RESTRICTED  
  
G/MA/M/68  
 
17 May 2019  
(19-3488) Page: 1/27 
Committee on Market Access    
 
MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE ON MARKET ACCESS  
9 OCTOBER  2018  
CHAIR PERSON : MS ZSÓFIA  TVARUSKÓ  (HUNGARY ) 
 
The Committee adopted  the agenda as reproduced in document  WTO/AIR/MA/8, with the inclusion 
of the following item under Other Business: Russian Federation – Quantitative Restriction on Export 
of Birch Logs – Statement by the European Union. A n annotated agenda was circulated i n 
document  JOB/MA/136.  
 
Table of contents                     Page 
 
1. INTRODUCTION OF HARM ONIZED SYSTEM CHANGE S TO SCHEDULES OF 
CONCESSIONS  – STATUS REPORT  ................................ ................................ ...................  2 
− HS96 ( L/6905 AND WT/L/756)  ................................ ................................ ..............  2 
− HS2002 ( WT/L/605 AND WT/L/80 7) ................................ ................................ ..... 2 
− HS20 07 (WT/L/673 AND WT/L/83 0) ................................ ................................ ..... 3 
− HS2012 ( WT/L/831)  ................................ ................................ ..............................  3 
2. INTRODUCTION OF HARM ONIZED SYSTEM 2017  CHANGES TO SCHEDULES OF 
CONCESSIONS USING TH E CTS  DATABASE (WT/L /995) – NOTES ON MET HODOLOGY 
(JOB/MA/135)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  3 
3. EXTENSION OF THE HS -RELATED WAIVERS  ................................ ............................  4 
4. OPERATION OF THE INT EGRATED DATABASE (ID B), INCLUDING STATUS  OF 
SUBMISSIONS (G/MA/ID B/2/REV.48), AND THE  CTS DATABASE – STAT US REPORT  ..... 4 
5. NOTIFICATIONS PURSUA NT TO THE DECISION O N NOTIFICATION PROCE DURES 
FOR QUANTITATIVE RES TRICTIONS (G/L/59/RE V.1, JOB/MA/101/REV. 1) ...................  5 
A. NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 5 
B.  REPORT FROM THE SECR ETARIAT (G/MA/QR/6)  ................................ ...................  9 
C.  PRACTICAL GUIDE ON T HE NOTIFICATION OF Q UANTITATIVE RESTRICT IONS 
(JOB/MA/101/REV.1, J OB/MA/101/REV.2)  ................................ ................................ ... 9 
6. REPORT BY THE SECRET ARIAT ON THE STATUS OF RENEGOTIATIONS UN DER 
ARTICLE  XXVIII OF TH E GATT  1994 (G/MA/W/ 123/REV.4)  ................................ .........  10 
7. DRAFT REPORT (2018) OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRAD E IN 
GOODS  (CTG) (G/MA/SP EC/58)  ................................ ................................ ...................  10 
8. REDUCTION OF MFN APP LIED DUTIES – COMMUN ICATION FROM BELIZE 
(G/MA/W/139)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  10 
9. AUSTRALIA –DISCRIMIN ATORY MARKET ACCESS PROHIBITION ON 
5G EQUIPMENT – STATE MENT BY CHINA  ................................ ................................ ...... 10 
10. ENLARGEMENT OF THE E UROPEAN UNION TO INC LUDE CROATIA -  
NEGOTIATIONS UNDER A RTICLE  XXIV:6 OF THE  GATT  1994 – STATEME NT BY THE 
RUSSIAN FEDERATION (G/SECRET/35/ADD.4)  ................................ ............................  11 G/MA/M/68  
 
- 2 - 
 
  11. THE EUROPEAN UNION – RENEGOTIATION OF TA RIFF RATE QUOTAS UND ER 
ARTICLE  XXVIII OF TH E GATT  1994 – STATEM ENT BY THE RUSSIAN F EDERATION 
(G/SECRET/42/ADD.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 13 
12. RECTIFICATIONS AND M ODIFICATIONS OF SCHE DULE  XIX-UNITED KING DOM – 
STATEMENT BY THE RUS SIAN FEDERATION  ................................ ................................ .. 15 
13. INDIA - CUSTOMS DUTI ES ON TELECOMMUNICAT ION AND OTHER PRODUC TS – 
STATEMENTS BY CANADA , CHINA, THE EUROPEA N UNION, JAPAN, NORW AY,  
CHINESE TAIPEI, AND THE UNITED STATES (G /MA/W/120, G/MA/W/12 8) ................  18 
14. INDIA – QUANTITATIVE  RESTRICTIONS ON CER TAIN PULSES – STATEM ENTS  
BY AUSTRALIA, CANADA , THE EUROPEAN UNION , AND THE UNITED STA TES ...............  21 
15. KINGDOM OF BAHRA IN, KINGDOM OF SAUDI  ARABIA, AND THE UNI TED ARAB 
EMIRATES – SELECTIVE  TAX ON CERTAIN IMPO RTED PRODUCTS – STAT EMENTS BY  
THE EUROPEAN  UNION, SWITZERLAND, AND THE  UNITED STATES (G/MA /W/140)  ..... 23 
16. CHINA - CUSTOMS D UTIES ON CERTAIN INT EGRATED CIRCUITS – STATEMENTS  
BY THE EUROPEAN  UNION, JAPAN, AND C HINESE TAIPEI  ................................ ............  24 
17. OMAN - MFN CUSTO MS DUTIES ON CIGARET TES – STATEMENTS BY THE 
EUROPEAN  UNION AND S WITZER LAND  ................................ ................................ .........  25 
18. ELECTION  OF THE VICE -CHAIRPE RSON  ................................ ................................ ... 27 
19. OTHER  BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 27 
 
 
1. INTRODUCTION OF HARMONIZED S YSTEM C HANGES  TO SCHEDULES OF 
CONCESSIONS  – STATUS REPORT  
1. The Chairperson  informed Members that considerable progress had been made in the overall 
status  of the different HS  transpositions . 
− HS96 ( L/6905 and WT/L/756)  
2. The Chairperson  informed Members that the schedules of concessions of all the 64  developing 
countries and LDCs Members listed in the Annex of the Special Procedures in document  WT/L/756 
had been successfully transposed into HS96 and certified. She noted that one  file remained pending 
in HS96, of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, wh ich was ongoing under a separate procedure on 
the basis of GATT  document  L/6905.  
3. The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report . 
− HS2002 ( WT/L/605 and WT/L/807)  
4. The Chairperson  reported that 114  schedules of concessions had been transposed and 
certified. She noted that t here were three  schedules pending , from China, the Philippines , and the 
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. The Chairperson indicated that she understood that Members  were 
actively engaged in two of these three  cases . 
5. The Secretariat  added that  a revised report had been circulated in  
document  JOB/MA/42/Rev.23, dated 8  May 2018. The status of the HS2002  transposition files after 
the multilateral review of 28  May 2018 was as follows: 115  files had been certified or were in th e 
process of certification; one  file had been released for multilateral review and other Members  had 
commented on it ; and one  draft file had been completed and sent to Members for its first  review. 
Finally, 18  Members had not been affected by the transposi tion, as eight  Members had acceded in 
HS2002, another eight  Members had acceded in HS2007, and two  Members had acceded in HS2012.  
6. The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report.  G/MA/M/68  
 
- 3 - 
 
  − HS2007 ( WT/L/673 and WT/L/830)  
7. The Chairperson  reported that 108  schedules of concessions had been transposed and 
certified, and that only 17  schedules remain ed pending.  
8. The Secretariat  added that a revised report had been circulated in 
document  JOB/MA/104/Rev.18, dated 8  May 2018. The status of the HS2007  transposition  files after 
the multilateral review of 28  May 2018 was as follows: 108  files had been certified or were in the 
process of certification; one  file had been released for multilateral review and other Members  had 
commented on it ; two files had been released for multilateral review and would be examined at the 
next meeting; four  draft files had been completed and sent to Members for their first  review; and 
10 draft files remained to be prepared. Finally, ten  Members had not been affected by the 
transposition a s eight  Members had acceded in HS2007 and two  Members had acceded in HS2012.  
9. The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report.  
− HS2012 ( WT/L/831)  
10. The Chairperson  reported that 87  schedules of concessions had been transposed and certified, 
and that only 45 schedules remain ed pending.  
11. The Secretariat  added that a revised report had been circulated in 
document  JOB/MA/129/Rev.4, dated 8  May 2018. The status of the HS2012  transposition files after 
the multilateral review of 28  May 2018 was as follows: 88  files had been certified or were in the 
process of certification; two  files had been released for multilateral review and other Members  had 
commented on them ; six files had been released for multilateral review and would be examined at 
the next meeting; seven  draft files had been completed and sent to Members for their first  review; 
and 30  draft files remained to be prepared. Finally, two  Members had not been affected by the 
transposition as they had acceded in HS2012 . 
12. The Committee took note  of the Secretariat' s report.  
2. INTRODUCTION OF HARMO NIZED SYSTEM  2017  CHANGES TO SCHEDULES  OF 
CONCESSIONS  USING  THE CTS DATABASE  (WT/L/995 ) – NOTES  ON METHODOLOGY  
(JOB/MA/135)  
13. The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to the document that had been prepared by the 
Secretariat entitled "Transposition of Members' CTS  Files to the HS2017  Nomenclature: Notes on 
Methodology" (JOB/MA/135). She noted that this document was similar in nature to the methodology 
notes that had been prepared for previous transpositions, with the latest (f or HS2012) contained in 
document  G/MA/330.  
14. A member of the Secretariat  (Mrs Alya Belkhodja) described the contents of the document . 
She recalled that the procedural and general technical aspects had been  adopted by the General 
Council Decision of 7  Decembe r 2016 (document  WT/L/995 ), which had tasked the Secretariat with 
assisting Members in preparing their submissions for the HS2017  transposition exercise , and with 
verifying the submissions provided by Members that had prepared their own submissions. She 
explained that the proposed "Notes on Methodology" document for the HS2017  transposition 
exercise was similar to that used for the HS2012  transposition, but that it had also buil t upon the 
experience gained from previous transposition exercises. It also incl uded measures proposed to 
improve the efficiency and quality of the work, including several simplifications of the transposition 
process and a standard procedure for verifying Members' submissions.  Finally, she explained that 
the document was organized in to seven  sections  and an Annex , as followed : (i) Section  1 provided 
an overview of the HS2017  amendments and a categorization of those changes; (ii)  Section  2 
elaborated upon the manner in which those changes would be introduced into the WTO  Schedules 
of concessions and included detailed examples; (iii)  Section  3 describe d the general methodology 
that the Secretariat  would follow in the transposition; (iv)  Section  4 discusse d selected 
methodological issues, and conclude d that certain simplific ations, that  were in line with the general 
mandate, might be required in order to avoid unnecessary complexity in the resulting 
HS2017  schedules; (v)  Section  5 follow ed by describing the proposed simplifications; (vi)  Section  6 
present ed the format of the transposition file; (vii)  Section  7 describe d the general procedure that  G/MA/M/68  
 
- 4 - 
 
  would be followed by the Secretariat for verifying Members' submissions; and (viii)  the Annex  
presented the complete HS2017 to HS2012 correlation table . 
15. The representative of China  thanked the Secretariat and  noted that China would need more 
time to review the document's content. She  suggested that the Committee continue its discussion 
of this item at its next meeting.  
16. The representative of the United States  thanked the Secretariat for preparing this document  
and noted that her delegation  did not have any comments  at that time. Nevertheless, she reserved 
the United States'  right to revisit the methodology should any issues arise subsequently . 
17. The representative of South Africa  noted that South Africa did not have any comments at that 
time. She requested to discuss the note at the next meeting and to have a detailed presentation by 
the Secretariat regarding the parts of the note that built on experience gained from  the previous 
transposition exercise.  
18. The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's re port and of the statements made and agreed  
to revert to this issue at the Committee's next meeting.  
3. EXTENSION  OF THE HS-RELATED W AIVERS  
19.  The Chairperson  recalled that the General Council had agreed to extend the relevant w aivers 
for a number of Members  on the basis  of a "collective decision". The se were the most recent : HS2002 
(WT/L/1026 ); HS2007 (WT/L/1027 ); HS2012 (WT/L/1028) ; and HS2017 (WT/L/1029, 
WT/L/1029/Add.1 and WT/L/1029/Add.2). She noted that these waivers  would expire on 
31 December  2018. As the Members concerned had yet to complete their relevant procedures, she 
proposed that the Committee extend all of these collective waivers for an addition al year, until 
31 December  2019. She indicated that, i f Members  agree d, she would  then propose that the 
Committee forward the draft waiver decisions granting such an extension, as contained in 
documents  G/C/W/756, G/C/W/ 757, G/C/W/ 758 and G/C/W/ 759, to the  General Council, through 
the Council for Trade in Goods  (CTG) , for appropriate action.  
20. The Committee agreed . 
4. OPERATION OF THE INT EGRATED DATABASE (ID B), INCLUDING STATUS  OF 
SUBMISSIONS (G/MA/ID B/2/REV .48), AND THE CTS D ATABASE – STATUS R EPORT  
21. The Chairperson  noted that the report by the Secretariat  was contained in 
document  G/MA/IDB/2/Rev.48 and its corrigendum.  
22. A member of the Secretariat  (Mrs Alya Belkhodja ) presented an update regarding the status 
of submissions. She noted that there were no new  notifications received as of Friday , 
5 October  2018, which had been the cut -off day for the report. The deadline for import submissions 
had been  30 September  2018 for 2017  imports , but for the 23  Members of the Preferential Trade 
Agreements ( PTA) Transparency M echanism , which require d that input s be submitted by preferential 
duties scheme s, the deadline would be extended until  end-October  2018. 
23. The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to the fact that the IDB Decision had been approved 
in 1997 by th e General Council , in document  WT/L/225. She noted that, over the past 20  years, the 
IDB had become an indispensable tool that Members, other international organizations, academia, 
traders, and the public , used to access reliable trade and tariff informati on. The scope of the 
database  had been defined in documents  G/MA/IDB/1/Rev.1 and G/MA/IDB/1/Rev.1/Add.1. 
However, significant changes had occurred during the course of  the previous 20 years. Data needs 
and information sources had grown considerably , and Me mbers had, since then, agreed to new 
notification requirements by other WTO  bodies, such as the Trade Policy Review  Body (TPRB) , the 
transparency mechanism of the  Committee on Regional Trade Agreements  (CRTA ), and the 
PTA-Transparency Mechanism of the Comm ittee on Trade and Development ( CTD). When the 
Committee on Market Access (CMA) approved the IDB  project on 24  June 1997, the Chairman had 
noted inter alia  that "when the Committee agreed, it would be possible to extend the scope of the 
PC IDB in the future to data other than those mentioned in document  G/MA/IDB/1" ( see G/MA/M/68  
 
