RESTRICTED  
  
G/MA/M/70  
 
30 October 2019  
(19-7350) Page: 1/39 
Committee on Market Access  Original: English  
 
 MINUTES OF THE COMMI TTEE ON MARKET ACCES S 
28 MAY 2019  
CHAIRPERSON: MS ZSÓF IA TVARUSKÓ (HUNGARY ) 
The Committee adopted  the agenda as reproduced in document  WTO/AIR/MA/10, with the inclusion 
of the following items under Other Business: " United States – Measures Regarding Export Control 
and Market Access Prohibition for ICT  Products – Statement by China", and "Pakistan – Import Policy 
Orders – Statement by Thailand" . An annotated agenda was circulated in document  JOB/MA/140. 
The Committee agreed to exclude the review of the notification of quantitative restrictions (QRs) of 
the Kingdom of Bahrain, which had been circulated b y the Secretariat erroneously . 
 
1   INTRODUCTION OF HARMONIZED SYSTEM CH ANGES TO SCHEDULES OF  
CONCESSIONS  – STATUS REPORT  ................................ ................................ ....................  3 
− HS96 ( L/6905 and WT/L/756)  ................................ ................................ ......................  3 
− HS2002 ( WT/L/605 and WT/L/807)  ................................ ................................ ...............  3 
− HS2007 ( WT/L/673 and WT/L/830)  ................................ ................................ ...............  3 
− HS2012 ( WT/L/831)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 3 
− HS2017 (WT/L/995)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 3 
2   THE HARMONIZED S YSTEM AND THE WORK O F THE WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION – WCO  CONFERENCE ON THE FUT URE OF THE HARMONIZE D  
SYSTEM – COMMUNICATI ON FROM THE WTO  SECR ETARIAT (G/MA/W/142)  ..................  4 
3   OPERATION OF THE  INTEGRATED DATABASE  (IDB), INCLUDING ST ATUS OF 
SUBMISSIONS (G/MA/ID B/2/REV.49), AND THE  CTS DATABASE – STAT US REPORT  ...... 6 
− STATUS REPORT  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  6 
− MODALITIES AND OPERATION OF THE INTEGRATED DATABASE (IDB), DRAFT  
DECISION (JOB/MA/139/REV.1)  ................................ ................................ ...................  6 
− COMMUNICATION FROM THE INTERNATIONAL GRAINS COUNCIL (G/MA/W/141)  ...............  8 
4   ENHANCING TRANSP ARENCY IN APPLIED TA RIFFS – COMMUNICATIO N BY THE 
RUSSIAN FEDERATION ( JOB/MA/138)  ................................ ................................ ............  9 
5   NOTIFICATIONS PU RSUANT TO THE DECISI ON ON NOTIFICATION P ROCEDURES  
FOR QUANTITATIVE RES TRICTIONS (G/L/59/RE V.1, JOB/MA/101/REV. 1) ..................  13 
A. NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 13 
B.  QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS: FACTUAL INFORMATION ON NOTIFICATIONS RECEIVED 
(G/MA/W/114/REV.2, G/MA/W/114/Rev.2/Corr.1)  ................................ ................................ .19 
6   SITUATION OF SCH EDULES OF WTO MEMBER S (G/MA/W/23/REV.15)  ....................  21 
7   REPORT BY THE SE CRETARIAT ON THE STA TUS OF RENEGOTIATION S UNDER 
ARTICLE  XXVIII OF TH E GATT  1994 (G/MA/W/ 123/REV.5)  ................................ ..........  22 
8   AUSTRALIA – DISC RIMINATORY MARKET AC CESS PROHIBITION ON 5G  
EQUIPMENT – STATEMEN T BY CHINA  ................................ ................................ .............  22 G/MA/M/70  
 
- 2 - 
 
  9   CHINA - CUSTOMS DUTIES ON CERTAIN IN TEGRATED CIRCUITS – STATEMENTS  
BY THE EUROPEAN UNIO N, JAPAN, AND CHINES E TAIPEI  ................................ .............  23 
10   ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION T O INCLUDE CROATIA –  
NEGOTIATIONS UNDER A RTICLE XXIV:6 OF THE  GATT 1994 – STATEME NT BY THE 
RUSSIAN FEDERATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 24 
11   EUROPEAN UNION – RENEGOTIATION OF T ARIFF RATE QUOTAS UN DER 
ARTICLE  XXVIII OF TH E GATT 1994 – STATEM ENT BY THE RUSSIAN F EDERATION  ....... 25 
12   UNITED KINGDOM – RENEGOTIATION OF T ARIFF RATE QUOTAS UN DER 
ARTICLE  XXVIII OF TH E GATT  1994 – STATEM ENT BY THE RUSSIAN F EDERAT ION ....... 27 
13   INDIA - CUSTOMS  DUTIES  ON TELECOMMUNICATIO N AND OTHER PRODUCTS  – 
STATEMENTS BY CANADA , CHINA, NORWAY, CHI NESE TAIPEI, AND  THE  
UNITED STATES (G/MA/ W/120, G/MA/W/128)  ................................ ............................  29 
14   INDIA – QUANTIT ATIVE RESTRICTIONS O N IMPORTS OF CERTAIN  PULSES – 
STATEMENTS BY AUSTRALIA , CANADA, THE EUROPE AN UNION AND THE  
UNITED STATES  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  30 
15   INDONESIA  – CUSTOMS DUTIES ON  TELECOMMUNICATION P RODUCTS –  
STATEMENT BY THE UNITED  STATES  ................................ ................................ ..............  33 
16   JAMAICA – REGULATIONS  NOS. 145 AND 146 BA NNING SINGLE -USE PLA STIC 
PRODUCTS – STATEMENT  BY THE DOM INICAN REPUBLIC  ................................ ..............  33 
17   KINGDOM OF BAHRAIN,  KINGDOM OF SAUDI AR ABIA, AND THE UNITED  ARAB 
EMIRATES – SELECTIVE  TAX ON CERTAIN IMPO RTED  PRODUCTS – STATEMEN TS  
BY THE EUROPEAN UNIO N, SWITZERLAND AND T HE UNITED STATES  ...........................  34 
18   MONGOLIA  – QUANTITATIVE REST RICTIONS ON THE IMPO RTATION OF  
CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS – STATEMEN T BY THE RUSSIAN FED ERATION  ...... 36 
19   OTHER  BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 37 
19.1   United States – Measures Regarding Export Control and Market Access Prohibition for 
ICT Products  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 37 
19.2   Pakistan - Import Policy Order  ................................ ................................ .................... 38 
19.3   Date of the next meeting  ................................ ................................ ........................... 38 
20   ELECTION  OF THE CHAIRPERSON  ................................ ................................ ............  38 
 
 
  G/MA/M/70  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1  INTRODUCTION OF HARMONIZED SYSTEM CH ANGES TO SCHEDULES OF CONC ESSIONS  
– STATUS REPORT  
1.1.  The Chairperson informed the Committee that considerable progress had been made on several 
of the transpositions and that the Secretariat would now begin the relevant work regarding 
HS2017  transposition further to the recent adoption of the "Notes on Methodology" at the 
Committee's me eting of 10  April 2019 (G/MA/366).  
− HS96 ( L/6905 and WT/L/756)  
1.2.  The Secretariat  (Mrs Alya Belkhodja) reported that one  file remained pending in HS96, namely 
that of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; this file was under review under a separate procedure, 
based on GATT  document  L/6905.1 
1.3.  The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report.  
− HS2002 ( WT/L/605 and WT/L/807)  
1.4.  The Secretariat  (Mrs Alya Belkhodja) reported that 116  schedules of concessions had been 
transposed and had either been certified or were in the process of certification. One  schedule 
remained pending, from the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. 2 
1.5.  The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report.  
− HS2007 ( WT/L/673 and WT/L/830)  
1.6.  The Secretariat  (Mrs Alya Belkhodja) reported that 110  schedules of concessions had been 
transposed and had either been certified or were in the process of certification. The Secretariat noted 
that 15 schedules remained pending and that it had been in contact with four of those Members to 
finalize their files, namely: Argentina; the Dominican  Republic; Indonesia; and Paraguay. Comments 
were still pending with regard to Thailand's file. 3 
1.7.  The Commit tee took note  of the Secretariat's report.  
− HS2012 ( WT/L/831)  
1.8.  The Secretariat  (Mrs Alya Belkhodja) reported that 95  schedules of concessions had been 
transposed and had either been certified or were in the process of certification; a further 38  files 
were still under review.4 
1.9.  The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report.  
− HS2017 (WT/L/995)  
1.10.   The Secretariat  (Mrs Alya Belkhodja) noted that the "Notes on Methodology" for HS2017 had 
been agreed by the Committee on Market Access on 10  April 2019 (document  G/MA/366); she 
informed the Committee that the Secretariat had begun the techn ical work on the computer 
programmes necessary for automatic transposition, the implementation of simplification cases, and 
the verification of inconsistencies. The Secretariat expected to have a first batch of files ready to be 
circulated to Members by en d-2019. With regard to the Consolidated Tariff Schedules (CTS) 
database, the Secretariat informed the Committee that the CTS  files had been made available to all 
Members on the WTO  website; of these 135  CTS files, 91  were available in HS2012, 29 were 
available in HS2007, 12 were available in HS2002, and three  remained in HS96. She further noted 
that a new release of the CTS  DVD was under preparation and would be distributed to Members over 
                                                
1 See document RD/MA/47 . 
2 Ibid. 
3 Ibid. 
4 Ibid. G/MA/M/70  
 
- 4 - 
 
  the summer; in addition, this new release would include a compilatio n of original legal instruments, 
listed by Member.  
1.11.   The representative of Switzerland  asked whether it was possible to receive the content of the 
CD-ROM in an electronic version, since few computers could read CD -ROMs.  
1.12.   A member of the Secretariat  (Mrs Alya Belkhodja) replied that a decision had not yet been 
taken regarding if to use a CD -ROM or a USB  key; she noted that the information could also be made 
available via the IDB  File Exchange Facility. Another member of the Secretariat (Mr  Roy Santana) 
added th at the Secretariat had been developing a new website to serve as a Goods Schedules 
Library, which would be released later in the year. The work on this project had begun six  months 
before and considerable progress on it had already been made; indeed, a dem onstration was 
foreseen for the Committee's autumn meeting.  
1.13.   The representative of Sri Lanka  noted that the HS2017  transposition had introduced 
233 amendments, the majority of which concerned fishery products. She asked how the Secretariat 
would guide devel oping countries in their transposition and when the documents would be ready to 
be submitted to Capital for verification, considering the ongoing negotiations on fishery subsidies.  
1.14.   The Secretariat  (Mrs Alya Belkhodja) responded that it would prepare the fi les for developing 
countries in line with the agreed procedures. The process had already begun, and a first  group of 
files was expected to be sent to Members for their review and approval by the end of the current 
year. 
1.15.   The Committee took note  of the Secre tariat's report.  
2  THE HARMONIZED SYSTE M AND THE WORK OF TH E WORLD TRADE ORGANI ZATION – 
WCO  CONFERENCE ON TH E FUTURE OF THE HARM ONIZED SYSTEM – COMM UNICATION 
FROM THE WTO  SECRETA RIAT (G/MA/W/142)  
2.1.  The Chairperson  informed the Committee that the WTO  Secretaria t had been invited by the 
World Customs Organization (WCO) to participate in a Conference on the Future of the Harmonized 
System, which had taken place in Brussels from 2 -3 May 2019. The Secretariat had prepared a 
background document for this Conference th at had also been circulated as document  G/MA/W/142 
and its corrigenda.  
2.2.  The Secretariat  (Mr Roy Santana) reported that the Conference had been endorsed last year 
by the WCO  Policy Commission with the objective of brainstorming on a possible strategic review  of 
the Harmonized System (HS), looking in particular at how the HS was working across its user base, 
what might need to be done to improve its functioning, and formulating recommendations on 
whether or not to proceed with a full Strategic Review. The Conf erence was attended by more than 
300 participants, representing WCO  Members, international organizations, industry associations, 
private companies, and academia. Mrs  Suja Rishikesh -Mavroidis, Director of the WTO's Market 
Access Division, had been invited t o deliver the keynote speech, which focused on the importance 
of the HS for international trade. The Secretariat had also been asked to make a presentation on 
how the HS had been used in the context of WTO  trade negotiations. In addition, the Secretariat 
prepared and submitted a document explaining how the HS had been used in the various 
WTO Agreements, in the WTO's databases and statistical work, and in terms of the impact of the 
HS amendments on the WTO  Agreements and the work of transposition. The Secret ariat also noted 
that, given the profound impact that HS  amendments had had on Members' applied trade regimes 
and the work of the WTO, it would be advisable for any eventual HS  review to endeavour to commit, 
to the extent possible, to circulate exhaustive correlation tables that would provide clear guidance 
to Members on the nature of any changes made. Other Conference participants spoke of the 
challenge of transposing into newer HS  versions legal commitments undertaken in the context of 
other trade agreeme nts beyond the WTO. In particular, it appeared that many countries had not 
undertaken this work with regard to bilateral and regional trade agreements, thereby making it 
difficult for the private sector to benefit from them. Nevertheless, while praising th e considerable 
efforts that had been made at the WTO to catch up with and to align the legal commitments of 
WTO Members as set out in their schedules of concessions with their trade regimes as actually 
applied, including the transparency with which that te chnical work had been undertaken, certain 
participants had expressed concern over the delays that persisted in terms of reflecting in the G/MA/M/70  
 
- 5 - 
 
  relevant data the most recent changes. The Conference recognized that the HS was an essential tool 
for the global trad ing system and that it played a central role in the area of trade and statistics. 
Furthermore, it acknowledged the current strength of the HS as a multipurpose tool and as a 
universal language in world trade. Nevertheless, while expressing the view that th e HS remained 
relevant, the Conference also endorsed the view that there was still room for improvement in order 
to ensure that it remained relevant to 21st century trade and technology, and to the needs of its 
users. In addition, the WCO  Secretariat had r ecommended its Policy Commission to support the 
implementation of a project to further examine potential areas for improvement in the Harmonized 
System that, in the first instance, would focus on the following: (a)  the continuation of the 
consultation proc ess; (b)  a further gathering of information on current issues in relation to the use 
of the HS; (c)  the carrying out of a feasibility study to examine the desirability and potential impact 
of the proposals resulting from the Conference and the subsequent c onsultations, including an initial 
cost and benefit analysis; and (d)  making subsequent recommendations to the Policy Commission 
on how to advance with those changes that are viable on the basis of the most appropriate bodies 
and mechanisms. In making thes e recommendations, the Conference emphasized the need to adopt 
a transparent and inclusive approach to HS  reform, whose execution would be efficient and timely. 
The WCO  Policy Commission was scheduled to meet in June  2019 to look at the results of the 
Conference and to decide upon next steps.  
2.3.  The representative of the United States  stated that it was useful for the WCO and its delegates 
to better understand how the HS  underpinned the market access commitments that had been made 
by WTO  Members, and how chang es to the HS, including more frequent amendments to the HS, 
could have an impact upon the implementation of those commitments in the future. The United 
States was of the view that ensuring that Members' bound schedules were up to date ensured 
transparency and promoted trade. Frequently, the time lag between Members' more current applied 
schedules and the often out -of-date bound schedules could lead to significant concerns, as evidenced 
by some of the issues on the agenda. The US recognized and appreciated t he Secretariat's work to 
ensure that the transposition of Members' schedules was accurate, transparent, and efficient. 
Therefore, the US would not want WCO  changes to the HS to strain the Secretariat and its resources. 
The US urged the Secretariat to stren gthen its collaboration with the WCO on this issue and to keep 
Members apprised of those activities.  
2.4.  The representative of Canada  had found the paper to be interesting and requested to return to 
the issue at the Committee's next meeting. He asked the Secre tariat to elaborate on how the idea 
of an exhaustive correlation table providing clear guidance on the nature of HS  changes related to 
the correlation tables currently circulated to the Committee in the G/MA/ - document series.  
2.5.  The representative of South A frica also requested that the paper be discussed again at the 
Committee's next meeting. She noted that, as had been stated in the paper's summary, the WCO 
should endeavour to agree to the extent possible on exhaustive correlation tables that would provide 
clear guidance on the nature of changes made each time that such changes were introduced. At the 
same time, she expressed concern regarding the legal basis and implications of having such agreed 
exhaustive correlation tables in a context where Members some times provided the Secretariat with 
their own correlation tables along with their data submissions.  
2.6.  The Secretariat  (Mr Roy Santana) recalled that there were typically three  main types of 
structural changes introduced in an HS  amendment, as followed: (i)  one subheading was split into 
two or more new subheadings ("splits"); (ii)  two or more HS  codes were merged into one  new 
subheading ("mergers"); or (iii)  mergers and splits occurred at the same time ("complex cases"). 
The Secretariat used the WCO's correlat ion tables as a guide to how the concessions in the Schedules 
of Concessions must be transposed. While in many cases the correlation tables were straightforward, 
in others the guide proved incomplete. In this regard, he noted that page  10 of 
document  G/MA/ W/142 provided examples of three  types of situations where some of the 
correlations had been presented only as "examples" or were incomplete. In these situations, it was 
a challenge for the Secretariat to know how best to approach these transpositions, bec ause the 
examples actually provided were intended to be used only as general guidance. Moreover, the types 
of products that had been listed in those cases were precisely some of the products where there had 
been most disagreement among Members as to how th e transposition in the WTO Schedules of 
concessions should be done. For this reason, the Secretariat had recommended that the clarity of 
these correlations be improved upon. On the questions by Canada and South Africa, the Secretariat 
responded that the is sue could be included on the agenda of the next meeting. The Secretariat was 
also available to meet bilaterally with any Members wishing to learn more about this issue.  G/MA/M/70  
 
