RESTRICTED  
  
G/TBT/M/80  
 
 
24 April 2020  
(20-3220) Page: 1/68 
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETI NG OF 26-27 FEBRUARY 2020  
CHAIR MAN: MR SUNG HWA JANG  
Note by the Secretariat1 
1   ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  ................................ ................................ .........................  1 
2   IMPLEMENTATION A ND ADMINISTRATION OF  THE AGREEMENT  ................................ . 1 
2.1   STATEMENTS FRO M MEMBERS UNDER ARTI CLE 15.2 ................................ ................  1 
2.2   SPECIFIC TRADE  CONCERNS  ................................ ................................ .....................  2 
3   AGENDA ITEM 3: T WENTY -FIFTH ANNUAL R EVIEW  ................................ ....................  67 
4   AGENDA ITEM 4: T ECHNICAL COOPERATION  ACTIVITIES  ................................ ..........  67 
5   AGENDA ITEM 5: U PDATING BY OBSER VERS  ................................ ..............................  68 
6   AGENDA ITEM 6: E LECTION OF CHAIRPERS ON................................ ...........................  68 
7   AGENDA ITEM 7: O THER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ............  68 
8   AGENDA ITEM 8: D ATE OF NEXT MEETING  ................................ ................................ . 68 
 
1  ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA 
1.1.  The Committee  adopted the agenda contained in WTO/AIR/TBT/ 16. 
2  IMPLEMENTATION AND A DMINISTRATION OF THE  AGREEMENT  
2.1  Statements from Members under Article  15.2 
2.1.  The representative of Côte d'Ivoire  introduced  its Article 15.2 Statement to the Committee.2 
Firstly, the Geneva -based delegate took the floor to underline  the importance of technical assistance 
for developing countries in fulfilling notification obligation s. A regional workshop on TBT for French 
Speaking African Countries had taken place in October 2019. One of the outcomes of this workshop 
was Côte d'Ivoir e's submission of this statement. The floor was then passed by teleconference to a n 
official from the National Notification Authority based in Abidjan . The full statement is contained in 
G/TBT/2/Add.127/Suppl.1  
2.2.  The representative of the United Kingdom  introduced its  Statement under Article 15.2.3 The 
full statement is contained in G/TBT/2/Add.128/Suppl.1 . 
2.3.  The representative of Myanmar  introduced its Statement under Article 15.2.4 She underlined 
Myanmar's commitment to meeting its notification obligations and the importance of transparency.  
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility  and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  
2 G/TBT/2/Add.127 . 
3 G/TBT/2/Add.128 . 
4 G/TBT/2/Add.129 . G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 2 - 
 
  2.4.  The Chairman reminded the Committee of Members' notification obligation under Article  15.2 
of the TBT Agreement and further informed the Committee that the latest list of statements on 
implementation submitted under this provision was contain ed in an annex to the Annual Review of 
the Implementation and Operation of the TBT Agreement ( G/TBT/4 4), issued on 19 February 2020 . 
Information on the list of statements is available on the TBT Information Management  System  
(TBT IMS). 
2.2  Specific Trade Concerns  
2.2.1   Withdrawn concerns  
2.5.  The Chairperson  reported that the following STCs had been withdrawn from the agenda at the 
request of the concerned Member:  
• China - Administrative Measures for Registration of Overseas Inspections of Cosmetics  
2.2.2   New Concerns  
2.2.2.1   Mexico - Draft Amendment to Mexican Official Sta ndard NOM -051-SCFI/SSA1 -
2010: General specifications for the labelling of pre -packed food and non -alcoholic 
beverages  
2.6.  The representative of the European Union  raised concerns with this measure. The full statement 
is contained in G/TBT/W/715 . 
2.7.  The representative of the United States  support ed Mexico's public health objective of reducing 
diet-related non -communicable diseases and appreciate d its notification to the WTO. US Government 
and nine trade associations had provided comments through the US  Enquiry Point on this measure.  
2.8.  The US  thank ed Mexico for providing a 60 -day comment period and for the deliberative and 
public discussion on the proposed measure . The US  looked forward to seeing the published 
comments and receiving substantive replies to its questions and concerns.  The US also appre ciated 
the bilateral discussions that had taken place with the Secretary of the Economy, Undersecretary de 
la Mora, her staff, and the authorities of the Dirección General de Normas  (DGN), Comisi ón Nacional 
de Mejora Regulatoria  (CONAMER), and Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos 
Sanitarios  (COFEPRIS).  
2.9.  There were concerns that the  proposed regulation, intended to address public health,  could b e 
more trade restrictive than necessary to meet Mexico's legitimate objective, might  not be based on 
robust scientific evidence, d id not appear to consider the relevant international standards and could 
contribute to consumer confusion. She highlighted the following concerns:  
a. The nutrient thresholds chosen appear ed more stringent than the thres holds set by other 
countries. For example, the threshold for sodium was low er than the proposed thresholds 
set by Uruguay and Chile. Considering the complexity faced by food manufacturers and 
exporters in complying with these requirements, Mexico was reque sted to  justify the basis 
for selecting more conservative thresholds than those found in other countries.  
b. Mexico derived these thresholds  from the Wo rld Health Organization's Population Nutrient 
Intake Goals to Prevent Obesity and Related Non -Communicable Diseases. The WHO goals 
relate d to an individual's total diet. When applied to individual foods the threshold could  
be more conservative than necessary. This application could  discourage intake of food 
groups important to recommended diet patterns, lead ing to skewed dietary patterns and 
potential  deficiencies in essential nutrients. Would Mexico  consider whether significant 
public health gains could  be achieved with  less trade -restrictive  thresholds.  
c. Regarding the new warning element to children consuming n on-nutritive sweeteners, 
Mexico was requested to  consider that in some products, such as sugarless gum, these 
sweeteners could  be a healthier option, with respect to dental health. Further clarification 
was needed on how Mexico w ould treat approved non -nutritive sweeteners in the market 
when the potential new warning was implemented. Was Mexico concern ed that sweeteners G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 3 - 
 
  were unsafe for consumption by children or that these substances w ould lead to later 
consumption of sweet foods?  
d. The conformity assessment requirements in Chapter 9 of the regulation appear ed to make 
the currently voluntary label approval a mandatory process, thereby requiring conformity 
assessment of all products with Mexican regulations and standards. There could be a  
potential negative eco nomic impact associated with such requirements becoming 
mandatory, such as ensuring the volume of labels required to be assessed by verification 
bodies be processed without delay, in addition to the costs associated with label changes 
and the assessment pr ocess. C ould Mexico confirm whether mandatory label approval and 
conformity assessment of all products subject to the regulation was intended in the 
revisions to this regulation?  
e. A transition period of at least two years  was requested  for manufacturers to comply with 
the new food labelling schemes.  
f. If there were new elements included or significant substantive changes to the proposed 
measure before it s adoption or ent ry into force, the US requested that it be re -notified for 
an additional 6 0-day comment period according to the TBT Committee's Recommendation 
on Coherent Use of Notification Formats (G/TBT/35/Rev.1).  
2.10.   Given that this measure could affect up to US$6 billion in  US-Mexico  trade,  the US hoped that 
all submitted comments would be considered before finalizing the regulation.  
2.11.   The representative of Switzerland  requested further information so as to better understand  
whether the proposed technical regulation was based on scientific information and relevant 
international standards, and whether alternative measures ha d been taken into account.  Switzerland 
share d Mexico's goals regarding the promotion of public health and consumer information. For 
instance, the comp etent Swiss authorities  had issued recommendations on daily nutrient intake and 
set voluntary nutrient thresholds for different food categories. Major food producers and importers 
had also agreed to introduce the label "Nutri -Score" on packaged food – again on a purely voluntary 
basis – in order to provide better and more targeted information to consumers. Had Mexico 
considered  less trade -restrictive alternative measures before pursuing the proposed measure?  
2.12.   The internationally agreed Codex Guidelines on Nu trition Labelling d id not foresee warning 
labels in the absence of exact quantitative knowledge of what individuals should eat in order to 
maintain good health. Hence, a better understanding of the rationale behind choosing a label with 
negative warning, s uch as "exceso en" , was necessary . By using such a warning, consumers might  
assume that these food products should be avoided altogether, even as part of a balanced and 
healthy diet. Switzerland look ed forward to continued  discussion bilaterally .  
2.13.   The repr esentative of Costa Rica  supported  the very important work being carried out under 
Codex Alimentarius and also other Members ' technical or scientific justification  of measures based 
on Codex standards. Mexico was requested to clarify its position regarding the work that was being 
carried out  under Codex  on the development of guidelines on food labelling . Taking into consideration 
the classification parameters  used when looking at excess saturated fats, sodium and sugar, Mexico 
was requested to indicate the international standard or the scientific evidence  used when considering 
these levels, and to justify the front of pack warnings and the additional nutritional information. She 
asked that  Mexico provide the  international standa rd, or the risk assessment used in ascertaining 
the risk to children in consuming products with added caffeine or sugar substitutes.  This measure 
could be inconsisten t with  obligations under the TBT Agreement,  in particular  Articles 2.2 and 2.4 .  
2.14.   The repre sentative of Guatemala  said that , while recognizing the legitimate objective of 
protecting public  health, it was necessary to apply the least trade -restrictive measures possible.  The 
nutrient limits in the proposed measure deviated from WHO thresholds based on the global daily 
diet of an individual in line with the standard  within the framework of Codex Alimentarius. Foodstuffs 
contain different types of nutrients so while there are  specific nutrients in one , others could be 
lacking. Therefore, t he values established by the WHO should not be  the defining characteristic of a 
given foodstuff. The proposed measure a lso contain ed a parameter to determine  excess calories and 
also the various criteria for doing so based on the concept of energy value, ener gy identity . The 
WHO thresholds  made no reference to this or to other criteria of a similar nature.  G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.15.   Codex Alimentarius was currently  discussing guidelines for front -of-package labelling, as well 
as nutritional profiles, in the Codex Alimentarius Committee  on Nutrition and Foods for Special 
Dietary Uses. This discussion was v ery important  for economies such as Guatemala  when it c ame to 
the quest for harmonization in this area. Small- and Medium -sized Producers  were facing difficulties 
in accessing markets caused by a lack of harmonization in  labelling and different limits for each 
country. Mexico should look  at the provisions contained in Codex Alimentarius and scientific evidence 
established in the various bodies. One of the objectives of the Codex Alimenta rius was to arrive at 
international harmonization and to remove barriers to trade. Guatemala thanked M exico for the 
ongoing bilateral discussions and  hoped to soon receive replies to the comments and questions 
submitted in December.  
2.16.   The representative of Mexico responded to the concerns raised. The full statement was 
circulated in G/TBT/W/709 . 
2.2.2.2   Colombia - Food Prioritized for its Sodium Content, Certification Requirements , 
G/TBT/N/COL/238  and G/TBT/N/COL/238/Add.1  
2.17.   The representative of the United States  raised concerns with Colombia's proposed technical 
regulation  "Food Prioritized for its Sodium Content, Certification Requirements" . The proposed 
measure would require different maximum sodium requirements for each of the 67 agriculture 
products listed in the notification. The proposed legislation set first -year and third -year maximum 
sodium limits. The U S understanding was that  once the relevant compliance dates ha d passed, 
Colombia w ould no longer permit the sale of products that exceed ed these maximum sodium levels.  
2.18.   The US appreciate d the opportunity to share concern s with Colombia on this notified measure 
and request ed an update on the status of th e proposed regulation. Comments were submitted on 
31 October 2019. While supporting Colombia's efforts to reduce hypertension and related 
non-communicable diseases  and having s imilar goals, the US  was concerne d that  Colombia 's 
mandatory approach , instead of a voluntary approach similar to other Members , could  be more trade 
restrictive than necessary to meet Colombia's legitimate objective.  
2.19.   A key concern was that  the proposed re gulation might  not fully consider the technical and the 
functional role of sodium and relevant international commodity standards. Companies might  not be 
able to feasibly reformulate products while still maintaining shelf -life stability, product safety and 
palatability for consumers in the timeline proposed in the draft regulation. Implementation of this 
regulation could  result in a number of agriculture products, like mustard, canned sardines, cream 
cheese, farmer's cheese and various cheese products being  banned from the market once they 
exceed ed the maximum sodium requirements.  
2.20.   The US reiterate d its interest in having an open dialogue with Colombia's Ministry of Health,  
to share information regarding ways to develop evidence -based program mes to address Co lombia's 
public health objectives while minimizing negative economic impact.  
2.21.   The representative of Guatemala  said that , while recognizing the legitimate objective of 
protecting public  health, there were some concerns regarding this measure. Guatemala recognized 
the well -coordinated work carried out within Colombia to cut down on the content of sodium in 
pre-packaged food  products and for its notification to the TBT Committee , where max imum content 
levels of sodium in processed food  were set forth . Guatemala thanked Colombia for sharing the 
scientific evidence that determined the sodium levels for each food products that were considered 
to have a high sodium content for humans and theref ore could not be placed on the market after 
the transition period . However , a tolerance for a maximum limit of sodium must be a value 
controlling the excess of the nutrient , not a range. T he Codex Alimentarius standard CAC/GL 2 -1985 
contained information o n variables that could affect the  tolerance of sodium.  Further information 
was requested on why a single testing method had been chosen , what that method was and whether 
testing had to be carried out in Colombia or a foreign lab test would be acceptable.   
2.22.   The representative of Colombia  thanked Members for their active participation and interest in 
the regulatory process of this draft measure. This public health measure  was part of the "national 
salt reduction strategy 2020 -2021" , which t ook into account  not only the content of sodium in 
processed foods but also other sources, such as added salt in restaurants, institutions or households. 
The strateg y's objective was to contribute to reducing mortality due to arterial hypertension and G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 5 - 
 
  cardiovascular illness t hrough the gradual reduction of salt in food products , by follow ing the WHO 
recommendation 2021, which was a limit of five  grams of salt, or two grams of sodium, per person 
per day. Since 2018, the Health Ministry 's 'Route of Promoting and Maintaining Heal th' was trying 
to positively promot e public health  through avoiding risks, preventing diseases and using concrete 
actions to educate consumer s so as to reduce  excessive consumption of salt.  Products that exceeded 
the maximum levels or salt would not be prohibited. Rather they would  be penalized.  
2.23.   During the preparation of this regulation, an impact assessment had been conducted which 
considered the trade and economic effects, including cost to industry and government. This 
assessment was very inclusive and showed that the benefits in terms of public health were higher 
than the associated costs of implementing the measure. Colombia would accept certificates issued 
by accredited organizations w ith Mutual Recognition Agreements from the International 
Accreditation Forum (IAF).  
2.24.   Finally, she said that although voluntary reduction efforts existed, scientific evidence indicated 
that these had a low impact in reducing sodium consumption. More details  on this measure had been 
sent to the US TBT Enquiry Point and to other Members that had provided comments. Colombia was 
open to continuing discussion with all interested parties, as had been the case during t he regulatory 
process.  
2.2.2.3   United States - Act to a mend the environmental conservation law, in relation to 
regulation of toxic chemicals in children 's products (State of New York - Senate Bill 
501B/Assembly Bill 6296A)  G/TBT/N/USA/1581   
2.25.   The representative of the European Union  raised concerns with this measure . The full 
statement  is contained in G/TBT/W/719 . 
2.26.   The representative of the United States  encourage d the EU and any other interested Member 
to submit comments on the notification. The bill, entitled "An Act to amend the environmental 
conservation law, in relation to regulation of toxic chemicals in children's  products", was signed by 
the New York State Governor on 7 February  2020. Prior to signing the bill, the Governor's office 
reached agreement with the New York state legislature to make changes to the bill . The bill was 
signed , conditioned upon passage of a  new bill that incorporate d those agreed -upon changes. It was 
the US understanding that , based on the agreement between the Governor and the Legislature, the 
bill would be substantially changed, due in part to the concerns raised by stakeholders .  
2.2.2.4   China - Draft Administrative Measures for Registration of Overseas Producers of 
Imported Foods  
2.27.   The representative of Mexico  raised concerns with this measure. The full statemen t is 
contained in G/TBT/W/710 . 
2.28.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  supported the concerns raised by Mexico . 
According to the draft, the registration scope would  be expanded to the manufacturers of all imported 
food categories  which  deviated from relevant international standards. The measure appear ed to 
attribute registration  responsibility to the exporting country's government instead of manufacturers. 
Thus, implementing these measures could  create additional burden on exporting countries. Some 
articles of the current draft were too  unclear for  Korea to make more specific comments. Korea had 
been informed that China had recently received domestic  comments  and requested that China notify 
the measure to the WTO as soon as possible.  
2.29.   The representative of  Switzerland  supported the concer ns raised by others on this measure . 
While Switzerland understood  China's efforts to ensure that only safe food was imported, analysis 
of the draft regulation ha d raised several questions and concerns. Switzerland ha d already responded 
to the call for comm ents and shared its analysis with the competent Chinese authorities. He 
highlighted three areas of concern :  
a. The Administrative Provision propose d to expand the registration of overseas 
manufacturers to include all food categories irrespective of the risk profile. Without further 
justification or explanation, the measure appear ed more trade restrictive than necessary, 
thereby contradict ing Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement.  G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 6 - 
 
  b. Switzerland was concerned that the Administrative Provisions could  cause significant trade 
disruptions since all trading partners w ould have to complete an evaluation of food safety 
management systems as a pre -condition to export foodstuffs to China. Given the volume, 
this could put significant pressure on China's resour ces in handling these requests in a 
timely fashion. As a possible consequence, Chinese importers and consumers m ight not 
enjoy the same access to food products due to delays in the evaluation procedure and 
could  face increasing costs.  
c. Switzerland was conce rned that the Administrative Provisions put foreign exporters at a 
disadvantage over their Chinese competitors, since the measure was directed exclusively 
at overseas manufacturers . This  violated China's obligations under Art icle 2.1 of the 
TBT Agreement . 
2.30.   Switzerland looked forward to  China's response to these concerns, including those made as 
part of the call for comments, and stood  ready to engage with China in further discussions.  
2.31.   The representative of the United States  urged China to reconsider putting  in place such a 
restrictive and burdensome regulation. The measure appeared to affect all food products, including 
both low risk products and products already accompanied by health and safety certificates issued by 
US authorities. Furthermore, the measure  required foreign competent authorities to confirm 
manufacturer s' continuous compliance with China's laws, regulations and standards. Such 
requirements could  impose additional burdens on foreign competent authorities that exceed ed the 
resources and experti se available.  The draft measure, if implemented, would likely create major 
trade disruptions for every country that export ed food and agricultural products to China, including 
for developing countries whose competent authorities may have limited capacity t o meet China's 
proposed requirements.  The US requested that this measure be notified to the WTO SPS and 
TBT Committees, respectively, allowing  for comprehensive feedback from China's trading partners , 
and that China seriously consider the concerns submitte d during the domestic comment period.  
2.32.   The representative of Japan  share d the concerns raised by other Members  that China's 
proposed measures would create unnecessary barriers to trade and have negative impacts on food 
trade between China and other WTO Memb ers. As China was currently in the domestic process of 
public comments, Japan requested that these measures also be notified to the TBT and 
SPS Committees in a timely manner and provide relevant information as appropriate and address 
Members' concerns.  
2.33.   The representative of the European Union  also had concerns that this measure wo uld have a 
serious impact on transaction costs of trade  without  improving safety. It appear ed highly 
disproportionate for low risk products that were currently traded under a self -registration regime. 
Could China  explain the objective of this proposal ? The EU was willing to discuss any legitimate 
concerns in order to find a consensual solution  and, in order to frame the discussion, it was important 
that China notify the  measures to the WTO.  
2.34.   The representative of The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu  
share d the concerns raised by other Members on this measure , which had been published on the 
web page of General Administration of Customs of Chi na on 26 November 2019.  Having recognized 
the significant bilateral trade flow in food products, Chinese Taipei  submitted comment s to China's 
TBT enquiry point on 24  December 2019  to seek further clarification on the proposed measures.  The 
draft measures seemed to deviate from the common international risk -based practices by requiring 
registration of all categories of overseas producers of food products  and would therefore impede 
trade. Chinese Taipei r equest ed that the scope of categories of food products be identified and 
information on the implementation timeline be provided ; that these measures be notified to the 
TBT Committee so as to ensure sufficient time for  stakeholders ' comment s, and that China take into 
account Members' concerns and provide a resp onse to the writ ten comments.  
2.35.   The representative of China  informed the Committee that t he application of registration 
system of overseas producers of imported foods was a requirement of China's Food Safety Law. With 
China's opening -up to the world, both the quantity of the importing food trade and the number of 
overseas registered producers had increased rapidly. The original administration measure for 
registration of prod ucers  no longer  met the requirements. The objective of revising the 
Administrative Measures for Registration of Overseas Producers of Imported Foods was to implement G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 7 - 
 
  the Food Safety Law and improve the existing registration system, which w ould optimize the  
registration procedure and clarify the responsibilities of all the relevant stakeholders based on risk 
management.  The administrative measure was still being drafted. Once ready, China w ould notify it  
to the WTO . All Members would then be welcome to share  their reasonable comments or suggestions . 
2.2.2.5   Russian Federation - Law No. 425 - on Amending Article 4 of Russian Federation 
Law "On Protecting Consumer Rights"  
2.36.   The representative of the United States  had significant concerns about the recently adopted 
amendm ent to the Russian Federation' s "Law on Protection of Consumer Rights". This amendment 
require d pre-installation of Russian software on certain types of what the law call ed "technically 
complex goods" sold in Russia.  A draft Government Resolution and an Ex planatory Note providing 
some additional information about the pre -installation requirement  had been issued . 
Notwithstanding the additional details in the draft resolution, the US had several questions and 
concerns about the pre -installation requirement an d its consistency with the TBT Agreement. 
Precisely what products were considered a "technically complex good", and which specific Russian 
software would need to be pre -installed ? What steps did companies have to  take to comply with the 
requirements ? 
2.37.   The U S requested some clarity on the assertion in the Explanatory Note that the 
pre-installation requirement was "not contrary to the … international treaties of the Russian 
Federation". Could Russia explain the legitimate objective of the pre-installation requiremen t; how 
the pre -installation requirement was not more trade restrictive than necessary ; did not create 
unnecessary obstacles to trade ; and how this measure d id not discriminate against foreign software 
products?  
2.38.   The US urged  Russia to notify the draft Government Resolution implementing the 
amendments to Article 4 of the Law on Consumer Protection to the TBT Committee and to provide 
at least a 60 -day comment period so that Members and stakeholders could review and provide 
comments and that those comments be taken into account.  Some of the timeframes for 
implementation of the new requirements  were also of concern . The US understanding was  that the 
pre-installation requirements w ould apply to some products by 1  July 2020, which was le ss than 
six months away; and that the regulation was still in draft form. An implementation date of 
1 July 2020 call ed into question how comments would  be taken into account. This measure appear ed 
to constitute a technical regulation within the definition of the TBT  Agreement because the measure 
"lays down product characteristics … with which compliance is mandatory". Was Russia of the view 
that the measure constitute d a technical regulation?  
2.39.   The representative of Japan  express ed concerns with the measure . In December 2019, the 
President of the Russian Federation signed a law  requir ing pre-installation of software made in Russia 
to certain types of technically complex goods such as Smartphones, Tablets, Wearable devices, 
Computers and Smart function TVs. Thi s proposed measure include d unclear articles regarding 
definitions of terms, concrete requirements for review and evaluation, and the scope of regulations, 
including a list of software covered . Japan's concern was that the measures could  hamper market 
access for foreign companies in to Russia, depending on the concrete details of rules governing its 
implementation. Therefore, Japan requested that  Russia implement this measure in a 
non-discriminatory manner and not more trade  restrictive than necessary in lin e with the TBT 
Agreement. To ensure a transparent process, Japan also requested that this measure be notified to 
the TBT  Committee.  
2.40.   The representative of the  European Union  supported the concerns raised by other Members  
and had concerns on amending Article 4 of the Russian Federation Law "On Protecting Consumer 
Rights" , mainly certain discriminatory aspects , as well as the proportionality of the measure. The EU 
also called on Russia to notify the measure to the TBT Committee.  
2.41.   The representative of the Russian Federation  said that Russia did not consider the 
TBT Committee to be the right forum for consideration of this issue. The amendments in question 
could not be considered as technical regulations because they did not lay down the requirements for 
the product characteristics and production methods or any other relative processes. These 
amendments did not require any conformity assessment procedures and therefore the provisions in 
question were not technical regulations under Ann ex I of the TBT Agreement. The Amendments to G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 8 - 
 
  Article 4 of the Federal Law of the Russian Federation "On protecting Consumer Rights" did not 
contain any discriminative, trade restrictive or prohibitive provisions. These provisions were aimed 
at consumer pro tection and had been developed in cooperation with foreign companies that were 
Members of the Association of Trading Companies and Manufacturers of Electrical Household and 
Computer Equipment (RATEK) so as to prevent any possible negative impact on trade. The 
authorities responsible for elaboration of the Legal Act took into account  suggestions provided by 
industry . Moreover, some of the largest transnational corporations involved in manufacturing and 
exporting technically complex goods had reacted positive ly to this initiative and did not consider it 
to be a barrier to their foreign trade. The amendments to the federal law were not aimed at causing 
a negative economic impact on transboundary trade in technically complex goods . 
2.2.2.6   India - Draft Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations , 
G/TBT/N/IND/77  and G/TBT/N/IND/102  
2.42.   The representative of the United States  requested an official update on the status of the India 
Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations notified in G/TBT/N/IND/77  and 
G/TBT/N/IND/102 . The measure could impact US exports of processed products, including alcohol ic 
beverages.  India was requested to confirm the withdraw al of front-of-pack nutrition labelling 
requirements and separate them from the general labelling regulation  and that these changes be 
notified to the TBT Committee . The US was concerned that requiring front -of-pack nutritional label 
with quantities of fat, sug ar and salt to be coloured red when products were "high in" these nutrients  
could contribute to consumer confusion and warn consumers away from products that could be  part 
of a balanced, healthy diet. The required warning statement o n alcohol beverages : "Consumption of 
alcohol is injurious to health " was also of concern and , as noted in the US comments provided in  
September , the US asked  what information India considered when developing this requirement. In 
the U S, the TTB warning statement on alcoholic bev erages read, "Consumption of alcoholic 
beverages impairs your ability to drive a car or operate machinery and may cause health problems".  
The FSSAI's continuing discussions of this draft with the US Department of Agriculture and US Food 
and Drug Administra tion representatives at the Embassy in  New Delhi was appreciated and the US 
looked forward to continued  bilateral discussion  and engagement with industry stakeholders . 
2.43.   The representative of the European Union  supported the concerns raised by the US . Written 
comments had been sent to India in October 2019  and the EU looked forward  to receiving written 
replies before the adoption of the notified drafts.  India should align the provisions of the draft 
regulations to the Codex General Standard for the Labelling of Pre -packaged Foods, as well as to 
the Codex Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling. The envisaged measures could result in obstacles to 
international trade by making the import and marketing of products that already complied with 
Codex Guidelines more diffic ult. There was also a need for a long transition period in order to allow 
industry, as well as consumers, time to adapt to the new measures.  
2.44.   The representative of India stated that the queries raised by Members were related to 
Schedule 1, front -of-pack lab elling and advertisement provisions in the draft food safety standards, 
labelling and display regulations. Based on the inputs received in stakeholder consultations and the 
comments received, this section on front -of-pack labelling ha d been removed from  the draft 
regulation during its revision . However, it was still under  consideration . Based on the comments 
provided by the  EU, the draft alcoholic beverage regulations  had been appropriately conside red and, 
once finalized, would  be notified to the WTO. Regarding the US  comments on alcoholic beverages 
labelling, the WHO and Codex discourage d the consumption of alcohol and , in various Codex 
Alimentarius Committee meetings , the WHO ha d presented the health problems related to the 
consumption of alcohol. Accordingly, India was providing a statutory warning that consumption of 
alcohol was injurious to health, which was more comprehensive and ensured  that any statutory 
warning  on any food product, including  alcohol , was  based on the recommended requirements . 
2.2.2.7   European Union - Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 30 May 2018 on organic production and labelling of organic products  
G/TBT/N/EEC/101/Add.3  
2.45.   The representative of the Dominican Republic  raised concerns with this measure. The full 
statement is contained in G/TBT/W/708 . G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 9 - 
 
  2.46.    The representative of Canada  stated that as trade in organic products was an important 
element of the Canada -EU agri -food trade relationship, Canada was paying close attention to the 
development of the EU's new organic products regime. The change to Regulation 1235/2008 – with 
respec t to when the Certificate of Inspection was issued – had only been notified to the WTO after 
Commission Implementing Regulation 2020/25 came into force on 3 February 2020. DG -AGRI had 
communicated by email to Control Bodies that the Commission intended to allay stakeholder 
concerns by providing flexibility as to when sections of the Certificate of Inspection confirming 
information related to transport documents could be signed by the Control Body. Canada asked if 
more detailed information could be formally published or communicated by the Commission. 
Furthermore, the EU was encouraged to notify all changes to its current and future organic regime 
to the TBT Committee in order to allow Members and interested stakeholders the opportunity to 
appropriately revie w the changes and submit comments.  
2.47.    The representative of Panama  supported the concerns raised by the Dominican Republic and 
noted Panama's interest in this measure . 
2.48.    The representative of Paraguay  said that the various implications and impact of 
Regulati ons 2018/848 and 2020/25 were still being assessed  in capital , as the main export 
destination of its organic production was the EU and EFTA countries. Paraguay was monitoring this 
issue very closely. The EU was  requested to provide more information regardi ng Article 1.2 of 
Regulation 2020/25 , which stated that the control certification was to be sent by the Control Body 
before the shipment left the country of origin and that i t must also be approved by the competent 
authority in the exporting country in que stion.  
2.49.    The representative of Peru supported the concerns raised by other Members, requesting that 
the EU notify the various regulations and standards from Regulation 2018/848 to the WTO, providing 
the necessary timeframes to enable interested parties to v oice their concerns.  
2.50.    The representative of Ecuador  expressed particular concern with Regulation 2020/25 of 
13 January 2020, the implementation of which meant that exporters of organic products had to 
submit, through "Trade Control and Export System" (TRA CES), a certificate of inspection (COI) 
issued by the organic producer before arrival at the port of entry and not after wards , as had been 
the practice. Progress had been made in bilateral discussion s and she  acknowledged the EU's 
flexibility in respect of  the time limits for provision of information under certain boxes of the COI . 
The internal logistical steps had been carried out to comply with the requirements of the new 
standard. Nevertheless,  a six-month extension of the deadline for entry into force o f the regulation  
was requested , as this was the minimum amount of time necessary to optimize logistical procedures, 
as certain sectors still experienced delays in the issuance of the COI.  
2.51.   Ecuador considered that the 20 -day time period granted for the entry  into force of 
Regulation  2020/25 was too short, as this would involve changes in logistical procedures such as 
rescheduling harvests, shipping plans, internal transport, hiring new staff in operators and 
certification bodies, development of IT systems and  changes in producers'  practices. The effect of 
these logistical changes would have a cascade effect, touching 95% of producers with organic 
certification under Regulation 834/2007, accounting for more than 13,000 producers, all of them in 
the sector of fa mily farm producers. In other words, small producers in very vulnerable, rural sectors 
would have to be able to duly implement the changes in sufficient time.  
2.52.    The representative of Colombia  supported the concerns raised about Regulation 2020/25 and 
looked  forward to due notification of the standard, as well as the EU's response to the concerns 
raised by Members.  
2.53.    The representative of Chile shared the  various concerns expressed by Members, in particular 
with respect to the implementation of Regulation 2020 /25, which, he said, had an impact on logistical 
procedures for issuing the certificate prior to shipping. Chile encouraged the EU to notify this 
measure.  
2.54.   The representative of the European Union  responded to the concerns raised. The full 
statement is contained in G/TBT/W/720 . G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 10 - 
 