- 5 - 
 
  document  G/MA/M/10). She asked Members if they wished to explore the possibility of revisiting the 
IDB Decision  through an informal open -ended discussion to hear their views on this iss ue. 
24. The representative of the United States  thanked the Secretariat for the update and noted that, 
from her delegation's  perspective, the IDB  was an important tool in their daily work. She stated that 
there  was a strong interest in ensuring that it  was kept accu rate and up -to-date. The United  States  
concluded that it  was open to revisiting the IDB Decision  and was willing and interested in 
participating in any future discussions on this issue.  
25. The representative of Canada  supported an examination of the D ecision with a view to 
ensuring that the information and data collected  were relevant, as well as identifying potential new 
sources. He  added that  it was a good idea to review this to improve the effectiveness of the 
Committee's monitoring role.  
26. The repres entative of the European Union  also considered it  important to review the 
IDB Decision  and stated that the EU would part icipate  in the consultations.  
27. The representative of Switzerland  thanked the Chair and the Secretariat for the update. She 
considered  that it would be useful  to have a discussion on the possibility of updating  this decision , 
and noted Switzerland's interest in participating  in the consultations.  
28. The representative of Chinese Taipei  expressed her delegation's  support for the proposal and 
stated that Chinese Taipei would  also like to participate in any future consultations.  
29. The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report and of the statements made.  
5. NOTIFICATIONS PURSUA NT TO THE DECISION O N NOTIFICATION P ROCEDURES 
FOR QUANTITATIVE R ESTRICTIONS (G/L/59/RE V.1, JOB/MA/101/REV.1 ) 
30. The Chairperson  recalled that  the three  issues under this agenda item  were: (i) the 
examination  of notifications received; (ii)  the report from the Secretariat on the "Status of 
Notifications under the Decision on  Notification Procedures for Quantitative Restrictions 
(G/L/59/Rev.1)"; and (iii)  the revised practical guide for the notification of quantitative restrictions 
(QRs), as prepared by the Secretariat.  The Chairperson noted that, since the issuance of the Air gram, 
six new notifications had been received and were being processed by the Secretariat , from Japan; 
Hong Kong, China; Kazakhstan; Thailand; Chinese Taipei; and the United States. These notifications  
would be placed  on the agenda of the Committee's next formal meeting.  
A. Notifications  
31. The Chairperson  indicated  that there were  QR notifications from 11  Members to be review ed. 
She noted that, since the Committee's previous meeting , in April  2018, and including the 
six QR notifications  that were still to be processed, 16  new submissions in total had been received 
by the Secretariat. She was pleased to note that many of these new documents had been submitted 
by Members that had attended the informal capacity building workshop that had taken place in 
April 2018. 
− Argentina  (G/MA/QR/N/ARG/1/Rev.1, G/MA/QR/N/ARG/1/Rev.2 ) 
32. The Chairperson  recalled that, at its previous meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert 
to the notification by Argentina  that had been circulated in document  G/MA/QR/N/ARG/1/Rev.1 . The 
Chairperson noted that, since then, a new notification  had been submitted by Argentina, which  had 
been circulated in document  G/MA/QR/N/ARG/1/Rev.2.  
33. The representative of Switzerland  noted that the notification only contained information 
relating to im port or export prohibition s. As such, Switzerland  considered  this notification to be 
incomplete . For example, it did not give any information on goods subject to non -automatic import 
licences,  even though  Argentina had notified such licences to the WTO.  Switzerland encouraged 
Argentina to add this information to its notification.  G/MA/M/68  
 
- 6 - 
 
  34. The representative of Argentina  thanked Switzerland for its comments and the Secretariat for 
the collaboration that had been given to its experts in Capital who had  submitted this notification. 
In this regard, Argentina  noted that the workshop on quantitative restrictions  had been extremely 
useful and had helped them to make progress with this notification. Argentina further  noted that 
document  G/MA/QR/N/ARG/1/Rev.2  include d some changes  to the previous document , as followed : 
the measures notified in the framework of the TBT  Committee had been  eliminated and the codes 
used in the 2nd column of the document relating to type of restrictions had also been changed. 
Finall y, Argentina  stated  that Switzerland's comments  would be transmitted to Capital for further 
clarification.  
35. The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed  to revert to this notification at 
its next meeting.  
− Brazil (G/MA/QR/N/BRA/1 , G/MA/QR/N/BRA/2 ) 
36. The Chairperson  recalled that the Committee had agreed to revert to the notification by Brazil 
for the periods 2012 –2014 and 2014 –2016. Questions had been raised by Switzerland and the United 
States.  Brazil submitted a new notification for  the period 2016 –2018, which had been circulated in 
document  G/MA/QR/N/BRA/2.  
37. The representative of the United States  thanked Brazil for its updated notification. The 
United  States' understanding  was that Brazil had prohibit ed the importation of colo ured prints for 
theatrical and television markets, which mean t that all films and television shows had to be printed 
locally within Brazil. T his restri ction had not been included in Brazil' s notification. Thus, t he United 
States  asked if Brazil planned to upda te its QR  notification to reflect this import prohibition and its 
justification for the measure.  
38. The representative of Brazil  noted that, as it had informed the Committee at its last meeting, 
its new notification on quantitative restrictions was based on the work of a task force  that had been  
established for this specific purpose, and that it was a work in progress that would incorporate 
suggestions received from the Secretariat and Members, including Switzerland and the United 
States. With regard to the q uestion from the United States, Brazil  would forward it to Capital for 
consideration.  
39. The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed  to revert to this notification at 
its next meeting.  
− Cuba (G/MA/QR/N/CUB/4)  
40. The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new notification from Cuba for the period 
2018-2020.  
41. The Committee took note  of this notification.  
− European Union (G/MA/QR/N/EU/4)  
42. The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new notification from the European Union for 
the period 2018 –2020.  
43. The Committee took note  of this notification.  
− India (G/MA/QR/N/IND/2 ) 
44. The Chairperson  recalled  that India had submitted a new notification for the periods 
2014-2016 and 2016 –2018.  
45. The representative of the European Union  stated that the EU  welcomed the fact that India ha d 
finally submitted its overdue notifications for the periods 2014 –2016 and 2016 –2018. The EU  urged 
other Members with delays likewise  to submit their notifications promptly. With regard to India's 
notification, the EU would  engage bilaterally with India to clarify certain aspects of its notification G/MA/M/68  
 
- 7 - 
 
  and would have an opportunity to revert to a particular quantitative restriction later during the 
meeting.  
46. The representative of the United States  noted that  India had identified,  under QR  No. 65, an 
import prohibition on go ods classified under HS  heading  8517, which include d telephones, cell 
phones, and other apparatus that transmitted  voice, images, and other data.  She asked  if this 
prohibition applie d to all products  classified under HS 8517; if not, the United States  asked India to 
specify which products classified under HS  8517 were subject to the prohibition, and under what 
circumstances . In addition, noting that one of the items on the agenda involve d QRs implemen ted 
by India on certain pulses , although these  were not included in India' s latest notification, the 
United  States  asked  when an updated QR  notification reflecting these restrictions  could be expected.  
47. The representative of India informed Members that his delegation  had submitted notifications  
to the Committee on Import Licensing and the Committee on Market Access . With regard to the 
intervention by the European Union, India welcomed the invitation  to hold bilateral discussions with 
a view to clarifying  certain issues. On the  two iss ues raised by the United States , the first related to 
the coverage of item 65 in India' s QR notification , which entail ed restrictions on certain products 
classified under the HS 8517 . In this regard, he had  taken note of the ques tions and  would forward 
them to Capital for consideration. With regards to  the QRs on pulses , and the request from the 
United States to specify a WTO clause , India informed Members that these measures  were 
temporary.  The representative noted that the provisions governing such measures  as they require d 
legal examination , and that his delegation would revert  back to the Committee on this issue  at a 
later date . 
48. The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed  to revert to this notification at 
its next meeting.  
− Kazakhstan (G/MA/QR/N/KAZ/1)  
49. The Chairperson  recalled that, at its last meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert to the 
notification by Kazakhstan for the period 2016 –2018. Questions had been raised by Ukraine and 
Switzerland.  A new submi ssion by Kazakhstan had been circulated in 
document  G/MA/QR/N/KAZ/1/Corr.1.  
50. The representative of Switzerland  recalled that his delegation  had asked question s to 
Kazakhstan  in April  2018 and that the notification had been amended  accordingly . As a follow -up, 
regarding QR  Number  17 on precious metals, he noted that the WTO  justification provided by 
Kazakhstan  had been GATT  Article  XX(h) and  that, according to this provision , the country must also 
restrict its dom estic production or consumption .  Therefore, Switzerland asked Kazakhstan  which 
restriction s had been  imposed to limit its domestic production or consumption of precious metal s. 
51. The representative of Kazakhstan  asked Switzerland  to submit its question in writing for 
consideration in Capital.  
52. The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed  to revert to this notification at 
its next meeting.  
− Mauritius (G/MA/QR/N/MUS/4)  
53. The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new notification by Mauritius for the period 
2018–2020.  
54. The Comm ittee took note  of this notification.  
− Mexico (G/MA/QR/N/MEX/1/ Rev.1, G/MA/W/126 , G/MA/W/138 ) 
55. The Chairperson  recalled that, at its previous meeting, t he Committee had agreed to revert 
to the notification by  Mexico for the period 2014 –2016. The European Union had submitted  
questions , circulated in document  G/MA/W/126, and Switzerland had raised questions at that 
meeting.  Since then, Mexico had submitted answers to the se questions, which had been circulated 
in document  G/MA/W/138 . G/MA/M/68  
 
- 8 - 
 
  56. The re presentative of the European Union  thanked Mexico for its replies to the EU's questions 
on non-automatic licences, which had been circulated  in May  of that year . The EU  was satisfied with 
the replies and had no further questions . 
57. The Committee took note  of the notification and of the statements made.  
− New Zealand  (G/MA/QR/N/NZL/3 ) 
58. The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new notification by New Zealand  for the period 
2018–2020.  
59. The Committee took note  of this notification.  
− Russian Federation (G/MA/QR/N/RUS/2, G/MA/QR/N/RUS/3, G/MA/W/119)  
60. The Chairperson  recalled that, at its last meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert to 
two notifications from the Russian Federation for the periods 2014 –2016 and 2016 –2018. The 
European  Union had raised qu estions , which had been circulated in document  G/MA/W/119. At the 
Committee's previous meeting, additional questions had been  raised by Ukraine and Switzerland.  
The Russian Federation  had then submitted a new document , which had been circulated as 
document  G/MA/QR/N/RUS/3/Corr.1.  
61. The representative of the European Union  reiterated the EU's concern over the Russian 
Federation's export ban on  raw hides and skins. The EU  noted that the ban had been first introduced 
by Government Decree No . 826 of 19  August  2014, for six  months , and that the measure had been  
presented as temporary . However, the measure had since been renewed several times. The EU  
further noted that the latest measure, Resolution No.  650 of 5  June 2018, had extend ed the ban 
from 10  June to 10 December  2018, meaning that , by December  2018, this ban  would have been in 
force for four -and-a-half years. The EU's understanding, and presumably that of other  Members,  
was that a ban that had been in force for a period of four -and-a-half years could not  be considered 
to be a "temporary  ban" in the sense of GATT  Article  XI(2). Therefore, the EU urged the Russian 
Federation  to put an end to the consecutive renewal of this export ban.  In addition, the EU thanked 
the Russian Federation for its written response of 2016 to the EU's questions contained in 
document  G/MA/W/119 . Nevertheless, the EU would appreciate receiving updated and detailed 
explanations in response to its oral and written questions regardi ng this ban, notably  as concerned 
the following : (i) why hides and skins continue d to be essential to the Russian Federation; (ii)  why 
the Russian Federation  consider ed there  to be a critical shortage  of this product ; (iii) why the Russian 
Federation  considered that the issue c ould best be addressed by a temporary measure, or if, rather, 
a more permanent, WTO -compatible solution  was needed ; and (iv) what the volumes of hides and 
skins that had been produced in  the Russian Federation  were since 2014 , and what the volume that 
had been used by Russian industry was for the same period.  Her delegation  indicated that it would 
appreciate a response at least to these four  questions out of the 19 that had originally been 
submitted.  
62. The representative of Switzerlan d recalled that his delegation  had already asked the Russian 
Federation about several of its restrictions . Switzerland now had a follow -up question that was 
similar to the question asked by Kazakhstan , namely if the Russian Federation  could indicate which 
restrictions  had been imposed with a view to restrict ing its domestic production or consumption of 
precious metal s. 
63. The representative of Ukraine  echoed  the concerns that had been expressed by the E uropean 
Union. Ukraine  noted that the imposition by the Ru ssian Federation of the temporary ban on export 
of leather semi -finished products four  times in a row since 2014 indicated the systemic nature of 
this measure . 
64. The representative of the Russian Federation  thanked delegations for their interest in  Russia's  
notifications , and emphasized that the measures at issue had been  implemented for national defence 
procurement reasons, and that they fully complied with the WTO rules. The Russian Federation  
requested the EU and Switzerland to submit their questions in w ritten form for further consideration.  G/MA/M/68  
 
