RESTRICTED  
  
G/IT/M/70  
 
8 October  2019 
(19-6519) Page: 1/12 
Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in 
Information Technology Products    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETI NG OF  14 MAY 2019 
CHAIRPERSON: MR MUHAMMAD NUR HADRI B IN SOPRI  
INTRODUCTION  
The Committee adopted the proposed agenda for the meeting circulated in document  WTO/AIR/IT/ 9, 
dated 3 May 2019. An annotated agenda for the meeting was circula ted in document  JOB/IT/2 3, 
also dated 3 May 2019. The Chairperson stated that he would take up  one issue under "Other  
Business" : the date of the Committee's next meeting.  
 
INTRODUCTION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  1 
1   REVIEW OF THE STATU S OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MI NISTERIAL DECLARATIO N 
ON TRADE IN INFORMAT ION TECHNOLOGY PRODU CTS (G/IT/1/REV.58)  .......................  2 
1.1   Request by Canada, China, Japan, Republic of Korea, Norway, Chinese Taipei, and the United 
States Regarding an Implementation Issue Concerning India (G/IT/W/42 and G/IT/W/45)  ...........  2 
1.2   Request by the European Union, Japan, and Chinese Taipei Regarding an Implementation 
Issue Concerning China  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 5 
1.3   Request by the United States Regarding an Implementation Issue Concerning Indonesia  ..... 6 
2   REVIEW  OF PRODUCT COVERAGE  ................................ ................................ ................  6 
3   NON–TARIFF MEASURES  WORK PROGRAMME  ................................ .............................  7 
4   EMC/EMI PILOT PROJE CT – DRAFT LIST OF T YPES OF CONFORMITY A SSESSMENT 
PROCEDURES FOR EMC/E MI USED BY ITA  PARTICIPANTS (G/IT/W /17/REV.24)  ...........  8 
5   DIVERGENCES IN CLAS SIFYING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS 
(G/IT/14/REV.1/ADD.1 ; G/IT/W/6/REV.3; G/ IT/W/33; G/IT/W/34; G/IT/27; 
JOB/IT/12; G/IT/29, G/IT/W/40/ADD.1 –G/IT /W/40/ADD.21, AND 
G/IT/W/40/SUPPL.4)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 9 
5.1   Implementation of the Decision for the Classification of 18  Attachme nt B Products  
(G/IT/27)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  9 
5.2   Implementation of the 2016  Decision for the Classification of an Additional 15  Items  
(G/IT/29)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  9 
5.3   The remaining 22  Attachment  B items as contained in document  G/IT/W/40 and its 
supplements and addenda ................................ ................................ ................................ ...10 
6   NEW PARTICIPANTS  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 11 
7   ELECTION OF CHAIRPE RSON  ................................ ................................ .....................  12 
8   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 12 
8.1   Date of the next meeting  ................................ ................................ ............................. 12 
 G/IT/M/70  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1  REVIEW OF THE STATUS  OF IMPLEMENTATION O F THE MINISTERIAL DE CLARATION ON 
TRADE IN INFORMATION  TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS  (G/IT/1/REV.58)  
1.1.  The Chairperson  informed Participants that an overview of the Status of Implementation of the 
Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information Technology Products  could be found in 
document  G/IT/1/Rev.58.  
1.2.  He indicated that, u nder this agenda item, in addition to an overview of the status of 
implementation, three  sub-agenda items ha d been added.  The first  sub-agenda item ha d been 
added at the request of Canada, China, Japan, Norway, Chinese Taipei , and the United States, 
regarding an implementation issue concerning India.  The second  sub-agenda item ha d been added 
at the request of the European Union, Japan, and Chinese Taipei , regarding an implementation issue 
concerning China.  The third sub-agenda item ha d been added at the request of the United States,  
regarding an implementation issue concerning Indonesia.  
1.3.  The representative of  the Republic of Korea  informed the Committee that his delegation would 
like to join the other co -sponsors of the first sub -agenda item , regarding the implementation issue 
concer ning India.  
1.4.  For the overview of the status of implementation, the Chairperson  first flagged the pending 
issue of the submission by Morocco of its final ITA  schedule of commitments in relation to the review 
of the status of implementation.  
1.5.  He informed the C ommittee that, d espite outreach to Morocco on several occasions by his 
predecessors, including a letter that his predecessor had sent to the Minister of Economy and Finance 
of Morocco,  in autumn  2018, still no  formal response had been received from Morocco . The 
Chairperson  proposed to raise this issue again at the Committee's next meeting.  
1.6.  He proposed that the Committee take note  of the statements made.  
1.7.  It was so agreed . 
1.1  Request by Canada, China, Japan, Republic of Korea, Norway, Chinese Taipei, and the 
United States Regarding an Implementation Issue Concerning India (G/IT/W/42 and 
G/IT/W/45)  
1.8.  The Chairperson  turned to the first  sub-agenda item, the request by Canada, China, Japan, the 
Republic of Korea, Norway, Chinese Taipei, and the United States,  regar ding an implementation 
issue concerning India. In this context, he referred to document  G/IT/W/42, which had been  
circulated at the request of the delegations of the European Union, Japan, and the United States,  
and to document  G/IT/W/45, which had been circulated at the request of the delegation of India.  
1.9.  The representative of the European Union  stated that her delegation had been expressing its 
concerns over this matter in the CTG , as well as in various committees , for several years.  In 
April 2019, her de legation had requested consultations with India, challenging India's introduction 
of import duties on a wide range of ICT  products , despite India' s commitments in the WTO not to 
charge duties on these products.  Considering  the evolution of this issue , she would not elaborate 
further , but only underscore d its significance for the EU.  
1.10.   The representative of Japan  stated that his delegation had repeatedly expressed its concerns 
on this issue at the meetings not only of this Committee, but also in those of the Market Access 
Committee, and the Council for Trade in Goods, as well as in numerous bilateral meetings.  On 
10 May 2019, Japan had requested consultations with India. India appear ed to subject a number of 
goods to import duties that were inconsistent wit h its schedule  of concessions . Japan's request for 
consultation s addresse d some of the tariff treatments that were both in clear excess of India's bound 
rates and of substantial interest to Japan.  
1.11.   The representative of the United States  considered it  unfortunate to have to raise again the 
issue of India's tariff increases on telecommunications equipment and ICT  products. Rather than 
responding to the concerns that had been raised by the United States and numerous other Members, 
India ha d instead undertaken additional concerning actions.  Since the last meeting of th e G/IT/M/70  
 