  2.2.2.8   Kingdom of Saudi Arabia - Saber Conformity Assessment Online Platform / 
Saleem Product Safety Program  G/TBT/N/SAU/993/ Rev.1  
2.55.    The representative of the European Union  raised concerns with this measure. The full 
statement is contained in G/TBT/W/721 . 
2.56.   The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  clarified firstly that Saber was an electronic 
platform for the registration and issuing of certificates of c onformity for products, the main purpose 
of which was the evaluation of pre -shipment conformity and reducing the clearance time at the 
border. He underlined that Saber platform procedures were applied equally  to locally manufactured 
products and to importe d products. Secondly, Saudi Arabia had raised the conformity assessment 
scheme for ceramic tiles to the Saudi quality mark due to the increasing percentage of non -compliant 
products on the market. Saudi Arabia had notified this measure on 7 February 2019, giving Members 
adequate time to comment. Furthermore, the Saudi quality mark was required for national ceramic 
tile products at an equal level as imported products, in conformity with the non -discrimination 
principle of WTO.  Concerning toys, the GCC Standa rds Organization (GSO) managed most of the 
certification process through its platforms, which required type approval certificates as a conformity 
scheme to issue the Gulf Conformity Tracking Symbol (GCTS). Once the GCTS had been obtained 
from the GSO, ship ment certificates could easily be issued through the Saber platform.  
2.2.2.9   Mongolia - Mandatory Requirement for Enrichment of Agricultural Products with 
Vitamins  
2.57.    The representative of the Russian Federation  raised concerns with this measure. In 2018, 
Mongolia h ad adopted a Law on the Enrichment of Food Products, which entered into force in 
December 2019, the objective of which was to protect human health and prevent vitamin and 
mineral compounds deficiency. He added that the list of products subject to mandatory  
vitaminization had entered into force only in December 2019 and, only at the end of December 2019, 
Mongolia had issued a standard on wheat flour enrichment, defining the complex of vitamins and 
mineral compounds for the product. According to the standard,  wheat flour should be enriched with 
vitamins B and D, folacin, ferrum and zinc. Russia sought clarification on the rationale for 
implementing the Law and subsequent standard on a mandatory basis and whether the measure 
was consistent with certain internat ional standards. Furthermore, in case the standard for wheat 
flour had been adopted in accordance with World Health Organization recommendations, Mongolia 
was asked to specify whether the dosage of vitamins and mineral compounds was compliant with 
them.  
2.58.   Russia noted the insufficient time between the publication of the standard for wheat flour 
enrichment and its ent ry into force. Mongolia had not provided reasonable time for producers and 
exporters of wheat flour to adapt their products or methods of product ion to new requirements and 
as such, Mongolia's measures were inconsistent with its obligations under the WTO Agreements, in 
particular, Article X of the GATT 1994 and Article  2.9 of the TBT Agreement. The rules for production, 
storage and transportation o f enriched food products and labelling requirements, including a 
particular sign indicating the vitaminization of food products, had only come into force on 30 January 
2020. In this regard, Russian expressed concern with respect to the capability of nation al producers 
of wheat flour to follow the standard once it had entered into force. Given that  Mongolian producers 
could  sell their unenriched flour, while imports of the same product were forbidden , contravened 
Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement. Russian loo ked forward to receiving further clarifications regarding 
the issues raised and would continue to carefully monitor the implementation of the measure in 
order to examine its compliance with WTO rules.  
2.59.   The representative of Mongolia  clarified that the list  of food products required for enrichment 
with vitamins had been adopted by Government Resolution No. 336 of 31 October 2018. The list 
included wheat flour and salt: four types of wheat flour were required to be enriched with B -type 
vitamins and vitamin D,  iron and zinc; salt was to be enriched with iodine. He further explained the 
following: the technical requirements for enriched/fortified wheat flour, including the qualifications, 
physical, chemical and sanitary indicators, labelling, storage and transpo rtation were specified in 
standards MNS 6812:2019; the technical requirements for wheat flour premix were specified in MNS 
6811:2019; labelling requirements for enriched food products were contained in the Order by the 
Minister for Food, Agriculture and Li ght Industry No. A -27 of 30 January 2020; and the procedures 
for imports of enriched food products were provided in Article 9 of the Law on Food Enrichment and 
Article 11 of the Food Law, which also provided for inspection of enriched food. Mongolia had G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 11 - 
 
  provided the necessary documents to the Russian Federation and they were also available on the 
website of the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Light Industry of Mongolia.  
2.2.2.10   France - Mandatory Labelling of SAR Radio Equipment (G/TBT/N/FRA/184 and 
G/TBT/N/FRA/185)  
2.60.    The representative of China  thanked France for notifying the draft decree on 3 April 2018. 
Whilst fully respecting the legitimate objective of protecting human health and safety, China deemed 
the measures more trade restrictive than necessary in view of the risk of non -compl iance and 
therefore in contravention of Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. As no reply had been received to the 
comments sent to the French TBT Enquiry Point on 28 May 2018 , and having learnt that the act 
would take effect on 1  July 2020, the following comm ents were reiterated.  
2.61.   Firstly, he suggested France cancel the requirement of displaying the values of the SAR. Under 
the European Union's Radio Equipment Directive (RED), which had been transposed into French law, 
one of the mandatory requirements was adhe rence to the SAR limits and if a RED -compliant device 
obtained the CE mark . This meant that the product complied with the applicable SAR limits and was 
deemed to be safe for humans. The additional display of the SAR values  was unnecessary and add ed 
extra cost to manufacturers. In addition, it was still controversial whether the SAR value tested 
according to the relevant EU standards was "the lower the better for consumers". The measures 
risked mislead ing consumers into think that the marked value wa s the electromagnetic radiation 
injury value to the human body.  
2.62.   Secondly, if the requirements could not be cancelled, China recommended that relevant 
specific guidance documents be issued as soon as possible, and the implementation be postponed 
for 12  months as the transitional period was too short for manufacturers to perform the relevant 
compliance tests to the proposed requirements. On the one hand, the relevant test methods were 
incomplete. The current EU SAR test standards currently did not contain lim b SAR test methods for 
handheld devices or for wearable devices. On the other hand, an implementing guidance seemed 
necessary. According to the new requirements, SAR values of head, body and limbs must be marked, 
however, the acts did not specify whether a ll products needed to be marked with all the SAR values, 
nor did they provide any guidance to manufacturers by quoting regulations or standards. According 
to manufacturers' understanding, in accordance with the testing practices and product 
characteristics , not all products needed to display all the SAR values, which had caused confusion 
for manufacturers.  
2.63.   Finally, China reiterated that the final version had been published on 7 November 2019 and 
would take effect on 1 July 2020. Such a short transitional p eriod would bring great difficulties to 
manufacturers, especially when the relevant test method was still incomplete.  
2.64.   The representative of the European Union  responded to the concerns raised. The full 
statement is contained in G/TBT/W/722 .  
2.2.2.11   Peru - Supreme Decree No. 015 -2019 -SA, which am ends the Manual of 
Advertising Warnings approved by Supreme Decree No. 012 -2018 -SA 
2.65.    The representative of Costa Rica  expressed concern with this measure . According to the 
modification, as of June 2020, stickers and adhesive labels would no  longer be permit ted. 
Costa  Rican food industry had noted that the negative impact on trade from this type of provision 
was already being felt as products without definitive labels from origin were not being bought, in 
order to guarantee that there would be no inventories when the use of adhesive labels would no 
longer be permitted. He pointed out that the use of these labels was widely recognized at an 
international level, as they achieved the same objectives of protection of public health and consumer 
information as perma nent labelling. Codex standard CODEX -STAN 1 -1985 for pre -packaged goods, 
Articles  8.1.1 and 8.2.1 allowed for the possibility of using additional or adhesive labels, as long as 
they were attached to the packaging and if the language of the original label w as not necessarily 
that of the consumer  for whom it is intended . Furthermore, he noted that countries with labelling 
schemes requiring the use of warnings of high fat, sodium or sugar content, similar to that of Peru, 
had been looking into the possibility of additional labelling by means of adhesives, which not only 
complied with the level of protection required, but made it easier for exporters to comply with 
requirements that were not harmonized internationally.  G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 12 - 
 
  2.66.   In Costa Rica, Peruvian food products were able to comply with the labelling requirements 
using complementary adhesive labels, instead of having to establish permanent labels in the country 
of origin, exclusively for the Costa Rican market. This facilitated trade and was proportional to the 
intende d level of protection; Costa Rica therefore requested reciprocal treatment.  Other Peruvian 
measures , such as the Regulation on Surveillance and Sanitary Control of Food and Drinks D.S.N. 
007-98-SA, permitted  the use of adhesives for the fulfilment of label ling requirements, recognizing 
that it was an appropriate means of achieving the proposed legitimate objectives. He recalled that 
that the same Peruvian regulations considered  the possibility of establishing an adhesive or 
additional label and this demonstrated that less trade -restrictive measures existed, thereby 
achieving the proposed legitimate objectives, and in accordance with the provisions of the TBT 
Agreement.  
2.67.   Costa Ric a requested that Peru confirm that this measure had not been notified to the 
TBT Committee. If it was so, the measure might be incompatible with Peru's obligations under 
Articles 2.1, 2.4 and 2.9 of the TBT Agreement.  Costa Rica therefore urged Peru to mod ify the 
provisions established in the Manual of Advertising Warnings to allow the use of this type of adhesive 
labelling. Costa Rica thanked Peru for the bilateral consultations and looked forward to receiving 
further information on this issue.  
2.68.    The repre sentative of Chile shared the concerns raised by Costa Rica. He recalled Chile's 
Law 20.066, published on 20 June 2017 and subsequently phased in, regarding the nutritional 
composition of foodstuffs and advertising. The law dealt with the use of stickers a nd stick -on labels 
to provide more information on various imported food products. In this regard, Chile, like Costa Rica,  
suggest ed that Peru reconsider  and include  the use of these types of labels , which would facilitate 
smooth trade flows for those impor ted goods requiring a particular warning, as provided for in Chile's 
legislation. He thanked Peru for the bilateral consultations and sharing of experiences and urged 
Peru to reconsider the measure in order to simplify trade in various products complying w ith Chilean 
legislation on front -of-package labelling.  
2.69.    The representative of the United States  supported the concerns raised by Costa Rica and 
asked Peru to modify the provisions established in the Manual, so as to allow compliance with 
labelling require ments through an extension for the use of stickers.  
2.70.    The representative of Brazil  supported the concerns raised by Costa Rica and said that the 
prohibition on the use of stickers with nutritional labels could not form any legitimate objective under 
the TBT  Agreement.  
2.71.    The representative of Colombia  supported Peru's efforts  of adopting a public policy measure 
to promot e and protect public health through education, encouraging  physical activity, more healthy 
foods in schools and the regulation  of advertising related to food and non -alcoholic beverages aimed 
at children and adolescents to reduce non -communicable diseases. Nevertheless, this policy should 
not be more trade restrictive than necessary and Colombia  believed that Article 2 of Supreme Decree 
No. 015-2019 was in violation of Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. Bearing in mind that the article 
stipulated that the use of adhesive labels with warnings would be permitted for one year, until June 
2020, and as of this date processed food with an adhesive label  would not be allowed to enter the 
Peruvian market. Adhesive  stickers would not in any way distort the purpose of the legislation as 
the warnings, whether established by means of stickers or printed directly on the product packaging, 
would continue to be c lear, legible, prominent and understandable, as required by the regulation.  
2.72.   Such a mandatory country -specific technical measure on labelling, which prohibited the use 
of stickers, constituted a very significant technical barrier to trade for both Peruvian importers and 
produce rs in countries like Colombia. This was particularly significant for those companies whose 
economies of scale and current and projected sales volumes in Peru failed to justify the cost of 
making a label specifically desig ned to comply with the regulation.  Imposing this type of 
unnecessarily trade -restrictive measure also ran counter to international labelling practice and the 
Codex Alimentarius approach (CODEX –STAN 1 -1985, REVISION 2018 - General Standard for 
Labelling of Prepackaged Foods, Article 8: Presentation of the Mandatory Information), and 
disregard ed Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement.  Colombia therefore requested that Peru study the 
feasibility of allowing the use of adhesives or stickers to include warning icons a nd phrases on food 
packaging so as to avoid creating an unnecessary trade  barrier . G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 13 - 
 
  2.73.    The representative of the European Union  expressed concern that Peru's proposed measure 
was disproportionate and would inevitably cause trade obstacle s for businesses. The EU was 
committed to working with Peru on this issue and was confident that a solution could be found.  
2.74.    The representative of Guatemala  expressed concern that , from June 2020 , to comply with 
Peru's labelling requirements label s would have to  be printed on t he original package and adhesive 
labels would no longer be permitted . Guatemala noted that this measure had not been notified to 
the TBT Committee. She also referred to Codex Alimentarius CXS 1 -1985 General Standard for the 
Labelling of Pre -packaged Foods,  where paragraph 8.2.1 stated that "If the language on the original 
label is not acceptable, to the consumer for whom it is intended, a supplementary label containing 
the mandatory information in the required language may be used instead of relabelling" an d 
paragraph 8.2.2 that  stated  "In the case of either relabelling or a supplementary label the mandatory 
information provided shall be fully and accurately reflect that in the original label".  
2.75.   Guatemala  had already expressed concern in the Committee about t he lack of  global  
harmonization in food labelling . This seriously affected small and medium producers trying to access 
international markets . Guatemala considered that these measures limited trade more than 
necessary, since only large industries had the ca pacity to divide production and produce different 
packaging for different destinations. The absence of harmonization meant that each market 
implemented this type of measure differently. Moreover , small and medium producers in developing 
countries lacked th e capacity to produce different packaging for different trading partners. Whilst 
recognizing the need to protect consumer health, Guatemala deemed the measure more restrictive 
than necessary and reiterated that the provisions contained in the Codex Aliment arius labelling 
standard for pre -packaged foods should be taken into account, allowing the possibility of using 
complementary labels.  
2.76.    The representative of Peru said that Peru remained committed to pursuing  the legitimate 
objective of protecting public he alth, especially in the most vulnerable sectors of the population such 
as children and adolescents, in accordance with its international trade commitments. By making the 
information set out in the Manual of Advertising Warnings available to consumers it enabled them 
to make informed choice s. Peru fully  respect ed its international commitments, as well as the 
principles established in the WTO Agreements, notably national treatment of imported and national 
goods.  Peru reaffirmed its commitment not to develop, adopt or apply technical regulations that 
could lead to unnecessary barriers to international trade, as established in the TBT Agreement. The 
Supreme Decree No. 015 -2019-SA had not been notified, given that it  contained trade -facilitating 
provisions . She confirmed that t he regulation of Law No. 30021 for the promotion of healthy eating 
for children and adolescents, and the manual of advertising warnings , approved in Supreme Decree 
No. 012 -2018-SA, which provide d the technical specifications for advertising warnings on processed 
foods in excess of the established technical parameters had been duly notified at the draft stage.  
2.2.2.12   Kingdom of Saudi Arabia – Electrical Clothes Washing Machines – Energy and 
Water perform ance Requirements and labelling  
2.77.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  noted that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia had issued 
a public notice using a 'pop -up' form in the SASO homepage on 14 January 2020, stipulating 
temperature conditions for testing washing performance for machines with no heating capability and 
requiring that manufacturers include additional data on the instruction sheet or user manual. He 
added that the notice actually had the same effect as the amendment of the regulation 
(SASO  2885:2018) as it included significant changes to temperature conditions for testing washing 
performance. Furthermore, he said, since the change to the temperature conditions for testing 
washing performance was not harmonized with the international sta ndards, and as the notice 
required that manufacturers include additional data on the instruction sheet or user manual, it should 
be notified to the TBT Committee. Korea requested that Saudi Arabia comply with the obligation to 
notify the changes to the TBT  Committee, in accordance with Article 2.9 of the TBT Agreement.  
2.78.   The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  invited Korea to  continue discussi ng the 
matter bilaterally.  G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 14 - 
 
  2.2.3   Previous ly raised concerns  
2.2.3.1   China - Requirements for information security product s, including, inter alia , the 
Office of State Commercial Cryptography Administration (OSCCA) 1999 Regulation on 
commercial encryption products and its on -going revision and the Multi -Level Protection 
Scheme (MLPS) (IMS ID  2945) 
2.79.   The representative of Japan  expressed concern with China's "Regulation on the Administration 
of Commercial Cipher Codes" and "Cyber Security Multi -Level Protection Scheme" and referred to 
the statements made at previous TBT Committee meetings.6 Since the last Committee meeting , 
China had explained that regulations on the "Cyber Security Multi -Level Protection Scheme " were 
being revised and that the regulation would be open for public comment, when the revision had 
been completed.  She noted that  the Encryption Law entered into force o n 1 January  2020. Japan 
therefore requested that China provide relevant information regarding the revision process and that 
the regulations be implemented transparently.  
2.80.   The representative of the European Union  raised concerns regarding China's draft "Guid elines 
for grading of classified cybersecurity protection"  and referred to the statement made at the previous 
TBT Committee meeting .7 She added that  the wide scope of application of protection level 3 and 
above, under the established multi-level protection  schemes , had led to unwarranted and significant 
market entry restrictions. The EU's main concerns with regard to the Guidelines were: (i) the further 
extension in scope of protection level three and above; (ii) the nature of the expert review that the 
Guidelines prescribe; and (iii)  a lack of clarity in certain definitions.  The EU cal led on China  for 
enhanced proportionality and transparency in the implementation of the Cyber Multi -Level Protection 
Scheme, instead of introducing burdensome requirements and  broadening the scope of Level 3 
networks.  
2.81.   The EU was also concerned that t he lack of access to relevant Chinese Standards Developing 
Organisations would become  particularly pressing with regard to the Cyber -MLPS, which w ould draw 
heavily on a number of m andatory and recommended standards developed by these standardization 
bodies.  There had been  recent positive developments in accessing Working Group 3 on encryption 
of the TC260 standards development organization. However, no semiconductor companies h ad yet 
been admitted. The EU would continue  to monitor  developments closely. The related industry -level 
standardization body, the Cryptography Standardisation Technical Committee (CSTC), ha d only one 
foreign industry participant. The EU therefore call ed once again for the State Cryptography 
Administration to make information accessible to all industry stakeholders, including EU -invested 
enterprises registered in China, which should also be able to participate in the formulation of said 
standards and spec ifications on an equal basis. The EU also requested that  stakeholders be informed 
in advance about the entering into force of these measures.  
2.82.   As the draft Cyber -MLPS is expected to replace/upgrade the administrative regulations , the 
EU hoped that its comm ents w ould be useful in further developing the draft. In particular,  the EU 
asked China  to see  that the key concepts  were clarified, relevant standards specified, and responsible 
authorities defined so that complexity, costs and compliance risks c ould be mitigated. The EU  also 
noted that they  encourage d cross-ministerial coordination on cybersecurity legislation and 
standardization.  Finally, the EU asked  that China confirm whether the revised draft w ould be notified 
to the WTO for comments. The EU recall ed the importance of allowing for adequate participation of 
interested parties in domestic processes.  
2.83.   The representative of China  said that  since the Encryption Law took effect on 1  January  2020, 
China established a unified certification system and cancelled the administrative approval of varieties 
and types of commercial cryptographic products. The management of the commercial cryptographic 
products fully embodie d the principles of non -discrimination and fair competition and w ould treat 
the products and enter prises equally under the law without discrimination, regardless of  whether 
they were produced domestically  or outside of China , or by domestic or foreign enterprises. He also 
clarified that t he mandatory testing and certification were only applied for the commercial encryption 
products that may affect national security, national welfare and people's livelihood, and society's 
 
5 For previous statements  follow the thread under IMS ID  294 (under dates raised and references).  
6 G/TBT/M/79 , para. 2.42; G/TBT/M/78 , para. 3.159; G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.141 and G/TBT/M/76 , 
para. 3.40. 
7 G/TBT/W/682 . G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 15 - 
 
  interest. For the other commercial encryption products, China encourage d organizations and 
enterprises to voluntarily apply to qualifi ed testing and certification agencies for testing and 
certification.  
2.84.   Regarding the MLPS, as technology develop ed, in response to more complicated cyber security 
circumstances, information security multi -level protection scheme need ed to be improved. Based on 
experience in past years and responding to new development, the Cybersecurity Law stipulate d that 
China w ould carry out the cybersecurity MLPS, which was based on information security MLPS. To 
fulfil the requirements in the Cybersecurity Law, regulation s on cybersecurity MLPS were under 
drafting . They would replace the former administrative measures on information security MLPS . 
2.2.3.2   European Union - Draft Implementing Regulations amending Regulation (EC) 
No 607/2009 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) 
No 479/2008 as regards protected designations of origin and geographical indications, 
traditional terms, labelling and presentation of certain wine sector products (ID 345)  
G/TBT/N/EEC/264 , G/TBT/N/EEC/264/Add.1  (IMS ID  3458) 
2.85.   The representative of the Unite d States  raised concerns with this measure. The full statement 
is contained in G/TBT/W/732 . 
2.86.   The representative of Argentina  reiterated concerns expressed at previous meetings of the 
Committee with respect to the discrimination that Argentinian wines had to face, as these could not 
use the traditional terms such as Reserva  and Gran Reserva  on their labels.9 This was despite the 
fact that Argentina had gone through the substantial approval procedures for the use of such terms 
in March 2012 under EU law. Argentina once again urged the EU to ac t on all applications to register 
traditional terms which had been submitted by third countries, to prevent unnecessary technical 
barriers to trade.  
2.87.   The representative of Brazil  supported  the concerns raised by other  Members and referred to 
statements mad e at previous TBT Committee meetings.10 The EU was invited  to share any updated 
information with the Committee, as well as to provide information about the estimated time -frame 
related to the use of regulated terms for wines exported to the EU in Regulation  (EC) No. 607/2009, 
Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 and revised regulations notified under G/TBT/N/EU/570  and 
G/TBT/N/EU/571 . 
2.88.   The representative of New Zealand , while recognizing that Members had the right to protect 
their consumers from deceptive practices, asked the EU to take into consideration concerns raised 
by Members in relation to the scope and application of the system of traditional terms, as well as 
the transparency of the process, and timeline in relation to the applications by third countries.  
2.89.   The representative of the European Union  repeated the response provided at the previous 
TBT Committee meeting .11 
2.2.3.3   India — Electronics and Information Technology Goods (Requirements for 
Compulsory Registration) Order, 2012, G/TBT/N/IND/44 , G/TBT/N/IND/44/Add.1 , 
G/TBT/N/IND/44/Add.2 , G/TBT/N/IND/44/Add.3 , G/TBT/N/IND/44/Add.6 , 
G/TBT/N/IND/47 , G/TBT/N/IND/58  (IMS ID  36712) 
2.90.   The representative of the United States  referred to previous interventions  under the specific 
trade concern.13 She noted that India's Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) 
sought  to expand the product scope covered under the Electronics and Information Technology 
Goods (Requirements for Compulsory Registratio n) Order (CRO) to include 20 new items as part of 
its CRO Phase IV.  The US request ed that India notify the expanded CRO product scope and any other 
 
8 For previous statemen ts follow the thread under IMS ID 345 (under dates raised and references) . 
9 G/TBT/M/79 , para 2.52 and  G/TBT/M/78 , para. 3.56.  
10 G/TBT/M/79 , para 2.54;  G/TBT/M/78 , para. 3.57 and  G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.64.  
11 G/TBT/M/79 , para 2.55.  
12 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 367 (under dates raised and references) . 
13 G/TBT/M/79 , para 2.57 ; G/TBT/M/78 , para. 3.199; G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.148, G/TBT/M/76 , 
para. 3.59; G/TBT/M/75 , para.  4.67; and G/TBT/M/74 , para.  2.89. G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 16 - 
 
  changes and allow for stakeholder comment for at least 60 days.  India was also requested to share 
an update on its timeline and its plans to finalize the expanded product scope.  
2.91.   The representative of Canada  supported the concerns  raised by the US and welcomed any 
clarifications and information that India could provide  to the Committee . 
2.92.   The representative of India said that th is measure mandat ed Indian safety standards for the 
notified goods with regards to the provisions of the compulsory registration scheme (CRS) of the 
Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). For consumer safety, the products were covered under  this Order 
in a phased manner following due consideration with stakeholders. To date, 44  product categories 
had been covered under the CRO and it ha d come into effect for all of the notified product categories.  
A minimum of six month s had been given to the industry for complying with the  provisions of the 
Order. With regards to  BIS certification, there had been no change in the provisions of the Order. 
Regarding the  compulsory registration scheme notified by BIS, only manufacturers of the notified 
goods c ould complete registration based on the article tested from any laboratory in India recognized 
by BIS , or any overseas laboratory covered under the Mutual Recognition Agreement with the BIS . 
He also clarified that every foreign applicant with an office or b ranch office located in India would 
meet all liabilities and obligations with respect to the Act and the rules and regulations framed 
thereunder for the purpose of registration.  Lab recognition f ell under the purview of the BIS , and 
that the  BIS ha d notified the lab recognition scheme 2018 under the BIS Act 2016  which contained  
provisions for the recognition of laboratories within and outside India . In addition, India encouraged  
interested Members  to continue discussions bilaterally .  
2.2.3.4   European Union — Hazar d-based approach to plant protection products and 
setting of import tolerances G/TBT/N/EU/383 , G/TBT/N/EU/384 , G/SPS/N/EU/166  
(IMS  ID 39314) 
2.93.   The represent ative of the United States  reiterated previously raised concerns on endocrine 
disruptors and expressed disappointment that the EU had proceeded with implementation despite 
numerous interventions by WTO Members (1 0 Members at last TBT Committee meeting) .15 The US 
also expressed disappointment that, despite concerns raised at previous meetings, the EU continue d 
to use a hazard -based approach to restrict the use of pesticides and to lower MRLs to 
trade -restrictive levels without a clear relationship between the  risk of non -fulfilment and the 
legitimate objective that the EU sought  to achieve.  The US had considered the explanations that the 
EU ha d offered for its actions but f ound that they d id not address its concerns.  
2.94.   The US recalled that the EU had stated tha t it would conduct risk assessments for import 
tolerances, on a case -by-case basis, factoring in other relevant factors. However, the US remained 
troubled about the scientific underpinnings, non -discrimination, transparency, and predictability in 
applicati on of the EU's process , and drew the Committee's attention to the statements of the US  
from the November 2019 SPS Committee meeting, circulated as G/SPS/GEN/1749  and 
G/SPS/GEN/1750 . The explicit q uestions posed to the EU in these documents sp oke to the 
fundamental principles and obligations of the TBT and SPS Agreements and were at the core of the 
concerns expressed by an unprecedented number of Members in various forums.  
2.95.   The US asked the EU to respond to its questions, with clarity and specificity, in order to gain 
a better collective understanding of how the EU was regulating pesticides and establishing MRLs in 
a manner consistent with its WTO obligations.  
2.96.   The representative of Brazil  supported the concerns raised by the US  and reiterated  concerns 
raised at previous meetings .16 
2.97.   The representative of Canada  supported the concerns raised by other  Members , in particular 
with respect to the process for resetting import tolerances.  She recalled that the EU had reassured 
Members that the granting of import tolerances for these products w ould be "considered in line with 
risk analysis principles on a case -by-case basis and taking into account all relevant factors". Canada 
asked the  EU to elaborate on what other relevant factors would be considered in this process that 
 
14 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 393 (under dates raised and references) . 
15 G/TBT/M/79 , para. 2.59 and G/TBT/M/78 , para. 3.201.  
16 G/TBT/M/79 , para. 2.65;  G/TBT/M/78 , para. 3.207;  G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.156 and G/TBT/M/76 , 
para. 3.67. G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 17 - 
 
  had not already been taken into account when the hazard -based criteria w as developed.  In addition, 
Canada continued to wait for the EU to host seminars with third countries  and stakeholders and 
trusted that these events w ould provide sufficient detailed information on the import tolerance 
setting process. The timing of these seminars was of particular importance, as non -renewal decisions 
were currently in the process of bein g implemented by the EU. Until such a clear and predictable 
process for setting import tolerance was implemented, Canada requested that MRLs for active 
substances , which were not authorized in the EU , be maintained at existing levels to allow trade to 
continue. More broadly, Canada also look ed forward to learning more about the EU Farm to Fork 
Strategy, which would  be made public in the coming weeks, with implementing measures over the 
course of the ne xt year. In conclusion, Canada hoped that regulatory changes arising from these 
new policies, such as the Farm to Fork Strategy, w ould be done in a coherent and transparent way 
that w ould minimize negative and unnecessary trade effects, and allow producers  and exporters to 
make timely business decisions.  
2.98.   The representative of Australia  reiterate d its position about the importance of adopting a 
risk-based approach for regulating endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) rather than considering 
only the potentia l for harm due to the intrinsic properties of a chemical.17  
2.99.   The representative of Argentina  thanked the EU for discussions that were held at the technical 
level on these issues, which were very important to better understand the standard -setting approach 
used by the EU . Despite this, Argentina  maintain ed uncertainty as to how the application for import 
tolerances of active substances that had been affected by the hazard -based cut -off criteria would be 
applied in practice . There were also  concern s over the h azard -based approach used by the EU in 
relation to pesticides, without identification of the hazards . Argentina urged the EU to take the 
appropriate precautions to avoid an unnecessary barrier to international trade, especially given the 
importance of the EU market to developing countries, such as Argentina.  
2.100.   The representative s of Costa Rica18, Colombia19 and Panama20 reiterated concerns with the 
hazard -based approach adopted by the EU and requested that the application of the regulations be 
based on sound scientific criteria.  
2.101.   The representative of Uruguay  raised concerns with this measure. The full statement is 
contained in G/TBT/W/706 . 
2.102.   The representative of Ecuador  continued to express concern with this measure , in particular 
with regards to the maximum limits for substances which we re very important in the process of food 
production  in countries like Ecuador. There wa s a lack of information and the information that was 
provided was inconclusive. There was  a move towards a reduction of the threshold values to the 
minimum amount, and the EU ha d said that its decisions were not provisional and, once adopted, 
would be very difficult to adopt  afterwards. Therefore, once again the  EU was urged to act  in 
compliance with WTO Agreements  and adopt measures based on technical and scientific info rmation 
that was conclusive. Ecuador appealed to the EU that in cases where a lack of information existed, 
recommendations regarding a maximum of residue limit should not be implemented and commercial 
trade  should not be limited. She stressed that the measure should be based on hazard -based criteria 
that was conclusive and look ed at the impact on healt h and unjustified technical obstacle to trade 
should be avoided.  
2.103.   The representative of Guatemala  continued have concerns  with this measure , in particular 
with regards to the hazard -based criteria/analysis. There was a  need to recognize the importance of 
the general framework for hazard -based analyses as well as the communication of risks or hazards. 
The precauti onary principle c ould be used to identify some negative effects. Therefore, she insisted 
that, in line with transparency obligations, it would be  necessary for the EU to provide  evidence to 
exporting countries that export ed food products to the EU so that they could better understand the 
procedures. Guatemala also  underscore d the importance of a risk -based analysis, especially when it 
came to developing countries with tropical climatic conditions as they were very different from the 
countries that h eld sway  in the EU. While  recogniz ing the need to  contain insects and plagues , it was 
 
17 G/TBT/M/79 , para. 2.64;  G/TBT/M/78 , para. 3.211;  G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.162 and G/TBT/M/76 , 
para. 3.64. 
18 G/TBT/M/79 , para. 2.62;  G/TBT/M/78 , para. 3.208 and  G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.155 . 
19 G/TBT/M/78 , para. 3.209.  
20 G/TBT/M/78 , para. 3.206.  G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 18 - 
 
  important to look at the distance and time for exports of agricultural products into Europe in order 
to avoid  unnecessarily restrict ing the trade flows.  
2.104.   The representative of Paraguay  reiterated concerns with this measure, in particular with 
regards to the lack of scientific evidence  when it came  to a hazard -based analysis for de jure  or 
de facto use of plant health products. Paraguay was concerned about  the lack of  clarity  regarding 
the tolerance policy for imports that would  be applied by the EU. Without this clarity, the EU seem ed 
to be trying to force the implementation of its standards on other Members, without taking into 
account  affected Members climatic, envi ronmental or financial conditions and the economic 
consequences that th ose policies would  have on the economy and development.  Paraguay also 
expressed concerns that  the unilateral nature of the measures  would go against the standards set 
forth in the Codex  Alimentarius, which was a multilateral body in which th ose various decisions were 
made. She noted that  the measures d id not comply with the prerequisites of the SPS  Agreement, in 
order to  be able to  justify any modification to th ose standards or the imple mentation of t he measure 
in a provisional way whilst  looking at the precautionary principle.  The EU often stated that it 
consider ed the Codex Alimentarius to be a very good framework when it c ame to the justification of 
measures of other Members. However,  it seemed not to be the case for these measures. Finally, 
Paraguay asked the  EU how developing countries c ould continue exporting any type of agricultural 
product if there was a proliferation of measures that restricted unnecessarily developing country  
products, be they conventional agricultural products or organic agricultural products.  
2.105.   The representative of the Dominican Republic  supported the concerns raised by other 
Members.  
2.106.   The representative of the European Union  repeated the response provided at the previous 
TBT Committee meeting.21 She stressed that the EU would act in full transparency  and would keep 
Members duly informed about further developments . 
2.2.3.5   China - Regulations for the Supervision and Administration of Medical Devices 
(Order No. 650 of th e State Council) G/TBT/N /CHN/1313  (IMS ID  42822) 
2.107.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  reiterated concerns about this me asure23 and 
looked forward to receiving  any progress or updates.  
2.108.   The representative of China  repeated the response provided at the previous TBT Committee 
meeting.24 
2.2.3.6   China - Insurance Regulatory Commission (CIRC) Information and 
Communication Technology Regulation G/TBT/N/CHN/1172  (IMS ID  48925) 
2.109.   The representative of the European Union  reiterated comments made at the previous 
Committee meeting.26 
2.110.   The representative of China  stated that following the merging of the CBRC and the CIRC, 
China had decided to cancel the Information and Communication Technology Regulation in response 
to the new  circumstances. He stressed that China always abided by the WTO commitments and that 
the drafting process of information technology measures in the banking and insurance sectors 
proceeded in an open and transparent way. All measures that had been adopted a pplied equally to 
domestic and foreign companies.  
 