- 9 - 
 
  65. The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed  to revert to this notification at 
its next meeting.  
− United States (G/MA/QR/N/USA/2, G/MA/QR/N/USA/3, G/MA/W/116, G/MA/W/127)  
66. The Chairperson  recalled that, at its last meeting, t he Committee had agreed to revert to the 
notifications from the United States, which covered the periods 2014 -2016 and 2016 –2018. The 
European Union had circulated questions in documents  G/MA/W/116 and G/MA/W/127.  
67. The representative of the European Union  noted that the EU had registered its concerns over 
trade in sturgeons numerous times  in this Committee. In particular, t he EU  considered that it 
remain ed unclear why the United States consider ed, first,  that wild an d farmed sturgeons and their 
products  were not separate categories, and second, that captive -bred sturgeon and its products  
were considered detrimental to the survival of wild stocks.  The EU  noted that, at past meetings of 
this Committee, the United States  had informed Members about the ongoing reviews carried out by 
the US Fish and Wildlife Service on the listing of sturg eon species as endangered. The EU  requested 
further updates in this regard . 
68. The representative of the United States  answered that  were no updates beyond those had 
been previously reported. She referred the European Union and other Members to the US statement 
made at the Committee's previous meeting , where  a full update of the sturgeon species under review 
by the US  Fish and Wildlife  Service had been  provided. In addition, the United States  expressed its 
willingness  to facilitate a discussion among the relevant authorities , as appropriate.  
69. The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed  to revert to this notification at 
its next meeting.  
B.  REPORT FROM THE SECRETARIAT (G/MA/QR/6)  
70. The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to document  G/MA/QR/6 and its corrigendum , 
entitled "Status of Notifications under the Decision on Notification Procedures for Quantitative 
Restrictions (G/ L/59/Rev.1)". In this document, the Secretariat had summarize d the status of 
notifications as of 28  September  2018. She noted that the Decision on Notification Procedures for 
Quantitative Restrictions provide d that "Members shall make complete notifications of all 
quantitative restrictions in force by 30  September  2012 and at two yearly intervals thereafter". In 
this regard, she noted that although the situation ha d improved slightly , the overall  compliance rate 
remain ed low. The Chairperson urged Members that had never notified, or that had failed to notify 
for the current biennial period (2018 –2020), to comply with this important transparency provision ; 
she also noted that the Secretariat  was available to assi st Members,  if necessary.  
71. The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report . 
C.  PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE NOTIFICATION OF QUANTITATIV E RESTRICTIONS 
(JOB/MA/101/REV.1, JOB/MA/101/ REV.2) 
72. The Chairperson  recalled that , at the Committee's previous formal meeting,  the Secretariat 
had presented a revised version of the practical guide , which had taken on board a number of 
comments made by Members , and which had  been circulated in document  JOB/MA/101/Rev.1 . At 
the request of one  Member, the Chairperson had then encouraged Members to submit additional 
suggestions to the Secretariat. On 2  July 2018, the Secretariat e -mailed the suggestions that had 
been received by one  delegation to all other delegations and, in response, two  other Mem bers had 
contacted the Secr etariat. The Chairperson met with the three  delegations concerned  and, on 
30 July, the Secretariat e -mailed a revised suggestion  to Members . In response  to that 
communication , two  additional delegat ions then also contacted the Secretariat. The Chairperson 
recalled  that the suggestions that had been received were editorial in nature and related to the 
references to  dispute settlement reports. Bearing in mind all of the comments received, and that the 
practical guide  was prepared under the Secretariat's "own responsibility and  was without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO", the text was aligned 
to the type of language that was used by the Secret ariat in its Analytical Index. The revised version 
had been circulated in document  JOB/MA/101/Rev.2.  G/MA/M/68  
 
- 10 - 
 
  73. The Committee took note  of the document . 
6. REPORT BY THE SECRET ARIAT ON  THE S TATUS  OF RENEGOTIATIONS  UNDER 
ARTICLE  XXVIII OF THE GATT  1994 (G/MA/W/123/REV .4) 
74. The Chairperson  drew Members'  attention to th e new revision of the "Factual Report on the 
Status of Renegotiations U nder Article  XXVIII of the GATT  1994". The Chairperson recalled that , at 
the Committee's previous meeting , Ukraine had proposed to modify the factual report to include a 
list of all Members that had submitted claims of interest, instead of simply noting their number. In 
this regard, the Chairperson reported that a small group consultation had been held on 
1 October  2018, but that there had been no consensus on the proposal.  
75. The Committee took note  of the report by the Secretariat . 
7. DRAFT  REPORT (2018 ) OF THE COMMITTEE T O THE C OUNCIL FOR TRADE IN 
GOODS  (CTG)  (G/MA/SPEC /58)  
76. The Chairperson  noted that the Committee  was required annually to submit a report on its 
activities to the CTG. The Chairperson noted that the Secretariat had circulated a draft report 
covering the activities of the Committee during the review period  and that it would update the report 
in light of  the comments made at  the current meeting . 
77. The Committee adopted  the draft report and instructed the Secretariat to update it prior to its 
submission  to the CTG.  
8. REDUCTION OF MFN APP LIED DUTIES – COMMUN ICATION FROM BELIZE 
(G/MA/W/139)  
78. The Chairperson  drew Members ' attention to the communication by Belize in  
document  G/MA/W/ 139, where Belize had informed  Members that it had adjusted the MFN  applied 
rates on certain  products in line with its Schedule of concessions.  
79. The representative of Canada  noted that all Members rec ognize d the importance of the 
TPR process, not just for transparency in terms of the trade policies and measure s in place , but also 
in terms of a Member's self-examination of its own trade policies . Canada  thanked the Secretariat 
for its work and Belize fo r adjusting their tariffs as communicated in this document.  
80. The Committee took note  of the  document  and of the statement  made.  
9. AUSTRALIA –DISCRIMIN ATORY MARKET ACCESS PROHIBITION ON 5G  EQUIPMENT 
– STATEMENT BY CHINA  
81. The Chairperson  noted that this agenda item had been included at the request of China.  
82. The representative of China  stated that , in August  2018, Chinese telecom companies Huawei 
and ZTE , as well as Australian local telecom suppliers , had been  informed by the Secretary of 
Australia's Department of Communications and the Arts that Huawei and ZTE had been prohibited 
from providing 5G  technology to Australia. China  noted that, to date, the prohibition ha d not been 
found in any official document  by Austral ia. China su bmitted that the measu re was: (i) inconsistent 
with GATT  Article  X, Publication and Administration of Trade Regulations , as laws, regulations or 
administrative rulings affecting the sale of import products had not been published promptly and in 
such a manner as to enable govern ments and traders to be come acquainted with them; 
(ii) inconsistent with GATT  Article  XI, General Elimination of Quantitative Restrictions , as the 
prohibition led to QRs on telecom products  imported from China; and (iii)  inconsistent with 
GATT  Article  I, General Most -Favoured -Nation Treatment , as the treatment accorded to China's 
telecom products  was less favoured than the treatment to the like products originating in other 
Members.  Thus, China requested Australia to clarify the legal basis and specific de tails of this 
prohibition in writing , and urged Australia immediately to remove its prohibition on Chinese telecom 
products.  G/MA/M/68  
 
- 11 - 
 
  83. The representative of Australia  thanked China for the opportunity to provide clarification on 
the matters that it had raised.  He began by noting that ongoing and rapid technology changes  were 
having a major impact on the global economy , and that the WTO  Director -General had only recently 
spoke n on this topic , namely how digital technologies  were transforming global commerce, and the 
challenge s and opportunities that this would create. Australia  noted that , just as Members need ed 
to ensure that the WTO's rules and the WTO itself remain ed relevant to the evolving global economy, 
governments also need ed to consider the implications of these technological changes. In this 
context, Australia recognized the opportunities that 5G networks present ed for economy -wide 
transformation. These networks  would enable a new wave of innovation across the economy and  
would  be used to connect other crit ical infrastructure, such as electricity and water. Government 
and business es were increasingly storing and communicating large amounts of information on and 
across telecommunications networks and facilities.  He added that, like other countries, the Austra lian 
Government  was committed to safeguarding its critical national infrastructure, including in the 
telecommunications sector. In  2016, following extensive public consultations, the Australian 
Government had introduced to Parliament a Bill called the "Tel ecommunications and Other 
Legislation Amendment Bill  2016" , which had introduced a regulatory framework to stren gthen the 
security of Australia' s telecommunications networks. As part of the explanatory memorandum 
accompanying the Bill – which  was a matter of public record – it had been highlighted that the 
security and resilience of telecommunications infrastructure significantly affected the social and 
economic well -being of the natio n. The key element of Australia' s telecommunications security 
framework  was a new security obligation: "[a]ll carriers, carriage service providers and carriage 
service intermediaries  would be required to do their best to protect networks and facilities from 
unauthorised access and interference – including a requirement to maint ain 'competent supervision' 
and 'effective control'  over telecommunications networks and facilities owned or operated by them."  
The Australian delegate stated that, to ensure predictability and stability for investors and suppliers, 
and before the new laws had come into effect, the Australian Government had provided security 
guidance regarding 5G  technology and the requirements of the legislative framewor k to the 
companies that  would build this next generation of networks. He submitted  that this security 
guidance had been provided based on careful, objective , and extensive review. In addition, he noted 
that the guidance had relate d exclusively to public 5G  networks and that other networks and uses  
were therefore unaffected. He further noted that Australia ha d not proposed any restriction on the 
importation of equipment  and that the Australian Government' s statement on this security guidance  
was a matter of public record. This guidance ha d provided affected mobile network operators with a 
clear understanding of how their new legal obligations under the telecommunications security 
legislation could be expected to apply as 5G  networks  were developed. Therefore,  Australia 
submitted  that their approach  had been  non-discriminatory as it  had not been targeted at any 
particular country or at suppliers from any particular country , and because the obligations applied 
equally to Australian -owned and foreign -owned carriers.  Australia continue d to welcome foreign 
business involvement in the telecommunications market, which  was essential for the efficient and 
effective operation of Australia' s telecommunications sector, and ha d engaged with relevant 
Members bilaterall y on this issue and  would continue to follow -up in this regard . 
84. The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
10. ENLARGEMENT OF THE E UROPEAN UNION TO INC LUDE CROATIA - NEGOT IATIONS 
UNDER ARTICLE  XXIV:6 OF THE GATT  1994 – STATEMENT BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERAT ION 
(G/SECRET/35/ADD.4)  
85. The Chairperson  noted that this agenda item had been included at the request of the 
Russian  Federation.  
86. The representative of the Russian Federation  noted  that the European Union  had notified, in 
document  G/SECRET/35/Add.2 , of 26  July 2018, the conclusion of its negotiations under 
Articles  XXIV:6 and XXVIII of the GATT  1994, which  related to the modification of concessions in the 
EU Schedule in the framework of its enlargement to include Croatia . However, the Russian 
Federation  did not consider these negotiations to have been concluded because the EU had failed to 
engage into negotiations with WTO  Member s having a principal supplying interest , as required by 
Article  XXVIII:1 of the GATT. As had been  elaborated in its communication, the Russian Federation 
had been recognized by the EU as a principal supplier of certain products. However, despite repeated 
calls on the EU to enter into compensatory adjustment negotiations, the EU had failed to engage in 
discussions with Russia. She recalled that the EU had argued  that that the Russian "communication 
was sent long after the deadline set out in the applicable Procedures for Negotiations under G/MA/M/68  
 
