RESTRICTED  
  
G/IT/M/76  
 
2 August  2022 
(22-5753) Page: 1/17 
Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in 
Information Technology Products    
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 6  APRIL  2022  
CHAIRPERSON: MS  KATARZYNA STECZ  
The Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in Information Technology Products held 
its 76th formal meeting on 6  April 2022. The airgram of the meeting was circulated in 
document  WTO/AIR/IT/15, and an annotated agenda for the meeting was circulated in 
document  JOB/IT/30.  
 
1   REVI EW OF THE STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MINISTERIAL DECLARATION 
ON TRADE IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS: DEVELOPMENTS SINCE  
THE LAST COMMITTEE MEETING (G/IT/1/REV.59)  ................................ ..........................  2 
1.1   Lao PDR's ITA  Participation  ................................ ................................ .........................  2 
1.2   Morocco's ITA  Schedule  ................................ ................................ ..............................  2 
1.3   United Kingdom's Participation in the ITA (G/IT/W/52)  ................................ ....................  3 
1.4   Pending ITA  Participation  ................................ ................................ ............................  6 
2   TRADE CONCERNS RAISED BY PARTICIPANTS  ................................ ..........................  10 
2.1   Request by the European Union, Japan, and the United States Regarding Implementation 
Issues Concerning Indon esia ................................ ................................ .............................  10 
3   REVIEW OF PRODUCT COVERAGE  ................................ ................................ ..............  11 
4   NON-TARIFF MEASURES WORK PROGRAMME  ................................ ............................  12 
5   EMC/EMI PILOT PROJECT: DRAFT LIST OF THE TYPES OF CONFORMITY  
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES FOR EMC/EMI USED BY ITA  PARTICIPANTS 
(G/IT/W/17/REV.28)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 12 
6   DIVERGENCES IN CLASSIFYING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS 
(G/IT/14/REV.1/ADD.1; G/IT/W/6/REV.3; G/IT/W/33; G/IT/W/34; G/IT/27; 
JOB/IT/12; G/IT/29, AND G/IT/W/40/ADD.1 -21, G/IT/W/40/SUPPL.4, AND 
JOB/IT/25)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  13 
6.1   Implementation of the Decision for the Classification of  
18 Attachment  B Products (G/IT/27)  ................................ ................................ ..................  13 
6.2   Implementation of the 2016  Decision for the Classification of an  
Additional 15  Items (G/IT/29)  ................................ ................................ ...........................  13 
6.3   Note by the Secretariat (G/IT/W/40 and its supplements and addenda)  ............................  13 
7   FOLLOW -UP ON THE ITA  SYMPOSIUM: REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON ON HER 
INFORMAL CONSULTATIONS  ................................ ................................ ..........................  14 
8   ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON  ................................ ................................ .....................  16 
9   DATE OF THE NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING  ................................ ................................ . 17 
 
