s and all 
other categories of sugar -sweetened beverages subject to the tax.  
25.6.   The representative of United Arab Emirates  indicated that he would respond on behalf of the 
GCC member States . He thanked the delegations that had taken the floor for their interes t in the 
tax situation in the GCC  member States, and specifically on the excise tax on drinks. Regarding the 
issues that had been raised, he wished to inform the committee of the following  points . The 
GCC member States were undertaking studies at the GCC level in order to improve the tax 
framework and to reach a better balance between the interests of the different stakeholders, while 
implementing a public health protection policy. These studies were under  way, although they had 
been delayed by the COVID -19 pandemic. The GCC  member States assured the interested 
delegations that said studies would be completed soon, and  that they would inform the Committee 
of the results. In the same vein, the UAE recalled that the GCC member States had proceeded to 
the expansion of the excise tax base , which had been implemented in July  2019, to include all 
sweetened drinks, in order to take into consideration the concerns previously expressed in this 
Committee. The GCC  member State s had taken note of the suggestion that had been made by the 
Swiss delegation regarding the exemption of all zero -sugar beverages and the GCC  competent 
authorities would consider it with interest. Regarding the "possible new increase of the excise tax” 
and the so -called "too much tax kills the tax", he wished to inform the Swiss delegation that the 
objective of the ongoing reform would aim to reach  a better balance between the interests of the 
different stakeholders, while implementing a public health prote ction policy. In conclusion, the 
UAE delegation had taken  note of all of the concerns expressed, and assured delegations that they 
would be relayed to the competent authorities in their respective Capitals . Finally, he noted that the 
GCC member States  would also spare no effort in informing the interested delegations of any further 
development in this matter in a timely fashion.  
25.7.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
26  SRI LANKA – IMPORT BAN ON  VARIOUS PRODUCTS – STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN 
UNION  
26.1.   The Chairperson  recalled that this agenda item had been included at the request of the 
European Union.  
26.2.   The representative of the European Union  understood  that the COVID -19 crisis had put a lot 
of pressure on the Sri Lankan economy and its foreign currency  reserves as a result of  the massive 
reduction in remittances and tourism revenues. However, her delegation was  deeply concerned by 
the far -reaching import restrictions that Sri Lanka had introduced in the spring of 2020, and which 
had been  extended on 30  June 2020. Sri Lanka' s broad import ban was potentially affecting 
hundreds of millions of exports  from the European Union . The current import bans had raised serious G/MA/M/73  
- 51 - 
  concerns in terms of their compatibility with Sri Lanka' s WTO  obligations. The European Un ion had 
not yet seen these measures notified to the WTO. Even if they had been introduced  due to an 
emergency situation, the Government should have notified the measures immediately after they 
were adopted , in line with WTO  rules. The temporary import rest rictions introduced  by the Sri Lankan 
Government ha d been linked to the shortage of foreign currency. Quantitative restrictions should be 
avoided even when Balance -of-Payments issues ar ose. The side effects of restrictive measures 
should be the least trade distortive and ensure that  there was no discrimination among supplying 
countries – although this ban applied to all importers. The measures would also need to be 
temporary. Apart from these formal requirements, her delegation  believed that the underl ying 
motivation was the protection of Sri  Lankan industries and import substitution under the guise of 
foreign currency pressure. In conclusion, the E uropean Union  expressed concerns about the 
measures that had been taken by the Government of Sri Lanka aff ecting EU  exports, especially the 
lack of notification and justification of the measures. In the absence of any justification, the  European 
Union  called for their full withdrawal. Her delegation  thanked Sri Lanka for the opportunity to discuss 
these concer ns bilaterally, including in Geneva, and looked forward to further engagement should 
their concerns persist.  
26.3.   The representative of the United States  thanked  the European Union for having raised this 
issue and shared the concerns that had been expressed. The United States was  monitoring the issue 
and was interested to hear Sri Lanka' s response to the issue s that had been raised.  