- 3 - 
 
  Committee, India ha d announced another round of tariff increases on telecommunications 
equipment, further raising rates at the border from 10 % to 20%, including on products for  which 
India ha d a duty -free bound commitment.  India' s customs authorities continue d to issue notifications 
to implement these tariff increases, such as  Customs Notification  02/2019, which raise d additional 
questions as to the precise scope of the products  covered under these increases.  She stated that 
India's continual tariff increases on ICT  products were deeply troubling ; equally troubling was the 
lack of transparency regarding  the scope of the products covered by those increases.  
1.12.   She further s tated that, as had been noted by the European Union  and Japan, for far too long, 
they and numerous other Members ha d been discussing the discrepancy between India' s 
WTO commitments to provide duty -free access to certain products , and the non -zero import du ties 
that India had been charging at the border . They had urged India on multiple occasions , both 
bilaterally and in the relevant WTO committees , to address its actions and to abide by its 
commitments ; yet the tariff increases continue d, and patience was running thin. She had noted with 
interest the consultation requests that had been filed by the European Union and Japan,  as well as 
the numerous requests from Members to join the EU 's consultation s. She called upon India o nce 
again  to provide duty -free acce ss to ICT and telecommunications equipment products for which India 
had undertaken a WTO  commitment to do so.  
1.13.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  reiterate d Korea's concerns over India's tariff 
increases on certain ICT  products , which had been raised several times at the previous relevant 
meetings, including in the meetings of the ITA Committee and the Council for Trade in Goods.  Korea 
wanted India immediately to withdraw the tariffs on the ICT  products at issue and to refrain from 
pursuin g any further tariff increases above its WTO bound commitment s. Korea would continue to 
be engaged in this issue with a view to find ing a suitable way forward.  
1.14.   The representative of China  stated that , since 2018, India had continuously increased its 
applie d rates on mobile phones and related parts, some of which had exceed ed India' s WTO bound 
rates. China and other Members ha d raised this issue many times at previous meetings of this 
Committee , and other relevant WTO  bodies, but to date there had been no ch ange. Furthermore, on 
25 September  2018, India had circulated document s requesting rectification of its HS2007  Schedule 
on certain ICT products. China believe d that the rectification that had been requested by India did 
not constitute a change of purely formal character , but instead that it altered the scope of India' s 
commitment s under the ITA and the GATT. In this regard , China ha d registered its objection to 
India's proposed rectification , pursuant to the 1980  Decision on the Procedu res for Modification and 
Rectification of Schedule s of Tariff Concessions.  
1.15.   He further stated that China was deeply concerned over India' s measures, especially the 
increase in the rates applied to mobile phones and their components . China  believe d that thes e 
measures were inconsistent with India's commitments under the ITA  and the WTO. Furthermore , 
these measures had seriously  impaired China' s interests under the relevant WTO Agreements. 
Therefore, China urged India promptly to withdraw the rates applied on the products  at issue  and to 
abide by its WTO  commitments.  
1.16.   In addition, he regrett ed that India had rejected China' s request to join the consultations that 
had been requested by the EU regarding India' s tariff s on ICT  products. As one of the mai n suppliers 
of ICT products in India's market , China was suffering great loss es because of  India' s measures. He 
further regret ted that India had rejected China's request to join the EU's consultations on the 
grounds that China ha d no substantial interests in this regard.  
1.17.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  share d the concerns expressed by other Members , and 
stated that , since 2014, India ha d raised tariffs on at least 32  ICT products through its Union Budget 
and other government notifications. He believe d that the tariffs on ICT  products that had been raised 
by India ha d surpassed India' s zero  bound commitment s in the WTO and ha d also clearly violated 
Article  II:1(a) and 1(b) of the GATT  1994 regarding  tariff binding obligations. His delegation  had 
raised this issue several times in this Committee ; it had also urged India to abide by its bound 
commitment s by restoring its original tariff rates  on the product categories concerne d. Moreover, 
his delegation did not rule out requesting consultation s with India under the WTO  dispute settlement 
mechanism.  G/IT/M/70  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.18.   The representative of Norway  reiterated Norway's  ongoing commercial and systemic concerns 
regarding these Indian tariffs on ICT products.  He took note of the recent development , with certain 
Members requesting consultations , and he would follow up on this item closely in the future.  
1.19.   The representative of Thailand  stated that her delegation remain ed concerned over India's 
reimposition  of customs duties on an increasing number of ICT  products above its bound 
commitments.  She said that, in  addition, according to their analysis of India's r equest for rectification 
of 15 tariff lines, it appear ed that the changes that India had asserted  to be technical changes were 
in fact substantive changes.  She asked India to elaborate on why it consider ed that its request to 
rectify zero  bound tariffs to unbound was a technical as opposed to a substantive modification . She 
consider ed that India's request appear ed to fall outside of the scope of the 1980  Decision on the 
Procedures  for Modification and Rectification of Schedules of Tariff Concessions to corr ect technical 
changes. Substantive modifications to WTO  Schedules should be negotiated with the appropriate 
Members in accordance with Article  XXVIII of the GATT  1994, and not based on  a rectification 
pursuant to the 1980  Procedures.  Thailand j oined other delegations in requesting India to abide by 
its WTO  commitments.  Thailand w ould continue to monitor this issue closely.  
1.20.   The representative of Canada  stated that his country remain ed disappointed that , despite the 
concerns raised by WTO  Members in this Committee  in the current meeting , and in several past 
meetings, as well as in the Market Access Committee and the Council for Trade in Goods , India not 
only had maintained its tariffs on ICT  products abov e bound rates, but ha d also continued to 
announce additional tariff increases.  Canada continue d to have both systemic and commercial 
concerns regarding  India' s application of tariffs on ICT  products in excess of its bound commitments.  
Canada request ed India to rescind these tariff increases and to refrain from pursuing any further 
tariff increases above its WTO  commitments.  Like China, he also regret ted that India had rejected 
Canada's  request to join the consultations request ed by the EU . 
1.21.   The representativ e of Singapore  share d the concerns of previous speakers.  She also regret ted 
that India ha d rejected Singapore's request to join the EU's consultations.  She once  again urge d 