 G/IT/M/76  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1  REVIEW OF THE STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MINISTERIAL DECLARATION ON 
TRADE IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS: DEVELOPMENTS SINCE THE LAST 
COMMITTEE MEETING (G/IT/1/REV.59)  
1.1.  The Chairperson , following the Committee 's practice, gave an overview of the Status of 
Implementation and reported on any update or new developments since the Committee 's previous 
meeting.  
1.1  Lao PDR 's ITA  Participation  
1.2.  The Chairperson  recalled that, on  17 November  2021, the Committee had held a formal 
meeting , in special session , at which it had approved, by consensus, Lao  PDR's ITA  Schedule , as 
contained in document  G/IT/31. On 22  November  2021, pursuant to paragraph  3 of the Decision of 
26 March  1980 on Pro cedures for Modification and Rectification of Schedules of Tariff Concessions 
(BISD  27S/25), and in accordance with paragraph  2 of the Annex to the Ministerial Declaration on 
Trade in Information Technology Products (WT/MIN/(96)/16), a communication from L ao PDR had 
been sent to the WTO  Secretariat to submit Lao PDR's draft modifications and rectifications to its 
tariff schedule to implement tariff elimination measures in respect of information technology 
products. On 25  November  2021, upon this request, th e draft modifications and rectifications to 
Lao PDR's Schedule had been  circulated in document  G/MA/TAR/RS/662.  
1.3.  On 2  December  2021, a press conference was held at the WTO announcing Lao  PDR's 
participation to the ITA and ITA  Expansion, as the first  LDC to do so outside of an accession process.  
1.4.  In a follow -up communication, the Government of Lao  PDR had informed the 
WTO Director -General of the completion of Lao  PDR's domestic procedures, and the communication 
had been circulated as document  G/MA/TAR/RS/662/A dd.1. No objection had been received in the 
certification process, and the modification and rectification of Lao  PDR's Schedule had been certified 
on 31  March  2022, in document  WT/Let/1564.  
1.5.  Therefore, the Chairperson welcome d Lao PDR as a new participant t o the ITA, and to the 
Committee. Lao  PDR's participation process had been exemplary, efficient, and smooth, thanks to 
the great efforts of Ms  Vilayphone Xindavong and her team, and the excellent cooperation between 
the Government of Lao  PDR, ITA  Participan ts, and the Secretariat.  
1.6.  In conclusion, the Chairperson looked forward to more WTO  Members joining this important 
Agreement.  
1.7.  The delegate of Lao PDR thanked ITA  Participants  for welcoming Lao PDR's participation to the 
ITA Agreement.  He reassure d ITA Participants that Lao PDR would do its utmost to fully and 
effectively implement all of its commitments under the ITA and ITA  Expansion A greements. Lao PDR 
strongly believe d that a conducive legal and policy framework would enable it to attract more tr ade 
and investment in ICT, thus contributing to the achieve ment of Lao  PDR's digital economy and digital 
transformation agenda.  Lao PDR stood ready to work closely with all ITA Participants , as well as the 
private sector, to advance the ITA  and ITA  Expansi on Agreements , and to showcase the credibility, 
rules-based, and inclusive multilateral trading system of the WTO.  
1.8.  The delegations of Australia, Canada, China, the European Union, Indonesia, Switzerland, and 
the United Kingdom, took the floor to congratula te and welcome  Lao PDR on its participation to the 
ITA Agreement.  
1.9.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
1.2  Morocco 's ITA  Schedule  
1.10.  The Chairperson  turned to the outstanding issue concerning Morocco and its pending 
submission under the 1980  Procedures for the rectification and modification of schedules. She noted 
that this issue was not new to the Committee, and that, at its meeting held on 17  Septem ber 2021, 
the Committee had agreed to revert to it.  G/IT/M/76  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.11.  The Chairperson recalled that Morocco had become a participant to the ITA on 
14 November  2003. However, Morocco had not yet submitted its final ITA  Schedule of commitments. 
Despite the outreach to Morocco  on several occasions by her predecessors, including 
communications in 2011, and 2014, as well as a letter sent to the Minister of Economy and Finance 
of Morocco in 2017, no formal response had yet been received from Morocco.  
1.12.  The Committee took note  of the  Chairperson 's statement and agreed  to discuss this issue 
again at the Committee 's next meeting.  
1.3  United Kingdom 's Participation in the ITA (G/IT/W/52)  
1.13.  The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to document  G/IT/W/52, which had been 
circulated on 4  January 2021 at the request of the delegation of the United Kingdom. She recalled 
that the issue had previously been discussed at the Committee's meetings of 15  April and 
17 September  2021, and that the details of those discussions could be found in the minute s of those 
meetings, contained in documents  G/IT/M/73 and G/IT/M/74. The Committee had agreed to revert 
to this agenda item.  
1.14.  She noted that it was clear that there remained some outstanding questions from 
ITA participants, including the question on the nee d for a separate UK  ITA Schedule. For this reason, 
she had asked the delegation of the United Kingdom to hold further bilateral consultations and 
discussions with the interested parties. She had also offered to assist in those consultations and 
discussions , as appropriate.  
1.15.  Referring to document  G/IT/1 and its revisions prepared by the Secretariat to update the 
"Status of Implementation" of the 1996  ITA Agreement, she informed the Committee that the 
Secretariat had recently revised the document , circulated as document  G/IT/1/Rev.59, taking into 
account Lao PDR's new participation, as well as the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European 
Union, and its continued participation in its own right.  
1.16.  The representative of the United Kingdom , addressing the third and fourth  sub-agenda items 
together, observed that the previous year's ITA  Symposium had served as a reminder of the 
economic, social, and development gains brought by participation in the ITA. Such participation was 
predicated on respect for the rules -based order and international law, which had been egregiously 
violated by the Russian Federation's illegal war in Ukraine. In this regard, Members had seen the 
direct consequences of Russia's actions as they had impeded Ukraine's ability fully to participate  in 
the work of the WTO. The UK stood united with its partners across the multilateral system in 
condemning Russia's appalling actions.  
1.17.  Regarding Belarus' application to accede to the ITA, in document  WT/GC/246, 
the United  Kingdom, along with the document' s other co -sponsors, condemned Belarus' complicity 
in Russia's aggression towards Ukraine, which was incompatible with the respect for the rules -based 
order that was a precondition of WTO  Membership.  
1.18.  Consequently, and as a member of the Working Party on th e Accession of Belarus, 
the United  Kingdom deemed Belarus to be unfit to become a member of the WTO, which also 
included Belarus' participation in the ITA. The UK would not give further consideration to any 
documentation in this regard.  
1.19.  She thanked the Cha irperson for her report regarding the update to document  G/IT/1, and to 
the Secretariat for having prepared document  G/IT/1/Rev.59.  
1.20.  The United Kingdom welcomed this update and the inclusion of the UK as an independent 
participant to the ITA. The UK had als o noted the wording in paragraph  4 of the document, which 
reflected the UK's continued ITA  participation following its departure from the European Union. As 
set out at the Committee's previous two  meetings, the UK considered that transparency regarding 
the proper implementation of ITA  commitments was of great importance. It was in this spirit that 
the UK had continued to engage in technical discussions with interested participants in order to 
provide further clarification regarding the UK's ITA  commitments.  G/IT/M/76  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.21.  The United Kingdom was also pleased to share with the Committee that the UK had included 
ITA Attachment  B product codes in an addendum to Schedule  XIX-United Kingdom, a draft version 
of which had been shared with the Secretariat. The UK was currently clar ifying certain details in 
response to comments from the Secretariat and the addendum would be circulated to all 
WTO Members imminently. The United Kingdom stood ready to hold further technical discussions 
with interested participants.  
1.22.  The representative of  China  thanked the Secretariat for its circulation of 
document  G/IT/1/Rev.59, which tried to provide a report on the status of Participants' 
implementation of the ITA. China wished to raise questions and comments relevant to this document.  
1.23.  First, on the na ture of this document, China indicated that, in its understanding, it was the 
Secretariat's document, and not a Members'  document . However, China considered that it should 
be a factual report reflecting the current state of play. China did not consider tha t the Secretariat 
itself should reflect anything in their own minds or make decisions by itself. Referring to paragraph  1, 
China recalled that it had clearly indicated at previous meetings that it would show flexibility 
regarding the United Kingdom's inclu sion in the list. At the same time, China had reiterated that 
there were clear procedures for interested Members to join the ITA, and that a WTO  Member could 
not be formally considered an ITA  participant before it had finished the required procedures. China 
did not understand why the UK had been included in the list in paragraph  1, despite China's very 
clear indication at previous meetings that a f ootnote was needed indicating that the UK had not 
completed the required procedures for doing so.  
1.24.  China had always viewed the United Kingdom  as a very strong supporter of the rules -based 
WTO. For this reason, China trusted that the UK, as a founding WTO Member, would fully follow the 
procedures required for its ITA  accession. In addition, China recognized that the UK, as part of the 
European Union, had actually implemented the ITA in previous years. For these reasons, China 
wishe d to give a pragmatic and di plomatic consideration to the UK's situation, thus China had 
indicated its willingness to see the UK listed as a quasi -ITA participant because it had not completed 
the required procedures. This issue was not only about the UK; it was also a systemic issue 
concerning the procedures for ITA  accession and the rules of this Committee.  
1.25.  China understood that paragraph  2 of the 1996  Ministerial Decision stipulated that, "pursuant 
to the modalities set forth in  the Annex to this Declaration, each Party shall bind a nd eliminate 
customs duties and other duties and charges of any kind within the meaning of Article  II.1(b) of the 
GATT  1994 with respect to the following: (a)  all products classified with Harmonized System 
headings listed in Attachment  A to the Annex to th is Declaration; and (b)  all products specified in 
Attachment  B to the Annex to this Declaration, whether or not they are included in Attachment  A." 
Similarly, document  G/IT/M/2 clarified that Members should submit their schedule for verification 
by the Com mittee.  
1.26.  Likewise, the 2015  Ministerial Declaration on ITA  Expansion also required parties wishing to 
join the ITA  Expansion to submit their ITA  expansion schedule for review and verification before 
becoming an ITA  II participant. In this regard, China note d that Lao  PDR had followed these 
procedures in its recent accession , thus setting a good example.  
1.27.  China was of the view that acceding to the ITA involved two  steps: first, that the Member 
wishing to become an ITA  participant must submit its schedule for r eview, verification, and approval; 
and second, that such Member must incorporate its ITA  commitments in its Goods Schedule 
afterwards. China believed that these two  steps should be followed by each ITA  participant. 
However, if participants had different in terpretations regarding the procedures for ITA  accession, 
China was open to discuss them.  
1.28.  China recalled that all procedures had been decided upon and set out by Ministers in the 
relevant Ministerial Declarations, and that any changes to existing practice would require a new 
Ministerial decision, which could prove very challenging. If all ITA  Committee participants wished to 
change the current procedures, China would be flexible and open to any such discussion. But before 
a new Ministerial Declaration had b een made, no Member had the right to designate itself as a n 
ITA participant.  G/IT/M/76  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.29.  On possible ways forward, China noted that it still had confidence and trust in the United 
Kingdom regarding its willingness to follow the required procedures; therefore, China lo oked forward 
to the UK's submission of its own ITA  schedules, both for the ITA and the ITA  Expansion. At the 
same time, China could accept that the UK be listed as a participant to the ITA, but with a footnote 
indicating that the UK had not yet completed t he relevant procedures to be an independent 
participant to the ITA. China reiterated that , to avoid the Committee spending further time on the 
subject,  the UK should submit its own ITA  schedule to be reviewed and verified by the Committee.  
1.30.  The delegate of the United Kingdom  thanked China for its statement and its continued interest 
in the UK's ITA  commitments. As the UK had set out at the Committee's previous two  meetings, the 
UK Goods Schedule, Schedule  XIX, replicated the same tariff liber alization commitments that the UK 
had undertaken when it became an ITA  participant as a member State of the European Union, 
including commitments on products specified in Attachment  A. In the interests of transparency, the 
UK had included a detailed list o f Attachment  B codes in an addendum to the UK  Goods Schedule, 
and the UK would continue to engage bilaterally with interested participants in this regard, including 
on how this should be reflected in document  G/IT/1/Rev.59.  
1.31.  The delegate of China  also comme nted on paragraph  4 of document  G/IT/1/Rev.59 and noted 
that it had always regarded the Secretariat as being a very professional team. She questioned what 
message this paragraph wished to send and sought clarification of the meaning of the word 
"replicate"  used therein . According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "replicate" meant "copy 
exactly". She noted that the Oxford English Dictionary indicated that the synonym of "replicate" was 
"duplicate". China asked what "duplicate" meant, noting that, if ITA  Participants had different 
interpretations, perhaps it would be much easier to reach a common understanding on the word 
"duplicate", meaning exactly the same format, and exactly the same content.  
1.32.  She asked whether the Secretariat had already received the United Kingdom's  ITA Schedule, 
in the exact format and content as it appeared in the corresponding ITA  Schedule of the European 
Union. On "a request that had been made for the UK to provide its complete ITA  schedule", China 
disagreed with such an expression, a rguing that submitting its ITA  Schedule for review and 
verification was a procedural requirement of the Agreement, and not just a request by another 
Member. China considered that paragraph  3 clearly reflected Morocco's situation , namely that it had 
not yet  submitted  its formal documentation to the Committee . However, the message in paragraph  4 
was ambiguous and could easily mislead any readers lacking knowledge of the relevant ITA  accession 
procedures. Therefore, China was disappointed to read such a paragr aph from the Secretariat. 
Finally, she regretted to prolong a discussion of what China considered to be an issue unworthy of 
such discussion given that the procedures for ITA  accession were very clear.  
1.33.  The delegate of Canada  found himself in a conundrum. C anada agreed with China in terms of 
the procedures that were set out. Indeed, the Committee itself expected Members to submit their 
schedules to it for review as part of an accession process that was set out in the Ministerial 
Declaration; however, on the other hand, the United Kingdom was a WTO  Member and was not 
acceding to the ITA. For this reason, Canada considered that the UK was a participant, and would 
continue to be a participant . This aligned with the way that WTO Members had treated the UK's 
withd rawal from the European Union, namely that the UK continued to be a WTO Member. In fact, 
Canada shared China's frustration over the ongoing discussion of the issue. He considered that it 
was important to have schedules, and that there were indications from  the UK as to what the 
replication was, such that the Committee had something on record. By the same token, he did not 
believe that the Committee would be reviewing those schedules as it would in an accession process. 
He considered that it was more of a ve rification, indicating that the Committee was satisfied that the 
UK had faithfully replicated the same commitments as those currently undertaken by the EU. In 
conclusion, he observed that the procedures were important, and that participants needed to follo w 
them; by the same token, participants needed to recognize that the matter at issue did not pertain 
to an accession process, but was simply a record of a WTO  Member's commitments in the context 
of the ITA.  
1.34.  The delegate of China  thanked Canada for its remarks, and China agreed. It was for this 
reason that China had also agreed for the United Kingdom to be included on the participants' list 
with a footnote indicating that ITA  Participants were waiting for the UK to submit its own 
ITA Schedule.  G/IT/M/76  
 
