RESTRICTED  
  
G/MA/M/74  
 
4 October  2021 
(21-7416) Page: 1/69 
Committee on Market Access  
  Original: English  
 
  
MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE ON MARKET ACCESS  
29 AND 30 APRIL  2021  
CHAIRPERSON: MR  ANATOLY CHAPLIN  (RUSSIAN FEDERATION ) 
The Committee  on Market Access (CMA, or the Committee)  adopted  the agenda as reproduced in 
document s WTO/AIR/MA/1 4/Rev.1  and WTO/AIR/MA/14/Rev.1/Add.1 , with the inclusion of the 
following item under Other Business: "Nepal – Import Ban on Energy Drinks – Statement by 
Thailand".  An annotated agenda had been circulated in document  JOB/MA/14 8. 
 
1   INTRODUCTION OF HARMONIZED SYSTEM CHANGES TO SCHEDULES OF 
CONCESSIONS – STATUS REPORT (G/MA/W/158/REV.2)  ................................ ..............  3 
− HS1996 ( WT/L/6905)  ................................ ................................ ...............................  3 
− HS2002 ( WT/L/605 and WT/L/807)  ................................ ................................ ............  3 
− HS2007 (WT/L/673 and WT/L/830)  ................................ ................................ ............  3 
− HS2012 (WT/L/831)  ................................ ................................ ................................  3 
− HS2017 (WT/L/995)  ................................ ................................ ................................  4 
2   THE HARMON IZED SYSTEM AND THE WORK OF THE WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  4 
3   OPERATION OF THE INTEGRATED DATABASE (IDB) AND THE CONSOLIDATED  
TARIFF SCHEDULES (CTS) DATABASE  ................................ ................................ .............  7 
− STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2019 IDB DECISION (G/MA/367)  ...........................  7 
− STATUS OF IDB NOTIFICATIONS (G/MA/IDB/2/REV.53)  ................................ .................  9 
− LIST OF MEMBERS' OFFICIAL WEBSITES WITH TARIFF INFORMATION AND IMPORT 
STATISTICS (G/MA/IDB/W/13/REV.4)  ................................ ................................ ................  11 
− STATUS OF THE CTS DATABASE  ................................ ................................ ...............  11 
4   NOTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO THE DECISION ON NOTIFICATION  
PROCEDURES FOR QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS (G/L/59/REV.1)  ............................  12 
A. NOTIFICATIO NS ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 12 
B. REPORT FROM THE SECRETARIAT (G/MA/W/114/REV.3)  ................................ .............  20 
5   TRADE -RELATED MEASURES RELATING TO THE COVID -19 PANDEMIC  .....................  22 
6   SITUATION OF SCHEDULES OF WTO  MEMBERS – REPORT BY THE SECRETARIAT 
(G/MA/W/23/REV.17)  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 27 
7   REPORT BY THE SECRETARIAT ON THE STATUS OF RENEGOTIATIONS UNDER 
ARTICLE  XXVIII OF THE GATT  1994 (G/MA/W/123/REV.8)  ................................ .........  28 
8   ENHANCING TRANSPARENCY IN APPLIED TARIFFS – COMMUNICATION BY  
THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION (JOB/MA/138) - STATEMENT BY THE RUSSIAN 
FEDERATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  29 G/MA/M/74  
 
- 2 - 
 
  9   ANGOLA – IMPORT RESTRICTING PRACTICES – STATEMENT BY THE RUSSIAN 
FEDERATION AND THE UNITED STATES  ................................ ................................ ........  31 
10   CHINA - CUSTOMS DUTIES ON CERTAIN INTEGRATED CIRCUITS -  
STATEMENTS BY THE EUROPEAN UNION, JAPAN, AND THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS 
TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KIN MEN AND MATSU  ................................ ..............  32 
11   CHINA – TRADE DISRUPTIVE AND RESTRICTIVE MEASURES – STATEMENT BY 
AUSTRALIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  33 
12   EUROPEAN UNION - CARBON BORDER ADJUSTMENT MECHANISM  
(THE EUROPEAN GREEN DEAL OF DECEMBER  2019) - STATEMENTS BY ARMENIA,  
THE KINGDOM OF BAHRAIN, CHINA, KAZAKHST AN, THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC,  
QATAR, THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION, AND THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA  ................  34 
13   EUROPEAN UNION – VACCINE EXPORT TRANSPARENCY MECHANISM -  
STATEMENT BY AUSTRALIA  ................................ ................................ ...........................  40 
14   INDIA – CUSTOMS DUTIES ON TELECOMMUNICATION AND OTHER  
PRODUCTS – STATEMENT BY CHINA  ................................ ................................ .............  44 
15   INDIA - IMPORT POLICIES ON TYRES - STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN  
UNION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  46 
16   INDIA - IMPORT RESTRICTION ON AIR CONDI TIONERS - STATEMENT  
BY JAPAN  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  47 
17   INDIA – QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN PULSES - 
STATEMENTS BY AUSTRALIA, CANADA, THE EUROPEAN UNION, THE RUSSIAN 
FEDERATION, AND THE UNITE D STATES  ................................ ................................ ....... 48 
18   INDONESIA – CUSTOMS DUTIES ON TELECOMMUNICATION PRODUCTS – 
STATEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES  ................................ ................................ .............  50 
19   INDONESIA – IMPORT RESTRICTION ON AIR CONDITIONERS – STATEMENT  
BY JAPAN  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  51 
20   MEXICO – IMPORT QUOTA ON GLYPHOSATE - STATEMENT BY THE  
UNITED STATES  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  51 
21   MONGOLIA - QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS ON THE IMPORTATION OF  
CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS - STATEMENT BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  ..... 52 
22   RUSSIAN FEDERATION – EXPORT PROHIBITION ON TIMBER PRODUCTS - 
STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION  ................................ ................................ .........  53 
23   RUSSIAN FEDERATION – TRACK AND TRACE REGIME – STATEMENT BY THE 
UNITED  STATES  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  54 
24   KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA, KINGDOM OF BAHRAIN, THE UNITED ARAB 
EMIRATES, THE STATE OF KUWAIT, OMAN, AND QATAR - SELECTIVE TAX ON  
CERTAIN IMPORTED PRODUCTS (G/MA/W/169) - STATEMENTS BY THE EUROPEAN 
UNION, JAPAN, SWITZERLAND , AND THE UNITED STATES  ................................ ...........  55 
25   SRI LANKA – IMPORT BAN ON VARIOUS PRODUCTS – STATEMENTS BY A  
USTRALIA AND THE EUROPEAN UNION  ................................ ................................ .........  57 
26   SRI LANKA - IMPORT BAN ON PALM OIL - STATEMENT BY INDONESIA  ..................  59 
27   UNITED KINGDOM - RENEGOTIATION OF TARIFF RATE QUOTAS UNDER 
ARTICLE  XXVIII OF THE GATT 1994 - STATEMENT BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  ....... 62 
28   UNITED KINGDOM - RECTIFICATIONS AND MODIFICATION OF SCHEDULE  XIX - 
UNITED KINGDOM - STATEMENT BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  ................................ .. 65 
29   EGYPT  – MANUFACTURER REGISTRATION SYSTEM (DECREE N° 43/2016) - 
STATEMENT BY THE  RUSSIAN FEDERATION  ................................ ................................ .. 66 
30   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 68 
30.1   Nepal - Import Ban on Energy Drinks – Statement by Thailand  ................................ .... 68 G/MA/M/74  
 
- 3 - 
 
  30.2   E-Agenda  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  68 
30.3   Dates of the Next Meetings  ................................ ................................ ....................  69 
31   ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON  ................................ ................................ ...........  69 
 
 
1  INTRODUCTION OF HARMONIZED SYSTEM CHANGES TO SCHEDULES OF CONCESSIONS  
– STATUS REPORT (G/MA/W/158/REV.2)  
1.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that a full version of the Secretariat's reports regarding the various  
transposition s of Schedules had been made available as a room document and would be incorporated 
into the minutes of the meeting.1 
1.2.  The Secretariat  (Mrs Alya Belkhodja) inform ed Members that a revised version of the report 
with the overall "Status of HS  Transpositions", document  G/MA/W/158/Rev. 2, had been prepared 
by the Secretariat. The report sought to provide a broad overview of the state of play of the different 
HS transpos ition exercises , as of 6 April 2021, and had taken into account the results of the last 
HS multilateral review , which had been held on 28 January  2021. 
− HS1996  (WT/L/ 6905 ) 
1.3.  The Secretariat  (Mrs Alya Belkhodja) recalled that one file had remain ed pending in HS 1996 
since February  2009, which  was the file of the  Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela .2 
1.4.  The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report.  
− HS2002 ( WT/L/605 and WT/L/807)  
1.5.  The Secretariat  (Mrs Alya Belkhodja) recalled that the last written report on this issue had been 
issued as document  JOB/MA/42/Rev.26, dated 11  September  2019. The status of the 
HS2002  transposition files after the multilateral review of 28  January  2021 was as follows: 1 16 files 
had been certified or were in the process of certification; and one draft file had been completed and 
sent to the Member for its first  review. Finally, 18  Members had not been affected by the 
transposition, as eight  Members had acceded to the WTO with a Schedule of concessions in HS2002, 
another eight  Members in HS2007, and two  Members in HS2012.  
1.6.  The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report.  
− HS2007 (WT/L/673 and WT/L/830)  
1.7.  The Secretariat  (Mrs Alya Belkhodja) recalled that a revised written r eport had been issued as 
document  JOB/MA/104/Rev.25, dated 15  January  2021. The status of the HS2007  transposition files 
after the multilateral review of 28  January  2021 was as follows: 110  files had been certified or were  
in the process of certification; one file had been released for multilateral review and had received 
comments from the Member concerned; one  file had been released for multilateral review and would 
be examined at the Committee's next meeting; five  draft files had been completed and sent t o 
Members for their first  review; and eight  draft files remained to be prepared. Finally, ten Members 
had not been affected by the transposition as eight  Members had acceded to the WTO with a 
Schedule of concessions in HS2007 , and two  Members in HS2012.  
1.8.  The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report.  
− HS2012 (WT/L/831)  
1.9.  The Secretariat  (Mrs Alya Belkhodja) recalled that a revised written report had been issued as 
document  JOB/MA/129/Rev.11, dated 15  January  2021. The status of the HS2012  transposition files  
after the multilateral review of 28  January  2021 was as follows: 101  files had b een certified or were 
 
1 Documents  RD/MA/77 and RD/MA/78/Rev.1 . 
2 Ongoing separate procedures, GATT  document  L/6905.  G/MA/M/74  
 
- 4 - 
 
  in the process of certification; two  files had been released for multilateral review and had received 
comments from other Members; seven  draft files had been completed and sent to Members for their 
first review; and 23  draft files rem ained to be prepared. Finally, two  Members had not been affected 
by the transposition as they had acceded to the WTO with a Schedule of concessions in HS2012.  
1.10.  The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report.  
− HS2017 (WT/L/995)  
1.11.  The Secretariat  (Mrs Alya Belkhodja) recalled that a revised written report  had been issued 
as document  JOB/MA/143/Rev.2, dated 15 January  2021. The status of the HS2017  transposition  
files after the multilateral review of 28  January  2021 was as follows: 54  files had been certified  or 
were in the process of certification; three  draft files had been completed and sent to Members for 
their first  review ; and 78  draft files remained to be prepared.  Finally, she mentioned that the overall 
status of the different transposition exercises was reflected in slide  2 of the Secretariat's 
presentation.  
1.12.  The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report.  
1.13.  The Chairperson  recalled that, at its last formal meeting, the Committee had requested the 
Secretariat to prepare a dra ft decision on the HS2022  transposition procedures,  based on the 
HS2017  procedures. The draft decision had been circulated in document  JOB/MA/147 , on 
10 December  2020, and discussed at the Committee's informal meeting of 28 January  2021. In that 
document, it had been noted that the  Secretariat w ould require additional time to select and prepare 
examples for the Annex of the draft Decision. The Chairperson informed the Committee that the full 
version of the HS2022, which was required to prepare such examples , had just been released ; 
therefore , the draft decision w ould shortly be finalized by the Secretariat . The Committee w ould 
resume the discussion of this document during its next informal meeting.  
1.14.  The Committee took note of the Secretariat's report s and the Chairperson's  statement.  
2  THE HARMONIZED SYSTEM AND THE WORK OF THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION  
2.1.  The Chairperson  welcomed Mr Konstantinos Kaiopoulos, Director of the Tariff and Trade Affairs  
Directorate of the World Customs Organization  (WCO),  who provide d an update on the WCO 's 
Harmonized System (HS) Committee work on the HS2022  implementation.  
2.2.  The representative of the WCO  (Mr Konstantinos Kaiopoulos ) reported as follows:  
2.3.  On 1 January  2022, the seventh  edition  of the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding 
System ( HS2022 ) will come into force. Currently, the HS is used by  211 economies , of which 1 60 
are Contracting Parties to the HS  Convention.  The new HS2022  edition makes some major  changes 
to the HS with a total of 351  sets of amendments covering a wide range of goods moving across 
borders.  In comparison, the 2017  edition contained 233  sets of amendments . The changes 
introduced in HS2022 fall broadly into two  types:  (i) recognition of new groups ; and (ii) clarifying 
changes to reinforce correct classification . In the first  group of changes, the most excitement is 
caused by the creation of new provisions to allow for new groupings of goods , either to recogni ze 
real-life categories of goods that are currently split in classification  or to sub -divide current provisions 
to separate out categories of goods that are currently rendered invisible as a group in global 
reporting and statistics because of their inclusion in a larger group . The second  group of changes 
aim at c larifying ambiguities in current provisions. This work can range from language alignments 
to alignments that also incorporate changes in thinking that affect the scope of classification.  
2.4.  The major features of the HS2022  amendments  were: (i) adaption to changing trade patterns 
through the recognition of high profile or new product streams and ; (ii) addressing environmental 
and social issues of global concern , including health and safety as well as protection of society and 
the fight against illicit trade and terrorism . 
2.5.  The agricultural, food , and tobacco sectors  are subject to a large number of changes  in HS2022 ; 
something similar is expected for HS2027. Three  examples of major changes  are as follows: first , 
insects are introduced as  a distinct food group. This is an important issue for both food security G/MA/M/74  
 
- 5 - 
 
  monitoring and recognition as an emerging global commodity group as they increase in use in 
regions where they have not been traditionally eaten ; second , updates to olive oils where extra 
virgin olive oil will be reported separately from virgin olive oil, provid ing for both better statistics 
and improved compliance in the area of food fraud ; and the third example  is the creation of new 
provisions for novel tobacco products and nicotin e products result ing from the difficulties in the 
classification of these products, the lack of visibility in trade statistics , and the very high monetary 
value of this trade.  
2.6.  In the chemical and  pharmaceutical sectors , the complete list of changes is again very 
extensive.  This is a sector that is subject to quite extensive international agreements and HS2022 
includes changes in response to updates to various major international agreements, for example , 
for hazardous che micals , controlled under the Rotterdam Convention, for persistent organic 
pollutants (POPs) , controlled under the Stockholm Convention , or for drugs and precursors ( for 
example, fentanyls) , at the request of the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) . The most 
extensive change in this sector was in response to the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol , 
which brought requirements to control a new range of gases with high global warming potential.  
These new provisions for hydrofluorocarbons will hel p countries to monitor and regulate their trade 
and will ensure globally comparable statistics . In relation to the pharmaceutical industry, n ew 
provisions for placebos and clinical trial kits for medical research , for cell cultures and cell therapy 
product s, and  for tools for rapid diagnosis of infectious diseases ( like zika virus) in outbreaks , will 
enable easier classification , will f acilitat e cross-border medical research , and will avoid the risks of 
delays in the deployment of medical assistance.  
2.7.  In the  sectors of machinery and electronics , specific provisions were created for the 
classification of electrical and electronic waste, commonly referred to as e -waste , to assist countries 
in their work under the Basel Convention.  This was a major achievement g iven that the negotiations 
took more than 10 years.  Additive manufacturing , commonly called 3D printers , will have their own 
provisions in HS2022. Trade in this area is not visible in the statistics  and the new provisions rectify 
this situation.  In the area of multi -purpose intermediate assemblies , heavily traded , the flat panel 
display modules are recogni zed as a commodity in their own right , removing the need to identify 
the final product in which they will be used.  Major reconfigurations have been undertaken for 
products of carbon fibres and glass fibres, both areas of trade that have rapidly increased in diversity 
and importance, as well as for metal working machines to adequately reflect the technological 
advances in these sectors, which  were lacking trade statistics and facing classification difficulties.  
Multiple changes relate to the area of LED and so lar technologies in order to be able to distinguish 
major commodity groups that are recogni zed as providing a significant increase in sustainability over 
the older technology.  The semi -conductor technologies are  again represented in the changes , as is 
to be expected for this continually evolving industry.  Smartphones will have their own subheading 
and legal definition to ensure uniform classification in the future.  Again, this is only a sample of the 
changes in this sector.  
2.8.  Some  changes resulted not only fr om technological and industry changes but also from other 
policy imperatives, such as the protection of society and the fight against terrorism, requiring 
increasingly important roles for Customs. For example, m any new subheadings have been created 
for dual-use goods that could be diverted for unauthorized use, such as radioactive materials and 
biological safety cabinets, as well as for items required for the construction of improvised  explosive 
devices, such as detonators.  Some other sectoral highlights  relate to: (i) unmanned  aircraft 
("drones "), which  will be brought together under one heading, increasing their visibility and easing 
enforcement of existing and future regulations ; (ii) in the area of c ultural goods , illicit trade is a 
major fundraising activity for criminal and terrorist organi zations. HS20 22 will increase the 
granularity of provisions to distinguish types of art and artefacts of cultural significance in order to 
facilitate the detection of illegal trade hidden within the flo w of legitimate trade.  
2.9.  It is not possible to do justice to 351  sets of diverse amendments in a brief introduction to the 
scope of HS2022. Hence this presentation has only touched on a few of the highlights. A thorough 
study of the amendments is required to comprehend their full scope and impact.  
2.10.  Regarding the current state of play, t he COVID -19 situation has delayed the timeline by 
six months although we are catch ing up. The HS2022  books and the "Amendments to the 
HS Nomenclature " in French and English are now available at the WCO  bookshop.  The HS  Committee  
taking place currently is finali zing the Explanatory Notes to the HS2022 and the package will be 
placed before Members at the WCO  Council in June  for approval . The printed versi on of the G/MA/M/74  
 