- 6 - 
 
  2.7.  The representative of Sri Lanka  asked if each HS  transposition that had been adopted by  the 
WCO had been issued with amended explanatory notes.  
2.8.  The Secretariat  (Mr Roy Santana) replied that the Secretariat was a heavy user of the different 
instruments produced by the WCO, including the HS  Explanatory Notes. His understanding was that 
the WCO  and the HS  Committee worked to update the explanatory notes every time there was an 
HS amendment. Although the explanatory notes were very useful to know where a specific product 
should be classified within one  particular version of the HS, they did not a ddress how the 
classification of that product may have changed across different versions of it; indeed, the only tool 
available to do so was, precisely, the correlation tables.  
2.9.  The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report and of the statements made.  
3  OPERATION OF THE INT EGRATED DATABASE (ID B), INCLUDING STATUS  OF 
SUBMISSIONS (G/MA/ID B/2/REV.49), AND THE  CTS DATABASE – STAT US REPORT  
3.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that the three  issues included under this agenda item were as 
followed: (i)  the status report by the Secretariat on the IDB and CTS  databases; (ii)  the IDB  Draft 
Decision; and (iii)  a communication from the International Grains Council.  
− STATUS RE PORT  
3.2.  The Secretariat  (Ms Adelina Mendoza) began its report5 with the status of the notifications of 
applied tariffs for 2019, which had fallen due on 31  March  2019. Fewer than one  third of the 
notifications due had in fact been submitted (43 out of the 135  expected notifications, or 32%). With 
regard to the 2017  imports notifications, which had fallen due last September or October  2018, the 
data of 57  Members had been notified or collected by the Secretariat, which represented 42% of the 
total notifications  due. With regard to the 2018  imports notifications, which had fallen due in the last 
quarter of 2019, the IDB had received 12  notifications. With regard to compliance based on the 
latest deadlines, 31  notifying Members had no outstanding obligation on tar iffs and 33  notifying 
Members had no outstanding obligations on imports. However, there remained 53 and 54  Members 
with a six -year or more data gap for tariffs and imports, respectively. In addition, a greater number 
of Members were reporting most -favoured -nation (MFN)  data with their additional voluntary non -
MFN tariff schemes, even if the number of these without any notification remained still significant.  
3.3.  The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report.  
− MODALITIES AND OPERATION OF THE INTEGRATED DATA BASE (IDB), DRAFT 
DECISION (JOB/MA/139/REV.1)  
3.4.  The Chairperson  recalled that the Committee had carried out considerable work on this issue 
in recent months. At its formal meeting of 9  October  2018, the Committee had agreed to explore 
the possibility of revi siting the IDB  Decision through an informal open -ended discussion to hear 
Members' views on this issue. This discussion had taken place at the Committee's informal meeting 
of 6 November  2018, where the Secretariat had described the Decision, the notificati on 
requirements, and how the data had been disseminated. The Secretariat had prepared a background 
note that had been e -mailed to delegations on 14  November  2018, and circulated in 
document  JOB/MA/137. During this open -ended informal meeting, the Committee  had asked the 
Secretariat to prepare an additional document, this time describing the problems faced in the 
operation of the IDB; this document had been circulated in January  2019 under the symbol 
JOB/MA/137/Add.1. This second  document had identified eigh t problem areas and possible areas for 
improvement, in particular as concerned the fragmentation of the rules across different documents; 
it had been discussed at the Committee's informal open -ended meeting of 21  February  2019. At the 
end of this informal meeting, the Committee had instructed the Secretariat to prepare a draft 
Decision that would consolidate into one  document all of the existing rules and procedures, which 
had previously been spread across several documents, as well as including new ideas. The draft 
Decision had been e -mailed to Members and then circulated as document  JOB/MA/139, on 
4 April 2019. The Chairperson recalled that she had discussed this document previously with 
Members, both at a small group meeting with those delegations that ha d made substantive 
                                                
5 See document  RD/MA/50.  G/MA/M/70  
 
- 7 - 
 
  comments on or expressed a particular interest in the document, plus all group coordinators, and 
then again during another informal open -ended meeting of the Committee, which had taken place 
on 9 April 2019. During the latter meeting, se veral Members had taken the floor to thank the 
Secretariat for its draft; they had also clarified certain issues and identified provisions that could be 
improved. In addition, bilateral meetings had also been held with the Chairperson and the Secretariat 
to collect Members' views and to further clarify the issues outstanding. On this basis, a revised 
version of the draft Decision (document  JOB/MA/139/Rev.1) had been e -mailed to Members and 
discussed at a small group and informal open -ended meeting on 13  May 2019. Following these 
discussions, two  issues remained pending; these were then further discussed on 21  May 2019, with 
those interested Members. The Chairperson reported that the concerns in question had been 
resolved, and that the slight additions propos ed had been e -mailed to Members in the three  official 
languages and circulated in document  JOB/MA/139/Rev.1/Add.1. The Chairperson understood that 
no outstanding issues remained and proposed that the Committee adopt the Decision as set out in 
document  JOB/MA/139/Rev.1 and Addendum  1, on the basis of the following understandings:  
• Only the notification elements in paragraph  1 of the Decision were mandatory. Nothing in 
the Decision obliged Members to submit the voluntary elements listed in paragraph  2, even 
if the information were publicly available at the tariff line level;  
• with regard to subparagraph  2(d), and as stated in the chapeau, this provision applied only 
to internal taxes and other duties and charges in connection with importation when these 
were ava ilable at the tariff line level;  
• as stated in paragraph  3, nothing in the Decision would be interpreted to modify the existing 
notification requirements pursuant to the "Regional Trade Agreements Transparency 
Mechanism" or the "Preferential Trade Arrangeme nts Transparency Mechanism"";  
• the notification deadlines set out in paragraph  4 were only for the mandatory elements listed 
in paragraph  1 and, as clarified by the footnote, the deadlines only applied to Members that 
based their tariffs on the calendar yea r. For other Members, the deadlines could be adjusted 
to take into account the dates when the national tariff came into force. Members would be 
able to submit the voluntary elements listed in paragraph  2 at any time;  
• paragraph  9 of the Decision only author ized the Secretariat to work with other international 
organizations in developing standards and tools to facilitate the automatic transmission of 
data. It did not authorize the Secretariat automatically to obtain data without first 
communicating with the M ember to obtain that Member's consent. Any automatic 
transmission of data from the Member to the Secretariat would need to respect the rules of 
paragraph  8 and be based on an agreement between the Member and the Secretariat;  
• on paragraph  26, since this Dec ision had replaced the Committee Decisions in 
documents  G/MA/238 and G/MA/239, it followed that it also replaced the guidelines and 
other associated documents that had been prepared by the Secretariat, including those in 
the G/MA/IDB/1  document series, doc ument  G/MA/IDB/W/6, and the information note by 
the Secretariat contained in document  G/MA/288;  
• Members remained the masters of their own data. As stated in paragraph  11, each Member 
had the right to transmit modifications to their own data at any time.  
3.5.  The Chairperson  asked if any Members wished to make any further comments.  
3.6.  The representative of Sri Lanka  expressed her delegation's appreciation for the extensive 
consultations that had been held in the preparation of the draft IDB  Decision. Sri Lanka propo sed an 
amendment to paragraph  6, to replace the phrase "or equivalent format" with "other formats 
referred to above". Sri Lanka also requested to include paragraphs  8 and 9 to the understandings 
regarding the work of the Secretariat with international orga nizations.  
3.7.  The Chairperson  thanked Sri Lanka for its comments on paragraph  6 and recalled that Sri 
Lanka's comments on paragraphs  8 and 9 had already been included. She recalled that paragraph  9 
of the Decision only authorized the Secretariat to work with other international organi zations to 
develop standards and tools to facilitate the automatic transmission of data. It did not authorize the G/MA/M/70  
 
- 8 - 
 
  Secretariat automatically to obtain data without communicating with the Member concerned. Any 
automatic transmission of data from the Member t o the Secretariat was required to respect the rules 
of paragraph  8. 
3.8.  The representative of the United States  thanked the Chair and the Secretariat for their work in 
preparing the draft Decision. The US believed that the streamlined IDB  requirements would he lp to 
improve the quantity and quality of the data reported by Members to the IDB. Ultimately, this 
increase in transparency would benefit Members' stakeholders and traders. With regard to 
paragraph  2(d), the US shared the interpretation expressed by the C hair, that this measure applied 
only to internal taxes applied at the border as well as to other duties and charges in connection with 
importation. Her delegation was prepared to support the adoption of the Decision.  
3.9.  The representative of South Africa  noted that the concerns that had been raised by her 
delegation during the initial consultations had been taken into consideration; it believed that this 
would further simplify the notification obligations of Members and thereby allow the WTO  Secretariat 
to pro vide the necessary technical assistance and capacity building for developing countries, with 
the objective of assisting Members in implementing the Decision.  
3.10.   The representative of Canada  thanked the Chair and the Secretariat for their work. Canada 
submitte d that the Decision was a great improvement over the mishmash of notification 
requirements that currently existed; furthermore, it was a good example of how Members could 
modernize the Committee. Canada supported the adoption of the Decision.  
3.11.   The represent ative of India also thanked the Chair and the Secretariat for their work and 
sincere discussion of the issues. His delegation considered that the Chair's statement had clarified a 
number of important issues relating to paragraphs  2, 8, and 9. He noted that  there had been an 
initial confusion with regard to paragraphs  8 and 9 since these were separate but related paragraphs, 
as the Chair's statement had clarified.  
3.12.   The representative of the European Union  stated that this process had offered an encouraging 
example of constructive engagement among Members, with solid and efficient support from the 
Secretariat. She thanked the Secretariat for all its work on the consolidated text. The EU confirmed 
its support for adoption of the Decision.  
3.13.   The representative of Japan expressed her delegation's appreciation to the Chair and the 
Secretariat for facilitating the process of consolidating the relevant documents relating to the 
IDB Decision. She recalled that several meetings had been held on the issue, including in sma ll 
groups and bilaterally, and that, as a result, Members would no longer need to refer to different 
documents to prepare their tariff and import data notifications. Japan believed that the revised 
IDB Decision would facilitate the notification process and  supported the Decision's adoption.  
3.14.   The representative of New Zealand  supported the adoption of the Decision and thanked the 
Secretariat and others for their work.  
3.15.   The Chairperson  proposed the adoption of the Decision.  
3.16.   The Committee adopted  the Decision.6 
− COMMUNICATION FROM THE INTERNATIONAL GRAINS COUNCIL (G/MA/W/141)  
3.17.   The Chairperson  noted that the Committee had received a communication from the 
International Grains Council (IGC) requesting access to the IDB and CTS  databases, pursuant to the 
terms and con ditions in the dissemination policy contained in document  G/MA/238.  
3.18.   The representative of Japan  supported the request made by the IGC, whose objective was to 
seek to promote the trade in grains and, in that context, to collect and analyse the relevant data . 
She noted that the IGC enjoyed permanent observer status in the Committee on Agriculture, and 
that the WTO and the IGC  Secretariat had already been collaborating in many ways, including by 
sharing their respective analytical tools. Cooperation among inte rnational organizations helped to 
                                                
6 See document  G/MA/367.  G/MA/M/70  
 
- 9 - 
 
  increase the amount of information and improve the quality of the data available to the 
WTO Secretariat. This cooperation was consistent with the IDB  Decision.  
3.19.   The representative of Canada  echoed Japan's statement and supp orted the request made by 
the IGC. Canada submitted that this was a good example of an exchange of information that would 
help both organizations and contribute to a clearer understanding of the grains trade.  
3.20.   The representative of Australia  supported the r equest.  
3.21.   The representative of Argentina  supported the request.  
3.22.   The representative of Sri Lanka  requested the IGC to provide information on how they would 
use the data provided and stated that, with this understanding, it would join others in accepting the 
request.  
3.23.   The Chairperson  responded to Sri Lanka that the IGC would be invited to the next Committee 
meeting. She also noted that the IGC would need to be asked if they accepted the terms and 
conditions of the dissemination policy contained in the new IDB  Decision that Members had 
approved.  
3.24.   The Committee took note  of the statements made and approved  the IGC's request to for 
access to the IDB and CTS  databases pending the acceptance of the terms and conditions in the new 
dissemination policy contained in the IDB  Decision.  
4  ENHANCING TRANSPAREN CY IN APPLIED TARIFF S – COMMUNICATION BY  THE 
RUSSIAN FEDERAT ION (JOB/MA/138)  
4.1.  The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a communication by the Russian Federation 
entitled "Enhancing Transparency in Applied Tariffs", which had been circulated on 20  March  2019 
as document  JOB/MA/138.  
4.2.  The representative of the Russian  Federation  made a presentation7 that sought to answer 
Members' questions regarding document  JOB/MA/138. She recalled that tariffs constituted a core 
pillar of the WTO  system, and of the GATT in particular, and that the existing rules only required 
Members  to provide transparency at the national level. She also recalled that the legal background 
concerning how Members were to provide transparency on customs tariffs included three  different 
obligations: (i)  in accordance with Article  X of the GATT, Members w ere required to publish their 
information on customs tariffs; (ii)  in accordance with the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA), 
Members were required to notify where they published this information; and (iii)  in accordance with 
the IDB  Decision, Members were  to submit their information on applied tariffs annually. This 
information afforded Members an opportunity to become acquainted with their applied tariffs. 
However, when changes to tariff rates were introduced during a calendar year it was difficult to 
determine when the change had occurred and the new rate entered into force. Traders frequently 
asked how they could promptly get acquainted with the information available on tariff changes. In 
this context, she submitted that the WTO was missing the link betw een the transparency mechanism 
at the national level, and notifications at the WTO  level. The purpose of the proposal was to provide 
Members with prompt information regarding when a tariff rate had been changed, when adopted, 
and when published. It sought to connect traders with such information in an efficient way and to 
fill in the legal gap between national level and WTO -level transparency. The Russian Federation 
proposed to draw up a road map to set out the different options available to resolve this is sue, 
primarily through addressing the existing legal gaps in the WTO  rules. The Russian Federation also 
proposed to initiate discussions on the challenges faced by businesses in order to identify traders' 
concerns and jointly to elaborate solutions to addr ess the legal lacunae. She encouraged Members 
to engage in discussions on how to provide additional information to the business sector concerning 
changes in applied tariffs.  
4.3.  The representative of Australia  welcomed the paper from the Russian Federation, wh ich had 
highlighted various issues concerning tariff transparency. His delegation considered that 
transparency was vital to the proper functioning of the markets. Without transparency, businesses 
                                                
7 Document  RD/MA/49.  G/MA/M/70  
 
- 10 - 
 
  had to operate in an uncertain environment; this uncertainty  increased risk and discouraged 
businesses, especially smaller businesses, from entering markets. The gap between applied and 
bound tariffs created particular uncertainty for traders. Australia submitted that Members should 
indeed consider how to ensure gr eater transparency concerning applied tariff changes beyond the 
regular annual applied tariff notification requirements. Australia proposed that this could be achieved 
through some form of early warning system in the WTO. He added that Members needed to co nsider 
what level of advance notice would be appropriate, given that, as the Russian paper had highlighted, 
a significant number of applied tariff changes entered into force on the same date as their 
publication. Australia believed that a deeper exploratio n of how Members treated shipments already 
in transit when their applied tariffs had been altered would be of particular value. Technical 
discussions could be held in conjunction with other committees dealing with this subject in order to 
consider issues s uch as the following: how did different Members treat shipments already in transit 
when they altered their applied tariffs; best practices with regard to shipments in transit; differences 
in the treatment of shipments in transit between Members when they r aised tariffs and when they 
lowered them; and options to improve the treatment of shipments in transit when a Member altered 
its tariffs.  
4.4.  The representative of Paraguay  considered that the Russian proposal was a good initiative to 
reduce uncertainty caused  by changes in applied tariffs, which had a significant impact on exports. 
The initiative could also help to improve transparency and predictability for businesses. 
Nevertheless, he noted that any possible mechanism should not be difficult for Members to c omply 
with or increase their workload.  
4.5.  The representative of Canada  thanked the Russian Federation for the presentation as well as 
for the paper and the data that had been provided. He noted that the Secretariat's Trade Monitoring 
Reports already provided data on tariff increases and tariff decreases. In Canada's view, one area 
that could be further explored was the extent to which changes in tariffs were simply MFN  applied 
changes or changes linked to trade defence, other instruments or other types of tari ff changes that 
had been autonomously adopted by a Member. Canada agreed with Australia that it was important 
to highlight good regulatory practice regarding transit shipments. He noted that tariff changes often 
occurred immediately, although advance warni ng was sometimes given. In Canada's case, there 
existed a system that allowed goods in transit to be exempt from subsequent tariff changes. He 
concluded by noting that a further elaboration of this subject might prove to be a useful exercise for 
this Commi ttee, as it had for others.  
4.6.  The representative of the European Union  noted her delegation's interest in initiatives to 
enhance transparency on trade measures in general; in this particular case, she welcomed the 
Russian Federation's communication and thank ed Russia for having elaborated bilaterally and at this 
meeting on the issues that the EU had sought to address. The EU agreed that "water" between 
applied and bound tariffs could create significant uncertainty for traders; this uncertainty was further 
exacerbated if tariff changes occurred suddenly. The EU considered that more transparency on 
applied tariffs might alleviate some of this uncertainty. With regard to existing transparency tools 
on applied tariffs in the WTO, she recalled that, in addition to the annual notifications to the IDB, 
some Members, including the EU, provided to the WTO information on their changes in applied tariffs 
every six  months as part of the reporting on trade developments for the Trade Monitoring Report. 
In the case of the EU,  these were typically tariff suspensions, which were referred to in the Trade 
Monitoring Report as trade facilitating measures.  
4.7.  The representative of the United States  thanked the Russian Federation for its communication 
and presentation on increasing tran sparency in applied tariffs. Enhancing transparency was a top 
priority for the United  States in the WTO because it would benefit all Members. The US considered 
that the information that had been presented by the Russian Federation had been insightful. The US 
wished to further examine the issue of applied tariff changes and to identify those Members that 
changed their applied tariffs frequently (for example, in the course of days, weeks, or months); such 
information would not be captured in the analysis as c urrently presented. Her delegation hoped that 
such additional analysis would help Members to understand the reasons for any changes in applied 
tariff, and their impact on trade.  
4.8.  The representative of Colombia  welcomed the Russian proposal and noted that Co lombia was 
willing to participate in any further discussion of it. In Colombia's view, this proposal would help to 
increase transparency for the Organization and thereby also benefit small and medium -sized 
enterprises. She added that this initiative could be complemented by other exercises being G/MA/M/70  
 