- 6 - 
 
  1.35.  She highlighted that every participant in the Committee should have its own schedule. 
However, to date, the Committee had only reviewed the European Union's  schedule, which in past 
years had included the United Kingdom . Given the UK's withdra wal from the EU, the UK did not have 
its own ITA  Schedule, and China did not know where to find it. China indicated that it was impossible 
for it to go through the UK's Goods Schedule to identify the UK's detailed ITA  commitments. She 
stressed that , for any ITA  participant , even if you had a Goods Schedule, the first  step was to have 
an ITA  schedule be fore the Committee, as stipulated by the Agreement. China had no intention to 
renegotiate with the UK as long as the UK's Schedule replicated that of the EU, and in that case, the 
Committee could examine it to ensure its replication. China did not consider  such an exercise to be 
especially challenging to the UK, and for this reason it did not understand why the UK was so 
reluctant to complete it.  
1.36.  The delegate of the United Kingdom  had provided clarification on the rectification that it had 
undertaken and ha d assured the Committee on a number of occasions that, as included in 
Schedule  XIX, while a member of the European Union, the UK had been covered under the ITA by 
the participation of the EU. The EU, including the UK, had submitted a document containing a list of 
detailed HS  headings involved for products specified in the ITA. These commitments had been 
reflected in Schedule  LXXX–European Union for the 1996  ITA and Schedule  CLXXIII –European Union 
for the 2015  ITA Expansion. The UK had replicated in its Sche dule XIX these commitments that it 
had undertaken as a member of the EU. For transparency, the UK had also provided detailed 
HS codes in updated nomenclature in the UK's Goods Schedule via an addendum. Finally, the UK 
indicated its willingness to engage wi th participants if they required further clarification, including 
on how the UK's ITA  participation should be reflected in paragraph  4 of document  G/IT/1/Rev.59.  
1.37.  The delegate of China  requested the Secretariat to truly reflect what had been discussed in 
previous meetings. Having said that, China proposed two  options: ( i) the United Kingdom  should be 
removed from the list of ITA  Participants because it had not done what  it should have done in order 
to become an ITA  participant ; or ( ii) Participants agree to include the UK in the list, but with the 
addition of  a footnote indicating that the UK had not yet completed the relevant ITA procedures , 
notably the need for it to submit its own ITA  Schedule to the Committee for review and verification. 
Until this proces s was completed, the UK should report to each formal meeting of the Committee on 
development s concerning its preparation of its ITA  Schedule.  
1.38.  The Chairperson  requested China to provide the wording of the footnote that it would like to 
see included in relat ion to the United Kingdom's inclusion in the list of ITA  Participants in paragraph  1 
of document  G/IT/1/Rev.59. In addition, she proposed that China and the UK hold further bilateral 
consultations on this issue.  
1.39.  The Committee took note  of the statements ma de and agreed  to discuss the matter, as 
appropriate, at the Committee's next meeting.  
1.4  Pending ITA  Participation  
1.40.  The Chairperson  recalled that, at the Committee 's previous regular meeting, held in 
September  2021, she had drawn the Committee 's attention to three  pending ITA  participation cases, 
namely those of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Belarus, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. All three  draft 
ITA Schedules had been electronically verified by the Secretariat and distributed to all 
ITA Participants f or their consideration and approval. They had also been reviewed at previous 
meetings, in 2014 and 2019, respectively, although their final participation to the ITA was linked to 
their accession process to the WTO. For transparency, she wished to inform th e Committee that 
there had been no further update in the intervening period.  
1.41.  The delegate of the United States  condemned the Russian Federation 's premeditated and 
unprovoked attack on Ukraine,  as well as the actions of Belarus ' regime , which was aiding Rus sia's 
war of aggression.  
1.42.  The United States  called upon Russia to immediately cease its use of force against Ukraine 
and refrain from any further unlawful threat or use of force against any UN  member state.  At the 
same time, the US reiterated that it stood united with its allies and partners in its commitment to 
ensur ing that the Russian government paid a severe economic and diplomatic price for its further 
invasion of Ukraine.  Indeed, t he WTO was predicated on certain values, including that a fair and just G/IT/M/76  
 