- 6 - 
 
  Explanatory Notes and the updated Compendium of Classification Opinions are expected in 
September  2021.  Customs administrations and regional economic communities have a huge task to 
ensure timely implementation of the 2022  HS Edition, as required  by the HS  Convention. They are 
therefore encouraged to begin the process of preparing for the implementation of HS2022 in their 
national Customs tariff or statistical nomenclatures.  
2.11.  The HS performs a vital , indeed indispensable , role in both international  trade (facilitation ) 
and controls (illicit trade) , as well as in providing data, information , and statistics. The five-yearly 
HS review  updating coverage for specific goods, or improving particular provisions, has kept the 
HS functional. But functional do es not imply optimal.  The HS is still largely based on the trade 
patterns of the 1950s, where raw commodities and finished goods represented the vast majority of 
traded goods , and where trade was mostly the preserve of large companies and trade professiona ls 
who could dedicate time and speciali zed resources to understand ing the intricacies  of the HS . There 
have been major shifts since that time. The increasing trade in intermediate assemblies and 
semi-manufactures as part of global value chains, as well as the increase in composite, 
multifunctional, inter -connected, customi zed, and novel goods, has changed the profile of traded 
goods and increased the overall level of difficulty for classification. With high technology now 
changing more rapidly than ever,  the challenge for the HS to catch up is likewise becoming ever 
greater . The rise of SMEs  in global trade, particularly with Internet -enabled trade, has changed the 
profile of people involved in trade and makes the retention of expertise more difficult. Al l of this has 
put more focus on the usability of the HS and the implications that it has in terms of costs and 
compliance. The need for a "strategic " review was recognized by all Contracting Parties and the 
WCO Secretariat has submitted  to the Council a pr oposal for an Exploratory or "Strategic " Review 
on the current health and future sustainability of the HS, and an assessment of feasible strategies 
and options available to ensure its long -term viability.  The project 's remit is to review the HS and 
potenti al improvements and to make recommendations on concrete strategies to bring the HS into 
line with today 's needs and tomorrow 's opportunities.  We aim for  better alignment of the HS with 
the realities and needs of trade and policy in the 21st century ; improvements in the ease of doing 
trade; the development of new and improved functionalities , including better statistics;  improved 
robustness and predictabili ty of the outcomes of the classification process; decreased inconsistencies 
in application; and  a reduction in the number of disputes.  This will not be an easy task  because, as 
a tool for creating customs tariffs, the HS must be stable and remain a practic al tool that can be 
used at borders in every country ; this reality affects the type and speed of changes that can be 
introduced into the HS . Changes must be considered by members in relation to the ir impact on trade 
agreements and the application of custom s duties. From a practical point of view, it is also important 
that any goods separately specified can have their identity confirmed at the border if so required . 
The WCO  Secretariat proposal will be examined by the WCO  Council in June . The study will have  a 
duration of two  years and dedicated staff will be employed for the purposes of carrying out and 
completing it . 
2.12.  The representative of Sri Lanka  indicated the following : 
2.13.  Sri Lanka would like to commend and thank the WCO  for giving information on the status of 
the HS2022  amendments . Sri Lanka value s such briefings if they are carried out on a regular basis. 
Therefore, Sri Lanka comm ends the Secretariat for having included this agenda item and for bringing 
the WCO exper t to brief us on this important issue. Sri Lanka understands  this transposition 
envisage d under the  HS 2022 nomenclature in terms of two sets of  amendments that have been 
proposed and to which the contracting parties are required to give legal effect : one is the normal 
amendment s, which Sri Lanka believe s to be mandatory for the contracting parties , and the other is 
a set of complementary amendments. Would the WCO enlighten us on the differences between these 
general amendments and the complementary amendments ? Sri Lanka notes that there seem to be  
two different deadlines that the contracting parties should honour in relation to implementing these 
amendments  in their national practices . Sri Lanka also wishes to know , when it comes to the 
obligations of the contracting parties, if there is a difference between the legal obligation s in the 
normal  amendments vis -à-vis the complementary amendments . Do they bare the same legal 
standing , such that the contracting parties are obliged to implement them by those deadlines ? Sri 
Lanka heard last year that the WCO is also looking at developing a certain  HS code for electronic 
transmission , that is , under E-Commerce . Sri Lanka wishes to hear of some progress in that regard.  
Finally, looking at the WCO  website , Sri Lanka notes that it says  that the HS 2022 changes  are 
coming into effect on 1 January  2022; however, in the WCO's  presentation  at today's meeting , the 
date indicated was 3 or 5 January  2022. Please could the exact date  be clarified?  G/MA/M/74  
 
- 7 - 
 
  2.14.  The representative of the WCO  indicated  the following:  
2.15.  There are no different amendments.  The HS  nomenclature  is a whole : it compromises the 
new codes, that is  the headings  and subheadings , as well as the explanatory notes , and together 
they take the legal form of a recommendation that needs to be approved by the WCO  Council. Once 
approved, this recommendation goes to the m ember states that are  contracting parties to the 
HS Convention. In other words, the member states adopt the new nomenclat ure in their national 
systems according to their domestic procedures . There are  two different types of changes within the 
HS, not two types of adoption procedures for the HS  nomenclature . With regard to electronic 
transmissions, the WCO is  going to look  into this issue  in the context of the strategic study for the 
HS review  and will follow the WTO in the decisions it takes. If the WTO decides that it wants to 
include electronic transmissions and their products in the nomenclature , then the WCO will follow 
that approach and include it in the nomenclature ; however, the WCO does not take such initiatives 
itself. Regarding the date of entry into force , the HS  changes will take effect and have to be 
implemented on 1 January  2022. 
2.16.  The Committee took note  of the WCO  report and the statements made.  
3  OPERATION OF THE INTEGRATED DATABASE (IDB) AND THE CONSOLIDATED TARIFF 
SCHEDULES (CTS) DATABASE  
3.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that there were four issues to discuss under this agenda item, 
namely: (i) the statu s of implementation of the IDB  Decision; (ii) the status of IDB  notifications; 
(iii) the document with the list of Members' official websites; and (iv) the status of the CTS  database.  
− STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2019 IDB DECISION (G/MA/367)  
3.2.  The Chairperson  recalled that a full version of the Secretariat's report and the presentation had 
been made available as a room document3 and would be incorporated into the minutes of the 
meeting.  
3.3.  The Secretariat  (Ms Adelina Mendoza) reported that  additional  projects had been  undertaken 
relating  to the implementation of provisions indicated in document  G/MA/367:  
a. Developing mock -ups of revised and new analytical reports that will be part of the 
revised online portal. The Secretariat also foresees more seamles s integration of 
relevant data from other satellite in -house databases like the RTA  database, the 
PTA database, and even the I -TIP for goods.  
b. One important advantage of the IDB over other tariff and trade databases is the precise 
link at the national tari ff line level between applied tariffs (MFN and non -MFN duty 
schemes) and imports by partner. The new IDB  decision has encouraged the notification 
of preferential tariffs. However, there were many submissions for which the HS  version 
used for the preferenti al tariffs was not the same as the MFN , or was in a different 
national breakdown even if the HS  versions were the same ( for example, only a portion 
of the "eight" -digit code was covered by a preferential agreement ). In order for  the 
notifications to be useful for analyses, the Secretariat is currently developing a module 
that will facilitate processing and integration of such data while allowing for easy 
alignment to MFN  tariffs and imports at the HS  6-digit level to simplify usi ng data for 
analytical purposes.  
c. The "Call to Notify" email specifically on IDB  notifications being sent to concerned 
delegations has continuously resulted in increased submissions by the specified 
deadline. For 2021, 34% of expected tariff notifications have been received compared 
to only 21% in 2020. For the years 2000 -2019, the average compliance rate of tariff 
notification by the 30  March deadline of the current year was only at 11%. On imports, 
the 2019  data are the most current requirem ent and 31% were notified by the deadline 
of 31 October  2020. The comparable timely notification percentage for 2000 -2018 data 
was 24%. Aside from the separate notification reminder, the improved statistics can be 
 
3 Documents  RD/MA/77 and RD/MA/78/Rev.1 . G/MA/M/74  
 
- 8 - 
 
  attributed to an increased awareness of IDB issues as a result of the review and 
adoption of the new IDB  decision.  
d. Related to paragraph  8 of the new IDB  decision on automatic submission of data, the 
Secretariat has finalized the bilateral agreement with Canada and the automated 
notification of ap plied tariff data is already in place. Other Members have indicated their 
interest in this arrangement and the Secretariat has had several exploratory meetings 
with mission and Capital -based  officials to further discuss this option to lessen Members' 
notification burden. Another concurrent project related to automatic notification of 
IDB data is being implemented in partnership with UNCTAD and involves customs offices 
using ASYCUDA. Several developing countries have expressed interest in this project 
and th e Memorandum of Understanding has already been finalized and signed with 
Madagascar.  
e. The Asian Development Bank requested and was granted authorized user access to the 
IDB and CTS  databases after it sent its formal agreement to the new provisions on the 
dissemination policy described in Annex  4. Thus, currently, there are 
twelve  intergovernmental organizations which have already communicated in writing 
their conformance to the new dissemination policy  and have received the status of 
authorized users . The S ecretariat is still awaiting response s on this subject by the 
others.   
3.4.  The representative of the European Union  indicated the following:  
3.5.  The European Union thank s the Secretariat for its presentation. It is interesting to hear about 
the implementation of the decision, especially the positive development regarding  automatic data 
transmission. to the European Union  asks the Secretariat to keep the Membership informed about 
such developments.  
3.6.  The Secretariat  (Ms Adelina Mendoza) noted that it had been in contact with other delegations 
that had expressed their interest in automatic data transmission. As had been mentioned at the 
Committee's previous meeting, the Secretariat could share the temp late of the Memorandum of 
Understanding and adjust the provisions contained therein to suit the needs of Members.  
3.7.  The Chairperson  suggested to include the automatic transmission of data on the agenda of the 
next informal meeting for experience -sharing purp oses. 
3.8.  The representative of  Canada  indicated the following : 
3.9.  As Canada was mentioned as having finali zed its arrangements for the automatic submission 
of tariffs, Canada wishes to thank the Secretariat for the ir assistance  in this regard . It was  actually  
an easy process and Canada is happy to discuss it with any interested delegations . Canada also 
draws  the attention of all Market Access Committee delegates to the ongoing efforts , including 
recently,  of the Informal Working Group on MSMEs. Among the package of recommendations and 
declarations adopted by a number of the Group 's participants last December, the "Recommendation 
on MSMES and the WTO  Integrated Database " highlights the role the IDB plays in providing reliable 
and official market access information. The information Members provide to the IDB also suppor ts 
research and analysis by international organizations, including  the ITC, UNCTAD , and FAO. This 
recommendation also highlights the importance of keeping the IDB up dated  and promotes new 
pathways for WTO  Members to both provide and enrich the data contained within it. Canada 
encourages all WTO  Members to review the 2019  Decision by this  Committee, contained in 
document  G/MA/367, and to support the work of the IDB.  
3.10.  The representative of Russian Federation  indicated the following:  
3.11.  The Russian Federation wishes  to express our appreciation to the Secretariat for providing 
the Committee with this information . In this regard, the Russian Federation would like to know if it 
might be possible to share the details of the bilateral agreements protocol between the Secretariat 
and Canada in respect of the implementation of this decision . 
  G/MA/M/74  
 
- 9 - 
 
  3.12.  The repres entative of Canada  indicated  the following:  
3.13.  Canada is very happy to share the relevant exchange of emails  and letters between Canada 
and the Secretariat . 
3.14.  The Chairperson  noted that , if this topic was of general interest, and if Members so wished, it 
could also be discussed in experience -sharing mode , as an agenda item,  in an informal meeting  of 
the Committee . 
3.15.  The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to paragraph  15 of the IDB  Decision , which 
provide d that: "with a view to c ontinuously improving the functionality of the WTO  data 
dissemination and online tools, the Secretariat will periodically consult with Members to identify their 
needs and to identify areas for improvement." He recalled that the Secretariat had organized a 
first feedback session with Members on 17  July 2019, the results  of which had been  summarized in 
document  G/MA/W/144. Given that almost two  years ha d passed, the Secretariat was planning to 
hold another feedback session at the informal meeting of the Commi ttee to be held on Wednesday , 
16 June. On that occasion, Members w ould be asked to provide feedback on the different data 
dissemination and online data tools relating  to the IDB and CTS  databases, and the Secretariat w ould 
report on the steps that it had taken to respond to Members' feedback , as well as its future plans. 
More details w ould be provided by the Secretariat in due course . 
3.16.  The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report and of the statements made.  
− STATUS OF IDB NOTIFICATIONS (G/MA/IDB/2/REV.5 3) 
3.17.  The Chairperson  recalled that a full version of the Secretariat's report and presentation had 
been made available as a room document4 and would be incorporated into the minutes of the 
meeting.  
3.18.  The Secretariat  (Ms Adelina Mendoza) recalled that the report by the Secretariat on the status 
of submissions to the IDB had been circulated in document  G/MA/IDB/2/Rev.53. The d ata cut-off 
date was 31  March  2021, the day following the deadline for 2021  tariffs notification. An electronic 
copy for all years from 1996 was also available for download from the site 
https://IDBFileExchange.wto.org . Current notification requirements for the IDB were the 
2021 applied tariffs ( for which the deadline was 30  March  2021) and the 2019  imports ( for which 
the deadline was 31  October  2020). A call to notify had been sent out to Members in January  2021, 
followed by  a reminder in early March. For the statistics cited below, the cut -off date was 
26 April 2021.  
3.19.  The global health crisis ha d continued to affect the work situation in the capitals from where 
notifications were compiled. The IDB expected much lower numbers on submitted data , and yet, 
with an increased awareness of IDB issues further to the Committee's adoption of the new 
IDB decision, the number of notifications submitted on or before the deadline, especially on tariffs, 
had steadily increased for 2020 and 2021. For 2000-2019, the yearly avera ge of datasets notified 
by the 30  March  deadline was 11% of expected notifications (about 20  reporting members per year , 
on average). In 2020, this percentage doubled , to 21% , or 28  reporters , and in 2021, there were 
46 reporters submitting their data within the deadline. This corresponds to 34% of the expected 
notifications. A similar trend  could be observed regarding the data on imports . By the 
31 October  2020 deadline for 2019  data on imports , almost a third of notifications had already been 
received. Th e comparable statistic for 2019 (imports for 2018) was only 20%. As mentioned above , 
aside from a greater awareness of IDB issues, another contributing factor was the separate "call to 
notify" specifically for IDB  data only.  
3.20.  On the 2021 applied tariffs , the IDB currently included  data for 56  Members , as of 26 April, 
which account s for 41% of 136  expected Members' notifications. There were nine  additional 
2021 applied tariff notifications received after the official deadline. Of those 56  files, 52  were official 
submissions , while the remaining four were collected by the Secretariat from approved "framework 
sources". As to the inclusion of other applied tariffs, there were also 37  submissions (or 66% of 
notifications) which included non -MFN duty sch emes. Further more, there were six notifications 
 
