RESTRICTED  
  
G/IT/M/71  
 
30 January 2020  
(20-0772) Page: 1/13 
Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in 
Information Technology Products    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETI NG OF 31  OCTOBER  2019  
CHAIRPERSON: MR  KAZUNORI FUKUDA  
INTRODUCTION  
The Committee adopted the proposed agenda for the meeting circulated in 
document  WTO/AIR/IT/ 10, dated 21 October  2019. An annotated agenda for the meeting was 
circula ted in document  JOB/IT/2 4, dated 28 October  2019. The Chairperson stated that he would 
take up  three  issues under "Other Business" : (i) the date of the Committee 's next meeting ; 
(ii) Chair's consultations; and (iii) the proposal for holding a possible ITA  event in the second  half of 
2020.  
INTRODUCTION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  1 
1   REVIEW OF THE STATU S OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MINISTERIAL D ECLARATION 
ON TRADE IN INFORMAT ION TECHNOLOGY PRODU CTS (G/IT/1/REV.58)  .......................  2 
1.1   Request by Canada, China, Republic of Korea, Norway, and the United States Regarding an 
Implementation Issue Concerning India (G/IT/W/42 and G/IT/W/45)  ................................ ........  2 
1.2   Request by the European Union, Japan, and Chinese Taipei Regarding an Implementation 
Issue Concerning China  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 4 
1.3   Request by The United States Regarding an Implementation Issue Concerning Indonesia  ..... 5 
2   REVIEW OF PRODUCT C OVERAGE  ................................ ................................ ................  6 
3   NON-TARIFF MEASURES  WORK PROGRAMME  ................................ ..............................  6 
4   EMC/EMI PILOT PROJE CT – DRAFT LIST OF T YPES OF CONFORMITY A SSESSMENT 
PROCEDURES FOR EMC/E MI USED BY ITA  PARTICIPANTS (G/IT/W/17/REV.25)  ...........  7 
5   DIVERGENCES IN CLAS SIFYING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS 
(G/IT/14/REV.1/ADD.1 ; G/IT/W/6/REV.3; G/ IT/W/33; G/IT/W/34; G/IT/27; 
JOB/IT/12; G/IT/29; AND G/IT/W/40/ADD.1 -21, AND G/IT/W/40/SU PPL.4)  ..............  8 
5.1   Implementation of the Decision for the  Classification of  
18 Attachment  B products (G/IT/27)  ................................ ................................ .....................  8 
5.2   Implementation of the 2016  Decision for the Classification of  
an Additional 15  Items (G/IT/29)  ................................ ................................ ..........................  9 
5.3   Note by the Secretariat (G/IT/W/40 and its supplements and addenda)  .............................  9 
5.4   The request to update the "ITA  Model List" – JOB/07/96, dated 25  June 2007 .................... 10 
6   NEW PARTICIPANTS  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 10 
7   DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT  (2019) OF THE COMMI TTEE TO THE COUNCIL FOR  
TRADE IN GOODS (G/IT /W/49)  ................................ ................................ ....................  12 
8   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 12 
8.1   Date of the next meeting  ................................ ................................ ............................. 12 
8.2   Chair's consultations  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...12 
8.3   Proposal for holding a possible ITA  event in the second  half of 2020  ................................ .12 G/IT/M/71  
 