21 G/TBT/M/79 , paras. 2.69 -2.70.  
22 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  428 (under dates raised and references) . 
23 G/TBT/M/79 , para. 2.71.  
24 G/TBT/M/79 , para. 2.72.  
25 For previous statement s follow the thread under IMS ID 489 (under dates raised and references) . 
26 G/TBT/M/79 , para. 2.73.  
 G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 19 - 
 
  2.2.3.7   Ireland - Public Health (Alcohol) Bill 2015 G/TBT/N/IRL/2  (IMS ID 51627)  
2.111.   The representative of the United States  reiterated comments made at the previous 
Committee meeting.28 While the EU ha d suggested that the transition period w ould commence after 
the WTO commenting process, the US remain ed sceptical after the Public Health (Alcohol) Bill was 
signed into law in 2018 without consideration of WTO Member comments.  
2.112.   The representative of Mexico  thanked the EU for their bilateral meeting and  recalled the 
concerns raised at previous TBT Committee meetings.29 She requested more information regarding 
the status of the measure and its recent stages and also sought clarification with respect to the 
secondary legislation that would be required for I reland to implement the law.  
2.113.   The representative of Argentina  reiterated concerns made at the previous Committee 
meeting.30 He requested that the EU provided updated information regarding the regulatory 
procedure that was underway and future notifications that would be  brought before th e Committee.  
2.114.   The representative of Australia  recognized the right of governments to take measures 
necessary to protect public health and appreciated Ireland's efforts to address a legitimate public 
health concern. Australia continued to seek  clarification on the details and implementation of the 
remaining eight sections of the Public Health (Alcohol) Act 2018, in particular Secti on 12 on Labelling 
and also on the process with regards to clearance at EU level. Regarding the  expected timeline for 
the implementation of the new requirements , Australia requested further information as  the 
response provided by the EU  at the previous TBT  Committee meeting did not address those issues. 
Australia also  referred to the EU's previous advice that  the new Act would be re -notified to allow 
trading partners to comment on the revised proposal given the substantial changes since the original 
notific ation.  
2.115.   The representative of Chile supported the concerns raised by other Members and reiterated 
comments made at the previous Committee meeting.31 
2.116.   The representative of New Zealand  stated that , while New Zealand  acknowledge d and 
support ed the rights of al l WTO Members to regulate for the protection of human health , 
New Zealand shared concerns raised by other Members  that the proposed labelling requirements 
appear ed more trade restrictive than necessary to fulfil the objective of the legislation . Had Irelan d 
considered aligning the proposed requirement with those of other EU Member States ? An update on 
timelines for the secondary legislation in respect of the labelling provisions  was requested . In 
particular, an update on when these measures w ould be notified to the TBT Committee.  
2.117.   The representative of the European Union  reiterat ed responses from previous 
TBT Committee meetings  and explained that Ireland was obliged to enact the primary legislation at 
the earliest possible date and that the Bill h ad been signed into law on 17 October 2018.32 The 
labelling provisions of the Health Bill required secondary legislation.  She noted that public 
consultation had been held on the regulations that would be made on the labelling provisions under 
the Public Hea lth (Alcohol Act) . The measure would also be notified to the TBT Committee once the 
process was completed . The three -year lead -in time before the labelling provisions become 
operational would not commence until the notification processes at the EU and WTO level were 
completed to allow businesses the full three years to prepare for and to make the necessary changes 
to comply with the new measures. In November 2018, the Minister for Health had signed an order 
to commence a number of sections of the Public Hea lth (Alcohol) Act, that did not require secondary 
legislation, into operation.33 
 
27 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 516 (under dates raised and references) . 
28 G/TBT/M/79 , para. 2.82.  
29 G/TBT/M/76 , para. 3.134 . 
30 G/TBT/M/79 , para. 2.84.  
31 G/TBT/M/79 , para. 2.86.  
32 G/TBT/M/79 , para. 2.87.  
33 G/TBT/M/79 , para. 2.87.  
 G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 20 - 
 
  2.2.3.8   China - Cyberspace Administration of China - Draft implementing measures for 
the Cybersecurity Review of Network Products and Services ( IMS ID 53334) 
2.118.   The representative of Japan  expressed concern with regard to the Cybersecurity Review 
Measures and referred to the statement made at the previous TBT Committee.35 At the previous 
meeting, China had explained that the submitted comments from each country would be taken into 
consideration in drafting the revision. As such, Japan requested that China provide the latest 
updates. Japan also asked that China implement the measures in a transparent manner and in full 
consideration of the comments and concerns raised by Members.  
2.119.   The representative of the European Union  reiterated concerns raised at the previous 
TBT Committee meeting .36 She added that the EU sought clarificati on on previously raised questions 
in order to ensure that they had a correct reading of the situation.  
2.120.   The representative of Canada stated that comments had been submitted on the 
Cybersecurity Bureau of the Cyberspace Administration of China on 24 June 20 19. He invited China 
to indicate when it would respond to Members' comments, provide an updated version of the 
measure and also notify the measure. Canada found that the measure lacked clarity in a number of 
areas including what Critical Information Infras tructure was and how this measure was in line with 
National Treatment and MFN obligations of the TBT Agreement. Such clarifications were necessary 
in order to ascertain whether a legitimate objective was being pursued.  
2.121.   The representative of China  referred to the response given at the previous Committee 
meeting.37 He stressed that not all products and services were required to be reviewed; the focus 
was put on those which could  affect national security applied in critical information infrastructures 
and impor tant information systems.  The security review w ould not violate the intellectual property 
right of the enterprises. China  always attached great importance to IPR protection and protect ed the 
IPR in accordance with the law , adding that g reat efforts ha d been made to severely crack down on 
the violation of enterprise IPR in any form, as intellectual property protection was also in the interest 
of China's enterprises. The review was not targeted at certain Members, and there was no difference 
in treatment betw een domestic and foreign enterprises in the security review process. Meanwhile, 
the review w ould not restrict the market access of foreign products. On the contrary, it c ould help 
increase consumer confidence in the se products and could expand companies market share .  
2.2.3.9   China - Draft revised Encryption Law of the People's Republic of China by the 
Office of State Commercial Cryptography Administration (OSCCA) (IMS ID 53438) 
2.122.   The representative of Japan  continued  to have concerns regarding this measure  that entered 
into force on 1 January 2020  and referred to its statement  made at the previous  TBT Committee.39 
She request ed that China consider comments from Japan and other Member s when drafting related 
regulations and not hamper foreign companies' activities or market access to China.  
2.123.   The representative of the European Union  reiterated concerns with this measure  that had 
entered into force from the beginning of 2020.40 Concern s remained  about the wide scope of the 
law, in conjunction with the lack of clarity of a number of foundational concepts as well as 
administrative procedures described in the text. Both of these factors w ould negatively impact 
business confidence. The EU noted  that the new law d id not recognize C hina's previous commitment 
made in 2000 that the cryptography -related regulation would only apply to products whose core 
function was that of providing encryption – the so -called "Year 2000 Clarification" by the SCA.  China 
was urged to ensure that legal an d regulatory requirements were non -discriminatory, did not favour 
specific technologies, did not limit market access or lead to a forced transfer of intellectual property. 
Regulatory procedures related to products containing cryptographic components needed  to be 
transparent, predictable and consistent with international practices. China was asked to guarantee 
the participation of  foreign invested enterprises (FIEs) on an equal footing with domestic companies 
 
34 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  533 (under dates raised and references) . 
35 G/TBT/M/79 , para. 2.88.  
36 G/TBT/M/79 , para. 2.89.  
37 G/TBT/M/79 , para. 2.91.  
38 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  534 (under dates raised and references) . 
39 G/TBT/M/79 , para. 2.92.  
40 G/TBT/M/79 , para. 2.93.  G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 21 - 
 
  in the production, research, development and sale  of cryptography products on its market. In this 
context, the EU drew attention to the World Semiconductor Council (WSC) "Encryption Principles" 
and the exchanges between the EU and China in the related "Government/Authorities Meeting on 
Semiconductors" (G AMS). China was requested to notify the Cryptography Law to the 
TBT Committee, as set out in Article 2.9 of the TBT Agreement. She also inquired whether China 
planned to issue any implementing regulations to support the law and, if so, what would be the 
timetable of those.  
2.124.   The representative of the United States  supported the concerns raised by other Members . 
She informed the Committee  that the US intervention would be combined with its intervention on 
the Cybersecurity Law on this subject, under STC 45.41 
2.125.   The representative of Canada  supported the concerns raised by other Members  and referred 
to the  statement made at the previous  TBT Committee meeting .42  
2.126.   The representative of China  said that The Law on Cryptography of the People's Republic of 
China had entered into force  on 1 January  2020. Th is law  clearly stipulate d that all levels and 
relevant departments would  follow the principle of non -discrimination, and would treat all entities 
equally including foreign -invested enterprises that engage d in commercial cryptography research, 
production, sales, service, importation and exportation etc. China  encourage d commercial 
cryptography technical cooperation based on voluntary principle and commercial rules in the process 
of foreign investment. Administrative agenci es and their staff were prohibited to force any transfer 
of commercial cryptography technology by means of administrative measures . 
2.2.3.10   India - Amended regulation on toy imports G/TBT/N/IND/143  and 
G/TBT/N/IND/131  (IMS ID 54643) 
2.127.   The representative of the United  States  requested that India clarify its policies on 
requirements for imported toys. On 2 December 2019, the Directorate General of Foreign Trade of 
India issued a notification  to amend the 2017 Indian Trade Clarification. According to the revised 
policy, samples from each toy c onsignment that arrived  in India were subject to mandatory random 
testing by laboratories accredited by India's National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration 
Laboratories (NABL). This appear ed to replace the previous requirement for manufacturer s to submit 
a certificate of conformance from an NABL -accredited lab. This had led to  confusion in US industry 
as the measure had not been notified to the WTO. She sought further clarification from India on 
whether the change in import procedure had alread y been implemented.  The US asked that  India 
not implement  the amendment  until it had been notifie d to the WTO . She also requested that India 
provide an appropriate time period so as  to allow all interested parties to submit written comments 
and for the  consideration of any comments in preparing revisions before moving to implementation. 
The US underst ood that there were many parties involved in the importation of toys, including the 
manufacturer, licensor, licensee, exporter, importer, distributor, retailer , or various intermediary 
parties  and asked  who would be  responsible for paying for the random testing .  
2.128.   The US also expressed its appreciation for India's notification of the draft Toys (Quality 
Control) Order 2019 (QCO) in accordance with the TBT Agreeme nt. The QCO, which amend ed the 
2017 Import Policy for Toys, appear ed to specify the use of a Standard Mark under a licence granted 
by the Bureau of Indian Standards. The US underst ood that India ha d not extended the QCO's 
comment period of 15 days from the  date of notification to allow interested parties to submit written 
comments. India was urged to reconsider and provide a 60 - to 90-day comment period.  
2.129.   The representative of the European  Union  supported the comments made by the US and 
referred to the state ment delivered at the previous TBT Committee meeting.44 The EU was further 
concerned by the related new quality control order on toys notified to the WTO on 7 February 2020 
which introduce d additional new requirements to the imports of toys in India. The EU deeply 
regret ted that India ha d only provided 15 days as a comment period, without respecting the 60 -day 
period recommended by th e Committee. The EU was  still assessing the new notified m easure but , 
preliminarily, had identified a number of concerns which put into question the compatibility  of the 
 
41 China - Cybersecurity Law.  
42 G/TBT/M/79 , para . 2.90.  
43 For prev ious statements follow the thread under IMS ID  546 (under dates raised and references).  
44 G/TBT/M/78 , para s. 3.286 -3.287.  G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 22 - 
 
  new measure with the TBT Agreement. Among others, the requirements include d the burden of a 
newly introduced requirement to obtain a licence for  each manufacturing factory or the 
discriminatory requirement to provide a bank guarantee only foreseen for foreign manufacturers. 
substantive comments to India on th e new measure and expect ed that they w ould be duly considered 
by the Indian authorities.  
2.130.   The representative of Canada  appreciated the efforts made by India and other WTO Members 
to implement measures to protect the health and safety of infants and children. Canada had noted 
several times the importance of allowing foreign -accredited laboratorie s to test toys in order to put 
foreign and domestic producers on a level playing field. Canada noted its concern with India's 
recently notified amended regulation on quality control order for toys that did not address this key 
issue. Further, Canada unders tood that under the new requirements of the Order, foreign 
manufacturers must nominate and retain an in -country Indian representative, obtain a performance 
bank guarantee, and provide an indemnity bond. Canada viewed those requirements as being more 
trade restrictive than necessary to achieving the policy objective of ensuring the safety of toys for 
children. Canada sought clarification from India regarding the rationale for allowing a comment 
period of only 15 days for the measure. Canada also welcomed any  additional clarification and 
information that India could provide to the Committee on the measure.  
2.131.   The representative of India said that responses to Members' queries had been provided in 
previous TBT Committee meetings.45 With regards to new developments , India ha d notified 
G/TBT/N/IND/143 , on 24 February 2020, and a new draft regulation on toys contained in 
G/TBT/N/IND/131  on 7 February 202 0, with the comment period ending on 22 February 2020. This 
had been done so as to address  concerns related to national security, health, safety, environment 
and certain deceptive trade practices.  The text of the Draft Toys Quality Control Order 2020 was 
attached to the notification.  A six-month time period w ould be provided for the implementation after 
the issuance of the QCO on toys in the Official Gazette. With regards to  the requirements for use of 
the standard mark under licence from the BIS,  he clarif ied that it followed  scheme 1 mentioned in  
the BIS conformity assessment regulations 2018  and envisage d scheme 1, not scheme 2, of 
Schedule 2 of BIS conformity assessment regulations 2018. Certain issues h ad been recently 
reported  by the US to India's TBT enquiry point, which w ould be examined by the concerned 
department . An appropriate response  would be provided  to the US and other Members who ha d 
raised them. For any additional concern s, India request ed that Members provide their statements 
so that they c ould be sent to capital for any further clarification on the issues.   
2.2.3.11   Brazil - Draft Technical Resolution No. 51, 7 April 2017 on labelling of beverages, 
wine, and grape derivatives G/TBT/N/BRA/719  and G/TBT/N/BRA/719/ Add.2  
(IMS ID 557)  
2.132.   The representative of the European Union  thanked  Brazil for a fruitful bilateral meeting. The 
EU welcomed the fact  that, according G/TBT/N/BRA/719 /Add.2  of 13  February 2020, the Brazilian 
Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply had withdr awn the propos ed Technical Regulation , 
which  approve d the rules regarding the labelling of beverages, wine, and grape derivatives. The EU 
requested confirmation whether there were plans  to prepare a new proposal and its notification  
under the TBT Agreement.  
2.133.   The rep resentative of Brazil  stated that, in  the notification mentioned by the EU, Brazil had 
officially inform ed WTO Members that the development of draft regulation 51 had been discontinued. 
Should  Brazil decide to regulate matters related to this STC again, it  would  open a new public 
consultation process with a new draft proposal. In light of these  circumstances, Brazil requested the 
EU to consider withdrawing STC  IMS ID  557. 
2.2.3.12   European Union - Chlorothalonil (pesticide active substance) ( IMS ID 57946) 
2.134.   The representative of Colombia  raised concerns with this measure. The full statement is 
contained in G/TBT/W/712 . 
 
45 G/TBT/M/79 , para. 2.254 and  G/TBT/M/78 , paras. 3.288 -3.289.  
46 For previous s tatements follow the thread under IMS ID  579 (under dates raised and references) . 
 G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 23 - 
 
  2.135.   The representative of Panama referred to the statement provided a t the p revious  
TBT Committee meeting.47 Panama  reiterated to  the EU that the safe levels of c hlorothalonil had 
been adopted by  Codex  Alimentarius. This substance was very important for bananas with thick skin, 
which are not consumed by human beings, and that  the use of other substances ha d been justified 
by the EU to be used for citrus fruits. As had already been st ated by Colombia, t he study on 
chlorothalonil  was not conclusiv e. At the previous  meeting, Panama had explained extensively how 
chlorothalonil combat ted black sigatoka on bananas and how this ha d proliferated due to global 
warming. Panama  noted that, to date, the EU's position ha d not changed. However, already in  the 
first two months of  2020, records for the hottest year had been broken and this would  certainly aid 
the proliferation of black sigatoka and thus affect banana crops.  
2.136.   Panama did not understand the EU's double message  – on the one hand, champions of 
combatting climate change and, at the same time, prohibiting the use in developing countries of the 
tools to combat it. Panama  urged the EU to reconsider its measures until it had  conclus ive scientific 
evidence and to realign with other Members and Codex Alimentarius and not jeopardize, without any 
scientific evidence, the well -being and work of thousands of small vulnerable producers in developing 
countries . 
2.137.   The representative of Brazil  reiterated its support for this STC. Brazil regretted  the EU's 
decision to base measures on a hazard -based approach, without an adequate risk analysis and with 
no compliance with long -standing scientific principles. The non -renewal of approval for chlorotha lonil 
did not duly consider that it was currently authorized in over 100 countries, and that the MRLs 
allowed by Codex could reach up to 70mg/kg. Brazil  was concern ed that some hazard -based 
analyses conducted by the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) had l ed to the non -renewal of 
certificates and , subsequently , to the reduction of MRL  limits.  The case of chlorothalonil affect ed 
Brazil's exports of agricultural products, such as banana, coffee, citrus fruits, papaya  and 
watermelon, among other crops , which  used this substance for pest control. Brazil  expressed  
systemic concern that issues related to the non -renewal of agricultural pesticides were being dealt 
with firstly in the TBT Committee. In many cases, the communication of non -renewal of approval of 
important substances for trade of agricultural commodities was notified to the TBT Committee as an 
announcement of the future reduction of MRL limits in the SPS  Committee. As this situation 
remained, Brazil would  continue to raise an d support these concerns in both Committees.  
2.138.   The representative of Costa Rica  supported the concerns raised by other Members.  This draft 
technical resolution  would  lead to the non -renew al of the approval of the active substance 
chlorothalonil. As pointed o ut on previous occasions, the use of this active substance was very 
important for agricultural protection in Costa Rica and its non -renewal would cause serious problems 
for producers , as Costa Rica  did not have substitute phytosanitary products that were better for the 
environment. Chlorothalonil was used to combat very important pests, particularly in the production 
of bananas. Costa Rica was the second  largest  producer and exporter of bananas in the world, with 
sales of approximately  US$1  billion represen ting around  2% of its GDP and 38 .6% of agricultural  
GDP, with 40,000 direct jobs and almost as many indirect jobs. The EU was the main destination of 
50% of fruit produced in Costa Rica and this would seriously impact production. It was important to 
note t hat the EU ha d not established a risk either to health or to the environment . Costa Rican  
producers appl ied good agricultural practices based on highly recognized certificates , such as Global 
Gap, R ainforest Alliance, Fair Trade and others. Costa Rica's  phytosanitary agency ha d displayed 
important samplings , which had  demonstrate d the absence of an impact of chlorothalonil, confirming 
the good agricultural practices used in Costa Rica . The non -renewal of this active substance was not 
based on a solid risk a ssessment, in accordance with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. Non -renewal 
should not be  on the basis of concerns that have no conclusive evidence, as had been  indicated by 
the EU itself in its non -renewal. Costa Rica once again urge d the EU to carry out a proper risk 
assessment before deciding on non -renewal and to demonstrate its effects on public health . This 
should be done with in a multilateral framework through Codex Alimentarius, which establishes MRLs 
of chlorothalonil  for diffe rent agricultural practices.  
2.139.   The representative of Ecuador  raised concerns with this measure. The full statement is 
contained in G/TBT/W/717 .  
2.140.   The representative of Guatemala  supported the concerns raised by other Members. 
Guatemala did not have any information regarding scientific evidence of any damage or injury 
 
47 G/TBT/W/692 . G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 24 - 
 
  caused to human health as a consequence of the consumption of fruit and vegetables, in particular, 
those produced in Latin America. This measure was of huge significance to Guatemala. The EU had 
mentioned that it had identified the potentially negative effects to health from the use of th is product . 
However, the EU ha d not communicated the scientific evidence  used. Guatemala clarified that 
concern s over this substance were not for the producers of the substance , but rather because this 
substance was used t o control different diseases linked to fungi , in particular,  for the control of 
Ascochita, Antracnosis, bl ack sigatoka and also mildew, early tizón, late tizón, grey mould and rotting 
fruit, amongst others. The se diseases affect  the production of bananas, coffee, melons, tomatoes 
and other  crops. Guatemala  thank ed the EU for considering the conditions of the v arious tropical 
countries and looked forward to seeing the very conclusive studies along the lines of what is 
established by the Codex Alimentarius.  
2.141.   The representative of El Salvador  share d the concerns raised by other Members  regarding 
the negative impact the EU measure w ould have on  export s of agricultural products from El Salvador 
and a number of other developing countries. El Salvador was seriously concerned  about the many  
technical regulations envisaged by the EU  regarding  MRLs and urged the EU to base these measures 
on scientific evidence and to avoid  any unnecessary  barriers to trade.  
2.142.   The representative of Nicaragua  supported the concerns raised by other Members . If these 
measures were implemented, they would  have a negative  impact on t he export of  Nicaraguan 
products, especially bananas , but other products as well, exported chiefly to the EU market. 
Nicaragua hoped to see this discussion continue in the TBT and other  Committee s. 
2.143.   The representative of Paraguay  recalled that t his concern,  like STC 3648, was  linked to 
considerations that had been discussed in the past and referred the Committee to statements 
delivered in previous TBT Committee meetings .49  
2.144.   The representative of the European Union  responded to the concerns raised. The full 
statement is contained in G/TBT/W/723 . 
2.2.3.13   Kingdom of Saudi Arabia - Added Sugar Upper Limit in Some Food Products 
G/TBT/N/SAU/1108  and G/TBT/N/SAU/1108/Add.3  (IMS ID 58950) 
2.145.   The representative of the Russian Federation  thanked the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for the 
bilateral engagement  and for notifying the intention  to withdraw this measure. While sharing  the 
public health objectives contained in the draft measure, Russian requested  that Saudi Arabia confirm 
that the measure ha d indeed been withdrawn.  
2.146.   The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  thank ed the Russian Federation for its 
interest in the proposed technical regulation which was notified on 16 April 2019. He clarified that, 
after considering comments from WTO Members, Saudi Arabia had withdr awn the proposed technical 
regulation.  
2.2.3.14   India - Air Conditioner and its related Parts (Quality Control) Order, 2018 , 
G/TBT/N/IND/ 110 (IMS  ID 59851) 
2.147.   The representative of the United States  recalled that, on  28 October 2019, India had notified 
this measure  to the WTO. The proposed measu re require d the exclusive use of Indian standards to 
evaluate the energy efficiency of air conditioners; applie d separate energy efficiency requirements 
to component parts; and require d certification by the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). The US was 
concerned that exclusive use of the identified standards to evaluate and certify energy efficiency of 
air conditioners might  be more trade restrictive than necessary and create unnecessary obstacles to 
trade. The TBT Agreement ma de clear that there c ould be mo re than one relevant international 
standard that fulfil led a legitimate objective of a regulation. Many US companies use d international 
standards to verify the energy efficiency of their products, such as Air -Conditioning, Heating and 
Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) standards, which were accepted in foreign markets. The US requested 
 
48 European Union - Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (CLP Regulation) (ID 539 )  
49 G/TBT/M/79 , para. 2.141 (referring to G/TBT/M/78 , para. 3.79).  
50 For previ ous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  589 (under dates raised and references) . 
51 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  598 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 25 - 
 
  India to clarify and/or confirm whether the  Indian standards in the Air Conditioners QCO were based 
on existing international standards .  
2.148.   In order  to expedite the availability of air conditioner equipment that ha d a documented 
verification testing record, the US suggested that the BIS should recogn ize, without additional 
testing, equipment for which the energy efficiency ha d been verified by the AHRI Certification 
Program. The BIS c ould access testing results on the AHRI website.  Applying separate energy 
efficiency requirements to component parts of  air conditioners, including temperature sensors and 
hermetic compressors, m ight not only be redundant regulation but also d id not accurately capture 
actual performance , because the performance of each component of a system w ould impact the 
energy efficien t performance of the other components. Thus, the stand -alone energy efficiency rating 
was not an accurate indicator of a component's energy efficiency when part of a system.  
2.149.   The choice of components in finished products was already a major consideration f or 
manufacturers when designing products to meet energy efficiency requirements. US industry ha d 
advised the US Government that it  was unaware of any other markets or relevant international 
standards that applied separate energy efficiency requirements to component parts as a method of 
energy efficiency evaluation. The US supported  a six-month grace period to comply with the draft 
measure, particularly if there were not enough laboratories to complete the testing in India. If India 
continue d to apply separa te regulations to component parts, the US  would request India to provide 
sufficient transition time for stakeholders to comply. The US  underst ood that the draft measure c ould 
be implemented in a phased manner and urge d India to defer implementation of requ irements 
concerning component parts by one year as part of the second phase of a phased implementation 
period.  
2.150.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  said that once this regulation entered into force 
on 1 June 2020 , a finished air conditioners  product , as well as the related parts, w ould be obliged  to 
comply with BIS standards and have the BIS certification mark. According to the regulation, 
manufacturers with operating facilities in India should take the BIS certifica tion mark and the 
products to be tested to the designated laboratories in India. However, manufacturers were having 
difficulties in complying with this regulation due to the absence or insufficiency of designated testing 
laboratories.  
2.151.   As of 12 February 202 0, the status of designated testing laboratories in India, for three types 
of air conditioning finished products, was confirmed as just  one test laboratory designated for 
"unitary" and "split" type and no test laborator ies for "package" air conditioners. For air conditioning 
parts, the "temperature sensing control devices" c ould be tested at one designated laboratory, but 
the laboratory for the "hermetic compressor" and "heat exchanger" had not been  designated. In this 
regard, Korea asked that  India request  the relevant authority to designate testing laborator ies for 
all areas of finished products and related parts and to guarantee capacity for testing and certification, 
as well as  to grant a sufficient grace period after testing laboratories were operationa l. If the 
sufficient number of testing laboratories were not designated or operational before the enforcement 
date, Korea asked India to provide alternative measures , such as accepting internationally  
recognized test reports. In addition, since the regulat ion stipulate d that manufacturers should use 
certified parts in order to take the certification for the finished product, a more sufficient grace period 
was required for finished products. Korea ask ed India to provide an environment that w ould make 
it easi er for companies to comply with this regulation.  
2.152.   The representative of  India said that  regarding non -availability of testing laboratories,  the 
BIS, under its Laboratory Recognition Scheme 2018, ha d recognized an outside laboratory as per 
IS/1391, room air conditioners, part 1, that is , for unitary air -conditioners ; and part 2, that is , for 
split type air -conditioners. Another outside laboratory ha d been recognized for testing, as per 
IS/IEC  60730 -2-9:2011 , automatic electrical controls for household and similar use, part  2, 
particular requirements , section 9, temperature  sensing controls. These details were available on 
the BIS website.  
2.153.   The recognition of laboratories under the BIS Laboratory Recognition Scheme 2018 was a 
continuous and ong oing process. Further, under the provision of the BIS conformity assessment 
regulations 2018, the conformity of the product to relevant Indian standards c ould be verified 
through in -factory testing and BIS licences c ould also be granted on a factory -testin g basis. 
Therefore, India saw no lack of necessary testing facilities as had been alleged by some Members. 
Regarding the recognition of foreign laboratories, the BIS Laboratory Recognition Scheme 2018 ha d G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 26 - 
 
  provided for the recognition of overseas laboratori es and details were available on the BIS website. 
The recognition of foreign laboratories would  be carried out on a reciprocal and mutually beneficial 
basis.  
2.154.   The request to grant an additional grace period for implementation of the Air Conditioner 
and its  related Parts, (Quality Control) Order, 2018  had been  duly noted and would be forwarded  to 
capital for examination. India invited Members with any  additional concerns to continue discussions 
bilaterally .  
2.2.3.15   Ghana - Administrative Process for Homologation of  Model of Motor Vehicle and 
its Variants (IMS ID 60052) 
2.155.   The representative of the United States  reiterate d previously raised concerns53 regarding 
Ghana's draft measures that would discontinue the acceptance of vehicles built to comply with US 
regulations.  The US government and industry had submitted comments on the measures in 
September 2019 , which Ghana was urged to consider  before issuing the final measure. She asked  
that Ghana provide an update on its domestic procedures. The US commend ed Ghana for havin g 
taken steps to improve road safety by adopting motor vehicle safety and emissions standards used 
internationally  and for having notified the changes to the WTO. However, there were concerns  that 
the measures would discontinue accept ance of  vehicles built  to comply with US regulations  even 
though there was no data identifying specific issues  relating to the operation of such vehicles on 
Ghana's roadways. The US  strongly encourage d Ghana to continue accepting vehicles built to US 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safet y Standards (FMVSS) and US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
emissions requirements.  
2.156.   The representative of Ghana  was not in the room. The concerns expressed were 
subsequently transmitted to the relevant authorities.  
2.2.3.16   Turkey - Draft Amendment of the Regu lation on Cosmetics (IMS ID 60354) 
2.157.   The representative of the United States  thanked Turkey for the bilateral meeting. Reiterating 
concerns raised at the November 2019 TBT Committee meeting, she said that the US industry was 
reporting concerns  about the imple mentation of regulatory requirements for cosmetics products in 
Turkey when  those requirements had not been formally adopted or notified to the WTO. In fact, 
exporting cosmetics products to Turkey ha d become even more challenging compared to when the 
concer n had first been raised , with the introduction of several new product filing, labelling, testing 
and public disclosure requirements in November  2019. The changes, as well as Turkey's reverting 
to requiring that products be registered rather than notified, delay ed market access and place d 
companies' confidential business information at risk. Turkey's cosmetics exports to the US were 
growing, up 18% from 2017 to US D 20 million in  2018. However, due to these changes, US cosmetic 
exports to Turkey had dropped by 43%, when 2019 third quarter  figures were compared to those of 
two years prior . In June 2019, Turkey's enquiry point had indicated that Turkey would notify the 
draft amendment to the WTO. In November, in response to a reminder from the US , Turke y had 
committed to notify  with a 60 -day comment period, but still ha d not done so. The US asked when 
Turkey would notify the draft amendment and urged for the suspen sion of the  implementation of 
requirements, until they were notified  and comments from stak eholders were taken into account. 
Further more, the US  request ed that the Turkish Ministries of Health and Trade meet with US industry 
and government representatives in Ankara to discuss the industry's concerns.  
2.158.   The representative of Turkey  inform ed the Com mittee that there was  ongoing internal 
coordination on the draft regulation taking into consideration the concerns raised by trading 
partners. As stated previously, the Cosmetic Regulation of Turkey was one of the areas where 
harmonization with EU legislat ion was continuing as a requirement of the EU -Turkey Customs Union 
Agreement. Therefore, the Draft Amendment on Cosmetics had been  submitted to the EU 
Commission for comments. Turkey's Ministr ies of Trade and Health ha d recently received and 
evaluated the EU Commission's comments.  In this context, the Ministry of Health was inclined to 
make amendments on the draft regulation so that products  could  be placed on the market upon 
 