4 Documents  RD/MA/77 and RD/MA/78/Rev.1.  G/MA/M/74  
 
- 10 - 
 
  which contained the optional additional import taxes. Overall, 37  Members , representing 27% of 
notifying Members , have a complete notification compliance rate concerning their  MFN applied 
tariffs. However, th ere remain 46  Members (34%) having  six or more years of outstanding applied 
tariff data. As expected , the report on tariffs, based on submissions for the first  quarter of the year , 
was down compared to the last quarter's report.  
3.21.  On the 2019  data on imports , 62 notifications had been received , which represent ed 46% of 
the 135  expected notifications. Of those , 42 datasets (31%) had been submitted by the 
31 October  2020 deadline. Further more, data on imports for 2018 stood at 57% complete. For d ata 
on imports due from 1996 to 2019, 41  Members , or 30% of notifying Members , had notified their 
complete data. Fifty Members had six or more years of data still to be submitted , representing 37% 
of the total M embership . There were only 20  additional notifications of 2019 data on imports received 
compared to those reported during the November  2020 meeting of the  Committee.  
3.22.  On the "recomposition" of single -year missing MFN  tariffs for which the data on imports had 
been notified , and where the  tariffs of the adjacent years were available, as provided for in 
paragraph  22 of the IDB  Decision, the Secretariat  had added thirty -five country periods to the data 
on applied tariffs. While this number may seem  negligible, the more important consideratio n was 
that, regarding recomposed tariffs, the notified data on imports that previously could not be 
integrated ha d now been added into the database. There ha d been no comments received from the 
Members  concerned regarding these recomposed tariffs.  
3.23.  Overall, as of the same data cut -off date, IDB disseminated data consist ed of 2,759  country 
periods of either applied tariffs with matched imports at the national tariff line level or else applied 
tariffs only. The Secretariat estimate d that IDB  notifications on MFN  applied tariffs were 
82% complete for the data expected until 2021, and 76%  complete for imports until 2019. Except 
for Afghanistan, all other Members , plus six acceding Members (Algeria, Bahamas, Belarus,  
Comoros,  Iran, and Serbia) , had notified their data to the IDB , as also disseminated in TAO , TDF, 
and WTODATA . 
3.24.  With more automatic data notification arrangements, the M embers concerned would have less 
of a notification burden and the IDB would contain  more timely and complete data. Therefore , 
Members were encouraged to explore this option as it would benefit them directly , including through 
fewer notifications to prepare , and also, indirectly , through more current  and comprehensive data 
for the purposes  of trade policy analysis . 
3.25.  She recalled that the submission of mandatory data for Members covered by the Preferential 
Trade Arrangements Transparency Mechanism (PTA -TM) should be notified in the context  of 
IDB notifications. Of the 24  notifying Members of the PTA (counting the EU-27 and UK separately 
from 2021 for tariffs , and Switzerland  and Liechtenstein as one), ten  had not yet notified  their 
applied tariff s for 2021. Of the 14  Members that had  notified their tariffs, one had submitted only 
MFN tariffs without includ ing the mandatory non -reciprocal GSP/LDC  schemes . The PTA -TM required 
that import data be notified with the necessary breakdown , and in  17 of 23 expected  notifications  
for 2019 ( counting the EU-27 and UK as one until 2019 in terms of data on imports in the context 
of IDB notification) , four Members had only submitted the regular data on imports , without including 
the breakdown by duty scheme , and six Members had not yet submitted any of their data on import s. 
As stipulated in para graph  5 of the IDB  Decision , and to avoid multiple processing of data, the 
Secretariat would await the complete PTA -TM datasets (tariffs or imports) before integrating these 
notifications into the IDB.  
3.26.  The following additional notifications had been receiv ed between  31 March and 27 April 2021:  
a. Benin 2017, 2018, 2019  imports  
b. Brunei Darussalam 2021  applied MFN and preferential tariffs  
c. Chad 2021 applied MFN  tariffs  
d. Cuba 2021 applied MFN  tariffs  
e. Dominican Republic 2021 applied MFN  tariffs  
f. Guatemala 2021 applied  MFN and preferential tariffs  
g. Lao People's Democratic Republic 2018, 2019  imports  
h. Madagascar 2020 applied MFN and preferential tariffs  
i. Nicaragua 2021 applied MFN, preferential tariffs , and ODCs  G/MA/M/74  
 
- 11 - 
 
  j. Norway 2021 applied MFN, preferential tariffs  
k. Panama 2021 applied MFN, preferential tariffs and 2018, 2019, 2020  imports  
l. Turkey applied MFN and preferential tariffs for 2014 -2016, 2020, 2021 and imports 
(with PTA -TM breakdown) for 2005, 2010 -2020 
 
3.27.  Since the Committee 's previous meeting , in November  2020, the Secr etariat ha d participated 
in the following online technical assistance activities concerning the IDB/CTS  data and related tools:  
a. CLDP/WTO  Virtual Workshop on WTO  Notification Requirements for Afghanistan  
b. Two TAs on Tariff Renegotiations for Senegal (with MA D) 
c. TA on SDG  trade monitor with UNESCAP and UNECA  
d. Accession of Timor -Leste on market access offer for goods  
e. National TA with Djibouti on notifications  
f. Presentations on WTO  databases for the 2021  cohort of WTO  young professionals and the 
NTP trainees  
 
3.28.  Finally, t he 2021  edition of the World Tariff Profiles was being prepared and the English 
version was expected to be  launched  electronically  in June  2021, which was its regular release data. 
The French and Spanish versions would be available by J uly 2021.  
3.29.  The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report . 
− LIST OF MEMBERS' OFFICIAL WEBSITES WITH TARIFF INFORMATION AND IMPORT 
STATISTICS (G/MA/IDB/W/13/ REV.4) 
3.30.  The Chairperson  recalled that the new IDB Decision required the Secretariat to prepare a list 
of Members' official websites containing tariff information and import statistics. A fourth  revision of 
this document had been  prepared by the Secretariat . In this regard, the Secretariat had  consulted 
with Members informally  prior to circul ating this fourth  revision  in document  G/MA/IDB/W/13/Rev.4 
and its corrigendum.  
3.31.  The Secretariat  (Mr Simon Neumueller) reported that t he fourth  revision of the list o f 
Members' Official Websites with Tariff Information and Import Statistics  contain ed more t han 
30 updated links. As in previous revisions, the Secretariat would continue sharing with Members the 
draft document with the objective of  keeping it up to date prior to issuing its next revision. He invite d 
delegations to contact the Secretariat  in case  a link had change d or if additional weblinks had become 
available.  
3.32.  The Chairperson  recogniz ed the importance that this document ha d for Members and trade 
operators in general and that almost  all Members nowadays ha d this information available on the 
Internet . He therefore  urged  delegations to test the links in the document and to inform the 
Secretariat as soon as possible of any change.  
3.33.  The Committee took note  of the Secretariat 's report.  
− STATUS OF THE CTS DATABASE  
3.34.  The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to the Secretariat report on the status of the 
CTS database. A full version of the Secretariat's report and presentation had been made available 
as a room document and would be incorporated into the minutes of the meeting.5 
3.35.  The Secretariat  (Ms Alya Belkhodja) reported that the Secretariat had made CTS  files 
available to all Members on the Tariff Analysis Online (https://tao.wto.org). Out of the 135 CTS  files, 
54 had been made available in HS2017 , 46 in HS2012 , 19 in HS2007 , and 14 in HS2002; two 
remained in HS96. All legal instruments were available through the Goods Schedule 
e-Library( https://goods -schedules.wto.org/ ). The Secretariat also informed the Co mmittee of  a 
project to issue the complete CTS  database in MS Excel. Each Member's file reflect ed the latest 
information on its bound commitments as presently included in the CTS  MS Access files. However, 
the format of the MS Excel files follow ed the prese ntation used in the legal instruments , such as the 
 
5 Documents  RD/MA/77 and RD/MA/78/Rev.1 . G/MA/M/74  
 
- 12 - 
 
  Uruguay Round schedules of concessions . The MS Excel files w ould first be made available to 
Members , to give them an opportunity to comment , and they w ould then be released to the public. 
The Secretariat p lanned to issue the MS Excel files during the month of May and Members w ould be 
given one  month  to comment  on them . 
3.36.  The representative of Switzerland  indicated  that: 
3.37.  The transposition of the CTS  file in Excel will greatly facilitate our work at home. In this 
connection, is  there any project to modernize the TAO and to make it more user -friendly?  
3.38.  The Secretariat  (Ms Alya Belkhodja) replied that , as part of the new IDB  Decision,  there 
existed a project  to develop a  new TAO , including new features and functions and a more modern 
layout . 
3.39.  The Chairperson  informed the Committee that the project on the  new TAO w ould be presented 
at the Committee 's informal meeting  scheduled  to be held in June . 
3.40.  The representative of Russian Federation  indicated that:  
3.41.  The R ussian Federation  would like to express its appreciation to the Secretariat for its work 
in making the TAO more user -friendly . The Russian Federation also underscores how important it is 
to have access to this information, no t only in MS -Access but also in Excel files.  
3.42.  The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report  and of the statements made . 
4  NOTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO THE DECISION ON NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR 
QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS (G/L/59/REV.1)  
4.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that the re were two  sub-items to discuss  under this agenda item : 
(a) an examination of the notifications received; and ( b) the Secretariat's factual report on the 
notifications received. Under the first  sub-item, he drew Members' atten tion to  the notifications  of 
quantitative restrictions (QRs)  from 27  Members , of which four were notifying their complete list of 
QRs for the first  time. He noted that many of these notifications relate d to measures implemented 
in response to the COVID -19 pandemic  and, t o the extent possible , asked Members t o refer to them 
under agenda item 5. Finally, he recalled that, in the case of a connection problem preventing any 
Member from indicating that it wishe d to have more time to examine a notificati on, and thus keep 
the notification on the Committee's agenda for its next formal meeting, that Member would  have 
until 7 May 2021 to inform the Secretariat  accordingly . 
A. NOTIFICATIONS  
− Afghanistan (G/MA/QR/N/AFG/3)  
4.2.  The Chairperson  drew Members'  attention to a new complete notification from Afghanistan for 
the biennial period 2020 -2022. 
4.3.  The Committee took note  of this notification . 
− Argentina (G/MA/QR/N/ARG/2)  
4.4.  The Chairperson  drew Members'  attention to a new notification from Argentina for the biennial 
periods 2018 -2020 and 2020 -2022. 
4.5.  The representative of  the United States  indicated the following:  
4.6.  As Members are aware, the United States shared some questions on the import licensing 
system in Argentina in the Import Licensing Committee.  The United States looks forward to 
Argentina 's responses to those questions and appreciate s the transparency of this process.  The 
United States notes that Argentina  indicated,  on page  14, Section  2, Item  4 of its notification to this 
Committee  that it did not notify any QRs in its notifications to the Committee on Import Licensing.  G/MA/M/74  
 
- 13 - 
 
  The United States has concerns about the possible trade impact of the system for non -automatic 
import licences in Argentina, including whether they could result in a quantitative restriction. The 
United States would be interested in hearing from Argentina how it analy sed its system for 
non-automatic import licences and determined not to notify any as a quantitative  restriction.  
4.7.  The representative of Argentin a indicated the following:  
4.8.  Argentina  thank s the United States  for reiterating its interest in Argentina's import licensing 
regime and its recent notifications.  Argentina takes note of the concerns and will respon d as soon 
as possible to the questions  raised in this Committee , as well as to the written questions raised in  
the Import Licensing Committee.  
4.9.  The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed to revert to th is notification at 
its next meeting.  
− Australia (G/MA/QR/N/AUS/4/Add.3)  
4.10.  The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new notification from Australia which relate d 
to the elimination of a measure imposed in response to COVID -19. 
4.11.  The Committee took note  of this notification . 
− Kingdom of Bahrain (G/M A/QR/N/BHR/1/Rev.1, G/MA/QR/N/BHR/1/Rev.1/Add.1)  
4.12.  The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to two  new notifications from th e Kingdom of 
Bahrain.  The first notification  was a complete notification for the biennial period 2018 -2020, while 
the addendum was a notification of measures imposed in response to COVID -19. On behalf of the 
Committee, he thanked Bahrain  for its  first complete notification and for complying with this 
important transparency obligation. He also i nformed  the Committee  that a third notification  had 
been recently submitted by Bahrain  relating to th e full elimination of  temporary export measures 
introduced as a response to COVID -19. This notification would be considered at the Committee's 
next formal meeting . 
4.13.  The Committee  took note  of these notifications.  
− Brazil (G/MA/QR/N/BRA/2/Add. 2) 
4.14.  The Chairpers on drew M embers' attention to a new notification from Brazil that relate d to new 
measures introduced in response to COVID -19. 
4.15.  The Committee took note  of this notification.  
− Canada  (G/MA/QR/N/ CAN/4 /Add.1 ) 
4.16.  The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new notification by Canada,  which had been 
circulated in document  G/MA/QR/N/CAN/4/A dd.1. 
4.17.  The Committee took note  of this notification.  
− China (G/MA/QR/N/CHN/4/Rev.1, G/MA/QR/N/CHN/5/Rev.1)  
4.18.  The Chairperson  recalled that, at its previous  meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert 
to the notifications by China that had been  circulated in documents  G/MA/QR/N/CHN/4/Rev.1 and 
G/MA/QR/N/CHN/5/Rev.1. Questions remained from the United States . 
4.19.  The representative of  the United States  indicated the following:  
4.20.  The United States again reiterates its concerns, as expressed previously in this and many 
other WTO  bodies, regarding the negative trade and environmental impacts resulting from China 's 
progressively restrictive import ban, and accompanying measures, on certain solid waste imports.  G/MA/M/74  
 
- 14 - 
 
  The United States reiterates its concerns that certain scrap materials like bundled recycled 
newspaper have been banned, whereas other more processed scrap materials such as pulped paper 
and "smelter r eady" metals are allowed. Can China please explain what scientific basis it used to 
determine which categories of scrap materials are safe and which are not? Additionally, these policy 
measures appear to be contrary to China 's own pro -circular economy narr ative that it is promoting 
in the WTO as well as internationally. These measures hinder China 's aspirations to transition to a 
more resource efficient, global circular economy by directly impacting global recycling networks. The 
United States  reiterate s its request that China immediately revise the relevant measures in a manner 
consistent with existing international standards for trade in scrap materials, which provide a global 
framework for transparent and environmentally sound trade in recyclable commodit ies. 
4.21.  The representative of China  indicated the following:  
4.22.  China  takes note of the concern raised by the United States. As China has  provided replies on 
this issue many times in various WTO  bodies, for the sake of time, China  refers to its statements 
made a t previous meetings of this Committee, the Committee on Import Licensing, and the Council 
for Trade in Goods. China wishes  to reiterate that its ban on all solid waste import s, starting from 
1 January  2021, is to effectively protect public health and China's ecosystem. China is working on 
WTO notifications of the measures pursuant to its notification requirements under the 
WTO Agreements . China notes that it also issued national quality standards for recycling materials 
for brass, copper, cast alumin ium alloys , and iron and steel materials. The se recycled  materials, 
complying with China 's national quality standards and posing no  hazard to  human health  and the  
environment , are not regarded as solid waste and can be traded in a normal manner.  
4.23.  The Committe e took note  of the statements made and agreed to revert to the notifications at 
its next meeting.  
− Colombia (G/MA/QR/N/COL/1 /Add. 2) 
4.24.  The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new complete notification by Colombia for the 
biennial periods 2018 -2020 and 2020-2022.  On behalf of the Committee, he thanked Colombia for 
complying with this important transparency obligation . 
4.25.  The Committee took note  of this notification.  
− Ecuador (G/MA/QR/N /ECU/1)  
4.26.  The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new notification by  Ecuador that relate d to 
measures introduced in response to the COVID -19 pandemic . On behalf of the Committee, he 
thank ed Ecuador for complying with this important transparency obligation.  
4.27.  The representative of Switzerland  indicated the following:  
4.28.  For the Committee's information, Switzerland asked a question  of Ecuador regarding the 
status of its measures , including whether or not they were in force , and Switzerland is a waiting 
Ecuador 's answer . 
4.29.  The representative of Ecuador  indicated the following:  
4.30.  Ecuador thank s Switzerland for its questions  and wishes to highlight that only the measure 
on face masks is still in force although currently under review. This is a temporary measure ; the 
other measures were all terminated. Ecuador stands r eady to provide more information  if necessary . 
4.31.  The Chairperson  asked Switzerland if the Committee needed to revert to this notification at 
its next meeting . 
4.32.  The representative of Switzerland  indicated the following:  
4.33.  Switzerland considers that it is not necessary  to revert to this notification at the Committee's 
next meeting.  G/MA/M/74  
 