- 12 - 
 
  Article XXVIII of the GATT and, in addition, Russia's letter did not indicate any specific claim, and 
nor did it provide any supporting evidence". In this regard, the Russian Federation  submitted  that 
the principal argument that the EU relied upon in support of its position  was paragraph  4 of the 
Procedures for negotiations under Article  XXVIII of the GATT , but such argument d id not withstand 
criticism. First ly, because paragraph  4 of the Procedures state d that "any contracting party which 
considers that it has a principal or a substantial supplying interest  … should communicate its claim". 
However, she recalled  that it  had not been Russia , but the EU, which had determined the 
Russian  Federation  to be a WTO  Member holding a principal or substantial supplying interest on the 
basis of its import statistics. Second ly, in respect of "Negotiating rights of Ar gentina in connection 
with the renegotiation of oilseed concessions by the European Communities" discussed at the 
GATT  Council meeting held in November  1992: "the Director -General said that 'If the contracting 
party [which intends to negotiate for the modi fication or withdrawal of concessions under 
Article  XXVIII:1] recognizes the claim [of principal or substantial supplying interest], the recognition  
would constitute a determination by the CONTRACTING PARTIES of interest in the sense of 
Article  XXVIII:1'".  The Russian Federation  considered that it  was enough for the two  parties 
concerned to have agreed on this matter for it to constitute a "determination by the CONTRACTING 
PARTIES".  Taking into account that  the Russian Federation  had not challenge d the data that had 
been provided by the EU in its notification, her delegation  submitted that the recognition of the 
Russian Federation  as a principal supplier of certain products in the European Union's notification 
constitute d a "determination by the CONTRACTING PARTIES". Otherwise, the EU would disagree  
with its own data , which  was why paragraph  4 of the Procedures should not be applicable to a case 
where the other Member had not challenge d the data provided  by the Member renegotiating . The 
Russian Federation  indicated that this thesis  was also supported by paragraph  3 of the Procedures , 
which state d that "a t the same time as the notification  is transmitted or as soon as possible […] the 
contracting party [intending to negotiate for the modification of concessions] should communicate 
to those contracting parties, with which concessions were initially negotiated, and those which had 
a principal supplying interest, the compensatory adjustments which it  was prepared to offer". Thus, 
the Russian Federation  considered  that paragraph  3 of the Procedures provide d for the possibility of 
simultaneous transmission of import statistics and compensatory adjustment proposal. Also, 
paragraph  3 of the Procedures  did not contain any reference  to paragraph  4 of the Procedures with 
the view of the determination of WTO  Members holding a principal supplying interest. Third ly, the 
Procedures d id not establish rigid obligations. She clarified that t his was not Russia's view , but an 
interpretation supported by the pr eparatory work of these Procedures and by the Panel in  EC – 
Poultry Meat . By contrast,  Article  XXVIII:1 of the GATT and paragraph  4 of the Ad Note to 
Article  XXVIII:1 of the GATT establish ed obligations to negotiate with a WTO Member having a 
principal sup plying interest . It was unclear to her delegation  how, in the view of the EU, the 
guidelines would  supersede the obligations established by the provisions of the GATT, as well as how 
a WTO  Member, determined by the contracting parties as a principal supplier of certain products, 
could be deprived of its rights under Article  XXVIII of the GATT. It appear ed that the EU had violate d 
Article  XXVIII:1 of the GATT by not entering into negotiations  with Russia. Thus, the Russian 
Federation  object ed to the conclusion of the EU  negotiations under Articles  XXIV:6 and XXVIII of the 
GATT and called upon the  EU to engage in compensatory adjustment negotiations with Russia.  
87. The representative of the Europe an Union  confirmed that her delegation had informed 
Members about  the conclusion and outcome of the n egotiations following Croatia' s accession to the 
EU, in document  G/SECRET/35/Add.2, pursuant to paragraph  5 of the Guidelines on Procedures  for 
Negotiation s under Article  XXVIII.  The outcome of the Article  XXIV:6 process  would be faithfully 
reflected in the EU -28 Schedule  CLXXV , which  was undergoing the process of certification , and which 
would soon be circulate d with a list of rectifications as part of this process. In addition, the EU 
pointed out that the indication of a WTO  Member as principal supplier in a 
GATT  Article  XXIV:6/XXVIII notification does not constitute an automatic recognition of a right for 
that WTO  Member to obtain compensation. Some principal suppliers make a claim, others do not. 
The notifying Member then enters into negotiations/consultations with those Members that had 
submitted a claim in conformity with the procedures and within the deadlines app licable under 
WTO rules, with a view to identifying if there  existed an entitlement for compensation. Therefore, 
the EU  reiterated that it had extensively and repeatedly explained, orally and in writing, the reasons 
for not having accepted the compensation  claims of the Russian Federation in the context of the 
EU's most recent enlargement.  
88. The representative of Japan  shared the concerns of the Russian Federation  over the EU's draft 
schedule. Japan expect ed the European Union appropriately to reflect the results of the consultations 
with other Members in its draft schedule and to finalize it without delay.  G/MA/M/68  
 
- 13 - 
 
  89. The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
11. THE EUROPEAN UNION – RENEGOTIATION OF TAR IFF RATE QUOTAS UNDE R 
ARTICLE  XXVIII OF TH E GAT T 1994 – STATEMENT BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATI ON 
(G/SECRET/42/ADD.1)  
90. The Chairperson  noted that this agenda item had been included at the request of the 
Russian  Federation.  
91. The representative of the Russian Federation  recalled  that the EU had notified , in 
document  G/SECRET/42 , of 24 July 2018, its intention to enter into negotiations under Article  XXVIII 
of the GATT  1994. The Russian Federation  expressed concern over  the trade statistics that had been 
submitted by the EU , which include d imports to the EU fr om the regional trade agreement partners 
and countries and territories that were not WTO Members. The Russian Federation  consider ed that 
these trade statistics  were not consistent with the concept of Principal Supplying Interest and 
Substantial Interest within the meaning of Article  XXVIII of the GATT  1994. First, as had been 
elaborated in the communication by the Russian Federation , only WTO  Members having a principal 
or substantial supplying interest could obtain the right to enter into compensatory adjus tment 
negotiations. The countries and territories that were not Members of the WTO could not participate 
in these negotiations. The Russian Federation  expressed concern over the fact that , by including 
countries and territories that were not WTO  Members in  the EU's data, which serve d as the starting 
point for the negotiation process, would  distort the negotiating rights of WTO  Members.  Second, the 
Russian Federation  noted that, according to paragraph  3 of the Understanding on the I nterpretation 
of Article  XXVIII of the GATT  1994, "in the determination of which Members have a principal 
supplying interest […] or substantial interest, only trade in the affected product which has taken 
place on an MFN  basis shall be taken into consideration". However,  the data that had been submitted 
by the EU contained  also data on imports from territories enjoying preferential treatment , which 
may unfairly be harming the negotiating rights of other WTO  Members. The Russian Federation  
stated that , in its view, the EU's calculat ions should be based on total imports  excluding those 
originating from the EU  Regional Trade Agreement partners and countries and territories that were 
not WTO Members , thus  reflect ing the concept of Principal Supplying Interest and Substantial 
Interest. Therefore, the Russian Federation  requested the EU to adjust its import data in accordance 
with the concept of Principal Supplying Interest and Substantial Interest provided for under 
Article  XXVIII of the GATT , as well as under paragraph  3 of the Understa nding on the interpretation 
of Article  XXVIII of the GATT.  
92. The representative of New Zealand  registered his delegation 's interest in this matter.  
New Zealand had expressed concern, at the general level,  over the EU 's proposal to reduce its bound 
tariff rate quota commitments in this way and, at the more detailed level, about the methodology 
and data provided by the EU , including identified errors  that were still awaiting a response. The EU  
was proposing to modify comm itments that covered a significant part of its trade in agricultural 
products. Consequently , New Zealand considered this  to be a matter of systemic and general 
importance to the WTO  Membership . In addition , New Zealand noted that the EU 's proposal did not 
in any way address the EU 's future obligations towards the UK , with whom the EU maintained a 
significant level of bilateral trade. New Zealand requested the  EU to provide a more comprehensive 
and specific set of trade data in relation to its trade under WTO MFN terms , as such a process 
require d. 
93. The representative of Japan  stated that her delegation also had  a significant interest in this 
issue from the point of view of the impact that the apportionment of tariff rate quotas ( TRQs) would 
have on actual tr ade. Japan considered  it important that all trade statistics provided by the EU  were 
appropriate to allow for a correct analysis. Japan echoed the concerns voiced by the Russian 
Federation  on this issue. Japan requested the EU to provide a detailed explana tion of whether or not 
the import data of the global TRQ s attached to the draft EU  schedule include d data from the bilateral 
FTA with the EU or import data that exceed ed the TRQ  quantitative threshold s. In this regard, Japan 
requested  the EU to  provide , for example,  an explanatory note regarding the import statistics that 
include d its responses to Members' concerns. Japan expected  the EU to provide follow -up information 
as soon as possible because the EU's deadline for the submission of claims was approac hing. 
Moreover, Japan asked why the EU  draft schedule had not include d a clarification on the reductio n 
of its Aggregate Measure of Support ( AMS) while the UK  draft schedule did show the UK  share of 
AMS. In addition , she pointed out that the EU ha d been us ing different amendment procedures 
concerning their  TRQs and AMS.  Finally, Japan emphasized the importance of finalizing the draft G/MA/M/68  
 
- 14 - 
 
  EU schedule soon after Brexit in order to ensure  legal stability under the WTO  Agreement ; indeed, 
Japan  considered  it important that there be a high level of transparency in all future processes 
relating to this issue.  
94. The representative of Canada  registered  his delegation's  interest in this  matter. Canada had 
questions regarding the approach that the EU ha d taken to modi fy its WTO  commitments concerning  
TRQs. In particular, Canada had questions regarding the methodology as well as the data  that had 
been used to determine the apportionment of TRQs. He considered that there  had been  a lack of 
certainty with regard to whether or not post-Brexit UK  trade  would be eligible for 
EU WTO MFN quotas.  
95. The representative of Uruguay  also registered Uruguay's  interest in this  topic. Uruguay 
highlighted the importance of clarify ing any discrepancies in the information provided concerning  
statistics.  
96. The representative of Australia  registered  his delegation's strong interest in this issue as an 
exporter of agricultural products covered by TRQs in the EU. Australia shared  the concerns that had 
been raised abo ut the data provided by  the EU  to enter into Article  XXVIII negotiations. Australia 
also expressed its concerns over the data in Annex  3 of the notification , because  of the following : 
(i) preferential trade from WTO  Members with arrangements with the EU that had been included ; 
(ii) imports for countries that  were not W TO Members  that had been included ; (iii) data not supplied 
for the actual "erga omnes " TRQs that the EU  was proposing to modify ; and (iv)   import data  being 
only for the EU27, which meant that the EU ha d excluded the UK from its import data . Australia  
considered t hat these issues skew ed the data and made it difficult to make a claim of interest  in 
certain circumstances. Australia  expected the EU to ensure  that the "value"  of its existing market 
access  was maint ained, not just the total "volume"  of existing TRQs.  Australia further submitted that 
the proposed modifications to tariff quotas  would lead to economic loss by removing flexibility as to 
where product s were sent year -to-year and by making some quota allocations too small to be 
commercially viable. Australia concluded by noting that it would  submit a claim of interest to the EU.  
97. The representative of United States  expressed  her delegation 's concern over the ac curacy of 
the data that had been provided by the EU. Her delegation believed  that the EU  apportionment 
proposal, as it stood , did not reflect commercial realities and  would result in a loss of market access 
for the United States.  The United States  apprecia ted the information that had been provided by the 
EU and look ed forward to submitting its claim of interest soon and to engaging directly with the EU.  
98. The representative of Brazil  noted that his delegation was currently reviewing  the data that 
had been provided by the EU regarding the process of renegotiation of TRQs under Article  XXVIII. 
In order to react to the EU 's proposal to change its commitments, Brazil would need a more detailed 
set of trade data , which reflect ed the distribution of trade for the  TRQs under negotiation. More 
specifically, given that Members  were invited to submit claims of interest per TRQ , and the trade 
data that had been provided refer red to tariff lines, Brazil submitted that the task of identifying 
negotiating rights had becom e unfeasible. Moreover, Brazil further submitted that the EU  statistics 
include d trade that ha d taken place not only on an MFN  but also on a non -MFN basis, which  was not 
in conformity with the provisions of p aragraph  3 of the Understanding on the I nterpret ation of 
Article  XXVIII . Brazil also noted that the draft schedule that had been used by the EU as a reference 
for negotiations under Article  XXVIII had not been certified. Therefore, despite considering valid the 
negotiations based on tha t schedule , Brazil reserved the right to refer to the EU  certified 
Schedule  CLXXIII.  
99. The representative of Thailand  also registered his country's interest in this  important  issue in 
light of Thailand's  numerous trade ties with the European Union. He  stated that Thaila nd looked 
forward to receiving more fully comprehensive and complete information  from the EU. 
100.  The representative of Colombia  indicated that his delegation  wished also to record its interest 
in this matter. Colombia  considered it important to receive more details with regard to  the sources 
and methodology of th e statisti cal database  that had been  circulated to the M embership , as well as 
on the information on the use of TRQs that had also been circulated.  G/MA/M/68  
 