- 7 - 
 
  international order was one built on rules, reciprocity, and transparency.  And t he actions of Russia 
were incompatible with the rules -based system that Members had built and work ed to improve.  
1.43.  Turning specifically to Belarus, the United States recalled that it had  joined 13  other 
WTO Members , on 22  March  2022,  in issuing a Joint Statement Regarding the Application from 
Belarus for Accession to the WTO  (document  WT/GC/246) . In that statement, the US and its partners 
had strongly condemned Russia 's unjustifiable and unprovoked military aggression against Ukraine, 
which was enabled by Belarus. And they had  resolved to ensure that those that did not support the 
rules-based international order could not benefit from it.  
1.44.  With respect to the WTO  accessi on process of Belarus, the United States recall ed that 
Members had halted work on this accession after Belarus' fraudulent presidential election in 
August  2020 and the Lukashenko regime 's violent repression of peaceful protesters, which had 
included impris onment, beatings, and torture.  The US now condemn ed Belarus for its complicity in 
Russia 's premeditated, illegal, and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, which was incompatible with the 
values and principles of the WTO and of a just rules -based order.  For thes e reasons, the US had 
concluded that Belarus was unfit for WTO  membership ; accordingly, the US would not further 
consider Belarus'  application for accession, nor its participation in the ITA.  
1.45.  The delegate of Iceland  condemn ed, in the strongest possible terms, the unprovoked, unjust, 
and brutal attack by Russia on Ukraine.  Iceland considered that the Russian invasion, which was 
assisted and enabled by Belarus, was a flagrant violation of international law , including the 
UN Charter.  Iceland reiter ated its unwavering support for the sovereignty, independence, and 
territorial integrity of Ukraine, within its internationally recogni zed borders.  Iceland observed that 
Russia's military aggression was causing widespread destruction and unspeakable human suffering 
to the Ukrainian people.  Accordingly, on 22 March  2022, Iceland had joined other WTO Members in 
issuing a Joint Statement Regarding the Application of Belarus for Accession to the WTO.  In that 
joint statement, Iceland and its partners had condemn ed Belarus for its complicity in Russia 's 
aggression, which was incompatible with the values and principles of the WTO and of a just 
rules-based order.  For these reasons, Iceland and its partners had concluded that Belarus was unfit 
for WTO  Membership , including participation in the ITA.  
1.46.  The delegate of Canada , on the issue of the pending accession of Belarus to the Information 
Technology Agreement, indicated that Canada condemn ed Belarus'  complicity in Russia 's 
premeditated, illegal , and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.  The violation of Ukraine 's sovereignty 
has resulted in widespread humanitarian consequences and the senseless deaths of innocent people , 
and in Canada's view, the international community must continue to be seized of th is issue.  Indeed, 
Canada considered that this was not just an attack on Ukraine; rather, it was an attack on 
international law, including the UN  Charter, as well as democracy, freedom, and human rights.  
Similarly, Belarus'  complicity in Russia' s aggression  was incompatible with the values and principles 
of the WTO and of a just rules -based order.  For these reasons, Canada had co-sponsored the joint 
statement in document  WT/GC/246 , concluded that Belarus was unfit for WTO  Membership , and 
indicated that it wo uld not give any further consider ation to Belarus' application for accession.  
Canada stated that there were no terms to which  Canada could agree, as per Article  XII of the 
Marrakesh Agreement, to conclude the work of the Working Party.  In conclusion, Canad a indicated 
that its position as set out in document  WT/GC/246 should also be understood to be its position in 
the ITA  Committee, and that Canada would give no further consideration to Belarus'  participation in 
the ITA  Agreement.  
1.47.  The delegate of Albania  strongly condemn ed the Russian aggression on Ukraine, which it 
considered to be a blatant breach of international law and the principles of the UN  Charter on which 
the international rules -based order was built. In Albania's view, this  was an unprovoked, un justified, 
premeditated military aggression against Ukraine, which threatened the security and peace of all 
Europe. Albania underscored that it supported the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine 
within its internationally recognized borders, in cluding its territorial waters. Albania  called for the 
immediate cessation  of fighting and the unconditional withdrawal of Russian troops from the territory 
of Ukraine. Albania stood by Ukraine and in full solidarity with the Ukrainian people. In particula r, 
Albania wished to express its broad concern over the humanitarian situation  in Ukraine , which was 
deteriorating exponentially . In Albania's view, Russia had to be held fully accountable, as did Belarus, 
whose territory had been used to launch part of th is aggression. Albania had joined other Members 
in issuing a joint statement , in document  WT/GC/246,  regarding the application from Belarus for 
Accession to the WTO . Albania considered that Belarus' actions were totally incompatible with the G/IT/M/76  
 
- 8 - 
 
  values and pri nciples of the WTO. In consequence , Albania stated that Belarus' application for 
accession to the WTO, including its participation in the ITA, could not be considered.  
1.48.  The delegate of the European Union  thank ed the Chairperson for her update on pending 
ITA participation.  The EU underscored that , as the Chairperson herself had noted,  Belarus ' final 
participation to the ITA was indeed linked to its accession process to the WTO.  In this regard, t he 
EU continued to c ondemn, in the strongest possible terms , Russia 's aggression against Ukraine, 
which was enabled by Belarus. The EU noted that it had  also sponsored the joint statement , in 
document  WT/GC/244,  which had explained the trade measures that it and its partners were 
adopting against Russia. Following the recent events and harrowing images from areas where 
Russian troops ha d recently left, the EU indicated that it would continue to take measures to help 
Ukraine,  on the one hand, and to sanction Russia,  on the othe r. In that regard, the EU had just 
announced a fifth  package of sanctions against Russia, in measures that were a consequence of 
Russia 's act of aggression against Ukraine.  Specifically r egarding Belarus, the EU noted that, due to 
Belarus' facilitation of Russia's illegal war , it had also  communicated to the WTO, including in a 
statement dated 24  March , in document  WT/GC/246, that it considered that it was no longer 
appropriate to consider Belarus ' application to accede to this Organi zation,  including its request to 
participate in the ITA  Committee.  
1.49.  The delegate of Japan  indicated  that it had condemned Russia 's aggression against Ukraine 
in the strongest terms, as it clearly infringe d upon Ukraine 's sovereignty and territorial integrity, 
constitute d a serious violation of international law prohibiting the use of force, and was a grave 
breach of the United Nations Charter. Japan ha d also strongly urged Russia to cease the attack and 
withdraw its forces back to Russian territory immediately. Thi s was the only possible path to stop ping 
the supply chain disturbances that had begun adversely to affect many countries.  In addition, Japan 
consider ed that  Belarus ' complicity in Russia 's aggression was incompatible with the values and 
principles of the W TO. Japan ha d therefore joined other Members in issuing a Joint Statement 
Regarding the Application from Belarus for Accession to the WTO. Japan also took the position 
expressed in the joint statement in relation to Belarus ' participation to the ITA.  Together with the 
international community, Japan stood in solidarity with Ukraine and its people.  
1.50.  The delegate of New Zealand  joined other parties in condemning, in the strongest possible 
terms, President Putin 's unprovoked and u njustified attack on Ukraine. Russia 's illegal invasion ha d 
caused widespread humanitarian consequences and had resulted in the senseless deaths of innocent 
people.  New Zealand strongly support ed Ukraine 's sovereignty and territorial integrity and stood 
with Ukraine as it defend ed itself against Russian aggression. New Zealand support ed steadfastly 
collective action by the international community to denounce the egregious and unlawful actions 
taken by Russia, and to censure those in President Putin 's Govern ment that bore responsibility for 
them.  Like the other Members that had intervened, New Zealand had also participated in issuing the 
Joint Statement Regarding the Application from Belarus for Accession to the WTO. In that 
communication, the co -sponsors , including New Zealand,  had concluded that Belarus was unfit for 
WTO membership ; therefore, New Zealand would not give any further consider ation to Belarus' 
accession  application . This position reflect ed Belarus'  complicit y in, and enablement of , Russia 's 
ongoing invasion of Ukraine. For the same reasons, New Zealand would not give any further 
consider ation to  Belarus ' participation to the ITA  Agreement.  
1.51.  The delegate of the Republic of Korea  expressed his government 's strong condemn ation of 
Russia 's armed  invasion against Ukraine, which was enabled by Belarus. This was an attack on , and 
an egregious violation of , international law and the principles of the UN  Charter. The use of force 
that cause d innocent casualties could not be justified under any circums tances.  Rather, Korea 
considered that Ukraine 's sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence must be 
respected. Korea share d the deep concerns of the international community over the unfolding 
humanitarian situation in Ukraine.  In additio n, the Government of Korea strongly condemn ed Belarus 
for its complicity in Russia 's aggression, which was incompatible with the values and the principles 
of the WTO. The Republic of Korea had concluded that Belarus was unfit for WTO  membership. The 
Republ ic of Korea urged Belarus to abide by its international obligations and to return to the 
rules-based international order.  
1.52.  The delegate of Switzerland  took note of the Chairperson's status report  and recall ed that it 
condemn ed the military aggression of Russia against Ukraine in the firmest possible terms. This was 
a blatant violation of international law, particularly the prohibition on the use of force and the 
principle of the territorial integrity of States.  Switzerland called up on Russia to respect its G/IT/M/76  
 