- 11 - 
 
  undertaken within the Organization, such as the MSMEs initiative, and also by the business support 
offered by the ITC.  
4.9.  The representative of Japan  thanked the Russian Federation for its proposal. Japan understood 
how important it was for Members to be informed in a timely manner of any changes made to 
another Member's applied tariffs. Japan published its own applied tariffs on its customs website 
shortly after any change had been introduced. In this context, Japan ex pressed concern in terms of 
its domestic administrative procedures over the mention in document  JOB/MA/138 of a notification 
of applied tariffs before publication.  
4.10.   The representative of Singapore  thanked the Russian Federation for the proposal and 
supporte d the proposal's overall goal of enhancing transparency.  
4.11.   The representative of Switzerland  thanked the Russian Federation for its communication and 
presentation and noted that her delegation shared the goal of enhancing transparency. For trade 
operators, i t was essential to know what tariffs would have to be paid when goods arrived at the 
border, and a gap between bound and applied tariffs posed a real challenge in this regard. As 
mentioned in the communication, the TFA had addressed the issue of transparen cy in Article  1, 
paragraph  1.1(b), where it established a clear obligation for Members promptly to publish, in an 
easily accessible manner, their applied rates of duty and taxes of any kind imposed on, or in 
connection with, importation or exportation. Swi tzerland recognized that the obligation by 
WTO Members to publish these changes was perhaps not especially trade facilitating for MSMEs, due 
to their lack of capacity to track changes in applied tariffs on official websites. It was also true that 
there was  no WTO  requirement for Members to notify information on any changes in their applied 
tariffs throughout the year. However, like many other Members, Switzerland notified such changes 
to the trade monitoring mechanism. In addition, the importance of complyi ng with the yearly 
obligation to notify applied MFN  duties was something that was perhaps not obvious to all Members; 
nevertheless, this was the only way to know the level of MFN  duties for the current year. Although 
Switzerland was open to discussing Russ ia's proposal, her delegation believed that, as a first  step, 
it would be appropriate to find ways to improve the level of compliance with Members' annual 
obligation to notify their MFN  applied duty rates. In this regard, Switzerland had been encouraged 
by the adoption of the draft IDB  decision. Another possible option for the Committee to explore 
would be for Members to indicate to the Secretariat the websites where their current applied tariffs 
were listed so that these applied tariff rates could be compi led and updated, given that the current 
list was already quite old.  
4.12.   The representative of New Zealand  thanked the Russian Federation for its work and supported 
greater transparency, especially given that up -to-date applied tariff information was greatly us eful 
to exporters. In this regard, he pointed out that his own delegation had recently launched an updated 
"Tariff Finder" website, based on WTO  data. However, such resources were only as accurate and 
current as the underlying WTO  data, and New Zealand was  conscious of the fact that an increased 
provision of changes to applied MFN  tariff rates might only serve to increase the burden on Members. 
As such, it might be useful to have a discussion between Members in which they shared how they 
alerted domestic st akeholders of tariff changes. In this regard, he considered it potentially useful to 
seek improvements based on Members' existing systems and to avoid than requiring additional work.  
4.13.   The representative of China  thanked the Russian Federation for its commun ication and 
presentation. China supported the objective of improving transparency and registered its interest in 
this issue. China would willingly engage in any follow -up discussions of this issue.  
4.14.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  joined others in than king the Russian Federation for 
raising this issue, and for their communication. Chinese Taipei asked the Russian Federation what 
the time -frame would be for a Member to notify its adoption of any new applied tariff.  
4.15.   The representative of South Africa  took note of the proposal by the Russian Federation. She 
noted that, to date, Members had attempted to simplify the notification obligations by the Decision 
on Modalities and Operation of the IDB. The report on the status of notifications to the IDB had 
reveal ed that there were Members that were not up -to-date with their notification obligations or 
were not able to notify to the IDB according to the required format. These were the types of 
challenges that the Market Access Committee should try to find ways to m itigate against. Her 
delegation considered that the proposal set out in document  JOB/MA/138 would create additional G/MA/M/70  
 
- 12 - 
 
  obligations for Members and place a strain on the human resources necessary to comply with the 
additional transparency; it would be onerous and burdensome for developing and least developed 
countries. She noted that certain Members, including South Africa, also had additional transparency 
undertakings concerning applied tariffs through the bi -annual TPRB  Trade Monitoring Reports to take 
into c onsideration. The tariff conditions that had been agreed upon by Members for the entry of 
specific goods into their markets were the bound rates set out in each Member's schedule of 
concessions. These schedules represented commitments not to apply tariffs above the listed rates, 
as these duty rates had been "bound". The WTO  bound rates were the legal basis and the 
commitments undertaken in the WTO, and not the applied rates. South Africa concluded that the 
proposal would overload the Committee with transpar ency issues and divert its attention away from 
its work and terms of reference.  
4.16.   The representative of Thailand  thanked the Russian Federation for its efforts in this initiative 
and looked forward to engaging in discussions to address the existing gaps in t ransparency with 
regard to applied tariffs.  
4.17.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  also thanked the Russian Federation and registered 
his delegation's interest in participating in future discussions of this issue.  
4.18.   The representative of Mexico  thanked the Russian Federation for the document and 
presentation. Mexico believed that this was a valuable signal in terms of improving transparency, 
which was an issue of great importance to Mexico. Mexico reiterated its posit ion of wishing to work 
towards greater transparency in the Committee.  
4.19.   The representative of India thanked the Russian Federation for the paper and its presentation. 
India asked the Russian  Federation to provide more information about the calculation of pro tectionist 
measures to which reference had been made, and also with regard to the use of "water" by Members 
(that is, the difference between bound and applied rates), and the relationship between changes in 
MFN simple average duties with Free Trade Agreeme nts (FTAs). In this regard, India noted that 
MFN tariffs may be applied in the case of certain imports but that most were in fact occurring under 
an FTA. In addition, India asked how the Russian Federation correlated the imports that were taking 
place at a  much lower duty under FTAs. Moreover, he stated that Members had been facing 
difficulties in updating their IDB  notifications due to administrative challenges and capacity 
constraints in their countries. In this regard, India noted that there were other i nstruments available, 
such as the TPRB  monitoring reports, and the list of websites under the Trade Facilitation Agreement, 
where information on tariffs could be found by Members. With regard to time -frames, he noted that 
India could provide a notification  of its tariff changes but not an advanced notification because of 
internal administrative procedures. Therefore, Members should carefully consider the feasibility of 
requiring advanced notifications. India considered that the existing notification obligat ions, together 
with the various tools that were already available, already allowed traders to become acquainted 
with the information that they required.  
4.20.   The representative of the Russian Federation  thanked those delegations that had expressed 
their interes t in this matter and reiterated that the Russian Federation considered that it would be 
useful to have a WTO  instrument to alert small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) of changes in 
Members' applied tariffs. Regarding the issue of time -frames for notifi cations, the Russian Federation 
noted that more discussions were necessary to understand the difference in the time -frames 
between the publication of the draft legal act and the adoption of the new tariffs for each Member. 
Regarding the data to be provided , she encouraged delegations to engage each other bilaterally. 
She stated that the goal of the proposal was to give prompt access to business to information on 
applied tariff rates to allow them to adjust their business operations in relation to changes in  a 
Member's trade policy. The idea was to connect businesses directly to the work of the WTO, which 
in turn would add value to the Organization. She also saw value in Members exchanging their 
experiences regarding possible options and instruments that they  used domestically to promptly 
publish information on tariff changes; similarly, if Members already had such data on tariff changes, 
these too could be shared with other Members.  
4.21.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  G/MA/M/70  
 
- 13 - 
 
  5  NOTIFICATIONS PURSUA NT TO THE  DECISION ON NOTIFIC ATION PROCEDURES FOR  
QUANTITATIVE RESTRIC TIONS (G/L/59/REV.1,  JOB/MA/101/REV.1)  
5.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that the two  issues under this agenda item were as followed: (i)  the 
examination of notifications received; and (ii)  the Secretaria t's introduction of its report concerning 
the factual information contained in these notifications.  
A. NOTIFICATIONS  
− Albania (G/MA/QR/N/ALB/1)  
5.2.  The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new notification from Albania for the period 
2018-2020.  
5.3.  The Committe e took note  of this notification.  
− Argentina (G/MA/QR/N/ARG/1/Rev.2)  
5.4.  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.2 . 
5.5.  The Committee took note  of this notification.  
− Brazil (G/MA/QR/N/BRA/2)  
5.6.  The Chairperson  recalled that, at its previous meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert to 
the notifications by Brazil that had been circulated in documents  G/MA/QR/N/BRA/1 and 
G/MA/QR/N/BRA/2.  
5.7.  The representative of the United States  recalled that her delegation had ad dressed questions 
to Brazil regarding Brazil's restrictions on colour prints of motion pictures; the United States was 
looking forward to Brazil's further engagement with the US on this question. In addition, the US 
noted that a list that had been publishe d on the website of Brazil's Ministry of Industry, Foreign 
Trade, and Services, had suggested that a relatively large list of goods were currently subject to 
import prohibitions and non -automatic import licences; however, many of these measures had not 
been listed in Brazil's QR  notification. In this regard, the US expressed its interest in seeing all of 
the measures reported on Brazil's QR  notification, along with each measure's justification.  
5.8.  The representative of Switzerland  stated that, in addition to t he points that had been made by 
the US  delegation regarding Brazil's long list of products for which there were prohibitions or non -
automatic licences, her delegation had a suggestion specifically with regard to QR  No. 10, which 
related to narcotics. Switz erland requested Brazil to clarify whether or not this specific case was an 
export prohibition, since the text seemed to suggest that it applied both to imports and exports.  
5.9.  The representative of Brazil  responded to the question from the United States by s aying that 
it had only recently had access to the tariff codes for the products that had been mentioned at the 
last Committee meeting and, therefore, that his delegation was not yet in a position to give a 
definitive answer. Brazil also noted that the meas ures in question had been included in its notification 
pursuant to Article  7.3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing. In Brazil's understanding, a non -
automatic import licence should be notified under QR  procedures if its purpose was to implement 
any kind o f QR restriction. Brazil considered that this was not the case for the measures in question. 
Brazil had taken note of the questions from the US and Switzerland, which would be sent to Capital 
for consideration. And Brazil stood ready to provide more inform ation on the issue, as required.  
5.10.   The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed  to revert to this notification at 
its next meeting.  
  G/MA/M/70  
 
- 14 - 
 
  − China (G/MA/QR/N/CHN/4/Rev.1, G/MA/QR/N/CHN/5/Rev.1)  
5.11.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to two  new notific ations from China for the periods 
2016-2018 and 2018 -2020.  
5.12.   The representative of the United States  noted that China's most recent QR  notification 
included two  new import prohibitions on certain recyclable materials. The US had significant 
concerns over the  trade restrictiveness of China's import bans and contaminant standards pertaining 
to recyclable materials. The US was also concerned about the fairness of these measures because it 
did not appear that China had applied the same bans and restrictive contam inant standards to 
domestically sourced products. In addition, she noted that China had yet to provide sufficient 
technical information on this issue. The US reiterated its request to China, which had been asked 
across several forums, to provide technical information supporting the adoption of these measures. 
The US further asked if China planned to apply the same bans and restrictive contaminant standards 
to domestically sourced recyclable materials and, if this were not the case, to explain its reasoning.  
Finally, the US reiterated its prior request to China to halt its implementation of the existing and 
planned measures and to consider less trade -restrictive alternatives instead.  
5.13.   The representative of Switzerland  requested China to indicate more precisely  which 
paragraphs of GATT  Article  XX it had invoked in the prohibitions and restrictions in its notification, 
and to provide a more precise description than it had so far done, other than saying "certain solid 
waste", as was needed to better understand the  scope of the restriction in place. Switzerland further 
asked China to indicate the reason why it had not listed the restrictions regarding ozone depleting 
substances, although China was a participant to the Montreal Protocol. Switzerland had the same 
question regarding the Minamata Convention on Mercury.  
5.14.   The representative of China  took note of the questions, which would be forwarded to Capital 
for consideration. Regarding the prohibition on solid waste prohibition, China had made comments 
at previous meet ings of the CTG and the Committee on Import Licensing. In China's view, solid 
waste was inherently polluting, which made it different from other normal goods. According to the 
Basel Convention and other internationally recognized principles, every Member h ad the obligation 
properly to handle and dispose of its domestically -produced solid waste. However, over the course 
of past decades, huge amounts of solid waste had been exported to China. China was now seeking 
a path towards modernization that would ensur e the harmonious co -existence of humans and nature. 
In this context, China hoped that exporting countries could actively shoulder their international 
responsibilities.  
5.15.   The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed  to revert to this notification at 
its next meeting.  
− Costa Rica (G/MA/QR/N/CRI/3)  
5.16.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new notification from Costa Rica for the periods 
2016-2018 and 2018 -2020.  
5.17.   The Committee took note  of this notification.  
− Hong Kong, China (G/MA/QR/N/HKG/4)  
5.18.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new notification from Hong  Kong, China, for 
the period 2018 -2020.  
5.19.   The representative of Switzerland  asked Hong Kong, China to clarify the difference between 
the use of "non -automatic licenses" and "permits" in the context of its notification. For example, for 
QRs Nos.  2, 4, and 26,  they had referred to a "permit".  
5.20.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  took note of the question, which would be forwarded 
to Capital.  G/MA/M/70  
 
- 15 - 
 
  5.21.   The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed  to revert to this notification at 
its next meeting.  
− India (G/ MA/QR/N/IND/2, G/MA/QR/N/IND/2/Add.1)  
5.22.   The Chairperson  recalled that, at its previous meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert 
to the notification by India for the periods 2014 -2016 and 2016 -2018, which had been circulated in 
document  G/MA/QR/N/IND/2. Si nce then, India had submitted an addendum to this notification, 
circulated in document  G/MA/QR/N/IND/2/Add.1, which had clarified that the notification also 
covered the period 2018 -2020.  
5.23.   The representative of the United States  recalled that, at the Committ ee's previous formal 
meeting, her delegation had enquired about the import prohibition on goods classified under 
HS heading  85.17, which included telephones, cell phones, and other apparatus that transmitted 
voice, images, and other data. The US asked whet her the prohibition had been applied to all products 
classified under HS  85.17 and, if not, it requested India to specify which products classified under 
HS8517 had been subject to the prohibition, and under what circumstances. If India was not able to 
provide an answer to these questions, the US asked India to indicate when it would be able to do 
so. Separately, the US noted that item No.  14 of the agenda of this meeting addressed quantitative 
restrictions implemented by India on certain pulses. Previously , India had told this Committee that 
its restrictions on pulses were temporary, but some of the restrictions had already been in place 
since August  2017, and India had recently extended them for an additional full year, through 
March  2020. In this regard, the US questioned how these measures could be considered temporary. 
Furthermore, she noted that the 2012  Decision on Notification Procedures for Quantitative 
Restrictions did not differentiate between temporary and more permanent restrictions. Rather, 
Memb ers were required to report "complete notifications of all quantitative restrictions in force." The 
US thus urged India to update its notification accordingly.  
5.24.   The representative of India responded to the first  question from the United States by noting 
that the measure on HS  85.17 applied to all products covered by this heading, without exception. 
With regard to the QRs on certain pulses, India recalled that it had informed Members, in different 
committee meetings, of the reason why these measures had been necessary, and how the quota 
system had been built into them. India would respond to this question under the relevant agenda 
item. India submitted that its notifications were up -to-date; at the same time, India noted that it 
would notify its import licensi ng notifications in due course.  
5.25.   The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed  to revert to this notification at 
its next meeting.  
− Japan (G/MA/QR/N/JPN/4)  
5.26.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new notification from Japan for the period 
2018-2020.  
5.27.   The Committee took note  of this notification.  
− Kazakhstan (G/MA/QR/N/KAZ/1, G/MA/QR/N/KAZ/1/Corr.1, G/MA/QR/N/KAZ/2/Rev.1)  
5.28.   The Chairperson  recalled that, at its previous meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert 
to the notification by Kazakhstan for the period 2016 -2018, which had been circulated as 
document  G/MA/QR/N/KAZ/1 and G/MA/QR/N/KAZ/1/Corr.1. Since then, Kazakhstan had submitted 
a revised notification, which had been circulated as document  G/MA/QR/N/KAZ/2/Rev.1.  
5.29.   The Committee took note  of these notifications.  
− Macao, China (G/MA/QR/N/MAC/4)  
5.30.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new notification from Macao, China, for the 
period 2018 -2020.  G/MA/M/70  
 
