RESTRICTED  
  
WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 7 
 
27 July 2023 
(23-5140) Page: 1/41 
Work Programme on Electronic Commerce  
18 July 2023   
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING  
DEDICATED DISCUSSION ON ELECTRONIC COMMERC E 
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD AND IN VIRTUAL FORMAT ON 18 JULY 2023 
Chairperson: H.E. Ms Usha Dwarka -Canabady  (Mauritius) , Facilitator of the  
E-commerce Work Programme and the Moratorium  
1.1.  The Chairperson  welcome d Members to the Dedicated Discussion on the moratorium  on the 
imposition of customs duties on electronic transmissions . She thanked delegations for their 
continued substantive engagement  in these dedicated discussions. She recalled that th is was the 
seventh session of the Dedicated Discussion since the beginning of the year and noted that Members' 
participation ha d been positively high  throughout the meetings . She looked  forward to the same 
level of engagement in the following  months.  She reminded delegations that the last thematic  
session in September  would be on e -commerce -related technology transfer.  Following that meeting, 
the focus w ould be on identify ing convergence on the issues discussed thus far. She noted that the 
minutes of the June Dedicated Discussion had been  circulated  in document WT/GC/WPEC/M/6 .  
1.2.  The Chairperson recalled that at MC12, Ministers had instructed Members  to intensify 
discussions on the moratorium including on scope, definition, and impact. She noted that t his topic 
had been discussed many times and had been the subject of many proposals over the years. In that 
regard, she referred  to the Secretariat compi lation of all submissions made since 1998 on various 
topics under the Work Programme on E -commerce, including on the moratorium. Th e compilation  
(RD/GC/24/Rev.1)  had been revised to include more recent submissions. By way of background, 
she recalled the De dicated Discussion on the moratorium held in April where papers from Indonesia 
and the OECS had been  introduced and Members had shared their respective views. In addition, the 
IGO workshop in June  had included  a session on the moratorium where different or ganisations and 
Members had shared their perspectives. She hoped that delegations ha d reflected on the views and 
information exchanged to date and that they were ready to add to the present  discussion , in line 
with the MC12 mandate. She noted that, f ollowi ng the circulation of the convening notice, Canada 
and other co -sponsors had submitted a communication titled Moratorium on Customs Duties on 
Electronic Transmissions  (WT/GC/W/889 ).  
1.3.  The representative of Canada  delivered the following statement:  
1.4.  Thank you, Madam  Facilitator, including for your efforts to ensure constructive discussions on 
relevant trade -related aspect of the Work Programme and the Moratorium.  Canada is pleased to 
introduce the communication WT/GC/W/889 , on behalf of the co -sponsor s, and present Canada 's 
own experience. This communication seeks to reiterate their common understanding of the scope 
and definition of the moratorium on not imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions, and 
providing additional evidence of the benefits to be gained from keeping the moratorium in place and 
negative consequences should it not be renewed at MC13, including for developing Members.  First, 
the scope of the moratorium includes content . Without covering content, the moratorium would 
become meaningless, given the common understanding that the value of a telecommunications 
signal is not the signal itself but the content it carries.  Second , the practice of not imposing customs 
duties on "electronic transmissions " is a standard feature of most e -commerce chapters and/or 
digital economy agreements. It is also a standard feature of Canada 's digital trade policy, and a 
long-standing Canadian trade practice . From the Canada -Peru Free Trade Agreement of 2008 to the 
Canada-US-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) of 2020, Canada has maintained a steady approach in 
including provisions prohibiting customs duties on electronic transmissions. This is not without WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 7 
 
- 2 - 
 
  reason: the moratorium on customs duties brings many benefits, which Canadia n stakeholders 
recognize very well. Indeed , the moratorium is one of the core concerns of our stakeholders in the 
area of digital policy.   
1.5.  The communication also highlight s that the moratorium has been providing businesses with 
certainty and facilitates in vestment decisions  by increasing access to knowledge and digital tools , 
such as software, and facilitating participation in global and regional value chains.  From a Canadian 
perspective , we note that the moratorium reduces the cost of engaging in trade , for instance with 
respect to transport costs which can amount to 30%. This, in turn, facilitates MSME participation in 
international trade.  In addition , the moratorium enables women entrepreneurs ' economic 
empowerment . The use of digital platforms and digita l financial services can help bridge the gender 
divide by providing women entrepreneurs with greater access to international markets, knowledge, 
and more flexible working arrangements.  On the other hand, it has been demonstrated by multiple 
studies that th e non-renewal of the Moratorium would lead to increased costs for consumers.  This 
would have far -ranging consequences and would lower consumption levels, leading to slower GDP 
growth and diminished tax revenue . Instead  of considering imposing hypothetical tariffs on electronic 
transmissions,  Members ' concerns regarding revenue loss could be mitigated via internal taxation 
measures  such as Goods and Services Taxes (GST) or Value Added Taxes (VAT). A growing number 
of Mem bers apply such taxation measures also to digital transactions.  Canada 's practice in this 
regard is to use a GST at the federal level. It applies to taxable goods and services supplied in 
Canada. Most provinces have a similar tax, known as a provincial sal es tax. In some provinces, both 
taxes are administered as a harmonised sales tax, while in others, provincial taxes are applied 
independently.  
1.6.  More broadly, i t is for these  reasons that Canada strongly supports  the renewal of the 
moratorium on customs duti es. And it is on this basis that we invite all WTO Members to support 
the renewal of the moratorium. We look forward to fruitful discussions and working with all Members 
to help secure the future of the moratorium.  
1.7.  The representative of Indonesia  delivere d the following statement:1  
1.8.  Good morning,  my name  is Achmad  Hidayat,  from the Directorate  of International Affairs, 
Directorate General of Customs and Excise, Republic of Indonesia. I  am pleased  to be representing  
Indonesia  together  with our delegates  in this Dedicated Discussion on E -commerce.  Today  I will be 
presenting  Indonesia 's provisions on import of  digital  goods which are transmitted electronically as 
regulated in the latest Minister of Finance regulation number 190 Year 2022 regarding Import 
Provisions for Home Use.  Slide 2  outlines various reasons why the administration of digital goods 
importation is important  for Indonesia.  As we have mentioned  at the previous  discussion  on the 
moratorium,  the rationales behind this are not  solely for revenue collection purpose but also for 
more significant reasons, such as:  
1. To keep a record trade statistic : Indonesia believes that administering digital goods  
importation is essential to record statistical data, which is crucial for public policy purposes 
related to the trade of digital goods.  
2. To Promote a Level Playing Field: Administering customs duties on digital goods is important 
to eliminate tax treatment discrimination between e -commerce and conventional stores and 
it will crea te a more robust business environment by preserving fairness in tax treatment.  
3. To support small medium enterprises  (SMEs): Indonesia believes that administering customs 
duties on digital goods would support domestic creative industries, particularly SMEs, such 
as software developers, to strengthen their competitive advantage towards global e -
retailers.  
4. To provide certainty for Government and business : Providing certainty for government and 
business in customs procedures is critical for both government agenc ies and businesses in 
term of customs duty and import tax collection, digital goods classification, as well as the 
import declaration procedure.  
 
1 The presentation is attached in Annex  I. WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 7 
 
- 3 - 
 
  5. To assess digital goods risk : Indonesia believes that assessing risks associated with digital 
goods, which are harmful to society, is essential for customs administration. The risks include 
tax avoidance, IPRs infringement, and trans -national organized crime such as: illegal 
material smuggling, money laundering, and creating weapons using 3D printer.  
1.9.  Now, please a llow me to give a more detailed explanation of the 2 rationales, namely: to record 
trade statistics and to assess digital goods risks in the next several slides.  First, I will illustrate  the 
importance of recording digital goods trade statistic.  Slide 3 compares  the recording of trade 
statistics for digital goods before and after the importation  of digital  goods  through  electronic  
transmission,  and the importation  of digital goods which is regulated by the  Minister of Finance  (MoF)  
Regulation Num ber 190 Year 2022.  Before  the importation  of digital  goods  via the electronic  
transmission,  the importation  of hardware,  such as the PC that is imported  together  with digital  goods  
(software)  is notified using the HS Code for hardware or the carrier medium (HS 84 or 85).  Because 
it is notified using the HS Code of hardware or the carrier medium, the import value recorded in the 
import declaration is the total value of hardware and software.  However, the import value and type 
of imported digital goods are not recorded in the import  declaration.  Thus,  those  data will not be 
recorded  in the National  Balance  of Trade. In the example contained in the upper part of the slide, 
the importer will declare importation  of software  together  with PC or carrier  medium  (hardware  and 
software)  for a total value of Rp 10 million.  Whilst in the middle diagram , as the current condition 
of the importation of digital goods by using electronic transmission, the hardware will be declared 
as hardware or carrier med ium in the import  declaration  but not the digital  goods.  Import  value  is 
declared  only for the hardware and it will be recorded in the national balance of trade.  Now, with the 
issuance of the MoF Regulation Number 190/2022 ( in the lowest diagram), the importation of digital 
goods is notified by import declaration (PIB) for physical goods with  minimized  element  of data. 
The data on the importation  of digital  goods,  such as types  and value  of digital  goods,  digital  goods  
importer  and supplier,  etc., will be recorded in trade statistics.  The importation  will be divided into 
two declarations: one is for the importation of hardware  and the second  is the digital  goods  itself; for 
example,  the import  declaration  for the hardwar e or carrier medium (HS 84 or 85) with the amount 
of Rp 7 million, and the declaration of digital good with HS 99.01 with the amount of Rp 3 million.  
With this mechanism,  the data on the importation  of digital  goods  will be recorded  in the trade 
statistic s, not only for import  but also for export  transactions.  Thus,  the statistical  data will be 
recorded in the national balance of trade which is very important in formulating public policies such 
as: improving the domestic digital industry, developing SMEs in creative industries or digital talents, 
and determining other strategic policies by the Government, which is also in line with the r ationales 
explained in the previous slide.  
1.10.   On slide 4, I will give you a brief explanation of our rationales with regard to a ssessing digital 
goods risks . In this rapidly changing era, information technology is growing exponentially, and it 
results  in many  inventions  of new technologies.  One of the new technologies  is 3D printer, which 
currently holds debatable issues on how it will impact the society.  Beside s the advantages  of the 3D 
printer,  some  people  argue  that 3D printer  can be utilized by irresponsible  person to conduct a crime, 
especially transnational organized crime. As  shown  in the slide, overseas  international  crime  
organizations  could  transmit  the weapon  design  programs  or software  through  electronic  
transmission  to print the weapons with 3D printers in the destination country.  Thus,  with the 
provision  of digital  goods  importation as stipulated in MoF Regulation 190/2022,  there will  be data 
on the traffic  of cross-border  digital  goods  which  is transmitted  electronically between countries. The 
data on the type of software or program, country of origin, exporter, and importer are very useful 
to assist the Law Enforcement Agencies in mitigating trans -national crimes which could threaten the 
country  as I explained earlier.  
1.11.   As a contracting party of HS Convention, Indonesia has introduced the Heading 99.01 – 
Software and Other  Digital Products Transmitted Electronically in 2018.  Further, Indonesia has 
issued the Minister of Finance Regulation Number 2 6 Year 2022, which substituted  the previous 
regulation , i.e.,  MoF Regulation Number 17 year 2018. The regulation  includes  specific  provisions  
for digital  goods  in Chapter  99 (Heading  99.01)  of the Indonesia Customs Tariff Book and imposition 
of zero percent (0%) MFN tariff, which has been applied since 2018.  Moreover, as stated in the table 
in slide 5 , Heading 99.01 includes five tariff lines: Operating System Software (9901.10.00), 
Application Software (9901.20.00), Multimedia (9901.30.00), Supp orting or Driver Data 
(9901.40.00), and Other Software and Digital Product (9901.90.00).  It should be noted  that, this 
chapter only applies to the Software and other digital goods transmitted electronically, and are not 
related to machines or devices which  have been or will be imported. Software and other digital goods 
transmitted electronically related to machines  or devices  that have been or will be imported  are WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 7 
 
- 4 - 
 
  classified  with such machines or devices.  For example , Software  Imported  in the form of CD 
(compact  disc) is classified  in Heading 85.23, not in this Heading 99.01.  
1.12.   Moving to slide 6, i n order to administer the importation of digital goods, besides the 
imposition of Chapter 99 that classifies digital goods  transmitted electronically, the Indonesia n 
Government has regulated  provisions  of digital  goods  importation  through  electronic  transm ission,  
with the issuance of the MoF Regulation Number 190 Year 2022 regarding Import Provisions for 
Home Use. The se provisions are stated in the Article 34 – 35 of the regulation which was stipulated 
in December 2022 and came into force in 14 January 2023 . The term Home Use refers  to the WCO 
Revised Kyoto Convention which defines "clearance for home use " as the Customs procedure for 
imported goods  that enter into free circulation in the Customs territory upon the payment of any 
import duties and taxes and the fulfillment of all Customs formalities.  Please  allow me to explain  
some  important  points  of the provisions . First, there  is no new or no additional  procedure  that the 
importer  should  apply  in declaring importation of digital goods transmitted electronically. The import 
procedure is the same as the import procedure for tangible goods.  Second , there is no new import 
document for the importation of digital goods. The document  is the same as for  the importation  of 
tangible  goods  which  is known  as BC 2.0. Thus,  it complies with the Article 10.1. of the WTO Trade 
Facilitation Agreement  (TFA) , Formalities and Documentation Requirements.  The import procedure 
applies only for the importer as a legal entity, and not for individuals. The importer then  must 
submit  the import  document  through  the online application  system  called  CEISA  (Customs  
and Excise  Information  System  and Automation).   
1.13.   Third, the importer will utilize minimized element data of import declaration. Because  of the 
nature  of digital  goods,  the importer  of digital  goods  will utilize  an import declaration  with 
minimum requirement of element data to fill in compared to import  declaration  for tangible  goods.  
(No data for shipment  and storage  to fill in.) A more detail explanation will be provided in the next 
slide.  Fourth , the provision applies only for the importation of digital goods which is transmitted 
electronically  with the HS Code of digital products (HS 99.01) according to Indonesian Customs Tariff 
Book 2022.  Fifth, before the issuance of the above -mentioned regulation, in June 2022, we have 
conducted  a Public  Hearing  with our stakeholders,  namely  importers  and associations , in order to seek 
inputs and comments from relevant stakeholders. Dissemination of information was held in January 
2023 before the regulation came into force, and in April 2023. The latter was held specifically and 
was attended b y more than 300 participants  from associations  and companies  related  with software  
products  to discuss any questions or concerns regarding the regulation.  Moreover, in responding to 
the request to seek clarification and explanation from our colleagues  from several  embassies , 
companies  and associations,  Indonesia  Customs  has facilitated the consultative meetings from March 
to June 2023, such as with several embassies, American Chamber of Commerce in Indonesia, 
Australian DFAT and US ABC. We also have prepared  written  answers  regarding  the questions  which  
was raised  in the WTO Committee on Trade Facilitation (CTF)  meeting, which will be submitted in 
due course.  In addition , we also provide  technical  support  and information  for importers  via Contact 
Centre for importers who have difficulties in declaring the digital goods importation.  We consider  
that providing opportunit ies to discuss the regulation is very important  as well as to comply  with the 
Article  2 WTO TFA (Opportunity  to Comment, Information Before Entry into Force, And 
Consultations).  
1.14.   Moving on to slide 7, in December 2022, Indonesia issued the mechanism regarding the 
provisions or monitoring of electronically transmitted digital goods, based on the Minister of Finance 
Regulation Number 190/PMK.04/2022 regarding Import Provisions for Home Use.  The mechanism  is 
to accommodate digital goods importation through electronic transmission, which is naturally 
different from the importation of tangible goods. The  regulation  can be summarized  as follows:  First, 
there are several exclusions of customs measures  compared with the conventional import process 
for tangible goods, namely:  (a) the importers  do not need  to submit  the manifest  or delivery data; 
(b) there is no provision  of unloading  and storing  of imported  goods  in Customs  Area and Temporary 
Goods Storage;  (c) there is no physical  inspection  of goods  and (d) clearance  of digital  goods  without  
customs  officer 's approval . Second, i n term of declaration,  the importer  shall fill in the import  
declaration  with minimum  element of  data through  our online  application  system  (CEISA).  The 
importers  only need to fill in data such as:  the name of the customs office, importer and supplier 
data, invoice, type of transaction , FOB value,  currency,  HS code (HS 99.01),  goods  description,  etc. 
The element data is lesser than the element data in import declaration for tangible goods.  Third, 
regarding the monitoring and submission mechanism, the provisions regulate as follows: The 
Indonesian Customs will conduct customs audit for monitoring the import  of digital goods. Moreover,  
importers  may submit  the Import  Declaration  Document  (PIB) no later than 30 days from the date WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 7 
 