India to align its applied tariff s on these ICT  products with its ITA  commitments.  Her delegation 
would continue to monitor this issue very closely.  
1.22.   The representative of India thanked the delegation s of the United States , the Republic of 
Korea, China, Chinese Taipei, Norway, Thailand, Can ada, and Singapore, for their continued interest 
in India's customs duty regime on certain telecommunications and other products.  He highlight ed 
that, on the issue of the duty imposed on certain products, which were being classified , analysed , 
or listed as  1996 ITA products by some Members, India had previously made statements  in various 
Committees, including the ITA Committee itself , the Market Access Committee , and at the CTG. For 
the sake of time, India would not repeat its earlier statements.  In additio n, he had offered to hold 
bilateral meetings with any Members wishing to receive further clarification on any technical aspects 
of the rectifications being sought by India. In this regard, India had engaged in fruitful and 
constructive discussion with a few Members that had approached India bilateral ly. He reiterate d that 
India was fully aware of its obligations and commitments under the 1996  ITA and ha d been abiding 
by them.  India had signed the 1996  ITA in the  year 1997 and had presented its Schedule of 
Commitments, which had subsequently been certified in document  WT/Let/181.  India d id not intend 
to commit itself to anything  beyond the scope of its 1996 ITA commitment s inscribed in 
document  WT/Let/181.  
1.23.   He said  that India had also stated , in its earlier intervention , that Members ha d a right to 
revisit any errors or mistakes that they may have committed in assigning bound tariffs while 
transposing their HS  schedules, and to place any necessary rectification requ est before the 
Committee  concerned . Accordingly, India ha d filed its rectification request for the purpose of 
correcting certain errors in its HS2007  Schedule, which was in accordance with the Procedures for 
Modification and Rectification of Schedules of T ariff Concessions , contained in the Decision of 
26 March  1980, contained in document  BISD 27S/25, under the category of "Other Rectifications".  
1.24.   He encourage d Members to review India's rectification request and , in case a Member ha d 
other views on the technical aspects of these issues, as well as their classification, India would 
willingly discuss these with the Member concerned.  
1.25.   The Chair person  proposed that the Committee take note of the statements made.  G/IT/M/70  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.26.   It was so agreed . 
1.2  Request b y the European Union, Japan, and Chinese Taipei Regarding an 
Implementation Issue Concerning China  
1.27.   The Chairperson  moved to the second  sub-agenda item, namely the request by the European 
Union, Japan, and Chinese Taipei , regarding an implementation issue c oncerning China.  
1.28.   The representative of the European Union  thank ed China for its engagement on this issue at 
bilateral  level, and in other contexts , such as the GAMS  (Government/Authorities Meeting on 
Semiconductors) . China had shared with other Members an overview of its tariffs on MCOs following 
the transposition towards tariff heading  8542 under HS2017, as well as additional elements about 
its division of MCOs into different categories and the respective allocation of the different duty rates.  
1.29.   She said that , unfortunately, the information so far provided had not been enough  to allay 
the EU's concerns.  As the WTO  Secretariat had pointed out earlier that year in response to a letter 
by the Chairperson of the GAMS  Meeting, Members ha d agreed on a s et of procedures to transpose 
their Goods Schedules into HS2017. These procedures had notably provide d that, in case the original 
concessions of HS2012  tariff lines were different , the new concession elements of the new 
HS2017  tariff line should reflect th is and should normally be broken down to a more detailed level 
so that the draft HS2017  file fully reflect ed the same level of concessions.  Thus, China could instead 
have created additional national tariff lines to continue to apply a zero  duty on those pr oducts that 
were previously duty  free, thereby maintaining the value of its concessions , and doing so while 
respecting  the spirit of the ITA  Expansion.  
1.30.   She encourage d China to rectify this situation as soon as possible , especially in consideration 
of the already advanced stage of the tariff reduction s on these products.  However, if China preferred 
not to modify its HS2017  classification at this stage, one  alternative c ould be for China to give a sign 
of its commitment to the ITA by accelerating the phasing in of its tariff reduction on these products.  
1.31.   The representative of Japan  stated that Japan remain ed concerned over China' s classification 
of the IGBT -IPM (Intelligen t Power Module).  He underst ood that, in accordance with the 
WCO's Classification Opinions, IGBT -IPM should be classified under HS8542.39 , making them  
currently subject to a 2.1% tariff. However, China  had treated some of the IGBT -IPM as if they were 
products that d id not have the properties of MCO Semiconductors, and had classified these items 
under HS8504.40 , subject to a 5%  tariff. Japan wished to continue to discuss this classification 
matter with China at an expert level.  Japan was also closely monitoring the situation regarding  
China' s commitment to abolish customs duties on all the relevant items in July  2021, in line with the 
staging of the ITA  Expansion.  
1.32.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  thank ed China for its earlier engagement on this issue 
bilaterally , and for sharing information with Chinese Taipei on the calculation of its tariff 
transposition. Nevertheless, he wished to  remind China again that the results of the 
HS2017  transposition should follow the principle of tariff rate  neutral ity, meaning that the value of 
the tariff concession for the MCO  products concerned, which was effectively a duty-free tariff, should 
not be impaired as a result of a ny change in HS  nomenclature ; any failure to follow the principle of 
tariff rate n eutrality in the results of the HS2017  transposition would constitute a violation of China's 
ITA obligations.  He again urged China immediately to eliminate its tariffs on the MCO products at 
issue, thus resolving Members' concerns.  
1.33.   The representative of the United States  support ed the statements made and the issues  that 
had been raised by other Members, including by the EU, Japan, and Chinese Taipei , and reiterate d 
her concern s regarding  a change in China' s applied duty rates for semic onductor products.  Her 
delegation continue d to assert, in line with the General Council Decision on HS  transpositions, that 
the scope of China' s concessions ha d changed substantially, and that the value of the concession s 
on these semiconductor products , which had been duty-free for over a decade , but which were now 
facing duties , had in consequence been impaired . 
1.34.   The representative of China  thank ed the delegation s of the EU, Japan, Chinese Taipei, and 
the United States , for expressing their concerns on this issue.  He said that , since his delegation had 
already responded to similar questions and comments on this item at previous meetings of this G/IT/M/70  
 