52 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  600 (under dates raised and references) . 
53 G/TBT/M/79 , paras. 2.18 -2.20.  
54 For previous st atements follow the thread under IMS ID  603 (under dates raised and references) . 
 G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 27 - 
 
  notification without the necessity to upload the Cosmetic Product Safety Assessmen t file to the 
Turkish Notification System. In this sense, the new regulation aim ed to converge the Turkish 
Notification System as much as possible with  the EU Cosmetic Products Notification Portal (CPNP).  
In addition , the Ministry of Health consider ed defining the "Responsible Person" who would  be 
responsible for keeping the Cosmetic Product Safety Assessment file and be accessible to the 
competent authorities upon request. On the other hand, the Ministry of Health had detected 37% 
non-conformity in cosmeti c products as a result of its market surveillance and inspection activities , 
which had led to increasing concerns regarding product safety and which was  the main reason behind 
Turkey's draft regulation. Furthermore , Turkey was planning to submit a TBT notification allowing a 
60-day comment period after re -drafting the amendment.  He reiterat ed Turkey's willingness to 
communicate and work together with interested Members, as in the past, to address any specific 
concerns on Turkey's Cosmetic R egulation . 
2.2.3.17   United States - Modernization of the Labe lling and Advertising Regulations for 
Wine, Distilled Spirits and Malt Beverages (IMS ID 60155) 
2.159.   The representative of the European Union , referring to  the detailed written comments sent 
on 26 June 2019 , raised concerns regard ing this measure . The EU sought  confirmation that the new 
labelling rules would  not lead to any new barriers to trade for European exporters. The EU note d 
that the draft Regulation contain ed provisions relat ing to appellations of origin  and names of 
geographic significance which  the US m ight consider as covered by Chapter 3 (geographical 
indications) of the Trade -Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement. In this regard, the 
EU asked  whether the US w ould notify the regulatio n to the Council for TRIPS, in accordance with 
the undertaking in Article 63 of the TRIPS Agreement, thus facilitating scrutiny of the relevant 
US rules to take place in that forum. Additionally, as regards the labelling of wine, the EU raised 
concerns reg arding the following issues:  the justification for character size limits (especially 
maximum limits);  restrictions on the indication of the vintage year and grape variety;  appellations 
of origin for fruit, rice and agricultural wines;  a minimum alcohol con tent of 15% and the type 
"vermouth" , which seem ed to cover all aromatized wines . As regards the labelling of spirits, the EU's  
main concerns relate d to: tolerance for labelling of alcohol content;  multiple distillation claims that 
were inconsistent with long -standing labelling conventions;  statements of age, storage and 
percentage;  and standards of identity (e.g. a minimum alcohol content of 40% requirement for all 
distilled spirits).  As regards the  use of the term "organic", the EU asked for clarification  whether the 
wines labelled as organic in the EU and imported into the US under the equivalency recognition 
would be allowed to  also use the term "organic".  
2.160.   The representative of the United States  confirm ed that the US was reviewing the 
EU comments received. The US had received approximately 1,200 comments on this rulemaking. As 
per the laws of the US, the US government needed to  review the relevant matter in each of these 
comments and address the reasons why they had or ha d not been incorporated into any final rule. 
In terms of next steps, there were a number of potential paths forward, including: finalization of 
regulations exactly as proposed, finalizing som e proposals but not others, re -noticing proposals (that 
is, publishing an updated Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register), withdrawing 
certain proposals, splitting the proposals into parts for finalization, or a combination of these.  The 
US was analy sing hundreds of comments that addressed a  number of very challenging issues of 
widespread interest. In the interest of transparency and fairness to other commenters, the US 
generally did not accept new comments on a proposed rule after the close of the comment period , 
which was 26 June 2019 in this case .  
2.2.3.18   Ecuador - Energy Efficiency Requirements for Clothes Dryers for Domestic Use 
(IMS ID 59956) 
2.161.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  thanked Ecuador for having considered Korea's 
request from t he previous meeting and for having extended the comment period for the measure 
until 5 January 2020. A ccording to Ecuador's energy efficiency requirements for clothes dryers, the 
range of energy efficiency classes for sale of dryers was limited to A and B  while other Members 
from Latin America, such as Chile and Peru, which followed the international standard IEC 61121 , 
had no restrictions on sales based on  minimum energy classes. In addition, the A and B classes, 
which restrict ed the sales in Ecuador , had higher standards . It would  be difficult for dryers to enter 
 
55 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  601 (under dates raised and references) . 
56 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  599 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 28 - 
 
  into the Ecuadorian market  because the class for all dryers that were currently sold globally were 
estimated to be Class C or lower under th e amendment. Korea thus asked Ecuador to withdraw the 
clause for the minimum allowable classes for sale and to share the timeline of the amendment 
process.  
2.162.   The representative of Ecuador  explained that technical regulation No. 111, which had been 
in force since 2015, had been reviewed in the context of a larger review of technical regulations. 
The draft regulation had been notified in May 2019 with a 60 -day comment period and had 
subsequently  been modified to tak e into account comments  received. Following a bilateral meeting 
with Korea,  it had been notified with a new comment period  until 5 January 2020. Ecuador would 
revert back to Korea and the TBT Committee once the competent authorities had reviewed  the 
comments submitted by Korea on 3 January 2020 . 
2.2.3.19   Indonesia - Halal Product Assuranc e Law No. 33 of 2014 G/TBT /N/IDN/123  
(IMS ID 502)  
2.163.   The representatives of the European Union  and the United States  raised concerns with this 
measure. The full statements are contained in G/TBT/W/724  and G/TBT/W/733 . 
2.164.   The representative of Brazil support ed the concerns raised by the EU and the US and 
reiterate d its concerns raised at previous TBT Committee meetings. Brazil acknowledge d that there 
had been recent progress in the development of new regulations aimed at implementing the Halal 
Product Assurance Law 33 of 2014. Nevertheless, Indonesia had not  fully compl ied with the 
transparency obligations established under  the TBT Agreement. For instance, regulation 31 on 
"Implementation Provisions of Law 33/2014", which had come  into force in Ma y 2019, ha d not yet 
been duly notified to the WTO.  
2.165.   Moreover, Indonesia ha d neither  established the list of international certifiers authorized by 
Indonesia's Halal Product Assurance Organizing Agency (BPJPH)  nor defined certification 
requirements for speci fic types of products. Until there was a clear definition of such requirements, 
Brazil understood that Law 33 and its subsequent regulations w ould not be implemented. Indonesia 
was invited to confirm this understanding . Brazil also ask ed Indonesia to provi de timeframes for the 
publication of future regulations related to halal certification, and to  notify such measures to the 
WTO accordingly. Brazil thank ed Indonesia for having partially clarified that "non -halal" labelling for 
products containing "non -halal" substances would not be necessary  and requested further 
clarification on its new legislation, as well as the possibility of co -existence of halal and non -halal 
products.  
2.166.   The representative of The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and  Matsu  
recalled that, in  2014, Indonesia had issued the Halal Product Assurance Law, which mandate d halal 
certification for the circulation and trade of all products in Indonesia. The implementation of the law 
on 17 October 2019 ha d stipulated that only pr oducts with halal or non -halal labels c ould be 
circulated in the Indonesian market. Subsequently, a number of stakeholders in Chinese Taipei ha d 
inquired about the actual practices required by the said law. Chinese Taipei request ed Indonesia to 
provide information on the mechanism of mutual recognition between Indonesia's halal certification 
bureau (BPJPH) and foreign halal institutions , so that its halal products c ould successfully enter the 
Indonesian market.  
2.167.   The representative of Australia  thank ed Indonesia for its response with respect to the 
notification o f the draft Regulation of the Minister of Religion regarding the Implementation of Halal 
Product Assurance . Australia appreciate d Indonesia's confirmation that halal auditors employed by 
foreign halal certifying agencies were not required to be Indonesian citizens, or to obtain specific 
certification and approval by the Indonesian Council of U lama or the Halal Product Assurance Agency 
(BPJPH) outside the existing accreditation process.  Australia note d Indonesia's comments regarding 
non-halal labelling not being a compulsory requirement. However, Australia appreciate d further 
clarification on Ar ticle 148 of the draft Regulation regarding what constitute d a "non -halal remark" 
for non -halal products.  Australia n halal certifiers that were approved to certify products for Indonesia 
had commenced the process of re -accreditation with the BPJPH. Noting this, Australia requested  
confirmation that Australian halal certifier accreditation w ould continue to be recognized if certifiers  
had commenced the re -registration process following the expiry of their accreditation.  There were 
other comments that had not  been addressed in detail in Indonesia's response, such as the G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 29 - 
 
  accreditation process for Australian halal certifiers, state -based restrictions for halal certifiers and 
halal product segregation. As such, Australia w elcome d opportunities to discuss these ma tters 
further with Indonesia.  Australia highly value d its trading relationship with Indonesia  and look ed 
forward to further collaboration.  
2.168.   The representative of Canada  supported the concerns raised by other Members , particularly 
regarding its broad scope of application and the lack of clarity regarding the products covered and 
the certification and registration processes. Canada thank ed Indonesia for its recent response to 
comments on the notified draft Minister of Religious Affairs measure regarding the Implementation 
of the Halal Product Assurance Law.  It was now Canada's understanding that fresh seafood was 
exempt from the halal certification and labelling requirements , but that frozen plant products and 
seafood were considered "processed" under the regulation and w ould therefore require halal 
certification and labelling. Canada asked Indonesia whether this certification would apply to all frozen 
single ingredient produc ts. Canada was concerned that this could disadvantage imported products 
that must be frozen in order to maintain freshness during transport. For instance, in 2019 , Canada 
had exported C AD$43 million worth of frozen crabs to Indonesia.  
2.169.   More broadly, Canada  appreciate d that, in its response, Indonesia had identified specific 
articles in the draft measure that provide d details of how foreign halal certifying organizations and 
products were to be accredited or approved by Indonesia once the Halal Product Assur ance Law and 
implementing regulations were fully in force.  While this was very helpful information, it remain ed 
unclear how foreign halal certifying organizations and products w ould be accredited. Canada 
encourage d Indonesia to provide timely information a s further implementing regulations and 
guidance documents were developed and to notify such measures to the Committee so as to provide 
trading partners with sufficient time to comment and seek clarifications as needed.  
2.170.   The representative of New Zealand  thanked Indonesia for the timely and informative 
response to its enquiries on the draft regulation of the Ministry of Religious Affairs regarding the 
Implementation of the Halal Product Assurance Law.  He noted in Indonesia's response that the types 
of product s as stipulated in Article 29, paragraph 2, w ould be further stipulated in a draft ministerial 
decree  and asked for further guidance on the timeframe for the release of this decree. New Zealand  
appreciate d any further information from Indonesia as to wheth er there were any other regulations 
relating to halal under development, in addition to the Ministry of Religious Affairs regulation noted 
in its response. New Zealand underst ood that the halal certification fees w ould need to be set in the 
Ministry of Fin ance regulation and welcome d any further clarification on this. Regarding t he latest 
version of the Omnibus Bill on Job Creation that might include revisions to Halal Law 33/2014 , New 
Zealand  requested Indonesia to provide any further guidance on what these proposed changes m ight 
include and how they w ould affect the proposed halal assurance system.  
2.171.   The representative of Indonesia  underscore d the importance of transparency in the 
TBT Committee and reiterate d its pos ition that Indonesia ha d fulfilled its transparency commitment 
by notifying the Draft of Minister of Religious Affairs regarding the Implementation of Halal Product 
Assurance in notification G/TBT/N/IDN/123  of 14 October 2019. Indonesia thank ed Members who 
had given their valuable comments and inputs to the draft regulation  and noted that replies had 
been promptly sent to the comments received through its enquiry point.  
2.172.   Indonesia confirm ed that sufficient transition time  would be  provided to comply with these 
halal requirements. Fur thermore, she assured  Members that, during the transitional period, the sale 
of non -certified halal products w ould still be allowed. Indonesia also acknowledge d reciprocal mutual 
recognition arrangements with foreign halal certification bodies based on int ernational standard s of 
conformity assessment. Indonesia reiterated  that the requirement s of halal labelling and non -halal 
information were not intended to create costly and burdensome requirements for companies or to 
create confusion for consumers. Rather , they were  intended to provide adequate protection to 
Muslim consumers through clear information of products . G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 30 - 
 
  2.2.3.20   Viet Nam - Decree 116/2017/ND -CP on business requirements for 
manufacturing, assembly and imports of automobiles, automobiles warranty and 
mainte nance services G/TBT/N/VNM /154  and G/TBT /N/VNM/116/Add.1  (IMS ID 54957) 
2.173.   The representative of Thailand  acknowledge d Viet Nam's attempt to improve Decree 116 
and Circular No. 03, which had both been notified to the WTO in November 2019. While appreciating 
Viet Nam's acceptance of self-declaration and extension of the type evaluation period up to 
36 months for imported cars, Thailand still ha d serious concerns with the burdensome nature of 
some of the requirements in D ecree 116 . In particula r, new import cars needed to  be tested by the 
one and only designated local laboratory in Viet Nam, which might  not be enough to process a large 
volume of cars , causing a significant  increase in extra costs, customs clearance time and serious 
delay s for those exporting cars to Viet Nam. Consequent ly, it appear ed to be an unnecessary barrier  
to trade to fulfil safety or environmental objectives. In line with Article 5.1.2 of the TBT  Agreement , 
Thailand urge d Viet Nam to revise the conformity assessment requirements , to consider accept ing 
test report s from oversea s laboratories , and to urgently update the expected timeline for  the 
implementation of the Decree 116 amendment . 
2.174.   The representative of the European Union  welcomed the modifications and improvements to 
Decree 116 notified in the "Decree amendi ng and supplementing a number of decrees relating to 
business investment conditions under state management of Ministry of Industry and Trade" 
(G/TBT/N/VNM/116/Add.1). The EU had sent comments on 17 February 2020 and await ed 
Viet Nam's reply. The EU reitera ted its earlier position questioning the compatibility of the Decree 
with WTO rules  and regretted  that, irrespective of the fact that the Implementing Circular had been  
issued in October 2017, the TBT Committee had not been notified on time about the Decree, which 
had entered into force on 1 January 2018. The EU reminded Viet Nam of its obligations under Article s 
2.9 and particularly  2.9.4 of the TBT Agreement.  The new testing procedures introduced by the 
Decree deviate d from those based on internationally recognized UN Regulations, imposing additional 
costs to third country exporters, without providing any additional safety value . This harm ed the 
competitiveness of imported vehicles vis -à-vis locally manufactured car brands a nd was, as such, 
discriminatory in nature. A good solution would be to accept UN -type approval certificates as 
alternative s to domestic certificates based on Vietnamese requirements. The EU recall ed that 
conformity assessment procedures should not be prepa red, adopted or applied with a view to or with 
the effect of creating unnecessary obstacles to trade.   
2.175.   Under the framework of Decree 116, Viet  Nam had also notified a new Circular 
(G/TBT/N/VNM/140) for car parts that no longer allow ed for the recognition o f UN certificates and 
require d all imports to undergo local testing. The EU had sent comments on 7 June 2019 and was 
still awaiting an official reply to the specific concerns raised therein. The EU invite d Viet Nam to 
accept UN certificates, markings, test  reports and conformity assessment reports, and to conduct 
checks only on the basis of a reasonable risk assessment system that would take into account the 
very low risk posed by imports conducted by the official importer of vehicle or component 
manufactur ers. In light of the above, the EU request ed Viet Nam to suspend the application of the 
Decree , to reconsider the comments provided by WTO Members in different fora, and to re-consult 
all stakeholders, in particular small volume importers of foreign cars.  
2.176.   The representative of the Russian Federation , referring to Viet Nam's notification of 
amendments to Decree  116/2017/ND -CP in November 2019,  noted that the final version amended 
discriminatory provisions in respect of imported new automobiles  and was suppos ed to provide equal 
conditions of conformity assessment procedures for importers and domestic new automobiles. He 
thanked Viet Nam for  having  taken into consideration its comments but also indicated Russia's 
intention to continue bilateral discussions  to get clarifications on technical issues related to the  new 
regime of conformity assessment procedures.  
2.177.   The representative of the United States  welcome d Viet Nam's revision of Decree 116 to 
address concerns that ha d been raised since i ts introduction, in particular the elimination of the  
lot-by-lot testing requirement s and exempt ions for  vehicles from countries that provide d for 
self-certification of conformity with safety and emissions regulations from additional certification 
processes. The US request ed that Viet Nam incorporate a meaningful transition period for the 
efficient implementation of the revisions to allow importers sufficient time to comply with the new 
requirements. It was especially important that both the Decree and the imp lementing circular(s) 
 
57 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  549 (unde r dates raised and references).  G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 31 - 
 
  went into effect concurrently so that there was no uncertainty about the requirements and their 
compliance procedures.  
2.178.   The representative of Japan  welcome d the amendment of Decree 116/2018 
(Decree  17/2020) and Circular 3/2018  and requ ested that the regulations be no more trade 
restrictive than necessary . 
2.179.   The representative of Viet Nam  said that Decree 17/2020/ND -CP on adjustments and 
supplements to Government Decree 116/2017 stipulating regulations on car manufacture, assembly, 
imports  and warranty services  had been issued on  5 February 2020. Viet Nam had also notified th e 
amendment on 25 November 2019 in document G/TBT/N/VNM/116/Add.1 . Upon promulgation, 
Decree 17 had been immediately published on the government website to enable interested persons 
to become acquainted with the amendments.  The new regulation in Decree 17/2020/ND -CP was 
expected to facilitate importation as it was amended to reduce the time needed for clearance for 
sales and to lower the cost for inspections, testing and storage for a utomobile importers . In 
particular,  the VTI requirement in Decree 116 ha d been removed and there w ould be no inspection 
for each batch of imported vehicles for type of vehicle. Instead, the vehicle type evaluation w ould 
be based on technical safety and env ironment protection testing and inspection results of 
representative samples and quality assurance  evaluation results . This could be  in a manufacturing 
facility for imported automobiles manufactured in countries where management by vehicle type 
approval was applied . It could also be  based on technical safety and environment protection testing 
and inspection results of representative samples and inspection of samples taken on the market for 
those manufactured in countries where management by self -declaration was applied . Maximum type 
evaluation frequency was 36 months. Viet Nam's TBT Enquiry Point was also preparing to notify 
Decree 17/2020/ND -CP to the TBT  Committee. Viet Nam was still in the process of revising  the 
regulation for inspecting imported motor vehicles under Circular 03/2018/TT -BGTVT . 
2.2.3.21   Viet Nam - Cybersecurity Measures (ID 544)58 
2.180.   The representative of Japan  referred to its previous statement at the TBT  Committee59 and 
request ed Viet Nam to provide infor mation on the current status of the draft Decree and further 
steps.  
2.181.   The representative of the United States  expressed deep concern s with this measure  and 
disappointment that  this Law had not been notified so as to allow the opportunity to comment while 
it was still in draft form. She urged Viet Nam to immediately notify the Law and the draft 
implementing measures that had been  published on 2 November 2018 so as to allow all interested 
parties to provide inp ut. Viet Nam should  carefully review and consider stakeholder comments when 
finalizing these measures. She invited Viet Nam to work with US and other stakeholders to resolve 
concerns with the Law on Cybersecurity and its implementing decree  and e ncourage d Viet Nam to 
consider using a risk -based approach to cybersecurity drawing on industry best practices, widely 
accepted definitions, and international standards. Viet Nam should co nsider the Common Criteria 
Recognition Arrangement (CCRA) certification proces s when finalizing the draft implementing 
measures for the Law.  
2.182.   The representative of the  European Union  supported the concerns raised by others on this 
measure, which had entered into force on 1 January 2019. There were concern s regard ing the 
potential economic impact of this legislation and the compatibility with Viet Nam's WTO 
commitments. The EU welcome d the public consultation on the Draft Implementing Decree on 
Cybersecurity setting out further details for some articles of the Cyber S ecurity law, to which the 
European Commission and the European External Action Service had provided comments in 
December 2018. The EU hope d that Viet Nam would  seriously consider the se concerns and continue 
dialogue with the EU to ensure its align ment with internati onal best practices. The EU requested 
Viet Nam to provide update s on the latest developments of the adoption of the Implementing Decree.  
2.183.   The EU request ed Viet Nam  to notify this draft Implementing Decree to the TBT  Committee 
in accordance with Ar ticle 2.9 of the TBT  Agreement  to allow Members the opportunity to analyse 
the draft decree in depth and to provide comments. Viet Nam was asked  to provide up -to-date 
information on any plans for taking into consideration comments from interested parties, including 
 
58 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 544 (under dates raised and references).  
59 G/TBT/M/79 , para. 2.240.  G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 32 - 
 
  industry and stakeholders. The EU would appreciate any indications on Viet Nam's likelihood and 
future intentions regarding  the potential development of further implementing measures.  
2.184.   The EU encourage d Viet Nam to develop and implement the Cyber  Security Law and any 
implementing measures in full respect of WTO principles, such as non -discrimination and 
proportionality , and to take into consideration available international standards and best practices.  
2.185.   The representative of Australia  supported th e concerns raised by others. Australia ha d also 
provided feedback on Viet  Nam's draft decree implementing the new Law, noting its interest in 
seeing a law that  maintain ed Viet Nam's entrepreneurialism and embrace of digital platforms ; 
support ed increased p articipation in global e -commerce ; and enhance d the business environment in 
Viet Nam, including by being transparent, clear and compliant with international trade commitments 
and regional trade agreements . Australia shared the view that safeguarding cyber security was a 
legitimate policy objective of governments  but question ed whether requirements in the law and draft 
implementing decree were necessary to meet Viet Nam's cybersecurity objectives. The current laws 
did not represent the least trade restrictive manner to achieve those objectives and this could  affect 
Viet Nam's reputation as an open economy and impact its ability to benefit from the digital economy.  
2.186.   Viet Nam was strongly  encourage d to notify the drafts o f the decree to the TBT  Committee . 
Australia looked forward to continuing work with Viet Nam on the implementation of the Cyber 
Security Law and thank ed Viet Nam for its bilateral engagement.  
2.187.   The representative of  Canada  supported concerns raised by others  and reiterate d its 
previous concerns over Viet Nam's cybersecurity measures. Canada  urged Viet Nam to notify the 
draft implementing Decree to the TBT Committee to allow for sufficient comment and stakeholder 
views.  
2.188.   The representative of  Viet Nam  said that  Viet Nam's Law on Cybersecurity and the draft 
Decree for implementing certain articles of this Cybersecurity Law d id not contain technical 
requirements for IT  products and devices . Therefore , they we re not subject to the TBT Agreement. 
The draft Decree was currently being considered for adoption. In the drafting stage, Viet Nam's 
drafting agency ha d published all draft legislations on respective government portals in order to 
enable all individuals, organizations, and domestic and foreign stakeholders to a ccess and provide 
comments. Numerous meetings and workshops had been  held and intensive consultations had been  
under taken so that Viet Nam could carefully listen to comments and explain the legitimate policy 
objectives and proper regulations to the interes ted parties.  
2.2.3.22   Brazil - Technical Regulation 14, 8 February 2018, to set the additional official 
identity, quality standards for wine and derivatives of grape and wine products as well as 
the requirements to be acquainted and Technical Regulation No. 48, 31 August 2018 
published in the Official Gazette on 10 September 2018  G/TBT/N/BRA/ 956 (IMS ID 
56860) 
2.189.   The representative of  New Zealand  underst ood that Brazil had consolidated  the requirements 
set out in Normative Instruction 14 (IN14) 2018  into Operational Administrative Rule (OAR) 
01/2019. New Zealand noted that t he updated regulation had been notified on 14 January 2020, but 
the proposed date of entry into force was 2 January 2020. The requirements of the certificate of 
analysis for wine e xported to Brazil set out in Normative Instruction IN75 pose d a significant barrier 
to trade for New Zealand wine exporters  as recognized wine -testing laboratories in New Zealand d id 
not provide testing for a number of required parameters. Certificates of Origin issued by New 
Zealand's Ministry for Primary Industries were unable to reference Certificates of Analysis provided 
by a third country, meaning the additional testing requirements could  result in New Zealand being 
unable to meet the requirements of N ormative Instruction 67 (IN67) , leading to trade disruption . 
New Zealand sought  clarification on how Brazil had ensured that the certificate of analysis 
requirements implemented through Normative Instruction 14 2018 were not more trade restrictive 
than nec essary. Brazil was invited to  explain the rationale for its departure from conformity with 
OIV-adopted resolutions and encourage d to bring IN14 into alignment with OIV  recommendations. 
 
60 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  568 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 33 - 
 
  New Zealand thank ed Brazil for its bilateral engagement and welcome d discussions aimed at finding  
an acceptable solution.  
2.190.   The representative of  the European Union  thank ed Brazil for notifying the adoption of 
Technical Regulation 75 of 31 December 2019. The simplification of the list of certification 
parameters for imported wi ne and, in particular, the removal of the burdensome parameters, 
sweeteners and colours, significant ly facilitated trade . The EU note d, however, that some of the 
important concerns raised in its written comments and in previous TBT Committee meetings 
remain ed relevant. With regard to the list of certification parameters for imported wine, the EU ask ed 
Brazil for the reasons for systematic analysis of methanol, which ma de imports of small volumes of 
wine very difficult. Methanol was naturally produced in wine during the alcoholic fermentation and , 
according to scientific studies performed by the European Food Safety Authority, did not represent 
a food safety concern.  
2.191.   As noted previously, several co ntent limits required by the Brazilian technical regulations 
were not aligned to the OIV recommendations, in particular, maximum limits for total acidity. Other 
limits, for example, for chlorides and ashes were not covered by OIV recommendations. In additi on, 
the OIV non -compliant limits for alcoholic degree did not cover, for example, EU wines covered by 
geographical indication with alcoholic limits that c ould go down to 4 .5% volume. Finally, as 
repeatedly raised by the EU, the sugar content limits divergi ng from OIV were causing longstanding 
problems for imports of EU sparkling wines. EU wine importers had encountered  lengthy and 
cumbersome customs procedures in Brazil, including counter -analysis of certification parameters. 
The divergence of test methods from OIV standards also cause d difficulties for imports, as the results 
could  differ from the results in the certificate of analysis in origin. The EU ask ed Brazil for the reasons 
behind these requirements, which seemed  disproportionate for low -risk produc ts, such as wine.   
2.192.   The EU appreciated  Brazil's  constructive approach in addressing concerns  and reiterate d its 
suggestion  to make maximum use of the OIV recommendations when revising the relevant technical 
regulations and to consider accepting imported win es made according to oenological practices 
authori zed by the OIV. The EU looked forward to continued bilateral engagement  with Brazil in this 
respect.  
2.193.   The representative of the United States  recalled that, on  14 January 2020, Brazil had notified 
Technical Regulation 75, consolidated regulations for beverages, wine, wine and grape by -products 
in document G/TBT/N/BRA/956 . Although Brazil had not provide d the opportunity for WTO Member 
comments, the US was developing formal comments on Brazil's measure to be sent through the 
enquiry point  in which it sought  clarification on definitions and import requirements related to wine 
and wine -making . The US requested  that Brazil respond to its questions at its earliest convenience 
so as to avoid trade disrupt ions.  
2.194.   The US remind ed Brazil of its obligations to notify a new technical regulation that could  have 
a significant effect on trade to the TBT Committee prior to implementation, pursuant to Article 2.9. 
She asked Brazil to postpone implementation of its consolidated regulations until it had fulfilled these 
obligations. Of particular  concern were the certification requirements for wine outlined in the 
consolidated regulations. These requirements appear ed to be red undant and more trade restrictive 
than necessary to achieve Brazil's legitimate objective of preventing deceptive practices, protecting 
human health or safety and ensuring quality.  
2.195.   US understanding was that wine imports must be accompanied by a certificat e of analysis 
issued by a registered foreign laboratory containing the following analysis: sugar content, alcoholic 
graduation, reduced dry extract, total sulphates, total acidity, volatile acidity and methyl alcohol. It 
was also the US  understanding that there was an additional requirement for an import -inspection 
pre-certification report containing several additional analyses apart from those required in the 
certificate of analysis and that this certificate would be generated by the Brazilian laboratory u pon 
importation. The US was not aware of any other market that require d laboratory analysis and 
corresponding certification in both the exporting and importing countries for a single shipment. Brazil 
was invited to explain the rationale for these seemingly  burdensome requirements that were likely 
to restrict trade  and asked whether both certificates were always required for all wine imports?  
2.196.   Lastly, the US note d that it was reviewing Brazil's Ordinance 9 on the inspection of 
beverages, wines and derivative s of grapes and wine notified on 5  February 2002 in document  G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 34 - 
 
  G/TBT/N/BRA/962 . The US was prepared to submit formal comments to Brazil , as needed , by the 
specified deadline.  There was concern about the myriad of new import requirements for wine 
entering Brazil and the US hoped to continue discuss ing these requirements with Brazil bilaterally 
so that trade would  not be disrupted.  
2.197.   The representative of Brazil  acknowledge d that, upon raisi ng this STC once again, New 
Zealand and the EU ha d also made reference to Technical Regulation 75, published on 31 December 
2019 and notified on 14  January  2020 in document G/TBT/N/BRA/956 . This new Technical 
Regulation, which  had come into force on 2  January  2020, define d the crit eria and analytical 
parameters to be used in the inspection and control of national and imported wine and derivatives 
of grape and wine products.  
2.198.   In this context, it was important to remember that Technical Regulations 14 and 48 defined, 
for both domestic and foreign producers, physical -chemical analytical parameters for wine and 
derivatives of grape and wine products. With subsequent Technical Regulation 67, notified as 
G/TBT/N/ BRA/853, the models of certificates and related documents required for certification for the 
export and i mport of drinks, acetic fermented wines and grape and wine derivatives had been  
approved. Among other elements, Technical Regulation 67 require d the presentation of analysis 
results for the parameters defined in Technical Regulations 14 and 48.  
2.199.   Technical R egulation 75, on the other hand, establishe d which analytical parameters should 
be included in the laboratory reports to be used in the inspection and control of imported and national 
drinks. These analytical parameters were those set out in Operational St andard No. 1 of 
24 January  2020. Therefore, the number of parameters had been  reduced to seven, in comparison 
with the 15 parameters contained in the provisions of Technical Regulations 14 and 48. The practical 
effect of such measures, by decreasing the ra tio of physical -chemical parameters required by 
Technical Regulations 14 and 48, was to make the technical criteria for importing wine more trade 
promotive.  Brazil understood Technical Regulation 75 to be a trade  facilitating measure when 
compared to past regulations  and was willing to clarify any further questions from Members.  
2.2.3.23   European Union - Transitional periods for MRLs and international consultations 
G/TBT/N/EU/682 , G/TBT/N/EU/683 , G/SPS/N/EU/248 , G/SPS/N/EU/360  (IMS ID 
58061) 
2.200.   The representative of the United Stat es raised concerns that the EU's transition measures 
did not provide adequate time for producers to modify their pest -management programs to clear 
the channels of trade. Furthermore, the EU's policies appeared to establish arbitrary differences in 
the trea tment of domestic and imported products . The described legitimate objectives of human 
health and safety did not appear to account for obstacles posed to imported products compared with 
generally non -existent risks of non -fulfilment .  
2.201.   The US recalled that, in previous  TBT Committee  meetings, the EU had suggested that the 
matter of transition periods for MRLs should be referred to the SPS Committee. When the 
SPS Committee had met in 2018 and 2019, however, the EU had suggested that Members should 
refer to TBT  notifications as the "early warning" of possible future impact to MRLs.  
2.202.   The lack of consistency and transparency around statements of possible future impact did 
not provide foreign growers with the regulatory certainty needed to inform food production pr actices 
and decision -making in the present. Rather, it placed foreign growers who complied with existing 
EU MRL standards at the time of production in jeopardy of facing future rejection at EU borders . EU 
growers did not face  this damaging prospect  under t he current regulatory provisions. The EU 
appeared to suggest that foreign producers should stop using substances simply because the EU had 
chosen not to renew them domestically, even when the EU's domestic producers could continue 
using non -renewed substan ces through the domestic grace period and expected to be regulated 
under the older MRLs.  
2.203.   If the EU's short transitional measures for imported products were based on health concerns, 
as the EU had claimed for certain pesticides, then could the EU explain w hy MRL changes had only 
been notified to the SPS Committee after EU growers had benefited from grace periods and ensured 
 