- 2 - 
 
   
1  REVIEW OF THE STATUS  OF IMPLEMENTATION O F THE MINISTERIAL DE CLARATION ON 
TRADE IN INFORMATION  TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS  (G/IT/1/REV.58)  
1.1.  The Chairperson  informed Participants that an overview of the Status of Implementation  of the 
Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information Technology Products could be found in 
document  G/IT/1/Rev.58.  
1.2.  He indicated  that, under this agenda item, in addition to an overview of the status of 
implementation, three  sub-agenda items ha d been added.  The first  sub-agenda item ha d been 
added at the request of Canada, China, the Republic of Korea, Norway, and the United States,  
regarding an implementation issue concerning India.  The second  sub-agenda item ha d been a dded 
at the request of the European Union, Japan, and Chinese Taipei , regarding an implementation issue 
concerning China.  The third  sub-agenda item ha d been added at the request of the United States,  
regarding an implementation issue concerning Indonesia.  
1.3.  For the overview of the Status of Implementation , he first flagged an outstanding issue 
concerning the missing submission of Morocco under the 1980  Procedures for Modification and 
Rectification of Schedules of Tariff Concessions . 
1.4.  As stated at previous meet ings of the Committee, Morocco had become a participant to the ITA 
on 14  November  2003. Nevertheless , Morocco had still not yet submitted its final ITA  schedule of 
commitments. However, despite outreach to Morocco undertaken on several occasions by previous 
ITA Chairpersons , including a letter that his predecessor had sent to the Minister of Economy and 
Finance of Morocco in the  autumn of 2017, a formal response  from Morocco had still not been 
received . 
1.5.  He urged Morocco to sub mit its ITA  schedule of commitments for formal modification and 
rectification , as required by the 1980  Decision, and to do so as soon as possible. He  suggested that 
the issue be discussed again at the Committee's next meeting.  
1.6.  He proposed  that the Committe e take note of his statement.  
1.7.  It was so agreed . 
1.1  Request by Canada, China, Republic of Korea, Norway, and the United States 
Regarding an Implementation Issue Concerning India (G/ IT/W/42 and G/ IT/W/45)  
1.8.  The Chairperson  turned to the first  sub-agenda item, which was the request by Canada, China, 
the Republic of Korea, Norway, and the United States,  regarding an implementation issue concerning 
India. In this context, he referred to document  G/IT/W/42, which had been circulated at the request 
of the delegations of the European Union, Japan, and the United States,  and to document  G/IT/W/45, 
which had been circulated at the request of the delegation of India.  
1.9.  The representative of Canada  considered India's continued application of tariffs  above its bound 
rates on a broad range of Information Communication Technology ( ICT) products to be inconsistent 
with its WTO commitments . In addition, it ran contrary to the objectives of multilateral tariff 
liberalization.  Canada remain ed deeply concerned over this  issue and it did not believe that India 
had addressed its concerns , and the concerns of numerous other WTO Members , raised in this 
Committee , the Market Access Committee, and the Council for Trade in Goods.  Canada  and other 
Members had submitted objection letters in response to India 's notification of Modification and 
Rectification of its Schedule of Tariff Concessions to unbind its commitments on a range of 
ICT products in order, as India claimed , to fix errors in transposition from HS2002 to HS2 007. 
However, such procedures were intended to be used only when the changes proposed did not alter 
the scope of a concession.  Since Canada ha d no evidence to substantiate India 's claim that errors 
were made in the transposition, it c ould only conclude tha t India 's proposed rectification d id, in fact, 
alter the scope of India 's tariff concessions pursuant to the WTO  ITA Agreement.  Beyond these 
systemic concerns, Canada continue d to have commercial concerns over India's application of tariffs 
on ICT  products  in excess of its WTO  bound commitments.  He noted that India's action ha d had an 
annual  impact of  $52.7 million on Indian imports from Canada over the period from 2016 to 2018.  G/IT/M/71  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.10.   In this context, Canada also considered it regrettable that India ha d rejected Canada 's request 
to join the separate consultations requests made by the European Union and Japan.  
1.11.   Canada indicated that it intended  to schedule a bilateral meeting with India in order to further 
discuss it s concerns over India's application of tariffs above its bound commitments.  
1.12.   The representative of the United States  regret ted the fact that they, and numerous other 
Members, ha d yet again to raise the issue of the inconsistencies between India 's WTO  commit ments 
to provide duty -free access on a range of information and communication technology products and 
the non -zero import duties , of up to 20% in some cases,  that India continued to charge on imported 
ITA products , including a number of commercially signif icant products from the United States.  The 
United States had  given India ample opportunity, both bilaterally and in the relevant committees, 
to address its actions and to abide by its commitments. Nevertheless, tariff increases had persist ed 
and may contin ue. The United States  also noted with interest the request for consultations filed 
recently by Chinese Taipei.  
1.13.   She o nce again call ed upon India to provide duty -free access for the ICT and 
telecommunications equipment products for which India had a WTO  commitment to do so.  
1.14.   The representative of  China  reiterate d their deep concerns over India's increased tariff s on 
ICT products, especially those on mobile phones an d their components. He stated that China 's 
commercial interests ha d been severely affected by India 's measures, which were inconsistent both 
with its commitments under the 1996 ITA and with its WTO  Schedule. China was of the view that 
these products were within the scope of the 1996  ITA and that India's applied rates ha d exceeded 
its WTO bound rates. He urged India immediately to bring the customs duties on the products in 
question back to their WTO bound rates.  
1.15.   He noted that some Members ha d already begun consultations with India under the 