26.4.   The representative of Australia  shared the concerns that had been raised by the  European 
Union with respect to the measures that ha d been implemented by Sri Lanka. These measures 
appeared to be overly trade -restrictive, did not appear to have a clear end -date, noting  that they 
had been put  in place "until further notice ", and had not been notified to the WTO. Australia 
appreciated the difficult circumstances that Sri Lanka had experienced as a result of the impact of 
the COVID -19 pandemic  on its economy and trade. Nevertheless, a well -functioning, transparent, 
predictable  and stable global trading system remained fundamental to global economic stability 
during the pandemic , and the economic recovery post -pandemic.  This was true for Sri Lanka and for 
all other WTO  Members. Therefore , Australia  requested Sri Lanka to notify  to the WTO these 
measures as soon as possible and to provide an explanation of the WTO  basis for the measures. He 
urged Sri Lanka to reassure Members that the measures would only be implemented to address the 
immediate impact of the COVID -19 pandemic , woul d not be maintained longer than necessary, and 
would  be implemented in a manner that was consistent with Sri Lanka' s WTO  obligations.  
26.5.   The representative of Sri Lanka  thanked the European Union, the United States,  and Australia 
for their interest shown in Sri Lanka' s trade policies in general and for raising  their specific concerns 
on the current trade measures that had been taken by Sri Lanka to curb the COVID -19 pandemic. 
Sri Lanka had been holding discussions with the EU  delegation in different configurations both in 
Geneva and in Brussels since July  2020. Her delegation  was encouraged to notice that the EU had 
gained a better understanding of the very specific and challenging circumstances which had led to 
the Government of Sri Lanka's  (GOSL) decision to impose these measures. Like many countries, Sri 
Lanka had been a victim of the COVID -19 pandemic  and had been obliged to implement a number 
of measures to curb the COVID -19 pandemic , including  the imposition of curfews over an extended 
period. Du e to an unexpected second  waive, it had been necessary to  continue with partial lockdowns 
to contain the spread of the virus. As a result, there had been a slowdown in the local production 
process and also in the export of goods. The economic fallout from the COVID -19 pandemic  remained 
ongoing and had been increasingly difficult to predict. As a small developing country, Sri Lanka was 
not an exception to this situation. As an outward -looking country, which relied heavily on 
international trade , with imports  constituting around 90% of Sri Lanka's  GDP, her country had 
witnessed a loss of export revenue both on trade in goods and services , and the depletion of overseas 
migrant remittances, which had significantly offset the trade balance , thereby  hitting  domestic 
production and increasing the  import bills . Therefore, the country 's ability to expand its  international 
reserves as a buffer against macroeconomic shocks had been drastically weakened. The spread of 
the COVID -19 pandemic had significantly impact ed near-term growth prospects globally, while 
available indicators for Sri Lanka also suggested that economic growth would be  severely affected, 
nullifying all predicted gains to be achieved during the year 2020. According to Word Bank 
predictions, Sri Lan ka's economy would contract by 6.7% in 2020 owing to the overall impact caused 
by the COVID -19 pandemic. In view of this "highly unfavourable economic climate ", which had been 
created with the spread of COVID -19 around the globe , and the difficulty in prot ecting and 
safeguarding its external financial situation, restoring macroeconomic balance and safeguarding a 
healthy balance in its dollarized economy, Sri Lanka had been  compelled to proceed with the G/MA/M/73  
- 52 - 
  imposition of measures that may have affected the inter national trade and the trade interests of its 
trading partners in the WTO.  