- 6 - 
 
  Committee and of other relevant WTO  bodies, he would not repeat China's replies but only highlight 
the following key points:  (i) in the transposition of MCO products, for technical reasons, China had 
used the 4th method ology  suggested by the WTO  documents, which was also fully consistent with 
the WTO  rules on HS2017  transposition ; (ii) regarding the spe cific technical issues raised by 
Members, China ha d conducted a number of bilateral consultations with interested Members in which 
it had clarified the technical reasons for the approach that China had adopted ; and (iii)  China's  
intention had in no way bee n deliberately to raise any tariff rate s, nor to delay the implementation 
of those ITA tariff reduction s that China had committed  itself to implement . Indeed, from 
1 July 2019, China's tariff rates on MCO  products w ould be further reduced , to 1.3%, 1.4% , and 
3.3% respectively. Furthermore, all tariffs on MCO  products w ould be eliminated entirely by 
July 2021, as scheduled.  
1.35.   The Chair person  proposed that the Committee take note of the statements made.  
1.36.   It was so agreed . 
1.3  Request by the United States Regarding  an Implementation Issue Concerning 
Indonesia  
1.37.   The Chairperson  turned next to the third  sub-agenda item , which was the request by the 
United States regarding an implementation issue concerning Indonesia.  
1.38.   The representative of the United States  said that it had come to their attention that Indonesia 
had been applying tariff rates at the border on a category of ICT  products that appear ed to be 
inconsistent with its WTO  bound tariff commitments.  Specifically, Indonesia ha d undertaken a duty -
free tariff commitment for all products that were classified under tariff subheading  8517.62. 
However, US and Indonesian traders had report ed that a 10% duty was currently being levied on 
certain products that  fell into this tariff subheading . In th is regard, the US said that it would 
appreciate receiving an explanation from Indonesia of these inconsistencies, including also an 
indication of how Indonesia intended to resolve these discrepancies  as soon as possible . 
1.39.   The representative of Japan  thank ed the U S for drawing Members' attention to this issue. 
Japan was  interested in this matter and request ed Indonesia to provide them with the relevant 
information for their verification . 
1.40.   The representative of  the European Union  thank ed the United States  for d rawing the 
Committee's attention to this issue.  She felt that the matter deserved close consideration. She said 
that the EU was currently assessing the commercial interests at stake . Nevertheless , the EU would 
be interested in hearing Indonesia's  systemic point of view.  In this regard, she looked forward to 
any clarification that Indonesia could provide ; she also noted that the EU would continue  to follow  
the matter closely.  
1.41.   The representative of Indonesia  took note of the concerns rais ed by the US, Japan, and the 
European Union , on the specific issue of this sub -agenda item.  He stated that he would consult with 
Capital for further clarification and information on the steps that ha d been or w ould be taken on this 
issue.  
1.42.   The Chair person  proposed that the Committee take note of the statements made.  
1.43.   It was so agreed . 
2  REVIEW OF PRODUCT CO VERAGE  
2.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that, since the Committee's meeting of 15  May 2012, and as 
requested by some delegations, the "review of product coverage" ha d been included as a regular 
item on the Committee 's agenda . It provide d an opportunity for the Committee to receive reports 
and updates from those participants that were engaged in bilateral and plurilateral consultations 
relative to the revie w of product coverage pursuant to paragraph  3 of the Annex to the ITA.  
2.2.  The representative of Canada , speaking on behalf of the ITA  Expansion Participants, reported 
that, for participants to the ITA  Expansion Agreement, 1 July 2019 marked the completion dat e for G/IT/M/70  
 