- 15 - 
 
  4.34.  The Committee took note  of the notification.  
− Egypt (G/MA/QR/N/EGY/1, G/MA/QR/N/EGY/1/Rev.1 /Add.1 ) 
4.35.  The Chairperson  recalled that, a t its previous  meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert 
to Egypt's notification  in document  G/MA/QR/N/EGY/1/ Rev.1/Add.1. Questions from Switzerland  
remained  open. However, Egypt had since submitted a new notification , in 
document  G/MA/QR/N/EGY/1/ Rev.1/Add.2, which relate d to measures introduced in response to the 
COVID -19 pandemic . 
4.36.  The representative of Switzerland  indicated the following:  
4.37.  Switzerland has  no other a dditional questions ; it is no longer a problem for us . 
4.38.  The Committee took note  of this notification.  
− European  Union (G/MA/QR/N/EU/ 5/Add.1, G/MA/QR/N/EU/5 /Add.2, G/MA/QR/N/EU/5 /Add.3 ) 
4.39.  The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to three new notifications by the European Union , 
which relate d to measures introduced in response to the COVID -19 pandemic . 
4.40.  The Committee took note  of the se notification s. 
− India (G/MA/QR/N/IND/2, G/MA/QR/N/IND/2/Add.1)  
4.41.  The Chairperson  recalled that , at its previous  meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert 
to the notifications by India in documents  G/MA/QR/N/IND/2 and G/MA/QR /N/IND/2/Add.1. 
Questions from the United States remained open. 
4.42.  The representative of  the United States  indicated the following:  
4.43.  The United States prefers not to comment  at this time.  
4.44.  The representative of  the European Union  indicated the following:  
4.45.  The European Union  notes that it has been almost three  years since India submitted its one 
and only QR  notification. Several of the topics on the current meeting's agenda, such as India 's 
import restrictions on pulses , as well as other trade restricting measures, should be notified. The 
European Union urges India to bring its record on notifications of QRs up to date as soon as possible.  
4.46.  The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed to revert to the notifications at 
its next meeting.  
− Kazakhstan (G/MA/QR/N/KAZ/3 , G/MA/QR/N/KAZ/3 /Rev.1 ) 
4.47.  The Chairperson  recalled that, a t its previous  meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert 
to the notification by Kazakhstan contained in document  G/MA/QR/N/KAZ/3. Questions from 
Switzerland  remained  open. Since then, Kazakhstan had submitted a revised version of its 
notification , in document  G/MA/QR/N/KAZ/3/ Rev.1. 
4.48.  The representative of Switzerland  indicated the following:  
4.49.  Switzerland thanks Kazakhstan for its revised notification . This revised notification address es 
many of our previous comments. Switzerland has submitted follow -up questions bilaterally regarding 
five measures . Switzerland will require some time to revise the answers just received from 
Kazakhstan.  
4.50.  The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed to revert to the notification at 
its next meeting.  G/MA/M/74  
 
- 16 - 
 
  − Kyrgyz Republic (G/MA/QR/N/KGZ/1/Add.2, G/MA/QR/N/KGZ/1/Add.3, 
G/MA/QR/N/KGZ/1/Add.4, G/MA/ QR/N/KGZ/1/ Add.5 and G/MA/QR/N/KGZ/1/Add.6 ) 
4.51.  The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to five new notifications by the Kyrgyz Republic in 
documents  G/MA/QR/N/KGZ/1/Add.2 -G/MA/QR/N/KGZ/1/ Add.6 . 
4.52.  The Committee took note  of the se notifications.  
− Republic of Korea ( G/MA/QR/N/KOR/3 /Add.1 ) 
4.53.  The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new notification by the Republic of Korea  
informing  Members that its measures introduced in response to the COVID -19 pandemic  had been 
lifted.  
4.54.  The Committee took note  of this notification.  
− Montenegro (G/MA/QR/N/ MNE/2) 
4.55.  The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new complete notification by Montenegro for 
the biennial period 2020 -2022.  
4.56.  The Committee took note  of the notification.  
− New Zealand (G/MA/QR /N/NZL/5)  
4.57.  The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new complete notificatio n by New Zealand for 
the biennial period 2020 -2022.  
4.58.  The Committee took note  of the notification.  
− Nicaragua (G/MA/QR/N /NIC/4)  
4.59.  The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new complete notification by Nicaragua for the 
biennial period 2020 -2022.  
4.60.  The Committee took note  of the notification.  
− Norway  (G/MA/QR/N/ NOR/2) 
4.61.  The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new complete notification by Norway for the 
biennial period 2020 -2022.  
4.62.  The representative of Switzerland  indicated the following:  
4.63.  Switzerland has  one question relating to some international convention s in the notification on 
which we are awaiting Norway's answer.  
4.64.  The representative of Norway  indicated the following:  
4.65.  We are working on the reply in Capital and will respond to Switzerland on this point as soon 
as possible.  
4.66.  The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed to revert to the notification at 
its next meeting.  
− Philippines (G/MA/QR/N/ PHL/2) 
4.67.  The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a  new complete notificat ion by the Philippines 
for the biennial periods 2014 -2016, 2016 -2018, 2018 -2020, and 2020 -2022.  G/MA/M/74  
 
- 17 - 
 
  4.68.  The representative of Switzerland  indicated the following:  
4.69.  Switzerland has submitted some additional comments and questions and will wait to receive 
the answers  from the Philippines . 
4.70.  The Committee took note  of the statement made and agreed to revert to the notification at 
its next meeting.  
− Seychelles (G/MA/QR /N/SYC/2 ) 
4.71.  The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new complete notification by Seychelles for 
the biennial periods 2018 -2020 and 2020 -2022. 
4.72.  The Committee took note  of the notification.  
− Singapore  (G/MA/QR/ N/SGP/5)  
4.73.  The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new complete notification by Singapore for the 
period 2020 -2022.  
4.74.  The Committee took note  of the notification.  
− Thailand (G/MA/QR/N/THA/2, G/MA/QR/N/THA/2/Add.1, G/MA/QR/N/THA/2/Add.2  and 
G/MA/QR/N/THA/2/Add.3)  
4.75.  The Chairperson  recalled that , at its previous  meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert 
to the notifications by Thailand, where questions had been raised by the European Union.  
4.76.  The representative of  the European Union  indicated the following:  
4.77.  At the last meetings of this Committee, the EU noted that Thailand's import licensing 
requirem ents for feed wheat should have been included in Thailand's QR  notification, given that they 
are non -automatic licensing requirements. The EU encourages Thailand to provide its next biannual 
QR notification as soon as possible.  The EU also expressed its co ncerns on the import procedures 
for feed wheat numerous times in the Committee on Import Licensing and the Committee on 
Agriculture. The EU would like to again remind Thailand that its written replies to the EU's  questions 
submitted in the Committee on Imp ort Licensing in April  2017 and March  2018 are still pending. The 
EU reiterates its interest in understanding on what basis the measure, announced as temporary, can 
be maintained since January  2017 and when it will cease to apply. The EU is also concerned about 
the WTO-compatibility of Thailand's import licensing regime for feed wheat. Further more, given 
market and policy developments related to corn, the European Union  sees no economic reasons to 
keep the measure in place. The European Union  would also lik e to understand whether, pending the 
removal of the licensing regime, Thailand intends (i) to notify it in accordance with Articles  1.4 and 
5 of the Import Licensing Agreement ; and (ii) to add them to its notification on QRs. As also 
indicated, the European Union  acknowledges that the price support programme for corn has been 
extended until October  2021, in parallel to additional measures to support corn farmers. The 
European Union  would like to seek an update on the implementation of the price suppo rt programme 
and request s Thailand to notify it to the WTO  Committee on Agriculture.  
4.78.  The representative of Thailand  indicated the following:  
4.79.  Thailand thanks the European Union for its statement. Thailand would like to inform the 
Committee that, for the las t two  years, Thailand 's imports on feed wheat increased by 8.59%, 
amount ing to  1.85 million ton nes in 2020, an increase of  1.7 million ton nes in 2019.  Currently, 
Thailand is in the process of reviewing its import permit measures on feed wheat, including giving 
consideration to an appropriate amend ment of its  MFN applied rate within the scope of Thailand 's 
commitments at the WTO. However, the procedure may be delayed due to the COVID -19 pandemic 
and recent mandatory work -from-home regulations resulting from rising new infection cases in 
Thailand.  As for the notification of the domestic support programme, Thailand needs to collect 
information and documents from its relevant authorities. Thailand will notify  it to the WTO as soon G/MA/M/74  
 
- 18 - 
 
  as possible. Thailand will also provide an update of further developments to the Committee and 
Members in due course.  
4.80.  The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed to revert to the se notifications 
at its next meeting.  
− Tonga (G/MA/QR/N/TON /1) 
4.81.  The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new complete notification by Tonga for the 
period 2020 -2022. On behalf of the Committee, he thank ed Tonga  for complying with this important 
transparency obligation.  
4.82.  The Committee took note  of the notification.  
− Turkey (G/MA/QR/N /TUR/2/Add.1)  
4.83.  The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new notification by Turkey  relating to measures 
introduced in response to the COVID -19 pandemic . 
4.84.  The Committee took note  of the notification.  
− United Kingdom (G/MA/QR/N/GBR/1)  
4.85.  The Chairperson  drew M embers' attention to a new complete notification by the United 
Kingdom for the biennial period 2020 -2022. On behalf of the Committee, he thank ed the United 
Kingdom  for complying with this important transparency obligation . 
4.86.  The Committee took note  of the no tification.  
− United States (G/MA/QR/N/USA/2, G/MA/QR/N/USA/3, G/MA/QR/N/USA/4, 
G/MA/QR/N/USA/4/Add.1,  G/MA/QR/N/USA/4/Add.2, G/MA/QR/N/USA/5,  
G/MA/QR/N/USA/5 /Add.1,  G/MA/W/116, G/MA/W/127)  
4.87.  The Chairperson  recalled that, at its previous  meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert 
to the notifications by the United States, as there were still question s open  from the European Union 
that had been  circulated in documents  G/MA/W/116 and G/MA/W/127. Since then, the United States 
had submitted o ne new notification relating to new measures introduced in response to the 
COVID -19 pandemic . 
4.88.  The representative of  the European Union  indicated the following:  
4.89.  The European Union  has been raising its concerns regarding US  trade prohibitions on sturgeon 
products in this Committee since 2015. In the latest US  notification (G/MA/QR/N/USA/5), the 
restrictions pursuant to the Endangered Species Act are listed in measure Nos. 11 and 12. As 
previously explained, the EU 's main concern is that the US does not consid er wild and farmed 
sturgeon and their products as separate categories and, consequently, applies the same 
conservation measures to both, in a more restrictive way than the international environmental 
legislation (CITES) recommends. At a recent bilateral me eting between the relevant authorities in 
Brussels and Washington, the European Union has been able to explain these concerns in more 
detail. The European Union has  also appreciated receiving an update about the ongoing review 
carried out by the US  Fish an d Wildlife Service on the listing of sturgeon species as endangered. The 
European Union  will continue its dialogue with the United States on this matter and engage on the 
findings of the review, as appropriate, when they become available. For this purpose, updates on 
the roadmap and calendar for the whole review process would  be very useful. The European Union 
would  also appreciate receiving  further information in the context of this Committee.  
4.90.  The representative of China  indicated the following:  
4.91.  China would like to reiterate its concerns  about  the import quotas on steel and alumin ium 
products under Section  232, which have been reflected in the US  notification circulated as 
document  G/MA/QR/N/USA/4. As this Committee is aware, China raised th is issue at several G/MA/M/74  
 
- 19 - 
 
  previous meetings of the Committee and asked the United States  to provide detailed information 
and clarification of its measures.  Unfortunately, the United States  has yet to provide any detailed  
information . China reiterate s its prior request that the United States provide details about the import 
quota measures, such as the specific quantities and requirements of the quota s, and that it clarifies  
how these measures are consistent with WTO  rules, in particular, under  Article  XI and Article  XXI of 
the GATT  1994. 
4.92.  The representative of  the United States  indicated the following:  
4.93.  The United States  appreciate s the European Union's continued interest in this matter . The 
United States also appreciate s the recent opportunity to bring our respective experts together to 
discuss this issue.  The United States notes that  there are five  foreign species of sturgeon listed as 
endangered under the US  Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA applies not only to wild animals 
but also to animals in captivity.  Therefore, when a species is listed under our ESA, the listed entity 
includes both captive and wild animals.  There are 10 additional species of sturgeon under review by 
the US and Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).  In December  2017, the USFWS published a 
preliminary determination that one of those species, the Yangtze River sturgeon, is presently in 
danger of extinction and should  be considered endangered under the E SA. The USFWS published its 
final determination earlier this week , in the 26 April Federal Register.  With respect to the current 
status of the nine  other species under review, the USFWS is conducting a 12-month  status r eview 
on the petition to list those species of sturgeon under the E SA. The Service is collecting and 
evaluating information and has not made a determination regarding the listing of these species.  A 
listing determination will be made on the best scientific and commercial information available.  More 
specifically, the Service is currently reviewing the Amur, Caspian, and Siberian sturgeon.  The 
Caspian sturgeon review includes Russian, Persian, ship, and stellate sturgeon. At any time during 
the Serv ice's review, the European Union  may provide additional information to help the USFWS to 
make this determination. Once the status review is completed, if the Service finds that listing is 
warranted, the Service will prepare a proposed rule. At that point, the public will be given 60  days 
to comment on the proposed listing. This will give the European Union  another opportunity to provide 
the Service with information.  The United States is  happy to facilitate a continued discussion among 
the relevant authoriti es, as appropriate.  
4.94.  The United States  also take s note of the comments and questions raised by China regarding 
the WTO-consistency of the Section  232 quotas. The United States has invoked Article  XXI(b) of the 
GATT  1994 and the actions are therefore wholly WTO-consistent. Regarding questions related to the 
operation of the Section  232 quotas, the United States  refers Members to the relevant proclamations 
issued under Section  232, and to quota implementation information published on the website of 
US Customs and Border Protection.  
4.95.  The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed to revert to the se notifications 
at its next meeting.  
4.96.  The representative of Canada  indicated the following:  
4.97.  On all of the se items , Canada  thanks those Members that have submitted a notification , 
especially those that are submitting notifications for the first  time. This is a very good exercise for 
Members to go through to examine their domestic policies and to ensure that they are notifying 
those that are required to othe r WTO  Members. It  is a long process, as Canada knows from its own 
recent notification , which considerably updated its previous notifications ; nevertheless , it is an 
important part of the transparency process here at the WTO and Canada therefore encourage s 
Members to continue in their efforts in this regard . Canada also wishes to thank those Members that 
promptly notified changes in their QRs as this helps to support information -sharing among 
stakeholders regarding recent changes in the administration of QRs . Canada suggest s that Members 
consider over the coming months , and prior to the Committee's next formal meeting , the possibility 
of holding a spring  2022 workshop similar to that held in 2018 , which helped Members to pull 
together information in the relev ant format so as to be able then to submit their QRs. This had been 
a good capacity -building exercise and perhaps , at its next formal meeting,  the Committee could give 
its consider ation to a further such workshop . 
4.98.  The Chairperson  suggested that the Committee discuss th e idea of a QR workshop at its next 
informal meeting to see if there existed any  wider appetite for such an initiative.  G/MA/M/74  
 
- 20 - 
 
  4.99.  It was so agreed . 
B. REPORT FROM THE SECRETARIAT (G/MA/ W/114/REV.3 ) 
4.100.   The Chairperson  drew Members ' attention to document  G/MA/W/114/Rev.3 , entitled 
"Quantitative Restrictions: Factual Information on Notifications Received". In this periodic report, 
the Secretariat summarize d the content of the QR  notifications that ha d been received.  
4.101.   The Secretariat  (Mr Simon  Neumueller)  provided  a factual presentation of all notifications of 
QRs received until the date of the meeting . In his presentation6, he provided  a general overview 
covering  the number of notifications and the size of the resulting d ataset, the different types of 
restrictions that h ad been notified, the product categories  most concerned , and the types of 
WTO justifications and other non-WTO justifications  cited by Members. The focus was on the 
measures in force. In total , 53 Members had submitted at least one  QR notification since 2012.  In 
the period January -April 2021, 16 Members had notified their QRs, whereas  in 2020 35  Members 
had submitted notifications . In addition, since 2020, 13 Members7 had made a QR  notification for 
the first  time. He highlighted that t he COVID -19 pandemic had resulted , since early  2020, in a 
significant increase in QR  notifications , including new QR notifications . 
4.102.   The QR  database8 contain ed all notifications up until 3 April 2021, which represented  
notifications from 51  Members. These notifications indicated  a total of 1 ,622 QRs currently in force, 
which translate d into 2 ,098 measure s, and more than 160,000  tariff lines. He explained that t he 
difference between QRs and meas ures was due to the fact that some QRs involve d more than 
one measure. To avoid multiple counting, only the latest notifications were considered , plus the 
addenda for each of the 51  Members concerned. Regarding  the types of measures  notified , 
prohibitions were the most prevalent among both import and export -related measures , followed by 
non-automatic licensing and prohibitions under defined conditions. In relative terms, prohibitions 
were almost twice as frequent on the import than on the export side. Quotas and state trading 
operations were notified to a much lesser extent. QRs cover ed a wid e range of products ; however, 
HS Chapter  29 relating to Organic Chemicals st ood out and was cited in more than 258  QRs. On the 
other hand, 10.5% of  QRs ha d been notified without referring to any HS  codes or else remained 
general by stating that they relate d to "various" HS  codes , for example . HS Chapters  28 and 38, 
also pertaining to chemicals, had been  referred to in another 359  QRs. Mechanical and electrical 
machinery (Chapter s 84 and 85) ha d also been indicated in a large number of QRs. Weapons and 
ammun itions were frequently subject to trade restrictions, as well as animal products often in 
relation to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 
(CITES).  
4.103.   According to Article  XI of the GATT  1994,  QRs were only allow ed as exceptions, which mean t 
that the WTO  justification was an integral component of the notification. However , the QR  Decision 
(document  G/L/59/Rev.1 ) set out,  inter alia , that the "justification is provided for transparency 
purposes only and is therefor e indicative" and "It shall not prejudice any legal position a Member 
may take on the particular measure that the justification is intended to cover."  All in all , the 
GATT  1994 ha d been the most frequently cited justification, whereas other justifications, such as 
the Kimberley Process Waivers, Accession Protocols, TRIPS, and Safeguards played to date only a 
minor role.  No WTO  justification ha d been provided  for 39 QRs. In terms of the specific 
GATT  provisions , Members had mostly cited Article  XX (76% of the QRs in the dataset ). Within that 
provision, t he most prominent specific justification was paragraph  (b), which covered measures 
"necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health", which had been referred to in almost 
50% of  the QRs. The n ational security exception under Article  XXI of the GATT  1994 had been  
mentioned in 15% of the notified QRs, most ly in relation to weapons and ammunitions. The carve -out 
in Article  XI:2 of the GATT  1994 had been cited as a justification more  often in the case of exports 
than imports, in particular in relation to COVID -19 measures. Many of the  notified  QRs were 
grounded in an international agreement or convention that exist ed outside the WTO  framework. 
These so -called "non -WTO justifications" referred in particular to the Convention on International 
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which had been  mentioned in 66  QRs. 
The Montreal Protocol and the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer had been  
 