- 9 - 
 
  international obligations and to change direction  and de -escalate  in terms of its actions, by 
withdraw ing its troops.  Switzerland called up on all actors to respect international law, particularly 
international humanitarian law . 
1.53.  The delegate of Australia  condemned  Russia 's unprovoked, unjust , and illegal invasion of 
Ukraine.  Australia saw this invasion as a gross violation of international law, including the Charter 
of the United Nations.  Australia strongly support ed Ukraine 's sovereignty and territorial integrity, 
and call ed upon Russia to cease its attacks and withdraw its forces.  Indeed, Russia 's war on Ukraine 
was exacting a catastrophic humanitarian toll.  In consequence, Australia support ed collective action 
by the international community to impose costs and increase leverage on Russia and those in Russia 
who bore responsibility.  Australia also noted that those  seeking to join and benefit from 
WTO membership should demonstrate that they shar ed its values and were committed to the 
international rules -based order.  Australia had joined other Members in issuing a joint statement in 
March regarding Belarus ' complicit support for Russia 's invasion, and its application for accession to 
the WTO.  Australia did not support further consideration of Belarus ' WTO accession and , by 
extension, its participation in the ITA.  
1.54.  The delegate of the Russian Federation  drew M embers ' attention to its understanding that 
that the consideration of matters of global or r egional security concerns, including UN Charter 
enforcement or compliance , did not fall under the mandate of the present Committee and went far 
beyond the meeting's agenda. Accordingly, he called upon the Chairperson to moderate the 
Committee's discussion by not permitting interventions from those delegations neglecting that basic 
consideration. Similarly, he request ed that those statements not correspond ing to the agenda of the 
meeting , and the mandate of the Committee , not be included in the  meeting's  minutes. He also 
urged delegates to exercise self -restrain t in this regard.  
1.55.  In response, t he Chairperson  clarified that, as it was a formal meeting of the Committee, all 
statements would be recorded in the minutes.  
1.56.  The delegate of Ukraine  thanke d the Chairperson for her update and overview of the status 
of implementation , including her report on new developments since the Committee 's previous 
meeting.  He also thank ed those delegations that had delivered statements condemning the 
unjustifiable and  unprovoked military aggression of Russia against Ukraine. He emphasized once 
again that this military invasion was an attack on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine,  
in a brutal violation of the basic norms and principles of international law, the UN Charter , as well 
as the purpose and principles of the WTO . 
1.57.  After the evidence of atrocities committed by Russian soldier s in Bucha and other villages 
near Kyiv, as well as the  continued rhetoric of Russia 's representatives , Ukraine considered that  
Members could now also speak of a cruel genocide launched on Ukrainians in their own country , with  
hundreds of civilians  having been  killed, their bodies left on the streets, including teachers 
intentionally killed because of their professi on, people tortured and killed without any reason,  and 
girls and women raped, often in the presence of their children; it went beyond human understanding.  
Therefore, Ukraine believe d that all countries , in all negotiation formats and forums, should join in 
the effort to stop the war of Russia,  and its accomplice Belarus,  by all means possible.  
1.58.  As a participant to the ITA, Ukraine fully support ed trade in IT  products , which played  a key 
role in the development of the information technology industry and in th e dynamic expansion of the 
global economy, stimulating innovation and spreading new technologies  and thereby contributing  to 
global economic growth and prosperity . At the same time, Ukraine wished to draw Members ' 
attention to the fact that , during the war , Russia had been  actively using a wide range of different 
means of destruction, the production of which require d the use of information -based , advanced 
manufacturing techniques and materials , including products covered by the ITA. And Russia was 
using  the above -mentioned products in offensive equipment, such as cruise missiles, tanks , and 
various armoured  combat vehicles, warplanes and helicopters, drones, electronic warfare, artillery , 
and a variety of other weapons, including thermobaric and vac uum munitions.  One chilling example 
of the use of cruise missiles was the strike on the regional state administration in the city of Mykolaiv 
on 29  March  2022, which had resulted in at least 38  confirmed deaths of civil servant  colleagues . In 
addition, t he Russian Federation's use of a wide range of means of destruction had already had 
devastating consequences on numerous bombings , including  Ukraine 's civil infrastructure, 
residential buildings, kindergartens, hospitals, including maternity hospitals, roads , oil and gas 
facilities , and so on; furthermore, it had  already led to the complete destruction of cities including G/IT/M/76  
 
- 10 - 
 
  Mariupol, Chernihiv , and Sumy.  As a result of this barbaric act of military aggression , more than 
11 million Ukrainians had been forced to flee from their homes, including Capital -based colleagues.  
1.59.  Bearing all of the afore mentioned  in mind , Ukraine believe d that continuing to supply the 
Russian  Federation with products covered by the ITA was currently nothing more than a trade in the 
blood and lives  of the Ukrainian people . For this reason, Ukraine urge d WTO Members that were 
participants to the ITA to impose a trade embargo on the above -mentioned products that could be 
used by Russia  for its military purposes , as well as to introduce significant restrictions on their 
exports to Russia of high -tech goods and technologies.  
1.60.  Regarding Belarus ' participation in the ITA , and in the WTO in general , Ukraine wished to 
emphasize that Belarus was the country that had  enabled Russia's  fully-fledge d attack against 
Ukraine. In Belarus'  communication to WT O Members of 28 March  2022, Belarus had indicated that 
it literally consider ed itself to be a  donor of security in the region. Ukraine considered that 
WTO Members very well understood for whom Belaru s acted as a donor.  Therefor e, Ukraine fully 
support ed the position of those Members that were not going to give any further consider ation to  
Belarus ' application for WTO accession, nor its participation in the ITA.  Furthermore, Ukraine wished 
to emphasize that the joint statement of the Members that had actively negotiated with Belarus 
clearly reflect ed the opinion s and reasons for not considering Belarus' application for accession. In 
addition, the  joint statement pointed to the basic rule and g uidance for accession to the WTO , 
indicating that Belarus was not accepted and therefore would not be joining the Organization.  
1.61.  In conclusion , Ukraine thank ed those delegations that had stated their solidarity with Ukraine 
by condemning Russia's  actions , and call ed upon those Members still hesitating in their support to 
stand with Ukraine in the fight for democratic principles and human dignity.  
1.62.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
2  TRADE CONCERNS RAISED BY PARTICIPA NTS 
2.1  Request by the European Union, Japan, and the United States Regarding 
Implementation Issue s Concerning Indonesia  
2.1.  The Chairperson  indicated that this issue had been included in the agenda at the request of the 
European Union, Japan, and United States.  
2.2.  The delegate of the United States  indicated that the US continued to be disappointed that 
Indonesia had not addressed its concerns with respect to applying tariffs on select ICT  products that 
had appeared to exceed its WTO  bound tariff commitments.  
2.3.  The Uni ted States, along with other Members, had been raising this issue with Indonesia 
repeatedly across multiple WTO  committees for over two  years. The US had also raised its concerns 
bilaterally with its Indonesian colleagues.  
2.4.  The United States continued to be  disappointed that Indonesia had not responded to its specific 
questions. Indeed, the US had provided examples that clearly illustrated its concerns with 
Indonesia 's application of tariffs, and had done so on multiple occasions. The US had also prepared 
several specific questions, which had been circulated to this Committee in document  G/IT/Q/1, dated 
14 April 2021. Unfortunately, Indonesia had yet to provide a substantive response to those repeated 
attempts at detailed engagement.  
2.5.  The United States underst ood that US  companies had also engaged the Indonesian government 
directly on this issue, seeking clarification on Indonesia 's application of these tariffs. Despite their 
efforts, they too ha d not yet receive d a satisfactory response from Indonesia.  
2.6.  The Uni ted States considered that Indonesia 's tariffs not only impose d an unfair financial 
burden on foreign firms, but they also limit ed access for Indonesian consumers and firms to 
important high -tech products.  
2.7.  The delegate of the European Union  noted that the EU had repeatedly called upon Indonesia 
to align its tariff treatment of certain ICT  products classified under HS subheading  8517.62 with its G/IT/M/76  
 