- 16 - 
 
  5.31.   The Committee took note  of this notification.  
− Nicaragua (G/MA/QR/N/NIC/3)  
5.32.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new notification from Nicaragua for the period 
2018-2020.  
5.33.   The Committee took note  of this notification.  
− Norway (G/MA/QR/N/NOR/1)  
5.34.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new notification from Norway for the period 
2018-2020. The Chairperson thanked Norway for its first QR  notification.  
5.35.   The Committee took note  of this notification.  
− Russian Federation (G/MA/QR/N/RUS/2, G/MA/QR/N/RUS/3, G/MA/QR/N /RUS/3/Corr.1, 
G/MA/QR/N/RUS/4, G/MA/W/119)  
5.36.   The Chairperson  recalled that, at its previous meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert 
to two  notifications by the Russian Federation for the periods 2014 -2016 and 2016 -2018, which had 
been circulated as docu ments  G/MA/QR/N/RUS/2 and G/MA/QR/N/RUS/3, respectively. The 
European Union had raised questions, which had been circulated in document  G/MA/W/119. Since 
then, the Russian Federation had submitted a new document, which had been circulated as 
document  G/MA/ QR/N/RUS/3/Corr.1, and a new notification for the period 2018 -2020, which had 
been circulated as document  G/MA/QR/N/RUS/4.  
5.37.   The representative of the European Union  reiterated its concerns with regard to two  measures 
contained in the Russian Federation's la test QR  notification: the export prohibition on hides and skins 
(measure No.  28) and the export restriction on birch logs (measure No.  30). With regard to the 
export prohibition on hides and skins, the EU pointed out that the measure had first been introdu ced 
in August  2014, for six  months, and had been presented as "temporary". Since then, it had been 
regularly renewed for periods of six  months. The latest measure, contained in Decree No.  194, dated 
27 February  2019, , had introduced the same ban for the p eriod from March to September  2019. In 
September  2019, this ban would have been in force for five  years; the European Union submitted 
that it could therefore not be considered a "temporary ban". The EU asked the Russian Federation 
to provide detailed expla nations to the following questions regarding the export ban: (i)  could Russia 
elaborate on what basis it justified this measure and explain why it had indicated two  different legal 
bases in two  different notifications, namely GATT  Article  XXI(b)(ii) in the ir 2016  notification 
(G/MA/QR/N/RUS/3) and GATT  Article  XXI(b)(iii) in their recent notification (G/MA/QR/N/RUS/4); 
(ii) to clarify whether the ban was related to the protection of essential security interests; (iii)  to 
explain why hides and skins were cri tical for defence procurement; (iv)  to clarify what volume of 
hides and skins was necessary for defence procurement; (v)  to clarify what volume of domestic 
production was actually subject to the export ban; and (vi)  to explain how much domestic production 
subject to the export ban was also conveyed to other uses. The EU added that if Russia was not in 
a position to address these questions at the meeting, it would appreciate it if the Russian Federation 
could follow -up on this matter with the EU bilaterally.  With regard to the export restriction on birch 
logs, her delegation regretted the Russian Federation's adoption of this measure as it considered 
that it deviated from the prohibition of quantitative restrictions set out in Article  XI of the GATT. The 
EU asked the Russian Federation to confirm that its temporary measure on certain birch logs would 
not be extended beyond June  2019.  
5.38.   The representative of Ukraine  shared the concerns that had been raised by the European 
Union, from a systemic point of view, reg arding the approach that had been taken by some Members 
when introducing "temporary" bans on the export of certain products, and then repeatedly extending 
the period of application of such measures.  
5.39.   The representative of the Russian Federation  noted that i t would engage bilaterally with the 
EU to respond to its questions.  G/MA/M/70  
 
- 17 - 
 
  5.40.   The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed  to revert to this notification at 
its next meeting.  
− Singapore (G/MA/QR/NZ/SGP/4)  
5.41.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new notification from Singapore for the period 
2018-2020.  
5.42.   The representative of Switzerland  asked Singapore for clarification regarding QRs  No. 19 and 
22 to 25. Regarding QR  No. 19, the entire Chapter  29 was mentioned, which gave the impression 
that the importation of all the products falling under Chapter  29 had been prohibited. Switzerland 
asked Singapore to further specify which products, in terms of HS  codes, had been prohibited. 
Regarding QRs  No. 22-25, a non -automatic import licence appeared to be applied for different kinds 
of goods that were classified in Chapters  29 and 30. Switzerland r equested an indication of the most 
relevant HS  headings or subheadings, since it seemed from the product description that only certain 
tariff lines required non -automatic import licensing.  
5.43.   The representative of Singapore  took note of the questions, which w ould be sent to Capital.  
5.44.   The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed  to revert to this notification at 
its next meeting.  
− Chinese Taipei (G/MA/QR/N/TPKM/3)  
5.45.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new notification that had been submitted b y 
Chinese  Taipei for the period 2018 -2020.  
5.46.   The Committee took note  of this notification.  
− Thailand (G/MA/QR/N/THA/2, G/MA/QR/N/THA/2/Add.1)  
5.47.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new notification from Thailand for the periods 
2014-2016, 2016 -2018, and  2018-2020.  
5.48.   The representative of the European Union  noted that Thailand's notification did not include 
the import licensing requirements for feed wheat. The EU had already expressed concerns over the 
import procedures for feed wheat in the Committee on Im port Licensing and the Committee on 
Agriculture, including on the fact that the measure had not been notified to the WTO. The EU had 
also submitted written questions to Thailand in the context of the WTO  Committee on Import 
Licensing (documents  G/LIC/Q/THA /3 and G/LIC/Q/THA/4). The EU had asked for a detailed 
description of the import licensing procedures to be applied but it had thus far not received any 
replies to its questions; nevertheless, her delegation looked forward to receiving them. The 
assessment  by the European Union was that the licensing requirements were non -automatic. 
Therefore, the EU asked Thailand to add them to its QR  notification to this Committee. She noted 
that these requirements had been introduced in early 2017 as a "temporary measur e", but they 
were still in place. In view of recent developments in Thailand's corn market, the EU asked Thailand 
to inform the Committee when the measure would cease to apply; the EU also underscored that, for 
a measure to be considered temporary, the end  date should be known. Lastly, the EU asked if, 
pending its removal, Thailand intended to notify this requirement, in accordance with Articles  1.4 
and 5 of the Import Licensing Agreement.  
5.49.   The representative of Thailand  thanked the European Union for its in terest in Thailand's import 
licensing regime for feed wheat. She had taken note of the questions, which would be conveyed to 
her Capital.  
5.50.   The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed  to revert to this notification at 
its next meeting.  
  G/MA/M/70  
 
- 18 - 
 
  − Ukrain e (G/MA/QR/N/UKR/4, G/MA/QR/N/UKR/4/Add.1)  
5.51.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new notification from Ukraine for the periods 
2016-2018 and 2018 -2020.  
5.52.   The Committee took note  of this notification.  
− United States (G/MA/QR/N/USA/2, G/MA/QR/N/USA/3, G/MA/QR/N/USA/4, G/MA/W/116, 
G/MA/W/127)  
5.53.   The Chairperson  recalled that, at its previous meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert 
to three  notifications from the United States for the periods 2014 -2016, 2016 -2018, and 2018 -2020. 
The Euro pean Union had circulated questions to the United States in documents  G/MA/W/116 and 
G/MA/W/127.  
5.54.   The representative of the European Union  noted that her delegation had been raising concerns 
over US  trade prohibitions on sturgeon products since 2015. In its latest notification 
(G/MA/QR/N/USA/4), the United States had listed these restrictions in measures Nos.  9 and 10. The 
EU had submitted written questions to the US on two  occasions. Her delegation had received limited 
explanations and had asked the Unit ed States to explain the following: (i)  why it considered  that 
wild and farmed sturgeons and their products were not separate categories; and (ii)  why it 
considered  that captive -bred sturgeon and its products were detrimental to the survival of wild 
stocks . The EU recalled that, during past meetings, the US had informed Members about an ongoing 
review carried out by the US  Fish and Wildlife Service on the listing of sturgeon species as 
endangered, and requested to receive an update of this review.  
5.55.   The repre sentative of Brazil  noted that his delegation shared the concerns that had been 
expressed by several Members with regard to the issue of overcapacity in the global steel industry. 
However, Brazil believed that the problem of overcapacity was not one that c ould be solved by 
introducing trade restricting measures. He also expressed concern over measures that were based 
on questions of interpretation regarding the WTO's  rules. In this regard, Brazil recalled that it had 
been working in coordination with severa l Members within the G -20's Global Forum on Steel Excess 
Capacity to seek solutions to the problem. Although overcapacity persisted in the industry, Brazil 
noted that there had been some improvement since 2016 in terms of capacity reduction and price 
increase. In this context, Brazil requested that the United States review its quantitative restriction 
on Brazilian steel with a view to re -establishing normal trade conditions between the two  countries.  
5.56.   The representative of China  noted that the import restric ting measures on steel mill and 
aluminium products had been notified by the United States based on Section  232 (QR  Nos. 17 to 20 
in the most recent US   notification). China requested the US to provide more detailed information 
on these measures, including with regard to the specific quantities of the quotas, their requirements, 
and how they would address US so -called National Security concerns. China believed that these 
import restricting measures were inconsistent with Articles  XI and XXI of the GATT.  
5.57.   The representative of Japan  recalled Japan's belief that all trade measures should be 
consistent with the WTO  Agreements, as it had previously stated both at the CTG and the General 
Council. Regarding US  imposition of additional duties and quantitative restric tions on imports of steel 
and aluminium based on its Section  232 investigations, Japan believed that these measures should 
not be justified on the basis of national security concerns. Japan expressed its deep concern over 
the US  justification in terms of i ts consistency with the WTO  Agreements, and Japan would continue 
to monitor this issue closely.  
5.58.   The representative of the United States  appreciated the EU's continued interest in sturgeon 
and recalled that there were ten  species under review by the US  Fish and Wildlife Service. In 
December of 2017, the US  Fish and Wildlife Service had published a preliminary determination that 
one of the species, the Yangtze River sturgeon, was in danger of extinction and should be considered 
as "endangered" under the Endan gered Species Act. The preliminary determination provided an 
opportunity for public comment. The next step was for the US  Fish and Wildlife Service to issue a 
final determination, which it was anticipated would be published within the fiscal year, ending o n 
30 September  2019. With regard to the status of the other nine  proceedings under review by the G/MA/M/70  
 
- 19 - 
 
  US Fish and Wildlife Service, the US  Service was conducting a 12 -month status review of the petition 
to list nine  species of sturgeon under the Endangered Spec ies Act. The Service was collecting and 
evaluating information and had not yet made a determination regarding the listing of these species, 
but would do so at the appropriate time on the basis of the best scientific and commercial information 
available. At  any time during the Service's review, the EU would be able to provide additional 
information to assist it in reaching its determination. Once the status review had been concluded, 
and if the Service found that a listing was warranted, the Service would th en prepare a proposed 
rule. At that time, the public would be given 60  days to comment on the proposed listing. This would 
give the EU and any other interested Member an additional opportunity to provide the Fish and 
Wildlife Service with any relevant info rmation. The United States had taken note of the comments 
and questions that had been raised by Brazil, China, and Japan, regarding the WTO  consistency of 
the Section  232 quotas. This question concerned issues that were currently the subject of dispute 
settlement proceedings under the DSU. Nevertheless, with regard to any questions about the 
operation of the Section  232 quotas, the US referred Members to the proclamations that had been 
issued by the President under Section  232 itself, and to the quota imple mentation information that 
had been published on the website of US  Customs and Border Protection.  
5.59.   The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed  to revert to these notifications 
at its next meeting.  
B.  QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS: FACTUAL INFORMA TION ON NOTIFICATIONS 
RECEIVED (G/MA/W/114/REV.2, G/MA/W/114/Rev.2/Corr.1)  
1. The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to document  G/MA/W/114/Rev.2, entitled 
"Quantitative Restrictions: Factual Information on Notifications Received", which provided an update 
from the Secretariat on the nature of the information that had been contained in Members' 
QR notifications. The document reflected information received up to 10  May 2019.  
2. The Secretariat  (Mr Simon Neumueller) made a presentation8 concerning the report on th e 
factual information on the Notifications of Quantitative Restrictions that had been received from 
Members. First, he provided an overview of the number of QR  notifications received by region:  
• Considering Asia -Pacific, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe,  nine Members had submitted 
notifications for all biennial periods covered since 2012. Australia and New Zealand had 
submitted three  notifications each, while Kazakhstan had notified two  periods. Six  Members 
had submitted a QR  notification for one  biennial  period each.  
• In the Americas, Cuba and the United States had submitted notifications for all four  biennial 
periods, and eight  Members had notified at least once.  
• In Africa, Mauritius had provided all of its notifications since 2012, but only three  other 
Members had notified.  
• In Europe, the EU and Ukraine had submitted 100% of the required notifications, and 
four other Members had also notified.  
• All in all, 38  Members had submitted at least one  QR notification. In 2019, up until and 
including the date of th e meeting, seven  Members had notified their QRs, and in 2018 
20 Members had done so. In addition, since 2018, four  Members had made a QR  notification 
for the first  time. 
 
5.60.   The Secretariat noted that the dataset that had been used for its report referred to 
"38 Members, which had notified 1118  different QRs in force, which translated into 
1367 "measures". The difference between QRs and measures was due to the fact that some QRs 
involved more than one measure. For example, one quantitative restriction had been  described as 
"Restriction of trade in certain animals and plant species for the protection of species of wild fauna 
and flora ", which had contained a conditional prohibition on imports, and another on exports, as well 
as non -automatic licensing for import s as well as exports. In this case, this quantitative restriction 
included four  different measures. To avoid multiple counting, the Secretariat had only taken into 
account the latest notification for each of the 38  Members concerned.  
5.61.   With regard to the typ es of measures that had been notified by Members under the 
QR notification, non -automatic licensing was the most prevalent among both import and 
export -related measures. These were followed by the categories of "prohibitions" and "prohibitions 
                                                
8 RD/MA/46.  G/MA/M/70  
 
- 20 - 
 
  under define d conditions". He observed that, in relative terms, prohibitions seemed to be more than 
three  times more common on the import than on the export side. Quotas and state trading 
operations had been notified to a much lesser extent. With regard to the types o f products covered 
by the notified QRs, HS  Chapter  29 relating to Organic Chemicals was the most commonly referred 
chapter of the Harmonized System and had been mentioned in 172  QRs. On the other hand, 149  QRs 
had been notified without referring to any HS  codes and remained general by stating that they 
related to "various" HS  codes. HS  Chapters  28 and 38, both also pertaining to chemicals, were 
referred to in 219  QRs. Mechanical and electrical machinery (Chapter  84), as well as vehicles 
(Chapter  87), were a lso indicated in a large number of QRs. Weapons and ammunitions were also 
frequently subject to trade restrictions, while animal products were often regulated in relation to the 
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flor a (CITES).  
5.62.   The Secretariat recalled that QRs were only allowed as exceptions, which meant that 
WTO justification was an important component in this category of notification. In this regard, the 
GATT  1994 had been the most frequently cited justification, wh ereas the Kimberley Process Waivers, 
Accession Protocols, TRIPS, and safeguards had to date played only a minor role. The Secretariat 
noted that 15  Members had not provided a WTO  justification for certain QRs, mainly on the import 
side, amounting to 56  QRs in total. In terms of the specific provisions in the GATT that Members had 
cited, Article  XX of the GATT had been mentioned in 75% of the QRs in the dataset. The most 
prominent specific justification had been Article  XX(b), measures "necessary to protect human, 
animal or plant life or health", which had been cited in almost 50% of the QRs. The national security 
exception under Article  XXI of the GATT had been referred to in slightly more than 15% of the 
notified QRs, most often in relation to weapons and a mmunitions. The carve -out in Article  XI:2 of 
the GATT had been cited as a justification more in the case of exports than imports; the opposite 
was true for Article  XX of the GATT, which had been cited more often for imports and, in particular, 
prohibitions . Article  XX(f) and XX(g), relating to the protection of "national treasures of artistic, 
historic or archaeological value" and the "conservation of exhaustible natural resources", 
respectively, had been referred to more frequently on the export than on th e import side. Article  XXI 
of the GATT had been cited often in justification for import restrictions.  
5.63.   Many of the QRs that have been notified are grounded in an international agreement or 
convention that exists outside the WTO  framework. These so -called "n on-WTO justifications" 
referred in particular to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna 
and Flora (CITES), which was mentioned in 45  QRs. The Montreal Protocol and the Vienna 
Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Lay er were cited as a justification for 56  QRs. The 
Rotterdam, Stockholm, and Basel Conventions, and to a lesser extent the relatively new "Minamata 
Convention on Mercury", accounted for another large share of non -WTO justifications relating to the 
protection  of the environment. The three UN  Conventions relating to trade in narcotics and 
psychotropic substances were cited at least 20  times each. The Wassenaar Arrangement, which 
related to trade in arms and dual used goods, as well as the Chemical Weapons Conve ntion, were 
the main justifications cited in relation to measures on weapons and ammunitions.  
5.64.   Finally, two  thirds of the notified measures had provided information on how they were 
administered at the national level. For example, many notifications include d information on the 
institution in charge of administering a measure, as in the case of a licensing procedure. 
Six notifications provided information on QRs that were directed towards specific partners only, and 
these were often in relation to UN  Security  Council resolutions.  In terms of references to notifications 
to other Committees, 19 of the 38  notifications had included cross -references to other 
WTO notification requirements, of which the majority referred to the Committee on Import Licensing. 
Of thos e, only six  notifications cited the document symbol of the relevant notification without 
providing the additional information that was required by the QR  Decision.  
5.65.   The representative of the United States  recalled that, as had already been expressed at othe r 
Committees, and in the US  proposal to the CTG, her delegation's focus was to address deficiencies 
and gaps in notifications and transparency across the WTO, including in relation to QR  notifications. 
According to the Secretariat's report, only 38  Members  had submitted their QR  notifications. The US 
submitted that, although the number represented a slight increase compared to the previous year, 
there was still a long way to go before achieving full transparency in this area. The US expressed its 
hope that this upward trend would continue, and that the number and frequency of notifications 
would increase.  G/MA/M/70  
 