DS mechanism. It was regrettable that India had refused China 's requests to join the se consultations 
given that China had a significant interest in this matter and the commercial impact upon it of India's 
measures was considerable . China  would continue to follow this issue closely and in the hope that, 
through dialogue, it might soon be resolved . 
1.16.   The representative of the  Republic of Korea  share d the concerns expressed by other Members 
over the issue of India 's tariff increases on certain ICT  products.  Indeed, numerous Members ha d 
repeatedly raised this issue at relevant meetings, including at the ITA  Committee and the Council 
for Trade in Goods.  There fore, Korea call ed upon India to provide duty -free access  to the 
ICT products at issue , as it had already undertaken to do . At the same time, Korea would continue 
to follow this issue closely . 
1.17.   The representative of Singapore  reiterate d their concern over India's  continued imposition of 
tariffs on products that Singapore believe d were covered under India's ITA commitments . Singapore 
wished to register their continued interest in this matter.  
1.18.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  expressed their ongoing concerns over India's tariffs on 
at least 32  ICT products , imposed  since 2014. On 2  September  2019, Chinese Taipei had requested 
consultations with the government of India,  pursuant to Article  4 of the Dispute Settlement 
Understanding ( DSU). She request ed India to abide by its commitment s and to restore its original 
zero tariff rates.  
1.19.   The representative of Thailand  remain ed concerned over India 's reimposition  of customs 
duties on an increasing number of ICT  products above its bound commitments.  She joined other 
delegations in requesting India to abide by its WTO  commitments.  Thailand would continue to 
monitor this matter closely.  
1.20.   The representative of Japan  informed the Committee that Japan had requested consultations 
with India on 10  May 2019 because  India appear ed to be subject ing a number of goods to import 
duties that were inconsistent with its schedule.  Considering  this development, she urged India to 
remove the tariffs at issue as soon as possible.  
1.21.   The representative of Australia  again raise d Australia's concerns over this matter.  G/IT/M/71  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.22.   The representative  of Switzerland  stated that Switzerland ha d been following this issue  closely 
and ha d expressed its concern s on numerous occasions.  Switzerland remained concerned by India's 
application of  tariffs on several ICT  products that were above its WTO  bound rates.  She urged India 
to bring its tariffs in to conformity  with its WTO  obligations . Swit zerland  would continue to follow this 
matter very closely.  
1.23.   The representative of the European Union  stated that she would not comment on the 
substance of this issue in view of the request for consultations that the EU ha d filed; even so, the 
EU wished to emphasize that they regret ted that India had not attended the meeting to address the 
many comments that Members had made . Nevertheless, the EU duly count ed on the delegation of 
India to engage in solid discussions in the context of th is Committee , as well as in other WTO  bodies 
where the issue had been raised.  
1.24.   The Chairperson  thanked those delegations that had intervened on this issue. He had wished 
to give the floor to India; however, the delegation of India was absent from the room. He suggested 
that the Committee take note of the statements made.  
1.25.   It was so agreed . 
1.2  Request by the European Union, Japan, and Chinese Taipei Regarding an 
Implementation Issue Co ncerning China  
1.26.   The Chairperson  turned to the second  sub-agenda item, which was the request by the 
European Union, Japan, and Chinese Taipei , regarding an implementation issue concerning China.  
1.27.   The representative of the  European Union  noted that there had b een many opportunities to 
discuss this issue in this Committee and in other WTO  bodies . She reiterate d the EU's concerns 
regarding China 's tariffs on Multi-Component Semiconductors ( MCOs ) following the transposition 
towards tariff heading  8542 under HS2017.  
1.28.   The EU had engaged in technical exchanges with the Chinese authorities in various contexts. 
Those discussions had especially concerned the division of MCOs into different categories and  the 
respective allocation of different duty rates. These discussions had continued at the 
Government/Authorities Meeting on Semiconductors (the GAMS  meeting).  
1.29.   She thank ed China for these exchanges  but insist ed that the information provided so far ha d 
not allayed the EU's concerns.  
1.30.   As the WTO  Secretariat had reiterated earlier this year , in response to a letter by the 
Chairperson of the 19th GAMS  Meeting, Members ha d agreed on a set of procedures to transpose 
their Goods Schedules into HS2017. Those procedu res had notably provide d that, in case the original 
concessions of HS2012  tariff lines were different, the new concession elements of the new 
HS2017  tariff line should reflect this  difference; indeed,  it should normally be broken down to a more 
detailed le vel so that the draft HS2017  file fully reflected the same level of concessions.  
1.31.   She noted that China could have created additional national tariff lines in order to continue to 
apply a zero  duty on those products that had  previously been duty-free, thereb y maintaining the 
value of its concessions , in keeping with the spirit of the ITA  Expansion.  
1.32.   She stated that the EU understood  that ITA Expansion participants were  at an advanced stage 
of tariff reduction on the products in question, in the context of the staging that China had negotiated 
as part of its ITA expansion ; nevertheless , this was insufficient reason for tolerating a situation 
where the scope of concession s had been changed.  
1.33.   She urged China to address the EU's repeatedly expressed concerns. If China d id not wish to 
modify its HS2017  classification at this stage, one  alternative would be to give a sign of its 
commitment to the ITA by accelerating the phasing -in of its tariff reduction on the products  at issue . 
1.34.   The representative of Japan  stated that Japan remain ed concerned about China 's classification 
of the IGBT -IPM (Intelligent Power Module).  She underst ood that, in accordance with the World 
Customs Organi zation ( WCO) Classification Opinions, IGBT -IPM should be classified under G/IT/M/71  
 