- 15 - 
 
  101.  The representative of Argentina  record ed his del egation's  interest in this matter.  Argentina 
believed that it was necessary to be given greater clarity as concerned the statistics that were going 
to be used throughout this procedure.  
102.  The representative of Mexico  also placed on record her country's interest in this issue. Mexico 
was following with great attention  and in detail  the questions and concerns that had been presented 
by Members  regarding the methodology and data presented. Mexico concluded that  it expect ed the 
European Union t o submit new information very soon.  
103.  The representative of China  expressed her delegation's  significant interest in this issue and 
share d the questions and concerns of other Members regarding the  EU's data and methodology.  
104.  The representative of India noted his delegation 's significant interest in the EU's methodology. 
His Capital  was working on  this issue and would be submitting its concerns to the EU  in due course . 
105.  The representative of Cuba also noted Cuba's interest in this matter ; its concerns had already 
been transmitted to the EU.  
106.  The representative of the European Union  answered by pointing  out that the title of the 
communication  by the Russian Federation was misleading as it refer red to the enlargement of the 
EU and Article  XXIV:6  negotiations, which  was not the subject of the communication . With regard 
to the subject of the communication  itself, the EU recalled  that it had notified WTO  Members of its 
intention to modify the concessions on all its tariff -rate quotas , as a consequence of the upcoming 
withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union,  in document  G/SECRET/42. The EU 
would carefully anal yse any claims submitted by Members and carry out the ensuing consultations 
and negoti ations with the appropriat e Members in full conformity with its WTO  obligations. With 
regard to the point that had been made in the communication from the Russian Federation on the 
certification of the EU -28 schedule not yet being completed, the EU agreed  that the schedule  had 
not yet been certified . However, this did not prevent the EU from modifying its presently existing 
commitments under the procedures of Article  XXVIII. The EU invited Members to share their 
statements or questions in writing.  
107.  The Committee took note  of the stat ements made.  
12. RECTIFICATIONS AND M ODIFICATIONS OF SCHE DULE  XIX-UNITED KINGDOM – 
STATEMENT BY THE RUS SIAN FEDERATION  
108.  The Chairperson  noted that this agenda item had been included at the request of the 
Russian  Federation.  
109.  The representative of Russian Federation  referred to the document of the United Kingdom, 
document  G/MA/TAR/RS/570 of 24  July 2018, which contained  the draft UK  schedule of concessions 
and commitments. The Russian Federation  understood  that the Brexit process  was complicated, 
complex , and broad in scope, and considered it  necessary to find a mutually acceptable solution to 
ensure the effective implementation and en forcement of the United Kingdom' s rights and obligations 
under the WTO  system.  First, the Russian Federation  found it  unclear  how the draft UK  schedule 
could  be based on a draft EU  schedule that had not yet been certified. While it appe ared logical, in 
drafting its s chedule , that the UK had to rely upon the EU 's WTO Schedule , the Russian Federation 
was nevertheless concerned about the possibility of replicati ng possible errors from the EU 's schedule 
when undertaking the certification  of the UK schedule . The Russian Federation  objected to the 
EU proposal for modifications to its schedule because of pending compensator y adjustme nt 
negotiations in the context of the EU's enlargement to include Croatia. She further noted that the 
resolution of  the issue of certification of the EU 's schedule seem ed to be pivotal in order to proceed 
with the UK schedule. Second, in Russia's  view, the changes that had been proposed by the UK in 
its draft schedule  were not of a  "purely formal character" and could not  be considered in the context 
of procedures for re ctification provided for under p aragraph  2 of the Procedures for Modification a nd 
Rectification of Schedule of Tariff Concessions of 26  March  1980. The Russian Federation  considered 
that the market access conditions that had been proposed by the UK , for example . tariff-rate quotas , 
were different from those currently applicable by the EU under its WTO  commitments. The Russian 
Federation considered that the United Kingdom ha d undertaken to  comply with the 
EU WTO commitments entirely and not partially. Thus,  the Russian  Federation considered that the G/MA/M/68  
 
- 16 - 
 
  eliminatio n of tariff -rate quotas for a number of products in the UK  draft s chedule, which  were 
currently subject to EU TRQs, appear ed to be inconsistent with Article  XXVIII of the GATT. The 
Russian Federation also noted the allocation of a separate share of quota t o certain WTO  Members, 
which was in contrast to the original countr y-specific allocation in the EU' s Schedule. Th e Russian 
Federation highlighted  that the legal basis for the UK introducing newly formatted tariff -rate quota s 
in its d raft schedule remai ned unclear. The Russian  Federation submitted that t hese modifications 
appear ed to be inconsistent with Article  XXVIII and Article  XIII of the GATT. The decrease or 
elimination of quota shar es for "Other"  WTO Members or erga omnes  constitute d a less favourabl e 
treatment when compared to the Russian Federation's  current access to the UK  market a s part of 
the EU  market. For example, other Members' share s in the quota " Common  wheat (medium and low 
quality)"  had decreased by almost 10%, while the erga omnes  sub-quota had been  eliminated. This 
situation represent ed a substantial deterioration of market access and not a replication of 
concessions and commitments, as had been claimed by the UK. Also, the Russian Federation  
considered that this  appear ed to be inconsist ent with Articles  I:1 and XIII of the GATT. In addition, 
the allocation of quota s among a few countries appear ed to be inconsistent with Article  XI:1 as well 
as Article  XIII:2 of the GATT, because t he absence of the other Members'  share in the quota 
represented a de-facto prohibition of market access for third  countries. Overall, the UK proposals 
resemble d a withholding or withdrawing of concessions rather the procedures for rectifications. For 
these reason s, the Russian Federation objected  to the pro posed rectifications and modifications of 
the UK  draft schedule . The Russian Federation concluded by noting its understanding that all 
modifications to the UK  schedule must be made based on the authorization of all WTO Members, as 
required by Article  XXVII I:4 of the GATT, and by negotiation and agreement with all interested 
WTO Members. The Russian Federation concluded that s uch negotiations  were indispensable 
because the proposed UK  modifications, as stated above, d id not per se  constitute a technical  change 
of purely formal character.  
110.  The representative of Australia  expressed his delegation's  strong interest in this issue as an 
exporter of agricultural products falling within tariff quota s in the  UK. Australia expected  the UK to 
ensure that the "value" of existing market access  was maintained, not just the total "volume" of 
existing TRQs. Australia stated that the proposed modifications to tariff quotas  would lead to an 
economic loss, by removing flexibility where a product had been  sent year -to-year and by making 
some quota allocations too small to be commercially viable. Australia look ed forward to working with 
the UK to constructively resolve these concerns . 
111.  The representative of New Zealand  registered his delegation' s interest in this matter. 
New Zealand expressed concern over the approach that had been proposed by  the EU for 
determining its own trade commitments post -Brexit , as this approach would result in substantial 
reductions in the quantity and quality of market  access commitments, especially with regard to TRQs 
and AM S commitments for domestic support. New Zealand noted that the UK  proposal d id not 
identify how the EU would be treated in the UK's market access commitments. New Zealand further 
noted that these  were matters of general and systemic concern , as well as of specific commercial 
concern for his country. New Zealand look ed forward to further dialogue with the UK on these issues 
with the aim of identifying mutually acceptable ways forward.  
112.  The represent ative of Japan  expressed her delegation's  significant interest in this issue and 
Japan was currently analysing  the draft UK  schedule. Her delegation understood  that the 
apportionment of the UK's TRQs  was based on the import statistics included in the draft  EU schedule , 
so it requested the UK , in parallel with the EU , to provide an explanation of the import statistics that 
had been  used when apportioning TRQ s. Regarding AMS, Japan stated that the information that  was 
the basis for drafting the schedule, such  as the calculation methodology of AMS,  was required  for a 
correct analysis.  Furthermore, Japan requested information about the specific data that had been 
used to support the AMS  calculations. Japan emphasized the importance of finalizing the draft 
UK schedule soon after Brexit to ensure stability under the WTO  Agreement and a high level of 
transparency in the future process relating to this issue.  
113.  The representative of Uruguay  placed on the record the significant interest of his country  in 
this matter.  In particular, Uruguay expressed its concern over the statistics provided and the 
methodologies  used. 
114.  The representative of the United States  thanked the Russian Federation for including this item 
on the agenda and recalled that her delegation  had express ed, over the past several months, its 
deep concern over not having had the opportunity to negotiate directly with the UK over its future G/MA/M/68  
 
- 17 - 
 
  schedule of concessions. Under the current UK  proposal, the United States would lose market access 
in key sectors in th e event of a hard Brexit and this would be unacceptable. The United  States urged 
the UK to move quickly in determining how to res olve this issue with the United  States and other 
Members. Finally, the United States considered that Brexit should not result i n a loss of market 
access that had been  established through previous negotiated outcomes.  
115.  The representative of Canada  registered his delegation's  interest in the matter. Canada noted 
that its concerns  were similar to those  that had been raised under the previous item but wished 
nevertheless to highlight two  aspects. First, Canada was concerned over the TRQ  volumes that had 
been established in the UK 's draft schedule , because many of these  were not commercially viable. 
Second, Canada was concerned  about the methodology that had been proposed by the UK for its 
domestic support commitments. Canada looked  forward to continuing the discussions and informed 
the EU that it would be submitting a claim of interest in the following  days. 
116.  The representative of Brazil noted that, as had been discussed bilaterally with the UK, his 
delegation had reservations regarding th e certification of its s chedule because the proposal 
contained  substantial modifications of WTO concessions. Brazil considered that one possible 
alternative to facilitate the certification processes  would be the replication of  the EU's schedule, 
which could then be used as a basis for a subsequent renegotiation under Article  XXVIII. In case the 
UK chose to proceed with the current certification pro cess, Brazil would require, as stated in the 
previous item, more detailed trade data correctly to assess the consequences of the proposed 
changes.  
117.  The representative of Thailand  registered his delegation's interest in this issue and reported  
that they  were currently reviewing the UK 's draft  schedule.  
118.  The representative of China  noted her delegation's significant interest in this issue. Her Capital  
was currently reviewing the UK 's draft  schedule and would claim its interest on this issue in due 
course . 
119.  The representative of Mexico  placed on record its interest in this matter. Mexico was following 
with great care the presentation made and comments made by other Members vis-à-vis the statistics 
and data provided. Mexico further shared Members' interest in the issue of the terms used for 
calculating the AMF.  
120.  The representative of Guatemala  also placed on record its interest  in this  matter  and expressed 
concern over the process of Brexit. Guatemala's  concern  was based primarily on how Members' 
rights and comm itments  would be ensured, as well as clarity with regard to the treatment of the EU 
of UK  TRQs and AMS. 
121.  The representative of El Salvador  also placed  on the record  El Salvador's  interest . El Salvador 
considered that any  change in the UK's Schedule of concessions should be negotiated with those 
Members having a trade interest in the matter. Furthermore, El Salvador agreed on the need to 
maintain the current level of market access and not to negatively affect the trade interest s of the 
UK's trading partners. Finally, El Salvador expressed its wish to continue its discussion of  this issue 
with UK in order to find balanced and beneficial solutions acceptable to all parties.  
122.  The representative of Honduras  also recorded its delegation's interest in this matter. 
123.  The representative of Costa Rica  also placed on record his delegation's  interest in this issue 
and expressed Costa Rica's  readiness to work with  the UK throughout this entire process.  
124.  The representative of Argentina  also placed on record its interest in this issue and reiterated 
Argentina's concern over the statistical data provided and methodology used during this procedure.  
125.  The representative of Colombia  also placed on record its interest in this matter  and noted, in 
particular , the impo rtance of maintaining the same level of market access throughout the Brexit 
process. Colombia also stood ready to work with the UK on this issue. 
126.  The representative of Nicaragua  stated Nicaragua's interest  in this issue.  G/MA/M/68  
 