- 21 - 
 
  5.66.   The representative of Canada  observed that several QR  notifications had included references 
to multilateral environmental agreements and admitted that Canada itself might not have included 
all the relevant references in this regard. He considered that these references reflected the 
Secretariat process to help Members to make these types of notifications. For example, the 
CITES  convention had 183  parties,  so probably Members should have at least provided a notification 
stating the quantitative restriction that they were supposed to impose insofar as they were parties 
to CITES. Canada also suggested that the Committee might consider looking back at the 
QR notification Workshop that had been held a couple years previously, and to consider repeating it 
for Capital -based officials or for Members' missions in Geneva.  
5.67.   The representative of Switzerland  noted that the Secretariat's report showed that there was 
still room for improvement in this area. Switzerland also supported the goal of enhancing 
transparency because restrictions on imports and exports had a considerable impact on traders, and 
it was important for traders to know which restrictions were actually i n place. Switzerland said that 
the workshop for Capital -based officials had been useful because it was the Capital -based officials 
who prepared the notifications. As had been mentioned by Canada, Switzerland noted that a 
significant number of Members belon ged also to several international conventions; in this regard, 
Switzerland encouraged Members to consider including these international conventions in their 
QR notifications in order to enhance transparency still further. Based on the relevant notification s 
and workshops, Switzerland considered that the notification's title was perhaps misleading because 
officials had difficulty in understanding exactly what it was that they were required to notify. In this 
light, Switzerland suggested modifying the title o f the Decision to "Notification of Prohibitions and 
Other Restrictions Covered by Article  XI of the GATT" so that the focus would not be on QRs only.  
5.68.   The representative of the European Union  considered that the Secretariat's report had 
highlighted the seri ous gaps in Members' compliance with their obligation to notify their quantitative 
restrictions. She noted that a mere 38  Members had submitted a notification since the Decision on 
"Notification Procedures for Quantitative Restrictions" had entered into fo rce, in 2012. And only 15 
of those Members had submitted a notification every two  years, as required. As a result, Members 
and traders remained in the dark about what was probably a large number of quantitative restrictions 
that were currently in force and  affecting trade. The EU commended those Members that had 
improved upon their compliance rate since the last report and encouraged Members whose 
notifications were still outstanding to prepare these as soon as possible, considering how important 
they were to the work of the WTO and for traders. She considered that the EU's earlier exchanges, 
in the form of questions and answers on Members' notifications, clearly illustrated the usefulness of 
submitting timely and accurate notifications so that Members could  better understand each other's 
trade regimes. In addition, the EU encouraged developing and LDC  Members facing capacity 
constraints to make use of the Secretariat's technical assistance. She also echoed Canada's 
suggestion to repeat the experience of the workshop on notifications on quantitative restrictions.  
5.69.   The Chairperson  suggested that the Committee's incoming Chair could possibly hold 
consultations on the Swiss proposal.  
5.70.   The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report and the statements made.  
6  SITU ATION OF SCHEDULES O F WTO MEMBERS (G/MA/ W/23/REV.15)  
6.1.  The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to document  G/MA/W/23/Rev.15, entitled "Situation 
of Schedules of WTO  Members".  
6.2.  The Secretariat  (Mr Roy Santana) reported on the procedures that Members had undertaken 
to rectify or modify their schedules of concessions under the 1988  Procedures. To date, there had 
been 587  notifications to change WTO  schedules under these procedures, including unil ateral 
liberalization efforts, rectifications of errors, and tariff concessions resulting from plurilateral 
agreements modifying schedules of concessions, such as the ITA, the ITA  Expansion, and the 
Pharma Agreement. The majority of these notifications rel ated to the transposition of schedules into 
a newer version of the Harmonized System. Overall, there had been about 385 of these modifications 
linked to an updating of the HS  version, which added up to approximately two -thirds of the overall 
number of noti fications submitted under these Procedures. More recently, as a result of the Nairobi 
Declaration eliminating export subsidies, the Secretariat had been receiving notifications from 
Members eliminating these entitlements from Part  IV of their Schedules. In  addition, the results from G/MA/M/70  
 
- 22 - 
 
  many concluded Article  XXVIII renegotiations had been incorporated into the relevant Schedules 
through the 1980  procedures. Of the 587  procedures, approximately 97% had been certified. The 
document that had been prepared by the Secretariat was intended to highlight the work that 
remained pending, including 17  notifications which either had reservations or where the Members 
concerned had submitted their notifications indicating that they were subject to the completion of 
domestic procedures, and even after several years no further notice had been received. The 
Secretariat remained ready to assist Members in concluding these proceedings.  
6.3.  The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report.  
7  REPORT BY THE SECRET ARIAT ON THE STATUS OF RENEGOTIATIONS UNDER  
ARTICLE  XXVIII OF TH E GATT  1994 (G/MA/W/ 123/REV.5)  
7.1.  The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new revision of the "Factual Report on the Status 
of Renegotiations under Article  XXVIII of the GATT  1994", which had been circulated in 
document  G/MA/W/123/Rev.5.  
7.2.  The Secretariat  (Mr Roy Santana) reported that it had updated this report, which provided an 
overview of all the renegotiations under Article  XXVIII of the GATT. He delivered a presentation that 
showed that there had been approxima tely 48 such procedures to date, which were currently at very 
different stages of renegotiation, as shown in the infographic that the Secretariat had prepared for 
the meeting, set out in document  RD/MA/48. The first step related to the initiation of a rene gotiation. 
He noted that there had been eight  instances where a Member had launched a procedure and then 
subsequently had withdrawn its request; many of these instances had occurred in the context of an 
EU enlargement, when a Member with an individual sche dule had begun a procedure but then at a 
certain point had subsequently joined the EU. In addition, there were eleven other renegotiations 
that had been launched, or the authorization to launch a renegotiation had been requested, and that 
in principle rema ined ongoing because the procedure had not yet been concluded. In general, 
Article  XXVIII renegotiations were concluded once the Members holding rights to their renegotiation 
(namely, Members holding Initial Negotiating Rights (INRs), Members with a princi pal supplying 
interest, and Members with a substantial interest) had reached a bilateral agreement with the 
Member that had launched the renegotiation. There had been one  instance where the Secretariat 
had received the bilateral agreements concluded among the Members concerned without any 
subsequent action having been taken. In this regard, the Secretariat recalled that the submission of 
a report following the conclusion of an Article  XXVIII  renegotiation was not the end of the process 
because Members still  had to go through the 1980  Procedures to modify their schedules and to 
reflect whatever changes had been agreed in the context of their Article  XXVIII renegotiations. At 
present there were five  situations where Members had concluded their renegotiations, submitted the 
bilateral agreements and the final report, and had begun the 1980  procedures. However, these 
procedures were either on hold because of reservations or remained within the three -month review 
period required before certification. The final step  of the procedures, after the three -month review 
period had been concluded and no reservation remained, was the certification of the modifications 
by the Director -General, which represented the conclusion of the process. To date, 23  renegotiations 
had been  successfully concluded. The Secretariat completed its report by noting that its main 
purpose had been to raise awareness with regard to the procedures pending, and the Secretariat 
stood ready to assist Members in concluding these procedures.  
7.3.  The Committee  took note of the Secretariat's report.  
8  AUSTRALIA – DISCRIMI NATORY MARKET ACCESS  PROHIBITION ON 5G  EQUIPMENT – 
STATEMENT  BY CHINA  
8.1.  The Chairperson  noted that this agenda item had been included at the request of China.  
8.2.  The representative of China  noted that her delegation had expressed its concern over 
Australia's prohibition of Chinese equipment from the Australian 5G  rollout at previous meetings of 
both this Committee and the CTG. China considered that Australia's practice violated various 
provisions of the  WTO Agreements; furthermore, the measure was discriminatory, because it only 
targeted specific Chinese vendors and, as a result, had denied exporters of Chinese equipment 
access opportunities on Australia's market. She added that Australia's measure was n ot consistent 
with the MFN  principle in Article  I of the GATT and nor did it comply with the provisions regarding G/MA/M/70  
 
- 23 - 
 
  the elimination of quantitative restrictions set out in Article  XI of the GATT. China had addressed 
follow -up written questions to Australia p rior to the CTG's  most recent meeting, in April  2019, and 
her delegation was looking forward to receiving replies to those questions. The Chinese delegate 
concluded by urging Australia to comply with its obligations under the WTO  Agreements.  
8.3.  The representa tive of Australia  recalled that Australia had already responded substantively to 
China's questions when China had previously raised this issue, namely at the Committee's meeting 
of 9 October  2018. Following that meeting, on 24  October  2018, China had writt en to Australia 
seeking further information, and Australia had duly provided China with the relevant information, on 
12 November  2018.  He recalled that China had also raised the issue of 5G  networks at the 
CTG meetings of 13  November  2018 and 12  April 2019. Australia had substantively responded to 
China at the CTG's November meeting. Prior to the CTG's April meeting, China had provided Australia 
with a detailed set of written questions in relation to this matter and Australia was currently in the 
process of  consulting internally with regard to these additional questions, and it would respond to 
China in due course, as it had done on previous occasions.  Indeed, Australia looked forward to 
continuing its constructive bilateral engagement with China on the issu e of 5G  networks.  
8.4.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
9  CHINA - CUSTOMS DUTI ES ON CERTAIN INTEGR ATED CIRCUITS – STAT EMENTS BY THE 
EUROPEAN UNION, JAPA N, AND CHINESE TAIPE I 
9.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that this agenda item had been included at the re quest of the 
European Union, Japan, and Chinese Taipei.  
9.2.  The representative of the European Union  recalled that her delegation had already raised this 
issue on several occasions. The EU had set out the latest state of play and its remaining concerns at 
the CTG's  meeting of April  2019 and at the ITA  Committee meeting that took place in May  2019. 
The EU noted that the situation had not changed and referred to its statements delivered at those 
meetings. Although China had insisted that the tariffs at issue were  progressively diminishing in line 
with China's commitments, the EU and global industry continued to express their concern. By way 
of example, she referred to the statement that had been issued last week by the World 
Semiconductor Council, which included C hina's own semiconductor industry association. She recalled 
that, further to changes that had been introduced to the HS2017  nomenclature, certain 
MCO semiconductors that had previously benefitted from a zero -duty rate began to be charged a 
duty by China. T he EU once again registered its disagreement with the "averaging methodology" 
that had been adopted by China in relation to these MCOs in the context of the HS2017  transposition; 
furthermore, it considered that the value of these concessions had been impai red, in contravention 
of WTO  principles. The EU once again asked China to reconsider its approach.  
9.3.  The representative of Japan  expressed Japan's concerns over China's classification of IGBT -IPM 
(Intelligent Power Modules). Japan noted that, in accordance w ith the WCO's Classification Opinions, 
IGBT-IPMs should be classified under HS  subheading  8542.39, which were currently subject to a 
2.1%  tariff. However, China had treated certain IGBT -IPMs as products that did not have the 
properties of Multi -Component S emiconductors, and had classified them under 
HS Subheading  8504.40, making them subject to a 5%  tariff. Japan wished to continue its 
discussions with China on this classification matter at an expert level. In addition, Japan was closely 
monitoring the situ ation with regard to China's commitment to abolish customs duties in July  2021, 
on all relevant items, in line with the staging of the ITA  Expansion.  
9.4.  The representative of Chinese Taipei  expressed her delegation's  concern over the tariff lines in 
China's t ariff schedule in HS  2017 nomenclature relating to MCO  products. Since 1  January  2017, 
China had imposed tariffs on MCO  products that had previously been subject to duty -free tariffs in 
its schedule. Based on the General Council Decision of 7  December  2016, the scope of concessions 
and other commitments should remain unchanged  when a Member was preparing HS  2017 
transposition; hence, China's amendment to its national tariff nomenclature  to take account of 
HS 2017 should not change the scope of its tariff co ncessions under the WTO. Chinese  Taipei urged 
China immediately to eliminate its tariffs on the MCO  products at issue.  
9.5.  The representative of the United States  expressed her delegation's support for the statements 
that had been made by the EU, Japan, and Ch inese Taipei, and reiterated US  concern over China's G/MA/M/70  
 
- 24 - 
 
  applied duty rates on semiconductor products. She recalled that the US had previously raised its 
concerns not only in this Committee, but also in the ITA  Committee and at the CTG. The US continued 
to ass ert, in line with the General Council Decision on HS  transpositions, that the scope of China's 
concessions appeared to have changed substantially and that the value of the concession had been 
impaired. Semiconductor products that were duty -free for over a decade were now facing duties.  
9.6.  The representative of China  thanked the European Union, Japan, Chinese Taipei, and the United 
States for their comments. China recalled that it had responded to similar comments on this item at 
previous meetings of the Commit tee, as well as in the ITA  Committee and at the CTG. She also 
noted that China had conducted a number of bilateral consultations with interested Members. China 
stated that, while it had now addressed all Members' technical questions, the issue remained as to 
whether or not duty rates were now higher than they had been prior to the transposition. However, 
China had used the methodology suggested by the WTO  documents and its methodology was 
therefore fully consistent with the WTO  rules on HS2017  transposition . China confirmed that it would 
continue to fulfil its tariff reduction commitments undertaken in the context of the ITA  Expansion, 
and that all duties on MCO  products would be eliminated by July  2021, as had been scheduled.  
9.7.  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 RUS SIAN FEDERATION  
10.1.   The Chairperson  noted that this agenda item had been included at the request of the 
Russian  Federation.  
10.2.   The representative of the Russian Federation  reiterated its concern over the EU negotiations 
under Article  XXIV:6 of the GATT  1994 in the framework of its enlargement to include Croatia. The 
Russian Federation had reiterated the issue with the EU bilaterally, as well as in the Committee on 
Market Access and at the CTG. She recalled that the Russian Federation's concerns had been 
addressed to the EU in writing and had also been circulated to Members in 
document  G/SECRET/35/Add.4, of 28  September  2018. This issue also represented the Russian 
Federation's main concern in relation to the EU's draft schedule of concessions, which had been 
circulated in document  G/MA/TAR/RS/506/Add.2, of 17  October  2018. She submitted that, despite 
the fact that the Ru ssian Federation's negotiating rights had been provided for in the EU's notification 
under Article  XXIV, the EU had failed to engage in negotiations with Russia. And by refusing to enter 
into negotiations with the Russian Federation, the EU had ignored not  only its own statistics, but 
also the indication of negotiation rights set out in its own notification, thereby leading to a violation 
of WTO  rules. The Russian Federation once again noted that the EU could not consider the 
negotiations with the Russian F ederation to have been concluded; consequently, she called upon the 
EU to engage into compensatory adjustment negotiations with the Russian Federation.  
10.3.   The representative of the European Union  reminded the Russian Federation of the 
explanations that the EU  had already provided at previous meetings. The EU had informed Members 
about the conclusion and outcome of the negotiations following Croatia's accession to the EU in 
document  G/SECRET/35/Add.2, pursuant to paragraph  5 of the Guidelines on Procedures for 
Negotiations under Article  XXVIII. The outcome of the Article  XXIV:6 process would be faithfully 
reflected in the Schedule  CLXXV for the EU28, which was in the process of certification. The EU had 
extensively and repeatedly explained, orally and in writing , its reasons for not having accepted the 
compensation claims by the Russian Federation in the context of the EU's last enlargement.  In 
addition, the EU recalled that the indication of a WTO  Member as a principal supplier in a 
GATT  Article  XXIV:6/XXVIII  notification did not constitute an automatic recognition of a right for that 
WTO Member to obtain compensation. Some principal suppliers submitted a claim, while others did 
not. The notifying Member then entered into negotiations/consultations with those Mem bers that 
had submitted a claim in conformity with the procedures and within the deadlines applicable under 
WTO rules, with a view to identifying if there existed an entitlement for compensation.  
10.4.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  G/MA/M/70  
 
- 25 - 
 
  11  EUROPEAN UNI ON – RENEGOTIATION O F TARIFF RATE QUOTAS  UNDER 
ARTICLE  XXVIII OF TH E GATT 1994 – STATEM ENT BY THE RUSSIAN F EDERATION  
11.1.   The Chairperson  noted that this agenda item had been included at the request of the Russian 
Federation.  
11.2.   The representative of the Russian Federation  reiterated her delegation's deep concern over 
the approach that had been adopted by the European Union with regard to a re negotiation of its 
TRQs in the context of Brexit. She considered that, within the framework of such negotiations, the 
reduction of market access opportunities for WTO  Members, as well as the WTO  norms provided for 
in Article  XXVIII of the GATT, should not be disregarded. Russia considered that the TRQ  splitting 
methodology that had been proposed by the EU was not WTO  consistent. As a WTO  Member, the EU 
might modify its concessions in respect of TRQs in accordance with Article  XXVIII of the GATT, which 
not o nly permitted Members to modify their concessions but also established an obligation to 
maintain a general level of reciprocal and mutually advantageous concessions not less favourable to 
trade than that provided prior to such negotiations. Consequently, t he Russian Federation urged the 
EU to provide its compensatory proposal. The Russian Federation had also noted the intention of the 
European Union to hold negotiations on the basis of draft Schedule  CLXXV – European Union, 
document  G/MA/TAR/RS/506, of 17  October  2017. Her delegation considered that, since this draft 
schedule had not been certified, it could not be used as the basis for negotiations. In conclusion, the 
Russian Federation emphasized the importance of finalizing the certification of the EU's d raft 
schedule.  
11.3.   The representative of United States  noted that her delegation's  intervention applied both to 
this agenda item and to agenda item  12, which had also been raised by the Russian Federation, 
regarding the EU and UK  Article  XXVIII Negotiations of  TRQs. As had been noted in the CTG and in 
other Committees, the US supported the UK in establishing itself as an independent Member of the 
WTO. However, the United States rejected the approach by the EU and the UK to the apportionment 
of TRQs as such an a pproach was prejudicial to its WTO  rights and trade interests. Furthermore, it 
would reduce market access opportunities for US  exporters into both markets. For certain products, 
the proposed split of TRQs would result in no in -quota access to either the UK  or the EU -27. For 
other products, the proposed split would in all likelihood result in reduced access to the EU only, as 
the UK's draft applied schedule in the event of a no -deal Brexit had indicated that it would not apply 
TRQs for many of the products i n question. The US considered that this was unjustifiable and clearly 
an unacceptable outcome for other Members. The US highlighted that a number of the TRQs in the 
EU's schedule did not concern the UK and instead were the result of negotiations from earli er 
EU enlargements. And these EU  trade concessions represented compensation that had been granted 
for the loss of Members' access in the markets of the acceding EU  Members; they had no connection 
with the UK. The US considered that the UK's decision to lea ve the EU should not be used as a reason 
to diminish the EU's  market access commitments. In conclusion, the US reiterated that the current 
approach to these negotiations was unacceptable, and that, like other Members, the US stood ready 
to engage with the EU and UK in productive negotiations to ensure US  trade interests were 
safeguarded.  
11.4.   The representative of Japan  noted her delegation's significant interest in this issue and 
emphasized the importance of finalizing the draft EU  schedule as soon as possible after Brexit in 
order to ensure legal stability under the WTO  Agreement. Japan also believed that it was important 
to maintain a high level of transparency in the process relative to this issue.  
11.5.   The representative of New Zealand  shared the concerns that ha d been expressed by other 
Members in relation to the EU  proposal to reduce its TRQ  commitments in light of Brexit. As the 
world's largest agricultural importer and exporter, the European Union played an essential role in 
balancing global markets; furthermo re, a significant proportion of the EU's agricultural imports took 
place through tariff rate quotas. This balance had been put at risk by the proposal to reduce most 
of the EU's 196  tariff rate quota concessions, which covered almost 400  tariff lines. WTO  Members 
would lose significant existing market access opportunities under the EU  proposal, including through 
the loss of the flexibility that was currently available to address fluctuations in production, demand, 
and currency. New Zealand wanted to highlig ht the following specific concerns about the EU's 
proposal: (1)  the significant loss of access into the EU  market, including the complete elimination of 
a small number of some of the quotas in question and a large -scale reduction of many more; (2)  the 
risk that much of what remained of this reduced MFN  TRQ access would be absorbed by the 
significant level of bilateral EU -UK trade; and (3)  the loss of flexibility that would constrain the ability G/MA/M/70  
 