- 5 - 
 
  HS8542.39 , which was currently subject to a 2.1%  tariff. However, China  had treated some of the 
IGBT-IPM as products that d id not have properties of Multi -Component Semiconductors, and 
classified these items under HS8504.40. Products under the latter subheading were subject to a 
5% tariff. Japan  would continue its discussions with China at an expert level on this classification 
matter.  In addition, Japan would continue to closely monitor the situation regarding  China 's 
commitment to eliminating customs duties in July  2021 on all relevant items , in line with the staging 
of the ITA  Expansion.  
1.35.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  stated that they had raised this issue in different 
WTO meetings , including in this Committee, in the Committee on Market Access, and at the Council 
for Trade in Goods ( CTG). The same concern s were still being expressed by their semiconductor 
industry , even if China had explained that the tariffs would progressively diminish in the course of 
the coming five years.  
1.36.   She emphasized again that, based on the General Council Decision of 7  December  2016, the 
scope of the concessions and other commitments were to remain unchanged in the context of a 
Member 's HS2017  transposition. In their view, China had not provided enough  justification for 
choosing the method that applied an arithmetic average to the previous rates of duty. Considering 
the principal of tariff rate neutral and non -violation of a Member 's ITA obligation s, she again urged 
China immediately to eliminate tariffs on the MCO products at issue . 
1.37.   The represen tative of the United States  stated that this was an issue that the US had 
previously raised in this Committee as well as the Committee on Market Access and the Council for 
Trade in Goods. She s upport ed the statements made by the European Union , Japan, and 
Chinese  Taipei, and reiterate d US concern s over change s in China 's applied duty rates for certain 
semiconductor products.  The semiconductor products in question had been duty -free for over a 
decade but were now being charged import duties at the border. She continue d to assert, in line 
with the General Council Decision on Harmonized System ( HS) transpositions, that the scope of 
China 's concessions ha d changed substantially and that the value of the concession ha d been 
impaired.  
1.38.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  express ed Korea's concern s over this issue.  He 
believe d that all Members need ed to fully respect the spirit of the ITA and to fulfil their commitment s 
to the greatest extent possible.  The tariff rate applied by C hina to imports of MCO  products 
undermine d the spirit and the principle of the ITA, which was to increase the trade in ITA products 
and to facilitate tariff liberalization  in this area . He request ed China to provide further information in 
this regard . 
1.39.   The representative of China  thank ed the delegations of the European Union , Japan, 
Chinese  Taipei, the United States , and the Republic of Korea,  for expressing their concerns over this 
issue.  He said that his delegation  had responded to similar questions and co mments on this item at 
previous meetings of this Committee and at other relevant WTO  bodies . China  had also conducted 
a number of bilateral consultations with interested Members. While not wishing to repeat  its detailed 
and technical replies, he reiterate d the following key points : (i) in the transposition of MCO  products, 
due to technical reasons, China had used the fourth  method ology  suggested by the WTO  documents, 
which was a methodology also fully consistent with WTO  rules on HS2017  transposition ; (ii) it had 
always undertaken its tariff reduction commitments seriously; (iii) there had been no intention on 
China's part either deliberately to raise any tariff rate s, or to reduce any commitments ; and (iv) since 
1 July 2019, the tariff rates on MCO  products ha d been further reduced , to 1.3%, 1.4%, and 3.3%, 
respectively. Furthermore, all tariffs on MCO  products w ould be eliminated by July  2021, as had 
been scheduled.  
1.40.   The Chair person  proposed that the Committee take note of the statements made.  
1.41.   It was so agreed . 
1.3  Request by The United States Regarding an Implementation Issue Concerning 
Indonesia  
1.42.   The Chairperson  turned to the third  sub-agenda item, which was the request by the 
United  States regarding an implementation issue con cerning Indonesia.  G/IT/M/71  
 
- 6 - 
 
  1.43.   The representative of the United States  drew the attention of the Committee to Indonesia's  
application of tariffs at the border on a category of ICT  products , which appeared to be inconsistent 
with its WTO  bound tariff commitments.  By wa y of example , she cited Indonesia's  duty-free tariff 
commitment for all products classified under tariff subheading  8517.62. However, US and 
Indonesian traders had report ed that a 10%  duty was being levied for certain products in this tariff 
category.  She reported that the US had already raised this issue in May  2019. She requested an 
explanation of these inconsistencies  and wished also to know, as soon as possible, how Indonesia 
intend ed to resolve them.  
1.44.   The representative of the European Uni on thank ed the US  delegation for its update on this 
issue.  She noted that this was an issue that merited close attention , especially in light of Indonesia 's 
commitment to provide duty -free access on tariff lines under tariff heading  8517. 62. She also 
menti oned that , at the ITA 's previous formal meeting , in May  2019, the Indonesian delegate had 
informed Members that they would be consult ing with their  Capital for further information and to 
seek clarification on possible next steps. She looked forward to receiving an update from Indonesia 
in this regard. In conclusion, she noted that the EU would continue to monitor this issue closely.  
1.45.   The representative of Japan  thank ed the United States for drawing their attention to this 
issue. She stated th at Japan was interested in this matter and request ed that Indonesia provide the 
information necessary for the matter  to be verified . 
1.46.   The representative of Indonesia  responded that his country had taken note of the concern s 
expressed by the United States , the European Union , and Japan, on the issue of the duties imposed 
on certain products that had been alleged to fall under the scope of the ITA.  Indonesia was seriously 
considering this issue and wished  to underscore that it was not Indonesia's  intention to act beyond 
its commitments or obligations under the ITA.  Currently , Indonesia's relevant authorities at technical 
level were conducting internal investigation s to get to the root of the issue and to find the best way 
to rectify it.  From their initial observation s, it appeared that the discrepancy may have been a result 
of the HS  transposition , which had merged two  different HS  codes.  He emphasized that Indonesia 
was committed to resolving this issue  but also noted that  Indonesia was in a period  of transition in 
light of its new government ; therefore, the investigation m ight take longer to complete.  While 
Indonesia's relevant authorities were working on this issue, and to show their seriousness, Indonesia 
indicated that it remained open to receiv ing additional inputs from the United States and other 
Members  in the context of further discussions . 
1.47.   The Chair person  proposed that the Committee take note of the statements made.  
1.48.   It was so agreed . 
2  REVIEW OF PRODUCT CO VERAGE  
2.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that, since  the Committee 's meeting of 15  May 2012, and as 
requested by some delegations, the "review of product coverage" ha d been included as a regular 
item on the Committee 's agenda . It provide d an opportunity for the Committee to receive repor ts 
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.  
2.2.  As no delegation wished to report or make a statement on this m atter, he proposed that the 
Committee agree to revert to it, as appropriate, at its next meeting . 
2.3.  It was so agreed . 
3  NON-TARIFF MEASURES WORK PROGRAMME  
3.1.  The Chairperson  then turned to the Work Programme on Non-Tariff Measures ( NTMs ). He 
reminded the Committee that paragraph  3 of the Annex to the 1996  Ministerial Declaration required 
that "Participants […] meet periodically […] to consult on non -tariff barriers to trade in information 
technology products."  He recalled that t he Committee ha d attached gr eat importance to Non-Tariff 
Barriers ( NTBs) and that, since 2000, NTBs ha d become an essential part of the regular work of the 
Committee.  G/IT/M/71  
 