61 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  580 (under dates rai sed and references) . G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 35 - 
 
  that their own treated products could clear the channels of trade? The US also asked the EU why it 
had not extended corresponding grace  periods or transition measures to foreign producers.  
2.204.   In the EU's response to US comments on G/SPS/N/EU/248 , one of the fir st notified EU MRL 
measures to introduce the transition measures in question, the EU had explicitly acknowledged that 
non-EU countries would have a shorter time to comply with new MRLs compared to EU Member 
States. Given this acknowledgement, the US again asked the EU to clarify how it was considering its 
obligations to not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate between its own territory and that of other 
Members.  
2.205.   The US reiterated its request that the EU conduct a risk assessment prior to resetting MRLs  
and determining transition periods. Additionally, the US asked the EU to extend its MRL transitional 
measures to account for realistic production and processing times for food and agricultural products.  
2.206.   The representative of Colombia  raised concerns with this measure. The full statement is 
contained in G/TBT/W/713 . 
2.207.   The representative of Panama  supported the concerns raised by the US and Colombia . 
Panama noted that there were certain situations that producers of perishable goods faced that did 
not enable them to send products to the EU . This could lead to significant losses for producers.  
Panama reminded other Members acceding to the EU, members of EFTA, the UK, and any other 
Member that might adopt their own MRL measures that these measures should be notified to the  
TBT Committee and other fora.  
2.208.   The representative of Brazil  supported the concerns raised by others . He stressed the 
relevance of Article 2.12 of the TBT Agreement, as it related to the establishment of a reasonable 
interval between the publication of technical regulati ons and their entry into force, except in cases 
of urgent problems of safety, health, environmental protection or national security. It was of utmost 
importance to guarantee adequate intervals of transition, especially for those cases in which the 
scientif ic opinions of the EFSA on the toxicity of substances were "inconclusive" or only indicated a 
"suspected risk". He reiterated Brazil's concern that the EU, based on a hazard -based approach, was 
deciding to reduce the MRLs of certain substances.  
2.209.   Last year, for instance, the EU had defined a grace period of three  months for accepting the 
presence of MRLs for chlorpyrifos in the EU,  notified in  G/TBT/N/EU/682 . This time period  was 
incompatible with the production period of an orange crop, whose plants had already been sprayed 
with chlorp yrifos. It was also incompatible with the production process, given that a significant part 
of the juice was exported frozen. This issue was especially important to small farmers that had 
already used chlorpyrifos under the current regulation. If the time for adaptation was not extended, 
small farmers would be hindered from trading their production and, in most cases, would not be able 
to endure the losses. In bilateral meetings, Brazil had consistently tried to expand the transitional 
period for chlorpyrif os MRLs, but no progress had been achieved.  
2.210.   The representative of Ecuador  thanked Colombia, Panama and the US for including this 
agenda item  as it effected, in particular, developing countries. Ecuador expressed concern with the 
transition periods granted by the EU for implementation of these MRLs. For reasonable time periods, 
it was necessary to bear in mind harvest times and time for agrochemicals to ensure their 
effectiveness. Farmers required more time to adapt to the MRL preconditions, especially when 
developing a new pesticide, for example, which took 35 months on average. Ecuador urged the EU 
once again to consider at least 36 months, which would enable Ecuador to make the necessary 
adjustments in its production and developing countries to comply with  the conditions under the EU 
regulations.  
2.211.   The representative of Canada  recognized and supported Members' rights to apply food safety 
measures deemed necessary to protect human health while at the same time not unjustifiably 
restricting international trade . It was essential that the EU's transition periods for maximum residue 
limits took into account the need for exporters to adapt to new requirements and ensured that the 
conditions and requirements were the same for domestic producers and foreign exporters . According 
to Canada, this approach would acknowledge the reality of the agricultural supply chain, such as 
multi-year inventory and extensive shelf life, including in foreign countries.  G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 36 - 
 
  2.212.   The representative of Paraguay  thanked the US, Colombia and Panama for again including 
this agenda item. She reiterated Paraguay 's concern with regard to the EU 's proposed transition 
periods, which were insufficient since they would require a complete transformation of the production 
system. The EU had regularly voiced  in the TBT  Committee and elsewhere that, once a measure had 
been notified to the TBT Committee, there should be a two -year transition period, not six months. 
The EU therefore believed that all the steps in this notification process going forward would simply  
be processes leading to wards what had  been decided at the time of  its notification to the 
TBT Committee. Paraguay asked how all the comments could be taken into account from the 
notification until the adoption of the MRLs . This had many implications and the EU was urged to 
ensure that the MFN principle and the TBT Agreement be taken into account and to enable alignment 
of production systems. This also had to do with import processes, and it was necessary to have clear 
rules based on scientific evidence.  
2.213.   The representative of Costa Rica  supported the concerns raised by others. R educing the 
timelines had a great impact on Costa Rican products arriving in the EU market. Due to the  different 
substances used in agriculture and the ir limitations , production coul d not adjust within a 6 -month 
time period as there were new molecules that had to be subject to a lengthy and complex process. 
Like other Members, Costa Rica hoped that the EU could extend this period, especially for bananas 
and other products, and that it  could engage in dialogue with exporters of agricultural products that 
were substantially affected. Ideally these studies, analyses and decisions should be  adopted 
multilaterally within the context of the Codex Alimentarius and in accordance with WTO rules.  
2.214.   The representative of Uruguay  raised concerns with this measure. The full statement is 
contained in G/TBT/W/707 . 
2.215.   The representative of Egypt thanked the US, Colombia and Panama for again including this 
agenda item . Egypt was very interest ed in this issue and was following discussions closely. Egypt 
had already expressed concerns regarding the short transitional periods provided for in EU 
notifications G/TBT/N/EU/683  (on the draft regulation concerning the non -renewal of the approval 
of the active substance chlorpyrifos -methyl) and G/SPS/N/EU/360  (on the draft regulation on the 
maximum residue levels for chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos -methyl in or on certain products) . Both 
would  enter into force in October 2020. Egypt believed that consideration should be given to the 
time needed by producers to adjust to new requirements in order not to limit the market access of 
exports, particularly from developed and least developed countries, and especially f rom micro, small - 
and medium -sized enterprises. Egypt would continue discussions bilaterally with the EU on this 
matter.  
2.216.   The representative of Guatemala  thanked the US, Colombia and Panama for raising this 
issue and joined their concerns. She reiterated t he importance for the EU to give a transition period 
in line with the stages of crop production, in particular, those in tropical countries. The productive 
sectors required more time for adaptation and, in particular, to find alternative substances. In som e 
cases, it was necessary to wait for ideal cycles in production for application and testing. Guatemala 
agreed with Colombia that the TBT Committee should not be the only for a for discussion. Issues 
raised by Members should l ead to discussion and dialogue  and for their views to be taken into 
account . This did not seem to be the case . In particular, because the position and comments of 
exporters and producers to the EU could not be part of the review process directly . Only substance 
producers were included in discussions and, in Guatemala 's view, this was not transparent for trade. 
She thanked the EU for establishing genuine dialogue in order to discuss this matter and urged the 
EU to extend the transition period so to avoid creating an un necessary obstacle to trade and to allow 
developing countries t ime to adapt . Guatemala would also welcome its comments being taken into 
account in the regulatory process.  
2.217.   The representative of the European Union  clarified  that, as  in previous TBT Committee 
meetings, as a mat ter of principle, the EU considered concerns on the setting of maximum residue 
levels (MRLs) of pesticides and any details regarding their implementation to be matters for 
discussion at the SPS Committee, rather than the TBT Committee. Further to requests by some 
Members, and in the interests of transparency, the EU had decided to notify all draft measures on 
pesticide active substances that were relevant for the TBT Committee also to the SPS Committee. 
In practice, it meant that future draft acts on the no n-approval or restriction of approval of an active 
substance would be notified to both Committees.  G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 37 - 
 
  2.218.   However, in the interest of efficient proceedings in both Committees and in line with the 
respective Agreements, the EU continued to consider that matters o n approval of active substances 
should be discussed exclusively in the TBT Committee and matters on the setting of MRLs for 
pesticides should be discussed exclusively in the SPS Committee.  
2.219.   The EU fulfilled all its obligations under both the TBT and SPS Ag reements, including notifying 
its trading partners about planned measures that fell within the scope of either of these Agreements. 
Information and comments received in response to these notifications were duly considered and 
taken into account before fina l decisions were taken, as explained in EU replies to trading partners.  
2.220.   As regards possible transitional periods, when MRLs were lowered, the EU wished to remind 
the Committee about two key provisions of such measures.  
2.221.   First, following the formal adoptio n, publication and entry into force of an act lowering MRLs, 
a deferred date of application was set. The date of application was the date from which the new law 
on MRLs would effectively be enforced. The length of the deferral was six months after entry in to 
force in the vast majority of cases. This deferral of the application date permitted, inter alia , third 
countries and food business operators to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements that 
would result from the modification of the MRLs.  
2.222.   Second,  products produced in the EU or imported into the EU before the aforementioned 
application date may continue to benefit from the old higher MRLs and remain on the market if 
information showed that a high level of consumer protection was maintained. This wa s regularly not 
the case where MRLs were lowered because the safety of consumers could not be demonstrated .  
2.2.3.24   China - Cosmetics Supervision and Administration Regulation (Draft) and 
Regulation for Notification of Non -special Cosmetics (Draft) ( IMS ID 57662) 
2.223.   The representative of Japan  repeated  concerns  regarding the Cosmetics Supervision and 
Administration Regulation  and Regulation on Cosmetic Inspection in Registration and Filing , which 
were raised at the previous TBT Committee meeting.63 Japan also had conce rns regarding the 
Interim Measures on the Administration of Overseas Inspections of Cosmetics , where the coverage 
of the inspection, including the product development stage, was broader than necessary. While 
information related to research and development was not necessarily essential for product safety 
assurance , it was the most important confidential information for companies.  In this regard, 
inspections for Chinese domestic companies were only conducted on production sites . China was 
thus requested to provide equal treatment to both domestic and overseas companies.  Finally, Japan  
also requested China to: (i)  provide a detailed timeline for th ese revision process ; (ii) provide an 
adequate grace period of at least one  year for implementation of these regula tions and the related 
detailed regulations to avoid confusion in the market ; and (iii)  notify the latest revised regulations 
to the TBT Committee.  
2.224.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  requested  China to allow companies to submit 
evidence to the Chin ese regulatory authority only when necessary, or to grant exemption from 
disclosure requirements.  Korea was also concern ed with the proposed revision 's requirement that 
over-labels in Chinese be consistent with the original labels . Compliance with such requirements 
should be  in line with international practice,  in accordance with the labelling requirements of the 
exporting country.  Test results required for the registration of cosmetic products must be issued by 
testing laboratories that have obtained th e CMA and comply with the regulation. However, only 
laboratories in China were known to have obtained the CMA. China was requested to  offer flexibility 
to foreign laboratories in granting CMAs and to recognize test results issued by foreign laboratories. 
China should  recognize test results issued by foreign laboratories or internationally recognized 
practices such as ISO.  Under the draft of the "Cosmetics Supervision and Administration Regulation", 
the licence for special -use cosmetics ha d validity periods . This was not in line with international 
practice where the licence issued by most countries, including Korea, the US, and European  
countries , did not have a determined validity period. Therefore , China was invited  to reconsider 
setting the validity period s of the licence for special -use cosmetics.  Korea reques ted that China  give 
full consideration to these  comments when  reviewing the draft regulations . Korea asked China to 
 
62 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  576 (under dates raised and references) . 
63 G/TBT/M79 , paras. 2.117 -7.120 . G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 38 - 
 
  provide the date of entry into force of this proposed regulation  and to allow  for a sufficient transition 
period so as to allow industry t ime to adapt to the new regulation.  
2.225.   The representative of Australia  expressed  deep sympathy and support for China and its 
people as it deal t with the difficult and complex COVID -19 public health crisis.  While noting the 
impact that COVID -19 was having in China, Australia was aware of reports that China's State Council 
formally passed the Cosmetics Supervision and Administration Regulation (CSAR) on 3 January 
2020. Australia requested an update from China  on the CSAR, particularly with respect to the status 
of the CSAR and timelines for implementation and how it would work in practice.  In this respect, 
Australia asked: would  China publish and formally notify WTO Members prior to publication of the 
CSAR?  Did China  remove the requirement for imported cosmetics to be tested on animals?  What 
certification requirements did China envisage for imported cosmetics?  
2.226.   Australia was also interested in knowing more about the concept of mutual recognition, as 
mentioned by China at the November 2019 TBT Committee meeting. Australia encourage d China to 
provide equal treatment to Chinese and foreign cosmetics products; and to be no more t rade 
restrictive than necessary when implementing any measures to ensure the safety of cosmetics.  
Australia requested  details of any further drafts or final versions of the CSAR, particularly on any 
new measures that trading partners  would be required to c omply with. Australia  was willing  to 
engage bilaterally on the cosmetics regulation and alternatives to animal testing.  
2.227.   The representative of the United States  understood  that the State Council passed the CSAR 
draft in January 2020, with the Premier's sig nature expected any day. US industry was pleased that 
China ha d chosen to modernize its cosmetics regulations as the resulting reforms could promote the 
rapidly growing cosmetics trade between the US and China. As China develop ed the CSAR 
implementing meas ures, the US  asked  China to continue notifying all draft and final measures to 
the WTO and engage with US industry. This would  help to ensure that CSAR would promote 
innovation and trade while meeting the National Medical Products Administration's (NMPA) m andate 
to ensure safe products.  
2.228.   It was the US understand ing that the Draft Measures for the Registration and Filing of 
Cosmetics, notified in G/TBT/N/CHN/1311 , was significantly amended, without notification . This 
amendment  require d that certain special -use cosmetics undergo test ing in China, even when there 
was test data available from international labs that follow ed good laboratory and clinical practices. 
She a sked that China notify these proposed amendments to the WTO and avoid adopting duplicative 
testing and other requiremen ts that may be more trade restrictive than necessary.  
2.229.   The US also hoped that China was taking into account the  concerns raised regarding China's 
proposed conformity assessment requirements for imported non -special -use cosmetics notified in 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1331 . The US would welcome  a discussion bring ing together the NMPA, the State 
Administration for Market Regulation, and the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Commerce with US  
Government  officials and  industry to better understand China's concerns and to find a solution that 
would  not be more trade  restrictive than necessary.  The success of China's cosmetics and personal 
care indust ry was important to the U S given both the number of Chinese products used daily by US 
consumers, as well as the economic opportunity China represent ed to US companies seeking to 
serve China's growing consumer base. The industry provide d an example of the p otential for the 
expansion of US-China  bilateral trade, given robust exports from both countries.  
2.230.   The representative of China  said that  the objective of this measure was  to ensure the quality 
and safety of cosmetics, safeguard c onsumer  health and promote t he development and innovation 
of the cosmetics industry  by regulating cosmetic production and strengthening the administration 
and supervision of cosmetics management. China notified this regulation to the WTO in December 
2018 and it was adopted by China's  State Council on 3 January 2020.  Regarding the regulation for 
notification of non -special -use cosmetics, she stated that the inspection and safety standards were 
the same  for imported and domestic products.  Imported and domestic non -special cosmetics were 
also subject to consistent supervision management. Since 10 November 2018, the present method 
of approval administration of the imported non -special -use cosmetics was adjusted  accordingly . 
China hoped to  further strengthen information exchange and coopera tion with interested Members 
and improve the cosmetics supervision system.  G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 39 - 
 
  2.2.3.25   Chile - Public Consultation for draft legislation setting out rules on the 
preparation, description and labelling of milk products deriving from milk ( IMS ID 56664) 
2.231.   The representative of New Zealand  repeated  concerns  raised  at the previous TBT Committee  
meeting .65 
2.232.   The representative of the Russian Federation  shared  the concern s raised by New Zealand.  
The definition of "milk" was different from the relevant definition u nder the effective Code of Hygienic 
Practice for Milk and Milk Products of the Codex Alimentarius Committee . Codex  define d "milk" as 
"the product of the normal mammary secretion of milking animals obtained from one or more 
milkings without either addition to it or extraction from it, intended for consumption as liquid milk 
or for further processing". The same definition  was in  the provisions of the Codex Stan 206 -1999.  
Chile's definition stated:  "the colostrum -free liquid product resulting from the complete  and 
uninterrupted milking of healthy, well -fed and well -rested cows" . Compliance with this definition 
would  be complicated for exporters as there were no methods and approaches on how to confirm 
the state of satiety and rest of cows.  The same applied to the definition of cheese. Russia therefore 
asked  Chile to reconsider its draft legislation in order to avoid obstacles  to their bilateral trade in 
dairy products.  
2.233.   The representative of the United States  referred to concerns previously raised with this 
measure.66 Despite Chile's commitment to providing  written responses to comments received , none 
had been  communicated to the US  and Chile was asked to inform the Committee when responses 
would be communicated. In the absence of a response , it appear ed that, based on the timing of 
approval of the measure and the US initial review of the measure itself , neither US comments nor 
previous concerns raised during TBT Committee meetings were taken into consideration in the  
prepar ation of  this final measure.  
2.234.   Chile's  proposal to require labelling of reconstituted dairy products and the restriction of 
using reconstitution in cheese production appear ed to diverge from Codex  Alimentarius  standards. 
In this respect, the US asked: (i) could  Chile explain its rationale for not adhering to the relevant 
Codex standards, and specifically those pertaining to reconstitution, in the development of this 
measure?  (ii) could  Chile elaborate on the timing for drafting and notifying forthcoming 
implementing regulations that would be  needed for operationalizing the measure?  (iii) could C hile 
explain what steps it intend ed to take to ensure trading partner comments would be  taken into 
account prior to issuing the final regulation or any implementing regulations associated with the law? 
and (iv)  could  Chile confirm it s intention to  delay the 2 August 2020 enforcement date of the law 
pending confirmation with trading partners that their trade concerns, and particularly the divergence 
from Codex standards, have been taken into account in a re vised version of the measure?  
2.235.   The representative of Chile responded to the concerns raised. The full statement is contained 
in G/TBT/W/711 . 
2.2.3.26   India - New Telecommunications related Rules (Department of 
Telecommunications, No. 842 -725/2005 -VAS/Vol.III (3 December 2009); 
No.10 -15/2009 -AS-III/1 93 (18 March 2010); and Nos. 10 -15/2009 -
AS.III/Vol.II/(Pt.)/(25 -29) (28 July 2010); Department of Telecommunications, 
No. 1015/2009 -AS.III/Vol.II/(Pt.)/(30) (28 July 2010) and accompanying template, 
"Security and Business Continuity Agreement") ( IMS ID 27467) 
2.236.   The representative of the European Union  repeated  concerns  made at the previous 
TBT Committee  meeting .68  
2.237.   The representative of Canada considered that India's in -country testing requirements for 
telecommunications equipment could potentially exclude o perators from the Indian market. It 
appeared to be part of a systemic approach by India, across a range of products, to not accept 
testing from accredited foreign testing facilities. Canada stated that in -country testing and 
 
64 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 566  (under dates raised and references).  
65 G/TBT/M/79 , para. 2.110.  
66 G/TBT/M/79 , para.  2.111.  
67 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  274 (under dates raised and references) . 
68 G/TBT/M/79 , paras. 2.186 -2.187.  G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 40 - 
 
  certification is duplicative, c ostly for exporters, and delayed the introduction of products on the 
Indian marketplace. Canada understood that the recognition of ILAC -accredited laboratory results 
could be terminated at the end of March 2020. In this respect, Canada asked if India could  confirm 
this and whether the extension of this recognition had been considered. Canada asked India to 
confirm if it intended to apply the measure to as many network -connected equipment as possible 
and whether there w as any timeliness for such extensions.  
2.238.   The representative of India reiterated the same responses by his delegation at the last 
meeting .69  
2.2.3.27   Russian Federation - Draft Technical Regulation on Alcohol Drinks Safety 
(published on 24 October 2011) ( IMS ID 33270) G/TBT/N/RUS/2  
2.239.   The representative of the European Union  raised concern s with this measure. The full 
statement is contained in G/TBT/W/725 . 
2.240.   The representative of Ukraine  support ed the concerns raised by the E uropean Union related 
to the application of conformity procedures, and the  time allowed for a company to comply with the 
necessary documentation requests . The conformity assessment procedures include d additional time, 
costs and conditions associated with the registration of legal entities in the territory of the EAEU or 
contracting w ith existing legal entities registered in the territory of the EAEU. The required 
conformity assessment result ed in higher costs for producers compared to those  based in the EAEU. 
Ukraine asked Russia to provide an  update on alcohol regulations so as to av oid unjustified barriers 
to trade.  
2.241.   The representative of the Russian Federation  stated  that t he Technical Regulation was 
adopted in December 2018 and  was to enter into force in 2021. Regarding the request to notify  the 
adopted text of the Technical Regula tion, Russia  recalled that  WTO transparency provisions require d 
only the notification of the  draft technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures.  The 
Technical Regulation did not contain any provision covered by the  TRIPS Agreement, as definitions 
of cognac, champagne and calvados were considered by Russian  as well as Eurasian economic union 
consumers as generic names : thus, they were not protected as appellations of origin in the ir 
territor ies. In accordance with th e Civil Code of the Russian Federation, in order to be protected, the 
intellectual property should be registered in the Federal Service for Intellectual Property by its right s 
holder. Moreover, these types of products ha d been manufactured in Russia since the Russian Empire 
and associated as generic or traditional names. That was why Russian consumers were not misled 
by the definitions in the Technical Regulation mentioned above. In addition, under arrangements 
between Russia  and France, the designations "c ognac", "champagne" and "calvados", written in 
Cyrillic characters, could  refer to products manufactured in Russia that were marketed domestically. 
This provision was also included in the Technical Regulation on Safety of Alcohol Products under 
Chapter 8, "Requirements for labelling of alcoholic beverages". The provision provide d that only 
beverages originating in respective areas of France could  bear the label "cognac", "champagne" and 
"calvados" in Roman characters, while products manufactured in Russia f or domestic consumption 
could  bear the label in Cyrillic characters. Therefore,  Russia did not see any reason to notify the 
measure in accordance with Article 63.2 of the TRIPS Agreement.  
2.242.   Concerning the  physical and chemical requirements, the se were incorporated in the current 
national legislation and did not cause any negative effect on volumes of transboundary trade in 
alcoholic beverages. In accordance with the Russian obligations under the Article 2.4 of the 
TBT Agreement, the technical regulations sho uld just be "based on " but not "aligned with " 
international standards. In this respect, Russia asked the  EU to indicate the relevant provisions 
regarding physical and chemical requirements of the Technical Regulation that were different from 
international recommendations.  
2.243.   Russia stressed that the Technical Regulation did not discriminate against foreign products 
over domestic one s. The measure's  core legitimate objective was the protection of human health 
and safety of  Russian and EAEU members' citizens.  Regarding mandatory labelling requirements, 
Russia  reiterate d that these requirements could not  be considered as additional obstacles to trade 
because they did not contain any aspects  that burden ed producers. Consumers, in order to avoid 
 
69 G/TBT/M/79 , paras. 2.191 -2.192.  
70 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  332 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 41 - 
 
  alcoholic intoxication or even fatal outcome s, had to be informed about the storage conditions and 
date of marking and bottling.  Russia  confirm ed there was no prohibition on  the use of stickers. On 
concerns raised regarding  conformity assessment procedures , Russia stated that these procedures  
were set in the Technical Regulation and applied to both domestic and foreign alcoholic beverages l 
manufactur ers. Russia did not consider them disproportionate nor that they  created unneces sary 
obstacle s to trade . Most of the se procedures were  currently in effect and the companies involved in 
manufacturing, supplying and importing d id not face any challenges.  
2.244.   In conclusion, Russia inform ed that the comments made by the EU had been considere d by 
the Federal Service for Alcoholic Market Regulation,  which was the responsible authority for 
elaboration of the technical regulation . Some of the se comments would be included in the planned 
amendments to the Technical Regulation. The relevant amendmen ts would  be proposed in 
accordance with Decision No. 48 of the EAEU and Article 2.9 of the TBT Agreement . 
2.2.3.28   China - Registration Fees for Drugs and Medical Device Products ( IMS ID 46671) 
2.245.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  continued to raise concerns on this measure.  
Concerns included higher registration fees for importing drugs and medical device products, 
specifically the implementation rules on drug registration fees and the implementation rules on 
medical device registration fees.  At previous TBT Committee meetings, China responded that higher 
registration fees for imported medical devices were due to the on -site inspection of facilities 
overseas . However, not  all imported medical devices were required to have such an on -site 
inspection und er Chinese laws.  China's clarification that registration fees were determined mainly 
by the cost of conformity assessment, along with minor differences due to the cost of manufacturing, 
workload, and the various price levels of the labour sector  did not explain why the registration fee 
for imported products was twice as high as that of domestic ones. Korea hope d to see substantial 
progress this year. In 2016, during China's trade policy review, China had said that  registration fees 
would be adjusted based o n re-evaluation processes every five years. It was now five years  since 
the last adjustment . Korea thus expect ed that the re -evaluation to take place in 2020. Korea  
requested that China take its  comments  into account  in the revision process and notify the revision 
to the WTO. In addition, Korea  asked China to share any information pertaining to the revised 
implementation rules.  
2.246.   The representative of Australia  expressed an on -going  interest in developments in China's 
regulation of drugs and medical devices. Australia  looked forward to bilateral discussions with China 
on a range of health technology topics of interest to both sides and to further cooperation and 
information exchanges.  
2.247.   The representative of China  said that the registration fees for drugs and m edical device 
products were determined mainly by the cost of the conformity assessment. The minor difference of 
the registration fees between imported and domestic products was due to the different costs of 
manufacturing, which reflected the difference of the workloads and the various price level. China 
took note of the other  comments made by Korea, which would be conveyed to capital .  
2.2.3.29   China - Interim Measures for Quality Management of Commercial Coal ( IMS 
ID 47772) G/TBT/N/CHN/1057  
2.248.   The repre sentative of Australia  reiterate d the concerns raised in previous TBT Committee 
meetings73, especially the need for transparent coal quality testing processes, which adopt 
international standards, and to encourage smooth trade flows and equitable port proce ssing.  As a 
reliable, long -term supplier of high -quality coal to China, Australia respect ed China's right to ensure 
the use of coal meet ing its environmental standards.  
2.249.   The representative of China  said that  Australia ha d always been an important source of 
China's coal imports. The free trade agreement between China and Australia offer ed a zero -tariff 
rate favourable treatment for Australian coal. Since the Interim Measures for Quality Management 
 
71 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 466 (under dates raised and references) . 
72 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  477 (under dates raised and references) . 
73 G/TBT/M/79 , para. 2.202.  G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 42 - 
 
  of Commercial Coal entered  into force, both imported coal and domestic coal had been treated 
equally and both Chinese and international inspection standards were accepted . 
2.2.3.30   India - Draft Food Safety and Standards (Alcoholic Beverages Standards) 
Regulations, 2015  G/TBT/N/IND/51  and G/TBT/N/IND/104  (IMS ID 49474) 
2.250.   The rep resentative of the European Union  reiterated concerns with this measure. While 
welcoming publication of the regulation on additives for alcoholic beverages in August 2017, not all 
concerns raised by the EU were taken on board. The regulation covering stand ards for alcoholic 
beverages was published in April 2018, and had been implemented since April 2019, with exception 
of the parameter for yeast in various categories of beer and the modification of certain specific 
provisions, for which an extension of six months had been announced. The EU also welcomed the 
July 2019 notification of a number of amendments to the standards notified in G/TBT/N/IND/104 . 
The EU sent comments on these amendments on 26 November 2019 and requested a reply.  
2.251.   The EU appreciated that India had taken most of its  comments into account and provided a 
six-month extension of the deadline for certain provisions to enter into force. Nonetheless, the EU 
still had some concerns with this regulation, notably that India alignment this measure with OIV 
standards. The EU hig hlighted concerns . Firstly,  with the lack of stock -exhaustion clause (to allow 
the sale of products already placed  on the Indian market until stocks were exhausted in order to 
minimise the impact for economic operators) and the transition period. Secondly,  the presence of 
some technical specifications (maximum alcohol content, sugar content, some wines' definitions) 
that were not be in line with international standards or with widely accepted international practices . 
These could  cause a negative impact on international trade  by prevent ing some EU wines, spirits or 
beers from entering the Indian market. Thirdly, s ome labelling requirements were excessive 
(residues of additives in the final product) and would potentially trigger additional technical controls 
that might result in unjustified barriers to trade. Fourthly, t he regulation included the need to satisfy 
excessive analytical parameters that would result in additional technical controls (residual extracts, 
higher alcohol, iron) that might also result in unjustified barriers to trade.  
2.252.   A meeting had taken place in March 2019 with the Scientific Panel of the Food Safety and 
Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to discuss the most important outstanding EU concerns, but 
most requests were rejected by India. Th e EU had again expressed concerns in  May and December 
2019 to the Indian authorities and hoped to continue discussion so as to find an  acceptable solution 
to the outstanding issues.  
2.253.   The representative of Australia  recognized the right of  India to take meas ures necessary to 
protect public health, but at the same time emphasized the importance of compliance with WTO 
obligations, in particular, the requirements that measures be implemented in a non -discriminatory 
manner and be no more trade restrictive than ne cessary. India's draft amendments to its food and 
safety regulations in relation to alcoholic beverages would create barriers for winemakers in warmer 
climates, both in Australia and India.  
2.254.   Australia appreciated bilateral engagement with India on the draft  amendments, and the 
advice from the FSSAI that the proposed amendments ha d been revised to address Australia's 
concerns . However, India was requested to confirm that Australia's comments were reflected in the 
revised regulations and the addition of water to wine for the purpose of aiding fermentation  would 
be allowed . As noted at the previous TBT Committee meeting, wine producers in Australia are 
permitted under the Australia -New Zealand Food Standards Code to add water to dilute high sugar 
musts to aid fermentation. The addition of water  was done in minimal circumstances and only as a  
technical necessity in small volumes to aid fermentation. Australia had encouraged India to consider 
permitting the addition of limited amounts of water to facilitate ferme ntation to enable winemakers 
to effectively respond to stuck fermentations. Australia thanked the FSSAI for allowing Australia to 
provide alternative wording for the regulations to enable this outcome.  
2.255.   Australia also requested clarification regarding the p roposed amendments of wording to 
declare the range of sugar as specified under the regulations. This wording may cause confusion as 
to whether winemakers should state the sugar content or provide statements such as brut, dry or 
 