- 26 - 
 
  of both exporters and markets to respond appropriately to fluct uations in demand in the current 
uncertain international trading environment. Moreover, New Zealand considered that there was no 
need for the EU to change its obligations in relation to third  countries in response to Brexit, which 
was the conclusion that t he EU had reached in determining that there was no need for it to modify 
its GATS  schedule, nor to alter its bilateral FTA  commitments to third  parties. Rather, Brexit was 
about a change in the EU -UK relationship; it should not be about altering the EU's r elationship with 
the rest of the world. Members needed to know what arrangements were anticipated for the EU27 -
UK trade to sit alongside the access that had originally been negotiated with other Members, and 
which was valued by them.  New Zealand considered  that there was nothing in the current 
EU proposal that addressed this problem. Indeed, his delegation was disappointed that, to date, the 
EU had not provided any satisfactory indication of how it intended to remedy the problems that this 
proposal would cr eate. This was a concern for New Zealand not just from a commercial but also from 
a systemic perspective. At a time of considerable uncertainty in the international trading 
environment, New Zealand looked to the EU, as a declared supporter of the multilate ral rules -based 
trading system, to work with concerned Members to find mutually acceptable ways to address these 
issues, rather than to exacerbate further the current difficulties. New Zealand urged the EU to use 
the Brexit extension to arrive at a solutio n that would be acceptable to all affected Members and 
that would not leave any country worse off than under the EU's current bound WTO  commitments.  
11.6.   The representative of Canada  stated that his delegation continued to have significant concerns 
regarding th e UK and the EU  approach to apportioning the TRQs of the EU -28. Canada had made 
these concerns clear to the UK and the EU in multilateral and bilateral discussions. A number of 
Canada's concerns were the same as those that had been raised by the US and New  Zealand. Canada 
looked forward to further discussions and noted that its intervention applied also for the next agenda 
item. 
11.7.   The representative of Australia  noted that his delegation continued to have a significant 
interest in this issue  as an exporter of  agricultural TRQ  products to the EU. Australia recognized the 
legal rights of the EU to modify their concessions on goods, provided that compensatory concessions 
were granted to the affected Members. However, Australia could not accept the EU's assertion that 
no compensation was required because there had been no loss in the value of the concessions. To 
the contrary, Australia believed it to be clear that the proposed modifications to the TRQs would lead 
to a significant economic loss, not only by removing  flexibility in terms of where a product could be 
sent year -to-year, but also by rendering some TRQ  allocations too small to be commercially viable. 
Australia considered that the EU had to proceed with compensatory adjustments, to do so while 
taking accoun t of the resulting significant commercial losses, and to do so while maintaining a 
general level of reciprocal and mutually advantageous concessions. Australia expected the EU to 
ensure that the value of existing market access would be maintained and not j ust the total volume 
of the existing TRQs. Australia looked forward to working with the EU in a pragmatic manner 
constructively to resolve these concerns while ensuring that the current quality and level of market 
access was maintained.  
11.8.   The representative of Uruguay  reiterated its concerns over this issue. Uruguay considered 
that it was an issue that had to be resolved by negotiations between the Members concerned, and 
not unilaterally. The mutually agreed results of such negotiations should be based on rel evant 
WTO rules, respect of existing market access commitments, and the balance of concessions resulting 
from the Uruguay Round, in order to contribute to the maintenance and strengthening of the 
multilateral trading system.  
11.9.   The representative of China  noted at the outset that her intervention would cover both this 
item and the next, and that China shared the concerns that had been expressed by other Members. 
While her delegation was willing to work with the EU to modify the TRQs in its Schedule, or with th e 
UK to establish its own TRQs, China would not accept the proposed apportionment approach to TRQs 
because it would lead to a significant loss in market access opportunities and flexibility in future EU 
and UK  markets. China was concerned that the data tha t had been provided by the EU and the UK 
had failed to completely reflect actual trade patterns. China was further concerned by the EU's 
intention to impose unilaterally apportioned TRQs in the event of a "no deal" Brexit as this would 
seriously affect the  interests of other Members. The EU and the UK should commit to engaging with 
the Membership in a spirit of cooperation, inclusiveness, and openness. China hoped that the 
concerns that had been expressed could be adequately addressed, respecting the princi ple that 
Members should not be left worse off and that any changes should maintain the general level of G/MA/M/70  
 
- 27 - 
 
  mutually advantageous concessions. China was looking forward to further discussions of this issue 
with a view to achieving mutually beneficial agreement s with the EU and the UK.  
11.10.   The representative of the European Union  noted that her delegation appreciated the well -
known concerns of the Russian Federation and a number of other Members about the ongoing 
uncertainty surrounding the UK leaving the European U nion. She asked Members to understand that 
traders throughout the EU, including in the United Kingdom, were also affected by and concerned 
about this uncertainty, which of course was not a reason to try not to do justice to the concerns also 
of other Membe rs. Indeed, this was the reason why the EU and the UK had engaged jointly with 
other Members as early as in October  2017 to inform them of the approach envisaged to 
apportionment of the WTO  commitments that took the form of TRQs. The EU reiterated that the  key 
principle was to maintain the existing levels of market access to the EU -27 and the UK. The EU was 
a supporter of the rules -based multilateral trading system and it had followed all the relevant 
WTO procedures when launching its Article  XXVIII negotia tions; furthermore, it would continue to 
follow those multilateral procedures. The EU had engaged with relevant WTO  partners on a regular 
basis and, as part of the procedures, would continue to do so in good faith. However, the EU did not 
accept any of the  occasionally voiced suggestions that its actions, which were intended to maintain 
overall market access, were a threat to multilateralism. The EU considered that the attempts by 
certain Members to extract enhanced market access on a non -reciprocal basis, and the attempts to 
characterize this as a right of other Members in a situation such as Brexit, were inappropriate. The 
EU noted that the negotiations under the Article  XXVIII  procedures were currently ongoing with 
those partners enjoying negotiating righ ts under that Article. The EU welcomed the fact that the 
Members concerned were generally engaging in these negotiations in good faith, bearing in mind 
that the negotiations had only just begun. The EU was willing to continue these negotiations in an 
open and fair manner under Article  XXVIII regardless of the scenario for the UK's withdrawal from 
the Union. The extension of the "Article  50" EU -UK Brexit process until 31  October  2019 would also 
allow the EU more time to engage with Members in Geneva.  
11.11.   The Com mittee took note  of the statements made.  
12  UNITED KINGDOM – RENEGOTIATION OF TARIFF  RATE QUOTAS UNDER 
ARTICLE  XXVIII OF TH E GATT  1994 – STATEM ENT BY THE RUSSIAN F EDERATION  
12.1.   The Chairperson  noted that this agenda item had been included at the request of the 
Russian Federation.  
12.2.   The representative of the Russian Federation  noted that, w hile the Brexit process was 
complicated, and complex and broad in scope, it should nevertheless be conducted in accordance 
with the WTO's rules. Therefore, it was crucial that Memb ers find a mutually acceptable solution in 
order to ensure effective implementation and enforcement of the UK's rights and obligations under 
the WTO  system. However, as in the case of the European Union as discussed under the previous 
agenda item, the prop osed TRQs split methodology could not be considered to be compliant with the 
WTO's  rules because it did not provide Members with compensation for their losses. It was also 
important to ensure that the negotiations were conducted based on correct import dat a that 
considered the so -called "Rotterdam effect". However, the current data neither considered the 
Rotterdam effect nor provided information on intra -EU trade flows after a product had entered the 
EU customs territory. The Russian Federation noted the UK 's intention to negotiate on the basis of 
the draft EU's Schedule of concessions, which had not yet been certified. The Russian Federation 
had objected to the modifications of the schedule that had been proposed by the EU because of 
pending compensatory ad justment negotiations on the EU's enlargement to include Croatia. In this 
regard, the Russian Federation emphasized how important it was that the UK establish and finalize 
its separate schedule of concessions, which could then serve as a basis for further negotiations.  
12.3.   The representative of New Zealand  shared the concerns that had been expressed by the 
Russian Federation with regard to the UK's proposed approach to establishing its own 
WTO commitments post -Brexit. By proposing to cut back its WTO  TRQ commit ments, the UK would 
invariably leave third  countries worse off by removing effective access to the UK  market altogether 
for a large number of products, in particular those for which it had proposed zero quotas, and by 
reducing the quantity and flexibility currently available to trade under the remaining quotas, for 
many of which it was proposing substantially reduced quota access. For example, for 55 (nearly a 
third) of the current TRQs, the UK was proposing to offer no access at all, including of MFN  quota s 
for beef offal, butter, pizza cheese, other cheese, sweet peppers, mushrooms, wheat, other rice and G/MA/M/70  
 
- 28 - 
 
  grains, and a number of fish quotas. In addition, there were other current TRQs for which the UK 
was proposing absurdly tiny quotas, which were not commer cially viable; for example, one  tonne of 
skimmed milk powder, one  tonne of hake fish, two  tonnes of cod fish and paddy rice, three  tonnes 
of pork (with one  tonne allocated to Canada, and the remainder open to global competition), among 
others. With regard to the MFN  quotas into the UK, these stood to be totally absorbed by the EU if 
the EU were to be treated as a third  country by the UK in its future trading arrangements. New 
Zealand submitted that these future bilateral UK -EU arrangements and their implica tions were 
currently unknown to Members. His delegation had noted that the UK had also proposed to create 
separate, additional quotas for its bilateral FTA  partners, but had refused to do so for its 
WTO partners. This policy, coupled with the TRQ  reduction s that had been proposed, would doubly 
disadvantage WTO  Members. New Zealand again urged the UK not to add to the global trading 
system's current difficulties at a time of such major uncertainty in the global trading environment, 
especially given that the UK was a self -declared advocate of the multilateral rules -based trading 
system under the WTO. Rather, New Zealand encouraged the UK to take full advantage of the 
present Brexit extension to work with concerned WTO  Members to establish its own post -Brexit 
WTO commitments, to do so in such a way as to fully honour its existing commitments, and to do 
so without leaving any other WTO  Member worse off.  
12.4.   The representative of Australia  reiterated its significant interest in this issue given that 
Australia was an exporter of several products to the UK  that were covered by TRQs . Australia 
believed it to be clear that the proposed modifications to the TRQs would lead to significant economic 
loss, not only by removing flexibility as to where a product could be sent, bu t also by rendering 
some TRQ  allocations too small to be commercially viable. For certain commodities, such as dairy, 
the UK was effectively closing the market, which went against the spirit of the Uruguay Round 
outcome. Instead, Australia encouraged the U K to consider including new MFN  TRQs for these 
"corner cases" in the UK's WTO  goods schedule. Australia submitted that the UK must provide 
compensatory adjustments that factored -in these significant commercial losses; in addition, it should 
also maintain a  general level of reciprocal and mutually advantageous concessions. Australia 
expected the UK to ensure that the value of existing market access be maintained, not just the total 
volume of existing TRQs. In this regard, Australia looked forward to working with the UK in a 
pragmatic manner to resolve Australia's concerns constructively and to ensure that Australia's 
current quality and level of UK  market access was maintained.  
12.5.   The representative of Uruguay  acknowledged the UK's efforts in launching 
GATT  Article XXVIII  negotiations with interested Members, and noted how important it was that this 
process not be conducted in a unilateral manner. Uruguay hoped that the outcome of these bilateral 
negotiations would result in market access commitments that reflect ed actual bilateral trade flows 
and the interests of concerned Members; in addition, the result should not undermine current market 
access conditions and must be in full compliance with the relevant WTO  rules.  
12.6.   The representative of India echoed the concern s that had been raised by other Members but 
also appreciated the UK's efforts in ongoing discussions under Article  XXVIII of the GATT. India noted 
that it had already expressed its concerns both in writing and during its formal consultations with 
the UK  delegation. On those occasions, India had expressed its concern over the UK's proposed 
methodology for the apportionment of TRQs, in particular with regard to how such a methodology 
would affect Members' rights. India expected the UK to conduct these negotia tions in full compliance 
with the WTO's  rules. In addition, India expected the UK to provide reasonable opportunities to all 
Members, including India, to exercise their rights under the WTO  Agreement.  
12.7.   The representative of the European Union  referred to th e statement that it had made under 
the previous item about the EU's  negotiations. The EU could not respond to comments and questions 
on the UK's proposed goods schedule, which would apply when the EU  Schedule of Concessions 
ceased to apply to the UK, as se t out in document  G/MA/TAR/RS/570. In this regard, she invited 
interested Members to engage bilaterally with the UK.  
12.8.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  G/MA/M/70  
 
- 29 - 
 
  13  INDIA - CUSTOMS DUTIES  ON TELECOMMUNICATIO N AND OTHER PRODUCTS  – 
STATEMENTS BY CANADA , CHIN A, NORWAY, CHINESE T AIPEI, AND THE UNITE D STATES 
(G/MA/W/120, G/MA/W/ 128)  
13.1.   The Chairperson  noted that this agenda item had been included at the request of Canada, 
China, Norway, Chinese Taipei, and the United States. The Chairperson recalled that certain of  these 
Members had submitted questions to India in document  G/MA/W/120, to which India had replied in 
document  G/MA/W/128.  
13.2.   The representative of the United States  considered it unfortunate that her delegation had to 
raise the issue of India's tariff increases on telecommunications and ICT  products yet again, and this 
despite the fact that the US had already been raising this issue for years in the relevant 
WTO Committees, as well as bilaterally. Since the previous meetings of the Committee and the 
ITA Committee, India had announced another round of tariff increases on telecommunications 
equipment; indeed, it appeared that India had raised its rates from 10% to 20%, including on 
products for which the US had understood that India had duty -free binding c ommitments. The US 
and numerous other Members had been discussing for far too long the apparent discrepancies 
between India's WTO  commitments to provide duty -free access to certain products and the 
non-zero import duties that India was actually charging th e imported products in question. In this 
regard, the US had noted with interest the consultation requests that had been filed by the EU and 
Japan, as well as the numerous requests from other Members to join those consultations. The US 
once again called upo n India to provide duty -free access for the ICT and telecommunications 
equipment products for which India had a binding WTO  commitment to do so.  
13.3.   The representative of Canada  remained disappointed that, despite the concerns that had been 
raised by Members i n this Committee and at the CTG, India had not only maintained tariffs on 
ICT products above its bound commitments, but had also continued to announce additional tariff 
increases on ICT  products above bound rates. Canada continued to have both systemic and  
commercial concerns over India's application of tariffs in excess of its WTO  bound commitments. 
Canada requested India to rescind these tariff increases and to refrain from pursuing further tariff 
increases above its WTO  commitments. Canada also regretted  that India had rejected Canada's 
request to join the separate consultations requests made by the EU and Japan given its substantial 
trade interest in this matter.  
13.4.   The representative of China  reiterated her delegation's concern over India's tariff increases 
on telecommunications and other products, especially mobile phones and their components. China 
was of the view that these products fell within the scope of the ITA -1 and therefore that Indi a's 
applied rates had exceeded its WTO  bound rates, which made them inconsistent with the ITA -1 and 
Article  II of the GATT. China urged India immediately to withdraw its customs duties on the products 
at issue and to abide instead by its WTO  bound rates. L ike other Members, China had also taken 
note of the requests for consultations filed by the EU and Japan regarding India's import duties on 
ICT products. China considered that it was regrettable that India had refused China's requests to 
join these consult ations but that it would continue to monitor the issue.  
13.5.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  also reiterated his delegation's concerns over this 
issue. Korea requested India to withdraw its tariffs on the ICT  products at issue immediately, and to 
refrain from introducing further increases above its WTO  bound commitments. Korea noted that it 
would continue to engage with India on this issue in order to find a way forward.  
13.6.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  stated that her delegation shared the conce rns that had 
been raised by other interested Members. Since 2014, India had raised tariffs on at least 
32 ICT products through its Union Budget and the publication of other government notifications. 
These products had been subject to tariffs in HS  Chapters  70, 84, 85, and 90. In this regard, Chinese 
Taipei was concerned that India's tariffs levied on ICT  products had surpassed India's zero  bound 
commitment undertaken in the WTO, thereby violating Article  II:1(a) and (b) of the GATT  1994 with 
regard to India 's tariff bindings. Chinese Taipei requested that India abide by its commitments by 
restoring its original tariff rates. Chinese Taipei also noted that it had not ruled out requesting 
consultations with India under the WTO  dispute settlement mechanism.  
13.7.   The representative of Thailand  remained concerned over India's reimposition of customs 
duties on an increasing number of ICT  products above its bound commitments. In addition, G/MA/M/70  
 