- 7 - 
 
  the implementation of the standard staging elimination of customs duties on an MFN  basis for the 
products covered.  He recall ed that the ITA  Expansion Declaration was open to all WTO  Members, 
and that all WTO  Members were strongly encouraged to consid er participation in this important 
initiative.  He said that ITA Expansion Participants continue d to reach out to other WTO  Members to 
provide them with information on the declaration and its benefits, and that they stood ready to 
provide additional information to any Member that might be interested in joining  it. 
2.3.  The Chairperson  thank ed Canada for their update . He proposed that the Committee take note 
of the statement and agree to revert to this matter , as appropriate , at its next meeting.  
2.4.  It was so agreed . 
3  NON–TARIFF MEASURES WORK  PROGRAMME  
3.1.  The Chair person  turned to the Work Programme on Non -Tariff Measures (NTMs)  and reminded 
the Committee that paragraph  3 of the Annex to the 1996  Ministerial Declaration required that 
"Participants […] meet periodic ally […] to consult on non -tariff barriers to trade in information  
technology products."  He recalled that t he Committee ha d attached great importance to NTBs and  
that, since 2000, NTBs ha d become an essential part of the regular work of the Committee.  
3.2.  He recalled that, on 7  May 2015, an industry -driven workshop dedicated to NTBs affecting 
trade in ICT  products had been organized. The main issues that had been raised at that workshop 
by industry representatives were: (i)  transparency; (ii) standards for recognition of test results; 
(iii) e-labelling; and (iv)  energy efficiency. A factual report by the Chair person  had been circulated 
in document  G/IT/28. At subsequent meetings of the Committee, the Chair person  had been tasked 
to continue  consultations on the follow up to the ITA  NTB workshop.  
3.3.  He also recall ed that NTBs had also been extensively discussed at the ITA 20th Anniversary 
Symposium , which had been  held in June 2017.  
3.4.  He further recalled that , at the Committee 's meeting  of 30  October 2018, participants had 
heard an update from Switzerland, as coordinator of the informal consultations on NTBs among a 
small group of participants, consisting of 15  Members, on the work that the group ha d carried out. 
The main purpose of the group was to advance the work on NTM -related issues within the context 
of the ITA  Agreement. The group ha d been working more specifically on the following issues: 
conformity assessment procedures; test results; e -labelling; and transparency . He invite d the 
delegation  of Switzerland to update the Committee on any further development s in this regard.  
3.5.  The representative of Switzerland  stated that , as the Chair person  had already mentioned , 
Switzerland ha d been coordinating an informal group of interested Members in the advancement of 
NTM-related issues within the context of the ITA. The group worked more specifically on issues linked 
to conformity assessment procedures linked to test results, e -labelling , and transparency.  As had 
been reported at the Committee 's previous  meeting, t he current state of play remained  the same  as 
before, and  after a few informal exchanges with interested parties no further advancement had been 
achieved. Nevertheless, his delega tion intend ed to continue the discussions in the form of bilateral 
and informal exchanges in various formats with interested parties in order to sound out if progress 
on these three  issues might be possible in the near future.  His delegation would continue  to inform 
the Committee of any developments in this regard . He recall ed that participation in this group was 
open to all ITA  participants that were interested in NTM  issues. In this context, if any delegation had 
question s regarding the work of the group , or if they were interested in participating  in it, they 
should not hesitate to contact his delegation or one or other of the members of th e group at any 
time. 
3.6.  Speaking for Switzerland itself , he reiterate d the importance of non-tariff measures in the are a 
of ICT  products, which were nowadays the main obstacle to trade in this area, given that for most 
ICT products tariffs were already at zero or close to zero. He encourage d WTO Members to work 
together towards the advancement of NTM -related issues, which fell within the mandate of the 
Committee.  G/IT/M/70  
 