6 Document  RD/MA/79.  
7 Bangladesh; Kingdom of Bahrain; Colombia; Ecuador; Egypt; Israel; Malaysia; Republic of Moldova; 
North Macedonia; Paraguay; Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; United Kingdom; and Viet Nam.  
8 https://qr.wto.org/en#/ho me G/MA/M/74  
 
- 21 - 
 
  cited as a justification for 83  QRs. The Rotterdam, Stockholm, and Basel Conventions, and to a lesser 
extent the Minamata Convention on Mercury, accounted for another large share of 
non-WTO justifications relating to the protection of the environment. The three  UN Conventions 
relating to trade in narcotics and psychotropic substances had been  cited at least 31  times each. 
The Wassenaar Arrangement, which relate d to trade in arms and dual used goods, as well as the 
Chemical Weapons Convention, had been  the main ju stifications used by Members  in relation to 
measures on weapons and ammunitions.  He informed the Committee  that Members could access all 
this information, and much more , in the QR  database . 
4.104.   The Chairperson  reminded  Members that the Decision on Notification Procedures for 
Quantitative Restrictions , contained  in document  G/L/59/Rev.1 , provide d that: "Members shall make 
complete notifications of all QRs in force by 30  September  2012 and at two-yearly intervals 
thereafter." Even though the number an d quality of notifications ha d improved over the past years, 
the vast majority of Members ha d not yet, or never, provided information on the full list of QRs that 
they maintain ed. There were also several Members that had notified measures introduced in 
response to the COVID -19 pandemic and indicated that they would submit a complete notification 
of all of their measures at a later date ; however, many ha d not yet done so. He therefore encourage d 
Members to contact the Secretariat in case they need ed technica l assistance to comply with this 
important transparency provision.  
4.105.   The representative of Colombia  indicated the following:  
4.106.   Colombia would like to  extend its particular thanks to the Secretariat for the support and 
technical assistance it extended to Colombia during the preparation of its complex QR  notification , 
which enabled Colombia to comply with its transparency obligation s. Colombia also agree s with 
Canad a that the workshop organized in 2018 was useful ; like Canada, Colombia would support the 
organization of another such activity . On the Secretariat's factual report, Colombia  finds it a useful 
analysis that provides an overview of the substance and justifi cations of the QRs adopted by 
Members.  Regarding point 2.6 of the document, Colombia considers that the analysis could be 
complemented with factual information on how the different measures are administered, for 
example , by grouping the different methods o f administration into general categories. This would 
provide a clearer indication of whether the measures have to be applied across the board by all 
Members , or whether there are differences  in their administration.  Regarding the consultation of this 
information, and given the large number of measures that have been notified by Members, Colombia 
considers it useful to make  the database available to Members for easy consultation.  Finally, 
Colombia finds this information useful not only for the purposes of the Market Access Committee, 
but also for other WTO committees . As document  G/MA/W/ 114/Rev.3 points out, several of these 
measures have been adopted under international conventions  covering  different ar eas that are 
closely linked to trade. In this sense, we consider that the information in these notifications can be 
analysed and taken into consideration in other instances, such as  the Trade and  Environment 
Committee , which also has the database of enviro nment -related measures. If not already the case, 
there could be a cross -sharing of information between the two databases  in relation to the 
informati on notified by Members.  
4.107.   The representative of Switzerland  indicated the following:  
4.108.   Switzerland  thanks the Secretariat for its report, which gives a very precise overview of the 
QRs notified by Members. Although the increase in the number of Members that notified is a very 
positive development, more efforts need to be made to increase transparency i n this area, in terms 
of quantity and quality. In terms of quantity, now that there are many notifications, which provide 
good examples, Switzerland encourages those Members that have not yet notified to use these 
notifications as a source of inspiration w hen preparing their own notifications. In terms of quality, 
Members could make efforts to provide the HS  codes of the goods subject to the QR, as foreseen in 
the QR  Decision, and also the precise WTO  justification, even if it is only indicative, such as wh ich 
letter of Article  XX of the GATT is being referred to in the notification. When other international 
commitments are relevant, and Members are parties to those international conventions, Switzerland 
fails to understand why those conventions are not cite d as justification. On the suggestion in the 
report regarding the administration of the restrictions, Switzerland would welcome a more detailed 
assessment of this information from the Secretariat given that it would again increase transparency. 
Switzerland  stands ready to support the idea of a workshop as suggested by Canada.  
4.109.   The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report and the statement s made.  G/MA/M/74  
 
- 22 - 
 
  5  TRADE -RELATED MEASURES RELATING TO THE COVID -19 PANDEMIC  
5.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that there were three  issues listed under this agenda item. The 
first issue concerned the updated list of all notifications and communications relating to the 
COVID -19 pandemic, which had been submitted by Members to this Committee as of 15  April 2021, 
as contained in document  G/MA/W/157/Rev.2.  The second  item concerned a new summary report 
on export restrictions and trade-facilitating measures relating to the COVID -19 pandemic, which had 
been prepared by the Secretariat at the request of the Comm ittee and circulated in 
document  G/MA/W/168 and its corrigendum . The third  item was a new communication submitted 
by Australia concerning unilateral measures aimed at facilitating trade for essential products to 
combat the COVID -19 pandemic ( document  G/MA/ W/165). He thanked those Members that had 
informed the Committee of these measures , despite the fact that no obligation to do so existed in 
the WTO  Agreements . In addition, he thanked those Members that had responded to his call to 
provide more information. He proposed to discuss the three  agenda items together and to begin by 
requesting the Secretariat to make a presentation on the new document summarizing the 
information received .9 
5.2.  The Secretariat  (Mr Simon  Neumueller) reported that , since the  start of the COVID -19 crisis, 
trade ha d played a major role in the response to the pandemic  both in terms  of facilitating imports 
and restricting exports of essential goods. Export restriction s ranged  from full prohibitions  to 
licensing requirements for s tatistical purposes ; they  cover ed a wide range of products , from personal 
protective equipment to food products. As of the date of the meeting, 29 Members had notified 
export restrictions in relation to the response to the COVID -19 pandemic, in 69 notifica tions, which  
translat ed to 48  measures .10 These  Members had decided  to provide as much transparency as 
possible by notifying all modifications of the se measures as they occurred , as well as their date of 
termination , where applicable . Under  the QR  Decision11, Members had an obligation  to notify all 
quantitative restrictions  in force, including their changes ; however , according to the WTO's Trade 
Monitoring Report, there were an additional 10  Members  with export restrictions in place that ha d 
not yet  notified  these measures to the WTO . 
5.3.  When looking at the types of export restrictions , it emerged that  the most popular measure s 
seem ed to be non -automatic export licences, followed by full prohibitions and prohibitions except 
under  certain  defined conditions. In some instances, the type of restriction  had changed over time : 
for example, a measure was first a full prohibition for all face masks, which subsequently  evolved 
into a non -automatic licensing scheme only for "N95"-type masks. In on e case, there  was one  very 
brief measure , lasting less than one  month, which was an export quota for food products.  When 
looking at when the measures had been introduced , it was evident that , in March  2020, at the peak 
of the pandemic,  many Members had considered it necessary to introduce export restrictions . Over 
the northern hemisphere's summer months, no additional measures ha d been notified ; it was only 
in early 2021 that new measures began to be introduced  again. In three  cases , it had not been 
possibl e to deduce  when a given measure ha d entered into force. Regarding the duration, a lmost all 
of the export restrictions that ha d been entered into force  were listed as "temporary". Given the lack 
of a precise definition of the word  "temporary" , it was at least possible to see what was the actual 
duration of the notified measures. For the categories  in the report , the total duration of a measure  
had been considered , in other words , if a measure had first been introduced for 90  days but had 
then been extended by a further 90 days, it would be counted as a 180-day measure. 
Seven  measures ha d been shorter than three months, an additional four measures had been below 
six months, 12  additio nal measures had been below one  year, while two  measures had lasted 
beyond one year. However, almost half of the measures d id not have a clearly indicated duration, 
despite being notified as "temporary" in the majority  of cases . Regarding  the current status of the 
restrictions , at the end of April, during the first  big wave of the COVID -19 pandemic, the highest 
number of export restrictions had been  in force.  Since then, the number of measures ha d dropped 
but seem ed to have plateaued in recent months.  
5.4.  In order to make the measures comparable, product categories ha d been defined according to 
Annex Table  4. The majority of the expo rt restrictions relate d to face masks and protective garments 
such as medical gowns and gloves, which , taken together , were classified as "personal protective 
 
9 The presentation is contained in document  RD/MA/80 . 
10 The list  of Members is  provided in Appendix Table  1 of the Secretariat's report  contained  in 
document  G/MA/W/168.  
11 Document  G/L/59/Rev.1 . G/MA/M/74  
 
- 23 - 
 
  equipment " (PPE) . Other important affected categories were as follows : sanitizers ; pharmaceutical s; 
other medical supplies, such as syringes ; and medical equipment , such as ventilators. Only 
three  measures relate d to vaccines directly.  Foodstuffs, soap , and toilet paper ha d also been 
restricted , but to a lesser extent.  The vast majority of notified  restrictions had been justified by 
Members under  Article  XI:2(a)  of the GATT  1994, which state d that: "The provisions of paragraph  1 
of Article  XI shall not extend to the following:  (a) Export prohibitions or restrictions temporarily 
applied to pr event or relieve critical shortages of foodstuffs or other products essential to the 
exporting contracting party" . In addition, 46% of the export restrictions also referred to 
Article  XX:(b) of the GATT  1994, which covered  measures that were necessary to p rotect human, 
animal or plant life or health . However, a considerable number of measures d id not make explicit 
reference to any  WTO provision.  As of 29  April 2021, ab out 50% of the measures remain ed in force , 
whereas the remainder had either expired or else their termination ha d been explicitly notified.  
5.5.  The Secretariat  (Mr Roy Santana) noted that, i n addition to the export prohibitions and 
restrictions , the report also provided summary information on trade facilitating  measures that had 
been communicate d by Members to the Committee . These  accounted for  25 communications , from 
11 Members , which had  voluntarily provided  information  in respect of 34 trade-related measures 
that had been  implemented in response to the COVID -19 pandemic . He highlighted that in  the 
WTO Agreements there was  no notification requirement to provide  such information . Nevertheless, 
for transparency purposes, Members had considered it important to share th is information.  
Additional  Members had provided similar information to the Trade Monitoring Report ; however,  there 
existed no mechanism whereby this information could be considered by the  CMA, or any other 
Committee . In contrast , all information that had been  notified  to different  Committees had been 
automatically in tegrated in the information collected by the Trade Monitoring Report. Due to this  
asymmetry in the flow of  information communicated to the Secretariat, the Committee was not in a 
position to discuss information provided in the context  of the  Trade Monitoring Report ; however, this 
information could be take n into account  in a revised version of the report if Members so decide d. He 
clarified that the  report made reference to  "trade facilitating" measures because the measures in 
question s ought  to make it easier to impo rt, export or transit through the territory of a Member. 
However, this d id not mean that such measures were covered by the Agreement on Trade Facilitation  
(TFA) . For the handful of measures that did seem to be covered by the TFA,  the Secretariat had  
aggreg ated them under a single category in an effort to be  more succinct in its summary and to 
avoid duplicating ongoing work in the Committee on Trade Facilitation.  If these were to be 
disaggregated, there would be many more measures than those  currently listed  in the report . The 
summary of  trade facilitating measures could  be found in Annex  2 of document  G/MA/W/168 . As the  
information  currently available  was from 11  Members  only, the analysis of trade facilitating 
measures was  probably less representative than that regarding  export prohibitions and restrictions, 
where a much higher share of Members had provided information. Finally, he noted that  the same 
approach and variables in the statistical analysis had been  used to descr ibe the information on export 
prohibitions and restrictions ; however, while there were many similarities, there were also some 
differences in the results.  
5.6.  Regarding the type s of measures,  two-thirds  of trade facilitating measures  were tax -related 
measures,  which seem ed to be explained by two different types of motivations . A first  motivation 
was to try to reduce the price of products that were considered to be essential to combat the 
COVID -19 pandemic. However,  some of the measures applied rather to all pro ducts, which 
suggest ed a second  motivation , namely  a desire to provide liquidity and improve the cash flow of 
traders, who were disproportionately impacted in March and April  2020 by the combination of many 
different factors, including the closure of gover nment agencies due to lockdowns and other health 
protocols, as well as disruption s in international transport. The tax -related measures mostly 
consisted of the elimination, suspension or waiver of tariffs (that is, import duties ), followed by the 
eliminati on, suspension or waiver of other internal taxes, fees, charges and other duties and charges.  
In most cases,  tariff or tax elimination  was qualified as temporary and focused on a narrow list of 
products. Finally, some Members did not eliminate the obligation to pay, but rather provided for a 
deferral  or moratorium  that allowed importers to extend the period in which they were required  to 
pay import duties or other taxes due  on importation . These deferrals were typically applicable to all 
products.  The second  major category of measures relate d to different types of customs procedures 
and included  expedited or simplified clearance procedures , mostly for essential products , as well as 
the simplification of other customs procedures . Many measure s in this category , but not all, seem ed 
to relate to provisions covered by the TFA.  Finally, t here was a third  category , of "residual" 
measures , which  included, for example, the establishment of procedures for donated goods in a 
state of emergency  ("relief goods "). G/MA/M/74  
 
- 24 - 
 
  5.7.  Most of these measures were qualified by Members as being "temporary" in nature.  In terms 
of their expected duration, no information was indicate d for 14 of the 34  measures ; that is, the 
Member indicated the date in which the measured had entered into force but not when it would 
expire or be reviewed. For those measures where such information  was available , the majority were 
put in place for a peri od of between six months and one  year. It was also worth noting that four of 
the measures were described as permanent changes.  Another important point to note was that this 
analysis had been  based on the information contained in the communications received , hence  it was 
not possible to know whether these measures had been renewed or terminated differently.  
5.8.  In terms of product  types, the majority of Members seem ed to have focused on facilitati ng 
imports of PPE . More specifically, f or face and eye protection, nine out of 11  Members sought to 
simplify the importation of these products. PPE  was also the p roduct category  with the highest 
number of export prohibitions or restrictions, which demonstr ated the importance that Members 
attached to sourcing these products from the international market, in particular during the 
first phase of the pandemic. For the remaining products, there were similarities in terms of export 
restrictions, such as the impor tance given to sanitizers and disinfectants, as well as to medical 
devices and equipment , such as mechanical respirators. However, some differences  were registered  
with respect to pharmaceuticals, which ranked high ly in the analysis of export restrictions , but which 
were proportionally less relevant in the area of  trade facilitating measures . 
5.9.  With respect to the current status of the measures, it was  clarified that the analysis presented 
in the report was based exclusively on the information contained in these communications ; it should, 
therefore, be interpreted with caution . In particular , the Secretariat could not  really know if these 
measures ha d already expired or if they remain ed in force ; indeed,  for almost one  third of these 
measures , insufficient information was available to make such a determination.  Finally, he noted 
that Secretariat had  to work under considerable time pressure to summarize and analyse the 
information ; any error s in the report would be addressed in its revision . Given  the issue's importance, 
he encourage d those  Members that had submitted QR  notifications and information on  their trade 
facilitating measures to carefully review the report  and to contact the Secretariat  in case of error. 
The Secretariat st ood ready to adj ust or update the report as necessary in order to respond to 
Members ' needs in this respect.  
5.10.  The Chairperson  highlighted that o ne of the main points that had emerged from  the 
Secretariat's presentation was that only 10 Members12 had notified the termination of their export 
prohibitions or restrictions , and that many other Members ha d not yet done so. Given the importance 
of transparency, he urged Members to look carefully at the Secretariat 's report and to swiftly  notify 
any change s o that the Committee could be  kept informed of developments  in this area . 
5.11.  The representative of Chile indicated the following:  
5.12.  Chile underscores how  important it is that Members work together to make the WTO  relevant 
and to improve transparency.  
5.13.  The repres entative of the European Union  indicated the following:  
5.14.  This analysis of Members ' notifications and communications, as well as the link with the 
WTO Trade Monitoring Exercise , effectively increase s transparency concerning  trade measures taken 
in response to the COVID -19 pandemic. The European Union  would like to share a few observations  
based on the report . First, the report mentioned that " 10 additional Members […] introduced similar 
export restricting measures in response  to the COVID -19 pandemic which have not yet been notified 
under the QR  Decision ". The European Union  believes that it is in the interest s of all Members to be 
aware not only that such measures exist, but also their rationale , particularly when they are ta ken 
by major exporters. Members should be open to discussing the underlying causes for the measures.  
Second, the European Union  notes that the duration or status of a number of the measures is 
unclear. The European Union  believe s that transparency in this regard, which means also possibly 
providing updates , would be of benefit to all Members.  Third, the European Union has taken note of 
the call from the WTO 's Director -General to reduce the number of export restrictions. While such 
measures may be justified and necessary in a situation of critical shortage of essential products, 
they should always be proportionate, targeted , and time -bound. If a Member considers that a 
 