26.6.   During the time-period specified in the enquiry by the European Union , Sri Lanka had enacted 
measures to counter the economic impact of the COVID -19 crisis. Even before Sri Lanka ha d imposed 
import restrictive measures , in April  2020, total imports for the  January –May period in 2019 had 
fallen compared to the January –May period in 2018 , a 14.81% decrease . And total imports in the 
January –May period in 2020 had fallen only by 19.24% compared to the January –May period 
in 2019. The economic impact of the COVID -19 challenges would have necessitated the GOSL to 
curtail imports by a much higher and substantial percentage.  In contrast to the measures that had 
been notified by other Members to the WTO, Sri Lanka' s measures appeared to be based on an 
economic rationale , which was limiting banking services to limit the flow of foreign exchange out of 
the country and to stabilize exchange rates and the financial sector. The measures had covered 
certain activities in the financial sector. It was understandable that Sri Lanka,  being a potentially 
vulnerable island economy , was concerned about the economic impact of the COVID -19 crisis, which 
had compounded previously  existing economic challe nges. For example, the tourism industry had 
been crippled since April  2019 after a series of devastating terrorist attacks on key cities. Apparel 
and garments generated about half of Sri Lanka' s foreign exchange earnings through exports , but 
movement restr ictions associated with the global response to the COVID -19 crisis had collapsed the 
demand from importing countries for these textile products. Besides losing demand for apparel, the 
contraction in world demand had also cut off other foreign exchange reve nue streams, such as 
remittances and income from tourism.  
26.7.   As a result of the measures that had been imposed by Sri Lanka, the trade deficit was 
estimated to have narrowed by 9.17% during Jan uary-May  2020, with the contraction in exports 
(-28.41%) outweighing the contraction in imports ( -19.24%). Given  the drastic reduction in nearly 
all normal sources of foreign exchange earnings and inflows of foreign exchange remittances into 
the country, Sri Lanka  had suddenly ceased many economic activit ies. The value of the Sri Lankan 
Rupee had plunged to an unprecedented low against the US  dollar in March  2020. Immediately, the 
GOSL had been compelled to temporarily impose measures on imports to prevent a rapid 
depreciation of its local currency , and it was also prompted to intervene with further measures 
beyond the first  quarter of 2020. As a result, the Sri Lankan rupee, which had remained volatile, 
recorded a notable appreciation in the second and third quarte rs of 2020. She stated that i t was also 
important to indicate that the measures affecting imports had been taken as ad hoc measures in 
response to the COVID -19 pandemic and had not been taken as "regular" measures by Sri Lanka. 
Sri Lanka had been using pri ce-based measures , such as increasing import duties from applied levels 
to bound levels or imposing surcharges up to bound levels , to address the compounding effects on 
Sri Lanka' s vulnerable dollarized foreign exchange rate and trade balance during the 
2018/2019  period. However , such measures appeared to have been insufficient to  arrest the 
significant flows of foreign exchange out of the country and to stabilize the exchange rates and the 
financial sector during the first  quarter of 2020.  
26.8.   This situation had prompted Sri Lanka to resort to the application of non -price-based 
measures. The measures that had been introduced were mainly with respect to the facilitation of 
the banking services at issue, and were not directly aimed at limiting the trad e of commodities per 
se, but to arrest  the flow of foreign exchange out of the country in substantial amounts. In doing 
so, Sri Lanka had amended the provisions in the Import and Export Control Regulation No.  11 of 
2011 (Special Import Licence  and Payment Regulations of 02.01.2012), which had been notified to 
the WTO  Committee on Import Licensing in 2014  (document  G/LIC/N/1/LKA/2 , of 
19 February  2014) . This Regulation had laid down  sub-regulations pertaining to the terms and 
conditions on payment terms for importation of goods into the country for commercial purposes. 