- 11 - 
 
  WTO commitments. In particular, the EU was concerned about Indonesia 's significant tariff (10%) 
on products classi fied under tariff line  8517.62.49 , on which the EU has recorded a significant drop 
in exports.  
2.8.  She recalled that , during the most recent  meeting of the Committee on Market Access, 
Indonesia had informed Members that, according to the 2022  Indonesian Customs Tariff Book, the 
products concerned were listed as zero tariffs. 
2.9.  The European Union understood  that the new Customs Tariff Book had entered into force on 
1 April 2022, and requested Indonesia to clarify where it could consult this instrument . The EU 
sought a clearer understanding of the situation . In particular, the EU would welcome Indonesia 's 
confirmation that products under HS subheading  8517.62.49 enjoy ed duty-free treatment.  
2.10.  The delegate of Japan  reiterated Jap an's concern over the issue of Indonesia 's continued 
application of tariffs of 10% on certain ICT  products that fell under HS  8517.62, on which zero -tariff 
commitments had been made. Indonesia had explained at both the Market Access and the 
ITA Committees that this had been a result of the integration of a number of items by HS  conversion. 
Indonesia had also indicated that it had not intended to violate its obligations. However, Japan 's 
concern was not yet resolved. In order to examine the facts further, Ja pan requested Indonesia to 
provide it with more detailed and factual information, and to explain to Japan its plan to address this 
issue.  
2.11.  The delegate of Canada  considered  Indonesia 's application of tariffs above its bound rates on 
ICT products as inconsistent with its WTO commitments and contrary to the objectives of multilateral 
tariff liberalization.  
2.12.  In addition to these systemic concerns, Canada also ha d commercial concerns over 
Indonesia 's application of tariffs on ICT  products, whi ch had impacted at least USD 1.8 million in 
Indonesian imports from Canada in 2020 (a decrease of 29% compared to 2019).  
2.13.  Canada called up on Indonesia to eliminate its tariffs on ICT  products in a way consistent with 
its WTO  commitments.  
2.14.  The delegate of Indonesia  reiterated Indonesia 's commitment to maintaining the 
WTO-compliance of its measures. To this end, Indonesia stood ready to engage with the European 
Union, Japan, and the United States in order to resolve this matter.  
2.15.  The Committee took note  of the s tatements made.  
3  REVIEW OF PRODUCT COVERAGE  
3.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that, s ince the Committee 's meeting of 15  May 2012, and as 
requested by some delegations, the "review of product coverage" had been included as a regular 
item on the Committee 's agenda. Th is agenda item provided an opportunity for the Committee to 
receive reports and updates from those participants that were engaged in bilateral and plurilateral 
consultations relating to the review of product coverage pursuant to paragraph  3 of the Annex to  
the ITA.  
3.2.  The delegate of Canada , in his capacity as Chairperson of the Participants to the 
2015 ITA Expansion Agreement, welcomed Lao  PDR, and reported on the work of the participants 
to the ITA  Expansion Agreement. He informed the Committee that almost a ll participants to that 
Agreement had implemented, on an MFN  basis, their tariff reductions and elimination commitments 
under their national ITA  Expansion schedules. He reiterated that the ITA  Expansion Agreement was 
open to all WTO  Members, and that all W TO Members were strongly encouraged to consider 
participation in this initiative. In that regard, the Group of 2015  ITA Expansion participants would 
continue to reach out to other Members and provide them with information on the ITA  Expansion 
Agreement and  its benefits.  
3.3.  The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed  to revert to this matter, as 
appropriate, at the ITA  Committee 's next meeting.  G/IT/M/76  
 
- 12 - 
 
  4  NON-TARIFF MEASURES WORK PROGRAMME  
4.1.  The Chairperson  referred to paragraph  3 of the Annex to the 1996  Ministerial Declaration, 
which required that "Participants […] meet periodically … to consult on non -tariff barriers to trade in 
information technology products." She reiterated that the Committee had attac hed great importance 
to Non -Tariff Barriers (NTBs) and that, since 2000, NTBs had become an essential part of the regular 
work of the Committee.  
4.2.  She recalled that on 7  May 2015 an industry -driven workshop dedicated to NTBs affecting trade 
in ICT  products h ad been organized. A factual report by the Chairperson had been circulated in 
document  G/IT/28. At subsequent meetings of the Committee, the Chairperson had been tasked to 
continue consultations on the follow -up to the ITA  NTB Workshop. She also recalled t hat NTB  issues 
had been raised by certain guest speakers at the ITA  Symposium of 16 and 17  September  2021.  
4.3.  She noted that little progress had thus far been made, regrettably. Regarding next steps, she 
wished to encourage all ITA Participants to reflect on the main non -tariff barriers that currently 
impede d global trade in IT  products, and how best to address them at the Committee 's future 
meetings . 
4.4.  The Committee took note  of the Chairperson 's statement and agreed  to revert to this matter, 
as appropriate, at  the Committee 's next meeting.  
5  EMC/EMI PILOT PROJECT: DRAFT LIST OF THE TYPES OF CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT 
PROCEDURES FOR EMC/EMI USED BY ITA  PARTICIPANTS (G/IT/W/17/REV.28)  
5.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that one of the outcomes of the NTM  Work Programme had been t he 
completion of a pilot project that had led to the adoption of the "Guidelines for Electromagnetic 
Compatibility (EMC) and Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) Conformity Assessment Procedures". 
Upon adoption of these "Guidelines", the Secretariat had prep ared a note on the "Draft List of Types 
of Conformity Assessment Procedures for EMC/EMI used by ITA  Participants", as contained in 
document  G/IT/W/17 and its revisions. The note contained the responses to the survey and other 
notifications received from Pa rticipants on the type of assessment procedures for EMC and EMI that 
they used. ITA  Participants had indicated on several occasions that they had found the information 
contained in this document very useful and wished to have it completed. She also recalle d that, at 
the request of several participants, the Secretariat had made a presentation on the background to 
the survey at the Committee 's meeting on 30  October  2020.  
5.2.  The latest update of the Secretariat 's note had been circulated on 26  April 2021, as 
document G/IT/W/17/Rev.28, which included the new submission from the United Kingdom. This 
updated Secretariat note showed that there were still 10  participants that had not yet provided any 
information on their conformity assessment procedures, namely Afghani stan; Iceland; Israel; the 
State of Kuwait; the Kyrgyz Republic; Morocco; Nicaragua; Tajikistan; the United Arab Emirates; 
and Viet Nam. The Chairperson encouraged these 10  delegations to provide their information to the 
Secretariat as soon as possible so as to enable the Committee to complete this work.  
5.3.  In addition, as the Committee was drawing nearer to finalizing this pilot project, the 
Chairperson asked Participants to reflect upon how to maximize the usefulness of the information 
on the EMC/EMI  conform ity assessment procedures that had been provided. Participants were 
invited to share their insights in this regard with the Chairperson, and with the Secretariat, at any 
time, or with the full Committee.  
5.4.  The Committee took note  of the statement made.  G/IT/M/76  
 