12 Australia, Kingdom of Bahrain, Bangladesh, Egypt, the European Union,  Republic of  Moldova, Norway, 
Switzerland, Ukraine, and Viet Nam.  G/MA/M/74  
 
- 25 - 
 
  situation of critical shortage exists, and provides explanations, the Membership  should consider how, 
as a community, we can assist that Member in reducing its critical shortage. That said, more than a 
year has now elapsed since the beginning  of the crisis , but many restrictions remain in place, 
including on PPE  products. This raises the question of whether such restrictions remain  justified, 
given that a lot of investment has been made to scale -up PPE  production across the globe.  Finally, 
the European Unio n also note s that 11  Members communicated 34  measures that were  trade 
facilitating in character. These measures predominantly eliminate customs duties or provide 
additional tax relief to importers. While many have expired, there are still some M embers that are 
maintain ing such trade facilitating measures ; the European Union is one of these . The European 
Union  encourage s Members to work closely  together,  in the context of the Trade Facilitation 
Committee , on best practices that Members could follow  in emerge ncy situations such as that which 
the world is currently facing . The European Union  thank s the Secretariat for its informative  overview 
and look s forward to an update at the Committee's  next meeting.  
5.15.  The representative of Switzerland  indicated the following:  
5.16.  Switzerland considers that the report provides  a very good overview of the measures  adopted 
and notified . Switzerland share s the majority of the comments made by the European Union with 
respect to the 10 Members that have adopted but not yet notified their measures to the Committee.  
As the information is available in the Trade Monitoring Report , Switzerland asks if it might be possible 
for them also to be taken into consideration in the context of the C MA in order to have a more 
accurate . If Members had difficulties in completing QR notification s, Switzerland asks if it might be 
possible for them to make a cross -reference to the Trade Monitoring Report in a QR notification  so 
that the relevant information is also available in the context of this Committee . In addition , 
Switzerland has one  suggestion to make in relation to the useful QR database its search and explore 
options , in particular as concerns products. It seems  to Switzerland  that a use r needs first to select 
the Member and only then the product ; however, Switzerland requests a search and explore 
functionality allowing users to select only the products of interest to them in their search and to see 
at once the results for all Members ins tead of having to pre -select each Member . 
5.17.  The representative of Colombia  indicated the following:  
5.18.  Colombia considers that  document  G/MA/W/ 157/Rev.2 is useful for centrali zing the different 
notifications, identifying the different measures , and monitoring the actions taken by Members over 
time. Colombia  also welcome s document  G/MA/W/ 168, which sets out Members' notified  export 
prohibitions  and restrictions . Colombia wishes to take this opportunity to share some  comments on 
the restrictions, regulatory measures , and bans on exports of vaccines and other medical 
technologies to treat COVID -19, which have been introduced in the context of the 
COVID -19 pandemic . This issue is directly related to agenda item  15, subm itted by Australia, in 
relation to which Colombia has  also register ed its  interest.  When the request was made a year ago 
to include the agenda item on pandemic -related trade measures , and the Secretariat initiated the 
preparation of these factual papers, Members  imagined that there would be a significant number of 
both facilitating and restrictive measures  affecting medical products . Nevertheless , Colombia wishes 
to express its serious concern over the rising trend in applying export  restrictions on vaccine s and 
medical technologies. Despite multiple calls from Colombia and others, and the terrible experiences 
of limited access to medical products, the situation seems to be getting worse rather than better.  
5.19.  Some of these restricti ons and prohibitions have be en notified by Members, which is positive 
in terms of transparency and access to information ; however, many others  are hidden among rules, 
requirements , and regulations , that Members  do not know about or fully understand.  Article  XI:2 of 
the GATT  is used to justify such measures and it does indeed afford Members the possibility of 
adopt ing temporary restrictions in the case of acute shortages. However, this provision is precisely 
an exception , a flexibility , which departs from the general rule of not applying and maintaining 
restrictions of this kind.  Exceptions and flexibilities should be used in critical circumstances and at 
critical times  only, and the comprehensiveness of the objectives pursued and the consequences for 
all Members of the system sho uld be reviewed before resorting to them.  In other words, the 
exception in Article  XI:2 of the GATT  should not be used without taking other considerations  into 
account . In addition to the principles of non -discrimination and transparency, before resorting to 
flexibilities, it should be questioned how the se measures  impact on other  Members and how they 
correspond to the objectives of the multilateral trading system.  It is worth questioning whether such 
measures respect the founding principles of the GATT and  the Marrakesh Agreement , one being G/MA/M/74  
 
- 26 - 
 
  precisely that Members participate in these multilateral agreements with a desire for reciprocity and 
mutual advantage through the elimination of trade barriers.  
5.20.  Colombia reiterates the call to strengthen world trade and  global value chains , this being  the 
right response to the global health crisis. The basic principles of free trade that have been so strongly 
advocated in this house must continue to guide us. Export restrictions on inputs and vaccines, and 
the resulting retaliation by aggrieved countries, can trigger unpredictable risks  with a domino effect.  
Vaccines and treatments need to be shared globally  much faster than at present . Time is against 
everyone. These are crucial discussions. Therefore, Colombia  urges all Members to continue to work 
together to avoid  vaccine nationalism.  Finally, Colombia encourage s the Secretariat to continue 
monitoring and analysing the measures adopt ed and to update its report prior to the Committee's 
future meetings . Colombia also urge  Members to submit notifications and to avoid a pplying 
restrictive measures.  
5.21.  The representative of Canada  indicated the following:  
5.22.  Canada considers it  particularly inte resting that almost 80% of the 48  export -restricting 
measures notified by Members specifically cite Article  XI:2(a) of the GATT as a justification for such 
action.  By comparison, as of early 2019, by our count , only 14  out of the 432  measures on exports 
reported by Members since 2012 cited Article  XI:2 of the GATT  in general as a justification.  And, in 
looking back at the details in the notifications in which those 14  measures were reported, it appears 
that only three of them were actually intended  to impose temporary restrictions on exports . As 
opposed to Article  XI:2 of the GATT , other  provisions apply in those cases.  Canada  also note s that, 
according to the Agriculture Information Management System, there have been only 22 export 
restriction noti fications to the Agriculture Committee since 1995.  For which reason,  you may wonder 
why Canada is mention ing these figures.  Essentially, Canada wishes to highlight the following 
two elements : first, Article  XI:2(a) is a carve -out from the GATT  as it exclud es certain measures 
from the scope of the obligation that prohibits the implementation of an export restriction ; and 
second, Members have not used this carve -out very often.  
5.23.  As Canada mentioned at the previous meeting of the  Council for Trade in Goods, the  rules 
governing QRs were drafted long ago.  The original draft of the carve -out that became Article  XI:2(a) 
of the GATT reads as follows:  "Export prohibitions or restrictions temporarily imposed to relieve 
conditions of distress which are local to the expo rting country and which are caused by severe 
shortages of foodstuffs or other essential products" . Canada believes it is important to note the word 
"local" here. It was also emphasized during the preparatory discussions in 1947 that , indeed , the 
carve -out was intended to respond to situations when "local supplies of a product are scarce ". In 
looking back at the various QR  notifications that claim Article  XI:2(a) of the GATT as their 
justification, the measures do indeed seem , from Canada's perspective,  to be driven by local 
economic situations in relation to actual or potential shortages of a specific product.  The measures 
notified also seem to be designed to keep prices low and support the ability of local populations to 
access a supply of locally produ ced products, mainly foodstuffs.  However, pandemics are by their 
very definition not a local emergency ; nor are they first and foremost an economic emergency.  
5.24.  It has been a year since the heads of the WTO and IMF stated the following regarding the 
emerging  use of export restrictions at that time:  "What makes sense in an isolated emergency can 
be severely damaging in a global crisis. Such measures disrupt supply chains, depress production, 
and misdirect scarce, critical products and workers away from where t hey are most needed. Other 
governments counter with their own restrictions. The result is to prolong and exacerbate the health 
and economic crisis — with the most serious effects likely on the poorer and more vulnerable 
countries. " The continuing health cr isis is a global health crisis, and as is often stated, it will not be 
resolved until all areas of the world address it.  In response to the proliferation of new export 
restrictions at the outset of the pandemic, G20  leaders affirmed that:  "[E]mergency meas ures 
designed to tackle COVID -19, if deemed necessary, must be targeted, proportionate, transparent 
and temporary, and that they do not create unnecessary barriers to trade or disruption to global 
supply chains, and are consistent with WTO  rules." But what  if that political guidance is not enough?  
What if "consistent with WTO  rules" does not help?  What if , instead , WTO Members, when faced with 
a similar global health crisis, only look to impose restrictions on exports of essential medical goods 
as a last re sort? What if WTO  Members choose to first look for ways to collaborate , to support 
multilateral efforts to maintain the free movement of medical goods and their inputs?  What if the 
multilateral trading system could be improved to provide some certainty?  Certainty that Members 
will look to work together to harness all available global resources in orde r to maximize the G/MA/M/74  
 
- 27 - 
 
  production and distribution of the medical goods needed to face the next global health emergency.  
Canada believes that WTO Members should t ake stock of the lessons learned throughout this 
pandemic in relation to the use of GATT  Article  XI:2(a).  Canada  will continue considering how 
WTO Members could improve the use of this provision in support of collective efforts to address 
future health cri ses and look s forward to working with Members on this important issue.  
5.25.  The representative of Singapore  indicated the following:  
5.26.  Singapore thanks  the Secretariat  for both documents,  in particular  for 
document  G/MA/W/ 168, which provided a very useful overvie w of the measures notified by 
Members. Singapore would also like  to request the Secretariat to provide an update at the 
Committee's next meeting , while continuing to take into account the inputs from the Trade 
Monitoring Report and other relevant  sources a s well.  
5.27.  The representative of Paraguay  indicated the following:  
5.28.  Paraguay thank s the Secretariat for its presentation  and e choes the observations made b y 
Colombia  regarding the supply of vaccines . Paraguay  will speak to this issue in more detail under  
agenda item  13, as requested  by Australia.  Paraguay agree s with Canada on its considerations 
regarding  the WTO rules governing export restrictions. Paraguay's impression is that it is important 
and urgent  that Members undertake an analysis to ensure that there is no abuse of this 
Organization's rules. Members should not use the COVID -19 pandemic as a reason not to abide by 
those rules. Indeed , the COVID -19 pandemic has not helped to bring an adequate response ; to the 
contrary , it has worsen ed the conditions in terms of  equitable access to vaccines  and their 
components.  
5.29.  The representative of Australia  indicated the following:  
5.30.  Australia would like to register its appreciation to the Secretariat for its work on the report . 
Australia also thank s Colombia for its comments on the unilateral trade facilitating measure s from 
Australia referenced under agenda item 5.3. The WTO 's transparency function has proven to be 
valuable throughout the COVID -19 pandemic. Australia encourage s Members to ensure that 
emergency measures introduced in response to the COVID -19 pandemic remain targeted, 
proportionate, transparent, temporary, consistent with WTO  rules, and avoid creating unnecessary 
disruptions to supply chains. It will be important  to honour commitments to roll  back 
COVID -19-related trade restrictive measures  in order  to ensure that temporary measures do not 
become permanent fixtures.  
5.31.  The Chairperson , based on the discussions held, tasked the Secretariat to update the report 
with information coming from the Trade Monitoring Report. In addition, he asked the Secretariat to 
follow up with Switzerland on the adjustments to the QR  database.  
5.32.  The Committee took note  of the reports by the Secretariat, the three  documents, and the 
statements made.  
6  SITUATION OF SCHEDULES OF WTO  MEMBERS – REPORT BY THE SECRETARIAT 
(G/MA/W/23/REV.17)  
6.1.  The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new revision of the report by the Secretariat 
describing the current situation of Members' WTO  Schedules of conc essions 
(documents  G/MA/W/23/Rev.17 and  G/MA/W/23/Rev.17 /Corr.1 ). The full version of the 
Secretariat 's report  and presentation  had been circulated  in document  RD/MA/76 . 
6.2.  The Secretariat  (Ms Roberta Lascari) reported on the procedures that had been undertak en to 
rectify or modify Members' S chedules of concessions , which had been summarized in the annual 
report (documents  G/MA/W/23/Rev. 17 and G/MA/W/23/Rev. 17/Corr.1) . In this regard, the 
Secretariat noted that Members had submitted 655  notifications under the 198 0 Procedures  for 
Modification and Rectification of Schedules , which included a wide range of different changes. They 
included, for example, changes relating to unilateral liberalization efforts, rectifications of errors, 
tariff c oncessions resulting from plurilateral agreements modifying schedules of concessions, such 
as the ITA, the ITA  Expansion, and the Agreement  on Pharmaceuticals (Pharma), as well as the G/MA/M/74  
 
- 28 - 
 
  more recent changes to Part  IV of the Schedules resulting from the Nairo bi Declaration eliminating 
export subsidies. These notifications further included the certification of renegotiations under  
Article  XXVIII of the GATT, which would be reported separately in the next agenda item. However, 
the majority of notifications  to change WTO  Schedules, 454 to be exact,  were the result of different 
HS transposition procedures . 
6.3.  The Secretariat's  report  sought  to highlight the work that remained pending  for each Member , 
including the procedures on which reservations were outstanding or where the Member concerned 
had indicated that the changes were subject  to the completion of domestic procedures  that had not 
been finalized after several years . Overall, o f the 655 procedures thus far,  633 had been certified 
(that is,  93%) and 20  procedures  remained pending either because reservations had been raised 
(16 procedures) or Members had yet to notify the conclusion of their domestic procedures 
(4 procedures) . Of these, two procedures had also  been withdrawn . The Secretariat reminded 
Members that a wealth of information relating to Schedules of concessions and their changes at the 
WTO was available in the new website Goods Schedules E -library ( https://goods -
schedules.wto.org/ ). 
6.4.  The Commi ttee took note  of the Secretariat's report.  
7  REPORT BY THE SECRETARIAT ON THE STATUS OF RENEGOTIATIONS UNDER 
ARTICLE  XXVIII OF THE GATT  1994 (G/MA/W/123/REV. 8) 
7.1.  The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to a new revision of the "Factual Report on 
the Status of Renegotiations under Article  XXVIII of the GATT  1994", which had been  circulated in 
document  G/MA/W/123/Rev.8. The full version of the Secretariat 's report and presentation had  been 
circulated in document  RD/MA/75 . 
7.2.  The Secretariat  (Ms Roberta Lascari) recalled that the "Factual Report on the Status of 
Renegotiations under Article  XXVIII of the GATT  1994" (G/MA/W/123/Rev.8) provided an overview 
of all the renegotiations which had been undertaken by WTO  Members pursuant to Article  XXVIII of 
the GATT  1994. As of 14 April 2021, Members had undertaken 49  renegotiations , which were at 
different stages of the procedures. The overall status was as follows : 24 renegotiation procedures 
had been concluded and the modifications to the WTO  Schedules certified;  five renegotiations had 
been concluded (step  1), and the draft changes to the Schedules had been submitted under the 
1980 Procedures (step  2), but they had not yet been certified; 10 renegotiations remained ongoing;  
one request to initiate a renegotiation under Article  XXVIII:4 had not been approved; and  
nine renegotiation procedures had been withdrawn.  The Secretariat  also provided additional 
information with respect to each of those categories. Of the 49  renegotiations, 24 had bee n 
successfully concluded and the modifications certified. In five  cases, Members had concluded the 
Article  XXVIII  negotiations and consultations with the interested Members, notified the bilateral 
agreements and final report, and had begun the 1980  Procedu res. However, four of these procedures 
were on hold due to reservations and the conclusion of one of them was subject to the completion 
of domestic procedures.  
7.3.  With respect to the conclusion of negotiations, the Secretariat recalled that renegotiations 
under Article  XXVIII of the GATT  1994 followed a "two -step" process from their initiation to their full 
completion . Under the first step, Article  XXVIII procedures were undertaken and concluded once the 
renegotiating Member had circulated the bilateral agreem ents with the Members holding rights in 
the negotiations (namely, Members holding Initial Negotiating Rights, principal suppliers, and 
Members with a substantial interest), as well as the final report describing the outcome of its 
renegotiation. The second  step of the procedures required the renegotiating Member to submit the 
draft modifications to its Schedule resulting from such negotiations under the "1980  Procedures for 
the Modification and Rectification of Schedules" (1980  Procedures). In the absence of objections 
within a three -month period from the date of circulation of the draft changes, this second  step would 
result in a certification of the modifications to the Schedule by the Director -General  and the 
Article  XXVIII process would be consi dered formally concluded.  With respect to the nine procedures 
that had been withdrawn, some of these were linked to the enlargements of the European Union. In 
these cases, a Member with an individual Schedule had begun a renegotiation process on its own, 
but then the overall Schedule had been withdrawn when that Member joined the European Union. 
In one  case, the request for authorization to initiate a renegotiation under paragraph  4 of 
Article  XXVIII of the GATT  1994 had not been approved by the Council for  Trade in Goods.  Finally, 
there were 10  renegotiations that had been launched, or the authorization to launch a renegotiation G/MA/M/74  
 