- 8 - 
 
  3.7.  The representative of Japan  thank ed Switzerland for its update. Japan fully agree d with 
Switzerland regarding  the importance of working on NTMs affecting trade in ICT  products. Japan 
wished to continue working toge ther with other Members to make progress on this item.  
3.8.  The representative of the European Union  thank ed Switzerland for its update.  She noted that 
the ITA and its expansion ha d brought considerable benefits in terms of eliminating tariffs , and that  
it was crucial that this was followed  up on with progress to remove non -tariff barriers with a view to 
further facilitating trade in IT  products.  She stated that the EU remain ed committed to that objective , 
even if the y were aware of the challenges that were involved in moving towards commitment in 
regulatory areas under the umbrella of the ITA.  In conclusion, the EU reiterated that it stood ready 
to play its part in discussions in relevant formats on an issue that the EU  was convinced could bring 
tangible benef its to companies.  
3.9.  The Chairperson  proposed that the Committee  take note of the statements made and  revert to 
the matter as appropriate at its next meeting . 
3.10.   It was so agreed . 
4  EMC/EMI PILOT PROJEC T – DRAFT LIST OF TYP ES OF CONFORMITY ASS ESSMENT 
PROCEDURES FO R EMC/EMI USED BY IT A PARTICIPANTS (G/IT/W /17/REV.24)  
4.1.  The Chairperson  turned next  to the EMC/EMI Pilot Project and recall ed that one of the outcomes 
of the NTM  Work Programme had been  the completion of a pilot project that had led to the adoption 
of the "Guidelines for Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) and Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) 
Conformity Assessment Procedures". Upon adoption of these "Guidelines", the Secretariat had 
prepared a note on the "Draft List of Types of Conformity Assessment Procedures for EMC/EMI used 
by ITA  Participants", as contained in document  G/IT/W/17 and its revisions. The note contain ed the 
responses to the survey and other notifications received from Participants on the type of assessment 
procedures for EMC/EMI that they use d. ITA Participants had indicated on several occasions that 
they had found the information contained in this document to be very useful and that they wished 
to have it completed.  
4.2.  He recalled that , as noted at the Committee 's previous meeting , on 30  October  2018, he had 
sent further  reminder s to the 14  remaining participants that had not yet provided any information 
on their conformity assessment procedures. Since then, two  additional  submissions had been 
received by the Secretariat, one from Albania,  and one from the Kingdom of Bahrain. Albania's 
submission was a survey response that had been circulated in document  G/IT/SPEC/Q4/35.  He then 
explained that, at present, of the 53 ITA Participants, 41 ha d provided information on their 
conformity assessment procedures for EMC/EMI , as per document  G/IT/W/17/Rev.24. He reported 
that there were still 12  participants that ha d not yet provided any information on their conformity 
assess ment procedures.  He remind ed the delegations concerned to submit this information as soon 
as possible and to contact the Secretariat should they need further information and clarification.  
4.3.  The representative of Malaysia  thank ed the Secretariat for the upda tes on the EMC/EMI  pilot 
project , and reported that they had prepared an updated compilation of Malaysia's EMC, of which 
EMC for communication equipment  would be associated under category  (a), of which certification by 
a regulator or delegated entity – the equipment has  to be submitted to the regulator or its delegated 
entity for certification . In this context, Malaysia's  delegated entity responsible for certification was 
SIRIM  QAS. She informe d the Committee that Malaysia would provide the relevant updates to the 
Secretariat in due course.  
4.4.  The representative of Canada  thanked Malaysia for its update.  He also thank ed the Chairperson  
for his effort s. He encourage d Members that had not yet  provide d their information to respond to 
the Chair person 's letters.  
4.5.  The Chairperson  once again encourage d the remaining 12  delegations that ha d not yet done 
so to provide the relevant information to the Secretariat as soon as possible to enable the Committee 
to complete this aspect of its work.  
4.6.  As the Committee was drawing closer to the finalization of this Pilot Project , he also asked 
Participants to reflect upon what steps, if any, th ey would be prepared to consider with a view to G/IT/M/70  
 
- 9 - 
 
  maximizing the usefulness of the information on EMC/EMI  conformity assessment procedures that 
had been provided. Participants were invited to share their insights in this regard with his successor 
and with th e Secretariat  at any time , or with the full Committee now or at its next meeting.  
4.7.  He proposed that the Committee take note of the discussions and statements made  under this 
agenda item.  
4.8.  It was so agreed . 
5  DIVERGENCES IN CLASS IFYING INFORMATION T ECHNOLOGY PR ODUCTS 
(G/IT/14/REV.1/ADD.1 ; G/IT/W/6/REV.3; G/ IT/W/33; G/IT/W/34; G/IT/27; 
JOB/IT/12; G/IT/29, G/IT/W/40/ADD.1 –G/IT /W/40/ADD.21, AND 
G/IT/W/40/SUPPL.4)  
5.1.  The Chairperson  then turned to the agenda item on divergences in classifying information 
technology pro ducts. Under this agenda item, there  were three  sub-items: (i)  the implementation 
of the 2013  Decision for the classification of 18  Attachment  B products (G/IT/27); (ii)  the 
implementation of the 2016  Decision for the classification of an additional 15  items (G/IT/29); and 
(iii) the "Note by the Secretariat on the Divergences of Classification of the Remaining 
22 Attachment  B Items", as contained in document  G/IT/W/40 and its supplements and addenda . 
5.1  Implementation of the Decision for the Classification of 18  Attachment  B Products 
(G/IT/27)  
5.2.  The Chairperson  recall ed that, on 20  July 2013, the Committee had adopted the Decision for 
the HS1996  classification of 18  Attachment  B items, which had been circulated in 
document  G/IT/27. As requir ed by this Decision, each participant must reflect the agreed 
classifications in its WTO  Schedule of concessions, as appropriate, following the 1980  Decision on 
the Procedures for Modification and Rectification of Schedules  of Tariff Concessions (BISD  27S/25). 
5.3.  He stated that, since the Committee's previous meetin g, no Member ha d approached the 
Secretariat for assistance. At the same time, he  noted that the technical work involved in this 
exercise was time -consuming and thus c ould only be undertaken on a gradual basis.  He also urged 
developing country participants to contact the Secretariat if they require d technical assistance with  
the modification of their schedules.  
5.4.  He proposed that the Committee take note of his update . 
5.5.  It was so agreed . 
5.2  Implementation of the 2016  Decision for the Classification of an Additional 15 Items 
(G/IT/29)  
5.6.  The Chairperson  turned next to the second  sub-item and recall ed that, on 18  April 2016, the 
Committee had adopted the "Decision for HS2007  Classification of 15  Additional 'Attachment  B' 
Products", which had been circulated in document  G/IT/29. Most of the items covered by this 
Decision relate d to the HS2007  heading  8486 ( machines and apparatus for the manufacture of 
semiconductor boules or wafers) and one  other  item related to heading  8471 (automatic data 
processing machines and units thereof).  
5.7.  He reported that, regard ing the implementation of the 2016  Decision, no new Member ha d 
approached the Secretariat for assistance since the Committee 's previous  meeting . 
5.8.  He proposed that the Committee take note of his update.  
5.9.  It was so agreed . G/IT/M/70  
 