- 5 - 
 
  of payment for the purchase transaction of the digital goods; and the Import declaration can be 
submitted to the customs office loca ted nearby the importer 's location or domiciled. Moreover, the 
regulation is implemented in accordance with the commitment in WTO TFA Article 10.1.1 in terms 
of formalities and documentation requirements.  Slide 8  shows  an example of the import declaration 
for digital goods which was submitted  through  the CEISA  online  application  system.  This is the same  
document  with import declaration for tangible goods.  As shown  on the slide, the importer  only needs  
to fill in minimum  or fewer  element  data compared to the tangible import, as I have explained on 
the previous slides.  The left part of the slide shows  the data related  to the importer,  such as the 
name  of importer, supplier, customs broker (if any);  whereas  the right part of the slide,  shows  the 
detailed  description  of the goods,  in this regard, it must refer to the HS Code Heading 99.01, which 
consists of: HS Code, description of the digital goods imported, customs duties – which is 0% – and 
import value of digital goods.  
1.15.   With the implementation of Minister of Finance Regulation Number 190 Year 2022, and 
according to the rationale  of regulating the import of digital goods through electronic transmission, 
Indonesia Customs has recorded the statistics of digital goods importation using HS 99.01 in the 
period of January 2023 up to July 2023.  Slide 9 shows  the statistics  of digital  goods  importation  
through  electronic  transmission from  January  2023 until 13 July 2023.  The data includes  several  
information  namely  the number of importers and the import declarations, the import value of digital 
goods (in USD), and customs offices where the declarations were submitted.  As we can see in the 
diagram  on the left, as per 13 July 2023, there are already 29 importers or legal entities who have 
submitted the import declarations with the total number of 268 documents ; the import value  of digital  
goods  is more than USD 187 Million  (or around Rp 2 .8 trillion ) and the documents were submitted in 
8 Customs Services Offices.  Moreover, the graph on the right shows the number of import 
declaration s of digital goods transmitted  electronically  which  used the MoF Regulation  number  
190/2022  in the period of  January  2023 to 13 July 2023.  As you can see in the graph,  the MoF 
regulation entered into force in January 2023 and , to further facilitate the importation of digital 
goods by the importers, the implementation of online application system was launched on 
17 April 2023.  After the implementation  of the online  application  system,  there  was a significant  
increase  of import declaration s, which recorded zero document in April 2023, reached  102 import 
declarations in May  2023, and continued to increase up to 148 declarations in June 2023.  The 
significant increase of the import documents from April to July 2023 is due to the implementation  of 
online  application  systems  to facilitate  importers ' submis sion of  the import declaration.  
1.16.   Moving to slide 10, t o sum up, I would  like to reiterate  several points . Indonesia fully supports 
the robust global development of e -commerce and current digital technology. Indonesia is of the 
view that WTO M embers, especially  developing  countries  and LDCs,  should  be provided  with 
instrument s to support  public  policy  objectives  whilst  at the same  time maintain ing effective customs 
control in trading across border and to uphold national sovereignty.  Indonesia believes that customs  
duties represent the most precise and effective policy tool for the government to regulate  the 
importation  of electronically transmitted  digital  goods,  serving  as one of the primary  forms  of fiscal 
rights  of a state. Imposing customs duties on digital goods will not lead to any trade distortions at 
the global level, nor will it create any undue administrative burdens for the importation process of 
digital goods that are transmitted electronically which we have explained in previous slides . The 
provisions  of digital  goods  importation,  which  Indonesia  has implemented, accommodates usefulness 
and easiness to the importers in submitting their  import declaration. There have been  no obstacles 
or complaints so far from the importers of digital  goods  in fulfilling  the regulation.  As a result,  there 
has been a significant increase in import declaration s of digital goods since the implementation of 
the regulation in January 2023.  The implementation of monitoring of electronically transmitted digital 
goods, will generate statistical data that in the long run is very useful for developing countr ies and 
LDCs to promote local companies, especially their digital talent and MSMEs, to be able to compete 
globally with international companies, as well as to formulate other strategic policies including 
domestic software development, human resource qualit y improvement, etc.  This marks the end of 
my presentation on Indonesia 's provisions on import of digital goods through electronic transmission , 
and I hope it has provided valuable insights to all WTO Members.  
1.17.   The representative of Costa Rica  delivered the  following statement:   
1.18.   Thank you, Madam  Facilitator. Costa  Rica thanks you for your efforts in leading these 
discussions and in particular for convening this working session on the subject of the moratorium.  
My delegation aligns itself with the comments ma de by Canada and the other Members that endorsed 
document  W/889. In particular, we would like to highlight the following points . First, maintaining WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 7 
 
- 6 - 
 
  the moratorium and making it permanent is essential for Costa  Rica. For years, Costa  Rica has 
supported a permanent commitment not to impose tariffs on electronic commerce.  We therefore 
underline the importance for such discussions to be based on evidence. For this reason, the 
document makes reference to studies, publications and information shared  by researchers and 
international organizations, such as ECIPE, UNCTAD, the World Bank and the OECD, which present 
evidence on the positive implications of the moratorium on consumers, micro, small and 
medium -sized enterprises and on the economies of devel oping countries.  If the moratorium were 
not in place, there would be uncertainty for many suppliers who trade through electronic commerce, 
and it would affect developing countries such as ours, and in particular small and medium -sized 
enterprises. It would  also affect one of the most dynamic sectors of the world economy, as reflected 
in the recent study by the World Bank and the WTO on the role of services and development.  
1.19.   A large majority of developing countries support the moratorium. Costa  Rica, like man y other 
developing countries, has made commitments not to impose tariffs on electronic commerce in its 
free trade agreements, and we have this provision with several significant trading partners such as 
CAFTA -DR, AACUE, EFTA and FTAs with Mexico, Colombia and Singapore). Without the moratorium, 
our exporters would face higher trade costs, discrimination and more bureaucracy, which would 
discourage them from internationalizing. It is only natural that we make a similar commitment at 
the WTO.  From our perspec tive, there is no doubt that the current moratorium covers both the 
medium and the content. Otherwise, this would have little or no value as a tool to promote the 
electronic commerce sector. Furthermore, as noted in document W/889, the moratorium does not 
cover physical goods that can be ordered from a digital commerce platform and, therefore, these 
physical goods are covered by tariffs. The moratorium also does not limit the application of internal 
taxes, such as value added tax.  The alleged loss of tax re venue due to the moratorium is either 
non-existent or completely marginal to the benefits of its existence, while its non -existence would 
affect the growth prospects of economies globally, thereby reducing tax collection through other 
channels, such as val ue added tax or income tax. In fact, studies such as OECD  (2019)2 or 
ECIPE  (2019)3 showed that this discussion cannot be limited to the potential loss of tax revenues, 
but that the impact of the moratorium on competitiveness, economic growth and development must 
be taken into account. Imposing tariffs on electronic com merce would mean higher prices and lower 
consumption, which in turn affects GDP growth and reduces tax revenues.  
1.20.   After 25 years of being in force, there is sufficient experience on its operation, in particular 
for developing countries. Over the years, Memb ers, the WTO, international organizations and 
academics have contributed numerous studies and sharing of experiences that demonstrate the 
benefits of the moratorium to the competitiveness of our economies and the development of new 
industries.  The digital divide, which affects many developing countries, as well as regions and sectors 
of our countries, is not an excuse for the non -renewal of the moratorium. On the contrary, the lack 
of an agreement on the moratorium would not only contribute to reducing this  gap but would impose 
greater burdens on the development of electronic commerce in developing countries.  We may ask 
additional questions after we have managed to process the presentation.  
 
2 Andrenelli and López González (2019). Electronic transmissions and international trade - shedding new 
light on the moratorium debate., OECD Trade Policy Papers, No. 233, OECD Publishing, Paris : "The debate about 
whether or not to extend the WTO Moratorium on imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions has, to 
date, narrowly focused on its potential customs revenue implications. Th is paper sets out to broaden and deepen 
this debate. First, by putting current estimates of the customs revenue implications into perspective, showing 
that potential losses tend to be low relative to overall government revenue. Second, by deepening the deb ate on 
the cost of tariffs, arguing that these are unstable sources of revenue, that they are associated with lower output 
and productivity and that their burden falls mainly on domestic consumers, not foreign firms. Third, by 
broadening the debate to cons ider the benefits associated with electronic transmissions, including growing 
consumer welfare and export competitiveness. The paper argues that, overall, the revenue implications of the 
Moratorium are likely to be relatively small and that its lapse would  come at the expense of wider gains in the 
economy."  
3 Hosuk -Lee Makiyama, Director of ECIPE (European Centre for International Political Economy) and Fellow 
of London School of Economics and Badri Narayanan, PhD, Associate Professor at University of Washi ngton, 
Consultant at McKinsey Global Institute, UN ESCWA, FAO, Commonwealth Secretariat and GTAP Research Centre. 
"The Economic Losses from Ending the WTO Moratorium on Electronic Transmissions ". ECIPE Policy Brief No 
3/2019. "Our research shows that if countries ce ased to uphold the moratorium and levied import duties on 
digital goods and services, they would suffer negative economic con - sequences in the form of higher prices and 
reduced consumption, which would in turn slow GDP growth and shrink tax revenues."  WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 7 
 
- 7 - 
 
  1.21.   The representative of  the United Kingdom  delivered the following st atement:  
1.22.   First of all, let me thank you, Facilitator, for your efforts to reinvigorate the Work Programme , 
as agreed by Ministers at MC12.  I think it has been one of the shining lights of the last year or so 
and it has provided us with a really g ood basis for further discussions as we prepare for  MC13.  In 
particular, l et me welcome today 's discussion on the moratorium. This is a fundamental issue for 
our businesses and our consum ers, and – listening to what Costa Rica just said  – clearly for many 
businesses and consumers around the world . We certainly share the concerns that so many in the 
global business community  have expressed – and not just from developed countries but also fr om 
many developing countries  – about the prospect of the moratorium not remain ing in place.  I think 
it would be great to have an informal session or workshop with businesses, particularly MSMEs from 
developing countries, to hear directly from them about the importance of the moratorium or not.  
1.23.   We are delighted to co -sponsor the communication introduced by Canada that reiterates our 
long-standing and well -established position on the scope, definition, impact  and importance of the 
moratorium . Let me pick out three points of particular importance f or us. The first relates to what 
I just say about how important the moratorium is for MSMEs, especially those in developing countries 
and LDCs. The moratorium reduces the cost of engaging in trade  for everybody , for instance with 
respect to transport costs , by up to 30%.  This is not an insignificant slice of any company's balance 
sheet. Second, the economic losses caused by imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions 
would far outweigh any potential tariff revenue. The European Centre for Internatio nal Political 
Economy (ECIPE) estimated that the widespread imposition of customs duties on electronic 
transmissions would result in annual GDP losses of USD 10.6 billion for developing countries globally. 
Third, the cost of imposing customs duties on elec tronic transmissions would fall hardest on domestic 
consumers and small producers in importing countries.  We recognize the concerns that some 
Members have raised about the loss of potential revenue . But customs duties are a far more unstable 
revenue source  than alternative means of revenue collection, such as VAT or goods and services 
taxes, which are not precluded by the moratorium. There are other avenues for revenue collection. 
We recognize the constraints that so many of us face in terms of trying to in crease revenue. This is 
not a problem only for developing countries, but also for developed countries like our own, but there 
are better ways of doing it than imposing customs duties on electronic transmission. Without the 
moratorium, the risk is that we would be undermining the vision that the Director -General has set 
out so cogently on so many occasions , of future global trade that is digital, green, and inclusive , and 
we risk returning the WTO rulebook to the 1 990s, at a time when the global economy is moving 
towards the 2030s . This would be a costly step backwards for global trade , for the WTO and for the 
multilateral rules -based system . Let's listen to businesses, let's listen to the voice of developing 
countr ies and LDCs, but let's keep this moratorium in the interest of businesses, consumers and this 
Organization.   
1.24.   The representative of  the United States  delivered the following statement:   
1.25.   The United States thanks Ambassador Canabady for convening another se ssion of the 
E-Commerce Work Programme and thank the co -sponsors of WT/GC/W/889 for their contribution to 
today 's discussion.  The United States continues to support the practice of not imposing customs on 
electronic transmissions, as reflected in the most recent Ministers ' Decision from MC12 , also known 
as the customs duty moratorium. The United States welcomes the continued discussions on 
e-commerce under the Work Programme. We found the recent discussion on the e -commerce 
moratorium valuable and believe t he second discussion on this issue reflects the importance many 
Members place on maintaining the moratorium.  We also concur with and support the WT/GC/W/889  
communication 's positions regarding the scope and definition of the moratorium, the benefits that 
the moratorium provides to developed and developing countries, particularly MSMEs and 
women -owned businesses, and recognize the advantages for Members to pursue non -discriminatory 
forms of digital taxation in order to address fiscal deficits.  As we  have stated before, not imposing 
customs duties on electronic transmissions has supported the rapid growth of the digital economy 
over the past two decades, and the United States continues to believe that WTO Members should be 
ready to make this practice permanent. This would provide predictability to traders, cost -savings to 
consumers, and facilitates the exchange of content and technology, supporting innovation in our 
economies .  
1.26.   I will now turn to the US perspective on the questions posed in the communi cation. On US 
trade practices and experiences related to the moratorium, US trade practice binds and makes 
permanent the moratorium by explicitly prohibiting the imposition of customs duties on electronic WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 7 
 