- 7 - 
 
  3.2.  He recall ed that, on 7  May 2015, an industry -driven workshop dedicated to NTBs affecting 
trade in ICT  products had be en organized. The main issues that had been raised at that workshop 
by industry representatives were: (i)  transparency; (ii)  standards for recognition of test results; 
(iii) e-labelling; and (iv)  energy efficiency. A factual report by the Chair person  had b een circulated 
in document  G/IT/28. At subsequent meetings of the Committee, the Chair person  had been tasked 
to continue consultations on the follow -up to the ITA  NTB workshop.  
3.3.  He also recall ed that NTBs had also been extensively discussed at the ITA 20th Anniversary 
Symposium , which had been held in June  2017.  
3.4.  He further recalled that , at the Committee 's meeting of 14  May 2019, Switzerland, as 
coordinator of the informal consultations on NTBs among a small group of participants, consisting of 
15 Members, had reported to the Committee on the work that the group had carried out. The main 
purpose of the group was to advance the work on NTM -related issues within the context of the 
ITA Agreement. The group ha d been working more specifically on the following issues: conformity 
assessment procedures; test results; e -labelling; and transparency.  He invited the delegation of 
Switzerland to update the Committee on any further developments in this regard.  
3.5.  The representative of Switzerland  stated that her delegation had been coordinating an informal 
group of 15 Members interested in the advancement of NTM -related issues within the context of the 
ITA. The group worked more specifically on issues linked to con formity assessment procedures linked 
to test results, e -labelling, and transparency. As had been reported at the Committee's previous 
meeting, the current state of play remained the same. The Committee would continue to be informed 
in case of  any developme nts. She recall ed that participation in this group was open to all 
ITA participants that were interested in NTM  issues.  In this context, if any delegation had question s 
regarding the work of the group, or if they were interested in participating  in it, they should not 
hesitate to contact her delegation or one of the other members of th e group at any time.  
3.6.  Speaking for Switzerland itself , she reiterate d the importance of non -tariff measures in the 
area of ICT  products, which were nowadays the main obstacle to trade in this area, given that for 
most ICT  products tariffs were already at zero or close to zero.  She encourage d WTO Members to 
work together towards the advancement of  NTM-related issues, which f ell within the mandate of the 
Committee.  
3.7.  The representative of the European Union  thanked  Switzerland for its update.  She noted that 
the ITA and its expansion ha d brought considerable benefits in terms of eliminating tariffs , and that 
it was of fundamental importance to follow -up on these benefits with progress to remove non -tariff 
barriers with a view to further facilitating trade in IT  products.  The EU remain ed committed to that 
objective , even if the y were aware of the challen ges that were involved in moving towards 
commitment in regulatory areas under the umbrella of the ITA.  In conclusion, she stated that the 
EU looked forward to engaging in any further work that might be undertaken in this area.  
3.8.  The Chairperson  proposed that  the Committee take note of the statements made and revert to 
the matter, as appropriate, at its next meeting . 
3.9.  It was so agreed . 
4  EMC/EMI PILOT PROJEC T – DRAFT LIST OF TYPES OF CONFORMITY ASSESS MENT 
PROCEDURES FOR EMC/E MI USED BY ITA  PARTICIPANTS (G/IT/W /17/REV.25)  
4.1.  The Chair person  turned next to the EMC/EMI  Pilot Project  and recall ed that one of the outcomes 
of the NTM  Work Programme had been the completion of a pilot project that had led to the adoption 
of the "Guidelines for Electrom agnetic Compatibility (EMC) and Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) 
Conformity Assessment Procedures". Upon adoption of these "Guidelines", the Secretariat had 
prepared a note on the "Draft List of Types of Conformity Assessment Procedures for EMC/EMI used 
by ITA  Participants", as contained in document  G/IT/W/17 and its revisions. The note contain ed the 
responses to the survey and other notifications received from participants on the type of assessment 
procedures for EMC/EMI that they use d. ITA Participants had indicated on several occasions that 
they had found the information contained in this document to be very useful and that they wished 
to have it completed.  G/IT/M/71  
 