- 18 - 
 
  127.  The representative of Ecuador  recorded her delegation's interest  in this matter. Ecuador had 
an interest to maintain its current market access and to ensure that the  UK continued to comply 
with the commitments that it had undertaken  as a member of the EU also after Brexit. Finally, 
Ecuador stood ready to discuss this issue with the UK.  
128.  The representative of the European Union  recalled  that, in view of the United Kingdom's 
upcoming exit from the European Union, the UK had submitted a draft schedule of concessions and 
commitments under Article  II of the GATT  1994 for certification, pursuant to p aragraph  3 of the 
Decision on Procedures for Modification and Rectification of Schedules of Tariff Concessions of 
26 March  1980, the so -called "1980  Procedures" (BISD 27S/25). The draft schedule  was contained 
in document  G/MA/TAR/RS/570. The EU could not  respond to a question on the UK' s proposed goods 
schedule, which  would apply only when the EU  schedule stop ped applying to the UK , as had been 
set out in document  G/MA/TAR/RS/570 . The EU invited the Russi an Federation to follow the practice 
elaborated under the 1980  procedures f or its consideration of the UK  draft schedule. The EU 
understood that the Russian Federation  had already engaged in bilateral conversations with the 
United Kingdom regarding the UK  goods schedule and invited o ther Members to do the same . 
129.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
13. INDIA - CUSTOMS DUTI ES ON TELECOMMUNICAT ION AND OTHER PRODUC TS – 
STATEMENTS BY CANADA, C HINA, THE EUROPEAN UNION, JAPA N, NORWAY, CHINESE 
TAIPEI, AND THE UNITED S TATES (G/MA/W/120, G /MA/W/128)  
130.   The Chairperson  recalled that this agenda item had been included at the request of Canada, 
China, the European  Union, Japan, Norway,  Chinese Taipei, and the United  States. Some of these 
Members submitted ques tions to India, circulated in document  G/MA/W/120, and to which India had 
replied in document  G/MA/W/128.  
131.  The representative of the United States  considered it  unfortunate that her delegation had yet 
again to raise the issue of India's tariff increases on telecommunications and ICT  products. However, 
she noted that, rather than responding to concerns that had been raised by the US and numerous 
other Members, India had undertaken additional concerning actions. Two weeks ago, India had 
submitted a proposed rectification and modification of its WTO  Schedule  XII, in 
document  G/MA/TAR/RS/572 , to unbind several concessions relating to subheadings in Chapters  84 
and 85.  After careful review, the United States believed that  the proposed modifications would 
adverse ly affect the scope of concessions in respect of the goods concerned and, as such, these 
could not  be considered rectifications. Thus, in the US' view, the proposed modifications  were not 
within the terms of paragraph  2 of the 1980  Procedures. The United S tates had formally r egistered 
its objection to India' s proposed rectification on 3 October  2018. Additionally , the United  States ha d 
serious systemic concerns with India' s proposed rectification: the very work of this Committee  was 
based on the foundation that, with each set of HS  nomenclature changes, Members undert ook the 
necessary technical work and multilatera l review to ensure that each Members'  tariff concessions 
remain ed unchanged . This rectification suggest ed otherwise and could have a very significant impact 
on the very nature and meaning of WTO  binding tariff commitments. The United Stat es further 
indicated that India' s proposed rectification include d many products in which India ha d WTO binding 
commitments to provide duty -free access  as per Schedule  XII, as had been the subject of discussion 
in previous meetings of the Committee as well as of the CTG. The United States noted that, as had 
been raised by numerous other Members  numerous  times in this Committee and at the CTG, there  
were obvious discrepancies  between India' s WTO  bound commitments to provide duty -free access 
to certain products, and the non -zero import duties that India  was actually charging imported 
products at the border. The United States found  it deeply troubling that India would suggest that 
these discrepancies could somehow be justified through a proposed schedule rectification.  
132.  The representative of Japan , together with th e other co -sponsors, expressed  concern over the 
issues relating to India's customs duties on ICT  products. Japan had raised this issue many times , 
including  at the last meeting, at the ITA Committee , and at the CTG . It was regrettable that the 
situation had not yet improved.  Japan touched upon two  points. First, Japan understood that , under 
India's WTO  bound schedule, mobile phones ( HS8517.12) and their parts ( HS8517.70)  were 
classified as zero  duty goods at the six -digit level. However, as a result of a series of duty increases 
made by India's customs notifications and fi nance bill, mobile phones had been subjected to 
20% customs duties and mobile phone parts had been subjected to 15%  customs duties . Japan 
recognized  that the series of duty increases made by India clearly violate d India's binding G/MA/M/68  
 
- 19 - 
 
  commitment and therefore had serious commercial and systemic concerns about this situation. 
Japan urged India immediately to withdraw the tariff raises on the ICT  products in question. Pursuant 
to India's suggestion, Japan and India ha d been holding technical meetings ; nevertheless,  Japan 
had still not yet received any official response from India regarding the questionnaire on legal issues 
sent in April  2018. In this regard, Japan requested India to provide an official response. Second, 
Japan's understanding  was that In dia had provided the proposal "rectification and modification of 
schedule (G/MA/TAR/RS/572)" on 25  September  2018. She stated that Japan  could not accept 
India's unilateral action to rectify its binding commitment and reported  that Japan  was actively 
considering  submit ting an official objection.  Japan believed that the intended scope of India's request 
for rectification  was unclear and contained  changes based on an uncertain basis. Hence, Japan 
requested  India to provide to Members a more detailed explanation.  
133.  The representative of China  noted that India had increased its applied rates on mobile phones 
and related parts since last year, and that some increases had exceeded India's bound rates in the 
WTO. China considered that this was inconsistent  with the ITA and Article  II of the GATT , Schedules 
of Concessions. China also noted that India  had recently  circulated a communication requesting the 
rectification of its HS2007  Schedule on certain ITA products. China was of the view that these 
products  were within the scope of the ITA -1, and that India's measures  were inconsistent with its 
commitment under the ITA and in its WTO  Schedule. China urged India promptly to withdraw the 
customs duties on the products  in question and to abid e by its WTO  bound rates.  
134.  The representative of the European Union  noted that India's excessive applied tariffs on certain 
ICT products ha d been on the agenda of the Market Access Committee, the ITA  Committee , and the 
CTG for several years now. The EU further noted that, since 2014, India had progressively increased 
its customs duties on ICT  products, most recently in the context of the Union budget for year 
2018-2019. In the EU 's view, India's increased duty r ates affect ed imports of products such as 
mobile phones, mobile phone components , and accessories such as static converters, base stations, 
or certain printers.  The EU stated that these import duties constitute d prima facie violations of India's 
WTO commit ments to the extent that the tariff lines in question  were subject to duty -free 
commitments in India's GATT  Schedule of Concessions. The EU recalled that on several occasions, 
in a bilateral meeting (28 July 2018), at WTO  meetings (the latest being the CTG  meeting  of 
3 July 2018) , and via several official letters, including Commissioner Malmström's letter of 
May 2018, the EU had raised the issue of basic customs duties on products which the EU considered 
to have been bound at zero in India's GATT  schedule, and which  were covered by  the ITA-1, to which 
India was a party . The EU once more called upon India to reconsider these duty impositions or 
increases, which in the case of ICT  products contradicted India's WTO  commitments. The EU noted 
that the ICT  product s were also the subject of India's  draft re ctification of its Schedule of 
Concessions, com municated to WTO  Members on 25 September  2018. The EU stated that, after 
careful assessment, it believed that the proposed changes in India's Schedule would alter the  scope 
of India's concessions on the goods concerned and that  the tariff lines in the draft re ctification 
correspond ed to India' s commitments in the framework of ITA -1, the modification of its Schedule in 
1996, and the successive evolution to the HS2002 an d HS 2007  nomenclatures.  Consequently , the 
EU considered that this draft rectification  did not represent a change of purely formal character but, 
rather, that it would alter the scope of India' s ITA-1 and GATT  1994 commitments.  Finally, the EU 
had already objected in writing to the certification of India's  draft rectification as it  was not within 
the terms of paragraph  2 of the Decision of 1980 on the Procedures for Modification and Rectification 
of Schedules of Tariff Concessions.  
135.  The representati ve of Canada  expressed Canada's  continued disappointment that, despite the 
concern s already  raised by WTO  Members in this Committee , as well as at the CTG and the 
ITA Committee , India had maintained tariffs on ICT  products above its bound commitments.  Canada 
noted that the application of tariffs above India's  bound rates on a broader range of ICT  products  
remain ed inconsistent with India' s WTO  commitments and r an contrary to the objectives of 
multilateral tariff liberalization.  Canada continued to have  both systemic and commercial concerns 
with India's decision to introduce tariffs on ICT  products in excess of its WTO  bound commitments. 
India's attempt to address this situation by unbinding its commitments through a notification of 
rectification and mod ification of schedules of tariff concessions had only exacerbate d Canada's 
concerns. Canada concluded by noting that it did not accept : (i) India's justification for applying 
tariffs above its bound commitments and (ii) India seeking to modify its bound co mmitments. 
Canada called upon India once again to immediately rescind its tariff increases and to refrain from 
pursuing any further tariff increases above its WTO  commitments.  G/MA/M/68  
 
- 20 - 
 
  136.  The r epresentative of Chinese Taipei  shared the concerns that had been expressed  by other 
Members regarding the recent proposed rec tification and modification of S chedule  XII by India 
(document  G/MA/TAR/RS/572) . Chinese Taipei recalled  that, according to document  JOB/MA/108, 
the methodologic al note  by the Secretariat on the HS2007  transposition referred to heading  8486. 
For example, subheading  848610 in HS2007 shall include many ITA  items under HS2002, such as 
842119 and 845610, with zero  tariff rate . However, in Appendix  2 of India's proposal, the bound 
rate of duty for certain ICT  products at issue had been  changed to unbound. It noted that the 
unbound rate s for 848610 and its tariff subheadings , including 848620, 848630, 8 48640 and 
848690, in Appendix  2 were not correct.  Therefore, Chinese Taipei submitted that these changes 
could  not be considered rectifications of a purely formal character, as in the WTO  Procedures for 
Modification and Rectification of Schedules of Tariff Concessions ( document  L/4296), as they would 
affect the scope of India's concessions.  Finally,  Chinese Taipei noted that its C apital  was preparing 
an official letter of objection.  
137.  The representative of the Republic of Korea  also expressed concern over the lack of progress 
on this issue. Korea requested India to pay more attention to the seriousness  of this issue and to 
give duty -free access to any goods in line with  India's previous commitment , including its 
commitments made in ITA -1 negotiations.  
138.  The representative of Norway  recalled that his delegation  had been one of the delegations 
that had aske d for this item to be included on  the agenda. Norway echoed the concerns of other 
proponent s. This issue was important both from an economic and a systemic point of view. Finally , 
Norway considered that the latest development  regarding India's notification  had apparently only 
further aggravate d the situation.  
139.  The representative of Thailand  shared the concerns that had been raised by other delegations. 
Thailand reiterated that it had commercial interests in the products in question. Thailand urged India 
to align all its tariffs to its binding commitments . Thailand  would continue to monitor this matter 
closely.  
140.  The representative of Australia  echoed the concerns that had been raised by others regarding 
the modification of India's tariffs beyond its bound rates  and recalled  that this issue had been on the 
agenda of the CMA and ITA  Committee for some time. There was a  systemic interest in ensuring 
that WTO Members upheld their tariff commitments and the basic principles of the WTO Agreement. 
Australia called upon  India to amend its tariff increases and to refrain from pursuing any further 
tariff increases above its WTO  bound commitments.  
141.  The representative of Switzerland  noted that his delegation shared the concerns of other 
Members regarding the duty treatment of certain telecommunication s equipment in India . 
Switzerland recalled that this issue had been raised several occasi ons in this Committee  as well as 
at the ITA and the CTG. The situation had not changed. On the contrary, Switz erland considered  
that the latest development seem ed only to raise additional concerns . Thus, Switzerland  called upon  
India to  change the applied duties  in question  and to abide by its WTO  commitments.  
142.  The representative of  New Zealand  echoed the concerns that had been raised by other 
Members and registered New Zealand's ongoing systemic interest in this issue.  
143.  The representative of India thanked delegations for their continued interest in India' s customs 
duty regime on certain telecommunication s and other products.  India summarized  that Members 
had intervened to raise concerns relative to : (i) the imposition of customs duties and its increase on 
non-ITA and alleged ITA -1 products, particularly in the budget 2018 -2019 and thereafter; (ii)  India's 
views on the WTO  compatibility of the measure under ITA -1, including its commitment as available 
in the HS2007  Schedule notified to the WTO; (iii)  China sought to know India's views on the 
transposition  of cellular phones under HS96 versus HS2007; (iv)  Chinese Taipei sought to know the 
India's views on the technicalities of transposition of HS  heading 8486 and its subheadings; and 
(v) some Members had raised issues relating to India's rectification request of September  2018. 
Regarding the imposition of d uties on non -ITA items, India informed Members  that, despite the 
policy space available under its binding schedule, India had hardly resorted to increasing its customs 
duties  on any product . On the contrary, India had been reducing its customs duties unila terally over 
the years. India added that the recent increase in duties  referred to by Members  was within the 
bound rates committed to by India and within its rights under the WTO. Regarding the issue of dut ies G/MA/M/68  
 