- 8 - 
 
  transmission. The United States has included a bind ing version of this commitment in every trade 
agreement concluded over the past two decades, beginning with the US – Singapore FTA in 2004.  
US trade practice makes clear that electronic transmissions include the content of the transmission, 
ensuring that the obligation covers software, video games, digitized books, and other digitized 
products. The obligation only applies to tariffs and does not apply to internal taxes and fees.  Turning 
to the potential impact on businesses, including MSMEs, many Members, b oth developed and 
developing, are major exporters of digitized products and any effort to impose tariffs on such 
exports, even if technically challenging, could impose great uncertainty throughout the digital 
ecosystem. For example, tariffs could conceivab ly extend to all devices subject to regular software 
updates. This impact would be most severely felt by small businesses and creative professionals that 
seek to export or utilize digitized products to support their operations.  We note that those who 
oppos e the moratorium often cite foregone customs revenues and shielding domestic businesses 
from foreign competition as their primary reasons for opposition. However, studies have 
demonstrated that any revenue gains may be offset by losses to businesses and th e imposition of 
potential retaliatory measures. This may also undermine the competitiveness of domestic exporters, 
particularly those which rely on the seamless exchange of digital content in order to thrive.  We note 
a recent study by the Institute of Gove rnance, Policies & Politics that examines the impact the 
moratorium has on micro, small, and medium enterprises in India. The study found that use of 
imported cross -border services by MSMEs in India is associated with higher production output, 
employment a nd productivity, and ending the moratorium may undermine their ability to operate 
and grow.  On domestic industry feedback, many global stakeholders from the United States , but 
also Indonesia , Brazil  and South Africa , have joined forces to vocally support t he moratorium. You 
may remember that nearly 90 industry associations that represent many sectors across the global 
economy, including small businesses and those operating in developing economies, expressed in a 
public statement their support for extension of the moratorium at MC12.   
1.27.   We are fortunate to have an official from Indonesia 's Directorate General of Customs and 
Excise in Geneva today. We are v ery pleased to hear that Indonesia intends to respond to the 
questions posed in the CTFA and I hope that y ou will also make yourself available to our Trade 
Facilitation colleagues, as they are actively discussing these issues. I found the presentation very 
interesting,  but it did little to dispel the initial apprehension we had about the new policies. While 
we appreciate the good intentions behind the initiative, it remains very difficult for me to understand 
how you can say that Indonesia 's actions would not create trade distortions or undue burdens on 
consumers and businesses when the new regulations seemingl y apply to massive amounts of data 
that pass across borders each second. Accordingly, I struggle to see how this will help Indonesian 
businesses better compete globally, as businesses are likely to be burdened with red tape while 
costs of digital inputs wi ll go up  for Indonesian companies . Our stakeholders remain quite concerned 
over the measures described and the potential impact on their operations and user s in terms of cost 
and compliance.  One of the rationales presented today for the new measures is to "level the playing 
field". However, given the potential serious consequences of imposing a discriminatory customs 
duty, it is worth asking whether countries would be better served through a non -discriminatory 
internal tax, such as a VAT, rather than a cust oms duty. In addition, given the number of users of 
internet -connected devices and the onerous procedures described today, I wonder whether MSMEs 
are equipped with the resources to comply or whether th ese measures  will favour  those larger 
companies with mo re robust legal and administrative departments. Indonesia raises the issue of 
using the customs administration to enforce non -economic issues, such as the 3D printing of 
weapons.  To this point, we question whether a customs authority is best placed to serv e this 
function. These types of concerning activities can just as easily originate within a country 's borders 
or can otherwise evade customs or tax authorities. Given the volume of data that would need to be 
analysed  by the customs administration and the p ossible holes in this defensive strategy, would the 
damage to Indonesia 's domestic businesses be commensurate with the benefits?  Indonesia 's plans 
appear impractical. Potentially every smartphone user in Indonesia would be considered an importer.  
According  to the communication submitted by Indonesia (WT/GC/W/859) and the draft measures, 
would Indonesia 's 210 million users of these devices be required to keep records for all updates, 
bug fixes, and downloads and be subject to potential audits?  
1.28.   We thank the f acilitator for convening today 's session and look forward to hearing from others.  
The United States and Norway will be organizing a lunch event on the margins of the 21 September  
E-Commerce Dedicated Discussion . We will have private sector representatives who can share their 
first-hand experience on how government e -commerce trade policies, including with respect to the 
customs duty moratorium, affect developing countries. We hope you will all join us for food and 
the presentation.  WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 7 
 
- 9 - 
 
  1.29.   The repre sentative of Trinidad and Tobago , on behalf of the CARICOM  Group, delivered the 
following statement:  
1.30.   I make this statement on behalf of the CARICOM Group.  First, Madam Facilitator, we wish to 
commend you on the productive series of dedicated discussions we  have had on a monthly basis 
since the start of the year. We believe that this has been a useful approach towards reinvigoration 
of our work under the Work Programme, in keeping with the mandate from our Ministers. We are 
also of the view that the convenin g of this second dedicated discussion on the moratorium aligns 
with the Ministerial Decision, insofar as it positions us to intensify our discussions on the moratorium, 
as instructed by our Ministers.  Madam Facilitator, we do not wish to simply repeat the same 
perspectives outlined in our April discussion, and in this regard, we do welcome the submission 
contained in WT/GC/ W/889, which was circulated last week. We also thank the African Group for its 
revised submission as contained in WT/GC/ W/875 /Rev.1, whi ch focuses more broadly on a 
development approach to the reinvigoration of our work under the Work Programme. We also thank 
Indonesia for the detailed presentation, and we look forward to receiving a copy for our review. The 
CARICOM Group thanks all the pe rtinent delegations for their submission on the moratorium and for 
their presentation of the paper earlier today. In addition to the presentations and dialogue with 
pertinent international organisations in our early June workshop, the paper provides a plat form for 
us to deepen our dialogue and to build on the exchange we had a few months ago, when we benefited 
from useful submissions from the OECS, Singapore and Indonesia.  
1.31.   On the WT/GC/ W/889  submission, we welcome the effort to look to sources in addition t o the 
ones that have dominated the dialogue to date and that seem to have contributed, in some measure, 
to the entrenchment of differing viewpoints. On this note, the CARICOM Group continues to see 
value to be derived from a technical, analytical study on the moratorium conducted by the WTO 
Secretariat, with or without the contributions of pertinent international organisations. The 
Membership 's efforts to intensify our discussions could benefit from a Secretariat study that 
examines implications of the mora torium as they relate to consumer welfare, tariff revenue, cost of 
doing business, competitiveness and growth, among other elements.  The perspectives in 
WT/GC/ W/889  relating to definition and scope are well noted, including the question on the purpose 
– or lack thereof – of the moratorium if not applicable to the content carried by the electronic 
transmissions. We have also taken good note of the review done of the FTA practices of developing 
and developed country Members and of incorporation therein of pro visions relating to the non - 
imposition of customs duties on electronic transmissions. On the third guiding question outlined in 
the submission, Members would be aware of a particular FTA that CARICOM Delegations have with 
a key trading partner that includ es such a commitment relating to non -imposition of customs duties 
on electronic transmissions. We are also considering the reflections in the submission relating to the 
benefits of the moratorium and the possible impacts of its discontinuation on consumers , businesses, 
women and on government revenue. The paper reminds the Membership of experience -sharing to 
date on alternative approaches to revenue collection and, in this regard, we do recall the national 
experiences shared by Australia and others. We also  view the details on Singapore 's Overseas 
Vendor Registration regime with some measure of interest. We do appreciate the effort to continue 
our dialogue and to add nuance to some of the elements that we have been discussing for some 
time to date. In that r egard, we thank the delegations, once again, for their work on this submission, 
on which we continue to reflect.  
1.32.   The CARICOM Group reiterates the value it attributes to electronic commerce, as well as our 
keenness to access and leverage its benefits. It is  clear to us that trade is increasingly digital and 
that developing the wherewithal to harness the opportunities of electronic commerce could position 
our small, developing economies to improve our global market reach, penetration and 
competitiveness, desp ite limitations associated with our small size, scale and high production costs. 
We continue to see the moratorium more as a facilitator and enabler in relation to these aspirations, 
as opposed to a hindrance. This is not least of all due to elements we ha ve addressed previously 
relating to predictability in cross -border trade in digital goods and services, as well as opportunities 
relating to digitalisation and integration of MSMEs into global e -commerce and trade, in addition to 
improvements in consumer w elfare. Regarding technical and capacity -related considerations on the 
imposition of customs duties on electronic transmissions and on revenue collection, we continue to 
reflect on the perspectives shared during our early June workshop, even as we remain m indful of 
our limitations and capacity constraints.  We have heard those perspectives shared relating to policy 
space and revenue collection for development -related ends. While there is some resonance as relates 
to leveraging trade policy in pursuit of sust ainable development objectives, systemically, we continue WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 7 
 
- 10 - 
 
  to have difficulty reconciling the trade -restrictive imposition of new tariffs on electronic transmissions 
with the fundamental principles of the WTO relating to the progressive removal of barriers to trade.  
1.33.   In closing, we offer some reflections on the way forward on this particular topic as it relates 
to our broader mandate from Ministers. CARICOM delegations are keen to avoid another stalemate 
on the moratorium and Work Programme at MC13, both give n their importance to us and in keeping 
with our broader discussion on unburdening the agenda at Ministerial Conferences. As such, 
Members ' constructive, focused engagement in the post -break period would be key as we seek to 
outline mutually -agreeable lang uage for a Ministerial Decision. In this regard, perhaps it would be 
useful to hear from you, Madam Facilitator, and from delegations on whether the Work Programme 
and moratorium would be a matter on which we would want Senior Officials to engage in Octobe r or 
whether such engagement might, perhaps, be premature.  
1.34.   The representative of Korea,  Republic of  delivered the following statement : 
1.35.   Thank you, Ambassador Canabady, for your tireless efforts in addressing this important topic. 
Korea is pleased to see the reinvigoration of the Work Programme on E -Commerce, which owes 
much to your role as a facilitator. As a co -sponsor of the communication WT/GC/W/889, Korea aligns 
itself with the positions presented earlier by Canad a. Korea would like to particularly re iterate that 
there is a widespread understanding that the moratorium applies to all electronic transmissions, 
including their content. Building on this understanding of the scope and definition, allow me to 
highlight some points regarding our stance on the  Moratorium.  
1.36.   Firstly, we should consider the potential uncertainty that the lapse of the moratorium will 
bring to the global economy. Over the past 25 years, the practice of not imposing customs duties 
on electronic transmissions has provided predictabili ty and stability in the global digital economy 
and trade. As the world is striving to recover from pandemic -induced losses, merely discussing the 
termination of a long -standing practice could add significant uncertainty for consumers, businesses, 
and inves tors. MSMEs and women entrepreneurs, developing and least develop ed countries could 
be the hardest hit by the negative impact of the economic uncertainty.  As the African Group rightly 
mentioned in its communication, e-commerce provides new opportunities of  growth and well -being. 
We often observe a virtuous circle of e-commerce participation, market expansion, and 
strengthening capability and infrastructure. Korea hardly finds evidence that this virtuous circle 
happens only in a regional -selective manner or depending on the different stages of development.  
Secondly, Korea would like to encourage Members to see the digital economy from a new 
perspective, especially regarding revenue collection. Electronic transmissions pose challenges in 
identifying origins an d border -crossing given their unique way of data usage and transmission. The 
e-commerce consumption is in the form of 'use' rather than 'possession ', which is different from the 
traditional trade practices where tariff could be levied. To complement revenu e loss, alternatives 
such as internal taxation or new digital taxation can be also explored.  
1.37.   In conclusion, Korea strongly believes that maintaining the practice of not imposing customs 
duties on electronic transmissions is the minimum stability as well a s the baseline that the WTO can 
provide for the fast -evolving digital trade. Studies have already provided data to the best of our 
abilities, as listed in our joint communication, despite the limitation that we could only examine 
potential impact of custom s duties on electronic transmissions. As we prepare for MC13, Korea hopes 
that Members can reach a decision that brings us closer to the permanent moratorium.  
1.38.   The representative of St. Vincent and the Grenadines , on behalf of the OECS , delivered the 
following statement:   
1.39.   I am making this intervention on behalf of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States 
(OECS) WTO Members. We are also aligned with the statement  delivered by Trinidad and Tobago on  
behalf of the CARICOM Group. Thank you for convening us again in this format. We continue to 
appreciate all of the work that you are doing on this file, ably supported by the Secretariat team. 
Again, we commend you for the high -quality workshop which was convened with inter -governmental 
organisations (IGOs) las t month. This workshop certainly helped my delegation to deepen its 
understanding of the moratorium and further cemented our view of the significant value of the 
moratorium in supporting the broader e -commerce and digital trade ecosystem. We thank Canada 
for its presentation on behalf of the cosponsors of document WT/GC/W/889 and appreciate the 
timelines of this particular submission. We also refer to our own room document RD/GC/23 which WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 7 
 
- 11 - 
 
  we presented in April and which we think remains relevant to our discu ssions here today. We also 
thank the African Group for its revised submission in WT/GC/W/875/Rev.1 and Indonesia for its very 
comprehensive presentation this morning.  
1.40.   The OECS has long been a supporter of the moratorium, which we see as an important cog i n 
the broader e -commerce and digital trade ecosystems. The moratorium also contributes to legal 
certainty and predictability which are two fundamental principles of the WTO. We also associate with 
some of the sentiments conveyed by IGOs in the workshop las t month. For instance, one of the 
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) presenters observed that imposing 
customs duties on electronic transmissions is technically challenging and costly. Furthermore, a 
presenter from the Organization  for Economic Cooperation  and Development (OECD) noted that the 
benefits of the moratorium, in the form of consumer welfare, export competitiveness and small and 
medium enterprise (SME) integration in global markets, are likely to outweigh the costs. Addit ionally, 
there are still many unknown unknowns about the moratorium. The OECD presenter at the workshop 
last month had indicated that uncertainties about the scope of the moratorium and, in particular, 
the definition of electronic transmissions, have made it difficult to identify its potential impact. For 
instance, as the OECS Room Document - RD/GC/23 notes, OECS member countries have collectively 
been net exporters of some digital services such as telecommunications, computer and information 
services over the past decade. Furthermore, in the decade preceding the COVID -19 pandemic, OECS 
member countries registered growth in exports of digitally deliverable services (DDS) whic h 
intensified during the most intense phase of the pandemic, and for some Members, DDS exports 
exceeded their pre -pandemic levels. As such, given the many unknown unknowns, we cannot say 
with a high degree of certainty and confidence that ending the moratorium would not play a role in 
disrupting our digital services and DDS exports.  
1.41.   We also take note of the questions posed by the cosponsors of Document WT/GC/W/889 . 
Concerning FTA practice, we do not have a significant amount of experience in this regard. H owever, 
our Economic Partnership Agreements with both the European Union and the United Kingdom state 
that "The Parties agree that deliveries by electronic means shall be considered as the provision of 
services, within the meaning of Chapter 3 of this Titl e, which cannot be subject to customs duties. " 
With respect to the potential implications for businesses, particularly MSMEs, and consumers, should 
the Moratorium end, we believe that it would introduce a significant amount of uncertainty into the 
decision -making and conduct of business. It could also increase the cost of doing business and 
undermine the ability of firms, especially in developing and least -developed countries, to further 
integrate into the global economy. The effect on consumers could be a net loss in consumer welfare.  
We also do not have anything to share with respect to levying non -discriminatory consumption taxes 
on emerging digital trade transactions. Whilst all OECS Members maintain a non -discriminatory 
Value -Added Tax (VAT) which is ap plied to both goods and services, we have to also bear in mind 
that due to how many large multi -national digital firms operate, we are constrained in our ability to 
apply direct taxation measures on these firms. These are also matters that should be more b roadly 
discussed. In terms of feedback from domestic industry stakeholders, we are still consulting on 
whether there is any shift in sentiment. However, historically, industry stakeholders have supported 
the moratorium.  
1.42.   I would like to pose a few question s to Indonesia, for which we do not expect an immediate 
reaction, but would appreciate a future response , including by email. We wanted to find out how 
Indonesia determine s the value of the software. One of the slides indicated that they looked at the 
value of the product as well as the software in determining the relevant taxes or duties  to be applied . 
How does Indonesia determin e the value of the software? How do you treat multiple software on a 
single  product ? For instance, a product may come wit h an operating system plus multiple 
application s and multiple software ; how do you treat the value of the software in those 
circumstances? In addition, have you determined that software is a good for the purpose of duty 
collection? Is there a risk of doubl e taxation in this regard? And finally, how do you determine country 
of origin? And in determining country of origin, how do you then determine the specific rule of origin 
that you would apply to these products?  
1.43.   The representative of China  delivered the fo llowing statement:  
1.44.   Thank you, Madam Facilitator, for your tireless efforts in moving the discussions forward. Our 
thanks also go to Canada and Indonesia for the presentations. In addition, we thank the 
WTO Secretariat for updating the compilation of the e -commerce proposals.  As an important driver 
in the rapid development of global e -commerce, the moratorium is one of the most important WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 7 
 