These measures had temporarily suspended banking services, such that it served to limit the 
facilitation of banking services by Sri  Lankan banks. In effect, the measures had imposed restriction s 
or delays on payments and transfers. This enabled  the GOSL to limit the flow of scarce foreign 
exchange going out of the country during the COVID -19 pandemic . The measures had temporarily 
suspended the provision by commercial banks in Sri Lanka, includin g Sri Lankan branches 
established under GATS  Mode  3 by foreign banks , of banking services relevant to the importation of 
goods into Sri Lanka (with certain exceptions), under an array of payment terms ( that is,  Letters of 
Credit, Documents Against Acceptan ce, Documents Against Payment, Open Account , and Advanced 
Payment arrangements), compelling importers to import items either under other payment methods 
or on a credit basis (90  days or 180  days credit). By temporarily limiting the provision of banking 
services necessary to pay for the importation o f goods, the measures essentially sought to G/MA/M/73  
- 53 - 
  temporarily stem the outflow of foreign exchange from Sri Lanka. Accordingly, the measures had 
affected the trade in services covered by Sri Lanka' s WTO  GATS  specific commitments (under 
Financial Services) and th ereby pertained to , or affected , the operation of the GATS. The measures 
that had been imposed could be considered as "measures by Members " within the meaning of the 
GATS, being measures of general application taken by central government authorities, which  
pertained to or affected the operation and implementation by Sri Lanka of its GATS -specific 
commitments in relation to banking services. As such, under GATS  Article III:1 and Art icle III:2, Sri 
Lanka was required to publish these measures promptly or make  them otherwise publicly available. 
Sri Lanka had complied with these obligations as the measures had all been published or made 
publicly available by the relevant central government authority at the latest by the time of their 
entry into force. Furthermor e, Sri Lanka' s market access commitment in its GATS  schedule with 
respect to the Mode  3 provision of the banking services at issue was limited and conditional and 
therefore the measures in question were consistent with Sri Lanka' s GATS  commitments on marke t 
access in light of the well written schedule of commitments and the conditions and limitations 
specified therein. To reassure its trading partners, the measures in question , which limited  banking 
facilities, did not discriminate between domestic banks an d the Sri Lankan branches or subsidiaries 
of foreign banks operating in Sri Lanka. The measures were applicable to both domestic and foreign 
banks present in Sri Lanka.  
26.9.   Sri Lanka expected WTO  Members to show understanding for the emergency measures of the 
type that had been taken , especially because these measures had been  properly targeted, 
proportionate, temporary , and transparent, while preserving the WTO 's non-discrimination principle 
and ensuring minimal trade effects on its trading partners. With its limited capacity, Sri Lanka had 
analysed  the other WTO  legal provisions under which the measures could have been justified  and 
had arranged the appropriate notifications accordingly , but the time-limit of some of these measures 
had been  less than one to three  months.  On some of the covered measures, Sri Lanka had already 
complied with its obligations, as the measures had all been published or made publicly available by 
the relevant central government a uthority at the latest by the time of their entry into force. 
Sri Lanka' s capacity constraints in general , and particularly in the midst of significant and widespread 
COVID -19-related lockdown measures which had been imposed by Sri Lanka, and where the 
GOSL administrative machinery 's priorities had been  drawn towards combating and curtailing the 
wide spread of the disease, ha d resulted in delays in analysing  the other precise WTO  legal provisions 
under which the measures could have been justified for the pu rpose s of submitting the notifications 
to the WTO. Sri Lanka was aware of the need to relax the current measures. As the present situation 
indicate d certain favourable spillover effects, Sri Lanka had been progressively relaxing the 
measures at regular int ervals and had aimed  towards price -based measures, probably using the 
flexibilit y available between its applied and bound tariff levels. In conclusion , they would continue 
their dialogue with all concerned delegations in a constructive way and with a view to addressing 
their concerns.  
26.10.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
27  ELECTION OF THE VICE -CHAIRPERSON  
27.1.   The Chairperson  recalled that Rule 12 of the Rules of Procedure of this Committee allowed it 
to elect a Vice -Chairperson, and the long -standing practice had been to elect a Vice -Chairperson 
during the autumn meeting. Based on his consultations, he proposed that the Committee elect 
Ms Elisa OLMEDA (Mexico) as Vice -Chair of this Committee by acclamation.  