- 13 - 
 
  6  DIVER GENCES IN CLASSIFYING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS 
(G/IT/14/REV.1/ADD.1; G/IT/W/6/REV.3; G/IT/W/33; G/IT/W/34; G/IT/27; 
JOB/IT/12; G/IT/29, AND G/IT/W/40/ADD.1 -21, G/IT/W/40/SUPPL.4, AND 
JOB/IT/25)  
6.1  Implementation of the Decision for the Classification o f 18 Attachment  B Products 
(G/IT/27)  
6.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that, on 20 July 2013, the Committee had adopted a Decision for the 
HS 1996 classification of 18  Attachment  B items, which had been circulated in document  G/IT/27. 
As required by that Decision, each participant must reflect the agreed classifications in its 
WTO Schedule of concessions, as appropriate, following the 1980  Decision on the Procedures for 
Modification and Rectification of Schedules of Tariff Concessions (BISD  27S/25).  
6.2.  So far, the Secr etariat had been approached by five  ITA participants, namely: Guatemala; the 
Philippines; Japan; El Salvador; and Macao, China, to assist them with the modification of their 
schedules. In this regard, the Secretariat had completed its work on the requests of the delegations 
of Macao, China and the Philippines.  
6.3.  Since the Committee 's previous meeting, no additional participant had approached the 
Secretariat for technical assistance with the modification of their schedules. She reminded the 
Committee that the technical work involved in this exercise was time -consuming and thus could only 
be undertaken on a gradual basis. Therefore, she encouraged developing -country participants to 
contact the Secretariat if they required technical assistance in this area.  
6.4.  The C ommittee took note  of the statement made.  
6.2  Implementation of the 2016  Decision for the Classification of an Additional 15  Items 
(G/IT/29)  
6.5.  The Chairperson  recalled that, on 18  April 2016, the Committee had adopted the "Decision for 
HS2007  Classification of 1 5 Additional 'Attachment  B' Products", which had been circulated in 
document  G/IT/29. Most of the items covered by this Decision related to HS2007  heading  8486 
(Machines and apparatus for the manufacture of semiconductor boules or wafers) and one  item 
related to heading  8471 (automatic data processing machines and units thereof).  
6.6.  Regarding the implementation of this 2016  Decision, only one  participant (Macao, China) had 
asked for the Secretariat 's support to conduct a review of its Schedule. No new Member h ad 
approached the Secretariat for assistance since the Committee 's previous meeting.  
6.7.  The Committee took note  of the statement made.  
6.3  Note by the Secretariat (G/IT/W/40 and its supplements and addenda)  
6.8.  The Chairperson  indicated that the Note by the Secretariat on "Divergence of Classification: 
Possible HS2007  Classification for the Remaining 37  'Attachment  B' Items" had been originally 
circulated as document  G/IT/W/40, based on the Swiss proposal for a three -step proce dure 
(document  JOB/IT/12).  
6.9.  She recalled that, at the Committee 's meeting of 31  October  2014, it had been agreed that: 
"Participants are expected to submit a communication to the Secretariat no later than 30  June 2015, 
indicating: (a)  the items that, in the  participant 's opinion, should be classified differently from the 
HS2007  codes listed in column  8 of the Annex to this document; and (b)  the HS2007  subheading(s) 
that, in the participant 's opinion, are relevant for the classification of the item in questio n." It had 
also been agreed that "The Secretariat will compile communications received in a separate 
document. On that basis, participants would then be expected to assess the next steps that could 
be taken to reduce any remaining divergence in classificat ion." 
6.10.  She reported that, to date , the Secretariat had received comments from 21  participants. 
These had been circulated as addenda to document  G/IT/W/40. Comments had been received from 
the following participants: Norway (G/IT/W/40/Add.1); Chinese Taipei ( G/IT/W/40/Add.2); G/IT/M/76  
 
- 14 - 
 
  Switzerland (G/IT/W/40/Add.3); the European Union (G/IT/W/40/Add.4); Hong Kong, China 
(G/IT/W/40/Add.5); China (G/IT/W/40/Add.6); Japan (G/IT/W/40/Add.7); Canada 
(G/IT/W/40/Add.8); the United States (G/IT/W/40/Add.9); India (G/IT/W/40/Add .10); Macao, 
China (G/IT/W/40/Add.11); El Salvador (G/IT/W/40/Add.12); the Republic of Korea 
(G/IT/W/40/Add.13); Panama (G/IT/W/40/Add.14); Thailand (G/IT/W/40/Add.15); Guatemala 
(G/IT/W/40/Add.16); Mauritius (G/IT/W/40/Add.17); Montenegro (G/IT/W/40/Add.1 8); 
the Russian  Federation (G/IT/W/40/Add.19); Seychelles (G/IT/W/40/Add.20); and New Zealand 
(G/IT/W/40/Add.21).  
6.11.  All these comments had been consolidated into document  G/IT/W/40/Suppl.4, which also 
took into account the 2016  Decision on the classification  of the additional 15  items. Therefore, there 
remained 22  Attachment  B items for which Participants should provide their comments in order to 
arrive at a common HS  classification.  
6.12.  In this regard, the Chairperson invited delegations that had not yet provide d their comments 
on the possible HS2007  classification of these remaining 22  items to do so as soon as possible in 
order to arrive at a common classification for these products within existing HS  nomenclature and 
thereby also to fulfil the mandate of parag raph 5 of the Annex to the Ministerial Declaration on Trade 
in Information Technology Products.  
6.13.  The delegate of Switzerland  observed  that the reduction of classification divergences was a 
matter that the Committee had been trying to address  for some time. Indeed, Switzerland noted 
that there were 22 items for which classification divergences remained unresolved.  At the same 
time, Switzerland also noted that, since 1  January of that year, many Members had introduced the 
HS2022 in to their national tarif fs. 
6.14.  For these reasons, Switzerland request ed the Secretariat to update document  JOB/IT/25 , 
including a correlation table that include d the HS2022 changes , as well as an indication of those 
22 items  that remain ed. This would provide Members with up-to-date information about the 
magnitude of the remaining work.  
6.15.  The delegate of the United States  appreciate d the effort and work that had gone  into the 
development of the HS  model list in HS2012 and HS2017 , as provided for in document  JOB/IT/25.  
At the same t ime, the US wished to ensure that all necessary work on this effort was completed 
before considering any potential additional workstreams.  
6.16.  The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed  to discuss the matter, as 
appropriate, at the Committee 's next meeting.  
7  FOLLOW -UP ON THE ITA  SYMPOSIUM: REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON ON HER 
INFORMAL CONSULTATIONS  
7.1.  The Chairperson  report ed on her consultations with ITA participants on 3 and 4  March. 
Three  questions had been raised in her communication to ITA Participants dated 18  February, 
namely: (i)  from among the Committee 's regular agenda items, which should be given priority in 
the first  half of the year; (ii)  which specific subject from last year 's ITA Symposium could be further 
discussed and elaborated upon; and (iii)  what the best way would be to ensure that the Committee 's 
work remain ed dynamic, relevant, and aligned with developments in the global IT  industry. To date, 
six delegations had participated in the se informal consultations , on a bilateral ba sis. 
7.2.  The following issues for the Committee to consider ha d been suggested by one or more 
delegations. One  delegation had wished to see specific trade concerns being addressed more 
effectively at the Committee level. Two  delegations had found the "model li st" prepared by the 
Secretariat to be very useful, and had suggested that the Secretariat update it again to reflect the 
latest HS  nomenclature, and also to prepare such a list for ITA  Expansion products. A nd a few 
delegations had expressed the view that e fforts should be intensified to encourage more developing 
Members to join the ITA. Regarding takeaways from the ITA  Symposium, several delegations had 
expressed an interest in strengthening the synergies between the ITA and such other issues as 
E-Commerce,  the digital transformation, climate change, environmental protection, electronics 
waste, and medical and health issues. She had also sensed a general support from the delegations 
in question for strengthening dialogue with the business community; for exam ple, experts could be G/IT/M/76  
 