- 12 - 
 
  multilateral outcomes achieved by the WTO in this area since 1998. China attaches great importance 
to the e-commerce discu ssions in WTO and has always supported reinvigorating the Work 
Programme on E -commerce . China supports extending the moratorium again at MC13, and we 
encourage all Members to actively and constructively engage in the relevant discussions with a view 
to del ivering a positive outcome at MC13.   
1.45.   Madam Facilitator, we would like to , once again , commend your efforts in organizing the 
two-day seminar, which helped us better understand the value and the implications of the 
moratorium. China also notes that the WTO Secretariat is working on a joint study regarding digital 
trade with other international organizations, and the moratorium is one of the key issues in this 
report. China hopes that relevant analysis would be conduc ted in a neutral and objective way, with 
a view to finding common ground to facilitate further discussions and build consensus.  According to 
the recent WTO and W orld Bank joint report on trade in services for development, global exports of 
digitally delive red services more than tripled since 2005, growing 8.1 % per year on average 
during  2005-2022, outpacing the growth in exports of both goods (5.6 %) and other services (4.2 %). 
Digitally delivered services exports under mode 1 have grown rapidly across all re gions in recent 
years. During the same period, developing economies accounted for an increasing share of global 
services trade, as least -developed economies ' exports of commercial services grew more than 
four-fold between 2005 and 2022, while those of othe r developing economies more than tripled. 
These figures demonstrate that digitally delivered services have played an increasingly significant 
role in the last two decades’ economic and trade growth . Imposing customs duties on electronic 
transmissions will not be conducive to promoting growth; on the contrary, it might hinder the growth 
of world trade and the post -pandemic economic recovery.   
1.46.   Taking this opportunity, I would like to share with you our thoughts on the guiding questions 
in proposal WT/GC/W/889 . Firstly, on FTA practices , disciplines on the moratorium in the Regional 
Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) state that each party shall maintain its current practice 
of not imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions between the parties. A nd this practice is 
in accordance with the WTO Ministerial Decision and may be adjusted with respect to any further 
outcomes in the WTO Ministerial Decisions. This arrangement provides legal certainty to the business 
community, while maintaining a high deg ree of policy space. Meanwhile, RCEP provides that 
imposing taxes, fees, or other charges on electronic transmissions is not precluded.  Secondly, on 
potential implications for businesses and consumers. Since 1998, the moratorium has contributed 
to the rapi d growth of global e -commerce by saving costs of enterprises and improving predictability. 
On the other hand, some Members registered their concerns on the scope and definition of the 
moratorium as well as the revenue implications and asked for policy spac e. Given the evolving nature 
of the digital economy, it is necessary to strike a balance between industry 's needs and governments ' 
regulatory rights.   
1.47.   Thirdly, on consumption taxes, since we are not sure about the scope and meaning of 
consumption taxes, we  are still in consultation with our relevant agencies. We would like to seek 
more clarity from the proponents in this regard especially on whether this term means VAT or GST. 
Apart from consumption taxes, China notes that some Members have levied digital t axes, which may 
negatively affect global business, consumers and international digital trade. We hope those Members 
can share their experience and practices on digital taxes, especially on its operational rules, 
implications for international digital trade , global business and consumers. We are also willing to 
further discuss with those Members on digital taxes in future dedicated discussions.  Fourthly, on 
industry 's comments. ICC and ITC issued a joint policy brief in April. The study stresses that tariffs  
on digital transmissions will discourage the use of transmissions that contribute to business 
productivity, innovation, national competitiveness, and, ultimately, jobs. According to our research, 
we have found that Chinese enterprises highly recognize the  significance of the moratorium and 
have called on the WTO to continue this arrangement at MC13.  Lastly, China commends the 
suggestions in proposal WT/GC/W/889 and would like to encourage all Members to work in a 
constructive and cooperative manner so as t o extend the moratorium again.   
1.48.   The representative of Australia  delivered the following statement:  
1.49.   We thank Indonesia (Terima  Kasih) for the detailed and meaningful presentation on its new 
intangibles measure, and we look forward to seeing the written answers you mentioned you are 
working on CTF. One question I still have , following the presentation, is why the "information 
collection " objective cannot be achieved under the framework of a non -discriminatory VAT, which 
I understand Indonesia already has in place. We will certainly  keep watch of this important measure WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 7 
 
- 13 - 
 
  as the moratorium is an extremely important issue for Australia.  The moratorium on imposing 
customs duties on electronic transmissions is the most important contribution the WTO has made to 
e-commerce. We thank Canada for a clear and comprehensive introduction of the communication 
WT/GC/W/889, which Australia is very p leased to co -sponsor. Through this communication, a diverse 
range of co-sponsors , at different stages of development , have responded in good faith to requests 
to clarify the scope and definition of the moratorium and its impacts.  We thank you , Ambassador , 
for your leadership of these dedicated discussions this year which we agree with many delegations 
has fulfilled our MC12 mandate to reinvigorate the Work Programme . 
1.50.    Traders, industry groups and individuals understand that the moratorium must include 
conte nt to have any meaning. The impact of the moratorium is of course the status quo – the rapid 
growth of the digital economy we have witnessed over the past 25 years, and the strong support 
this rule receives globally. Stakeholder groups from across the worl d came out in force to support 
the rollover of the moratorium at MC12 . Australia continues to hear regularly from the private sector, 
particularly from entrepreneurs, about the importance of the moratorium for the growth of their 
businesses . It is importan t to consider the consequences of unravelling the moratorium in the 
context of to whom those consequences will accrue.  For Australia 's part, the majority of our trade is 
already covered by permanent commitments in free trade agreements.  Our concern is for those 
countries without many trade agreements in place – the majority of which are developing countries.  
It is likely that widespread duties will be most damaging domestically in countries imposing those 
duties, and particularly on those who can least affo rd it. We concur with the thoughtful comments 
made by Costa Rica on basing our discussion s on evidence. Indeed, a  2019 study by the national 
bureau of economic research at Cambridge found that the burden of customs duties falls mainly on 
domestic consumers  paying higher prices, rather than foreign firms funding duties from revenue 
share.  ECIPE 2019 also found that if imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions , the loss 
in GDP would be 49 times larger than the tariff revenues for India, over 160 tim es larger for 
Indonesia, over 25 times larger for South Africa.  In addition to these impacts on consumers, 
Australia has been seeking to better understand the gendered impact of the moratorium. A key 
benefit of e -commerce is lowered barriers to entry. This is particularly important for groups that are 
traditionally less able to participate in trade, such as women and other underrepresented groups. 
We have heard recently from a range of different female entrepreneurs across geog raphic regions 
very concerned about the prospect of imposing a new barrier on electronic transmissions. Australia 
has engaged an international group of female trade experts – the Trade Experettes – to undertake 
research and consider the ways that the morat orium supports women entrepreneurs.  We look 
forward to being able to update Work Programme colleagues on this research in coming months.  
1.51.   The representative of Singapore  delivered the following statement : 
1.52.   I want to share how imposing custom s duties on elec tronic transmission s will impact the 
development dimension of developing Members and LDCs  and to  highlight a few key trends that 
I have noticed . There ha ve also been recent reports and new publications that I thought would be 
of interest to developing and LDC Members. First, many developing Members are transiti oning 
towards services -oriented economic models which are highly reliant on data transmission . This 
implies that imposing custom s duties would be detrimental to the overall economic development of 
developing and LDC Members.  Second, digital labour markets are growing rapidly through platforms 
such as Fibre and Upwork. We have seen how these platforms have offered significant opportunities 
for developing countries and LDC Members.  The moratorium , in thi s case , would really eliminate 
potential future taxation of work undertaken remotely through the se platforms and impose less 
constraints for such businesses , including professionals working freelance on these platforms. Third, 
I just want to echo the US's and other Members' concerns on what we have heard from Indonesia. 
We have received a lot of feedback from industry regarding concerns over how that would be 
unnecessarily restrictive and impose a heavy  burden on micro, small and medium businesses. I also 
want to allude to the UK's point on how there are other ways of doing it . We thank Trinidad and 
Tobago for raising Singapore's key study and we  are happy to share how we are doing it through 
our overseas vendor registration process and our internal goods and services taxation system , which 
is much simpler , more efficient and straightforward.  
1.53.   The representative of New Zealand  delivered the following  statement:  
1.54.   New Zealand welcomes continued engagement on the moratorium on customs duties as part 
of the e -commerce Work Programme. We would like to thank Canada and Switzerland in particular, 
and all co -sponsors, for tabling their valuable paper  WT/GC/W/8 89. New Zealand wholly endorses WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 7 
 
- 14 - 
 
  its conclusions and analysis on the moratorium 's scope, definition and impact, and would be pleased 
to associate ourselves with it.  The moratorium is especially important for small, open economies, 
including developing and L DC Members. Its lapse could consequently have a detrimental impact on 
development outcomes, which is a concern we have heard from a broad range of both developing 
and developed Members. Being geographically isolated, New Zealanders have been early adopters  
and users of electronic commerce as both exporters and consumers. We hear frequently from our 
business community – the overwhelming majority of whom are MSMEs – regarding the value they 
place on the moratorium.  Reflecting that, we have a long history of including moratorium provisions 
in our FTAs both with developing and developed partners.  
1.55.   We thank Indonesia for its presentation. However, consistent with our own experience, any 
concerns Members may have about revenue or information losses can be  addresse d though policy 
interventions other than customs duties, such as robust taxation mechanisms . Taxes such as value 
added or goods and services taxes are fair, transparent, and non ‐discriminatory alternatives to 
customs duties and tariffs that are also practi cally workable and commercially meaningful. Like 
others we remain concerned that the alternative to the moratorium mainly adds uncertainty and 
complexity to digital transactions. It is clear that no one policy intervention will address the global 
digital d ivide. It is also clear to us that the moratorium is a tool at our disposal that supports digital  
trade  growth , development and predictability, and that is also consistent with Members ' rights to 
adopt their own internal taxation policies.  
1.56.   To support activ e discussions on the e -commerce moratorium, New Zealand hosted a virtual 
event on this topic last Thursday , 13 July , in APEC's Committee on Trade and Investment. The 
workshop featured a panel of speakers from businesses around the APEC region, including MS MEs 
and women entrepreneurs, who shared their experiences and insights on how the moratorium has 
positively affected their businesses' development and growth. Attendees to the event included 
policymakers, a range of businesses, and academics. We would also  like to acknowledge the event 's 
co-sponsors for their support: Australia, Canada, Chile, Hong Kong China, Japan, Singapore, Chinese 
Taipei, the United States.   
1.57.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  delivered the following statement:  
1.58.   Hong Kong, China is glad to be a co -sponsor of the communication presented by Canada 
which reiterates our longstanding stance on the moratorium, and I would like to focus our 
observations in response to two of the guiding questions as set out in the communication to facilitat e 
today 's discussion.  First, on our FTA practices and experiences, the pervasiveness of the non -
imposition of customs duties on electronic transmissions ( NICDET ) provisions in trade agreements 
with e -commerce chapter shows that the majority of WTO Members recognise the value of 
maintaining a tariff -free environment for e -commerce and digital trade. According to the statistics 
provided by the OECD, only five out of 105 trade agreements with an e -commerce chapter do not 
have any NICDET commitment. More than h alf of the WTO Membership (i.e., 102 countries) have at 
least signed one trade agreement with NICDET provisions, and the signatories of those agreements 
cover a wide range of countries. It is therefore evident that many of the WTO Members, with varying 
degrees of development levels, are aware of the benefits brought about by the moratorium, to the 
extent that they would pursue such practice in their regional trade agreements.  Hong Kong, China 
has NICDET provisions in our more recent FTAs. For example, in th e Australia -Hong Kong, China 
FTA, Hong Kong, China is committed to not imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions, 
including content transmitted electronically, on any person of our FTA partner. A "for greater 
certainty " clause is also added to pr ovide policy space for a FTA party to impose internal taxes, fees 
or other charges on content transmitted electronically which are in manner consistent with the 
agreement.  It is delighting to note that signatories to FTAs with NICDET provisions have used f lexible 
and creative language to accommodate different definitions of electronic transmissions in order to 
make NICDET commitments.  We believe the approaches used in those FTAs could shed light on our 
way forward in discussing the scope and definition of the Moratorium.  
1.59.   Second, from the real -life business perspective, the business sector has been supportive of 
the moratorium, which has helped underpin stability and predictability for e -commerce and digital 
trade in the past quarter century.  As mentioned b y previous speakers, Members would have recalled 
that a global coalition of industrial representatives had jointly made a statement strongly appealing 
for the continuation of the Moratorium before MC12.  In a virtual workshop held just last week in 
APEC's context on the impacts of the moratorium, MSME representatives from both developed and 
developing economies unanimously regarded the moratorium as an indispensable part of WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 7 
 
- 15 - 
 
  international trade. The use of digital technology is omnipresent in the business sec tor nowadays, 
ranging from tertiary sectors such as cloud professional services, to primary sectors such as precision 
agriculture solutions. It was a shock to some members of the business community that the 
moratorium could be lapsed, as their businesses m odels heavily rely on the digital services and 
digital input for greater efficiency and effectiveness.   
1.60.   The Moratorium is also a key to support inclusive growth and sustainable development. It 
creates a level -playing field for MSMEs, women entrepreneurs, rural communities and other 
under -represented groups to thrive, as electronic transmissions help these groups to overcome high 
logistics costs and other barriers to trade in expanding into overseas markets. Such success would 
create positive feedback loop that creates business opportunities, boosts investment and promotes 
infrastructure development in remote areas.  The business sector is overwhelmingly against the 
potential imposition of customs duties on electronic transmissions. Apart from the financial i mpact 
brought about by tariffs, the greatest concern of businesses lies in the regulatory uncertainty and 
complexity. The compliance cost of making additional customs declarations, even if the tariff is zero, 
would be burdensome. While larger enterprises c ould absorb the administrative burden and the 
financial costs, MSMEs would suffer the most in this scenario. The burden of the tariffs would also 
be shifted to the consumers, affecting cross -border exchange of knowledge, technical know -how and 
access to di gital tools.  To conclude, the moratorium has maintained a facilitative environment for 
global e -commerce and digital trade to thrive. We have heard it loud and clear from the international 
business community of the benefits of the Moratorium, and how the l apse of the Moratorium would 
stifle their businesses and inhibit economic growth of the Members imposing the tariffs.  Given the 
importance of the Moratorium to the business sector, Hong Kong, China fully supports its 
continuation, and considers that both i mposing customs duties and customs procedures on electronic 
transmissions would constitute barriers to trade. We are committed to work with Members towards 
a longer -term solution for the moratorium in the run up to MC13, so as to maintain a conducive 
environment for digital trade.  
1.61.   The representative of Switzerland  delivered the following statement:  
1.62.   Thank you , Chair, for your efforts in reinvigorating this Work Programme.  We would  like to 
thank Canada for very eloquently introducing the paper WT/GC/W/889 of which we are a co -sponsor. 
For Switzerland , the moratorium has always been an important enabling factor for the development 
of the digital economy.  The moratorium is one very im portant rule of the WTO that works against 
the fragmentation of the digital economy.  We share the concerns voiced by other delegations about 
measures introduced that may undermine trade in electronic transmissions across borders.  With 
regard to Indonesia's  presentation, for which we are very thankful, we would like to ask whether 
there could be policy measures other than the introduction of tariff lines that would achieve the 
pursued goals and , at the same time , be less trade distortive.  Switzerland  is amon g those who 
believe that the moratorium has a very important role for trade in services, especially digital 
services, as electronic transmissions  very often constitute cross -border trade in services. So, they 
complement commitments in Mode 1, especially.  As for the scope, we would like to underline , like 
others, that this is a rule about customs duties, it  is not a rule about internal taxation. We believe 
that many other regulatory measures for the digita l economy are not affected by this moratorium. 
With regard to the VAT, we would like to point out, once again, the expert workshop that we have 
held in the summer of 2021, where the imposition of VAT on digital services was discussed in 
detail.  For all the se reasons, we believe that the moratorium is a very important element of the 
WTO rule book, and it should be extended at the next Ministerial Conference.  
1.63.   The representative of Norway  delivered the following statement : 
1.64.   Norway continues to support a permane nt moratorium on customs duties on electronic 
transmissions. A s co-sponsor of WT/GC/W/889, I  will not repeat the important arguments that have 
been made by Canada and our co -sponsors, as well as other Members today on the positive effects 
of the moratorium . We hope the document is helpful, not only for our discussions here in Geneva 
but in providing  food for thought in all our capitals.  Discussions under your auspices , Chair, seem to 
be moving us forward  – I am optimistic on that  – but what has worried us f or years has been that 
we keep repeating arguments and pointing to studies without seeming to go anywhere. So, we  have 
been looking for practical examples o f how the moratorium assists development, including how an 
end to the moratorium would affect produc tion and development. We think we found some very 
good examples and , as the US has already stated, we will be presenting such examples , specifically WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 7 
 