27.2.   The Committee so agreed . 
28  DRAFT REPOR T (2020) OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
(G/MA/SPEC/60)  
28.1.   The Chairperson  recalled  that the Committee was required annually to submit a report on its 
activities to the Council for Trade in Goods. The Chairperson noted that the Secretariat had circulated 
a draft report covering the activities of the Committee during the review period, which had circulated 
in document  G/MA/SPEC/60. He noted that there had been a clerical error in one  paragraph , where 
the date  had read "10 December  2020" instead of "10 December  2019", which would be corrected 
in the subsequent version. He proposed that the Committee request the Secretariat to update the 
report and to circulate  to delegations by email the new version , highlighting the changes. Members G/MA/M/73  
- 54 - 
  would then  have until close of business of Wednesday, 18  November, to inform the Secretariat if 
they had any objection. In the absence of any objection, the report would be considered to have 
been approved by the Committee and would be submitted to the CTG.  
28.2.   The Comm ittee so agreed . 
29  OTHER BUSINESS  
29.1  Panama – Import restrictive practices  
29.1.   The Chairperson  recalled  that this item had been included under other business at the request 
of Costa Rica.  
29.2.   The representative of Costa Rica  expressed his delegation's  deep concern over the growing 
number of unjustified import restrictions that had been implement ed by Panama , and the negative 
effect that these measures ha d been having on bilateral and regional trade. The adverse effects 
derived from these measures had been  accentuated by the high economic vulnerability caused by 
the COVID -19 pandemic . Costa Rica had faced an unjustified brake on its tomato exports from 2011, 
a situation that had been  aggravated in 2019 after Panama had implemented new barriers to 
bananas, plantains, pineapples , and strawberries from Costa Rica. In addition to these cases, on 
30 June 2019, new meas ures had been  added , which had caused the sudden closure of the 
Panamanian market to the import of dairy products, pork and beef, processed poultry meat, 
sausages , and fish food from Costa Rica and other regional partners . This issue  had been  raised in 
July at the Committee on Agriculture. Last week , during a meeting of the SPS  Committee, Costa 
Rica had again pointed to Panama's apparent non -compliance with its obligations under the 
SPS Agreement, the MFN  clause  under Article  I:1 of the GATT , and Article  XI:1, regarding the 
non-adoption of import restrictions or bans. Costa Rica had sought dialogue with the various 
Panamanian authorities to understand their reasoning and to try to find mutually satisfactory 
solutions. To date, this effort at d ialogue, particularly between the health authorities, had not yielded 
results. Despite multiple bilateral meetings in recent months, the Panamanian authorities had 
refused to provide explanations of the reasons for the implementation of its measures , which  went 
against regional and multilateral trade regulations. Instead, they had concentrated their arguments 
on a failure to comply with forms and timelines , and had emphasized the need to reduce the gap in 
their trade balance with Costa Rica as a valid argum ent for the imposition of these measures . This 
was an element which, in accordance with bilateral, regional , and multilateral trade rules, did not 
provide any support for the measures that had been applied. Unfortunately, in addition to the de 
facto closur e of the Panamanian market for dairy products of  last June, on 12  August , Panama had 
notified its intention to eliminate its bound tariff quotas for fluid and evaporated milk  through 
document  G/SECRET/45 . The amendment proposed to  eliminate these tariff qu otas, which would 
leave only the out-of-quota duties . This was a bound tariff of 60% for fluid milk , and of 155.7%  for 
evaporated milk . The i n-quota duty for both TRQs was  15%. Costa Rica reserved all its rights, and 
underlined that the procedures to modify or withdraw the Schedules of concessions under 
Article  XXVIII involved a negotiation and agreement with any contracting party "primarily 
concerned" , for which consultations would be established with the provision for compensatory 
adjustment . Cost a Rica feared that this measure was just another element in a set of protectionist 
policies, which were deliberately obstructive to trade  and inconsistent with Panama's commitments 
at the WTO . They were becoming even more harmful in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic , in 
particular given the high sensitivity of the goods in question, and particularly dairy products. Costa 
Rica had maintained its willingness to give one  further opportunity for good -faith dialogue and would 
do so to the extent that reasona bleness and circumstances warrant ed. In this regard, Costa Rica 
respectfully and vehemently urged Panama  to comply with their WTO  commitments and to lift the 
import bans that prevent ed the normal flow of trade between their countries.  