- 10 - 
 
  5.3  The remaining 22  Attachment  B items as contained in document  G/IT/W/40 and its 
supplements and addenda  
5.10.   The Chairperson  turned to the third  sub-item, concerning the remaining 22  Attach ment B 
items , as contained in the Note by the Secretariat on "Divergence s of Classification: Possible 
HS2007  Classification for the Remaining 37  'Attachment  B' Items" , which had  originally been 
circulated as document  G/IT/W/40, based on the Swiss proposal for a three  step procedure 
(JOB/IT/12).  
5.11.   He recalled that, at the Committee 's meeting of 31  October  2014, it had been agreed that: 
"Participants are expected to submit a communication to the Secretariat no later than 30  June 2015, 
indicating: (a)  the items that, in the participant's opinion, should be classified differently from the 
HS2007  codes listed in column  8 of the Annex to this document; and (b)  the HS2007  subheading (s) 
that, in the participant's opinion, are relevant for the classification of t he item in question." It was 
also agreed that " [T]he Secretariat will compile communications received in a separate document. 
On that basis, participants would then be expected to assess the next steps that could be taken to 
reduce any remaining divergence  in classification."  
5.12.   He reported that, so far, the Secretariat ha d received comments from 21  participants . These 
had been  circulated as addenda to document  G/IT/W/40. Comments had been received from  the 
following participants : Norway (G/IT/W/40/Add.1); Chi nese Taipei (G/IT/W/40/Add.2); Switzerland 
(G/IT/W/40/Add.3); the European Union (G/IT/W/40/Add.4); Hong Kong, China 
(G/IT/W/40/Add.5); China (G/IT/W/40/Add.6); Japan (G/IT/W/40/Add.7); Canada 
(G/IT/W/40/Add.8); the United States (G/IT/W/40/Add.9); India ( G/IT/W/40/Add.10); Macao, 
China (G/IT/W/40/Add.11); El Salvador (G/IT/W/40/Add.12); the Republic of Korea 
(G/IT/W/40/Add.13); Panama (G/IT/W/40/Add.14); Thailand (G/IT/W/40/Add.15); Guatemala 
(G/IT/W/40/Add.16); Mauritius (G/IT/W/40/Add.17); Montenegro (G/ IT/W/40/Add.18); the Russian 
Federation (G/IT/W/40/Add.19); Seychelles (G/IT/W/40/Add.20); and New Zealand 
(G/IT/W/40/Add.21).  
5.13.   All these comments ha d been consolidated into document  G/IT/W/40/Suppl.4, which also 
considered  the 2016  Decision on the classifi cation of the additional  15 items. Therefore, as 
participants could see from that document, there remain ed 22 Attachment  B items for which 
Participants should provide their comments with a view to arriving at a common HS  classification.  
5.14.   In this regard, he invite d delegations that ha d not yet provided their comments on the possible 
HS2007  classification of the remaining 22 items to do so as soon as possible with a view to arriving 
at a common classification for these products within existing HS  nomenclature and to fulfil the 
mandate of paragraph  5 of the Annex to the Ministerial Declaration  on Information Technology 
Products.  
5.15.   The representative of the United States  wished to make a comment although it was not 
specific to sub-item 3. She drew the attention of the Committee to document  JOB/07/96 , dated 
25 June 2007. This document set out what was called the "ITA  Model List "; it was a very helpful 
document that the Secretariat had made available to Members . It tracked ITA product coverage and 
classif ication divergences through the changes in nomenclature from 1996 through to 2007.  It was 
a tool that had been very helpful to the United States for monitoring and tracking implementation 
issues as well as trade flows in ITA  products.  From the US  perspecti ve, she said that it would be 
helpful  if the Secretariat could update this JOB document  to include also HS2012 and 
HS2017 nomenclatures . 
5.16.   The Chairperson  thanked the US and requested the Secretariat to update  the said 
JOB document.  
5.17.   He proposed that the Committee take note of the se update s and of the statement by the 
United States . 
5.18.   It was so agreed . G/IT/M/70  
 