- 8 - 
 
  4.2.  He recalled that, as noted at the Committee 's previous  meeting, on 14  May 2019, his 
predecessor h ad sent further reminder s to the 12  remaining participants that had not yet provided 
any information on their conformity assessment procedures; in addition, on 10  September  2019, he 
himself had sent additional reminders to those 12  remaining participants. Since then, one additional 
submission had been received by the Secretariat, from Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan 's submission was a 
survey response that had been circulated in document  G/IT/SPEC/Q4/36.  
4.3.  He then explained that, at present, of the 53  ITA Participants, 42 had provided information on 
their conformity assessment procedures for EMC/EMI , as per document  G/IT/W/17/Rev.26. He 
reported that  there remained 11 Participants that ha d not yet provided any information on their 
conformity asse ssment procedures.  
4.4.  In addition, he reported that he  had also begun to undertake consultations with certain 
ITA participants, including those whose EMC/EMI  submissions were pending. He planned to continue 
these consultations.  
4.5.  He considered that information on conformity assessment procedures for EMC/EMI used by 
ITA Participants enhanced transparency and facilitated international trade in this important sector . 
For this reason, he encourage d the remaining 11  delegations that ha d not yet done so to provide 
the relevant information to the Secretariat as soon as possible to enable the Committee to complete 
this aspect of its work. He indicated that if, by the date of the next Committee meeting, in the spring 
of 2020, the delegations concerned were still not yet able to submit their relevant information on 
EMC/EMI, he would call upon them to indicate to the Committee the ir reason s why. 
4.6.  He noted that the Committee was  drawing closer to the finalization of this pilot project, and 
asked Participants to reflect upon what steps, if any, they would be prepared to consider with a view 
to maximizing the usefulness of the information on EMC/EMI  conformity assessment procedures that 
had been provided. Participants were invited to share their in sights in this regard with the 
Chair person , and with the Secretariat, at any time , or with the full Committee now or at its next 
meeting.  
4.7.  He proposed  that the Committee take note of his report under this agenda item.  
4.8.  It was so agreed . 
5  DIVERGENCES IN CLASS IFYING INFORMATION TE CHNOLOGY 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, AND G/IT/W/40/S UPPL.4)  
5.1.  The Chairperson  then turned to the agenda item on divergences in classifying information 
technology products.  Under this agenda item, there were  four sub-items : (i) the implementation of 
the 2013  Decision for the classification of 18  Attachment  B products (G/IT/27); (ii)  the 
implementation of the 2016  Decision for the classification of an additional 15  items (G/IT/29); 
(iii) the "Note by the Secretariat on the Divergences of Classification of the Remaining 
22 Attachment  B Items", as contained in document  G/IT/W/40 and its supplements and addenda ; 
and (iv)  the proposal made by the delegation of the United States at the last Committee meeting to 
update the ITA  Model List in document  JOB/07/96.  
5.1  Implementation of the Decision for the Classification of 18  Attachment  B products 
(G/IT/27)  
5.2.  The Chairperson  recall ed that, on 20  July 2013, th e 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 this Decision, each participant must reflect the agreed classifications in its 
WTO Schedule of concess ions, as appropriate, following the 1980  Decision on the Procedures for 
Modification and Rectification of Schedules  of Tariff Concessions  (BISD  27S/25) . 
5.3.  He stated that, s ince the Committee 's previous  meeting, no Member ha d approached the 
Secretariat for as sistance. At the same time, he noted that the technical work involved in this 
exercise was time -consuming and thus c ould only be undertaken on a gradual basis.  He also urged G/IT/M/71  
 
- 9 - 
 
  developing country participants to contact the Secretariat if they require d techni cal assistance with 
the modification of their schedules.  
5.4.  He proposed that the Committee take note of his update . 
5.5.  It was so agreed . 
5.2  Implementation of the 2016  Decision for the Classification of an Additional 15  Items 
(G/IT/29)  
5.6.  The Chairperson  turned next to the second  sub-item and recalled that , on 18  April 2016, the 
Committee had adopted the "Decision for HS2007  Classification of 15  Additional 'Attachment  B' 
Products", which had been circulated in document  G/IT/29. Most of the items covered by this 
Decision relate d to 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).  
5.7.  He reported that , regard ing the implementati on of the 2016  Decision, no new Member ha d 
approached the Secretariat for assistance since the Committee's previous  meeting.  
5.8.  He proposed that the Committee take note of his update.  
5.9.  It was so agreed . 
5.3  Note by the Secretariat (G/IT/W/40 and its supplements and addenda)  
5.10.   The Chairperson  turned to the third  sub-item, concerning the remaining 22  Attachment  B 
items , as contained in the Note by the Secretariat on "Divergence of Classification: Possible 
HS2007  Classification for the Remaining 37  'Attach ment B' Items" , which had  originally been 
circulated as document  G/IT/W/40, based on the Swiss proposal for a three -step procedure 
(JOB/IT/12).  
5.11.   He recalled that, a t 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 question." It was 
also agreed that "The Secretariat will compile communications received in a separate document. On 
that basi s, participants would then be expected to assess the next steps that could be taken to 
reduce any remaining divergence in classification."  
5.12.   He reported that, so far, the Secretariat had received comments from 21  participants . These 
had been circulated as ad denda 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); 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); Ch ina (G/IT/W/40/Add.6); Japan (G/IT/W/40/Add.7); Canada 
(G/IT/W/40/Add.8); the United States (G/IT/W/40/Add.9); India (G/IT/W/40/Add.10); Macao, 
China (G/IT/W/40/Add.11); El Salvador (G/IT/W/40/Add.12); the Republic of Korea 
(G/IT/W/40/Add.13); Panama (G/IT /W/40/Add.14); Thailand (G/IT/W/40/Add.15); Guatemala 
(G/IT/W/40/Add.16); Mauritius (G/IT/W/40/Add.17); Montenegro (G/IT/W/40/Add.18); the Russian 
Federation (G/IT/W/40/Add.19); Seychelles (G/IT/W/40/Add.20); and New Zealand 
(G/IT/W/40/Add.21).  
5.13.   All these c omments ha d been consolidated in to document  G/IT/W/40/Suppl .4, which also 
considered  the 2016  Decision on the classification of the additional 15  items. Therefore, as 
participants could see from that document, there remain ed 22 Attachment  B items for which  
Participants should provide their comments with a view to arriving at a common HS  classification.  
5.14.   In this regard, he invite d delegations that ha d not yet provided their comments on the possible 
HS2007  classification of the remaining 22 items to do so as soon as possible with a view  to arriving 
at a common classification for these products within existing HS  nomenclature and to fulfil the G/IT/M/71  
 