- 30 - 
 
  according to Thailand's analysis of India's request for rectification of 15  tariff lines, it appeared that 
the changes that India had qualified as "technical changes" were in fact substantive changes. 
Thailand asked India to elaborate on why it considered that its request to rectify a duty from "zero" 
to "unbound" on these tariff lines w as a "technical change" and not a substantive modification. 
Thailand considered that India's request appeared to fall outside the scope of the 1980  Procedures 
to correct "technical changes"; rather,, substantive modifications to WTO  Schedules should be 
negotiated with the appropriate Members in accordance with Article  XXVIII of the GATT  1994, and 
not brought into effect via a rectification pursuant to the 1980  Procedures. Thailand joined other 
delegations in requesting India to abide by its WTO  commitments.  Thailand also stated that it would 
continue to monitor this matter closely and regretted that India had rejected its requests to join the 
consultations that had been requested by the EU and Japan.  
13.8.   The representative of Singapore  shared the concerns that h ad been expressed by other 
Members on this issue. Singapore again urged India to align its applied tariff rates on ICT  products 
with its ITA  commitments. Singapore noted that it would continue to monitor this issue very closely.  
13.9.   The representative of Austr alia continued to express his delegation's interest in this matter.  
13.10.   The representative of New Zealand  once again shared the concerns that had been expressed 
by other Members, particularly with regard to the systemic importance of applied tariffs not 
exceed ing bound commitments.  
13.11.   The representative of Japan  recalled that her delegation had repeatedly expressed its 
concerns over this issue at various meetings, including at the bilateral level. Japan understood that 
India's imposition of duties on certain ITA  products was clearly inconsistent with its Schedule of 
Concessions. Japan also noted that it had already requested consultations with India, on 
10 May 2019, and that Japan had held bilateral consultations with India on 23  May 2019 under the 
dispute settleme nt mechanism. In light of this development, Japan would not go into further detail.  
13.12.   The representative of the European Union  recalled that her delegation had also expressed 
its concerns on this matter on many occasions. The EU had requested consultations w ith India on 
2 April 2019. The EU was challenging India's introduction of import duties on a wide range of 
ICT products for which India had committed in the WTO not to charge any duties on these products. 
Considering this development, the EU would not comm ent further.  
13.13.   The representative of India noted that his delegation had previously delivered a statement 
on this issue in various committees. India had also offered to hold bilateral meetings with Members 
on the technicalities of the rectification sought. I ndia had engaged in some fruitful and constructive 
bilateral discussions with a few Members. And India would continue to discuss any views on the 
technical aspects of these products, as well as their classification, with all interested Members and, 
in part icular, with those Members that had intervened on issues relating to India's customs tariffs 
on ICT  products.  
13.14.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
14  INDIA – QUANTITATIVE  RESTRICTIONS ON IMP ORTS OF CERTAIN PULS ES – 
STATEMENTS BY AUSTRALIA , CANADA, THE EUROPEAN UNION A ND THE UNITED STATES  
14.1.   The Chairperson  noted that this agenda item had been included at the request of Australia, 
Canada, the European Union, and the United States.  
14.2.   The representative of Australia  noted that his delegation continued to ha ve significant 
concerns with India's import restrictive measures on pulses. These concerns were held not just by 
Australia, but also by other Members, including a number of developing Members. Australia had 
been engaging with India bilaterally and plurilat erally to raise its concerns for two  years. Similarly, 
Australia had been addressing its questions to India at every relevant WTO  meeting, including at the 
CTG's meeting of 11 -12 April 2019, with regard to India's QRs on pulses. Australia's significant 
concerns had recently been reinforced by India's announcement, on 29  March  2019, that it planned 
to renew the QRs in question, which would restrict pulse imports into India for a further 12  months. 
Australia recalled that, in August  2017, India had applied QR s on an annual (fiscal year) basis of 
150,000  tonnes for both Moong (green gram) and Urad (black gram), and 200,000  tonnes for pigeon G/MA/M/70  
 
- 31 - 
 
  peas. These QRs had been modified and expanded on 4  May 2018. On 25  April 2018, India had 
applied a three -month 100,000  tonnes quantitative restriction on the importation of peas, back -
dated to start on 1  April 2018. This quantitative restriction had been extended three  times, for 
three  months each, with no additional volume, with the most recent QR  extension ending on 
31 March 2019. On 29  March  2019, India notified that the QRs would apply for the fiscal year 
commencing 1  April 2019 on the following pulse varieties: (i)  moong  (green gram) limited to 
150,000  tonnes for the fiscal year; (ii)  urad (black gram) limited to 150,000  tonnes for the fiscal 
year; and (iii)  pigeon peas limited to 200,000  tonnes for the fiscal year. The quantitative restriction 
on peas would be extended for another full year starting on 1  April 2019, limiting imports of peas, 
including yellow, green, dun,  and kaspa peas, to 150,000  tonnes during this period. On 
16 April 2019, India had confirmed the procedures to import pulses under their respective QRs in 
Trade Notice No.  06/2019 -20. Australia noted that traders wanting to access the QRs had no time 
to pr epare their applications, with the application process opening on the same day as the 
Notification (16  April 2019), and with just two  weeks granted in which to apply, with applications 
closing on 30  April 2019. With regard to India's answers to the questio ns on these QRs that had 
been addressed to them by Australia and other Members in various Committees, Australia reminded 
Members that India had repeatedly said that the questions on India's QRs would be answered in the 
relevant Committee. Hence, Australia reminded Members that, with regard to QRs, and as detailed 
in paragraph  1 of the Decision on Notification Procedures for Quantitative Restrictions 
(G/L/59/Rev.1), Members shall "make complete notifications of all quantitative restrictions in force 
by 30  September  2012 and at two  yearly intervals thereafter. They should also notify changes to 
those quantitative restrictions as soon as possible, but not later than six  months from their entry 
into force. Members will also retain the right to notify, at any tim e, corrections to their notifications, 
as well as to reverse notifications to which they are subject. Notifications shall be circulated in a new 
document series and will automatically be included in the agenda of the meeting of the Committee 
on Market Acce ss." Australia was further pleased to confirm that India had notified to the Committee 
the QRs in force, by submitting its most recent notification of QRs in force on 21  June 2018 
(G/MA/QR/N/IND/2) and an addendum to that notification on 17  April 2019 
(G/MA/QR/N/IND/2/Add.1). However, these notifications had not included any specific information 
on India's QRs on pulses. While the notification included a cross -reference in Section  2 to India's 
notification under the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures,  it also had not included the 
required information on India's pulses QRs. By virtue of paragraph  1 of the Decision on Notification 
Procedures for Quantitative Restrictions and India's acknowledgement of this as the relevant 
Committee to answer questions in  respect of its QRs, Australia therefore requested that India provide 
fulsome answers to the following questions: (i)  what was the WTO basis of the application of India's 
QRs on pulse imports; (ii)  why were these QRs not fully reflected in India's most rec ent 
QR notification and addendum; (iii)  how were these measures 'temporary', noting that the QRs 
would restrict imports for at least two  years; (iv)  were the QRs for Moong, Urad, and Pigeon Peas 
permanent, that is, would they continue in future fiscal year s until explicitly terminated; (v)  was the 
quantitative restriction for peas 'temporary', that is, would the quantitative restriction terminate on 
31 March  2020 unless it was renewed; and (vi)  why were the procedures to access these QRs only 
advised with n o forewarning on 16  April 2019, 16  days after the entry into force of the QRs (on 
1 April 2019) and why were only two  weeks allowed to traders wishing to apply. Finally, Australia 
reiterated that India's QRs, along with its high tariffs and Market Price Su pport for pulses, were 
having a detrimental impact on the global pulses trade and on consumers in developing and 
developed countries alike (as detailed in the Canadian -US counter -notification,  G/AG/W/193, of 
12 February  2019, co -sponsored by Australia). Au stralia therefore requested India to provide to 
Members the WTO  basis for its QRs; failing which, Australia considered that India should remove its 
QRs immediately.  
14.3.   The representative of Canada  noted that, as Canada was the largest supplier of pulses to 
India, it had also been the Member most negatively affected by India's measures to limit imports of 
pulses over the previous two  years. Pulses were an important source of protein for many Indian 
consumers and Canada was a high quality and reliable supplier. Canada was extremely disappointed 
that, on 29  March  2019, India had amended its import policy to re -establish a quantitative restriction 
on dry peas for an additional full year. For the next year, India had decided to restrict imports of dry 
peas to a leve l that represented only 5% of India's imports of dry peas in 2017. In addition to peas, 
India had also imposed QRs on other pulses. Canada considered that these measures ran contrary 
to the fundamental principles of both the GATT and the WTO  Agreement on A griculture on the 
elimination of quantitative restrictions. Despite numerous requests made at this and in other 
WTO Committees, India had yet to provide a GATT or WTO  justification for these quantitative 
restrictions. Without any such justification, Canada 's conclusion was that India was in contravention G/MA/M/70  
 
- 32 - 
 
  of its WTO  obligations. Canada was very concerned over India's lack of transparency and by the 
imposition of these measures with no justification. Canada requested India to comply with its 
WTO obligations a nd to repeal these restrictions.  
14.4.   The representative of the United States  expressed US  concerns over India's adoption, 
since 2017, of a number of trade -distorting policies in relation to various pulses. These actions had 
included domestic support policies, multiple increases in tariff rates, and the introduction of import 
restrictions. Since August  2017, India had set annual import quotas for several types of pulses, 
including pigeon peas, mung beans, black gram lentils, and peas. These were products for whi ch 
India's WTO  commitments prescribed a simple bound rate tariff and did not provide for a tariff -rate 
quota. The United States understood that imports had been effectively banned once the annual 
import quotas had been met. For example, in the previous yea r, imports of peas had come to a halt 
after June  2018, as by that time imports had already exceeded the 100,000  metric tonne annual 
quota limit for peas. Several Members had asked India, on numerous occasions, and in several 
WTO Committees, to explain how these policies could be considered by India to comply with India's 
WTO commitments. The US considered that, to date, India had not provided an adequate 
explanation. Most recently, on 29  March  2019, India's Ministry of Commerce and Industry had issued 
notifications that had appeared to restrict imports of mung beans, peas, black gram lentil, and pigeon 
peas in the Indian fiscal year 2019/2020. In response to previous questions, India had characterized 
the restrictions as temporary. However, quotas on some of  these products had in reality been in 
effect for over one -and-a-half years. Indian imports of pulses classified under HS  subheading 07.13 
had fallen from $4.0  billion in 2016 to $1.1 billion in 2018, representing a 74% decrease in only 
two years. The US a sked when India intended to rescind these quotas, and if India had further plans 
to institute quantitative restrictions on imports of agricultural products; if so, for which. The United 
States further requested an explanation for the use of import restrict ions for pulses and an 
explanation of these policies in light of India's WTO  commitments.  
14.5.   The representative of the European Union  expressed her delegation's grave concerns over 
India's measures relating to its pulse crop market, which had been raised by t he EU over the last 
year in various WTO  bodies. As a consequence of India's increased duties on pulses, EU  exports, 
mostly peas, had come nearly to a standstill. This had directly affected EU  farmers because the 
prices for pulses on the European market had  decreased as a consequence of India's measures. The 
EU also expressed concern over the QRs that had been imposed and their implementation, not least 
regarding their conformity with WTO  rules. The EU urged India to answer Members' questions 
expeditiously a nd in detail.  
14.6.   The representative of the Russian Federation  shared the views that had been expressed in 
the statements that had been made by other Members. She noted that, after the application of a 
ban on the import of yellow peas for almost six  months, In dia had issued a notification establishing 
a new quota of 150,000  metric tons for the period from 1  April 2019 until 31  March  2020. Due to 
India's measures, imports of yellow peas had decreased significantly over the previous two  years. 
She considered that  the explanation that had been provided by India in other WTO  Committee 
meetings regarding the legal basis of these measures was unconvincing. The Russian Federation 
requested India to provide a proper justification for its QRs and to submit a notification  pursuant to 
the "Decision on Notification Procedures for Quantitative Restrictions" for the purposes of achieving 
greater clarity as concerned India's WTO  justification of its measures. The Russian Federation was 
of the view that quantitative restrictions , as well as import prohibitions, were not trade policy 
instruments to be applied by Members without proper justification. In conclusion, the Russian 
Federation requested India to bring its measures into conformity with WTO  rules.  
14.7.   The representative of Ukraine echoed the concerns that had been raised by other Members 
and requested India to comply with its WTO  transparency obligations and to provide the relevant 
information on the measures at issue.  
14.8.   The representative of India noted that these issues had bee n raised by some Members in the 
recent past in other Committee meetings. In those meetings, India had informed Members that it 
had notified its measures as well as its reasons for imposing QRs on certain pulses to the Committee 
on Import Licensing and the Committee on Market Access. In brief, India reiterated that it was the 
largest producer and the largest consumer of pulses. The decision to impose quotas had been based 
on the domestic demand and supply situation of pulses in India; it had been taken with the intention 
to alleviate the distress caused to small and marginal farmers by the influx of cheap imported pulses, 
and the consequent impact on food and livelihood security. India recalled that it had been constantly G/MA/M/70  
 
- 33 - 
 
  reviewing these measures. Regarding t he issue of any additional quota on the import of peas and 
other pulses for the financial year 2019 -2020, India informed Members that trade quotas had been 
announced in the Gazette notification dated 20  March  2019. As mentioned in that notification, the 
procedure for quota allocation had also been notified by the Director General of Foreign Trade 
through its Trade Notice No.  6, dated 16  April 2019, which was available in the public domain. 
Regarding the issue raised by Australia on the application process f or quotas, he noted that 
two weeks had been allowed for the applicant to apply for the quotas through an online application, 
and that the quotas had been allocated well before the deadline so that traders could utilize them 
for importing. Regarding the que ry that had been raised on the specific WTO  provisions under which 
India had imposed these temporary measures, India considered that Members had certain rights 
under the WTO wherein they could impose certain restrictions based on the requirements of their 
small and marginal farmers. However, India noted that this matter was still being examined and 
that India would revert to the Committee on this issue. Finally, India said that it would address any 
further query on this issue in the appropriate Committee.  
14.9.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
15  INDONESIA  – CUSTOMS DUTIES ON  TELECOMMUNICATION P RODUCTS – STATEMENT 
BY THE UNITED STATES  
15.1.   The Chairperson  noted that this agenda item had been included at the request of the 
United  States.  
15.2.   The representative o f the United States  noted that Indonesia may be applying tariffs at the 
border on a category of ICT  products in a way that appeared to be inconsistent with Indonesia's 
WTO bound tariff commitments. The United States understood that Indonesia had a duty -free tariff 
commitment for products that were classified under tariff subheading  8517.62. However, traders 
reported that a 10% duty was being levied for certain products in this tariff category. The US 
requested Indonesia to explain these possible inconsisten cies, and to indicate how it intended as 
soon as possible to resolve them.  
15.3.   The representative of the European Union  registered her delegation's interest in this matter. 
She noted that this issue had already been raised at the ITA  Committee in May  2019 and indicated 
that the EU was looking forward to receiving any clarification of this matter that Indonesia could 
provid e. 
15.4.   The representative of China  registered China's interest in this issue and stated that it would 
monitor the issue closely.  
15.5.   The representative of Indonesia  took note of the concerns that had been  raised and stated 
that consultations with the relevant Mini stry in Capital were ongoing regarding further clarifications 
and information on next steps.  
15.6.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
16  JAMAICA – REGULATIONS  NOS. 145 AND 146 BA NNING SINGLE -USE PLA STIC 
PRODUCTS – STATEMENT  BY THE DOMINICAN RE PUBLIC  
16.1.   The Chairperson  noted that this agenda item had been included at the request of the 
Dominican Republic.  
16.2.   The representative of the Dominican Republic  referred to Jam aica's Laws No.  145 and 146 of 
24 December  2018, published in Jamaica's Official Gazette, under the authority of the Ministries of 
Industry, Trade, Agriculture and Fisheries, regarding the production and import of single -use plastic 
goods. The Dominican Re public had expressed concerns regarding the trade restricting effects of 
these measures and their compatibility with Jamaica's obligations under the WTO. She submitted 
that Jamaica had given discretional authority to the Ministry to grant authorizations to  the national 
industry for producing single -use plastic products. This discretion was not provided for the same 
products when these were imported. Likewise, the measure had granted a less favourable treatment 
to imports of polystyrene food containers insof ar as it provided a grace period only to the domestic 
production of such products. According to the Dominican Republic, the measure violated the principle G/MA/M/70  
 
- 34 - 
 
  of national treatment, under Article  III of the GATT  1994, and nor could it be justified under 
Article XX of the GATT. The Dominican Republic also believed that these measures were a technical 
regulation because they made certain characteristics of plastic products mandatory in order for those 
products to be traded in Jamaica. The Dominican Republic had e xpressed its trade concerns in 
respect of Jamaica's measures at the TBT  Committee's meeting in March  2019, and at the CTG's 
meeting in April  2019. The Dominican Republic questioned the compatibility of these measures with 
the obligation of non -discriminati on under Article  2.1 of the TBT  Agreement and believed that the 
measures were more restrictive than necessary and were distorting trade, in violation of Article  2.2 
of the TBT  Agreement. She further noted that Jamaica had not provided prior notice to Membe rs so 
that they could make observations and had not yet notified its new measures either to the Dominican 
Republic or to the WTO. Consequently, her delegation requested Jamaica to notify to the Committee 
the prohibition on import and sale of single -use pla stic items pursuant to the 2012  Decision for the 
notification of QRs, which established an obligation for Members to notify all QRs in force. The 
Dominican Republic further noted that such measures were in violation of the transparency 
obligations containe d in the TBT  Agreement and asked Jamaica to notify these measures accordingly. 
She also invited Jamaica to suspend the implementation of this measure until consultations had been 
held with interested Members. The Dominican Republic stood ready to continue its discussions with 
Jamaica in order to find a solution to this problem and waited in the interim to receive Jamaica's 
replies to the questions that had been addressed to Jamaica by the Dominican Republic in 
December  2018.  
16.3.   The representative of the United  States  reiterated her delegation's concerns over Jamaica's 
recently announced measures regarding single use plastics. The US recognized the unique set of 
waste management challenges that island nations faced and asserted that environmental objectives 
were best served while upholding national treatment obligations. If local capacity to recycle single 
use plastics was unavailable, and the goal of such prohibitions was to prevent plastic leakage into 
the environment, meeting that goal would appear to depend o n the equal application of the relevant 
policies both to foreign and to domestic products. Therefore, the US encouraged Jamaica to ensure 
that its measures applied the same treatment to both foreign and domestic plastic products.  
16.4.   The representative of Jamaica took note of the observations from Members, which would be 
duly reported to Capital; his delegation would revert to this issue at a later date.  
16.5.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
17  KINGDOM OF BAHRAIN, KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARA BIA, AND THE UNITED ARAB 
EMIRATES – SELECTIVE  TAX ON CERTAIN IMPO RTED PRODUCTS – STAT EMENTS BY THE 
EUROPEAN UNION, SWIT ZERLAND AND THE UNIT ED STATES  
17.1.   The Chairperson  noted that this agenda item had been included at the request of the European 
Union, Switzerland, and the United  States.  
17.2.   The representative of Switzerland  reiterated her delegation's concern over the selective tax 
on energy drinks and carbonated soft drinks that had been levied by the Kingdom of Bahrain, the 
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Swi tzerland considered that the tax had 
had a severe discriminatory effect on energy drinks and that its rates were not based on scientific 
evidence. Switzerland noted that, since the Committee's meeting of October  2018, it had met with 
the GCC  Members bilate rally and together with other Members to discuss this selective tax on 
beverages. The Kingdoms of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia had confirmed that the GCC  Members were 
studying a possible reform of the selective tax. As part of said reform, the Saudi General Au thority 
of Zakat had taken the decision, on 15  May 2019, to expand the selective tax to e -cigarettes and 
their liquids, as well as to fizzy drinks, according to press reports. The "fizzy drinks" will be subject 
to a 50% selective tax rate. The decision had  also been published in the official gazette, but only in 
Arabic. Therefore, it was very difficult to know exactly how "fizzy drinks" had been defined and 
precisely which additional beverages were subject to the tax. For these reasons, Switzerland 
requeste d the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to provide an English translation of this recent legislative 
modification. Switzerland understood that the target date of implementation for this tax base 
expansion was 1  July 2019 in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In addition, Switzerland sought 
confirmation that the other GCC  Members would also extend the selective tax to additional 
beverages and that WTO  Members would be informed in advance of the extension's implementation 
date, and other relevant details. She stated that thi s expansion of the tax base did not alleviate 
Members' concerns as it still maintained the discrimination between energy drinks and carbonated G/MA/M/70  
 