- 16 - 
 
  on agriculture , on 21 September. We hope as many of you as possible can attend that luncheon 
meeting.  
1.65.   We would like to thank Indonesia for the presentation , but we have the same questions as 
the US and others have. The first thing that struck me was the question of : what about direct imports 
to consumers? Since Indonesia  explained that this is related to the i mporter as a legal entity,  this 
seems to be a business -to-business issue and not business -to-consumers ; and, like the US said, 
what about everything else that goes directly to the consumer? This might be a case of discrimination 
not only between like products, domestic producers and foreign producers, bu t also between 
business -to-business and business -to-consume rs. At the same time, Indonesia indicated that the 
monitoring would be done through the audit mechanism , which goes back to the consideration that 
the legal entities  would be subject to such audits and not the consumers . That means that , in going 
through  the audit mechanism , as others have pointed out, Indonesia  could base itself on the general 
audit mechanism through taxation  and the VAT system, rather than going through the customs.  
There have been a lot of questions regarding  the Indonesian presentation,  which I think are 
important to follow up on.  
1.66.   The representative of Argentina  delivered the following statement:  
1.67.   Thank you, Facilitator for convening this meeting and for giving us the floor. We welcome the 
opportunity to have a further discussion on this  topic as part of the reinvigorated work of this Work 
Programme. Argentina thanks the delegations that prepared and circulated documents 
WT/GC/W/889 and WT/GC/W/875/Rev.1.  Argentina has expressed its position on this topic at this 
session on numerous occas ions. Our position remains unchanged . Argentina supports the renewal 
of the moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions as currently drafted, covering only 
the electronic transmission s, but not the content.  
1.68.   Madam Facilitator, please allow me t hen to provide some details on the reasons for our 
position. Argentina is a net importer of those products currently identified as "digitizable" in 
document JOB/GC/114 and therefore eligible for inclusion in the tariff free transmission of imports. 
As the list of goods that can be transmitted digitally is an "open" list, incorporating the content into 
the moratorium would imply an automatic inclusion of goods that, although not digitally 
transmissible today, could be digitally transmissible in the future. I t is worth recalling that about 
90% of the countries that agreed to a provision on the exemption of customs duties on electronic 
transactions in their FTAs/RTAs are currently Parties to the plurilateral Information Technology 
Agreement (ITA), which elimina tes tariffs for some 800 IT related products, including currently 
"digitizable" products and those that could potentially be "digitizable" in the future. In other words, 
these countries will face a "zero" cost for a potential inclusion of electronically tr ansmitted content 
in the moratorium. This is not the case for Argentina. Tariffs in Argentina for these products range 
from 12% to 35%. For this reason, by eliminating tariffs we would lose not only an essential 
instrument in tax matters, but also a useful  tool to promote the local industry of these goods.  
1.69.   Regarding the claim that not including content would make the moratorium irrelevant, we 
would like to stress that both the GATT and the GATS do not distinguish between the means by 
which commercial transa ctions of goods or services are carried out, so that any content transmitted 
in the framework of an electronic commerce transaction is currently covered by WTO rules. This was 
the reason why those countries that agreed to the moratorium in 1998 did so spec ifically with regard 
to electronic transactions, as it is the format of the transaction, and not its content, that is the only 
component of such a transaction not regulated by the WTO.  With regard to the variety of 
commitments on electronically transmitted  content made by Members in their FTAs/RTAs, according 
to the data in the WTO database, we have identified at least eight different drafting formats, with 
commitments ranging from the most basic (conforming only to current WTO commitment), to higher 
levels  of ambition (e.g., including customs duties on exports of goods and services). This clearly 
illustrates the disparity of interests that exist among Members at the regional level and the variety 
of interpretations or decisions that each of the parties has decided to carry out with respect to the 
tariff exemption, which respond exclusively to particular interests and negotiating strategies, and 
therefore can in no way be taken as a legal basis to emulate such commitments, interpretations or 
decisions in the WTO framework.  
1.70.   Lastly, we welcome the reference to the studies of international organizations referred to in 
document WT/GC/W/889 that would indicate that the potential benefits of eliminating tariffs on 
electronically transmitted content are substantially  lower than the potential efficiency benefits. In WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 7 
 
- 17 - 
 
  this regard, Argentina believes that these contributions should only be considered as inputs to be 
taken into account by each Member and not as a basis for a legal decision regarding the future of 
the WTO m oratorium. In any event, efficiency considerations or possible tax benefits or detriments 
are elements to be analysed within the framework of each Member's sovereignty in terms of its 
economic policy objectives and not as a tool for a multilateral decision  on the moratorium. If this 
argument is taken as a valid and necessary legal basis to move forward with the inclusion of the 
content of the moratorium, then it would be prudent and coherent for WTO Members to apply it 
horizontally in all areas of negotiati on within the Organization and, for example, to negotiate the 
elimination of high tariffs, non tariff barriers without scientific support or the substantial subsidies 
that are currently applied to agricultural goods, all of them distorting elements of inte rnational trade 
and which also involve, under these same criteria, an erosion of the efficiency of the global economy.  
I would like to end by repeating our position to support the renewal of the moratorium under the 
current condition.  
1.71.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  delivered the following statement:  
1.72.   We are pleased to co -sponsor Canada 's communication and share  the elaborated scope and 
impact of the Moratorium. We also thank the presentation from Indonesia and thank them for sharing 
their perspectives.  We highly appreciate , Madam Facilitator , your efforts to organize the inter -
governmental organization workshop, whi ch deepened Members ' understanding on the moratorium 
based on evidence and facts.  Overall, we see more studies and work demonstrating that the 
moratorium has brought wider economic and social welfare on businesses and consumers, which 
outweigh marginal gai ns in potential tariff revenues.  According to UNCTAD, the moratorium can 
reduce digital transaction costs and bring greater benefits in particular for MSMEs and women. It 
also highlights the policy costs that could arise from a lack of predictability in  the trade environment.  
Meanwhile, studies from the OECD also suggest that the implications for potential foregone revenue 
are likely to be small and  can be offset by the growing internal tax revenues for most of the 
economies.  
1.73.   On industry feedback, our busin esses share the same perspective. The economy of my 
delegation relies heavily on international trade and takes strong presence in the global ICT industry. 
The moratorium helps them to reduce the cost of cross -border online procurement, while our MSMEs 
can access or output digital contents without constraints.  We underscore the importance of taking 
into account feedback from businesses, academia and stakeholders from the private sector. We 
support the idea of organizing a workshop to hear from the private se ctor, especially the MSMEs 
from different regions and women entrepreneurs.  
1.74.   When talking about the role of the WTO, we deem one of them is to facilitate and maintain 
global trade rules that promote trade and sustainable growth.  The continuous implementation  of the 
moratorium has shown, and will continue to accentuate , the WTO 's commitments to maintaining 
global policies that boost digital economy for all.  Applying customs duties on electronic transmissions 
would backslide these commitments on the facilitatio n of digital trade, and irrevocably disrupt the 
stable environment of the digital economy.  To conclude, we support the extension of the moratorium 
and see the need of making it permanent to ensure long -term certainty. We also see our discussion 
has come to  the next stage, so that we can have more concrete discussions, with the hope to deliver 
a positive outcome in the MC13.  
1.75.   The representative of Chile delivered the following statement:  
1.76.   Thank you, Madame Ambassador, for convening this meeting. As part of ou r trade policy, 
Chile has included rules to make this moratorium permanent in most of its free trade negotiations 
that include a chapter on electronic commerce or digital trade. This process began in 2004, in our 
free trade agreement with the United States , followed by our agreements with Australia, Colombia, 
the Pacific Alliance, Uruguay, the Digital Economy Association Agreement (DEPA), Brazil and 
Ecuador.  In general, the establishment of a permanent moratorium with our trading partners has 
been well rece ived by the private sector in Chile. It provides the sector with legal certainty on the 
costs of exporting to various markets, and we believe that it has been successfully implemented.   
For our country, supporting our SMEs is a priority and part of our inclusion policies, which includes 
the empowerment of women. Our objective, therefore, is to ensure that SMEs have options to access 
international trade and enter new markets without discriminatory barriers, expanding their export 
options, with special con sideration for those SMEs that do not have the resources to establish 
themselves in different jurisdictions to avoid different barriers and measures.  WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 7 
 
- 18 - 
 
  1.77.   If tariffs are imposed on electronic transmissions, we are likely to face a range of 
repercussions for bot h businesses, especially micro, small and medium sized enterprises (MSMEs), 
and consumers. We would like to share some of the consequences that we believe could be 
detrimental from the perspective of an industry that operates for the world from a developin g 
economy and that, through digital technologies, has a unique opportunity to globalize:  
• Increased costs: Tariffs would increase the operating costs of businesses. This cost increase 
may be particularly detrimental to MSMEs, which often operate with lower profit margins. 
These businesses could be forced to downsize their operations, delay expansion or, in the 
worst case, close down.  
• Higher prices for consumers: Companies often pass on additional costs to consumers by 
increasing the prices of products and se rvices. Therefore, tariffs could make digital products 
and services more expensive for consumers, especially those in developing economies.  
• Digital trade barriers: Tariffs could act as a barrier to digital trade, making it difficult for new 
companies to en ter the market. This could reduce competition, often resulting in higher 
prices and less choice for consumers.  
• Impact on innovation: Tariffs could also have a negative impact on innovation. If operating 
costs are too high, companies may have fewer resources to invest in research and 
development. This could slow the pace of innovation in the technology industry.  
• Preserving the openness of the Internet: The moratorium helps to maintain the open and 
borderless nature of the Internet, which is seen as e ssential to foster innovation and allow 
small businesses to participate in the global economy.  
• Effect on the global economy: On a broader level, tariffs on electronic transmissions could 
have a negative effect on the global economy. Digital trade is an imp ortant driver of 
economic growth and tariffs could inhibit this growth.  
1.78.   In short, tariffs on electronic transmissions could have detrimental consequences for both 
businesses, in particular M SMEs, and consumers. We believe it is important that international  trade 
policies be designed in a way that promotes innovation, competition and economic growth.  Moreover, 
our private sector has indicated to us that its position on the moratorium on tariffs on electronic 
transmissions is highly positive, and we hope that  this will be a practice that will be consolidated 
among Members in order to provide security to international trade operators. First, by not having to 
bear additional costs in the form of tariffs, companies, in particular MSMEs, can keep their operating 
costs low. Not only does this allow them to compete more effectively on the global marketplace, but 
it also provides them with the stability needed to grow and expand.  In addition, a moratorium on 
tariffs favours and promotes digital trade. By eliminating t rade barriers, we are making it easier for 
new companies to enter the market. This can lead to a more dynamic and competitive technological 
sector, creating an environment that fosters innovation.  
1.79.   Keeping costs down also frees up resources that companies c an then invest in research and 
development. This is especially important in this sector, where innovation is key to staying 
competitive. Therefore, a moratorium on tariffs not only can help keep our companies afloat but  can 
also boost innovation and develo pment in the technology sector as a whole.  Lastly, we must 
remember that digital trade is an important driver of economic growth. By establishing a moratorium 
on tariffs on electronic transmissions, we help ensure that this engine continues to drive the gl obal 
economy, benefiting not only our businesses, but also consumers and the economy as a whole.  
1.80.   The representative of Thailand  delivered the following statement:  
1.81.   Madam Facilitator, a t the outset, Thailand would like to express appreciation for your 
leader ship and continued support in facilitating this dedicated discussion , particularly on the 
moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions which is of great importance to all 
Members, as seen by the constructive and interactive engagement registere d in the April session 
and the workshop with relevant international organizations.  Although Members still have different 
views, they also support  deepen ing the  discussions in the spirit of research and evidence -based 
approach. We would like to thank Indone sia for the presentation and Canada and the co-sponsors WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 7 
 
- 19 - 
 
  of document WT/GC/W/889 for presenting ideas and posing questions to facilitate today 's discussion 
in a more structured and targeted manner.  Needless to say, e-commerce plays a crucial role in 
sustain ing global economic activities during the pandemic. In Thailand, the pandemic has boosted 
digitization and e-commerce , and we have benefited significantly since e-commerce  supports both 
international and domestic trade flow s and allows MSMEs to survive. It  is expected that businesses 
engagement and the utilization of e-commerce will continue to grow at  exponential growth, and we 
also believe that e-commerce will soon become a fully integrated  part of the global economy.  To this 
end, it is our common interes t to have the least number  of obstacles to e -commerce growth ; and 
maintain ing the current practice of extending the e-commerce moratorium at MC13 will support 
businesses operation by providing certainty and predictability to the trade environment as well as 
strengthen supply chain resilience by allowing MSMEs to participate in global supply chain to the  
greater extent.  However, carefully assessing Membe rs' views and experiences, we do hear concerns 
raised by Members especially concerning the impact of the moratorium regarding fiscal implications. 
In this regard, we echo suggestions from Members in past discussions and would like to share our 
observations  for possible improvements to address unresolved issues and bridge the gap.   
1.82.   Despite the fact that several studies on the impact analysis have been  undertaken by different 
organisations so far, we should bear in mind that the results of these quantitative  studies can vary 
subject to specific sets of assumptions, variables, and source of data. In this connection, we are of 
the view that a holistic analysis, covering large samples of economies/count ries under the same sets 
of tool s, framework, and assumption s, would better demonstrate the impact of the moratorium in 
light of revenue, employment, export competitiveness, and welfare across different countries and 
sectors in a more comparable manner. Joint technical studies and collaborations with other relevant  
international organizations would be a possible way forward , and beneficial to Members ' discussion , 
to address some policy concerns and implement the most  appropriate policy options in the future. 
This study may take time, but we see the merit of explorat ion for accurate quantitative comparison. 
In light of this, precise scope and the definition will also improve such impact analysis, so Members 
are urged to continue discussions or exchange ideas with other relevant organization among experts 
and policy ma kers with a view to bring about a shared understanding on this matter.  In addition to 
the long debate on its impact, technical questions remain unanswered on the feasibility and efficiency 
of impos ing customs duties on electronic transmissions due to the digital nature and intangibility, 
difficulties in valuation, administrative and operational challenges, and international coordination 
challenges. On this front, Thailand highly appreciates the presentation in the document  
WT/GC/ W/889 as well as Members ' intervention to share their national experiences. We see that 
this is highly beneficial to Members in highlighting alternative policy options which possibly address 
concerns regarding revenue loss.  
1.83.   In the case of Thailand, we have recently implemented VAT ru les on e-service for non -resident 
providers in 2021, which aims to create a level playing field in support of digital development. This 
broadly shares similar concept s with other countries; however, it is far from perfect.  Members ' 
national experience s serve as good examples and will greatly complement our own practice for future 
improvements as well as for policy decision -making in the long term.  Lastly, we would like to 
emphasize that each country has a specific context,  and it is crucial to take into account the interests 
and concerns especially of LDCs and developing countries. Policymakers should consider all aspects 
in balancing the objective of revenue with the promoti on of digital trade and economic growth in 
broader aspects such as the impact on businesses, including MSMEs, and the potential consequences 
for consumers as well as disruption to cross -border trade in designing effective policies.  Today 's 
session provides  us with greater understanding among one another. We hear many useful 
suggestions from Members to take forward and Thailand remains committed to further discussion 
with a view to find ing common grounds and being able to address remaining issues before MC13 .  
1.84.   The representative of Japan  delivered the following statement:  
1.85.   We express our appreciation to Ambassador Usha for convening today's dedicated session. 
Japan welcomes the achievement of the extension of the moratorium on customs duties with the 
reinvigor ation of the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce at MC12, even though Japan believes 
that the moratorium should be made permanent eventually. At the same time, we fully recognize 
that our Minister s instructed us to deep dive into the discussion on the mo ratorium, and we would 
like to constructively participate in the discussion. We thank Canada for its introduction. T he joint 
communication on the moratorium, WT/GC/W/889, was circulated prior to this session and Japan 
was delighted to join it. We also real ly appreciate today's Indonesian presentation regarding its 
domestic regime on customs duties on electronic transmission, which would give us some insight WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 7 
 