- 10 - 
 
  mandate of paragraph  5 of the Annex to the  Ministerial Declaration  on Information Technology 
Products . 
5.15.   He proposed that the Committee take note of his update.  
5.16.   It was so agreed . 
5.4  The request to update the "ITA  Model List" – JOB/07/96 , dated 25  June  2007  
5.17.   The Chairperson  move d to the sub -agenda item  concerning a request to update the ITA  Model 
List, JOB/07/96 , dated 25  June 2007.  
5.18.   He recalled that , at the Committee 's previous  meeting, held on 14  May 2019, the delegation 
of the United States had requested the Secretariat to update this JOB  document to include HS2012 
and HS2017  nomenclatures. In the view of the U S delegation, this document was very helpful. It 
tracked ITA product coverage and classification divergences through the changes in nomenclature 
from 1996 through to 2007. It ha d been particularly helpful to the US with regard to monitoring and 
tracking implementation issues and trade flows in ITA  products.  
5.19.   The representative of the Secretariat  stated that t he HS2007  ITA model list had been issued 
in June  2007, in document  JOB/07/96.  Since then, the ITA  Committee ha d narrowed down the 
classification divergences on several items.  The World Customs Organization ha d also communicated 
its classification opinion on set top boxes  (see document  G/IT/26/Add.2 ). 
5.20.   Two decisions had been approved by the Committee regarding the classification of  
Attachment  B products: document  G/IT/27 covered  the classification of 18  items in HS1996; 
document  G/IT/29 covered 15 additional items in HS2007. Since these classification decisions had 
been issued after the circulation of the model list  the work to upda te the model list would be checked 
against them. 
5.21.   The World Customs Organization correlation tables ha d been used to identify items from the 
model list that w ould be affected by the change from the HS2007 to the HS2012  version of the HS.  
These tables ha d also been used to identify products that would be affected between the 2012 to 
2017 HS  version s. 
5.22.   Unlike in the case of the transposition to HS2007, there d id not seem to be any change that 
lacked consensus among the WCO contracting parties regarding the correlation linked to ITA  items.  
5.23.   Also, the number of sub -headings affected by change s in HS was lower than for the 
2007 transposition.  The work on updating the ITA  model list had been  progressing well.  
5.24.   The Secretariat would also be guided by the ITA  Schedu les that ha d been approved in 
HS2012, keeping in mind that classification divergences m ight exist among countries.  
5.25.   The representative of the  United States  thank ed the Secretariat for its update and work in 
this area . She looked forward to continuing th is conversation . 
5.26.   The Chair person  proposed that the Committee take note of the statements made.  
5.27.   It was so agreed . 
6  NEW PARTICIPANTS  
6.1.  The Chairperson  report ed that, on 13  September  2019, the Secretariat had received a 
communication from the Permanent Mission of Bosnia and Herzegovina, dated 10  September  2019, 
confirming its commitment to become a participant of the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in 
Information Technology Products (ITA) upon its accession to the WTO.  On the same date, 
13 September  2019, the Secretariat had also received Bosnia and Herzegovina 's draft ITA  Schedule 
for circulation to Participants for their review and approval.  The Secretariat ha d performed an 
electronic verification of Bosnia and Herzegovina 's ITA Schedule and had found that there were no 
discrepancies.  On 25  September  2019, the Secretariat 's verification sheet and an electronic version G/IT/M/71  
 