- 29 - 
 
  had been authorized. These procedures remained ongoing either because the negotiations and 
consultations had not yet been conclude d or the renegotiating Member had not completed the formal 
steps to conclude the process.  The Secretariat stood ready to provide technical assistance to 
Members as required.  
7.4.  The representative of Switzerland  indicated the following:  
7.5.  Switzerland notes that , regarding  ongoing procedures for seasoned meat, the modifications of 
the Swiss Schedule have been  applied on a provisional basis since 1  January 2021 , as agreed. The 
modifications have been approved by the Federal Government , in January  2021, and by Parliament 
in March  2021, as planned. Only one  legal formality remains to be completed. In Switzerland, 
international treaties and their modifications are subject to a referendum procedure of 100  days. 
The Swiss Schedule is an international treaty subject to the referendum. This means that the 
modifications in the Swiss Schedule will become definitive as of 8 July 2021, when these 100  days 
expire. As all stakeholders have been involved since the beginning, Switzerland  expect s that the 
definitive ent ry into force will be 8  July. Switzerland  will make the appropriate notifications related 
to the completion of our domestic procedures in due course.  
7.6.  The Committee took note  of the report and the statement made . 
8  ENHANCING TRANSPARENCY IN APPLIED TARIFF S – COMMUNICATION BY THE 
RUSSIAN FEDERATION (JOB/MA/138) - STATEMENT BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  
8.1.  The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to a communication from the Russian 
Federation  entitled "Enhancing Transparency in Applied T ariffs", which had been circulated in 
document  JOB/MA/138.  
8.2.  The representative of the Russian Federation  indicated the following:  
8.3.  As the Russian Federation has noted in previous meetings of this Committee, a greater 
availability of information regarding tariffs could help to boost businesses ' capacity to participate in 
global trade. This issue has become even more relevant in light of the new challenges created  by 
the COVID -19 pandemic.  While binding commitments in principle cover all agricultural products, this 
is not always the case for non -agricultural goods. There is also a divergence between bound and 
applied tariffs in respect of both agricultural and non -agricultural products. This is why the Russian 
Federation is convinced that the issue of transparency in tariffs shoul d cover both agricultural and 
non-agricultural products.  The Russian Federation examined the changes in tariffs adopted by 
Members during the past year. The Russian Federation has identified 440  Members ' actions relating  
to tariff changes , the number of which has more than doubled from the 2018 figure. More than 130 
of those actions were related to an increase in tariff rates.  A possible variation in tariff treatment 
creates uncertainty in market access conditions and a risk of unpredictabl e trade. The Russian 
Federation believe s that timely and accurate information with regard to tariff rates could contribute 
significantly to the predictability of trade and to restoring  trade flow s. The Russian Federation notes 
that, during the previous yea r, certain Members had submitted to the WTO  Secretariat information 
on temporary decrease s and increase s in their tariffs in light of the COVID -19 pandemic . The Russian 
Federation consider s that this practice is an essential starting point and a move in the right direction.  
The Russian Federation has also noticed the interest in this issue among Members and stand s ready 
to seek ways of improving transparency in applied tariffs together with other Members in order to 
develop specific MC12  proposals.  
8.4.  The repr esentative of Canada  indicated the following:  
8.5.  Canada,  too, has noticed an interest in this issue among a number of Members . In this regard, 
Canada would like to take this opportunity to remind delegates in the CMA of the ongoing discussions 
in the COASS on ways to improve transparency and applied tariffs  for shipments  en route . Canada, 
Australia, Brazil,  and Ukraine  will continue to reach out , to address  Members' questions and 
concerns , and to continue to refine the options paper , with a view to developing a proposal for MC12 
similar to that of the Russian Federation . The objective s of this proposal would be as follows : (i) to 
take a step forward to incre ase transparency and predictability in international trade but without 
engaging in new rule -making ; and (ii) not to employ a one-size-fits-all approach to increasing G/MA/M/74  
 
- 30 - 
 
  transparency in the application of applied tariffs , but rather to provide a menu of option s for Members 
to do so.  
8.6.  The representative of Paraguay  indicated the following:  
8.7.  Paraguay wishes  to reiterate its willingness to work on solutions that take into account  the 
transitional measures that some Members apply in the event of a tariff change , and which could  
offer the possibility for import ers to benefit from  the lower tariff in case s where  the change s resulted 
in an increase. Early notification s would be compli cated for those Members with legal systems where 
such changes are adopted by Presidential Decree . Transitional measures, which offer a better 
alternative to importers, should  be considered as an exception to such notification requirements. 
Paraguay conside rs that, in this sense,  a decision should be mutually advantageous while at the 
same time bring ing more clarity and transparency in applied tariffs.  
8.8.  The representative of Australia  indicated the following:  
8.9.  As noted in previous meetings, Australia supports the consideration within this Committee of 
how we might improve transparency in Members ' applied tariff schedules. The need to provide 
greater certainty for traders in cases where tariffs change once a shipment has departed from a 
point of export has been a concern held by several Members for some time. Furthermore, this issue 
has a real-life impact along the supply chain , impacting producers, export ers, importers , and 
consumers alike ; it causes unnecessary distortions , and in some cases commercial losses, that are 
avoidable.  Transparency in tariff rate changes is a cross -cutting issue involving both agricultural and 
non-agricultural trade. As such, Australia encourage s Members of this Committee to respond to the 
survey circulated in the C ommittee on Agriculture in Special Session (JOB/AG/168) and to consider 
the practical options set out by Canada, Brazil,  and Australia (G/MA/W/160) to address this 
important issue.  Australia looks forward to working with all Members to find practical solut ions to 
this issue.  
8.10.  The representative of  the European Union  indicated the following:  
8.11.  As mentioned in other fora, the European Union  would like to reiterate its interest in all 
constructive initiatives to enhance transparency on trade measures. This submis sion has also been 
discussed in the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session; in that context , the European Union 
has shown openness to engage on the matter further.  The European Union would like to reiterate 
its request for clarification as to the scope of the submission , namely , if the focus is on sudden tariff 
increases , or if it would concern also tariff changes due to other trade  measures , such as  application 
of safeguards.  
8.12.  The representative of the United States  indicated the following:  
8.13.  As it has stated previously , the United States recognize s that greater transparency in tariffs 
will benefit all of our traders. Therefore, the United States continue s to follow this issue with interest.  
The United States looks forward to continued engagement on t his issue.  
8.14.  The representative of India indicated the following:  
8.15.  India would like to thank the delegation of the Russian Federation for again placing this issue 
on the Committee's agenda. In this context, India wishes to state that it puts all notifications 
affecting tariff changes in to the  public domain immediately , that is,  on the same day, and details of 
the same can be obtained from the website of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. 
India has notified to the WTO , including under  the Trade Facilitation Agreement , websites from where 
such information can be obtained. Such details can also be obtained from the e-gazette system. 
India also annually notifies change s in its applied MFN  tariff to the IDB  database. Changes are also 
reflected in the WTO  Trade Monitoring Report on a regular basis. India finds that, despite such 
information already being available, proponent s still consider that additional notification obligations 
relating to changes in the applied MFN  tariffs are required. In this context, India believes that a 
Member is entitled to change its applied tariffs to address domestic compulsions, as long  as those 
tariffs are within its bound tariff commitments. India does not support such additions to an 
ever-growing list of obli gations that seek to circumscribe Members ' negotiated rights under the 
WTO Agreements.  G/MA/M/74  
 
- 31 - 
 
  8.16.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
9  ANGOLA – IMPORT RESTRICTING PRACTICES – STATEMENT BY THE RUSSIAN 
FEDERATION AND THE UNITED STATES  
9.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that this agenda item had been included at the request of the Russian 
Federation and the United States . 
9.2.  The representative of the Russian Federation  indicated the following:  
9.3.  The Russian Federation remains concerned by Angola 's import restrictions , which are unlikely 
to be in line with WTO  rules, especially its import restrictions  on certain agricultural and industrial 
products , under Presidential Decree No. 23/19 , which aims t o protect Angola's domestic industries. 
The Russian Federation's concern has been raised multiple times in this Committee as well as in the 
Council for Trade in Goods ; the Russian Federation also shared this concern with the delegation of 
Angola during the  previous week's bilateral meeting  between them . The Russian Federation looks 
forward to receiving replies from Angola regarding the status of its Decree, its implementation , and 
requirements for the importation of certain goods.  
9.4.  The representative of the United States  indicated the following:  
9.5.  As the United States has  expressed in this and other Committees, it remains concerned that 
this decree appears aimed at restricting Angola 's imports.  The United States  appreciate s Angola 's 
engagement on this issue with the US  Embassy in Luanda. However, as the United States  seeks to 
resolve its concerns, that engagement is not a substitute for addressing the issue in this or other 
Committees.  The United States continue s to hear reports of confusion over how th e decree is being 
enforced and of delays facing goods at the border.  Our agricultural exporters remain concerned over 
delays that perishable goods face amidst all this uncertainty.  The United States  urges Angola to 
revise this decree to address our concern s and ensure that its measures with respect to imports are 
in compliance with WTO  rules.  
9.6.  The representative of the European Union  indicated  the following:  
9.7.  The European Union  also maintains its deep concern over Presidential Decree No. 23/19 , which 
aims to protect domestic industries in a manner that is incompatible with WTO  rules. This 
Presidential Decree could prove detrimental to foreign investments in Angola.  Since 2019, the 
European Union has  raised its concerns repeatedly in various WTO  bodies, most re cently at the 
Committee on Agriculture, the Council for Trade in Goods, and in the  Import Licensing Committee. 
The European Union  remains supportive of Angola 's intention to diversify its economy and to develop 
its domestic industry. That said, the European Union has  doubts concerning the WTO -compliancy of  
the Decree , and the European Union has not yet received any substantive replies and explanations 
to address  its concerns . In particular, the Decree does not provide information on how these 
restrictions are implemented. It is notably unclear whether licences are to be used to manage these 
restrictions, in which case the measure would need to be notified under t he Import Licensing 
Agreement. In case of non -automatic licences, they would also need to be notified as a quantitative 
restriction.  The European Union once again urge s Angola to provide clarity as to the process 
regarding this Decree and as to whether any  amendments are planned. The European Union  urges 
Angola to review the relevant measures in order to ensure their compliance with WTO  rules.  
9.8.  The representative of Angola  indicated the following:  
9.9.  Angola took note of the statements made by the delegations of  the Russian Federation , the 
United States,  and of the European Union , and of their concerns regarding Angolan imports.  In fact, 
the concerns mostly focus on Decree No. 23/19 , which is one of the instruments being used to 
achieve Angola n economic diversif ication.  Angola is  doing its best, despite a number of disruptions 
caused by the COVID -19 pandemic. Angola's  trade policies aim to develop its economy while at the 
same time being based on compliance with international trade rules and based on mutual benefits, 
with the support of Angola's commercial partners.  Angola's declaration made at the previous formal 
meeting  of the Council for Trade in Goods , as well as those of the Committee  on Agriculture  and the 
Committee on Import Licensing , remains valid, since Angola had fruitful bilaterally discussions to 
clarify certain specific issues.  At this point, Angola has prepared its response to the questions raised G/MA/M/74  
 
- 32 - 
 
  by the United States , the Eu ropean Union , and the Russian Federation,  and this response will 
hopefully be sent in due course.  Nevertheless, Angola wishes to add that , even after this decree had 
entered into force, Angola does not see a ny real impact on imports in to Angola;  our partne rs are 
still exporting into our market. Angola is confident that the reason for any possible reduction in 
Angolan imports relates to the availability of foreign currency , and not to trade restrictions.  Again, 
Angola  takes note of the concerns raised , and inform s Members that internally Angola has a technical 
team working on a possible revision to Decree No. 23/19.  Angola remain s available for any further 
clarification , especially  as Angola is a strong supporter of the Multilate ral Trading System.  
9.10.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
10  CHINA - CUSTOMS DUTIES ON CERTAIN INTEGRATED CIRCUITS - STATEMENTS BY THE 
EUROPEAN UNION, JAPAN, AND THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, 
PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU  
10.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that this agenda item had been included at the request of the 
European Union, Japan, and the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu . 
10.2.  The representative of  the European Union  indicated the following:  
10.3.  The European Union regret s that, despite many requests and concerns raised at numerous 
meetings of the ITA and Market Access Committees, China has not thoroughly addressed this issue; 
nor has it amended its classification methodology. The European Union  continue s to urge China to 
reconsider its classification of certain Multi-Component Semiconductor ( MCO) products , where duties 
should not apply, even if such duties are being gradually lowered as the implementation of staged 
cuts progresses. The European Union  will continue to closel y monitor the implementation of China 's 
commitments in respect of this issue.  
10.4.  The representative of Japan  indicated the following:  
10.5.  As Japan has reiterated on successive occasions, including at the previous meeting of the  
ITA Committee, some tariff lines th at were bound duty -free have still been increased. Hence, Japan  
continue s to share the concern expressed by other Members.  Japan is closely monitoring the 
situation with regard to China 's commitment to abolishing customs duties in July this year on all 
relevant items in line with the staging of the ITA  Expansion.  
10.6.  The representative of Chinese Taipei  indicated the following:  
10.7.  Chinese Taipei's  views on this agenda item have , since 2018,  already been expressed on 
numerous occasions. Chinese Taipei takes note of the fact that all the duties on the multi-component 
semiconductors (MCOs) concerned will be eliminated by this July ; nevertheless, Chinese Taipei must 
still reiterate the fundament al principle that the scope of Members ' tariff concessions under the ir 
WTO commitment s should not be altered during their tariff transpositions. Chinese Taipei  will 
continue to closely monitor developments in this issue until the duties on the products con cerned 
have been completely eliminated.  
10.8.  The representative of the United States  indicated the following:  
10.9.  The United States  would like to support the statements and questions raised by the European 
Union , Japan,  and Chinese Taipei , and reiterate its concern  with regard to a change in China 's applied 
duty rates for certain semiconductor products.  This is an issue the United States has  previously 
raised in this Committee as well as in the ITA  Committee and the Council for Trade in Goods. These 
semiconductor products have been duty -free for over a decade yet are now being charged import 
duties. In line with the General Council Decision on HS  transpositions, the United States  continue s 
to assert that the scope of China's concessions appears to hav e changed substantially, and the value 
of the concession has been impaired.  In addition, the United States is  closely monitoring China's 
commitment to eliminate its tariffs on advanced semiconductors by 1 July 2021.  
10.10.   The representative of China  indicated th e following:  G/MA/M/74  
 
- 33 - 
 
  10.11.   China thank s the European Union , Japan, Chinese Taipei , and the United States,  for their 
consistent interest in this issue . As China has  provided its responses to this issue in various bodies 
and bilaterally, it will not repeat its detailed st atement in full. China would like to reiterate that its 
methodology is consistent with the WTO  rules, and that the duties on the MCO products concerned 
will be eliminated in July  2021.  
10.12.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
11  CHINA – TRADE DISRUPTIVE AND RESTRICTIVE MEASURES – STATEMENT BY 
AUSTRALIA  
11.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that this agenda item had been included at the request of Australia.  
11.2.  The representative of Australia  indicated the following:  
11.3.  Australia and China have enjoyed a strong bilateral partnership and mutually  beneficial 
trading relationship over many decades.  It is therefore with regret that Australia raises China 's 
implementation of trade disruptive and restrictive measures on certain imports from Australia, as it 
has done at the Council for Trade in Goods, in other relevant WTO  committees, and bilaterally. 
Australia has not received from China a satisfactory response to any of the issues it has  raised, all 
of which directly impact Australia 's market access rights under  the WTO  Agreement. Australia 
remains concerned by the sudden increase of measures, both formal and informal, that China has 
taken against Australia, particularly since mid -2020, and official Chinese statements and articles in 
state media linking China 's trade actions to unrelated issues in our bilateral relationship.  
11.4.  In terms of the measures relevant to this Committee, Australia is concerned about a series of 
what appear to be QRs or de facto  import bans. In November  2020, Australia received multiple 
credible reports, including from Chinese industry, that Chinese authorities had informally instructed 
importers not to purchase Australian barley, coal, copper ores and concentrates, lobster, logs, sugar, 
and wine. Such reports have continued in 2021. Similar c redible reports were also received in relation 
to cotton in October  2020. In addition, Australia  notes that China has taken formal actions against 
Australian barley, lobsters, logs, and wine that have effectively stopped trade in these commodities. 
Austral ia also notes Chinese trade data shows zero  Chinese imports of Australian coal and copper 
ores and concentrates since December  2020. This is despite, as Australia  understand s, no formal 
measures being implemented by China on these goods. Notably, China continues to import these 
products from countries other than Australia. A significant number of vessels carrying coal from 
Australia have faced long-term delays at Chinese ports  waiting to discharge cargo, peaking at 79 in 
December  2020. The delays have impacted the welfare of crew aboard these vessels and imposed 
significant costs on the commercial parties involved.  On cotton, there have been credible reports 
that on 16  October the Chinese National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) told Chinese 
cotton millers to stop or limit purchases and imports of Australian cotton. According to these reports, 
Chinese businesses that do not stop purchases and imports from Australia risk  losing future access 
to imports of cotton under existing or future cotton tariff -rate quotas . As noted at the recent Council 
for Trade in Goods, Australia  understand s from our cotton exporters that this situation remains the 
same. Allowing enterprises to make their own commercial purchasing decisions based on economic 
and business fundamentals is central to the market -oriented principles that underpin 
WTO membership.  
11.5.  Australia expects all WTO  Members to conduct their trading relationships with other 
WTO Members, including Australia, in a manner consistent with their WTO  obligations. China has 
consistently stated that it is committed to open trade and the multilateral trading system. Australia 
urges China to immediately cease any measures or directions poten tially being applied , formally or 
informally , to restrict imports of Australian products. Further more, Australia again seeks:  (i) advice 
from China for the basis of, and reasons for, instructions from Chinese officials to importers not to 
purchase Australi an barley, coal, copper ores and concentrates, cotton, lobster, logs, sugar, and 
wine;  (ii) assurances from China that all Australian exports to China are not the subject of QRs or 
de facto  import bans now or in the future, including in the form of formal  or informal instructions to 
stop or limit purchases; and (iii) reassurance that China will issue relevant import licences, and 
ensure consignments from Australia are cleared by relevant Chinese customs officials, in a timely, 
transparent, non -discriminator y, and predictable manner , consistent with China 's WTO  obligations.  
China has implemented a range of trade disruptive and trade restrictive measures against Australian G/MA/M/74  
 