- 20 - 
 
  into this issue. For existing FTAs/RTAs, Japan has already committed to the non -imposition of 
customs  duties on electronic transmission s in a number of FTAs or RTAs and most of the 
commitments are permanent bans on the imposition of customs duties on electronic transmissions. 
We think that the definition of "electronic transmission" and the scope of the " moratorium" should 
include "content."  
1.86.   We are not yet fully convinced that  the imposition of customs duties on electronic 
transmissions is technologically stable, and it would significantly undercut predictability in particular 
for MSMEs and consumers who w ould be unable to anticipate when and how each country will impose 
customs duties. Even if the imposition were to be at all possible, it would be very costly from a 
socioeconomic perspective. In the digital landscape, the concept of borders or physical loc ations are 
not absolute due to the widespread use of some digital technologies, including virtual private 
networks. For this reason, the imposition of these duties will give rise to several difficult questions, 
including whether it is possible to impose cu stoms duties by identifying the starting point, relay 
point, and ending point of individual electronic transmissions. In addition, there seems to be no clear 
answers about who is responsible for paying the customs duties at this time. Therefore, the 
imposi tion of such duties would create a more detrimental effect from a business perspective than 
we could expect.  
1.87.   Now, electronic transmissions via the Internet have already been widely incorporated into 
businesses and trade all over the world, and the digital  industry has been a part of the global value 
chain. In general, we see that the technology and business landscapes are rapidly changing and 
evolving in the digital industry. Therefore, we believe that in the digital industry, it would be 
important to purc hase or make use of a wide variety of existing online modularized digital products 
or services, give additional values to them quickly, and expand the final products or services swiftly 
and actively to markets, hopefully spurring market growth. In this reg ard, in both developing and 
developed countries, the moratorium on customs duties guarantees a business environment in which 
MSMEs in particular can purchase, subscribe or make use of a wide range of digital products or 
services all over the world at lower  prices or even for free through the Internet, as well as be allowed 
to participate as suppliers in the global digital market, which has grown rapidly. For this reason, we 
suspect that if the moratorium lapses, this would undermine the predictability of MS MEs and 
consumers, due to the technological difficulties posed by the imposition of customs duties on 
electronic transmissions, and it will give rise to significant negative effects on the current state of 
the economy and international trade. We would like  to stress our concern that MSMEs or consumers 
with lack of access to plenty of alternatives or resources, rather than large and global enterprises, 
would be significantly influenced by the potential disorder created by the expiration of the 
moratorium.  
1.88.   Just to share our experience of internal tax, in 2015, Japan amended the tax law to implement 
consumption taxation on cross -border supplies of services such as digital content distribution. In 
this amendment, we changed the criterion for determining either d omestic or foreign transactions, 
in principle, from the location of the office of the service "provider" associated with providing such 
services, to the address of the service "recipients." As a result of this amendment, domestic and 
foreign providers of d igital content distribution are now to file their tax returns on consumption tax 
to a taxation office in Japan. In addition, we categorized the provision of electronic services into two 
categories: namely, "provision of B2B (business -to-business) electroni c services" and "provision of 
B2C (business -to-consumer electronic services". As for the provision of B2B electronic services, we 
introduced a "reverse charge mechanism", where a Japanese business files and pays tax when 
receiving electronic services from a foreign business. We recognize that there are a variety of 
regimes among Members. The fact that there are ample examples of internal taxation on 
electronically transmitted content is important.  We see our business stakeholders have serious 
concerns about  the situation that would occur after the lapse of the moratorium. For example, 
business enterprises in Japan often outsource the production process to business enterprises in other 
regions, and there is day -to-day electronic communication about purchase o rders and design 
documents. We know that in a scenario in which the moratorium lapses, there is the possibility that 
our business stakeholders may need to consider changing  their supply chains. We should be mindful 
of such concerns from the business sector , as well as the risk of losing business opportunities or 
employment driven by the lapse of the moratorium.  
1.89.   Lastly, Japan understands that the moratorium on custom s duties has assured a free trade 
environment and sound development of electronic commerce an d digital trade. We believe that the 
moratorium has provided certainty and predictability for both consumers and businesses, including WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 7 
 
- 21 - 
 
  MSMEs. Particularly against the backdrop of the COVID -19 pandemic, the moratorium has been 
essential to ensure a sound an d liberalized environment through electronic commerce and digital 
trade, and to promote safe or less -risky socio -economic activities in order to contribute to economic 
recovery and growth.  Let us remind ourselves of what the Marrakesh Agreement says. The t hird 
paragraph of the preamble clearly mentions the WTO's objectives toward the substantial reduction 
of tariffs and other barriers to trade, and the elimination of discriminatory treatment in international 
trade relations. We should respect this core spir it of the multilateral trading system and maintain 
the current momentum, as opposed to taking a step backward.  
1.90.   The representative of Tanzania  delivered the following statement : 
1.91.   Thank you, Facilitator , for your exemplary leadership in taking forward ou r discussion on this 
important subject. We find today's discussion very useful , especially the presentation from the 
delegation of Indonesia, which sets the right scene for practical engagement. Let me tak e this 
opportunity to thank Indonesia for sharing with us the practical  steps taken by its Government in 
administering the importation of digital products which we find very critical in this era of increased 
digital economy. Indonesia's  presentation comple tely negates the construct that the application of 
customs duties is next to impossible. It is quite the opposite.  The moratorium was adopted at a time 
when the dynamics of e -commerce were different from the current realities. The players in the 
market wer e few, but it is a normal practi ce of enterprise s to try to make it difficult for others to 
enter into the market, in order to fully benefit from the first mover advantage. We have witnessed 
such efforts from the bigger players,  and they are  still being pu rsued today. However, we find it is 
necessary to protect all and to give an equal chance, even for earlier ad opters or the lagg ards, to 
enter the market and thrive.  Governments ' interest, especially from the developing world, is to 
ensure that the policy s pace is there to allow their private sector to become a participant or a player. 
With the digital divide in place, it w ould be unfair to forego th at policy space and that is the reason 
why we support the recent submission made by the African Group.  
1.92.   It sho uld be understood that the non -renewal of the moratorium will not lead  to the application 
of custom s duties by all developing countries  and on all digital products at the same time. We believe 
that customs duties ' application is a good trade policy instrum ent, and our role is to define the scope 
of electronic transmissions. Some say that it is linked to cross-border services and many more other 
concepts. These misconceptions need to be cleared through open thematic exchanges and debate s, 
as we define the sc ope of its applicability , what "electronic transmissions" can cover or should entail . 
We are ready to engage. Any outcome from such discussion should take into account the 
development aspect of developing countries and LDCs, and it should take into consideration which 
economies thrive. We want to be participants and not observers. To date, since the digital platfor ms 
are concentrated in less than six countries, our entrepreneurs have had difficulties to access those 
platforms – it is next to impossible. Once they are given access, it is like a favour and that is 
monopoly which we are obliged to deal with. As trade e xperts in Geneva , our role is to create global 
rules which protect the weak and do not allow exploitation from bigger players. Digital platforms 
normally charge exorbitant prices, taking benefits of the weak. In closing, I would like to assure 
Members that  the delegation of Tanzania will remain open and ready to continue with constructive 
engagement as we raise the challenges which are posed by the moratorium ; not only as a source of 
revenue, but also as an important policy tool to protect the new entrants into the market and allow 
them to thrive in e -commerce.  
1.93.   The representative of Philippines  delivered the following statement:  
1.94.   Once again, let us express our appreciation to you , Ambassador , and the Secretariat for 
leading and organizing these dedicated discussions. We are close to the end of the scheduled 
thematic discussions and are gearing up for more focused sessions on the preparations for MC13. 
We hope we can deliver a meaningful outcom e when our Ministers meet in Abu Dhabi. As mentioned, 
the previous sessions have been valuable not only in thr ashing out issues and challenges in the 
digital economy that Members are facing, but more importantly , in the sharing of best practices  and 
nation al experiences , we have put together a wealth of information. This topic on the moratorium is 
particularly complex and crucially important as reflected and discussed in our April session. We thank 
Indonesia for its presentation, we look forward to receivin g a copy of the presentation, and we thank 
the sponsors of document WT/GC/ W/889 for their work to further support our discussion on this 
issue and for Canada for presenting the document this morning. We endeavour  to respond to the 
questions posed therein a s we have already shared our general views on the moratorium in April.  WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 7 
 
- 22 - 
 
  1.95.   In our FTA practice, we currently refer to the WTO moratorium on the imposition of customs 
duties on electronic transmission such as in the E -commerce Chapter in the Regional Comprehen sive 
Economic Partnership (RCEP). However, imposition of taxes, fees or other charges on electronic 
transmissions is not precluded. Domestically, as we have previously mentioned, the Philippines is 
itself considering new legislation on imposing VAT on digi tal services. Among the pending bills include 
clarification of VAT on electronic or digital services such as digital advertising, subscription -based 
services and other services using ICT -enabled infrastructure, among others. We are also closely 
following t he discussions on digital services tax that are happening in several fora such as in the 
OECD/G20.  
1.96.   On the potential implications for consumers and businesses, particularly to MSMEs, of the 
imposition of customs duties, while these would largely depend on t he policy environment and 
circumstance of countries, we can generally agree that such would impact digital trade growth, 
business costs, competitiveness, innovation, digital adoption, and ultimately consumer prices. 
A study from our Philippine Institute fo r Development Studies found that the moratorium has led to 
an exponential rise in internet usage and booming digital economy. It has also signalled  increased 
certainty to businesses and consumers and made it more challenging to levy discriminatory taxes 
on digital goods. On the government side, the same study also estimates that the foregone revenue 
of the moratorium on digitizable products represents about 0.10% and 0.65% of national 
government revenues using the average MFN rate and the bound tariff rate,  respectively.  On levying 
non-discriminatory consumption taxes on emerging digital trade transactions, tax neutrality between 
online and offline transactions is one of the key principles adopted as government policy for 
e-commerce promotion and adoption in  the Philippines. Currently, our tax authority is implementing 
an e-receipt system to cut the cost of taxpayer transactions. This system includes requiring export 
enterprises and firms engaged in e -commerce to issue digital copies of receipts and invoices.   
1.97.   For the last question, in our domestic consultations, among the concerns raised by our 
stakeholders on the moratorium is the definition of "electronic transmission ", methodology to 
capture and implement tariffs on digital products, capacity of digital in frastructure, additional costs, 
equitable treatment of physical imports vis-à-vis imports through electronic means, and impact on 
innovation. During our May consultations, there were comments particularly on the need to address 
business requisites, especia lly in the context of the losses seen in traditional business models during 
the COVID -19 pandemic. There was also a response on equitable treatment between brick -and-
mortar shops against digital players.   
1.98.   To close, for the Philippines, the scope, the impac t on businesses and consumers, the 
feasibility of imposing the duties, and the policy space for the government are the priority areas of 
consideration in discussing the moratorium.  We thank Members for sharing their views and practices 
and we hope to keep this open discussion as we navigate the complexities of this issue, and we 
continually underscore the importance of collaboration and inclusivity in the context of our work in 
the WTO. The Philippines commits to collectively work towards a harmonious international trade 
environment that benefits all stakeholders and ensures that the fruits of innovation and the digital 
economy are shared equitably across the globe.  
1.99.   The representative of India delivered the following statement:  
1.100.   Chair, we thank you for organizing this session and your efforts to steer the Work Programme 
on E-Commerce in dedicated sessions of the General Council. Most recently, the sessions with the 
International Organizations in June were instructive and helped to inform the Membership on various 
facets of e-commerce. These discussions could have been even more productive if the views related 
to development carried more weight and representation through the expertise of relevant divisions 
of UNCTAD or through experts who have worked on these issues personally. Nonetheless, we 
welcome the intensified engagement.  We are finally seeing some movement on the discussion on 
the scope and the definition of the moratorium on customs duties on electro nic transmissions, where 
the onus remains on the proponents of the said moratorium to clarify their understanding.  
We welcome the presentation made by Indonesia which explains their national interpretation of 
electronic transmission and their trade treatme nt very clearly. This presentation also demonstrates 
that there indeed are different interpretations of the scope and definition of the moratorium and 
hence these discussions need to really address this central question. In fact, this was the key 
deliverab le of the Work Programme as originally conceptualized.  WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 7 
 
- 23 - 
 
  1.101.   We thank the proponents of the paper WT/GC/W/889 for their submissions and in particular 
Canada, for their presentation today. Our preliminary observations are the following:  Paragraph 2.1 
of this pap er states that "There is a widespread understanding that Moratorium applies to all 
electronic transmissions, including their content ". We do not believe that this statement is factual. 
The moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions was made t emporary in 1998 and a 
Work Program on E -Commerce initiated to discuss it was precisely because there was a lack of 
understanding on what electronic transmissions are and what should be the scope of the Moratorium. 
At that time, there was a widespread unde rstanding that many products were leaving their physical 
carriers. But their electronic trade was in nascent stage and no country was imposing customs duties 
on electronic transmissions. Therefore, at that time, the developing countries agreed to a tempora ry 
moratorium, which is reflected in every decision that has led to the extension of the moratorium 
since then. The inclusion of 'content ' in the scope of the Moratorium was never agreed to.  
Paragraph  2.2 of this paper states that the moratorium "is common ly understood to cover anything 
transmitted by telecommunications ". This interpretation leads to an implication that all services 
which are delivered via internet, i.e., via Mode 1 are included in the scope of the moratorium. 
However, trade in services is covered under the GATS disciplines. The application of the moratorium 
can neither alter the GATS commitments and flexibilities i.e., the 'positive list approach ' from 
developing countries, nor introduce the concept of customs duties in the GATS context.  
1.102.   The paper talks about the benefits of the moratorium for MSMEs. Let us examine this 
assertion for one industry where electronic transmissions have completely changed the characteristic 
of the industry – the music industry. There has been a surge in imports o f music in developing and 
least developed countries with an unprecedented growth of streaming services, which face no 
custom s duties and governments have no control over their imports. This has also led to 
concentration of markets and only three  companies in the world dominate the global music market, 
earning more than 70% of the total revenue generated. In fact, MSMEs working in this industry have 
been wiped out due to the structural transformation of the industry.  We note the concerns expressed 
today abou t the MSMEs in the developing countries. Let us not forget that they do face tariffs in the 
normal course of trade, so the concern in the context of today 's discussion is selective. In fact, the 
same MSMEs are increasingly being subject to stiffer non -tariff barriers by the developed countries 
in every sphere of trade. They are being subject to unilateral measures like border carbon 
adjustments and other trade measures linked to environment, creating existential challenges for 
these firms. This  should be cl ear from the discussions happening in the bodies of the WTO dealing 
with goods and agriculture trade.  
1.103.   Further, the assertion made in the paper WT/GC/W/ 889 that women entrepreneurs are 
flourishing in the digital business due to this moratorium is not backe d by data. A study by OECD 
(2018) estimates that the global digital gender divide in internet usage between developed and 
developing countries has increased in the period 2013 to 2017. The OECD study has further 
illustrated how women are relatively disadva ntaged in the 'digital components ' of digital literacy. ITU 
(2017) has highlighted that the digital gender gap has widened in Africa in this period.  The fact is 
that platform monopoly or concentration is a worrisome issue around the world. This is reflecte d in 
the discussions on content ownership, adequate compensation for content creators and digital taxes 
in advanced economies just in the last five years.  The paper states that "attempts to protect 
businesses by imposing discriminatory taxation on foreign imports are counterproductive ". This 
argument is not supported by historical evidence for nascent industries. Today 's advanced countries 
using customs duties as a tool for policy space to industrialize during the past industrial revolutions 
is a well -known  fact. Whether the developing countries would want to use this tool for digital 
industrialization is a choice best made by the developing countries themselves without being 
patronized.  
1.104.   To address one of the questions raised in the paper; in many FTAs, the decision to not 
impose customs duties on electronic transmissions has been subjected to the equivalent WTO 
decision. Once the WTO E -commerce moratorium ends, it will also imply that this provision will come 
to an end in many bilateral and regional FTAs as well. In any case, we do not believe that provisions 
contained in FTAs should be applied as -is to the WTO. FTAs are agreed upon by Members in a limited 
context with specific negotiating considerations. What applies between two Members or a group of 
Members in a region cannot be applied as -is in a multilateral context.  We continue to analyse this 
paper and may provide further reactions at a later point.  We welcome the Africa Group submission 
WT/GC/W/875/Rev.1 and support the idea of including the Work Programme on E -Commerce as a 
standing agenda for all bodies mandated to carry out this work in the original 1998 document.  WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 7 
 