29.3.   The representative of  Panama  took note of the comments that had been made by Costa Rica 
and indicated  that her delegation  had not been given any notice  that these issue s would be raised. 
The intervention would be sent back  to Capital  for analysis . With respect to dairy product s, she noted 
that Panama would be holding consultations with Costa Rica that day . She confirmed that Panama 
was following the procedures  under  Article  XXVIII  and was  making use of the rights that all 
WTO Members  enjoyed , including Costa Rica. With regard to Costa Rica's comments on the 
certification  of facilities , she noted that the comments were not new  and that the situation had not 
changed since the last two  occasions on which Costa Rica had raised its concerns. On th is 
third occasion , Costa Rica  had just summarized what they had said in the past. The facilities that G/MA/M/73  
- 55 - 
  had been  referred to by Costa Rica had not been inspected since 2013. As a result, t heir sanitary 
and phytosanitary certificates for export to Panama had expired shortly thereafter. Despite this, in 
the interest s of facilitating trade , and in view of the close commercial ties between their countries, 
Panama had provisionally and voluntarily extended the periods of approval of the facilities  until 
June 2020.  This extension did not imply a derogation or waiver by Panama of its rights under any 
WTO agreement, in particular the SPS  Agreement, nor under any other agreement concluded 
between their countries. Throughout this period of provisional extension, Panama had been in 
constant communication with Costa Rica to request that it initiate the process to renew the 
certifications. Also , during this entire period, and to date, instead of initiating the necessary 
evaluation and certification process, Costa Rica had p referred to argue under different rationales 
that Panama did not have the right to carry out its evaluation to ensure food safety and to protect 
human life and health , and the country's animal and plant health . The  respective  authorities in 
Capitals remain ed in contact. Panama remained fully committed to resolving the situation if Costa 
Rica decided to initiate the appropriate assessment and certification process. The representative of 
Panama concluded by stating that she would report back to her Capital the same day . 
29.2  Canada – E-Registration system  
29.4.   The Chairperson  recalled that this item had been included under "Other Business" at the 
request of Canada.  
29.5.   The representative of Canada  wished  to remind delegates of the usefulness of identifying the 
committees and councils for which they were responsible on the WTO's e-Registration system  
(https://eregistration.wto.org) . While t he current list for the Committee on Market Access cover ed 
approxim ately 80 delegates , representing 60 Members , he had noted that close to 90  Members had 
been listening online during the first  part of the meeting . For this reason, he wished to remind 
delegates of the  system , which allowed e ach delegate to easily  update their profile once they had 
logged into the system. The benefits were twofold. Firstly, delegates would receive emails directly 
from the Secretariat to their inbox and would not need to seek out such  information from the 
delegation coordinator . Secondly , it would assist  delegates to identify their counterparts , which 
would greatly  facilitate communication, especially in these times when all delegations  had to rely 
upon email, Interprefy , and videoconferencing to be able to speak to one another and to discuss the 
different issues that they wished to address.  
29.6.   The Committee took note  of the statement.  
29.3  E-Agenda  
29.7.   The Chairperson  recalled that, at the informal meeting of 16 October 2020, the Committee 
had discussed the possibility of adopting the e -agenda system, like it was  being used by the SPS 
and TBT Committees.  His sense from the  informal  meeting was that delegations were willing to 
continue exploring this possibility.  For this reason, and as had alr eady been discussed at the informal 
meeting, he had  requested the Secretariat to prepare a mock system so it could  be presented at the 
first informal meeting of next year. Once the mock version was ready, delegations would then have 
some time to test it an d the Committee w ould discuss whether adjustments were necessary. Like in 
the TBT and SPS Committees, the use of the e -agenda would be strictly on a voluntary basis.  
Moreover, this would be  a pilot project that w ould not prejudge whether the Committee decided to 
continue using it .   
29.8.   The Committee took note  of the statement.  
29.4  Dates of the next meetings  
29.9.   The meeting was adjourned . 
__________