- 11 - 
 
  of Bosnia and Herzegovina 's ITA Schedule (in both Excel and PDF  format) had been forwarded to all 
ITA participants with a covering e -mail from the Chair person . In that e -mail, the Chairperson had 
proposed that the ITA  Schedule of Bosnia and Herzegovina be deemed to be approved, unless any 
participant would notify its objection in writing to the Secretariat by close of business  on Friday, 
25 October  2019.  
6.2.  On 25  October  2019, within the deadline, one participant submitted its comments in writing. 
On 28  October  2019, the Secretariat transmitted these comments to the delegation of Bosnia and 
Herzegovina. On 29  October  2019, the delegation of Bosnia and Herzegovina submitted a revised 
version of its draft ITA  Schedule and indicated that it had taken into account all the issues that had 
been raised  by that delegation . On the same date, Bosnia and Herzegovina 's revised draft 
ITA Schedule had been forwarded to the delegation that had submitted its comments on it.  
6.3.  He reported that he had received a positive response from th e delegation that had made 
comments on the draft ITA  Schedule of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This had suggest ed to him  that the 
ITA Schedule of Bosnia and Herzegovina could now be approved on the basis of an e-mail to 
Participants from the Chair , indicating the changes made as a result of the comments received . 
6.4.  In conclusion, he reiterated  that, s ince Bosnia and Herzegovi na had confirm ed its commitment 
to become a participant to the 1996  Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information Technology 
Products (ITA) upon its accession to the WTO, he would issue a communication to confirm Bosnia 
and Herzegovina 's ITA membership u pon its WTO accession.  
6.5.  The representative of the United States  underscored her delegation 's appreciation for the steps 
that Bosnia and Herzegovina had been taking to become an ITA  participant . She stated that her 
delegation had reviewed the draft ITA  Schedule of Bosnia and Herzegovina and had provided 
comments on relevant tariff lines.  She thank ed Bosnia and Herzegovina for its quick response to 
their comments . Since they did not have any furthe r questions at this time , the United States was 
in a position to approve Bosnia and Herzegovina's ITA Schedule , noting that  their comments had 
been accurately incorporated into the final consolidated schedule of concessions.  
6.6.  However, she raised a point regarding the Committee 's meeting agenda , considering it  relevant 
to this issue , namely that, in future , if Members were in fact expected to take a certain decision 
during the course of a meeting , such as the approval of a draft ITA  Schedule , her delegation  
requested that the meeting agenda be clearly and specifically identif ied. In addition, she stated  that, 
since such decisions require d specific instructions from Capital, it  was important that participants be 
allowed adequate time to consult.  In conclusion, she reiterated the importance for her delegation of 
clarity in a meeting's agenda.  
6.7.  The representative of the European Union  thanked the Chair for his useful update.  However, 
she requested the Chair to clarify the process . Her understanding had be en that participants would 
not be called upon to approve Bosnia and Herzegovina's Schedule at this meeting ; and that the Chair 
would circulate a message suggesting to approve it, and that all participants would be aware of the 
latest changes.  
6.8.  The Chairperson  clarified that  he would shortly circulate an e -mail indicating the changes made 
as a result of the comments received from one delegation.  A clear deadline for comments would also 
be indicated, after which date, if appropriate, the ITA Schedule of Bosnia and Herzegovina would be 
considered to have been approved.  
6.9.  He thanked the United States and the European Union for their interventions  in this regard . 
6.10.   In response to the separate point raised by the United States  on greater clarity in meeting 
agendas, he would certainly consider the point raised carefully. He would consult with the Secretariat 
on how best to make the agenda clearer  in future . 
6.11.   He suggest ed that the Committee take note of all the statements made.  
6.12.   It was so agreed . G/IT/M/71  
 
- 12 - 
 
  7  DRAFT ANNUAL REPOR T (2019) OF THE COMM ITTEE TO THE COUNCIL  FOR TRADE IN 
GOODS (G/IT/W/49)  
7.1.  The Chairperson  then turned to the Committee 's draft annual report to the Council for Trade 
in Goods . The Committee 's draft annual report was contained in document  G/IT/W/49  and would be 
updated to reflect developments from this meeting.  
7.2.  The draft annual report was approved , with the inclusion of updates and modifications, where 
appropriate, to reflect the discussions that had taken place at this meeting.  
7.3.  It was so agreed . 
8  OTHER BUSINESS  
8.1.  The Chairperson  informed the Committee that he would take up the following three  issues 
under this agenda  item: (i) the date of the next meeting; (ii) Chair's consultations; and (iii) a 
proposal for holding a possible ITA  event in the second  half of 2020.  
8.1  Date of the next meeting  
8.2.  The Chairperson  stated that t he next meeting of the Committee would be held in the spring of 
2020.  
8.2  Chair 's consultations  
8.3.  The Chairperson  recalled that, on 4  July 2019, he had circulated a communication to all 
ITA Participants, in which he had invited ITA  Participants to engage in an informal exchange of views 
with him on the current work of the ITA  Committee.  
8.4.  Since  then, he had met informally with several delegations. He wished to thank those 
delegations for their helpful and valuable inputs.  
8.5.  As he had found these informal consultations to be useful, he wished to continue holding such 
informal consultations with any interested delegations that ha d not yet already consulted with him. 
To this end, he encourage d intere sted participants to contact the Secretariat to schedule an 
appointment.  
8.3  Proposal for holding a possible ITA  event in the second  half of 2020  
8.6.  The Chairperson  recalled that at the ITA Symposium held on 27 -28 June 2017, it was proposed 
to organize another ITA  workshop.  In the course of the preparations for the WTO  Biennial Technical 
Assistance and Training Plan for 2020-2021, a proposal was made , as a follow -up to that request,  
to include an ITA  event that would possibly be held in the second  half o f 2020.  
8.7.  He stated that , once the biennial plan had been approved, he would undertake consultations 
with interested delegations with a view to deciding upon the exact timing and main themes for 
discussions at the proposed ITA  event.  
8.8.  The representative of Canada intervene d regarding the Chairperson's mention of the next 
meeting of the ITA  Committee in the spring of 2020 . He suggest ed that the Chair , with the 
Secretariat , announce a date as soon as possible for that meeting so that his delegation could plan 
for it in advance . He also wished  the Chair and Secretariat to the best of their ability to plan that 
meeting around other potentially related committee  meetings . He underst ood that there were 
sometimes obstacles and that meeting rooms were sometimes unavailable . Nevertheless, his 
delegation wished to stitch related committee meetings together so as to enable them potentially to 
encourage Capital -based participation in these discussions. His intervention was simply an 
encouragement  to provide a date as soon as possible and , if possible , to link the meeting to other 
related committee meetings.  G/IT/M/71  
 
- 13 - 
 
  8.9.  The Chairperson  thanked Canada for its suggestions and stated that he would certainly consult 
with the Secretariat so that he could announce t he exact timing of the next meeting as soon as 
possible.  
__________