74 For previous st atements follow the thread under IMS ID  494 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 43 - 
 
  sweet, as proposed in anothe r section of the regulations. Australia asked India to confirm these 
revisions, and to renotify the change  to the WTO . 
2.256.   The representative of India thanked the EU and Australia for their comments, input and 
interest in this measure . He referred the Committe e to India's detailed statement  in previous 
meetings of the TBT Committee.75 These regulations were developed taking into account  stakeholder 
comments, including those of WTO Members and keeping in view the prevailing Indian conditions 
and practices. He con firmed that the various comments and inputs submitted by the EU and 
Australia, as well as the FSSAI, have been duly considered, reviewed and incorporated in the draft 
regulation as and where appropriate and suitable amendments have already been made to the  draft 
regulation.  
2.257.   With respect to the concern about the stock exhaustion clause, he noted that the Food Safety 
and Standards of Alcoholic Beverages Regulation 2018 gave food business operators a transition 
period up to 1 April 2019 to comply with this re gulation. In addition, under Section 16.5 of the Food 
Safety Act, a period of six months was again given for the use of old, unused labels and printed 
cans. Further, he noted that alcoholic beverages manufactured prior to 1 April 2019 c ould be sold in 
the market until 31 March 2020, or until the finalization of the amendment regulations incorporating 
modifications, whichever was later. He explained that therefore, a period of two years – from March 
2018 until March 2020 – was given to food business operator s for exhausting their existing stocks. 
Concerning the range of sugar, this was mandatory so that consumers could  be aware of which kind 
and how much sugar was being consumed . India remained open for bilateral discussions with WTO 
Members.  
2.2.3.31   Russian Federati on - Rules of cement certification ( IMS ID 49776), 
G/TBT/N/RUS/48 , G/TBT/N/RUS/49  
2.258.   The representative of the European Union  recalled concerns raised in previous meetings of 
the TBT  Committee.77 The relevant notifications from the Russian Federation  (G/TBT/N/RUS/48 and 
G/TBT/N/RUS/49)  referred to measures that were already adopted and had entered into force at the 
time of their notification. This was not in line with Article 2. 9 of the TBT Agreement . The EU 
highlighted that its comments on these two measures, sent to Russia in May and June 2016, ne ver 
received replies. The EU deeply regretted that Russia continued to adopt restrictive measures in the 
area of cement certification that were disproportionate, unjustified and not notified to the WTO 
before their entry into force.  Since the introduction of the mandatory certification for cement, EU 
exports of cement to Russia were practically blocked, except for white cement, necessary for Russian 
industry.  
2.259.   Considering the above, the EU welcomed the announcement that standards on cement 
certification woul d be revised and a new standard eliminating additional inspection procedures would 
be notified to the WTO at a draft stage in accordance with the TBT Agreement. In the margins of the 
November 2019 TBT Committee, Russian authorities confirmed that the new s tandard on cement 
would soon be notified. The timeline for the TBT notification, as communicated to the EU, foresaw 
notification prior to the February 2020 TBT Committee. Given the lack of notification at the time of 
this meeting, the EU asked the Russian Federation to share the updated timeline for this notification.  
2.260.   The representative of Ukraine  supported the concerns raised by the European Union . Access 
to the Russian market for cement was dependent o n meeting requirements established in the EAEU. 
The ce rtification rules required the conformity assessment of products, and the applicant must be a 
legal entity or individual proprietor or producer or seller or agent of a foreign producer. This 
relationship must be demonstrated in a written contract with the foreign producer, which must also 
be registered pursuant to the legislation of the EAEU member state on its territory. Ukraine said 
requirements for applicants related to the mandatory registration on the territory of member states 
of the EAEU create addit ional burdens on WTO Members. Ukraine urged Russia to develop and notify 
amendments to the cement certification standards in accordance with the provisions of the 
TBT Agreement. Ukraine called for greater willingness from Russia  to provide basic informatio n 
 
75 G/TBT/M/79 , para. 2.212 and  G/TBT/W/675 . 
76 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  497 (under dates raised and references).  
77 G/TBT/W/631 . G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 44 - 
 
  requested . This was  a fundamental WTO transparency commitment necessary for predictable and 
non-discriminatory trade.  
2.261.   The representative of the Russian Federation  said the measure at issue was aimed  at fighting 
illicit trade in cement and building materi als and ensuring the strength of building materials, which 
was of paramount importance for the durability of buildings. Currently, the amendments to GOST -R 
"Rules of cement certification" were being discussed internally among the relevant Russian 
authoriti es and the cement industry. Russia expected these discussions to conclude soon.  
2.2.3.32   Egypt - Manufacturer Registration System (Decree No. 43/2016 and Decree No. 
992/2015) ( IMS ID 50578) G/TBT/N/EGY/114 , G/TBT/N/EGY/115  
2.262.   The represen tative of the European Union  reiterated previously raised concerns with this 
measure79 and thanked Egypt for its efforts to make registration more efficient and for the 
communication dated 12 February 2020 on the status of EU pending registration requests. 
Nevertheless, the EU regretted that at least 41 out of the 108 pending registration cases known to 
the EU ha d not been successfully processed due to expired application documents. It was the  EU's 
understanding  that this related to  quality control system ce rtificates with one -year validity, which 
expired due to the failure of the General Organization of Export and Import Control (GOEIC) to 
register the companies within reasonable time limits. As a result, European companies were 
confronted with additional co sts and administrative burden of updating their registration 
applications.  
2.263.   Moreover, the EU found it very worrisome that more than half of the non -registered 
companies happened to be active in the ceramics sector, in particular, ceramic tiles. The EU  ceram ics 
sector was disproportionately affected by the discretionary application of Decree  43/2016, with 
practically no registrations taking place since the introduction of the Decree in 2016. The EU 
requested that all the companies which submitted updated qual ity control system certificates and 
completed their application documents be registered without any further delay.  
2.264.   While the EU appreciated the creation of the registration committee in the Egyptian Ministry 
of Trade, this did not resolve the structural p roblems related to Decree  43/2016, like the lack of 
transparency of the registration process, lack of clear deadlines for processing the requests and lack 
of a clear appeal procedure. The EU therefore repeated its invitation to Egypt to suspend or 
substant ially improve the registration process with a view to liberalizing trade and to refer for details 
to the EU's statements at past TBT Committees.  
2.265.   The representative of the Russian Federation  thanked  Egypt for its prompt help and 
comprehensive cooperation in  solving this issue. However, Russia was still concerned with the 
Egyptian registration procedures under Decree No. 43/2016 and reiterated the statements made 
during the previous meetings of the TBT Committee and the Council for Trade in Goods. A Russian 
exporter of steel reinforcement had been waiting under the registration process since 2016. The 
damage to the Russian steel company was estimated at US$100 million per year. Moreover, this 
exporter relaunched the registration process due to the expiration o f certificates of conformity with 
management quality and ecological standards.  
2.266.   Furthermore, other companies fac ed challenges from Egypt's registration process. For 
instance, a Russian manufacturer involved in exporting cosmetics had not been able to gain m arket 
access since April 2019. Negotiations conducted by the Trade Representative of the Russian 
Federation in Egypt with General Organization of Export and Import Control (GOIEC) were not able 
to resolve this issue. In this regard, Egypt was requested  to provide Russian companies with market 
access, taking into account the interests of local importers and consumers, as well as the relevant 
rules of the WTO.  
2.267.   The representative of Turkey  appreciated the bilateral discussions with Egypt on this issue 
both in the capital and in Geneva. Nevertheless, Turkey had ongoing concerns on Egypt's registration 
system. Although there was progress, Turkey  observed a lack of transparency regarding how the 
applications were evaluated and whether the completion of the process  was subject to any time 
limits. In addition, no regular information was provided  to companies on the status of their 
 
78 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  505 (under dates raised and references) . 
79 G/TBT/M/79 , para. 2.2 17. G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 45 - 
 
  application, and whether it was approved or not. Companies were facing long delays and bore 
additional costs in the registration process.  
2.268.   More importantly, there were many companies still awaiting approval since the entry into 
force of the legislation. Currently, more than 160 Turkish companies that applied for registration 
were still waiting for their application to be approved. Although th e list of the companies had been 
submitted to Egypt on various occasions, Turkey had not received sufficient feedback. Besides, 
Turkey had also not received any contact information for the new registration committee that was 
established by Egypt. In additi on, last January, Turkey  learned that the applications of 38 Turkish 
companies were suspended due to out -of-date documents. In all these areas, Turkey expected 
tangible steps from Egypt to review its measure considering the principles and obligations of th e 
WTO Agreements and ensure its implementation in full transparency.  
2.269.   The representative of Egypt  referred  to the response provided  at the last TBT Committee80, 
where positive developments regarding the establishment of the new committee to review and 
facilitate the registration process for pending application  had been shared . In the first three months 
of its operation, this committee managed to register more than 158 outstanding applications from 
17 of Egypt's main trading partners.  
2.270.   Additionally, since the latest TBT Committee meeting and until the end of January 2020, 
more than 100 companies from the EU alone had successfully registered and were fully capable of 
resuming their export processes to Egypt. In total, there were 1,254 reg istered EU companies. She 
highlighted that the limited number of outstanding applications was solely attributable to incomplete 
documentation and the ones that renewed their documents recently were currently being processed.  
2.271.   Finally, she emphasized that al l regulations affecting trade were subject to prior reviews to 
ensure that their implementation was being undertaken in a transparent manner and that no 
unnecessary burdens were imposed on Egyptian or foreign operators. Egypt urged Members who 
continued to  face problems  with implementation of the aforementioned Decree to convey them so 
that they can be communicated to capital . 
2.2.3.33   China - Cybersecurity Law ( IMS ID 52681) 
2.272.   The representative of Japan  expressed continued concern with this measure  and referred to 
Japan's statement at the November 2019 TBT Committee.82 Japan was also concerned with the 
related enforcement regulation and requested that China provide notification of the enforcement 
regulations to the TBT Committee and consider comments  from stakeholders. In addition, Japan 
requested that China provide adequate lead time between completion of these regulations and their 
enforcement, and to implement them in a transparent manner.  
2.273.   The representative of the European Union  referred to its co mments made in previous 
TBT Committees regarding the Cybersecurity Law.83 The scope of the requirements was unclear, as 
key terms ha d not been specified in sufficient detail; concepts such as "critical information 
infrastructure" and "secure and trustworthy  products" were not sufficiently clarified. The EU 
maintained concerns about the revised methodology. While references to "source code" had been 
removed, the mere requirement of providing "relevant materials" to verify the security and 
controllability of p roducts could imply source code disclosure.  
2.274.   The EU recalled the importance of international standards and noted that the law only 
referred to national standards, which could lead to lack of interoperability with international 
standards. In the development  of national standards, it would be appropriate to build on existing 
international standards and to involve all relevant stakeholders, including foreign -invested and 
wholly foreign -owned enterprises, in a non -discriminatory manner in the relevant technical  
Committees.  
2.275.   The EU requested more clarity regarding several of the implementing measures of China's 
Cybersecurity Law. For example, the Cyberspace Administration of China's Cross -Border Data 
 
80 G/TBT/M/79 , para. 2.219.  
81 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  526 (under dates raised and references) . 
82 G/TBT/M/79 , para. 2.228.  
83 G/TBT/M/80 , para. 2.230.  G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 46 - 
 
  Transfer Measures continued to raise concerns due to their broa d scope, what was considered as 
critical information infrastructure and which kinds of cross -border data transfers were affected. A 
definition of critical information appeared to cover many commercial activities and whole sectors 
that had no bearing on nat ional security. Moreover, the list of what was considered important data 
was open -ended. As a result of the data localization and security assessment requirements, foreign 
companies operating in China could find themselves in a less competitive situation c ompared to 
domestic operators. Concerning the certification and security requirements on critical information 
infrastructure, the EU was concerned that such requirements led to a de facto  ban on products and 
services from foreign -invested enterprises provi ding products and services to businesses falling 
under the notion of "critical information infrastructure".  
2.276.   The EU called on China to implement these provisions in a non -discriminatory manner, 
respecting the principles of proportionality, necessity and tec hnology neutrality, and ensuring 
adequate protection of intellectual property. Moreover, the EU repeated its previous requests for 
clarifications on the relationship with existing Multi -Level Protection Schemes and the expected 
implementation timeline. The  EU noted with concern that the Cybersecurity Law already applied and 
was enforceable (including possible fines and sanctions), while the implementing measures that 
would clarify its implementation were still not in place. This created significant uncertai nty for 
economic operators, and the EU asked China to inform the Committee when implementing measures 
would be adopted. Finally, the EU requested that China notify draft measures concerning any sectoral 
implementation to the TBT Committee in order to give adequate opportunity for WTO Members and 
their stakeholders to comment on any subsequent developments.  
2.277.   The representative of the United States  remained very concerned about China's suite of 
cybersecurity and cryptography measures. As stated in prior TBT Co mmittee meetings, this was a 
major concern for US companies, given China's intertwined requirements for conformity assessment 
systems for security testing, technical regulations, and a multi -level classification scheme laying out 
requirements including man datory standards and testing for the purchase of ICT goods across a 
wide range of commercial sectors. China's Cybersecurity Law entered into force on 1 June 2017 
despite serious and long -standing concerns from the US and many other international stakeholde rs. 
Since then, China continued to develop and, in certain cases, finalize related implementing measures 
that were sometime general in scope, and sometimes sector specific.  
2.278.   The US underscored many concerns regarding China's Cybersecurity Law and related 
measures, which imposed far -reaching, highly trade -restrictive conditions on foreign ICT products 
through "secure and controllable" requirements, enforced by cybersecurity review regime checks. 
Such requirements were largely based on a planned update and ex pansion of the Ministry of Public 
Security's Multi -Level Protection Scheme (MLPS). As one example, China's 25 January 2018 draft 
measure, "Information Security Technology  – Guidelines for Grading of Classified Cybersecurity 
Protection", appeared to repeat and elaborate upon China's MLPS. Numerous other concerns were 
laid out in prior statements by the US and other Members at past Committee meetings.  
2.279.   Additionally, the US reiterated its serious concerns regarding China's Office of State 
Commercial Cryptograp hy (OSCCA) draft Cryptography Law of the People's Republic of China and 
had submitted comments to China in May 2017. The US was concerned that this law would codify 
potentially far -reaching, highly trade -restrictive cryptography -related constraints on fore ign ICT 
products. Because these issues were technically complex and China's approach appeared to be both 
novel and would have a potentially widespread impact in the commercial sector, the US requested 
that China undertake in -depth consultations with the US  Government, other WTO Members and 
global stakeholders.  
2.280.   The US also requested that China afford subsequent opportunities for interested parties to 
submit comments on revised iterations of draft standards and all other implementing measures 
related to the Cybersecurity Law. Given the broad potential impact of these standards and measures 
and the serious concerns they raised, it was critical that China act deliberately to collaborate with 
all interested parties, taking their comments into account before adop ting the drafts as written. The 
US would continue to carefully monitor China's implementation of the Cybersecurity Law and related 
measures, as well as movement on the draft Cryptography Law and looked forward to continuing 
this important dialogue with you . G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 47 - 
 
  2.281.   The representative of Australia  reiterated previous ly raised  concerns regarding this measure 
and related laws84, including the Provisions on Internet Security Supervision and Inspection by Public 
Security Organs. Australia respectfully noted that many det ails about the Cyber Security Law 
remained unclear. Consistent with the TBT Agreement, Australia said the measures should be 
implemented in a non -discriminatory manner and in a way that is no more trade restrictive than 
necessary. Australia urged China to consider less trade -restrictive alternative measures that were 
reasonably available to achieve its objectives. Australia noted the entry into force of China's 
Cryptography Law on 1 January 2020 and appreciated ongoing discussion with China on 
implementatio n of the Cryptography Law and other related cyber laws.  
2.282.   The representative of Canada  said that i n line with interventions made by Canada on other 
STCs related to China's cybersecurity measures, and as stated in previous TBT Committee meetings, 
there were c ontinued concerns with this measure . Canada encouraged China to notify any 
subsequent draft measures implementing the law to the TBT Committee to allow WTO Members and 
stakeholders the opportunity to review and provide comments.  
2.283.   The representative of China  stated that the objective of this measure was safeguarding 
national security and public interests, and protecting the rights and interests of citizens, legal 
persons and other organizations in China. Its aim was by no means to restrict market access of 
foreign enterprises, technologies and products in China, nor to restrain the orderly, free flow of data.  
2.2.3.34   European Union - Organic production and labelling - Maté (erva -mate) ( IMS ID 
52485) 
2.284.   The representative of Brazil  recalled concerns related to this measure . While Brazil 
appreciated all clarifications received and the regulatory changes established by EU 
Regulation  848/2018, the unjustifiable refusal to provide a transitory solution to this concern 
constituted an unnecessary obstacle to trade. The non -inclus ion of erva -mate in the organic product 
list without any technical or scientific justification was discriminatory and more trade restrictive than 
necessary, and thus not in line with TBT Agreement obligations. Brazilian producers would be denied 
access to EU markets on an equitable basis until January 2021, without any compensation.  
2.285.   The representative of the European Union  noted responses provided at previous 
TBT Committee meetings, as well as bilaterally. Erva -mate was not within the scope of the current 
organic Regulation (Regulation (EC) 834/2007) and there was no possibility to modify this. However, 
as proposed by the European Commission, the new Regulation (EU) 2018/848 on organic production 
and labelling adopted on 30 May 2018 by the European Parliamen t and the Council included Maté 
under its scope. The new Regulation would apply from 1 January 2021.  
2.2.3.35   European Union - Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (CLP Regulation) 
(IMS ID 53986) 
2.286.   The representative of the Russian Federation  raised concerns with this measure. The full 
statement is contained in G/TBT/W/731 .  
2.287.   The representative of Australia  recognized the EU's right to regulate for public and 
occupational health and safety , and  that appropriate classification and labelling for hazardous 
substances and mixtures could address legitimate public and occupational health concerns.  Australia 
and other WTO Members had raised concerns on multiple occasions, in this and other forums, that 
these measures were more trade restrictive than necessary.  
2.288.   Australia was disappoint ed that the regulations had been adopted without fully taking into 
account the concerns expressed by WTO Members and industry bodies, although it welcomed the 
narrower scope for the TiO2 regulation to powder form only. Australia 's concerns focused on the 
potential of these regulations to create unnecessary obstacles to international trade in products 
containing titanium oxide and cobalt. Australia had yet to receive a clear response to its concerns, 
particularly with regard to downstream products containing  small amounts of TiO2 or cobalt.  
 
84 G/TBT/M/79 , para. 2.233.  
85 For previous statements follo w the thread under IMS ID  524 (under dates raised and references) . 
86 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  539 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 48 - 
 
  Australia urged the EU to ensure that regulations to address concerns about the possible hazards 
associated with TiO2 and cobalt were no more trade restrictive than necessary.  
2.289.   The representative of the United States  stated  that its concerns with the EU's proposed 14th 
Adaptation to Technical Progress to the CLP regulation for the classification and labelling of cobalt 
were well known. With the Adaptation to the ATP pending final adoption before the EU  Parliament 
as a delega ted act, the US asked the EU to provide clarifying guidance to industry that metal 
compounds containing trace amounts of cobalt and, in particular, stainless and other specialty steels 
were not currently covered in the ATP restrictions on the use of cobalt . As noted by the EU in the 
original notification of the draft cobalt restriction to the WTO, the Commission did not yet have 
sufficient information to determine whether there was a risk of cobalt exposure via metal 
compounds.  
2.290.   Given how disruptive this cla ssification could be to trade in products such as stainless steel 
and other specialty steels, the US asked the Commission to issue clarifying guidance that these uses 
would not be subject to these restrictions until the completion of the good faith testing  efforts by US 
and EU industry, along with the appropriate EU authorities, to determine whether there was an 
actual health risk.  The US requested the EU to provide a timeline for when it would communicate 
that the ATP cobalt restrictions no longer applied to metal compounds containing trace amounts of 
cobalt and, in particular, stainless and other specialty steels.  
2.291.   The representative of the European Union  responded to concerns raised with this measure. 
The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/726 .  
2.2.3.36   European Union - Regulation (EC) No 110 7/2009 - non-renewal of approval of 
the active substance picoxystrobin G/TBT/N/EU/437  (IMS ID 53587)  
2.292.   The representative of Brazil  raised concerns that  the European Union 's non -renewal of 
picoxystrobin registries was not in line with scientific consensus regarding the safety of the substance 
and its use to protect crops.  
2.293.   He recalled that, in January 2017, the EU notified to the TBT Committee that the approval 
of picoxystr obin had not been renewed  (G/TBT/N/EU/437 ). It was only in July 2018, after one and 
a half years, that the EU notified to the SPS Committee the adoption of Commission Regulation 
(EU) 91 in January 2019, establishing very restrictive Maximum Residue Levels for seven 
substances, incl uding picoxystrobin and buprofezin, which were important for Brazil's exports of 
agricultural commodities. Brazil considered that the transitional period of August 2019 provided for 
producers to adapt to the new MRLs was unreasonable, given that studies co nducted by the 
European Food Safety Authority were inconclusive, not based on due risk analysis and inconsistent 
with CODEX guidelines.  
2.294.   Council Directive 91/414/EEC of the European Commission declared that picoxystrobin was 
not toxic; the report of the Eur opean Food Safety Authority (EFSA) claimed that it was not possible 
to deliver final conclusions on the genotoxic potential of picoxystrobin based on the available data. 
The Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization specialists ha d also 
concluded that the substance was not genotoxic. This substance was used in more than 65 countries 
and had been approved by many bodies, such as the US Environmental Protection Agency, the 
Canadian Management Regulatory Agency, the Japanese Agency, a s well as in Brazil itself. Brazil 
considered that the MRL for picoxystrobin was already very low – for instance, for soybeans, the 
default was 0.01  mg/kg.  
2.295.   Brazil also expressed concerns regarding statements delivered by European representatives 
in the SPS  Committee, that countries had had enough time to adapt to restrictions imposed on 
pesticides mentioned in G/SPS/N/EU/ 264, because they had already known that there would be a 
reduction in MRLs since the non -renewal of approval of these substances had been communicated 
to the TBT Com mittee. It was important to remind the EU that many countries had different teams 
of experts dealing separately with each Committee. Where there was a lack of clarity regarding 
 
87 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  535 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 49 - 
 
  whether a measure should be notified under either the SPS or the TBT Agreement,  it was Brazil 's 
position that Members should notify it under both Committees.  
2.296.   The representative of Paraguay  requested  that the concerns raised under  STC 1288, be also 
considered under this STC . Given the European Union's response under STC 12 which is als o related  
to this  STC, Paraguay noted that the EU had indicated that  TBT and SPS measures would be 
simultaneously notified to both Committees.  However, only a few days prior, G/TBT/N/EU/699  had 
been notified to the TBT Committee on a seafood -tuna pesticide but not to the SPS Committe e. 
Therefore, Paraguay asked the EU from what point it could expect the effective implementation of 
the announcement that the EU would notify before both Committees when there was a measure that 
had implications in relation to both Agreements  as had been a nnounced  at this meeting, as well as 
in the previous SPS Committee.  
2.297.   The representative of Colombia  supported the concerns raised by others and stressed again 
that th is was a systemic concern.  
2.298.   The representative of Guatemala  noted its interest and concern on this matter.  
2.299.   The representative of Panama  stated that, like other Members, this 
substance  – picoxystrobin – affected the production of another substance in Panama and, therefore, 
he wished to register Panama 's interest in  and concern about this matter.  
2.300.   The representative of the European  Union  said that , as had been explained in detail at 
previous TBT Committees , the European Commission had decided not to renew the approval of 
picoxystrobin through Commission Implementing R egulation (EU)  2017/1455. Authorizations for 
plant protection products containing picoxystrobin in the EU were required to be withdrawn by 
30 November  2017. Member States had been allowed a grace period until 30 November 2018 at the 
latest. The EU notified  third countries of the draft Regulation via the TBT procedure. The measure 
did not lead to immediate disruptions in trade, as the measure itself did not amend the Maximum 
Residue Levels (MRLs) and provided for a grace period for use of products containing  picoxystrobin. 
Given the issues identified by the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA), the existing MRLs were 
reviewed in a separate measure in view of their safety to consumers.  
2.301.   A draft measure lowering the MRLs for picoxystrobin to the limit of quantific ation (LOQ) was 
prepared and presented to the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed. The EU 
notified third countries of the draft Regulation via the SPS procedure. Comments received from 
non-EU countries and stakeholders were available to th e Standing Committee, where a summary of 
the key points raised was presented. The Standing Committee gave a favourable opinion on the 
draft. The European Commission formally adopted the revised MRLs in January 2019. The revised 
MRLs were applicable as of 1 3 August 2019. Import tolerance requests, however, remained possible 
and would be assessed on a case -by-case basis by the EFSA. Such requests would have to be 
supported by substantial new data addressing the concerns.  
2.2.3.37   China - Catalogue of Solid Wastes For bidden to Import into China 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1211  (IMS ID 54589)  
2.302.   The representative of New Zealand  acknowledge d and support ed the rights of all WTO 
Members to regulate to achieve legitimate domestic health and environmental objectives. New 
Zealand applaud ed China's stated proactive po licy objectives in relation to sustainable development 
and encourage d valid actions to limit harmful environmental impacts from contaminated waste inside 
its borders.  New Zealand did not seek to question China's right to regulate to protect its environment. 
However, New Zealand remain ed concerned that vanadium slag was included in China's catalogue 
of banned imports under this measure  and reiterate d its view that vanadium slag is a purposefully 
produced co -product with a purposeful end use in production of specific forms of steel. It is not a 
waste product, and so should not  fall under measures for solid waste. New Zealand recall ed that 
China itself is the largest global producer of vanadium slag, with approximately 500,000 tonnes 
annual production generated as a co -product from steel mills.  New Zealand requested clarificatio n 
on how China has ensured that the rules applied  to foreign products were no less favourable than 
those accorded to domestic products. Further explanation was also requested on  how China has 
 
88 European  Union - Chlorothalonil  (pesticide active substance) ( IMS ID 579) . 
89 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  545 (under dates raised and references).  G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 50 - 
 
  ensured that the import ban on vanadium slag was not more trade restrictive than necessary to 
achieve China's environmental and health protection objectives. New Zealand thank ed China for the 
recent discussion on this issue and look ed forward to further constructive engagement on this topic 
to better understand China's  approach to distinguishing between waste and non -waste materials.  
2.303.   The representative of the United States  reiterate d concerns  raised at the November 2019  
TBT Committee meeting  regarding the negative trade and environmental impacts resulting from 
China's i mport ban, and accompanying measures, on certain recovered materials.90 China ha d made 
certain references to environmental concerns and ha d invoked the legitimate objective of 
environmental protection as a rationale for the measures. Yet, China ha d provided  no details as to 
what specific environmental concerns it hop ed to address, much less how these restrictive measures 
– including a full ban – were intended to alleviate any such environmental concerns. The most likely 
outcome of the ban was that reusable p lastics w ould be redirected from productive purposes, such 
as recycling, to the waste stream.  The US recognize d China's interest in addressing valid 
environmental concerns. Meetings ha d been repeatedly requested with experts from China's Ministry 
of Ecolog y and Environment (MEE) to understand China's  environmental concerns and why these 
measures were necessary to address those concerns, and to work cooperatively to ensure that valid 
environmental concerns were met in the least trade -restrictive manner possi ble. China ha d declined 
all such requests. Instead of explain ing its environmental objectives and working constructively to 
minimize trade restrictions, China ha d moved forward with the implementation of these measures 
and even expanded the scope of restri cted materials.  
2.304.   The US request ed China to suspend immediately implementation of its import ban and its 
import control standards for recovered materials. Additionally, the US  request ed, at least in the 
interim, that China revise these measures in a manner consistent with existing international 
standards for trade in recycled commodities.  The US noted that, i n July 2018, and again in July and 
December 2019, China released draft revisions to the Law on Prevention and Control of 
Environmental Pollution by Solid Wastes. As currently written, this draft law appears to ban the 
import of all recyclable materials into China. The US was concerned with the overly broad scope of 
"solid waste", which can effectively result in an import ban on recyclable materials. Recyclable 
materials  separated from the waste st ream for recycling as a raw material were saleable items 
traded within a distinct global marketplace (i.e. they had an underlying economic value). According 
to the US, t hese qualities make the classification of recyclable materials as "waste" inaccurate. T he 
US urge d China to provide allowances for trade in recyclable materials and to properly define and 
distinguish "waste" from recyclable materials and scrap before finalizing and implementing this draft 
law. 
2.305.   The representative of Canada  reiterated support for China's willingness to protect the 
environment, including by limiting harmful impacts resulting from contaminated waste material. 
However, the regulatory changes implemented by China contribute d to the increasingly difficult and 
uncertain trading condi tions for exporters of waste and scrap products. In particular, Canada 
reiterated its request for clarifications as to why wood pellets were not exempted from the list of 
banned material s imported to China, which came into effect on 31  December 2019. Canad a noted 
that w ood pellets were not contaminated and were not waste. They were made from pure forest 
fibre, such as logging residuals (small diameter stems and branches) and residues (sawdust) from 
logs being converted into lumber in sawmills. Wood pellets were beneficial for the environment and 
could  contribute to China's goal of enhancing environmental protection. As a renewable, low -carbon 
resource , switching from coal to wood pellets reduce d GHG emissions significantly. Canada thus  
asked China to conside r permitting  again the import of wood pellets into China, as a ban on this 
product was more trade restrictive than necessary to meet China's environmental and health 
protection objectives.  
2.306.   The representative of China  recalled the statement provided at previous TBT Committee 
meeting s and contained in G/TBT/W/653 . However, considering th e importance of this issue, China 
highlight ed that the trade  of raw materials processed from solid waste, which meet China's quality 
and safety standards  was still permitted . China noted that, over the past decades, enterprises from 
some WTO Members ha d exported large quantities of harmful solid waste to China and derived huge 
financial gains. Scientific studies indicate d that the residues resulting from the recycling and disposal 
of solid wastes and their carried wastes may pose various risks to human, ani mal, and plant life and 
health, as well as to the environment. In accordance with internationally recognized principles, each 
 
90 G/TBT/M/79 , para. 2.248 and G/TBT/M/78 , para. 3.291.  G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 51 - 
 
  Member ha d the obligation to handle and dispose of the wastes it ha d generated  on its own . China 
urged Members, especially those s till exporting harmful solid waste, to actively fulfil their 
international social responsibility and make contributions to global environmental protection . 
2.2.3.38   European Union - Amendments to the Directive 2009/28/EC, Renewable Energy 
Directive ( IMS ID 55391) 
2.307.   The representatives of Colombia , Malaysia , Indonesia  and Ecuador  continued to raise 
concerns with this measure. The full statements are contained in G/TBT/W/714 , G/TBT/W/730 , 
G/TBT/W/716  and G/TBT/W/718 , respectively .  
2.308.   The repr esentative of Guatemala  thanked the Members raising this issue . Guatemala 
continued to have systemic concerns with this measure.  
2.309.   The representative of the European Union  noted that the issue of amendments to the EU 
Renewable Energy Directive was now subjec t to WTO dispute settlement proceedings, notably under 
DS593  (EU – Certain measures concerning palm oil and oil palm -based biofuels ). The EU stated that, 
in order to preserve the integrity of such proceedings, it would  defer all discussions to that forum 
and accordingly refrain from discussing this matter at the TBT Committee meeting . 
2.2.3.39   Thailand  - Certificate of Analysis for the import of alcoholic beverages 
G/TBT/N/THA/548  and G/TBT/N/THA/549  (IMS ID 55692) 
2.310.   The representative of the European Union  welcome d the enactment of a new Ministerial 
Regulation on Liquor Importation permission and of the Excise Department's Notification on the 
quality standards for imported liquor  that had entered into force  on 5 June 2019 . According to the 
new Ministerial Regulation , the former standards from the Thai Industrial Standards Institute (TISI) 
were replaced by the reference standards determined by the Director General of the Excise 
Department in the Excise Department's Notification. The EU thank ed Thailand for its efforts  in 
addressing its concerns regarding certain elements related to the Certificate of Analysis for the 
marketing of fermented and distilled alcoholic beverages (wines, spirits or beer). For instance, the 
removal of the discrimination in the standards in fav our of domestic artisanal products . The EU's 
comments on the limits of certain substances were also significantly taken on board. However,  in 
light of  its remaining systemic concerns, written comments were submitted on 20 December 2019, 
noting the existing  differences in the regulated substances and methods of analysis between that of 
the Excise Department and that of the International Organisation of Vine and Wine (OIV).   
2.311.   In this context, the EU requested a  clarification from Thailand on the meaning of the  
"equivalent test methods" concerning the Standard for Analysis of Beer, Wine and Sparkling wine 
made from grapes and fermented liquor and Distilled Liquor , and in particular, whether international 
OIV methods of analysis are recognized as "equivalent test  methods" for wine and sparkling wine 
made from grapes and fermented liquor . The EU added that the harmonization of the Thai Quality 
Standard for Imported Liquor with internationally recognized standards was important to avoid 
unjustified trade barriers. Further, t he EU requested Thailand to confirm whether EU exporters could  
use the EU "wine export certificate" to show compliance with the new Thai standards , and whether 
Thai authorities accept laboratory results from foreign laboratories. The EU remain ed available to 
work with Thailand on the review of the Thai standards, including through discussions at expert level 
on the regulated substances and the methods of analysis.  
2.312.   The representative of the United States  recalled that, o n 18 June 2019, Thailand not ified its 
Ministerial Regulation entitled "Liquor Importation Permission (No. 2) B.E. 2562 (2019)" (amending 
the Ministerial Regulation entitled "Liquor Importation Permission B.E. 2560") and its "Notification 
of the Excise Department Prescribing Quality S tandards for Imported Liquor", to the TBT  Committee. 
Effective 5 June 2019, all alcohol beverage imports require d a certificate of analysis confirming the 
product's compliance with a series of maximum limits for contaminants, food additives and chemical 
attributes. She noted that testing for all the requested substances was not standard practice in the 
US. The US  appreciate d the bilateral exchange with Thailand on 5 February 2020 and look ed forward 
 
91 For previous statem ents follow the thread under IMS ID 553 (under dates raised and references).  
92 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  556 (under dates raised and references).  G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 52 - 
 
  to arriv ing at a mutually agre eable  solution , which  satisfie d Thailand's objective of protecting 
consumer health and safety and ease d the burden on US  exporters.  
2.313.   The representative of Australia  repeated the concerns raised at the previous TBT Committee 
meeting.93 
2.314.   The representative of Canada  thanked the Members raising this issue and  reiterated its 
support  for Thailand's efforts in addressing specific public health concerns related to import of 
alcoholic beverages. Canadian industry was following closely developments  in the Certificate of 
Analysis requirements due to the possible undue  negative  impact on trade in alcoholic beverages. 
Canada specified two concerns with the new requirements under the Thai Certificate of Analysis:  
some substances are not tested in Canada such as Ferrocyanide; and  some limits of substances are 
slightly lower than the ones established by Canada, such as Aldehyde, Benzoic acid, Sorbic acid and 
Arsenic.  Canada requested  additional information on the work of the regulatory body on determining 
the testing standards and the scientific evidence for these particular content levels set in the Thai 
Certificate of Analysis. Further, Canada was particularly interested in receiving confirmation on 
whether foreign certifications issued by accredited laboratories, such as those is sued in Canada 
would be accepted . Canada thank ed Thailand for the bilateral engagement to date.  
2.315.   The representative of New Zealand  support ed Thailand's right to introduce new regulations 
to address specific health concerns  and noted that, in seeking to add ress the harmful use of alcohol, 
these technical regulation s had a legitimate health objective. However, New Zealand exporters 
continue d to face uncertainty with regards to certification requirements and ha d concerns about the 
impact of the additional test ing requirements on their ability to gain timely certification for exports. 
New Zealand requested  an update as to whether Thailand ha d given any further consideration to 
accepting other recognized industry certification that achieve d the stated objectives.  New Zealand 
reiterated its eagerness to work with Thailand to ensure New Zealand exporters met Thailand's 
objectives under these regulations through the least restrictive trade means.  
2.316.   The representative of Thailand  noted that  Thailand has issued the Ministerial Regulation on 
Liquor Importation Permission B.E. 256 0 (2017), which has been enforced since 16 September 2017, 
and the Notification of the Excise Department on Prescribing Quality Standard for Imported Liquor, 
which entered into force on  5 June 2019. Thailand's Excise Department had several meetings with 
various WTO Members, such as the EU, the US, Australia and Mexico,  in order to discuss the 
guidelines for establishing the liquor importation permission criteria and the liquor analysis standard 
before the law came into effect.  
2.317.   In response to certain concer ns expressed a t the November 2019  TBT Committee  meeting, 
Thailand inform ed the Committee that the new regulation was focused on protection of Thai people's 
health and safety. In addition to the statistical report, the results of the analysis of samples of liquor 
determined  that contaminant substances , found in some types of liquor produced in the country and 
imported , were harmful to  human  health. In order not to discriminate between domestic and 
imported liquor, Thailand ha d complied with the national trea tment on internal taxation and 
regulation standard to protect public  health and safety.  
2.318.   Thailand provide d an explanation of the meaning of the equivalent test method  in response 
to concern s expressed in this regard . First, the substance s being tested ha d to match and the 
parameter of those substances could not  exceed the parameter requirements. Second, the test 
method must be equivalent and recognized by ISO/IEC 17025 (or equivalent ) and recognized by the 
international organization standard or regional org anization standard. For all other test methods that 
did not have equivalents and were not recognized by the above standards, the importer could  submit 
the test method to the Development of the Analytical Standard on Excisable Products Committee set 
up by t he Excise Department to determine whether other test methods could  be equivalent and 
recognized as a test method.  Thailand appreciate d all the concerns expressed by Member s and added 
its willingness to consult with experts from Member s in order to assist them to comply with the Thai 
legal standards .  
 
