RESTRICTED  
  
TCA/M/40  
28 November  2022 
(22-8854) Page: 1/4 
Committee on Trade in Civil Aircraft   
 
  
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING  
HELD ON 3 NOVEMBER 2022  
CHAIRPERSON: MR JEAN MARIE MERALDI (SWITZERLAND)  
1. At the outset of the meeting, the Chair  explained that the meeting was held both in -person 
as well as remotely.  
 
2. No request was made by Signatories for any item to be taken up under "Other business", and 
so the Committee adopted the agenda contained in document WTO/AIR/TCA/ 10. 
 
1  APPLICATION FROM  BRAZIL FOR ITS ACCESSION TO THE AGREEMENT  
3. The Chair explained that t he application from Brazil for its accession to the Agreement could 
be found in documents TCA/19, TCA/19/Add.1, and TCA/19/Suppl.1. The Chair recall ed that the 
Committee held a Special Me eting on 10 October to discuss the process to be followed regarding 
Brazil's application. In line with what was laid out at that Special Meeting, the first Dedicated Informal 
Meeting was held in the morning. Signatories and Brazil had a good discussion. He recap ped the 
process to be followed from here , and recalled that this was what was explained in the Special 
Meeting held on 10 October. For all the questions for which written response s were requested, those 
questions should be submitted in writing by 8  November  2022. Brazil would then be asked to 
respond to those questions in writing, and would be invited to communicate to the Chair and to the 
Secretariat its timing for doing so. As was expl ained at the 10  October Special Meeting, those 
documents would be circulated only to the Signatories and Brazil. He would inform the Signatories 
of the details of the next steps in due course.  
4. The Chair took the opportunity to ask whether any delegation wi shed to take the floor to offer 
its views  on the general issue of how to design the procedures for future accessions. As he stated 
at the Special Meeting held on 10  October, the way forward described above we re designed to 
facilitate the discussion on Braz il's application, and it was not meant to be a rigid model for the 
future.  
5. No delegation took the floor.  
6. The Committee took note  of the Chair's statements.  
2  TRANSPOSITION EXERCISE OF THE PRODUCT COVERAGE ANNEX  
7. The Chair  recalled that the Secretariat had circulated a technical note, contained in document 
RD/TCA/14, outlining the extent to which the Product Coverage Annex of the Agreement may need 
to be updated or revised in the light of the changes introduced in HS2012, H S2017 and HS2022. 
The Chair recapped what the Committee decided regarding the format of the result of this exercise. 
He quoted from the minutes of the regular meeting held November 2021: "The Chair stated that she 
heard no opposition, and so she proposed t hat the Committee decide to initiate such a transposition 
exercise: that is, the transposition exercise of the Product Annex to reflect the changes introduced 
in HS2012, HS2017 and HS2022 with the aim to produce a Protocol, as the Committee did in 2001 
and 2015. The Committee so decided."1 In short, it was agreed that the result of this exercise would 
take the form of a Protocol. With this background, he gave the floor to the Secretariat to make the 
presentation  regarding changes that were reflected in the  technical note, including an explanation 
of the concordance process for affected codes.  
 
1 See TCA/M/38, para s. 10-11. TCA/M/40  
- 2 - 
  8. After the presentation  by the Secretariat , several delegations took the floor.  
9. Canada  thanked the Secretariat for the presentation, and welcomed the proposed addition  of 
concordance tables to the Secretariat’s technical note. It also referred to the explanation by the 
Secretariat that there were three types of changes – (i) deletion of subheading, (ii) change of 
HS Product Description and (iii) change of product coverage without changes to subheading or 
HS Product Description – and asked what the difference between the second and the third was.  
10. The Secretariat  responded to the question using the "HS Tracker" .2 "Change (i)" referred to a 
situation where a specific  subheading was deleted and all the products previously placed under that 
subheading have been moved to another subheading. "Change (ii)" referred to a situation where a 
specific subheading was maintained, but the HS product description of that subheading changed and 
new items were added; or certain items currently covered therein were removed. Lastly, 
"Change  (iii)" refers to other changes in the HS revision, such as when it was decided that a specific 
product formerly covered by that subheading was to be now covered in another subheading but that 
this change of coverage does not result in a change to the subheading or HS product description.  
11. The United States  strongly endorsed the initiation of the transposition exercise. In order to 
reach an understanding  on the scope of the Agreement in all of the more recent nomenclatures – 
HS 2012, HS 2017 and HS2022 – a detailed concordance exercise and review needed to be 
undertaken for each version of the newer nomenclature. The United States requested the Secretaria t 
to prepare concordance information on a product specific basis, at a HS 6 -digit level, between each 
nomenclature using the most recent Protocol as the basis for the initial work. After the transposition 
work was completed and reviewed by Members, the Com mittee should then review and agree, in a 
process that is to be determined, to a version of the Agreement’s product scope in HS 2012, 
HS 2017, and HS 2022. It was important to have an understanding, even if not via a full protocol, 
on the product scope of the Agreement in each nomenclature, in order to be able to conduct other 
Committee work, such as considering a new accession.  
12. Japan  stated that HS transposition conversion of the Product Annex was meaningful because 
that would make it possible to confirm t he commitments of each Signatories in the context of the 
newer HS code. While Japan understood that it would be a mixed format of paper process and 
meetings, it asked what the future schedule would be . 
13. The European Union  stated that having th e Product Annex up to date  in terms of nomenclature 
would ensure appropriate transparency. The European Union agreed with the proposed approach to 
carry out a neutral transposition to HS2012, HS2017 and HS2022 in one single exercise. As 
mentioned at past occasions, main taining the scope of the Agreement through a neutral 
transposition was essential.  
14. The Chair  explained the subsequent process. He suggested the following: First, Signatories 
would be asked to submit in writing any comments or questions on the technical note  by 
30 November  2022. This was not a deadline set in stone. If the Signatories so wished, he could set 
a different deadline. The Secretariat would circulate those comments or questions in the 
RD/TCA/(number) series. At which point of time the Committee nee ds to hold an informal meeting 
on this matter depended on what kind of questions or comments would be submitted, as well as the 
number of questions and comment. He would inform the Signatories on this issue once he had a 
better view.  
15. Canada  stated that it first wished to receive today's presentation in electronic form as well as 
the concordance table.  
16. The Chair  stated that the presentation would be sent by e -mail shortly, and that the  
concordance table would be ready in approximately two wee ks. In this light, the timing of 
"30 November  2022" , which he stated moments ago , was now amended . He would inform a new 
timing once the concordance table  was made available . The timing to submit comments or questions 
on the technical note would be communi cated in due course. He expected this timing to be something 
like one month after the concordance table was made available.  
17. The Committee took note  of the statements.  
 