- 35 - 
 
  soft drinks. In Switzerland, food producers had worked together with the health authorities to 
improve their prod ucts and to meet the relevant health policies. In this context, Switzerland 
encouraged GCC  Members to engage with industry in order to modify the selective tax, applying it 
in a transparent and non -discriminatory manner while meeting the GCC  Members' healt h policy 
objectives. Switzerland underscored its request to be informed directly and on a regular basis of any 
future modifications to the selective tax. With regard to the issue of sports drinks, Switzerland was 
surprised to see that a discrimination had been drawn between different sports drink brands in which 
some of them  were subject to a 100% selective tax (energy drinks), while others were not; however, 
sports drinks were not energy drinks. Switzerland noted that it had received assurances that this 
had been a mistake and that the Kingdom of Bahrain, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the United 
Arab Emirates would remove this discrimination. Switzerland requested that this take place without 
delay. Finally, she recalled that on 27  September  2018 her del egation had submitted follow -up 
questions to the Kingdom of Bahrain, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates 
regarding certain details of the selective tax on energy drinks and carbonated soft drinks, and that 
Switzerland was still awaiti ng an answer to its questions. Switzerland looked forward to continuing 
these exchanges with a view to reaching a mutually satisfactory solution.  
17.3.   The representative of the European Union  recalled that her delegation had previously raised 
this issue in the Committee, at the CTG, and in bilateral contacts with GCC  countries in relation with 
the GCC "Treaty on Excise Tax" of December  2016 and its related measures. The EU thanked the 
representatives of the Kingdoms of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia for the meeting he ld in Geneva on this 
issue in May  2019. Nevertheless, the EU continued to be seriously concerned by these measures. 
And although the EU understood that these measures were currently subject to further consideration 
from the GCC  regulatory authorities, the EU had thus far not received any detailed information 
regarding any proposed modifications to the measures and their timelines. The EU looked forward 
to receiving details of such modifications to see if they addressed its concerns. The high tax rates 
on en ergy drinks and carbonated drinks determined by the "Treaty on Excise Tax" were of particular 
concern as these had affected the prices of imported products far more than the prices of similar 
goods produced locally. Furthermore, the measures did not appear  to have a scientific basis, 
although the EU had repeatedly asked the GCC to confirm the scientific basis for the product 
coverage and tax rates at issue. The EU submitted that the GCC  measures could potentially become 
significant barriers to trade; by inc reasing uncertainty and unpredictability they might also adversely 
affect trade and investments with the GCC's  trading partners. In this regard, the EU called upon the 
GCC to fully engage and work with interested trading partners, as well as with private s ector 
stakeholders, to modify the regulations to ensure that they took into account the scientific evidence 
for meeting specific health objectives while at the same time minimizing potential negative economic 
impacts. The EU recalled that it had outlined i ts concerns in a diplomatic "note verbal"  that had been 
sent, in June  2018, to each of the GCC  countries, as well as in letters at ministerial level in 
March  2019. The EU expected formal and written responses to these submissions and remained 
available for  further discussion.  
17.4.   The representative of the United States  said that her delegation remained concerned over the 
excise tax on carbonated soft drinks, malt beverages, and energy and sports drinks that had been 
implemented by the Kingdom of Bahrain, the Ki ngdom of Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab 
Emirates, and which was also under consideration by other GCC  Member States; in this context, the 
US had appreciated a recent opportunity to meet bilaterally with the Kingdoms of Bahrain and Saudi 
Arabia on this m atter. The US strongly encouraged GCC  Member States to engage with private 
industry stakeholders to discuss how best to ensure that the excise tax was applied in a transparent 
and non -discriminatory manner, and to consult with industry stakeholders on poss ible suggestions 
for revising the implementation of the current tax. The US also encouraged GCC  Member States to 
utilize scientific, evidence -based measures, consistent with their countries' WTO  obligations, to 
address non -communicable diseases and advance  public health outcomes. In coordination with other 
Members, the US had also raised these concerns in the Capitals of the GCC  Member States. The US 
continued to await specific information regarding the scientific basis justifying the imposition of 
differen t tax rates on energy drinks and carbonated soft drinks, as well as the reasoning behind the 
different treatment of sport drinks in the Kingdom of Bahrain. The US had raised these concerns 
numerous times in various WTO  fora, but without receiving any detai led response. More recently, 
the US had heard reports that GCC  Member States had decided to revise certain aspects of the 
excise tax. This had included the recent news announcement that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was 
extending excise taxes to additional p roducts and that the Kingdom of Bahrain was selectively taxing 
products at different rates. The US looked forward to receiving written details of such a decision and 
the extent to which such changes addressed the concerns that had been outlined, as well as  the G/MA/M/70  
 
- 36 - 
 
  detailed concerns that had been raised by private industry stakeholders. The US requested that the 
Kingdom of Saudi  Arabia provide an English translation of this recent legislation modification in order 
that Members could fully understand the precise products to which it applied.  
17.5.   The representative of Japan  shared the concerns of other Members on this issue. Furthermore, 
Japan still considered that the selective tax was not in conformity with the non -discrimination 
obligation of Article  III:2 of the GA TT. 
17.6.   The representative of the Kingdom of Bahrain  responded on behalf of the Kingdom of Saudi 
Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and the Kingdom of Bahrain. He thanked Switzerland, the 
European Union, the United States, and Japan, for their interest in the G CC Common Agreement 
and excise tax. He also thanked those Members for having engaged bilaterally with them with a view 
to clearing their concerns over these measures. The GCC had taken these concerns into consideration 
and had been reviewing the measures i n an effort to improve their implementation. The Kingdom of 
Bahrain informed Members that the GCC had agreed, in a first  phase, to widen the tax base to 
include non -carbonated beverages, to be followed by a switch from an ad valorem  tax to a specific 
tax based on content. As for energy and sports drinks, the issue was under further review within the 
GCC, bearing in mind Member's concerns. The Kingdom of Bahrain noted that it had continued to 
consult with its trading partners and had taken their comments int o consideration. Finally, the 
Kingdom of Bahrain concluded that the GCC was ready to engage bilaterally on this issue with any 
interested delegations.  
17.7.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
18  MONGOLIA  – QUANTITATIVE REST RICTIONS ON THE IMPO RTATION O F CERTAIN 
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT S – STATEMENT BY THE  RUSSIAN FEDERATION  
18.1.   The Chairperson  noted that this agenda item had been included at the request of the Russian 
Federation.  
18.2.   The representative of the Russian Federation  noted that, in 2013, Mongolia had est ablished a 
quota regime for the importation of certain agricultural products, including wheat flour, wheat, milk, 
drinking water, and beef. According to Mongolia's Government Resolution No.  77, as from 
March  2013, the responsible authority had determined t he volumes of quotas for each year, and 
importing outside of these quotas had been prohibited. Resolution No.  77 also established basic 
criteria to determine quota volumes. The responsible authority calculated such volumes based on 
the annual necessity of importation and exportation of certain agricultural products. Moreover, in 
late 2016, the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Light Industry of Mongolia had established an import 
prohibition on wheat flour. In May  2018, Mongolia had also declared the establi shment of a quota 
on the importation of wheat flour for the rest of 2018  . However, this declaration remained a mere 
statement because the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Light Industry of Mongolia had never 
allocated the quota volume among the importers  of wheat flour. As a result, importers could not 
import within the quota volume and a de facto  import ban on wheat flour had prevailed throughout 
2018. In January  2019, Mongolia had announced that it would open a quota for wheat flour. She 
stated that, ac cording to the information available, Mongolia had adopted the decision on the 
allocation of this quota among the importers of wheat flour only in April  2019. So far, this decision 
had not been made publicly available to allow governments and traders to be come acquainted with 
it. Mongolia's wheat flour imports had significantly dropped as a result of these measures (basically 
to zero in 2018). The Russian Federation considered the general elimination of quantitative 
restrictions to be one of the core discip lines of the GATT and the WTO  legal systems. The Russian 
Federation had raised this issue at different bilateral and multilateral fora in recent years. However, 
Mongolia had failed to provide a proper justification for its quantitative restrictions. The Ru ssian 
Federation submitted that Mongolia's measures were inconsistent with its obligations under 
WTO Agreements and, in particular, Article  XI of the GATT  1994 and Article  4.2 of the Agreement 
on Agriculture, as well as Mongolia's accession commitments und ertaken in paragraph  20 of the 
Working Party Report. She stated that Mongolia's refusal to make publicly available the decision on 
quota allocation had also violated Article  X of the GATT  1994. Therefore, the Russian Federation 
urged Mongolia promptly to t ake all of the steps necessary to bring its legislation and measures into 
compliance with the relevant WTO  provisions.  G/MA/M/70  
 
- 37 - 
 
  18.3.   The representative of Australia  supported the concerns raised by the Russian Federation in 
relation to Mongolia's import quota regime for  certain agricultural products.  
18.4.   The representative of Mongolia  recalled that this issue had already been discussed in the 
Committee on Agriculture and at the CTG. Mongolia had duly engaged in these discussions and had 
responded to Members' questions. Mongo lia had informed Members that certain temporary measures 
had been taken regarding strategically important food products, including wheat flour. As concerned 
wheat flour in particular, Mongolia had informed other Committees of the necessity of implementing 
quantitative restrictions in relation to the Law on the Enrichment of Food Products. Mongolia referred 
to its responses given in the Committee on Agriculture and the CTG. Nevertheless, for the purposes 
of the Enrichment Law, Mongolia reiterated that both i mported and domestically produced wheat 
flour were being monitored; furthermore, the monitoring of imports through a quota was in this case 
a temporary measure until the Law's full implementation. In addition, Mongolia informed Members 
that, in its view, t his measure was fully justifiable under Article  XX(b) and Article  XI:2(b) of the 
GATT. The measure was not applied in an arbitrary manner and nor did it discriminate between 
suppliers.  
18.5.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
19  OTHER  BUSINESS  
19.1  United States – Measures Regarding Export Control and Market Access Prohibition 
for ICT  Products  
19.1.   The Chairperson  noted that this item had been included at the request of China.  
19.2.   The representative of China  noted that, on 15  May 2019, the United States had i ssued an 
Executive Order on Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply 
Chain, which barred US  companies from buying or using telecommunications equipment and services 
provided by enterprises deemed to be national security th reats. On 16  May 2019, the 
US Department of Commerce announced the addition of the Chinese company Huawei and its 
68 affiliates to its export control "Entity List" on the grounds of involvement in activities contrary to 
the national security or foreign pol icy interests of the US. China wanted to register its deep concern 
over this issue. Regarding the Executive Order, China hoped that the US could notify subsequent 
administrative rules to the WTO without delay and also to respect the WTO's rules when formul ating 
implementation regulations. Regarding the US  export control measures in question, China believed 
that they violated Article  I and Article  XI of the GATT; nor did they comply with the provisions set 
out in Article  XXI of the GATT. China urged the Unit ed States to lift the unilateral sanctioning 
measures on Chinese companies immediately. China also stated that it would use all available means 
to safeguard its national interest, and submitted that the US' repeated over -generalization with 
regard to the i ssue of national security, and its abuse of Article  XXI, had already caused great 
concern to the Membership. Regarding the over -generalization of the national security exception, 
China noted that the US had pointed out many times that strengthening the eco nomy would 
contribute to its national security, and that preserving innovation and technology were vital to its 
national defence. However, China was of the view that not all issues relating to the economy or to 
innovation and technology could be equated wi th national security. China noted that, according to 
the 2019  US President's Trade Policy Agenda, and the latest data, the US  economy was currently in 
a healthy state, with a recent boom in jobs, including manufacturing jobs. China submitted that this 
fact was contradictory to the US  logic for invoking Article  XXI. The Trade Policy Agenda had also 
indicated that the US  government should "use tariffs or other forms of leverage to persuade other 
countries to take our concerns seriously". China believed this a lso to be outside the scope of national 
security. China stated that, to date, it had never been presented with any convincing evidence for 
any of the trade restrictions adopted by the US invoking Article  XXI, whether in previous measures 
under Section  232, or in relation to the current Executive Order and export controls. The WTO was 
based on rules; as such, invoking Article  XXI had also to be based on certain rules, including the 
principle of good faith. Similarly, the determination of security threats sho uld be based on objective 
proof rather than subjective perception. The abuse of Article  XXI without any objective evidence 
would severely impair other Members' rights under the WTO and also placed the rules -based 
multilateral trading system in danger. Chin a recalled that, in the discussions of the Security 
Exceptions provision during the Geneva negotiating session in July  1947, it had been the 
US delegation that had pointed out that "we recognized that there was a great danger of having too 
wide an exceptio n […] that would permit anything under the sun". China submitted that, once that G/MA/M/70  
 
- 38 - 
 
  were to happen, rules would no longer be rules and the exception itself would become the rule. 
China maintained that this would result in a significant negative impact on inte rnational trade and 
the global trade order.  
19.3.   The representative of the United States  responded that, because China had not inscribed this 
item on the agenda, but had raised it, rather, under "Other Business", the US would not comment 
on China's intervention  in substance or in detail. She noted that interested Members could find more 
information on Executive Order  13873 of 15  May 2019 on the White House's website or in the 
17 May 2019 issue of the Federal Register. She added that more information regarding ad ditions to 
the entity list could be found in the 21  May 2019 issue of the Federal Register.  
19.4.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
19.2  Pakistan - Import Policy Order  
19.5.   The Chairperson  noted that this item had been included at the request of Thailand.  
19.6.   The representative of Thailand  noted that, in February and April  2019, the Ministry of 
Commerce and Textiles of the Government of Pakistan had issued two Orders, taking effect on 
1 July 2019, which applied to the importation of "all edible goods" into Paki stan. Thailand sought 
clarification from Pakistan with regard to the following: (i)   if the term "all edible goods" covered 
only meat and poultry products, or if it also included such products as vegetables, fruits, and 
fisheries; (ii)  if a copy of the hal al certificate could be used for each shipment of imported goods of 
the same nature; and (iii)  if edible goods that were produced and sold domestically were also subject 
to similar requirements. Since the Orders would shortly be implemented, Thailand asked  Pakistan 
to provide a response before mid -June so that the message could be quickly conveyed to the relevant 
stakeholders. Thailand stated that it highly valued the friendly relationship that it enjoyed with 
Pakistan and hoped that such Orders would conti nue to encourage the flow of edible goods exported 
from Thailand to Pakistan. Thailand looked forward to working closely with Pakistan to continue 
building a strong relationship between the two  countries.  
19.7.   The representative of Pakistan  took note of Thailan d's intervention and stated that Thailand's 
questions would be conveyed to Capital. Pakistan stood ready to engage with Thailand bilaterally on 
this issue.  
19.8.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
19.3  Date of the next meeting  
19.9.   The Committee took note of the date of its next formal meeting, which had been scheduled 
for 21  October  2019. The next HS  Multilateral Review  session would take place in September or 
October, to give the Secretariat time to issue a first batch of HS2017  files. 
20  ELECTION  OF THE CHAIRP ERSON  
20.1.   The Chairperson  recalled that the former Chairperson of the Goods Council was still holding 
consultations with Members on a slate of names to chair the CTG's subsidiary bodies. Consequently, 
the appointment of a chairperson for the Committee on Marke t Access had been delayed. She 
proposed to proceed as followed: as soon as a consensus was reached on a slate of names, the 
Secretariat would circulate to the Committee an e -mail with the name of the proposed Chairperson. 
If no objection to the nomination were received within the time -frame indicated in that e -mail, the 
candidate would then have been deemed to have been elected by the Committee by acclamation.9 
                                                
9 On 4 June 2019, the Council for Trade in Goods adopted a slate of names concerning the appointment 
of officers to the CTG's subsidiary bodies, which had nominated Mr  Fernando Bruno ESCOBAR PACHECO 
(Plurinational State of Bolivia) as the Chairperson of the  Committee on Market Access. On 5  June 2019, the 
Secretariat sent an e -mail informing Members of this nomination and giving Members until close of business on 
6 June 2019 for comments. On 7  June 2019, the Secretariat sent an e -mail to Members informing the m that no 
comment had been received and that Mr  Fernando Bruno ESCOBAR PACHECO (Plurinational State of Bolivia) had 
been elected by the Committee by acclamation as its Chairperson for the year 2019.  G/MA/M/70  
 
- 39 - 
 
  20.2.   The Committee agreed  to the proposal by the Chairperson.  
__________