93 G/TBT/M/79 , para. 2.277.  G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 53 - 
 
  2.2.3.40   Russian Federation - Federal law No 487 -FZ, providing a framework for 
comprehensive use of special labelling and traceability of goods and Decision No. 792 -r 
specifying the goods to which l abelling will apply and the dates of introduction of the 
mandatory labelling ( IMS ID 56794) 
2.319.   The representative of the European Union  continued to raise concerns with this measure. 
The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/27 . 
2.320.   The representative of  the Republic of Korea  noted that th is regula tion sought  to attach 
traceable special labels to products in order to prevent the manufacture of counterfeit goods and to 
protect consumers in the Russia n Federation . Korea  request ed that Russia notify this compulsory 
labelling scheme in accordance with Article 2.9 of the TBT Agreement . 
2.321.   The representative of Ukraine  support ed the concern s raised by others. T his measure 
present ed certain  inconsistencies with the TBT Agreement  as it places additional burdens on 
producers exporting to the Russian Federation compared to domestic producers. First, on registration 
to obtain the marking requirement, products must first have an individual tax number . This was not 
available for non -resident s of the Russian Federation. Second, it was necessary to include a digital 
signature for the receipt of the producers in the unified state register of legal entities or in the unified 
state register of individual entrepreneurs. Producers that were not Russian citizens could not use 
such a digital signature and a delegation of authority to a Russian citizen was  necessary, which put 
producers in unequal situations . Ukraine requested that Russia  remove unjustified technical barriers 
to trade and bring the prov isions of the draft law in line with international practice.  
2.322.   The representative of Indonesia  was closely following this measure  which w ould be applied 
to several goods, including footwear. Indonesia  was specifically concerned that the enforcement of 
these measures could  disrupt the trade of footwear products between Indonesia and Russia. While  
respect ing Russia's objective of ensuring the legal circulation of goods and traceability by the 
implementation of these marking and labelling requirements , Indonesia  observed that these 
measures f ell under the scope of TBT  Agreement as set out  in Annex 1 , which states that  "technical 
regulations or standards may also include or deal with terminology, symbols, packaging, marking or 
labelling requirements as they apply to product process, or production method".  Indonesia also 
noted that Russia was not meeting its obligations under Article 2.9 of the  TBT Agreement . Indonesia 
expressed its readiness to have close discussions with Russia in order to ensure that these measur es 
would not create unnecessary barriers to trade for Indonesian footwear products.  
2.323.   The representative of the Russia n Federation  reiterate d the statements made at previous 
TBT Committee  meetings.95 This measure could not be  considered to be a technical regulation as 
the system d id not meet the requirements stipulated in the TBT Agreement. Labelling requirements 
in technical regulations refer to fulfilling the technical requirements indicated in technical regulations . 
Thus, if a product d id not comply with the requirements , the relevant label w ould not be added,  and 
it would not be allowed on the market . Russia  emphasize d that the Track and Trace system did not  
aim at securing fulfilment of the requirements stipulated in the relevant technical regulations. 
Labelling requirements under technical regulations should contain information about the product 
characteristics in the form of inscriptions or uniform labels , such  as "EAC" or "CE". Track and Trace 
did not apply to the product characteristics or their related processes and production methods. 
Moreover, similar to other labelling requirements, such as excise stamps, the system fell under the 
regulations regarding customs enforcement, the protection of trademarks and the prevention of 
deceptive p ractices. Russia noted that t he legislation and comprehensive guidelines regulating Track 
and Trace, whether in effect or drafts, were publicly available in the information system, 
"Chestiyznak" . Planned pilots and the volume of issued data matrix code in respect of the products 
covered by the regulation  were also available there . He added that t he system was completely  
transparent,  and the information was available i n Russian and English.  
2.324.   Moreover, Russia pointed out that it did not consider the system as disproportionate or more 
trade restrictive than necessary as the concept in respect of each type of product ha d been 
elaborated in collaboration with the companies involved in manufacturing, supplying , and importing 
the products covered. The mechanism of t he system should be approved by business before entry 
into force. Given that the price of one data matrix code is about half of a rouble  (i.e. less than one 
 
94 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  567 (under dates raised and references) . 
95 G/TBT/M/79 , para. 2.284.  G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 54 - 
 
  US cent ), the measure would  cause additional costs. In addition, according to the statistics done the 
Operator of the System, approximately 8 billion codes ha d been issued for tobacco products, 
800 million codes for shoes, and 400 million for pharmaceuticals. Taking into account these figures, 
that market operators ha d adapted to the system, its f unctioning was stable, and all the negative 
forecasts in respect of disruption to traditional trade flows due to the Track and Trace system had 
not been  confirmed.   
2.325.   Further, a great volume of smuggled tobacco products ha d been recorded within Russia . The 
average price of smuggled cigarettes was lower , and the circulation of such products was not 
surveyed. This situation negative ly impact ed both consumers and authentic  suppliers. The Track and 
Trace system would  eliminat e such practice s. With respect to the application of the measure to 
textile s, towels , bedlinen, shoes , and other  products, Russia  emphasize d that the measure was 
applied not only in respect of counterfeiting goods but  aimed at restricting illicit circulation and 
smuggling . For this reason, the  measure sought  to protect the interests of faithful suppliers, 
importers , and manufacturers. Regarding  stocks, Russia stated that a transition period c ould not  be 
provided, as manufacturers might put an inappropriate date of manufacturing on the product and 
the system would not be  effective. For perfumes, the Track and Trade measure would enter into 
force on 1  October 2020  and the transition period for stocks manufactured or imported before 
1 October 2020 w ould be effective until 30 September 2021 . 
2.2.3.41   European Union - Draft Commission Regulation laying down eco -design 
requirements for electronic displays pursuant to Directive 2009/125/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council, amending Commission Regulation (EC) No 1275/2008 and 
repealing Commiss ion Regulation (EC) 642/2009 (and its accompanying annexes) 
(IMS ID 57596) 
2.326.   The representative of China  reiterate d concerns raised in previous TBT Committee meetings  
and circulated as G/TBT/W/693 , which ha d not been solved . In addition to the suggestion to 
withdraw the ban on halogenated fla me retardants in D4 Annex 2, China suggest ed that the EU 
reduce the energy efficiency limit for OLED displays or expla in the justification for the limit . In the 
updated text of the regulation, although the correction parameter is revised to 10 considering the 
technical characteristics of OLED displays, the standard for calculating the EEI (energy efficiency 
index) value of OLED displays was still higher than the requirement of many countries, such as the 
US and Japan.  
2.327.   The representative of Brazil  noted that  producers would  be particularly affected by the 
prohibition on use of halogenated flame retardants in the enclosure and stand of electronic displays, 
according to The New Version Annex II D, related to "materials efficiency". Recalling its  statement 
at the previous TBT Committee meeting, Brazil understood  that such requirements were not even in 
line with the REACH Regulation and the Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive. The 
potentially conflicting regulatory requirements between those measures and the Ecodesign Directive 
raise questions about transparency in regulating these  products. Brazil asked that the EU  consider 
withdrawing requirements that were overly strict , such as those  on the use of halogenated flame 
retardants.  
2.328.   The representative of the European Union  stated that t he Ecodesign Regulation for electronic 
displays w as published in the Official Journal of the EU on 5 December 2019 and entered into force 
20 days later. As regards the restriction of halogenated flame retardants, the EU clarified  that the 
restriction cover ed any halogenated flame retardant but only appli ed to the stand and enclosure of 
the display. The restriction d id not cover any internal component, such as Printed Circuit Boards, 
wiring or internal plastic parts (when they are not part of the external enclosure). The EU recall ed 
that the restriction was not directly related to the hazardousness of these substances, as this was 
addressed by the RoHS Directive. However, the requirement aims at increasing the yield of recycled 
plastics once the displays, at their end of life, were treated at recycling plan ts, because currently 
the plastics containing any of the halogenated compounds are systematically incinerated. The EU 
added that , in the context of the Circular Economy Strategy, the requirement represent ed an 
example of how eco-design  and waste legislatio n (WEEE)  complemented each other : both the RoHS 
and WEEE Directives explicitly refer to the Ecodesign  Directive as enabling specific eco-design  
requirements for products that may also be covered by those Directives .  
 
96 For previous statements follow the thre ad under IMS ID  575 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 55 - 
 
  2.2.3.42   Kingdom of Saudi Arabia – Technical Reg ulation for plastic products OXO – 
biodegradable ( IMS ID 583)  
2.329.   The representative of the European Union  reiterate d that, i n 2016, the Kingdom of 
Saudi  Arabia notified a SASO Technical Regulation for Degradable Plastic Products to the 
TBT Committee, requirin g certain types of disposable plastics to be oxo -degradable and bear a 
specific mark to demonstrate compliance. In autumn 2018, Saudi Arabia announced the scope of 
this measure would be extended to primary and secondary packaging as of February 2019, which  
was postponed to spring 2020. The EU note d that, if Saudi Arabia implemented this requirement for 
primary and secondary packaging, it would constitute a serious barrier to trade for various 
EU industries exporting products packaged in stretch and shrink film to Saudi Arabia, including the 
toy, cosmetics , textiles, machinery and food/drink industry.  SASO issued this regulation more than 
two years ago. A substantial amount of international scientific research ha d been undertaken since 
then on so -called oxo -biodegradable plastics, also known as oxo -degradab le plastics, and the results 
question their real environmental benefits. Consequently, on 5 June 2019, the EU co -legislators 
adopted the Directive on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment, 
to be implemented by the EU Me mber States within two years after its entry into force. The Directive 
require d Member States to prohibit the placing of products made from oxo -degradable plastics on 
the market. The EU ask ed Saudi Arabia about the results of the recent scientific studies evaluating 
the impact of oxo -degradable plastic in Saudi local conditions  and, in particular, whether , in light of 
these results , the implementation of phases 2 and 3 for primary and secondary packaging would be 
suspended.  
2.330.   In addition, t he EU invite d Saudi Arabia to consider suspending the implementation of the 
regulation on plastics, to review the regulation in light of the relevant scientific studies guaranteeing 
that the EU -s and Saudi Arabia's environmental objectives be aligned in a way that d id not create 
unnecessary obstacles for economic operators, and to comply with the WTO TBT notification 
obligations in relation to such review.  The EU thank ed SASO for cooperative engagement and look ed 
forward to pursuing this dialogue in the coming months.  
2.331.   The re presentative of Switzerland  support ed the EU's intervention and reiterate d the 
concerns expressed at the previous TBT Committee  meeting .97 He noted that, w hile sharing  Saudi 
Arabia's legitimate objective to protect the environment and public health, Switzer land remain ed 
concerned that the need to use, especially for the market in Saudi Arabia, oxo -degradable 
SASO -certified plastic packaging leads to additional costs and create d trade barriers . Switzerland 
requested that Saudi  Arabia provide an update on the regulatory development of this measure and 
its timeline. Switzerland encourage d Saudi Arabia to consider less trade -restrictive alternatives to 
achieve its environmental objectives and to take relevant international scientific research on 
oxo-degradable pl astic into account.  
2.332.   The representative of  the Kingdom of  Saudi Arabia  indicate d that phase s 2 and 3 of the 
technical regulation , including stretch and shrink film , had been suspended until further notice.  
2.2.3.43   European Union - Medical Device Regulation (MDR) and In Vitro Diagnostic 
Medical Devices Regulation (IVDR) ( IMS ID 59498) 
2.333.   The representative of Japan  express ed support for the development of medical device 
regulations setting high standards of quality and safety for medical devices , but s till had serious 
concerns regarding the implementation of MDR from 26  May 2020 . First, the EU has not provided 
necessary and sufficient information, or completed guidance documents, for manufacturers to 
comply with the requirements of MDR. With respect to the list of "Ongoing Guidance Development 
within MDCG (Medical Devices Coordination Group) Subgroups", Japan request ed that the EU 
promptly provide guidance documents which are necessary for product development processes. 
Japan further request ed that the E U establish a consultation desk for guidance documents and 
updated Q&A.  Second, the re was an insufficient  number of operational notified bodies designated to 
perform certification activities under MDR. While t he number of designated notified bodies ha d 
increased from 7 to 14  since November 2019 , and 7 notified bodies were conducting audits under 
the Medical Device Directive in Japan, only one notified body ha d started the MDR audit  to date . 
Therefore,  there was a  high probability that Japanese manufacturers  could not  comply with the MDR 
 
97 G/TBT/M/79 , para. 2.291.  
98 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  594 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 56 - 
 
  before 26 May 2020 due to a lack of capacity of notified bodies.  Japanese manufacturers would  be 
unable to export new medical devices and improved medical devices to the EU after May 2020. The 
EU was requested to postpone the date of application for a minimum of two  years and undertake 
reform  so as to allow Japanese manufactures to comply with the requirements of the MDR.  
2.334.   The representative of the United States  raised concerns with this measure. The full 
statement is contained in G/TBT/W/734 . 
2.335.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  thank ed the EU for sharing information but 
share d the concerns raised by Japan and the US. Korea pointed to the insufficient number of notified 
bodies (NBs)  as it was informed that there were currently only 12 NB s to perform certification 
activities under the MDR. As the number of accredited NBs appear ed to be insufficient, the needs of 
exporting manufacturers m ight not be met.  Korea appreciate d that the EU ha d been committed to 
providing information in the form o f a guideline and to adopting implementing acts to facilitate the 
implementation of the new regulations. However, there ha d been a delay in the process, which could  
cause difficulty for Korea n industry in prepar ing for its CE application under the new regu lations.  
Therefore, Korea request ed the EU to designate a sufficient number of NBs as operational as soon 
as possible , to provide an update on the relevant information, including the number of designated 
NBs, and to grant a sufficient grace period of at le ast one year.  
2.336.   The representative of Canada  supported the concerns  raised by other s regarding t he 
implementation of this measure, which affect ed an important export market for Canadian medical 
device manufacturers.  
2.337.   The representative of China  appreciate d the EU's notification of its Medical Device Regulation 
and its efforts in improving the performance of medical devices  but stated that there were less 
trade -restrictive approaches to achieve the objective of the EU's Medical Device Regulation. China 
suggested that the EU provide a simplified audit path for low risk products and that the EU postpone 
the implementation of the MDR to the end of 2020,  and accelerate the development of relevant 
guidelines.  
2.338.   The representative of the European Union  responded to the concerns raised. The full 
statement is contained in G/TBT/W/716 . 
2.2.3.44   Republic of Korea - Package Recycle Classification Regulation  
G/TBT/N/KOR/857  (IMS ID 58899) 
2.339.   The representative of the United States  apprec iated Korea's leadership to promote recycling 
and reduce unnecessary waste but asked that Korea consider how its packaging criteria might offer  
flexibility for the differing functions that packaging play ed and allow for innovation and resource 
saving in re cycling technology. Noting that the original date of implementation was listed as 25 
December 2019, the US asked that Korea confirm that the measure posted online was the final 
version of the notified measure and that all comments were fully reviewed and t aken into account 
prior to the implementation date. She also requested that the Package Recycle Classification 
Regulation, which the Ministry of Environment (MOE) finalized on 17 April 2019  be notified . The US 
additionally asked Korea to provide more detai ls as to the criteria use d to evaluate the recyclability 
of product packaging and noted that US industry welcome d the opportunity for a dialogue with the 
MOE on the criteria. Greater transparency as to how Korea w ould implement its consultations with 
companies to evaluate its product packaging would be appreciated. The US want ed to ensure there 
was no "Korea -unique" packaging requirement so as avoid  measure unnecessarily disrupt ing trade. 
The US requested that Korea co nsider extending the grace period of two years for product packaging 
to be graded, evaluated and labelled, given the need to adjust supply chains.  
2.340.   The representative of Australia  recognized the Republic of Korea's right to implement 
regulations that promot ed the reduction of waste and the production of easily recyclable packaging 
materials. Australia thanked Korea for notifying this proposed measure and referred to its comments 
submitted through the Enquiry Point. Acknowledging that the Korean Ministry of E nvironment and 
the Korea Environment Corporation provided further clarification on the measures and issues, 
Australia understood that producers would have up until December 2021 to apply the labelling. Korea 
 
99 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  588 (unde r dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 57 - 
 
  was encouraged to continue engaging with affecte d parties and confirm the requirements, 
particularly in relation to wine bottles and tetra packaging. Further clarification was sought on the 
different treatments proposed for the "recycle friendly" colourless, brown or green glass and glass 
of other colou rs, said to be "recycle unfriendly", and, in particular, on the scientific and technological 
basis for the measure and for classifying different colours of glass bottle in this manner. Australia 
indicated that it would be concerned if this regulation limit ed the range of colours of glass containers 
considered "recycle friendly" without a scientific basis.  
2.341.   Noting that the Detailed Standards state d that some coloured bottles such as those used for 
wine may be considered "recycle unfriendly", Australia however  acknowledged that Korea, at the 
27 November 2019 briefing, indicated it would review the requirement for recycling labelling on wine 
bottles and tetra packaging (aluminium lining) due to the lack of substitutability for such packaging. 
The use of darker c oloured glass for certain light sensitive products, such as red wine and olive oil, 
helped prevent oxidation and maintain the quality of the product. Australia also sought clarification 
of the process for exceptions, specifically how and on what grounds an  exemption c ould be sought. 
She also requested that Korea consider extending the current implementation date, as international 
food companies need ed one and a half to two years to create and apply new packaging and labelling 
designs. Additionally, some pro ducts, particularly wine, may not be exported for some time after 
production.  
2.342.   The representative of Canada  recognized the Republic of Korea's efforts to protect the 
environment but indicated that the proposed measure could affect a wide range of products a nd 
have a significant impact on trade. Canada understood that the measures entered into force on 
25 December 2019 and that a series of exemptions would be developed for products, such as 
sterilized packs and certain alcoholic beverages , and requested that Korea confirm this 
understanding as well as the timeline for notifying Members of the products potentially subject to 
an exemption. Canada also requested clarification on the process and consultation methods followed 
by Korea in developing these exemptions  and questioned why certain exemptions were granted 
based on the function of the packaging material (i.e. only for a bottle that contains wine or whiskey) 
and not based on the material itself (i.e. dark -green glass). In Canada's view, international standar ds 
existed upon which Korea could have relied to achieve the same policy objectives and minimize 
potential trade distortions. Canada also urged Korea to allow for a sufficient implementation and 
transition period to give stakeholder the time needed to eval uate current packing and consider 
possible improvements.  
2.343.   The representative of Chile supported the statements made by other Members and 
expressed, in particular, a concern with respect to the marketing of alcoholic beverages.  
2.344.   The representative of New Zea land expressed support for measures that focus on legitimate 
objectives, such as encouraging recycling and reducing waste, but asked that the Republic of Korea 
explain  how its proposed measures were no more trade restrictive than necessary. He encouraged 
Korea to consider how the measures w ould impact a wide range of products, including consideration 
of potential exemptions and flexibility in the scheme. For example,  the impact of the measures on 
products that are largely "recycle friendly" but may have a s mall component attached that would be 
considered difficult to recycle. Concerns were also raised with respect to measures relating to 
packaging of a particular colour or substance deemed necessary to maintain product quality 
standards or for product safety  reasons. New Zealand requested that Korea ensures that transparent 
and clear guidelines be published on how exporters can comply with these measures, which indicate 
what may, or may not, classify as "recycle friendly" and the consequences of such classifi cation.  
2.345.   The representative of Mexico  supported  some of the concerns raised by others and welcomed 
the information that the Republic of Korea might be able to share on the measures and exceptions 
granted.  
2.346.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  noted that, on 9 September 2019, the new 
packaging criteria had been notified to the TBT Committee and, following a request by the US, the 
comment period was extended to 22 November 2019.  The new recyclability classification for 
packaging materials was the result of a thorough consideration of the comments from Members. For 
example, although glass bottles of wine and whisky products were indeed difficult to recycle in Korea, 
they were excluded from the obligation to indicate "difficult to recycle" on their  labels. This additional 
clause, concluded on 17 February 2020, t ook into account that packaging of certain types of products 
had few available alternatives. The final version of this regulation, including the Package Recycling G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 58 - 
 
  Classification Regulation, would soon be shared with Members. All the information was available on 
Korea's legislation information system. This regulation require d a classification assessment and an 
indication of the recyclability class. Only those products graded the lowest as "diff icult to recycle" 
were obliged to indicate the recyclability class on their labels. In addition,  there was  a nine -month 
grace period until the completion of the classification assessment, and another 15 months was 
allowed to complete the class indication o n the label. In total, up to two  years was granted to comply 
with the regulation. All other comments by Members would be relayed to the competent authority 
and Korea would remain accountable and transparent in implementing this recycling regulation.  
2.2.3.45   Europe an Union - Concerns on regulations with regard to eco -design 
requirements for various products in EU ( IMS ID 592100) 
2.347.   The representative of China  reiterate d concerns raised in previous meetings101 and ask ed 
the E uropean Union  if it ha d any updated information o n the eco -design requirements on light 
sources and household washing machines.  
2.348.   The representative of  the European Union  noted that the EU had submitted 11  different 
notifications between 5 July 2018 and 23 November 2019 covering a number of different eco -design 
requirements. For all the se notifications , a 60-day period had been  allowed for interested Members 
to comment . Comments had been  received from  Brazil, Japan, China, the US and Korea. In 2018 
and early 2019, the Eco -design Regulatory Co mmittee had met to discuss the proposed ecodesign 
regulations. Every proposed measure had been  voted favourably by the Member States, sometimes 
with changes to the text.  
2.349.   After the vote, each ecodesign regulation had been  subject to a three -month scrutiny p eriod 
with the European Parliament and the Council. After this period (during which no objections had 
been raised), the Commission had adopted and published the eco -design measures as follows:  
- Enterprise  servers had been  adopted on 15 March 2019 and publis hed on 18 March 2019;  
- External power supplies, power transformers, welding equipment and electric motors had 
all been adopted on 1 October 2019 and published on 25 October 2019;  
- Washing machines, refrigerators, dishwashers, electronic displays, light sourc es and 
refrigerators with a direct sales function had been  adopted on 1 October 2019 and 
published on 5 December 2019.  
2.350.   All these revised regulations would  now repeal the previous legislation for the same product 
groups. Next to an update of the energy effi ciency requirements to take into account technological 
progress, the new and revised eco -design regulations also include d new "circular economy" 
requirements aimed at increasing durability and improving reparability of these product groups . 
2.2.3.46   European Union - Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/945 on 
Unmanned Aircraft Systems and on Third -country Operators of  Unmanned Aircraft 
Systems G/TBT/N/EU/628  (IMS ID 585)  
2.351.   The representative of  China  noted that, taking into account  Article 2.3 and Article  2.8 of the 
TBT Agreement, and a fter a very careful study of the final Regulation, China had the following 
suggestions for  the EU:  
a. the factor of mechanical strength for the heavier -than-air tethered UAS cable in the EU 
Regulation 2019/945 should be no less than 4 times the maximum take -off mass 
(MTOM). The regulation require d that the cable of the mechanical strength was 10 times 
the take -off weight. According to assessment by manufacturers, 4 times was enough 
for safety assurance. It was calculated tha t the safety factor was 2.8-8.4 when different 
material cables' mechanical strength was 10 times the take -off weight. 2.8 -8.4 was 
much higher than the safety factor of all parts of manned civil aviation and general 
aviation (1.25 -1.8). Superabundant requir ement c ould also lead to a significant 
reduction of the overall performance. In addition, the backup batteries, automatic return 
 
100 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  592 (under dates raised and references) . 
101 G/TBT/M//79 , para. 2.294.  G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 59 - 
 
  and other technologies were more conducive to the safe operation of tethered UAS in 
terrible weather, air flow and other specia l conditions.  
b. to change the extension length limit of category C3 of tethered UAS from "50 met res" 
to "120 met res". With the development of technology, category C3  of tethered UAS ha d 
good stability and wind resistance. The extension length of 50  metres, r equired by the 
EU regulation, could not meet the needs of customer's applications. Since the regulation 
limited the flying height of "Open Drones" to 120  metres, and category C3 of tethered 
UAS d id not have more risk than Open Drones, China  suggest ed that the EU consider 
using the same criteria for both.  
2.352.   The representative of  the European Union  informed the Committee that Regulation 
(EU) 2019/945 on unmanned aircraft systems and on third -country operators of unmanned aircraft 
systems and Commission Implemen ting Regulation (EU) 2019/947 on the rules and procedures for 
the operation of unmanned aircraft had been published in June 2019.  
2.353.   The EU stress ed that all relevant stakeholders had been  consulted. China had  had the 
opportunity to comment on this draft and  the comments submitted by China had been  duly taken 
into account and replied to in April 2019. In this respect, the EU ha d adapted the wording of its 
requirement on the light identification device, as well as the definition of the "follow -me mode" to a 
mode where the unmanned aircraft (UA) follow ed only the pilot and not any other person or device, 
as China had suggested.  
2.354.   On the range limitation imposed on unmanned aircraft (UA) when the "follow -me" mode was 
on, the EU consider ed, however, that the range limitation must be maintained at 50  metres for 
safety reasons until reliable autonomous UA were available. Indeed, the UA s hould stay in close 
vicinity of the remote pilot in order to allow him to stay aware of the flight environment of his UA 
and to be able to quickly intervene and regain control of the UAS in case of necessity.  
2.355.   On the physical serial number affixed to the e quipment, under the relevant EU legislation, 
the serial number was not used for the registration of the unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). A 
simple approach ha d been adopted whereby only the manufacturer's code w ould be attributed 
internationally by the Inte rnational Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the manufacturers w ould 
be responsible for the definition and the maintenance of the numbering of their products.  
2.356.   Regarding the requirement for the mechanical strength of the tethered UAS cable being 
stricte r than necessary, the factor of 10 was coming from tethered gas balloons certification 
specifications and t ook into account unmanned aircraft accelerations, the variability of the tether 
material and a safety factor.  
2.357.   Lastly, with respect to the test criter ia for noise, since there was no sound limit imposed for 
class C3 unmanned aircrafts, in case the test code provided c ould not  be strictly observed, 
documented deviations from the test code may be acceptable, as long as conditions set out in EN ISO 
3744:20 10 were met (e.g. measurement radius equal to or greater than twice the characteristic 
source dimension).  
2.2.3.47   Qatar - Ministry of Public Health Circular regarding shelf life for cheese 
(IMS  ID 602102) 
2.358.   The representative of the European Union  expressed concern wi th regard to the State of 
Qatar Ministry of Public Health Circular of 30 May 2019 establishing new import requirements for 
UHT milk and white cheese that had entered into force the following day, on 1 June 2019. The EU 
regret ted that Qatar had not notif ied these requirements to the WTO under either the TBT or the 
SPS Agreements.  Implementation of the se rules was causing serious disruptions to EU exporters as 
compliance with the requirements was not feasible for certain cheese and milk products. As a 
consequence, EU products covered by the measure could  no longer be exported to Qatar. Her 
delegation was  particularly concerned about the stringent restrictions on shelf -life that 
disadvantage d impor ted products over local products, but also about certain product characteristics 
for UHT milk and types of white cheese, in particular, obligatory addition of vitamins to milk and 
 