2 https://hstracker.wto.org/  TCA/M/40  
- 3 - 
  3  IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT  – TRANSPARENCY AND POSSIBLE 
COMPLEMENTARY MEANS  
18. The Chair recalled the purpose of this item by referring to the minutes of the Committee 
meeting of November 2021: "The Chair recalled that she had been reporting at every recent regular 
meeting that there were very few Participants that have submitted an instrume nt of acceptance of 
the 2015 Protocol. The situation was basically the same for the 2001 Protocol. In order to have a 
better understanding of the situation, she organized two informal meetings. … At the two informal 
meetings, several interesting comments w ere made. For example, several Participants indicated that 
even though they did not undertake the domestic procedure to ratify the Protocols, they still used 
them as a basis to modify their schedules accordingly. Some Participants also mentioned that the 
procedures used in other Committees such as the ITA Committee or the Committee on Market Access 
could offer some ideas on how to improve transparency and how to devise possible complementary 
means to the Protocol. The Chair understood that the Participants were interested in pursuing 
discussions on: (i) how to strengthen transparency and/or (ii) a possible complementary means to 
be devised through the Committee in light of the fact that few Participants have submitted letters of 
acceptance."3 The then -chair wrapped up this item by stating that the chair would continue 
consultations on possible concrete ideas and on the way forward. The Chair explained that he did 
not have any concrete ideas on how to proceed with this matter at this point in time, and invite d the 
Signatories' views.  
19. The United States  stated that it support ed a complementary approach, including taking a 
formal Committee decision on an updated product list. This would allow Participants to show support 
and consensus for the Agreement’s product  coverage in a more current nomenclature, and provide 
needed clarity to the traders. The United States looked forward to continuing discussing these and 
other ideas with other Signatories, especially as the Committee’s work on transposition advance d. 
The U nited States also welcomed an informal transparency exercise that would help Signatories 
better understand how the Agreement’s commitments were reflected in their bound and applied 
schedules, especially end -use systems. The United States looked forward to engaging with other 
Participants on the format of a potential transparency exercise.  
20. The European Union  considered a transparency exercise necessary, as it was important that 
all participants had the same understanding of the coverage in terms of HS codes , and when 
necessary the ex-outs, since these were the key in terms of legal certainty. Such exercise was 
essential to ensure that the scope of the Agreement d id not change.  
21. Chinese Taipei  understood that there had not been too many Members that accepted the 2001 
Protocol and the 2015 Protocol, and that this situation may not change dramatically in the future. 
However, from a practical point of view, Chinese Taipei was open to discussing any complementary 
means, and was also willing to learn best practice.  Chinese Taipei looked forward to any future 
clarification on how this transparency exercise would be undertaken.  
22. Canada  stated that it was open to discussing the transparency exercise, and looked forward 
to hearing ideas. Canada reiterated its position th at it need not submit a letter of acceptance since 
the necessary commitments were incorporated into its tariff schedules.   
23. The Chair stated that he understood that the Committee needed more time to think about this 
issue. He would raise this issue again at  the next regular meeting, or at any other appropriate 
occasion before that.  
24. The Committee took note  of the statements.  
4  DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
25. The Committee agreed  to hold its next regular meeting in the end of October or early 
November 202 3, with the exact date to be confirmed in due course.  
 
3 See TCA/M/38, para.  12. TCA/M/40  
- 4 - 
  5  ADOPTION OF THE ANNUAL REPORT FOR 202 2 
26. The Chair  suggested that with the help of the Secretariat, he would complete the draft  of the 
annual report4 and send the updated final draft to all the Signatories . If no objection was received  
by the deadline , the final draft would be taken as final and circulated .5 
 
27. The meeting was adjourned . 
__________  
 
4 Document RD/TCA/16.  
5 The final report, adopted on 7  November  2022, was circulated as WT/L/1158 -TCA/20.