- 21 - 
 
  imposed on certain telecom products in 2014, 2017, and in 2018, which were being alleged as 
ITA-1 products by some Members, India would repeat a few earlier statements and subsequent 
developments, as preliminary observations. India was fully aware of its obligations and commitments 
under the ITA -1 and had been abiding by the same. India had signed the ITA -1 in the year 1997 
and presented its schedule of commitment s, which was subsequen tly certified in 
document  WT/LET /181. India does not intend to commit what  was there beyond the scope of its 
ITA-1 commitment inscribed in document  WT/LET/181. India considered that  it would be evident 
from document  G/MA/TAR/RS/24 , dated 2  April 1997, that India had made it very clear at the time 
of taking c ommitments under the ITA -1 that India reserved the right to make technical changes to 
the schedule and to correct any errors, omissions or accuracies. India noted that there had been 
extensive discussions and stakeholder consultations amongst its relevant agencies on the coverage 
of these products and its ITA commitments. India considered that the items, on which duties were 
raised, were not part of the ITA-1 signed by India. India had been seeking inputs from the concerned 
delegations on their perception thereof on these aspects relative to the coverage of these products 
under ITA -1 as well as the c ustoms duties imposed by other M embers on such products. India 
receive d specific technical comments from only one Member in this  regard , and another Member , on 
the day of the meeting, had also  mentioned some of the technical issues it had relative to India's 
rectification request . Regarding the general concerns raised by Members about the measure that 
had been taken by India vis-a-vis its ITA-1 commitments, India had earlier provided written 
responses followed by replies in various meetings of this Committee , the CTG, and the ITA. India 
had stated in earlier interventions that Members ha d the right to revisit any errors or mistakes 
committed in assigning bound tariffs while transposing its HS  Schedule , so India had  placed the 
necessary rectification request before the Committee. Accordingly, India had filed its rectification 
request for the purpose of correcting certain errors contained in its HS2007  Schedule , which was in 
accordance with the "Procedures for Modification and R ectification of Schedules of Tariff 
Concessions"  contained in the Decision of 26  March  1980 under the category of "Other 
Rectifications" . This rectificatio n request could  be seen in document  G/MA/TAR/RS/572 dated 
25 September  2018. I n this regard, India had made it clear in the detailed explanatory note attached 
to the rectification request that , while transposing the tariff lines and the description of the products 
recommended by WCO for HS2002 to HS2007  transposition, India had inadvertently included the 
tariff subheading given in the table at Appendix under the zero bound duty commitments . While it  
was important to keep in perspective both the technologica l progression as well as HS  transposition 
of telecom and IT  products, India encourage d Members to go through its rectification request . In 
case, if a Member had any other views on the technical aspects of these products , as well as their 
classification, it could discuss any such views with his delegation . Indi a further requested the 
Members  that had raised new issues to provide their inputs in writing so that these could be 
forwarded to Capital for examination and consideration . 
144.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
14. INDIA  – QUANTITATIVE  RESTRICTIONS  ON CERTAIN  PULSES  – STATEMENTS BY  
AUSTRALIA, CANADA, T HE EUROPEAN UNION, A ND THE UNITED STATES  
145.  The Chairperson  noted that this agenda item had been included at the request of Australia, 
Canada,  the European Union,  and the United States.  
146.  The representative of Australia  stated that his delegation remained  seriously concerned about 
restrictions plac ed on imports of pulses to India, and in particular the QRs that had now been in 
place on various pulse varieties for well over 12  months. Australia noted that India's ad hoc 
measures had been implemented with no forewarning , applied retrospectively , had had a serious 
impact , and had generated uncertainty in the global pulses market , contrary to India' s previous 
assertions that its measures had not affected global markets or had a negative impact on exports of 
other WTO  Members – including developing countries.  Australia further noted that Australian and 
developing country farmers had been negatively im pacted ; and that India had been Australia's 
largest market for pulses in 2016 -2017 (valued at $1.4  billion ), but that exports had now virtually 
ceased.  Australia had, since August  2017,  made repeated representations in New Delhi and Geneva 
on these trade restrictions, including at Prime Ministerial level – most recently during the 
25-26 September Committee on Agricultur e (CoA), and in particular on India' s QR on peas. Australia 
had expres sed its disappointment to learn that India's QR on peas had been  extended for a second 
time on 28  September  2018,  under Notification No.  15/2015 -2020, until the end of December  2018, 
noting that this extension had occurred just two  days after the meeting o f the CoA, during which 
India had been unable to provide any information on whether the QRs would be extended and if any G/MA/M/68  
 
- 22 - 
 
  extension would include  any additional volume of peas . This meant that there  would be an effective 
import ban in place for six months (July to December  2018). Australia had raised concerns in every 
relevant WTO  Committee over the previous 12 months, in particular to seek an explanation for the 
legal basis of India's QRs. Australia stated that India had failed to provide an explanation by  stating 
that it "will be answered in the relevant committee" , which Australia believed was not acceptable , 
particularly when such drastic measures had disrupted the trade of numerous WTO Members , 
including developing countries. Given that the CMA was responsible for overseeing the "Decision on 
Notification Procedures for QRs", Australia considered that this was "the relevant committee" and 
requested India to provide answers  in this Committee . Australia noted that India' s import licensing 
notification state d that import restrictions were " maintained only on grounds of protection of human 
health or safety; animal or plant life or healt h; security and the environment"  and asked India to 
explicitly state which of the four grounds outlined in India's import lice nsing notification  was the 
basis for maintaining quantitative restrictions on a range of pulses . If India  had been relying on 
GATT  Article  XX, Australia further asked  which paragraph in Article  XX of the GATT India was relying 
on for its quantitative restr ictions.  Australia urged India to provide an explanation for the WTO  basis 
of its QRs. Australia asked India to explain how the measures  were "temporary" given their multiple 
extensions and their application for over 12  months.  It also asked India to confi rm the status of its 
QRs and expected Members to take their obligations seriously. Finally, Australia would continue to 
closely monitor developments a nd India' s responses  to its questions . 
147.  The representative of Canada  noted that, as a significant supplier of pulses to India, Canada 
had been most ne gatively affected by India' s recent measures to limit the import of pulses , which  
were an important source of protein for a large number of Indian consumers. Canada was 
disappointed that India had introduced quantitative restrictions on the import of dried peas on 
25 April 2018 and that it had then extended those QRs on 28  September  2018. He noted that , to 
date, India had not provided information on the GATT or WTO  basis for this quantitative restri ction. 
During the June  meeting of the WTO Committee on Agriculture , India had indicated that the 
notification of this quantitative restriction on dried peas had recently been submitted to the 
Committee for Import Licensing and the CMA. Canada added that India's last quantitative restriction 
notification , in document  G/MA/QR/N/IND/2, circulated on 21 June 2018, had specified that it 
cover ed all quantitative restrictions in force.  However, this QR  notification had made no reference 
to the quantitative restriction on dried peas . Therefore , the GATT or WTO  basis for this import 
restriction  remained unclear . Canada noted its extreme disappointment  that India had decided to 
continue this restriction  and asked again for India's views on its GATT or WTO  legal basis.  
148.  The representative of the European Union  invited India to clarify the legal basis for having 
introduced quantitative restrictions on certain pulses , including mung beans. Moreover, the EU 
expressed  its concern over the increase in import duties for dried peas, a measure taken as part of 
India's policy on pulses. It was the EU's  understand ing that  the duties  on dried peas  were within 
India' s bound rates, but that the way in which they had been suddenly introduced had been 
extremely harmful to pulse producers globally, whether in deve loping or developed countries. Such 
sudden measures led to enormous price fluctuations and reduce d stability on the pulse s market, 
which in turn had affected  production levels. The EU submitted  that such measures were  not in the 
long-term interest s of pulse producers and urged India to reconsider its restrictive trade measures 
on pulses.  
149.  The representative of the United States  said that her delegation  was deeply concerned over 
India's q uantitative restrictions on imports of select varieties of pulses. Despite several Members 
raising concerns with India in previous C ommittee meetings over the past year, India  had continue d 
to maintain quantitative restrictions on certain types of pulses a nd, to date, had been unable to 
explain how such measures  could be consistent with India's WTO commitments.  The United States 
looked  forward to receiving India' s written responses, especially with regard to the consistency of 
these mea sures  with India' s WTO commitments.  
150.  The representative of Ukraine  reiterated the concerns that had been raised by Australia, 
Canada, the EU , and the United States. Ukraine noted its interest in the transparency and 
predictability of Members' trade policies from the systemic point of view.  
151.  The representative of  the Russian Federation  reiterated her delegation's  concern over the 
policy that had been applied by India regarding import s of yellow peas. The Russian Federation  noted 
that India had increased its import t ariffs on thi s product by up to 50% in November  2017, had 
introduced a quantitative restriction on import s of yellow peas in April  2018, and had issued a G/MA/M/68  
 
- 23 - 
 
  notification in late September  2018 saying that the import of peas classified under Exim 
Code 071310 00 would be res tricted until 31 December  2018. The Russian Federation  recalled that 
it had raised this concern at different fora already.  In the Russian  Federation 's view,  a quantitative 
restriction  was not a trade policy instrument that could be applied by WTO  Members without proper 
justification.  Russia requested India to bring these measures into conformity with the WTO's rules.  
152.  The representative of India thanked delegations for expressing their views on this matter. 
India informed the Members that it had notified it s measures to the Committee on Import Licensing 
and the CMA on 20 and  21 June 2018, respectively. Certain issues had been  raised by Members in 
the September  2018 meeting of the Committee on Agriculture and India  had provided its responses 
to those queries. In dia was the largest producer and consumer of pulses. As had been previously 
stated , the decision for imposi ng a quota was based on the domestic demand and supply situation 
of pulses in the country. The measure  was aimed at alleviating the distress caused to small and 
marginal farmers by the influx of cheap imported pulses and the consequent impact on their food 
and livelihood security.  The objective of Indian agricultural policy  was to balance the interests of 
consumers and producers. The wholesale price index (WPI) for pulses in the country had come down 
from 205.2 ( in December  2016) to 134.2 ( in December  2017) and further declined to 120.8 ( in 
April 2018) , showing a sharp decline during that period. The latest es timates for the WPI  were:  
119.8, 117.5, 120.8, and 124.5 , for May, June, July , and August  2018, respectively. This reflected 
the fact that the current prices of pulses in domestic markets  were below the prices of the 
corresponding period of the previous ye ar, indicating that the measures taken had been in the overall 
interests of both consumers and producers, as intended. Therefore, the government had imposed 
quantitative restrictions on pulses such as Tur (pigeon pea), Moong (beans of species of Vigna 
radiata) and Urad (beans of the species of Vigna mungo) and dry peas in order to protect small and 
marginal farmers. Based on the prevailing domestic situation, the relevant authority in India had 
extended the quantitative restrictions on imports of peas until 31 December  2018 vide 
DGFT  Notification No.  37 dated 28  September  2018, as mentioned by Australia . These measures  
were temporary and the extension or removal of these QRs  were based on domestic demand and 
supply. India was constantly reviewing these measures.  With regard  to the query raised by Members 
on the relevant specific WTO  provisions under which India imposed these temporary measures, India 
added that the matter  was under examination  in Capital  and that India would revert to the 
Committee  in du e course . Finally, India would address any further query in the appropriate 
Committee . 
153.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
15. KINGDOM OF BAHRAIN, KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARA BIA, AND THE UNITED ARAB 
EMIRATES – SELECTIVE  TAX ON CERTAIN IMPO RTED PRODUCTS – STATEMENTS BY THE 
EUROPEAN  UNION, SWITZERLAND, AND THE  UNITED STATES (G/MA/ W/140)  
154.  The Chairperson  recalled that this agenda item had been included at the request of the 
European  Union , Switzerland, and the United States . 
155.  The representative of th e European Union  recalled that this issue had been raised  in the CMA  
on 26  April 2018 and at the CTG on 3-4 July 2018. She recalled the EU's statement regarding  the 
principle of non -discrimination obligation under Article  III:2 of the GATT , as it seemed that the 
decision taken by the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf ( GCC) countries, including 
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, on the level of tax imposed on energy drinks and sweetened soft 
drinks , had not been based on any scientific evidence . She noted that caffeine and taurine, whose 
presence in energy drinks  was used as an argument for a higher tax,  were also present in other 
products not subjected to the tax, or which were subject to a much lower rate  of tax . Therefore, the 
EU suggested th at the GCC  countries review the basis for the imposition of this tax , and recalled 
that a Note V erbale had been sent to each of the GCC  countries in June  2018, to which the EU 
expected to receive a formal and written response . 
156.  The representative of Switzer land recalled that, over the course of the previous year, Saudi  
Arabia, Bahrain,  and the United  Arab Emirates had implemented a selective tax on energy drinks 
and carbonated soft drinks . Even before the introduction of the tax, Switzerland had tried to obtain 
more detail ed information on it . On 27  September  2018, Switzerland  had submitted follow -up 
questions to Saudi  Arabia, Bahrain,  and the UAE on how they had implemented the selective tax on 
energy drinks and carbonated soft drinks . The decision  that h ad been  taken by GCC  countries on 
the level of the tax  was not based on scientific evidence  because  caffeine and taurine  were also G/MA/M/68  
 
- 24 - 
 
  present in other products but their use in energy drinks  had been used as an argument for a higher 
tax. Those other products  had not been subject ed to a tax or  had been subject ed to a much lower 
rate of tax . Since this issue had been raised, there had been several meetings with the 
GCC Members . Unfortunately , the concerns remain ed, and Switzerland still consider ed that the 
selective tax  was not in conformity with the non -discrimination obligation of Article  III:2 of the GATT. 
Switzerland noted that the GCC  Ministers of Finance would meet in November and encouraged these 
Members, particularly those that had already implement ed the selective tax, to review the basis for 
the imposition of this tax and to follow instead the World  Health  Organization 's recommendations  in 
this regard . Finally, Switzerland was looking forward to receiving the answers to its written questions 
and wou ld gladly meet with the delegations of the Members  concerned . 
157.  The representative of the United States  echoed the concerns that had been raised by the EU 
and Switzerland and stated that her delegation  continue d to encourage Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and 
Bahrai n, to repeal – and other GCC  Member States not to implement – the tax on carbonated 
beverages, and instead to develop evidence -based measures that target ed improving public health 
outcomes . The United States support ed efforts by these Members  to prevent and control 
non-communicable diseases. However, the measure that had been currently implemented by Saudi 
Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain appear ed overly broad in some respects, and arbitrary in others. As 
an example, the measure include d diet beve rages, but not other non -carbonated sweetened 
beverages.  The United  States expressed its hope that these Members  would consider repealing  these 
measures and that other GCC  Members  would not implement the tax in favour  of other measures 
that would have bett er results than those of regressive taxes.  
158.  The representative of Qatar  noted that Qatar did not apply the selective tax and that there  
was no specific time -frame fo r adoption of the measures. Qatar took its WTO  commitment s seriously 
and would continue to follow this issue with interest.  
159.  The representative of Japan  shared the concerns  that had been raised and requested Bahrain , 
Saudi Arabia,  and the UAE to explain their tariff classification on energy drinks and carbonated 
drinks.  
160.  The representative of Bahrain delivered a statement on behalf of  the Kingdom of Saudi  Arabia,  
the United Arab Emirates , and the Kingdom of Bahrain . He thanked the EU, Switzerland, and the 
United States  for their interest in the GCC  Common Agreement on Excise Tax . Bahrain reiterated  
that the excise tax measures  were compliant with the WTO  requirements governing internal taxes 
as these taxes  were applied to both domestic and imported products  similarly  and were not intended 
to afford any preferential treatment to protect  the local ind ustry. Some  delegations  had requested 
more detailed information about the technical aspects of these measures and their method of 
application, and Bahrain thanked those Members that had submitted their questions in advance and 
in writing and encouraged others to do the same. The enquires  would be submitted to the relevant 
authorities and agencies  in Capitals  and would be responded to as soon as possible. Finally, Bahrain 
encouraged any ot her concerned delegations to contact them bilaterally.  
161.  The representative of Saudi Arabia  re-emphasized  the commitment of the GCC  Members to 
respect their WTO commitments. He noted that Saudi  Arabia  was also taking the issue seriously and 
that a delegation  from Capital  was available to have any meeting bilaterally on the technical level 
for all interested parties.  
162.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
16. CHINA - CUSTOMS DUTIE S ON CERTAIN INTEGRA TED CIRCUITS – STATEM ENTS BY THE 
EUROPEAN  UNION, JAPAN, AND C HINESE TAIPEI  
163.  The Chairperson  recalled that this agenda item had been included at the request of the 
European Union, Japan, and Chinese Taipei . 
164.  The representative of the European Union  noted that this issue had been on the agenda for 
long time and had been discussed in different committees , which demonstrate d that WTO  Members  
were still yet to develop a proper understanding of how duties on certain multi-component 
semiconductors (MCOs) increased in China upon changes to the HS  nomenclatu re. The EU  thanked 
China for its engagement both bilaterally and in other contexts such as the General Algebraic G/MA/M/68  
 