- 24 - 
 
  1.105.   The representative of South Africa  delivered the following statement:   
1.106.   We thank you, Madam Facilitator, for car rying out the discussions as well as the Secretariat 
for the excellent service provided to the Membership in these engagements and we appreciate the 
most recent update to the compilation of submission s. We would also like to thank the delegation of 
Indones ia for its very insightful and practical presentation , and we are very keen to facilitate 
discussions amongst our customs officials and Indonesia's to exchange best practices and 
experiences. We also took note and welcomed the intervention by Tanzania. It is very important for 
us to hear the perspective of an LDC, in particular from Africa , as opposed to a plethora of developed 
countries purporting to speak on behalf of the LDCs .  
1.107.   We would also like to acknowledge the  communication WT/GC/W/889  that was subm itted 
last week,  and we had a chance to reflect on its content . We have a number of observations, some 
of which we share with the delegation of India. With regard to the issue of the scope and definition 
of the moratorium, in paragraph 2.1 of the communica tion, the statement that "There is a 
widespread understanding that Moratorium applies to all electronic transmissions, including their 
content " is not true. In fact, the reason why the m oratorium was made temporary in 1998 and a 
Work Program on E -Commerce initiated to discuss it was because there was a lack of understanding 
on what electronic transmissions are and what should be the scope of the Moratorium. There was a 
widespread understanding that many products were leaving their physical carriers and bein g traded 
electronically. Since at that time no country was imposing customs duties on electronic 
transmissions , developing countries agreed to the temporary moratorium. The inclusion of 'content ' 
in the scope of the moratorium was never agreed. The delegat ion of Indonesia made this abundantly 
clear in its submission of 20 December 2017 (WT/MIN(17)/683 ). We share the view expressed by 
Indonesia as do many other delegations.   
1.108.   The interpretation  that electronic transmissions "cover anything transmitted by 
telecommunications, including over the internet " implies that all services which are delivered via 
internet, i.e., via Mode 1 , are included in the scope of the moratorium. The moratorium would 
therefore include all services like medical, architectural, legal,  financial, etc. which are delivered via 
Mode 1. However, most of these services are covered under the GATS disciplines. Countries which 
have not taken any commitments in these services under Mode 1 and do not want to liberalize their 
trade will be forced to allow these services to enter their national boundaries as 'electronic 
transmissions ' with no policy tool to regulate the imports of these services. This will take away the 
GATS flexibilities i.e., the 'positive list approach – a right which was hard -won during the Uruguay 
Round negotiations. Article XIX of GATS emphasises that the process of liberalization of trade in 
services shall take place with due respect for national policy objectives and the level of development 
of individual Members, both overal l and in individual sectors. There shall be appropriate flexibility 
for individual developing country members for opening fewer sectors, liberalizing fewer types of 
transactions, progressively extending market access in line with their development situatio n and, 
when making access to their markets available to foreign service suppliers, attaching to such access 
conditions aimed at achieving their national objectives. More importantly, this interpretation may 
also include data hosting, system services and da ta transfers (as also included under the scope of 
the moratorium by ECIPE, 2019). Regulating imports of 'Data transfers ' are extremely important for 
all countries, especially for developing countries which are in the process of designing their national 
data protection policies. These policies will become redundant if the above -mentioned definition of 
electronic transmission s and associated scope of the moratorium is accepted. Further, there is no 
clear understanding as to how Artificial Intelligence can be electronically transmitted across borders 
and what future implications of this can be. With the growing awareness of the  need to regulate the 
use of Artificial Intelligence, it becomes extremely important for all countries, especially developing 
countries, to not accept this definition and scope of the Moratorium.  It is also important to note that 
internal taxes are paid by  exporters of physical goods along with the customs duties. There is no 
reason why exporters of digital goods should pay only internal taxes and not customs duties.  In 
many FTAs, the decision to not impose customs duties on electronic transmissions has bee n 
subjected to the decision taken at the WTO. Once the WTO E -commerce Moratorium ends, it will 
also imply that this provision will come to an end in many bilateral and regional FTAs as well ; and I 
believe that date is fast -approaching. Moreover, FTAs by th eir nature provide more favourable 
market access than the MTS. Their provisions cannot be extrapolated into the WTO context.  
1.109.   The moratorium has adversely impacted many MSMEs, especially in least developed 
countries who do not have the capacity and competit iveness to compete online. Study by Andrenelli 
and López González (2019) uses an example of a record label company that no longer has to bear WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 7 
 
- 25 - 
 
  the costs of physically producing a physical carrier medium and therefore saves on its costs. It also 
notes that a  good that was delivered physically, but is now transmitted electronically, no longer 
incurs transportation costs. However, taking their example it is seen that in the process many MSMEs 
that were operating in the music industry have been wiped out in deve loping and least developed 
countries and a handful of music companies in the developed countries now enjoy monopolistic 
powers. There has been a surge in imports of music in developing and least developed countries 
with an unprecedented growth of streaming  services, which face no custom s duties and governments 
have no control over their imports. This has also led to concentration of markets and only three 
companies in the world dominate the global music market, earning more than 70% of the total 
revenue gen erated4 and they are currently generating revenue of USD 2.9 million per hour.5  
1.110.   With regard to the issue that p hysical transport costs are lowered for digital products , since 
the transport costs are reduced for the exporters of digital products making t heir digital products 
more competitive than physical products, there is all the more reason for governments to apply 
customs duties on digital products so as to provide a level playing field for their exporters of physical 
products, who not only pay custom s duties but also pay the additional duties and charges which are 
in many cases higher than the applicable customs duties (UNCTAD 2000). With regard to increase 
in knowledge from import of software, c ountries need to have the policy space to decide if they  want 
any digital good to enter duty free or not. If they see benefit in keeping the customs duties at zero 
for software to increase the access to knowledge for their exporters, they should be able to do it 
unilaterally and not be forced to remove the cust oms duties on all digital goods which include luxury 
items like the video games and not regulate the imports of services and allow free flow of data 
transfers .  
1.111.   I think what we heard from India about the impact on women entrepreneurs was very 
insightful. In fact, studies have shown that the gender gap in this sector is very extreme. So, 
certainly if that is the impact of the moratorium, we should certainly revisit  it. Most of the benefits 
of the moratorium have accrued to big digital platforms (GAFA) which are mainly owned by men. 
There is no evidence that the m oratorium has led to a decline in the digital gender gap. In fact, a 
study by OECD (2018) estimates that the global digital gender divide in internet usage between 
developed and developing countries has increased in the period 2013 to 2017.6 While ITU (2017) 
has highlighted that the digital gender gap has widened in Africa in this period. An OECD study has 
further illustrated how women are relatively disadvantaged in the 'digital components ' of digital 
literacy. Given the growing importance of "big data " analytics to the digital economy, its role in 
machine learning -related developments and, consequently, in artificial intelligence, this gap is of 
concern both in terms of engagement of women as well as potential unintended biases that may be 
embedded in various applications due to a lack of gender diversity. More importantly the OECD study 
finds that "in many countries software is a male -only affair "7 "and there are significantly fewer 
women involved in software developing ". In terms of exports of digital goods, OECD points out that 
"Women entrepreneurs also appear to be missing out on the opportunities c reated by globalisation 
and digitalisation – women -operated businesses are less likely to export, and less likely to engage 
in international business -to-business transactions. " Given this evidence from none other than the 
OECD, it is important not to bring  in the gender dimension into the debate on the moratorium.  
1.112.   Communication WT/GC/W/889 quotes a 2019 study by the European Centre for International 
Political Economy (ECIPE)  in paragraph 3.3 . ECIPE (2019) uses CGE model for estimating these 
impacts. CGE mod els have been highly criticized in economic literature due to its restrictive 
assumptions like it assumes there are no monopolies and perfect competition in markets and there 
is perfect mobility of labour and capital across sectors. But keeping these assum ptions aside, the 
study has arrived at these results by imposing tariffs on services such as wholesale and retail trading 
services, recreational and other services, communications, and business services . First, there is no 
consensus that services are inclu ded within the scope of the moratorium, so the results are not 
acceptable and secondly, the study applies ad hoc  tariffs on services, while applying tariffs on 
services itself is questionable.  With regard to the studies quoted in paragraph 3.4 of the 
commu nication, the results of these studies are not acceptable as ECIPE study applies ad hoc  tariffs 
on identified services, while the OECD study applies tariffs on the physical imports of digitizable 
 
4 https://www.wired.com/story/opinion -big-music -needs -to-be-broken -up-to-save-the-industry/   
5 https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/the -3-major -music -companies -are-now-jointly -generating -
approximately -2-9m-per-hour/  
6 https://www.oecd.org/digital/bridging -the-digital -gender -divide.pdf   
7 https://www.oecd.org/digital/bridging -the-digital -gender -divide.pdf , page 93.  WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 7 
 
- 26 - 
 
  goods. Since there is no consensus that the scope of the moratorium includes services, the results 
arrived at by the ECIPE study are not valid and since the m oratorium is on online imports and not 
physical imports, the results arrived at by the OECD are also not valid.  
1.113.   With regard to the impact of the moratorium on  the consumers, c ustoms duties have been 
used historically to provide a level playing field to domestic producers. All customs duties increase 
the cost of imported goods for the consumers because of which they prefer to buy the goods 
produced by the domest ic producers. In developing and least developed countries, digital industries 
and platforms are still nascent and cannot compete with the big tech companies and digital giants , 
which dominate this industry . Removal of the moratorium will therefore benefit the domestic 
producers of digital goods by increasing domestic demand for their digital goods. This will spur 
economic activity and increase GDP of the countries and save valuable foreign exchange from being 
spent on imported digital goods, which are mostl y luxury items like video games, movies and music. 
The government will also be able to raise tariff revenue which can be used to further build their 
digital infrastructure which will improve digital capacities and promote digital industrialization.    
1.114.   In respect of paragraph 3.6, i t is also important to note that r emoval of the moratorium will 
increase the regulatory and fiscal space of developing and least developed countries which will bring 
fiscal gains to the countries both in the short term in terms of  tariff revenues and in the long term 
because of improved competitiveness. Lack of consensus on the scope of the moratorium has 
increased the uncertainty as governments who do not know what is included under the scope of the 
moratorium. Given that the digi tal revolution is still unfolding and countries are becoming aware of 
the risks of digital technologies like the Artificial Intelligence, there is uncertainty around what is 
and will enter their countries as 'electronic transmissions '. Removal of the Moratorium will bring 
more certainty for developing and least developed countries as they will be able to monitor and 
regulate what enters and leaves their national boundaries. With regard to paragraph 3.7, r ising 
imports can increase dome stic output only if the imports are of 'inputs ' which can be used in 
production. Most digitalized goods are final products like video games, movies, music and printed 
matter. These are consumed by consumers with no addition to domestic output. Removal of t he 
Moratorium will allow governments to impose customs duties on digital goods which are for final 
conspicuous consumption and keep low duties or remove duties altogether on digital inputs which 
the country may use for its production. This will also allow governments to decide to what extent 
they need to level the field for the domestic digital sector.   
1.115.   The argument in para graph  3.8 of the communication  also holds true for physical goods. 
Different rates of customs duties are applied on physical goods as w ell. Many developed countries 
still apply customs duties on the physical imports from developing countries e.g., on textiles and 
clothing. Based on the above argument all customs duties need to be removed as all duties create 
trade diversions. But there is  a reason why even developed countries use customs duties to level 
the playing field for their producers even though the cost of imported products for their consumers 
increases.  
1.116.   With regard to paragraph 3.9 of the communication, including digitally deliver ed foreign 
business services as electronic transmissions increases the scope of the moratorium manifold. 
Developed countries are the major exporters of services via Mode 1 while developing countries have 
taken relatively much lower commitments on imports o f services via Mode 1. Including imports of 
services via Mode 1 as electronic transmissions is equivalent to liberalising all trade in services via 
Mode 1. This can lead to a surge in foreign services imports into the developing countries as almost 
all ser vices can now be delivered online including financial, legal, construction, medical, education, 
etc. This can lead to a massive displacement of labour in the services sector in developing and least 
developed countries increasing and making it even more dif ficult for developing countries and LDCs 
to progress on their sustainable development goals. Many developed countries may also face similar 
problems of labour displacement and unemployment since they have highly regulated trade in 
services via Mode 4, but many of the services provided via Mode 4 are now being exported to Mode1. 
With reference to paragraph 3.10, the digital revolution is not going to disappear in future, in fact 
more and more products will be digitalized in future. It is extremely important for developing and 
least developed countries to monitor and record the imports of digital products entering their national 
boundaries. The sooner they put in place such mechanisms the more they will be able to regulate 
these imports as well as generate rev enues through internal taxes and customs duties. While this 
may raise the one -time cost of putting in place such mechanisms, these costs are minimal when 
compared to the revenue they will start generating immediately as well as continue to generate 
in future. WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 7 
 