- 11 - 
 
  6  NEW PARTICIPANTS  
6.1.  The Chair person  report ed that, on 23  January  2019, the Secretariat had received a 
communication from the Permanent Mission of Belarus confirming Belarus' commitment to become 
a participant to the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information Technology Products (ITA) upon 
its accession to the WTO.  On the same date, the Secretariat had also received Belarus' draft 
ITA Schedul e for circulation to Participants for review and approval.  The Secretariat had performed 
an electronic verification of Belarus' ITA  Schedule and had found that there were no discrepancies.  
The Secretariat's verification sheet and an electronic version of Belarus' ITA  Schedule had been 
forwarded to Participants with a covering e -mail from the Chairperson , on 5  February  2019, for 
Participants' review and approval.  As there had not been any  ITA Committee meeting scheduled 
during that period, he had proposed that the ITA  Schedule of Belarus be deemed to have been 
approved, unless any participant were to notify its objection in writing to the Secretariat by Friday, 
22 February  2019. Thereafter, an e -mail from the Chair person  would be circulated to all  Participants 
confirming the approval of the ITA  Schedule of Belarus.  Since no objection had been raised by Friday, 
22 February  2019, and since he had noticed that the time given for Participants to conduct their 
review and approval of Belarus' ITA  Schedul e of commitments might have been too short, an e –mail 
from him, as Chair person , to confirm the approval of the ITA  Schedule of Belarus was circulated to 
all Participants on 6 March  2019.  However, he pointed out that certain delegations  had subsequently 
raised questions about the process, noting that Belarus' market access negotiations were ongoing . 
6.2.  The representative of the United States  thanked the Chairperson  for informing the Committee 
about the process that ha d been followed for the accession  of Belarus . She underscore d that the US 
was pleased that Belarus was taking the necessary steps to participate in the ITA , and that the US 
was continuing to work with them in that regard.  She also reiterate d the point that had been made 
by Belarus  in its own communication to the Committee , stating its interest in becoming an 
ITA participant upon WTO accession.  
6.3.  She stated that , from the US  perspective, there were several elements that the US considered 
to be important part s of the process of becoming an ITA  participant.  One step was the review and 
approval of the ITA  schedule by th is Committee ; however, in the view of the US, this was not the 
only step. The acceding candidate's commitments were also reflected in the relevant bilateral access 
agreements , as well as , and perhaps most importantly , incorporated into its final consolidated 
market access schedule.  The challenge, as the US saw it, was the appropriate sequencing given the 
various timelines of the individual m arket access bilateral negotiation s as well as the overall 
accession.  Ultimately, it was incumbent upon all ITA participants to ensure that there were no 
discrepancies between the commitments that they had under taken in the ir ITA schedule and those 
that th ey had undertaken in their final consolidated market access schedule.  She looked forward to 
welcoming Belarus as a full ITA  participant upon its WTO  accession.  
6.4.  The representative of the European Union  thanked the Chairperson  and appreciate d the efforts 
made by Belarus to prepare a schedule in line with the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in 
IT Products.  She noted that the Communication from the Chairperson , dated 5  February  2019, had 
conveyed to Participants that Belarus had confirmed its commitment to become a participant of th e 
1996 Ministerial Declaration upon its accession to the WTO.  She also note d that no comments had 
been received following the circulation of Belarus' draft schedule earlier in the year. She therefore 
looked forward t o welcoming Belarus as a full participant of the ITA as soon as the respective 
commitments had been implemented, which the EU had underst ood would take place upon Belarus' 
WTO accession.  
6.5.  The representative of Canada  thanked the Chairperson  for explaining t he process  and said that 
he had underst ood that this was a similar process to those that had been conducted in the past, 
when countries acceding to the WTO had either wanted to become a participant to the ITA before 
they became a Member of the WTO, or that this formed part of their pre -accession processes. He 
stated that Canada respect ed that; however, he wonder ed if, going forward, participants might have 
an informal conversation amongst interested Members as to how they should be dealing with such 
cases . He said that he raised the issue mainly from a systemic perspective. In the current case, he 
had appreciate d the Secretariat 's verification of Belarus' Schedule . He noted that the US  delegation 
had mentioned that the time -period had been short, but he wished in that context to have a 
discussion about the comparison between Members who were acceding to become WTO Members , 
and how they became participants  to the ITA , and how current Members of the WTO could, when 
they decided to do so , becom e participants  to the ITA. He gave the example of  Brazil,  a WTO Member G/IT/M/70  
 
- 12 - 
 
  that was not current ly a participant to the ITA . He understood that, if Brazil would like to become a 
participant to the ITA, it would need to submit a schedule, together with the Secre tariat's verification 
sheet, to the ITA  Participants for their review and approval. Once Brazil's ITA  schedule had been 
approved by the ITA  Participants, it also needed to be circulated to all WTO  Members under the 
1980 Decision on the Procedures for Modif ication and Rectification  of Schedule s of Tariff C oncessions  
and WTO  Members would be given 9 0 days in which to comment on that. If there were no comments 
on that schedule, the Director -General would then certify that schedule. In conclusion, he considered  
that it would be useful to have an informal discussion among interested Members about how 
participants should be approaching countries that were acceding to the WTO and that wished  to join 
the ITA before becoming  WTO Member s. 
6.6.  The representative of the United States  added a small but important point regarding  the 
processes under discussion . Her delegation had noted that the draft ITA  Schedule of Belarus had 
been circulated to the Committee in a PDF file, which had made its review particularly difficult. 
Normally the file of the acceding participant was circulated in an Excel file, or perhaps in both Excel 
and PDF, but at least there had also been an Excel file. Speaking as someone from Capital who had 
been involved in the technical  work of evaluating these schedules, she considered that it would be 
very helpful to receive the schedule in an Excel file for ease of review, especially given the limited 
time-frames available to participants in which to do so . She noted that, going forwa rd, this too could 
form part of an informal discussion , as mentioned by Canada. In future, her delegation would like 
to see these schedules circulated both in PDF and Excel formats.  
6.7.  The Chairperson  thanked the United States for their feedback and suggestion.  
6.8.  He proposed that the Committee take note of th e discussion s and of the statements made.  
6.9.  It was so agreed . 
7  ELECTION OF CHAIRPER SON 
7.1.  The Chair person  stated that , as per normal practice, the Committee elect ed a new chairperson 
on an annual basis , and such election typically took place at the Committee's first meeting of the 
year and took effect at the end of that meeting.  However, a s participants were aware, the 
Chairperson  of the Council for Trade in Goods ha d been continuing to consult with Members regarding 
chairpersons for the CTG 's subsidiary bodies, including the ITA  Committee. The slate of names of 
the chairpersons proposed was expected to be adopted soon.  
7.2.  In consequence , he propose d to proceed as follow ed: as soon as the CTG would adopt the 
proposed chairpersons for its subsidiary bodies, the Secretariat would send an email to Participants 
with the name of the proposed chairperson for the ITA Committee. If no objection were received 
within the time -frame indica ted in that email, the candidate  would be deemed  to have been elected 
by the Committee  by acclamation . 
7.3.  It was so agreed . 
8  OTHER BUSINESS  
8.1  Date of the next meeting  
8.1.  The Chairperson  informed the Committee that its nex t meeting would be held in the autumn 
of 201 9. 
8.2.  It was so agreed . 
__________