102 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  602 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 60 - 
 
  low-fat-only requirements for certain types of white cheese.  She said that t he requirements were 
not in line with Codex Alimentarius' relevant international standards, were not science -based and 
did not guarantee the safety of imported products. The measures therefore appear ed to be more 
restrictive than necessary to fulfil the le gitimate objective of public health protection. In this context, 
the EU refer red to Articles 2.1, 2.2 and 2.4 of the TBT Agreement.  The EU invite d Qatar to suspend 
the application of the measure without further delay, align it to the WTO rules and comply w ith its 
notification obligations. Qatar  was thanked  for bilateral exchanges during the past months, which 
unfortunately ha d not yet resulted in an effective solution. The EU was prepared to continue working 
constructively with Qatar to resolve this importa nt issue.  
2.359.   The representative of the United States  expressed deep concern  with the State of Qatar's 
dairy product regulation, published by the Ministry of Public Health on 30 May 2019, which restrict ed 
the reconstitution of milk and shelf life of cheeses, a mong other things.  Her delegation was also 
concerned with Qatar's adoption of th e measure without notifying it to the WTO, providing trading 
partners the opportunity to comment, or with a reasonable implementation period. Qatar was asked 
to explain its rat ionale for not notifying and adopting such a measure . She recalled that t he measure 
had been  raised previously at the TBT Committee and, despite assurances, the issue ha d not been 
resolved. In fact, the US underst ood that Qatar's circular ha d affected expo rts of "white cheese" 
from a number of exporting countries.  She further recalled that t he US ha d requested that Qatar 
suspend or amend th e measure and that a response to this request was still being await ed. Despite 
Qatar's willingness to meet with the US bilaterally, she reported that US exporters continue d to face 
detentions due to the enforcement of th e measure.  The US therefore reiterate d its request for Qatar 
to engage with the US on th e measure immediately.  
2.360.   The representative of Canada  said that this measure was having a direct impact on some 
Canadian exports to the State of Qatar. More specifically, the Canadian industry had indicated that 
it was unable to fulfil existing contracts with importers of paneer cheese due to the overly rest rictive 
shelf-life requirements. The 50 - to 55 -day ocean transit from Canada to Qatar effectively made it 
impossible to comply with these new 45 -day shelf -life requirements. These stringent shelf -life 
requirements encouraged the domestic or close proximity  sourcing of these products, ultimately 
resulting in the unfair discriminatory treatment of imported products. Qatar was strongly encouraged 
to notify the measure to the WTO, pursuant to the WTO's transparency obligations, in order to 
provide trading partn ers with the opportunity to comment. Canada requested that in the meantime 
Qatar suspend its implementation. Canada expressed its readiness to further engagement with 
Qatar.  
2.361.   The representative of the State of Qatar  underlined that consumer protection was o f primary 
importance and that t he relevant authorities with specialized expertise in the matter were mandated 
with the adoption of appropriate measures to ensure the quality of products and, in particular, 
agricultural products available in Qatar, in accor dance with Qatar's international obligations under 
the WTO Agreements, including the TBT Agreement.  Qatar assured  Members that the relevant 
measures were adopted to protect consumers and their health, appl ied equally to domestic and 
imported products and were therefore non -discriminatory in nature. Furthermore, any impact that 
such regulation may have on trade would not be more than necessary to contribute to the fulfilment 
of the legitimate objective of protecting consumers. Qatar trusted that Members woul d agree that 
ensuring quality products for consumers in Qatar was a legitimate objective  and that Qatar was 
entitled to adopt regulatory requirements contribut ing to the fulfilment of  this objective. Qatar  
emphasize d that product -specific requirements appl ied in the State of Qatar d id not prevent the 
importation and sale of any products meet ing the quality standards and d id not have a significant 
effect on trade.  Qatar  remained open to bilateral engagement with interested Members to provide 
additional expla nation where necessary .  
2.2.3.48   Pakistan - Amendment to Pakistan 's Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950: 
Statutory Regulatory Order (SRO) 237 on  labelling, shelf -life, and halal certification  
(IMS  ID 607103) 
2.362.   The representative of the United States , whilst recogniz ing that the Ministry of Commerce  
had delayed implementation of SRO  237 until 1 July 2019, request ed that Pakistan suspend 
implementation of these requirements by at least one year and notify the SRO as a draft, under the 
terms of Article 2 and Article 5 of the TBT Agreement.  The US ha d previously communicated this 
 
103 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  607 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 61 - 
 
  request to suspend implementation and notify via a communication to Pakistan's TBT Enquiry Point 
in March 2019 and then in January 2020, as well as at a US -Pakistan TIFA meeting he ld in May 2019, 
and in the November 2019  TBT Committee meeting . Pakistan was remined  that WTO Members 
should be afforded a reasonable period to submit comments (60 -90 days) and comments received 
should be considered prior to implementation of the measure.  
2.363.   With respect to halal labelling requirements within the New Labelling SRO, in addition to the 
lack of transparency, the US was concerned that the SRO required that all products be halal -certified 
and labelled, even those products broadly recognized as bei ng naturally halal. While the US 
recognized the importance of ensuring that products were halal for Pakistani consumers, Pakistan 
was urged to develop halal policies that met the needs of consumers without being overly 
burdensome or trade prohibitive. The US encouraged Pakistan to follow other Islamic countries in 
making halal certification and labelling voluntary. For example, in Malaysia, US exporters could 
choose to voluntarily label and certify their consumer food and beverage products as "halal" for 
Malaysian consumers, but the voluntary nature of this requirement is not trade -prohibitive. The US 
had several halal certification bodies, accredited by members of the International Halal Accreditation 
Forum (IHAF) and the Standards and Metrology Institute f or the Islamic Countries (SMIIC). The US 
also said that, rather than only recognizing halal certifiers that were accredited by IHAF and SMIIC 
members, Pakistan should also recognize halal certificates from other US -based halal certifiers 
recognized by othe r Islamic countries. Finally, the US noted that a MOC memorandum issued on 
31 July 2019 stated that raw and semi -processed agricultural products might not need halal 
certification. The US asked Pakistan to clarify the definition of semi -processed agricultu ral products 
and what "may not" meant in this context.  
2.364.    The representative of the European Union  expressed regret that regulations establishing 
import requirements for foodstuff ha d been adopted without previous notification to the TBT or SPS 
Committees. T he EU stresse d the importance of notify ing any future revisions to the WTO in the 
draft stage, providing WTO Members with an opportunity to comment.  The conditions laid out with 
regard to labelling were discouraging for EU importers especially given that t he use of stickers, 
overprinting, stamp or scratched labelling was prohibited.  Given the lack of a sufficient transitional 
period, these requirements considerably delay ed approvals of imported products for the Pakistani 
market. In addition, the EU noted  no change had been  introduced with regard to labelling and 
certification clauses in the subsequent Rule, i.e. SRO 438 (dated 9 April 2019). The EU thus asked 
Pakistan to consider suspending the implementation of SRO  237 for at least 18  months to allow for 
an adaptation peri od for EU importers . 
2.365.   The representative of Pakistan  informed the Committee  that the SRO was under detailed 
review. Furthermore, SRO 237 had been amended and replaced by SRO 438 of 9 April 2019 and 
application of the measures had been suspended from 9 April  to 1 July 2019 to address the concerns 
of exporters. Pakistan would  keep stakeholders abreast of developments as a result of the ongoing 
review of the measures  and remain ed open to bilaterally engage with concerned Members to address 
their concerns . 
2.2.3.49   Repub lic of Korea - Ballast Water Management Act (IMS ID 606104) 
2.366.   The representative of the European Union  raised concerns with this measure. The full 
statement is contained in G/TBT/W/729 . 
2.367.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  acknowledge d that the issue on Korea's Ballast 
Water Management Act raised by the EU fell under the Ballast Water Management System with type 
approval from EU member States.  The issue apparently require d legitimate recognition by Korea for 
the system approved by EU countries.  He said that t he issues  on type approval were embodied in 
Regulation D -3 of the Ballast Water Management Convention's Annex demonstrating the 
responsibility of the competent authority for type approval without any provisions for recognizing 
other countries' type approval.  The EU ha d reportedly impl emented the scheme that any foreign 
system was required to have the type approval granted by each European government or the 
recognized organization. Korean manufacturers ha d put a great deal of time and expense into 
obtaining type approval from EU countries or their recognized organizations in deference to the legal 
system of EU.  
 
104 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  606 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 62 - 
 
  2.368.   The Ballast Water Management Act ha d already stipulated that foreign systems may be equal 
to Kore an products in the conditions for type approval. In addition, Korea ha d implemented the 
updated scheme to grant type approval testing ease or immunity to the system approved overseas 
since the amendment of the Act on 1  July 2019. The approval requirements were mainly replaced 
with the relevant documents screening , the detailed procedure for which could  be found in the Ballast 
Water Management Act.  For reference, he said that one EU manufacturer had applied to obtain type 
approval through a document review t o the Government of the Republic of Korea on 1 November 
2019. This, he said, was  an indicator that Korea ha d created no technical and institutional barriers 
in the procedure of type approval of Ballast Water Management System in comparison with the EU.  
He informed Members that a ny comments or enquiry would  be received by the Ministry of Oceans 
and Fisheries, the competent authority of Korea.  
2.2.3.50   Kingdom of Saudi Arabia - Electrical Clothes Dryers Energy Performance 
Requirements and Labelling (IMS ID 605105) 
2.369.   The r epresentative of the Republic of Korea  reiterated its concern raised during the 
November 2019 Committee meeting that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's energy efficiency 
requirements for clothes dryers and criteria of the power consumption tolerance for motor -operated 
type dryers were different from the international standard s. According to the International Standard 
IEC 60335 -1 with respect to this regulation, household appliances were classified into "heating and 
combined appliances" and "motor -operated applia nces" depending on the presence of heat sources, 
motors, etc. The criteria of the power consumption tolerance were also  based on this classification  
as motor -operated appliances were allowed three times of the tolerance compared to the heating 
and combined  application due to the difference of driving methods.  
2.370.   Just like household appliances, clothes dryers were also classified into the two types 
depending on the driving methods. However , Saudi Arabia's regulation, SASO 2883, stipulate d 
unnecessarily harsh conditions for the motor -operated compliance because it regulate d the same 
power consumption tolerance for a ll types of dryers regardless of driving method.  He said that t he 
measure might cause unnecessary trade restrictions due to the difference from the international 
standard and the criteria of all countries implementing energy efficiency  regulations for clot hes 
dryers. Korea therefore asked Saudi Arabia's relevant ministries to harmonize the dryer power 
consumption tolerance with the international standard IEC 60335 -1 as soon as possible.  Regarding 
the Korean Government's requests, Saudi Arabia ha d informed Korea that the amendment process 
for its proposals would  be taken and could be issued in the mid -2020s.  Korean thank ed Saudi  Arabia 
for its efforts to harmonize the regulation with the international standard and hope d that the 
regulation could  be modified as soon as possible. Relevant Saud i authorities were asked to share 
the timeline of the amendment process.  
2.371.   The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  indicate d that the Saudi Standards, 
Metrology and Quality Organization (SASO) would  modify Saudi standard SASO 2883 and would  
issue t he amendment by the end of 2020.  
2.2.3.51   European Union - Revised Draft EU Regulation on Ecological Design 
Requirements for External Power Supply (IMS ID 596106) 
2.372.   The representative of China  brought the Committee's attention to the suggestions made in 
previous meetin gs. Firstly, that the EU cancel the mandatory requirement to place "output power" 
on the nameplate; and , secondly, to extend the transitional period of these regulations.  
2.373.   The representative of the European Union  noted that , on 5 October 2018, the EU submit ted 
the notification in question allowing a 60 -day comment period. Comments were received from China, 
Japan and Korea. The Ecodesign Regulatory Committee (ERC) met on 16  January to discuss and 
vote on the Commission proposal. Discussions in the regulatory committee resulted in the addition 
of an information requirement regarding the product nameplate, including the mentioning of the 
output power on the nameplate. In the context of comitology procedures (as set out in Regulation 
(EU) 182/2011), committee mem bers representing EU Member States have the opportunity to 
suggest amendments to the Commission draft and shall endeavour to find solutions that command 
the widest possible support within the committee. The additional information on the product 
 
105 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  605 (under dates raised and references) . 
106 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  596 (under dates ra ised and references) . G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 63 - 
 
  nameplate w as considered by Member States as a necessary measure to help market surveillance 
authorities to check these products and have the relevant information available on the spot. 
Moreover, it supported interoperability by helping end  users to understand how an  External Power 
Supply (EPS) could be used with other products, which were not sold together with that specific EPS, 
but that have a compatible connector. Finally, adding information on output power (i.e. one 
additional figure per output) was feasible even  in the case of nameplates of small dimensions.  
2.374.   With regard to the transition period, Regulation 2019/1782 was published in the Official 
Journal of the EU on 25 October 2019 and would apply from 1 April 2020. The date of application 
was established based on the following arguments:  
• products compliant with the new requirements are already largely present on the market, 
therefore, no major (technical) redesign efforts are needed; and  
• this transitional period is considered optimal for contributing to the EU's  commitment to 
increase with 32.5% its energy efficiency by 2030.  
2.375.   With regard to the test standards, the regulation was flexible and provided for the use of 
harmonized EU standards or other reliable, accurate and reproducible methods, which take into 
accou nt the generally recognized state -of-the-art. Thus, the publication of European standards was 
not a precondition, as other state -of-the-art measurement methods existed (e.g. US Department of 
Energy test procedure for external power supplies).  
2.2.3.52   China — Natio nal Standards on Limits of Volatile Organic Compounds for 
Furniture G/TBT/N/CHN/1094 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1095 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1096  
(IMS  ID 509107) 
2.376.   The representative of the European Union  referred the concerns raised in several previous 
TBT Committee meetings.108 The EU unders tood that there would  be one new mandatory standard 
pertaining to plastic furniture  and asked whether China would notify this in accordance with the 
TBT Agreement . In addition, the EU requested  confirmation on whether one of the announced 
standards, "Limits of harmful substances in furniture" (BD 28481:2012), w ould replace the previous 
notified standards to the WTO  contained in  G/TBT/N/CHN/1094 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1095  and 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1096 . To help facilitate the timely implementation of these furniture -related 
standards, the EU need ed to know whether any other furniture groups, besides plastic furniture, 
would be covered by the new standards. The EU reiterate d that it remain ed open to hold technical 
discussion s in Brussels on issues pertaining to these and any other relevant furniture standards, as 
originally proposed by China in June 2017. To this end, the EU renew ed its request for China to 
designate its contact point for the organization of such meeting.  The EU once again respectfully 
remind ed China to notify the announced standards in accordance with the TBT Agreement.  
2.377.   The representative of China  informed the Committee that this  standard was still in the 
drafting  process , under the responsibility of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology. 
The Ministry expected to complete the preparation of the draft standard in the first half of 2021 , and 
it would then  be submitted to the  Standardization Administration of Chin a for approval . During the 
develop ment of the standard, China w ould adhere to the principles of openness and transparency, 
take ISO standards into account and solicit opinions and comments from all sectors of society, 
including opinions from foreign -invest ed enterprises and experts.  
2.2.4   Report ed progress  on STCs  
2.378.   The representative of the Russian Federation  thank ed the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for taking 
into account comments made by WTO Members and for the withdrawal of the measure , Kingdom of 
Saudi Arabia - Added Sugar Upper Limit in Some Food Products ( IMS ID 589 ). Russia also thanked 
Viet Nam for the progress in solving market access issues.  
 
107 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  509 (under dates raised and references) . 
108 G/TBT/M/79 , paras. 2.220 -2.222.  G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 64 - 
 
  2.2.5   Update on eAgenda  
2.379.   The Secretariat  updated the Committee on eAgenda. This new platform made it faster and 
easier for Members to submit STCs for inclusion in the Annotated draft Agenda. It was intended to 
increase transparency and early notice on STCs that Members plan ned to raise. It also allow ed 
Members to share statements with each other d irectly through the platform.  eAgenda had been 
piloted by  nine Members for the November meeting  and for this meeting 14 Members that used 
eAgenda to raise their STCs.109 The training session that had taken place in the margins of the 
Committee meeting had helped familiarize delegates with the functionalities of the system. Further 
training sessions would be organized at future meetings . Members were encouraged to use eAgenda 
and were welcome to provide any feedback or suggestions.  
2.380.   The representative of the United States  said that the US statements would be uploaded to 
eAgenda and encouraged other Members to do the same in order  to facilitate the exchange of 
statements.  She also asked the Secretariat some technical questions regarding Members joining a 
concern on the floor and how this statement could be included in eAgenda.  
2.381.   The representatives of Australia , Switzerland  and Canada  confirmed that they would share 
their statements through eAgenda.  
2.2.6   Exchange of Experiences  
2.2.6.1   Good Regulatory Pr actice  
2.382.   The Moderator's  report is contained in G/TBT/GEN/ 287. 
2.2.6.2   Conformity Assessment Procedures  
2.383.   The Moderator's  report is contained in G/TBT/GEN/ 288. 
2.2.6.3   Follow -up on Committee Decisions and Recommendations  
2.384.   The Chairman  invited delegations to continue the Committee 's follow -up on the various 
recommendations adopted by the Committee , including during the Eighth Triennial Review 
(G/TBT/41). He recalled that a compilation of the Committee's decisions and recommendations was 
contained in G/TBT/1/Rev.14  (24 September 2019).  
2.2.6.3.1   Conformity Assessment Procedures: Guidelines  
2.385.   On conformity assessment , the Chairman  noted t hat there were five submissions on the 
table from the European Union, the United  States, Australia, Japan and the latest was from Canada 
(JOB/TBT/358). There had been some discussion and exchange of views on the proposals at the 
Committee 's past meetings , in June, September and November 2019 and, most recently, at the 
Committee 's 30 January 2020 informal meeting. He said that these exchanges were reflected in the 
Aide-Memoire document circulated on 18 February 2020 (Section  2.2 of JOB/TBT/273/Rev.6) . The 
Chairman noted that, at the January informal, Members had again highlighted the importance of 
other Members contributing submissions. In response, a few Members had said they were working 
on pending submissions. Members also exchanged some comments on the proposals on th e table. 
The point was made that the guidelines should not only be built on written submissions, but also on 
past discussions on conformity assessment, including in the context of thematic sessions. In this 
respect, there had been a suggestion that the Sec retariat prepare a background note summarizing 
past discussions of conformity assessment in the Committee, as an update of its 2017 background 
paper (JOB/TBT/224).  
2.386.   The representative of Canada  introduced her delegation 's submission (JOB/TBT/358). 
Canada a cknowledge d the efforts already put forward by other Members and had pulled together 
some common themes and ideas. It was Canada 's hope that this would serve to highlight 
complementary ideas as well as advance some new ones. Canada also reiterated its supp ort for the 
 
109 Australia, Brazil, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, the EU, Japan,  the Republic of  
Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Russian Federation and the US . G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 65 - 
 
  development of non -prescriptive guidelines on conformity assessment procedures and looked 
forward to further contributing to this process.  
2.387.   The representative of the European Union  thanked Canada for its submission, which provided 
additional id eas and suggestions regarding the work on the guidelines and, as had been mentioned 
before, the EU encouraged other Members to contribute actively to this exercise – either through 
individual submissions or by participating in thematic sessions on conformi ty assessment. The EU 
reiterated his delegation 's proposal to prepare an update of the 2017 Secretariat note so as to allow 
Members to have a complete overview of all discussions held on this topic to date.  
2.388.   The representative of the  United States  said tha t while her delegation could agree to a 
Secretariat update of the background paper, it had to be clear that some of the participants to the 
thematic sessions were not necessarily representative of a government view. These were sometimes 
experts from intern ational organizations, or even from the private sector. While an update would be 
helpful, that should not mean any such submission would be automatically included in the guidelines , 
simply because such information had been included in the background paper.   
2.389.   The representative of China  said that his delegation was preparing a proposal on the 
guidelines for conformity assessment procedures, hopefully to be submitted before the next 
Committee meeting. China looked forward to being involved in discussions of th e guidelines.  
2.390.   The Chairman  asked the Secretariat whether it would be prepared to update the background 
paper on conformity assessment for the next meeting of the Committee.  
2.391.   The Secretariat  confirmed that it would be able to do so.  
2.2.6.4   Transparency  
2.392.   The Chairm an recalled that the Eighth Triennial Review included a series of recommendations 
on transparency (para . 6.19 of document G/TBT/41 ). Some of these had been discussed during the 
Committee's June 2019 transparency thematic session. The Moderator's report (G/TBT/GEN/265) 
provided a summary of the se discussions. In addition, Section  3 of the Aide -Memoire 
(JOB/TBT/273/Rev.6) reflected all discussions and updates pertaining to the transparency 
recommendations. The Chairman recalled that , at its November 2019 meeting, the Committee had 
adopted a revis ed Addendum format. This had been circulated in document G/TBT/35/Rev.1  
(21 November 2019) . He was of the understanding that the Secretariat needed some time to 
incorporate the changes to the Addendum format in its information management systems, including 
the NSS, IMS and ePing. Nevertheless, the new format would be operational in advance of the May 
Committee meeting. The Chairman noted that there were several other pending Eighth Triennial 
Review recommendations related to transparency.  
2.393.   The representative of Switzerland  recalled that ePing allowed for the publication of 
comments on notifications  and of replies to such comments . It was therefore a valuable tool to 
implement the TBT Committee's recommendations with respect to the handling of comments and, 
in particular, with respect to the publication of comments and replies. Switzerland encouraged  
Members to use ePing for this purpose and to share information with respect to comments on 
notifications and replies on such comments. He clarified that Members could decide to publish their 
entire comment or reply or only parts of it. Members could also simply indicate that they had 
provided comments or replies or post links to existing websites where such comments and replies 
had been published. All this was now possible with the enhanced features in ePing. This increased 
transparency of the handling of comments and the publication of comments and replies allowed for 
more efficient discussions and solutions of STCs, better coordination between interested Members, 
and helped avoid unnecessary obstacles to trade. Switzerland asked about other Members' views  on 
the publication of comments and replies to such comments and, specifically, on the use of ePing for 
this purpose. He stressed the importance of the Secretariat 's continued efforts to ensure that ePing 
remained a useful tool for the publication of comme nts and replies. He also asked the Secretariat to 
keep the Committee informed of any new features and enhancements that contributed to the 
implementation of the Committee's recommendations with respect to the handling of comments.  G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 66 - 
 
  2.394.   The representative of Australia  encouraged other Members to make use of the features 
Switzerland had just highlighted. All methods of encouraging transparency in this Committee were 
welcome.  
2.395.   The representative of the United States  said that the US was very supportive of all of 
enhancements that had been made to ePing; the US strongly encouraged the WTO to continue 
enhancing that system and its integration with other TBT online systems, such as the TBT 
information management system (TBT IMS). The United States appreciated everythin g that the ITC, 
WTO and UNDESA had done to make the system as useful as it already was. ePing, it was 
emphasized, was a powerful tool that could strongly enhance transparency and facilitate information 
sharing – and could thus, potentially, contribute to r esolving STCs. She encouraged the Secretariat 
to keep working on the development of the system.  
2.396.   The Secretariat  updated the Committee on transparency -related recommendations of the 
Eighth Triennial Review. First, it was noted that , in relation to updating  of enquiry point information, 
to date 118 Members had validated their enquiry point information and the annual review report in 
G/TBT/44  contained a list of these Members. Members were invited to follow up with the Secretariat 
if they had not already done so regarding these updates. Second, on the availability of final text on 
websites, 22 Members had responded and, once again, the annual review report contained a list of 
these websites. The Secretariat  would welcome more Members to come forward with information 
regarding where they stored adopt ed final texts at the national level. Third, on ePing, at the time of 
the meeting, there were over 9,300  registered users. A walk -in session on ePing had been held on 
the margins of the Committee meeting to demonstrate key features and respond to queries f rom 
delegations. As had already been noted , the Eighth Triennial Review included a recommendation 
from Members to discuss the possibility of exchanging comments and replies related to notifications 
via ePing and enquiry points could already do so using the  system. To date, TBT officials from 81 
Members had been granted admin rights, which meant they were able to post comments on the 
system. One Member, Switzerland, had already done so. Members interested in further information 
on ePing were invited to conta ct the Secretariat.  
2.2.6.5   Thematic sessions in 2020110 
2.397.   The Chairman  asked Members about their views on the upcoming thematic sessions in 2020. 
At the last meeting in November, the Committee had agreed on the topics for 2020 thematic 
sessions, and these had been c irculated in document JOB/TBT/350 . To recall, at the May meeting, 
the Committee would discuss the topics of "Transparency" and "Technical Regulations" focusing on 
mandatory marking and labelling requirements on products. In October, the Committee would 
discuss "Conformity Assessment Proced ures" and "Technical Assistance". For these latter two (for 
the October meeting), however, the focus had not yet been determined. He raised three matters for 
the Committee to consider : 
a. Regarding transparency , the Chairman noted that one of the topics that the Committee 
had yet to tackle  was how to improve information regarding product coverage in 
notifications, including with respect to use of HS and ICS codes.  In this regard, the 
Chairman suggested that the thematic session on transparency could be an opportunity 
for the Committee to study this issue further.  
b. Second, under technical assistance  (but also related to transparency) , there was 
another recommendation to develop a good practice guide on how to prepa re a comment 
on a notification.  Also here, he suggested that Members could kick -start this work and 
share their experiences in this regard during the transparency thematic session.  
c. Finally, he sought delegations ' input on the focus for the October thematic  sessions – on 
conformity  assessment procedures  and technical assistance . Any suggestions, even 
preliminary, for a specific focus would be helpful to ensure effective planning.  
2.398.   The representative of Canada  recalled that the Committee had agreed, in the 8th Triennial 
Review (para . 5.8(d) of G/TBT/41)  that it would  hold a workshop on the role of gender in the 
development of standards. Canada wished to confirm that the workshop would take place on the 
 
110 A tentative schedule of thematic sessions was circulated in document JOB/TBT/350 . G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 67 - 
 
  margins of the next TBT Committee on Monday, 1 1 May 2020 (from 3pm) at the WTO building. The 
workshop would be divided into three parts. The first part would include presentations from Members 
outlining their respective efforts and experiences in advancing the issue of gender considerations 
and standa rds. The second part would present the perspective of certain intergovernmental 
organizations that have done work on the issue of gender and standards. The third part would be 
focused on how the application of gender considerations in the development of st andards had 
translated into the real world. The holding of this event fell within the spirit of the Joint Declaration 
on Trade and Women's Economic Empowerment, endorsed at MC11 in Buenos Aires, in December 
2017.  
2.399.   The representative of the European Union  referred to the topic on technical regulations with 
particular focus on mandatory marking and labelling. The EU acknowledged that the matter remained 
sensitive – indeed, marking and labelling requirements figured in a number of STCs the Committee 
had just d iscussed. A broader, horizontal discussion was therefore timely. The objective of the 
thematic session was thus to promote measures and practices that enabled producers to fulfil the 
legitimate objectives pursued by mandatory marking and labelling requirem ents in the least costly 
and burdensome way possible. In this context, the EU encouraged Members to actively participate 
in the thematic session so that it could be used as an opportunity to showcase different approaches, 
measures and practices that facili tated the compliance with mandatory marking and labelling 
requirements from a horizontal or sectoral perspective.  
2.400.   The representative of  United States  noted, with respect to the idea on how best to develop 
a model comment (in the area of transparency) – that the Chair 's idea had a lot of merit – especially 
for the users of the notification system, including industry. There was a need, however, to consider 
how to structure the discussion in the Committee : perhaps it could be based on a template? There 
were ma ny stakeholders that would welcome this kind of initiative from the WTO and sharing 
practices could help make comments better. This was something the Committee could perhaps 
discuss at the informal meeting.  
3  AGENDA  ITEM 3: TWENTY -FIFTH ANNUAL REVIEW  
3.1.  The Secretariat  introduced the Committee 's Annual Review (G/TBT/44). He made two remarks. 
On notifications , the Committee had received over 3,300 notifications in 2019 – a record, and they 
had been submitted by 93 Members. It was notable that many notifica tions came from African and 
Latin American countries. The share of notifications that comes from developing Members continues 
to increase; this was not more than 6 0% of all notifications (in 2019). On specific trade concerns  
(STCs), 2019 was also a record year: 185 STCs had been discussed, and again developing countries 
were increasingly active in raising concerns. The large majority of STCs raised in the Committee 
were about proposed  measures – which put a finger on a distinctive feature of this Committee (as 
well as SPS): that delegations were discussing draft measures, these had not actually entered into 
force. This was an effective way of addressing trade friction.  
3.2.  The Committee took note  of the report.  
4  AGENDA ITEM 4: TECHN ICAL COOPERATION ACT IVITIES  
4.1.  The Secretariat  provided a report on TBT technical assistance activities in 2019. Similar to 
previous years, in 2019, the TBT TA activities requested to, and provided by, the WTO Secretariat 
continued to be significant. In 2019, the Secretariat had organize d, or otherwise participated in, a 
total of 37 TBT TA activities in various formats. In 2019, there had been a strong demand for national 
TBT TA activities (13). The Secretariat had also organized a one -week TBT transparency course 
back-to-back with the Ju ne Committee meetings. An Advanced Short Course on TBT had been held 
in November 2019 back -to-back with the regular meetings. Finally, and also in 2019, in response to 
requests for more offerings in French, a regional TBT workshop for Francophone African c ountries 
had been organized. It was also noted that, in 2019, there had been a marked demand for training 
activities on TBT transparency in general, and ePing in particular.  
4.2.  Regarding e -Ping, the Secretariat  continued to include ePing in its capacity -building activities, 
sometimes through brief overview presentations and sometimes through more detailed hands -on 
training sessions, depending on the context, beneficiaries and their requests. The Secretariat had 
also liaised with agencies such as the ITC, ISO,  Standards Alliance and UNDESA in the delivery of G/TBT/M/80  
 
- 68 - 
 
  capacity -building on transparency and ePing. Tailored training materials had been provided to 
interested Enquiry Points for them to run training sessions for their domestic stakeholders. In 
addition, thanks  to improvements to in -house IT tools, the Secretariat was now in a better position 
to provide training through video -conference.  
5  AGENDA ITEM 5: UPDAT ING BY OBSERVERS  
5.1.  Updates  on activities rel evant to the TBT Committee  were provided by the following obser ver 
organizations : ARSO, UNECE, CODEX, ISO, IEC and BIPM.111  
5.2.  The representative of Turkey  reiterated his country 's support for granting observer status to 
the Standards and Metrology Institute for the Islamic Countries (SMIIC) in  the TBT Committee. This 
was supported by the representative of Jordan .  
6  AGENDA ITEM 6: ELECT ION OF CHAIRPERSON  
6.1.  The Chairman  noted that Members had not yet finalized the selection process for the 
Chairperson of the Council for Trade in Goods (CTG) and its subsidiary bodies, including the 
TBT Committee. This mean t that this agenda item would be suspended at the current meeting and 
that the Committee would revert to it at the next regular meeting, just after adoption of the agenda.  
7  AGENDA ITEM 7: OTHER  BUSINE SS 
7.1.  The Chairman  said that he had received a communication from the Chairperson of the CTG. 
This communication noted that, given that the Ministerial Conference was taking place in June 2020, 
the Chairperson of the General Council would like to submit to th e Ministerial Conference, in addition 
to the 2019 Annual Report, a brief update describing the developments in its subsidiary bodies 
covering the first few months of 2020. To this end, the Chairperson of the CTG had invited the TBT 
Chairperson to prepare, under his own responsibility, a brief update to the developments in the work 
of the Committee. The Chairman indicated his intention to submit to the CTG a brief and factual 
update of the work of the TBT Committee during the first few months of 2020. Member s would be 
duly informed of this update.  
8  AGENDA ITEM 8: DATE OF NEXT MEETING  
8.1.  The Chairman  said that the WTO had marked its 25th anniversary in 2019. The Secretariat 
intended to organize, and webcast, an event commemorating the original TBT Agreement's 40t h 
anniversary on Friday, 30 October. This would follow the last day of the Committee 's regular meeting 
in October. He recalled that this event had originally been planned for the end of 2019, on 
15 November 2019, but had had to be postpone d because more ti me was needed for the November 
thematic sessions. To repeat, the Secretariat now intend ed to organize this event in the morning of 
Friday, 30  October  2020, immediately after the last day of the formal meeting. A detailed 
programme would follow .  
8.2.  Regarding dates, the Chairman drew Members ' attention to the tentative dates for 2021  
(JOB/TBT/ 364) and recalled that the next regular meeting  of the Committee is scheduled to take 
place on 13 -14 May 2020 and would be preceded by two thematic sessions on 12  May. 
 
__________  
 
111 G/TBT/GEN/289 , G/TBT/GEN/290 , G/TBT/GEN/291  and G/TBT/GEN/292 .