- 27 - 
 
  1.117.   The argument put forward in paragraph 3.11 of WT/GC/W/889 that developing countries 
should not protect their nascent digital industries and expose them to competition for their own good 
does not conform to the historical experience of advanced countrie s regarding the use of customs 
duties to industrialize during the past industrial revolutions.  Both Britain and the US used high 
industrial tariffs to protect their infant industries, increase government revenue and provide 
industrial subsidies during the first industrial revolution. As documented in the literature on the 
economic history of Western Europe and its offshoots, protectionism was the rule, free trade the 
exception , during the industrialization of today 's mature economies (Bairoch 1993). The dig ital 
revolution has posed similar challenges to most of the developing and least developed countries and 
customs duties become as relevant to them as they were to the advanced economies during the first 
industrial revolution. Customs duties will provide pr otection to their infant digital industries, build 
their digital competitiveness and also provide government revenues to finance their digital 
infrastructure.  With regard to the argument in paragraph 3.12, r emoval of the moratorium will 
provide policy spac e to countries to decide on which digital goods they want to levy customs duties 
and on which they do  not. With regard to paragraph 3.14,  if the moratorium on electronic 
transmissions has helped women , then why is the gender digital divide rising, both bet ween 
developed and developing countries, and within developing countries, as per OECD (2018)? In fact, 
removal of the moratorium will help governments to raise revenue and use it to bridge the gender 
digital divide in their countries as well as provide sub sidised finance to women entrepreneurs in the 
digital industries. Further, including foreign services into the scope of the moratorium can be very 
detrimental to women employment as they may lose the limited employment opportunities they 
have in the digita l sector.  In respect to paragraph 4.1, n on-discriminatory taxes may work for 
advanced countries because their domestic producers are more competitive than the foreign 
providers, however developing and least developed countries need discriminatory taxes lik e customs 
duties to level the playing field for their domestic producers. With regard to paragraph 4.2,  the 
exporters of physical goods pay GST/VAT and face customs duties, so there is no justification that 
exporters of digital goods should not face custom s duties since they face GST/VAT. Also, while 
non-discriminatory digital services tax is now being initiated by many advanced and developing 
countries, it is being challenged by some advanced countries.   
1.118.   It is important to note that we have certainly take n note of the purported benefits. As 
Tanzania made clear, what we are talking about is not a decision by Members to impose customs 
duties on electronic transmissions. We are merely talking about the removal of a barrier to their 
ability to take a decision based on their own national interest. If indeed the benefits of not imposing 
such customs duties hold in a particular jurisdiction, then that Member will certainly continue the 
practice of not imposing customs duties. Each sovereign Member has the right to  take such a 
decision, if it is in its interest not to impose such duties then it certainly will continue the practice. 
It is not appropriate in our view for this forum to remove that right and that sovereign choice from 
a sovereign Member.  Finally, in ad dition to the extensive feedback provided on this document, my 
delegation takes this opportunity to remind proponents of the moratorium that in the April dedicated 
discussion, South Africa provided a series of questions that we regard to be very important aspects 
of the moratorium discussion. We also requested that the proponents provide answers in writing. To 
date, there has been no engagement with the questions posed by moratorium proponents.  
1.119.   The representative of the European Union  delivered th e following statement:  
1.120.   Thank you, Madam Facilitator, for organising another dedicated session on the issues related 
to the moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions. The European Union believes that 
the duty-free digital trade environment is  extremely important for developed and developing 
countries alike, to help all reap the benefits of digitalisation.  It is crucial for businesses , consumers, 
and the multilateral trading system that the WTO moratorium on customs duties on electronic 
transmi ssions is maintained. The EU is ready to engage in any necessary discussions and 
preparations to see the moratorium extended at MC13, along with the e -commerce Work 
Programme, that is part of the same Ministerial Decision. In this context the EU is pleased  to 
co-sponsor the communication introduced this morning by Canada and would like to briefly touch 
upon some of the questions listed in the communication. Our view is that it is clear that the WTO 
moratorium  – same as our FTA and RTA provisions on customs duties on e -transmissions – applies 
to all electronic transmissions, including all digital content that is transmitted electronically. This 
includes content that might in the past have been delivered only on a physical support, such as 
books, music, video,  or software, as well as newer types of content such as a live online lesson or 
training sessions. We are well aware that some WTO Members treat electronic transmissions as 
goods in their own jurisdictions, while for others ( e.g., the EU) these are service s. We believe that WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 7 
 
- 28 - 
 
  we should continue to be pragmatic and maintain the WTO commitment that no customs duties will 
be imposed on electronic transmissions, while leaving policy space for Members to treat electronic 
transmissions – as goods or services - in their own jurisdictions.  
1.121.   In terms of implications, the moratorium ensures that all consumers and companies have 
access to a wide choice of digitally transmitted content and technology, for example , software at 
competitive prices. This allows companies in d eveloped and developing countries to offer and export 
their products or services at competitive prices. There has been a lot of useful analytical work 
produced by different research bodies and more is to come. The moratorium ensures that all 
companies have  access to a wide pool of customers. This is of benefit to the digital companies of 
this world, large and small. If the customs duties were imposed , in addition to the financial cost on 
businesses and consumers, the requirement to pay customs duties on ele ctronic transmissions would 
impose a huge administrative burden. This would have a direct negative impact on all sectors of the 
economy. In that respect, the EU has strong concerns with Indonesia 's implementation of a 
framework for the imposition of custom s duties on electronic transmissions, about which we heard 
today again, despite the long-standing  WTO commitment not to do so. We note the policy objectives 
of collecting revenues, obtaining better data and supporting SMEs , as mentioned by Indonesia . 
Howev er, we believe there are many other policy tools to achieve those objectives that are also 
more effective. And we strongly question the conclusions we heard in Indonesia's  presentation as to 
no negative implications of the customs duties. We are very conce rned about the negative 
implications of customs duties on electronic transmissions, both in terms of the overall implications 
on economies and trade as well as systemic implications, but also the costs and burdens for 
businesses and consumers. Here just wa nt to ask if Indonesia undertook an assessment of the costs 
for businesses.  We also further wonder what is the feedback they are getting from their industry, 
noting strong concerns that we hear from the EU and other regions ' business representatives?  
1.122.   We he ar Members ' concerns/objectives of supporting new digital industries, such as 
innovative software developers or digital content creators.  We would like to stress , however , that 
digital businesses do not operate in a vacuum but are highly interdependent wit h other digital 
businesses, often relying on inputs from different sources across borders. For instance, a software 
developer of an application designed for use on a mobile operating system may need access to 
application programming interfaces (APIs) and s oftware development kits (SDKs) in order to 
interoperate with other applications and the mobile operating system. Imposing customs duties on 
those digital inputs would create a cost disadvantage for the software developer, increase prices for 
local consume rs, and reduce the developer's chances of developing an export business. Having less 
exports may interfere with software developers ' ability to scale regionally, which is crucial to their 
ability to grow, and hamper their ability to access regional and int ernational markets. The imposition 
of customs duties on electronic transmissions is therefore more likely to exacerbate, rather than 
address, the digital divide.  The EU holds the view, that taxation, and in particular indirect taxes – 
such as value added t axes – are by far a more solid and feasible alternative to customs duties when 
it comes to electronic transmissions. Indirect taxes are better suited to the global nature of the 
digital economy and do not have the trade -distortive effects of tariffs.  
1.123.   Busin esses from developed and developing countries alike are calling for a permanent 
moratorium and point to the increased cost of doing business should Members be able to apply 
customs duties on electronic transmissions. We hear from businesses that the absenc e of the 
moratorium may have a chilling effect on investment decisions. These messages have been echoed 
by Global Industry, in their statement issued in advance of MC 12, saying  that the moratorium has 
helped "sustain economies, expand education and raise g lobal living standards”. In 2023, the 
International Chamber of Commerce and the International Trade Centre issued a Joint Policy Brief 
emphasizing the collateral costs of imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions, in particular 
on competitiveness , growth and jobs in all countries. To conclude, the EU looks forward to working 
with all Members towards the extension of the e -commerce moratorium at MC13, in line with the 
strong calls from industry around the globe. The EU also support s finding a way to hearing business 
perspectives on this important issue, in the dedicated session or in a m ore informal mode.  
1.124.   The representative of Türkiye  delivered the following statement:  
1.125.   I want to briefly assert Türkiye's position on the moratorium without touching upon today's 
submission and questions. Nevertheless, I thank the proponents for their initiat ive. I would like to 
express once again that Türkiye is not objecting to the renewal of the moratorium at this stage. 
However, we also would like to underline that the moratorium lacks clarity and causes different WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 7 
 
- 29 - 
 
  interpretation s by Members. As such , we be lieve we need further work to be undertake n to better 
understand the scope and effects of the moratorium. To this end, Türkiye is preparing a paper to 
circulate to Members which contain s questions on how to interpret the moratorium and how we can 
make it c learer. As the moratorium remains ambiguous, we believe the so -called evidence -based 
studies that have been cited are not credible as even those studies highlight the fact that the scope 
is not available, and they base their results on various different in terpretations of possible scopes. 
Therefore, we believe it is the job of this house to define and agree upon what actually the 
moratorium wants to say, and then we can discuss the effects of the moratorium on e -commerce 
and trade revenues. That way it woul d make it a lot easier to conduct internal consultations as well 
as forming a definitive position with regards to the continuation of the moratorium or making it 
permanent. Nevertheless, given the non -binding and ambiguous nature of the current moratorium,  
Türkiye will not object its renewal as it is but will not support making it binding and permanent 
without  clarifications.  
1.126.   The representative of Peru delivered the following statement:  
1.127.   Good morning. Thank you very much, Facilitator. Thank you also to the  delegations for their 
statements and to Indonesia for their presentation. We agree with many of the views expressed by 
Members on maintaining the moratorium, as Peru's chapters on electronic commerce seek to 
encourage smoother trade between Parties. Simil arly, our articles specify that Parties may not 
impose taxes on electronic transmissions or on content transmitted electronically.  However, the 
Parties may maintain internal taxes, tariffs or other charges on content transmitted electronically, 
provided th at there is no incompatibility with the provisions of the agreement, as is the case with 
existing agreements, such as the Pacific Alliance or the CPTPP.  
1.128.   For us, the moratorium is an important issue, especially for MSMEs which make up most of 
the business e nvironment, so establishing customs duties on electronic transactions or their content 
could trigger lower productivity and competitiveness in this type of business.  Not maintaining the 
moratorium would have a major impact on our trade balance, as it would  lead to greater uncertainty 
for entrepreneurs as regards international markets, and imports and exports would be affected to a 
significant extent. Moreover, it is understood that, as costs increase, end prices rise, which would 
directly affect end consume rs, and therefore demand in the sector, which has increased as a result 
of the pandemic.  
1.129.   The moratorium is therefore essential to our industry. In this regard, we believe it is 
important to continue to maintain a zero -rated tax on electronic transmissions and content 
transmitted electronically between parties, as this has been very beneficial for our private sector in 
the sense that it has allowed the industry to expand into new markets without increasing costs and 
end prices. Furthermore, thi s moratorium condition has supported access to content transmitted 
electronically and promoted the development of different sectors linked to electronic commerce, 
such as the creative industry.  We thank all delegations and encourage them to carefully examine  
what would be the  impact of not continuing this practice on the economy.  
1.130.   The representative of Costa Rica  delivered the following statement :  
1.131.   I apologise for taking the floor again . In my earlier statement , I said that I would ask to tak e 
the floor once more if I considered it necessary to respond to the presentation from Indonesia. I  
would like to thank Indonesia  for the presentation . I wish to add my voice to some of the questions 
and concerns raised  by other delegations . It would be im portant for  Indonesia to explain to us the 
cost of implementing their system.  As we see it , the paperwork it would generate could be counter -
productive for small and medium sized companies  and for  the consumer s as well . Given that the 
applied duty is zero per cent, what is the result of the cost-benefit analysis  of this system for the 
Indonesian economy, in particular with regard to  MSMEs, and what would be its impact on trade?  
This system  seems very complex, also from the standpoint of consumers and those that are asked 
to fill out an import declaration every time a transaction is carried out.  On the basis of the 
information requested, I believe that  this is not something that the standard consum er would be 
able to provide . We would be grateful if Indonesia  could provide this information to us.   WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 7 
 
- 30 - 
 
  1.132.   The representative of Canada  delivered the following statement:  
1.133.   I would like first to thank all the delegation s who took the floor today. We believe these  
discussions are essential to further deepen our common understanding of Members ' position s and 
interests.  We were pleased with the level of support our communication received and we were also 
pleased that Members engage d on the specific aspects highlighte d in the MC12 Decision, including 
the development dimension, which was prompted by the communication.  Many delegations 
recognise d the long -standing benefits of not imposing customs duties and supported the extension 
of the moratorium, including for develop ing Members, and particularly for MSMEs and consumer s. 
Of course, we remain open to engage in further discussions ahead of MC13.  We are interested in 
hearing more from private sector and academics, including the WTO, on the impact of the 
moratorium with a focus on developing Members , which may offer a way to move ahead on these 
discussions.  We also note that more exchanges on domestic experience to mitigate challenges, 
including related to revenue collection through GST and VAT, were also welcome d. Of course, 
broader development issues, including  bridging the digital divide remain important as w e continue 
the discussion under the Work Programme.  To respond  to China 's questions, when referring to  
non-discriminatory consumption taxes in the document , we are referring to GST or VAT.   
1.134.   Finally, as Canada, we wish to echo several other delegations in r eiterating our concerns 
over Indonesia 's measures affecting digital product s. In addition to creating uncertainty, additional 
procedure s can increase trade and administrative cost s affecting competitiveness, particularly for 
MSMEs . We call on Indonesia to refrain from imposing custom s duties on digital products to remain 
consistent with its WTO commitments. Today's discussion has reconfirmed Canada's strong position 
that the moratorium, at the minimum, should be extended. We have not been convinced that the  
lapse of the moratorium will address the gender gap or provide the tools to support sustainable 
inclusive growth and investment as well as innovation. Creating conducive business environment for 
MSMEs is also important  for Members like Canada.   Almost thr ee out of four Canadian businesses 
have one to nine  employees. As indicated before, we strongly believe the continued practi ce of 
non-imposi tion of custom s duties has played a key role in supporting these businesses and our goal 
should be to maintain this practi ce aligned with the core WTO princip les.  
1.135.   The representative of Indonesia  delivered the following statement:  
1.136.   Indonesia would like to thank delegations for all the comments and the response to our 
presentation. For several issues of concern, Indonesia is open to further discussion.  Furthermore, 
the answers to the questions from the US will be delivered in due time or before the next CTF 
meeting. For other questions regarding our presentation on  Regulation 190 , we will deliver our 
responses in coordination with colleagues at the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Indonesia in 
Geneva. In  closing, Indonesia emphasise s that all parties must refer back to the ministerial decisions 
on the Work Progr amme on E -Commerce, especially related to the moratorium.   
1.137.   The Chairperson  thanked Indonesia and all the delegations who had participated in the 
discussion for bringing th is engagement forward. Speaking under her o wn responsibility , she  
encourag ed delegati ons to reflect further over the summer break . She noted that  some questions 
had been raised and that there  had been an attempt at preliminary answer ing some of th em. In that 
respect, she recalled that Indonesia  had said that they would provide further answ ers. South Africa 
had said that it had not received  sufficient or adequate response s to the questions it had previously 
raised . The Chairperson encouraged delegations to seriously consider responding because it was 
only by answer ing those questions and engaging with each other that they would be able to find a 
mid-way. She sensed that delegations were still trying to persuade each other of the correctness of 
their own positions  and that was understandable. However, she noted that at some po int, they would 
have to try and see where they could  actually meet. She therefore urged delegations to provide 
answer s to those questions and , after the summer break,  come back with ideas on what more could 
be done to move forward on  the issue of the morat orium ; for example, would these discussions need 
to be taken elsewhere t o allow for more bilateral engagement or would they need more dedicated 
discussions ? She reminded delegations that the last thematic session  would be held on 21  September  
and would foc us on e-commerce -related technology transfer. She also informed delegations that she 
would report to the General Council  on 24 -25 July .  
1.138.   The meeting was adjourned.   
_______________   
  WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 7 
 
- 31 - ANNEX  I 
INDONESIA 'S  PROVISION ON IMPORTATION OF DIGITAL GOODS  
THROUGH ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
 
 
  WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 7 
 
- 32 - 
 
 
  WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 7 
 
- 33 - 
 
 
  WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 7 
 
- 34 - 
 
 
  WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 7 
 
- 35 - 
 
 
  WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 7 
 
- 36 - 
 
 
  WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 7 
 
- 37 - 
 
 
  WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 7 
 
- 38 - 
 
 
  WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 7 
 
- 39 - 
 
 
  WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 7 
 
- 40 - 
 
 
  WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 7 
 
- 41 - 
 
 
 
__________