- 15 - 
 
  invited to brief the Committee on latest developments in the IT  industry. Finally, in response to calls 
from industry for an ITA  III, three  delegations had expressed their view that it was premature to 
discuss the ITA  III at this stag e. 
7.3.  The Chairperson considered her informal consultations to have been fruitful and she thank ed 
the relevant delegations for their thoughtful contributions . She then opened the floor for additional 
comments , especially from delegations that had not particip ated in the consultations but that wished 
to share their responses to the three  questions if they so wish ed. 
7.4.  The delegate of the European Union  again  thank ed the Secretariat for its successful 
organization of the previous year's ITA  Symposium , and noted that, in the EU's view, the Symposium 
had encouraged participants to revive the work of the ITA  Committee , including by taking fuller 
account of the expectations of the business community and the speed of technological advances . In 
particular, the EU considered that this required an examination of the product and geographical 
scope of the ITA Agreement , including discussions on how the agreement could go beyond the 
traditional tariff issues.  Indeed, the EU had heard some Symposium participants c alling for a review 
of the product scope of the ITA  Agreement. In particular, the EU had heard that the HS  nomenclature 
was not necessarily keep ing pace with advances in technology . There was also a lot of uncertainty 
concerning where a given product shoul d be classified , given that ITA  Participants had different 
practices  in this regard . 
7.5.  In this context, the European Union considered the work on classification that the Committee 
had just discussed under agenda item  6 to be of particular value. ITA Particip ants were now moving 
towards HS2022, which had introduced a lot of changes as concerned  the classification of 
ITA products. Therefore , the EU was interested to continue working on classification differences and 
a prompt transition towards more recent nomen clatures.  
7.6.  Finally, the European Union had understood that there was also an interest in working on some 
new non -tariff issues , including the circular economy , and to doing so potentially in cooperation with 
the Committee on Trade and Environment. The EU encourage d ITA Participants to give their further 
consideration to such a possibility, both in the ITA  Committee and in the ITA  Expansion Group. On 
its side, the EU would work w ith its business community to reflect further on the issue.  
7.7.  The delegate of China  again thanked the Secretariat  for its excellent work in relation to the 
organization of the previous year's ITA Symposium . 
7.8.  China believe d that it was important and valuable t o strengthen the Committee's  work in the 
area of trade monitoring and the analysis of the statistics regarding ITA and ITA  Expansion products.  
China consider ed that this would help ITA Participants to better understand the implementation 
effectiveness of the ITA and ITA  Expansion  Agreements , and also to identify the remaining gaps and 
possible way s forward.  
7.9.  China observed that it had been more than five  years since the ITA  Expansion had entered into 
force, in 2016 . China  believe d that most  of the trade data regarding the ITA and ITA  Expansion 
products was now available, such that it wished to make two  suggestions , as followed : (i) for the 
Secretariat to update the relevant trade data for the period 2017 -2021 on ITA and ITA  Expansion 
product s, based on previous publications, such as the "15  Years of the Information Technology 
Agreement" and "20  Years of the Information Technology Agreement" ; and (ii) for the Secretariat 
to summarize the non -tariff barriers on ITA  products based on the informa tion publicly available. In 
this regard, China stood ready to hold further discussions with the Secretariat and ITA Participants.  
7.10.  The delegate of the United Kingdom  thanked the Chairperson for affording ITA  Participants 
an opportunity to reflect on the mai n takeaways from the previous year's  ITA Symposium and on 
the future work of the Committee.  
7.11.  In the United Kingdom's  view, the Symposium had drawn important attention to the 
ever-growing  role of information technology in enabling progress across shared social, economic, 
environmental, and health policy objectives.  Accordingly, the  UK had listened with interest to the 
Chairperson's report on the basis of the informal consultations , noting that many of the issues that 
had been raised were areas where information technologies had come into particular focus in recent 
years. For example, health technologies had proven vital in the fight against the G/IT/M/76  
 
- 16 - 
 
  COVID -19 pandemic,  and clean technologies were increasingly important in the effort to tackle 
climate change.  Therefore, the UK agree d with the need to reflect on the ITA 's role in enabling global 
access to information technology products , as well as its relevance to achieving a wider range of 
shared policy outcomes.  
7.12.  In particular, the United Kingdom considered that the ITA  Symposium had demonstrated that 
the ITA could play an important environmental role in encouraging the use of energy -efficient 
technologies.  In this regard, the UK noted that there w as a growing consensus around the world, 
not least evidenced by the creation of the Paris Agreement, about the importance of taking action 
to mitigate the effects of climate change and to reducing  carbon emissions with energy -efficient 
solutions.  In the UK 's view, it would be valuable to explore the role the ITA could play in increasing 
access to greener ICT globally in support of such shared environmental objectives.  Furthermore, t he 
UK would be supportive of informal discussions among ITA  Participants and  industry experts to take 
forward this topic, along with  the other topics that other interested delegations had just put forward.  
In the UK's view, there  was undoubtedly an important and ongoing role that the ITA could play in 
supporting ITA Participants' wider policy objectives , including but not limited to the area of green 
technologies.  For example, there were a host of ICT  goods that could contribute significantly towards 
the UN's 17 Sustainable Development Goals by improving the effic iency of food and water 
distribution systems and monitoring for potential disasters.  ICT goods could also help to tackle 
poverty by increasing access to education and communication resources globally and decreasing the 
digital divide.  The UK considered tha t exploring those ICT goods that were relevant to supporting 
such objectives at a technical level might also  encourage the future participation in the ITA of 
additional developing countries . Finally, the UK seized the opportunity to again welcome the 
acces sion of Lao  PDR to the ITA as the first LDC  WTO Member to pursue participation in this 
Agreement.  The UK very much look ed forward to working with Lao PDR in the context of the 
Committee and to learning from their experience.  More generally, the UK looked forward to engaging 
with Participants on these important topics with a view to furthering ITA Participants' work in the 
ITA Committee.  
7.13.  The delegate of Japan  considered that t he ITA  Symposium had demonstrated the ITA 's 
growing significance, not only for glob al trade but also for various industries, societies , and people 
around the world. In Japan's view, it was particularly meaningful that Participants  could share their 
views on the new opportunities and solutions that ICT  products could provide to address the social 
challenges brought about by the COVID -19 pandemic.  Japan indicated that it would continue to 
contribute to the ITA 's development with due consideration for the needs of industry  and other 
stakeholders. In this regard, Japan considered th at it would be beneficial  for Participants  to share , 
in the context of the ITA  Committee,  their views on ITA -related technological development and the 
interests of their industrial sector . To this end, Japan wished to hear other ITA Participants'  views 
on this matter.  
7.14.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
8  ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON  
8.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that, as standard practice, the Committee elected a new chairperson 
from among the representatives of Participants on an annual basis, and that th e election took place 
at the first  meeting of the year and took effect at the end of the meeting.  
8.2.  She informed the Committee that the Chairperson of the Council for Trade in Goods (CTG) had 
been consulting with Members regarding chairpersons for the CTG's subsidiary bodies, and that the 
slate of names of proposed chairpersons was still under consideration.  
8.3.  As a result, she proposed that, as soon as the CTG had adopted the proposed list of 
chairpersons for its subsidiary bodies, the Secretariat would send an  email to all Participants 
indicating the name of the person nominated to be chairperson of the ITA  Committee. If no objection 
were received within the time -frame indicated in the email, the candidate would be deemed to have 
been elected by the Committee b y acclamation.  
8.4.  The Committee so agreed . G/IT/M/76  
 
- 17 - 
 
  9  DATE OF THE NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING  
9.1.  The Chairperson  informed the Committee that the Secretariat had tentatively reserved 
Tuesday, 11  October  2022 as the date of the Committee 's next formal meeting, on the 
understandin g that this date would be confirmed in an email well before the meeting itself, and that 
any additional meetings might also be convened, as required.  
9.2.  The Committee so agreed . 
__________