- 25 - 
 
  Modeling System ( GAMS ) setting, and was looking forward to discussing this further to receive 
additional  clarity. China had shared with other Members an overview of its tariffs on MCOs following 
the transposition towards tariff heading  8542 under HS2017 – and, more recently, had also provided 
some brief additional elements about the division of MCOs into different categories and the 
respective a llocation of the different duty rates. The EU  reported  that its experts  were now analysing 
this information and would welcome more detail  in this respect . Finally, the EU intend ed to continue 
to engage with China on this issue in all appropriate fora.  
165.  The representative of Japan  thanked China for its detailed explanation of its classification of 
Insulated Gate Bipolar Transistors (IGBT) throughout the Q&As for China' s trade policy review. Japan  
expressed  its continued  concern over China's classification of the IGBT -IPM (Intelligent Power 
Module). Japan's understanding  was that, in accordance with the WCO's Classification Opinions, this 
was classified as a Power Module under HS8542.39 , but that China had treated the IGBT -IPM 
differently by classifying  it under HS8504.40 at import clearance and then by imposing a customs 
duty rate of 5% after transposition to HS2017. Japan requested China to provide a detailed 
explanation of this practice and noted China's remark at the last CTG that the all the MCO product s 
in question would reach zero  duty in July  2021.  Japan concluded that it  would continue to monitor 
this issue  closely . 
166.  The representative of Chinese Taipei  thanked China for its bilateral engagement on this issue 
and for sharing information on its calcula tion of tariff transposition . She stated that Chinese Taipei's 
concern nevertheless remain ed. Th e results of the HS2017  transposition should follow the principal 
of tariff rate neutral ity, meaning that the value of the tariff concession for the ten  MCO products, 
which  were effectively duty -free tariffs, should not be impaired as a result of a  change in 
HS nomenclature. Chinese  Taipei noted that China had recently announced tariff cuts on imports of 
industrial machinery, construction materials , and other goods, with a view to further lowering costs 
for manufacturers and consumers, but unfortunately the MCO  items  were not among the 1585  types 
of goods when these tariff cuts would come into effect  on 1 November  2018. Finally, Chinese Taipei 
urged China immed iately to eliminate the tariffs  on the MCO products at issue  so as to resolve 
Members' concerns.  
167.  The representative of the Republic of Korea  shared the concerns that had been expressed by 
previous speakers and referred to Korea's  previous statement while reiterating their interest in this 
issue.  
168.  The representative of the United States  expressed support for the statements made and 
questions raised by the EU, Japan, and Chinese Taipei . She reiterate d the United  States'  concerns 
with regard to a  change in China' s applied duty rates for semiconductor products, concerns that had 
been previously raised  in this Committee as well as in the ITA  Committee and at the CTG. 
169.  The representative of China  thanked delegations for their continued interest in this issue and  
recalled that China had made comments on this issue at previous meetings of this Committee, the 
CTG, and the ITA  Committee. China had conducted several bilateral consultations with interested 
Members to clarify this technical question . In this transpositi on of MCO products, China had used 
the method suggested by the WTO  documents, which  was fully consistent with the WTO  rules on 
HS2017  transposition. China had seriously undertaken its tariff reduction commitments under the 
ITA expansion. Since 1  July 2018, the duty rates on MCO products had been further reduced to 
2.1%, 1.9% , and 5% , respectively. China would continue to fulfil its tariff reduction commitments 
under the ITA expansion , and confirmed that all its duties on MCO  products  would be eliminated in  
July 2021. Regarding the new technical questions raised by some Members,  China would forward 
these to Capital for consideration. Finally, China remained ready to discuss any further technical 
questions on MCO products  bilaterally . 
170.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
17. OMAN - MFN CUSTOMS DUTIES O N C IGARETTES  – STATEMENTS BY THE 
EUROPEAN  UNION AND SWITZERLAN D 
171.  The Chairperson  recalled that this item had been included on the agenda at the request of the 
European Union and Switzerland.  G/MA/M/68  
 
- 26 - 
 
  172.  The representative of the European Union  reiterated the EU's concerns over Oman's applied 
import tariffs on tobacco and tobacco products. At the meeting of the Committee on 27  April 2018, 
the EU had explained why Oman's tariff increase on cigarettes , following a decision taken at 
GCC level, had not been in line with its WTO  commitments. The EU was of the view that, by having 
doubled the minimum specific duty on cigarettes, Oman was in breach of its bound tariff of 150%. 
The EU was aware that Oman had reduce d the specific minimum duty from 20 to 15  Omani Rial (OR) 
per 1,000  cigarettes in December  2017. While the EU appreciated this move , which it considered to 
be in the right direction, it was nevertheless of the view that a specific d uty of 15  OR Oman still 
exceed ed Oman's bound tariff commitment. Thus, the EU reiterated its request to Oman to further 
reduce the specific minimum duty in order to bring itself into conformity with its WTO  obligations. 
Finally, the representative noted that the EU  would a lso be grateful for an official  written reply to its 
Note Verbal e on this issue  of June  2018. 
173.  The representative of Switzerland  regretted that Switzerland had to raise  once again the issue 
of the MFN applied duties on cigarettes  being higher than Oman 's bound rat e. He noted that the 
MFN applied rate  was set at 100% or a minim um specific rate of 15 OR per 1' 000 cigarettes, 
whichever  was higher.  Switzerland noted that this 15  OR was a reduction from the previous level.  
However, s ince the Committee's meeting of 26 April 2018, Switzerland had had several bilateral 
contacts with Oman,  including a meeting in Muscat with the Omani customs in June  2018, and it 
had not been possible to solve the issue. As Switzerland had explained to the Committee the details 
of the issue  during its April meeting , the representative would not repeat them; instead, he simply 
requested Oman to abide  by its 150% bound rate , which would mean not to levy at the border a 
duty that  was higher than 150%. The representative noted that, even if the MFN applied duty  was 
expressed in specific terms, it  was not complicated to verify whether the effectively levied specific 
duty was higher than 150% , which  was the bound rate . Thus, Switzerland strongly encouraged 
Oman to quickly bring its MFN  applied duty  into compliance with its WTO  commitments in order to 
solve this issue. Finally, Switzerland  was aware that GCC  Members  were implementing the tax and 
requested to know when Oman intended to implement the selective tax on tobacco products  and 
energy drinks and carbonated soft drinks, as this could be in the last quarter of 2018 or the first 
quarter of 2019. It noted that t he same issues regarding the discriminatory nature of the selective 
tax on those beverages would also apply to Oman  when it implement ed the selective tax in its 
current form . 
174.  The representative of the United States  indicated that her delegation would continue to 
monitor the situation. She hoped that any changes in the process  for calculating and collecting tariffs 
for these  agricultural  products would be consistent with  Oman's WTO  bound tariff rates.  
175.  The representative of Oman  thanked del egations for their ongoing interest in this matter. He 
further thanked Switzerland for sending a delegation to Oman  to discuss this matter bilaterally wit h 
relevant authorities in Muscat , which had been  based on Oman's suggestion expressed at the 
previous meeting. He noted that a meeting had been convened on 24  June 2018 between the Swiss 
Delegation and the technical experts from the Ministry of Commerce an d Industry, the Ministry of 
Financ e, and the Customs Authorities. The meeting had allowed for a productive discussion and 
clarifications had been  provided and solutions had been proposed. At the meeting, Oman i officials 
provided abu ndant information to the  Swiss r epresentative and it was agreed that the Swiss 
representative would go back with the information obtained and provide it to tobacco c ompanies for 
their comments. He noted that Oman's  Capital -based officials had reiterated their readiness to 
provide  any further clarifications and, if necessary , to fly to Geneva to attend meetings.  Since the 
meeting, Oman had not heard  back from the Swiss delegation  until Friday , 21 September , a week 
before  the Airgram to convene the meeting had been  circulated, informing them that the item would 
be placed on the Committee's meeting agenda.  This had been a  surprise because  Oman had 
expected further bilateral engagement  and discussions beyond those already held in Oman . From a 
meeting held with the Swiss delegation imme diately prior to the Committee's current meeting, where 
Oman enquired why they had not heard back from Switzerland regarding this matter during the 
previous three months, they understood that the Swiss representatives  were themselves still waiting 
to hear back from the industry , which to date had not provided any comments on the consultations 
that had been held in Oman. The short notice prior to the current meeting had also meant that Oman 
had not been able to arrange for Capital -based officials to attend it. Therefore, they would appreciate 
to follow -up on the discussions held in Oman bilaterally , and reiterated Oman's readiness to bring 
Capital -based officials to Geneva , or Swiss officials to Oman,  for further consultations , with sufficient 
advance notice.  Finally,  he encouraged any interested Member to discuss this issue with Oman 
bilaterally. With regard to the final point made by the Swiss delegation  regarding the GCC  tax on G/MA/M/68  
 
- 27 - 
 
  beverages , he stated that Oman  would appreciate it if Switzerland  would provide the delegation  with 
its questions in written form , to which Oman would respond as soon as possible . 
176.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
18. ELECTION  OF THE  VICE -CHAIRPERSON  
177.  The Chairperson  noted that Rule  12 of the Rules of Procedure of this Co mmittee allowed it to 
elect a Vice -Chairperson, and that the long -standing practice had been to elect a Vice -Chairperson 
during the autumn meeting. The Chairperson proposed, based on her consultations, to elect Diego 
Nunes Oger Fonseca (Brazil) as Vice -Chair of this Committee by acclamation.  
178.  The Vice-Chair thanked the Members for their support and the Chair for inviting him to serve 
as Vice -Chairperson.  He stated that he looked forward to  working with all Members of the 
Committee.  
179.  The Committee so agreed . 
19. OTHER  BUSINESS  
180.  The representative of the  European Union  stated that her delegation  regret ted that the 
Russian  Federation  had adopted , on 17  July 2018,  Decree No.  836, introducing temporary 
quantitative restrictions on th e export of birch logs from  the Russian Federation  outside of the 
Eurasian Economic Union.  The measure deviate d from the prohibition of quanti tative restrictions in 
Article  XI of the GATT and, contrary to the spirit of the WTO, prevent ed an optimal allocation of 
wood resources based on decisions by market players. Furthermore, the EU noted its serious doubts 
about the WTO  compatibility of the temporary export quota and requested  the Russian  Federation  
to explain it , in particular taking into account precedents such as the alleged temporary export ban 
on raw hides and skin that had been renewed for periods of six  months up to a total of four -and-a-
half years . The EU further requested the Russian Federation  to confirm that the temporary measure 
on certain birch logs  would not be extended. In addition, the EU requested the Russian Federation  
to ensure that its customs services avoid ed confusion betwee n the category of high quality "birch 
logs", subject to exp ort quotas, and other birch logs , such as pulpwood, in order to avoid any 
unintended effects of the export quotas on other categories of birch logs traded  between the EU and 
Russia. With regard to the system that had been put in place to allocate the quota s for export of 
birch logs subject to the restriction, the EU stated that the measure allocate d quotas to Russian 
exporters, rather than to export destinations and noted that in recent years the EU had been 
importing a limited, stable amount of birch logs from the Russian Federation  (some 240 000  cubic 
meters). Thus, the EU  concluded that this stable trade should not be interrupted as a consequence 
of the export quota system and the market power it confer red on the holders of export licences in 
Russia . In conclusion, the EU  requested the Russian Federation  to reconsider the system so as to 
avoid disturbing stable trade flows.  
181.  The representative of  the Russian Federation  noted that the Russian Federation  would provide 
its comments and responses to the Europe an Union on a bilateral basis at a later time, and that this 
item had not been included on the meeting's agenda.  
182.  The meeting was adjourned . 
__________