- 34 - 
 
  goods that have undermined Australia 's access to China 's market.  These measures have cre ated 
uncertainty and damaged business confidence in both countries, regardless of whether the measures 
are formal or informal.  Australia has sought bilateral meetings at working and ministerial levels to 
discuss its concerns and has engaged in good faith o n the technical merits of announced measures. 
It is unfortunate that Australia's  engagement and transparency have not been reciprocated by China. 
Australia  remain s open, ready , and willing to meet bilaterally with China at the earliest opportunity 
and at all levels – in Geneva, in Beijing, and in Canberra – in order to progress constructively on 
any technical issues in our trade with China.  
11.6.  The representative of the United State s indicated the following:  
11.7.  The United States  share s Australia 's concern regarding China 's recent trade actions. The 
United States is committed to working with partners and allies to address China 's coercive and unfair 
trade practices.  
11.8.  The representative of  China  indicated the following:  
11.9.  China  takes note of the concern raised by Australia and the United States.  China  would like 
to refer to our statements made at previous meetings  of the Council for Trade in Goods . Taking this 
opportunity, China  would like to  reiterate that the strengthened inspection and quarantine measures 
taken by China are intended  to deal with problems of certain Australian products that have been 
occurring continuously since 2019. China has also  published those measures on its relevant 
government websites  and notified them to Australia without delay , in line with China 's laws, with 
international practices, as well as with the provisions of the China -Australia Free Trade Agreement.  
11.10.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
12  EUROPEAN UNION - CARBON BORDER ADJUSTMENT MECHANISM (THE EUROPEAN 
GREEN DEAL OF DECEMBER  2019) - STATEMENTS BY ARMENIA, THE KINGDOM OF 
BAHRAIN, CHINA, KAZAKHSTAN, THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC, QATAR, THE RUSSIAN 
FEDERATION, AND THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA  
12.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that this agenda item had been included at the request of Armenia, 
the Kingdom of Bahrain, China, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Qatar, the Russian Federation, 
and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.  
12.2.  The represen tative of  the Russian Federation  indicated the following:  
12.3.  The Russian Federation  would like once again to express its concern in respect of the proposed 
European Union Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) , and reiterates its statements made 
during the  previous meetings of the C MA and the Council for Trade in Goods.  The draft measure is 
supposed to be developed and published by the end of the second  quarter of 2021. According to the 
European Union's  plans , this measure should enter into force by 2023. Despite the fact that the 
parameters of the measure have not yet been determined, the Russian Federation is  deeply 
concerned by this proposal.   
12.4.  Application of the CBAM has been announced by the European Union as a measure aimed at 
decreasing the risks of so -called carbon leakage, namely, the delocalization of carbon -intensive 
industries to countries whose regulations differ from those of the European Union on  climate 
regulation.  The Russian Federation wonders w hether the measure pursuing this goal can be justified 
under current WTO  rules. For example , the EU -ETS, one of the corner stones of its policy, provides 
free allocation of allowances and compensation of indirect emissions that are nothing more than 
support ing measures for EU  industries aimed at reducing their costs of compliance with this trading 
system. Another issue of concern to the Russian Federation  is why third  country exporters should 
bear the costs of the EU  industry compliance with its domestic env ironmental legislation. The Russian 
Federation  request s the European Union to clarify whether supporting measures will be eliminated 
or incorporated into the formula calculation of the CBAM. If no t, the Russian Federation wishes to 
know how the CBAM could be compatible with WTO  rules. The Russian Federation also request s the 
European Union to elaborate on how it envisages maintaining the competitiveness of its exported 
products if the CBAM enters into force.  The Russian Federation is also concerned about  the potential 
inconsistencies of the proposed measure with the basic rules of the WTO  Agreements , such as the G/MA/M/74  
 
- 35 - 
 
  national treatment and  most-favoured -nation  principles . The Russian Federation  request s the 
European U nion to confirm that the CBAM will comply with WTO  rules.  Finally, the Russian Federation  
urges the European Union to take into account all of its comments and to follow the principle of 
global cooperation in the field of combat ting climate change , as laid down by the international climate 
agreements.  
12.5.  The representative of Kazakhstan  indicated the following:  
12.6.  Kazakhstan  is closely  monitoring the development o f the proposed EU  CBAM. Kazakhstan 
urges the European Union to fully consider the compatibility of the CBAM with WTO  rules and 
regulations so that any such measure does not create obstacles to trade.  Kazakhstan looks forward 
to learning more about this initiative, including its current state of development , the specific form of 
the measure , and its coverage at the sector al and product level.  
12.7.  The representative of the Kyrgyz Rep ublic indicated the following:  
12.8.  The issue of the European Union's proposed CBAM has been raised more than once in the 
different bodies of the WTO. A number of Members expressed their views and position s on this issue 
during the meeting of various  WTO bodies at the end of  2020 and in 2021. The K yrgyz Republic  
commends the efforts of  WTO Members to establish and achiev e a sustainable ecological 
environment. The issues relating  to ecology and the environment are important to all Members of 
the WTO. At the same time, the K yrgyz Republic  believes that actions and measures in this area 
should not affect the interest s of other Members and should be implemented and maintained in full 
compliance with WTO  rules and  norms.  
12.9.  The representative of China  indicated the following:  
12.10.   China would  like to register its concern regarding the EU 's plan to propose a C BAM. As 
climate chan ge is a common challenge for us all, it is important that the international community 
develop unprecedented ambition and take action to tackle climate change.  However, in order to 
successfully address the challenge, Members need to be committed to multilat eralism and the 
principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, as laid out in the UN  Framework Convention 
on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its Paris Agreement. Members should not create green trade 
barriers and disrupt international trade flows.  China notes that the EU  parliament adopted a 
resolution on 10  March  2021, namely "A WTO -compatible EU  Carbon Border Adjustment 
Mechanism ", which s upports the introduction of a CBAM, provided that it is compatible with 
WTO rules and EU  free trade agreements by not being discriminatory or constituting a disguised 
restriction on international trade . China wishes the European Union to provide more detailed 
clarification s and explanation s of how it will ensure the consistency of the CBAM  with the 
WTO's rules. China encourages the European Union  to maintain  transparency in the legislation 
progress  and stands ready to continue its engagement  with the European Union on this issue.  
12.11.   The representative of  the Kingdom of  Saudi Arabia  indicated the following:  
12.12.   The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia wishes  to thank the proponents for raising  the subject matter 
of the CBAM. From Saudi Arabia's  perspective, while the European Union  stated that the proposed 
mechanism would  be in conformity with WTO  rules and its other international obligations, the 
European Union is yet to provide an explanation of how it aims to do so. The European Union  states 
that the CBAM is intended to address the risk of investment leakage from the European Union  to 
other countries ; however,  in fact , the main objective is to maintain the competitiveness of the EU 's 
industries. Saudi Arabia's very preliminary review indicates that the proposed mechanism raises 
very serious concerns due to its potential long -term negative implications on global  trade, notably  
that it will distort the full value chain of trade , including goods, services, and jobs. Saudi Arabia 
urges the European Union  to engage in further consultations with Members in order to ensure the 
full compliance of the CBAM with WTO  rules and agreements and to ensure that the proposed 
mechanism would not create unnecessary barriers to trade or be applied in a manner that constitutes 
protection to EU  domestic industries.  Finally, Saudi Arabia looks forward to hearing further details 
and reflections from the European Union on this proposed mechanism ; furthermore,  the Kingdom 
stands ready to engage with the European Union and other interested Members  on this issue . 
12.13.   The representative of  the Kingdom of Bahrain  indicated t he following:  G/MA/M/74  
 
- 36 - 
 
  12.14.   The Kingdom of Bahrain shares similar concerns to those raised by the Russian Federation, 
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia , and other proponents.  The Kingdom of Bahrain urges the European 
Union  to engage in further consultations with Members in or der to ensure the full compliance of the 
proposed CBAM with the WTO's rules and Agreements and to ensure that the proposed mechanism 
does not create any unnecessary barriers to trade, and that it is not applied in a manner that 
constitutes protection to EU  domestic industries.  Finally, Bahrain  looks forward to receiving  further 
details and clarifications from the European Union  on this proposed mechanism ; in this regard, 
Bahrain stands  ready to engage with the European Union and all other Members interested in this 
matter.  
12.15.   The representative of Uruguay  indicated the following:  
12.16.   Uruguay recognize s the policy objectives outlined by the European Union . Uruguay reaffirm s 
its commitment to the climate in the multilateral environmental agree ments , including the Paris 
Agreement , and the  adoption of  policies for its compliance. Uruguay reiterate s its interest in the 
development of the  CBAM in the context of the broader EU  Green Deal . Uruguay hopes to continue 
receiving updated and more detailed data  regarding this initiative , including concerning its 
development and process of adoption , design , and scope in terms of products and sectors . Finally, 
Uruguay wishes to emphasize the importance of ensuring the compatibility of th is measure wit h the 
commitments  undertaken by the European Union under the WTO  Agreements . 
12.17.   The representative of  the Republic of  Korea  indicated the following:  
12.18.   The Republic of Korea appreciates the European Union's  leading role in global efforts to 
tackle ongoing climat e change. The European Union  is considering introducing a CBAM to address 
the issue of possible carbon leakage with a view to achieving carbon neutrality by 2050. However, 
when introducing environmental measures , such as the CBAM, individual countries shou ld ensure 
that those measures  comply with WTO  rules and will not impede the free flow of trade by creating 
additional barriers. Korea also suggests having sufficient discussion among WTO  Members to ensure 
transparency and predictability in the process of i ntroducing the CBAM.  
12.19.   The representative of Thailand  indicated the following:  
12.20.   Thailand fully acknowledges the urgent threat to humankind posed by climate change and 
recogni zes that the international community shares a common cause in tackling this global 
challenge.  At the same time, it is important to ensure that international rules and principles, including 
those under the WTO, are respected. Such rules and principles help to ensure fairness and minimi ze 
any trade -distorting effects of measures tak en to tackle climate change. Crucially, to pass muster 
under the WTO rules, these measures must be genuine environmental measure s and not a restriction 
on international trade.  In light of these remarks, Thailand wishes to express its concern at the 
Europea n Union 's proposed C BAM and its potential adverse effects on trade and market access. 
Thailand  understand s that a number of policy options are being considered, all of which have the 
underlying aim, as suggested in the European Commission 's Inception Impac t Assessment , 
published in March  2020, to "ensure that the price of imports reflect more accurately their carbon 
content. " It should be reiterated that such policies must be consistent with WTO  rules, particularly 
in light of the principle of non-discrimin ation.  
12.21.   Pending more information about the design of the CBAM, Thailand is  aware that any 
examination into the WTO -consistency of the CBAM could only be premature. Regardless, it must be 
pointed out that this is a source of unease among traders and business es, many of whom possess a 
strong desire to decarboni ze. Under these circumstances, Thailand strongly hopes that, in coming 
up with the CBAM, the European Union will ensure adherence to all relevant international rules and 
principles and be guided by a spirit of international dialogue and cooperation.  In closing, Thailand 
wishes  to recall the sixth  recital of the preamble to the United Nations Framework Convention on 
Climate Change (UNFCCC) , which reads: "the global nature of climate change calls for the wi dest 
possible cooperation by all countries and their participation in an effective and appropriate 
international response, in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and 
respective capabilities and their social and economic conditi ons." Thailand strongly hopes that these 
principles will be taken into close consideration by the European Union in regard to the CBAM.  
12.22.   The representative of Paraguay  indicated the following:  G/MA/M/74  
 
- 37 - 
 
  12.23.   As Paraguay commented upon at the most recent meeting  of the Council for Trade in Goods , 
the European Union published , on 10  March  2021,  a Resolution by the Par liament on the CBAM and 
its compatibility with WTO  rules.  Paraguay  would like to reiterate our questions regarding the 
following elements : (i) if Landlocked Developing Countries (LLDCs) , being a special category of 
developing countries, would enjoy the same special and differential treatment  as small island states ; 
(ii) whether the CBAM would  or would not include agricultural products, given that the EU Emissions 
Trading System (EU ETS 2020) includes certain products such as milk powder, casein, lactose, frozen 
potatoes and peas, dehydrated potatoes, tomato puree and concentrates, yeast, manufactured malt, 
sugar, fats and oils ; (iii)  if the EU could provide a n update on how the procedure for importing 
countries to submit their own data in the calculation of the carbon footprint would work; (iv) whether 
there are plans to introduce positive incentives, such as a tariff reduction , for products that have  a 
lower  carbon  footprint than European products ; and (v)   if the EU could p rovide explanations on the 
functioning of the "export rebate" alternative and its compatibility with WTO  rules. Finally, Paraguay  
urges the European Union to publish its impact ass essment  and share it  with its trading partners 
once completed. Paraguay also stress es the importance of acting  multilaterally on environmental 
challenges , of preserving the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities , and of 
unconditional  respe ct for this house's  rules. Paraguay would be very grateful if the European Union 
could provide answers to these questions.  
12.24.   The representative of Pakistan  indicated the following:  
12.25.   This is an issue of extreme importance to Pakistan  as the European Union repr esents a large 
export market. Pakistan appreciate s the initiative by the European Union . However, Pakistan is 
concerned about the various technicalities and operations of this program me, its wider impact on 
trade flow s, and the potential negative implications for Pakistan 's exports into the European Union . 
Pakistan is also concerned that the CBAM will affect, in a very short time, our industry and 
employment structures if no immediate adjustment mechanisms are in place. Therefore, Pakistan  
would appreciate receiving more information from the European Union about this mechanism. 
Overall, Pakistan, like many other developing countries , has a very small per capita capacity for 
carbon footprint. Pakistan hopes that the Europe an Union also takes this into account when finalizing 
this scheme. Pakistan will continue to follow developments in this issue.  
12.26.   The representative of  the Philippines  indicated the following:  
12.27.   The Philippines support s the holistic effort by the European Unio n in the area of sustainable 
trade and development. The Philippines make s the following intervention to contribute to the EU's 
assessment processes in relation to the CBAM  proposal. First, the Philippines would like to seek 
clarification from the European Union regarding if the CBAM will take into account the limitations 
and capacity of some trading partners , including the Philippines,  which could affect compliance in 
respect of , for example , measuring and assessing its carbon footprint per commodity. The Philippines 
is in the process of building its own institutional capacity consistent with the enhanced transparency 
framework , or ETF , of the Paris Agreement . However, much will depend on the methodology of the 
approach that the European Unio n will eventually decide upon when implementing the CBAM. This 
emphasizes the importance of trade -related technical support and assistance to enable compliance 
by developing country Members in their domestic industries . Second,  the Philippines would like t o 
ask the European Union if and how the CBAM could affect the EU GSP+ and the tariff rates of the 
products benefiting from EU  GSP+ . Third, the Philippines would like to ask the European Union if it 
has considered the possibility of double counting  with res pect to the counting of carbon leakage f rom 
emissions associated with the imported goods. The Philippines notes that the CBAM could potentially 
conflict with Article  4 of the Paris Agreement , which states that : "when recognizing and 
implementing mitigation  actions with respect to anthropogenic  emissions and removals, parties 
should take into account as appropriate existing methods and guidance under the convention in light 
of the provisions of paragraph  13 of the article ", which  in turn  refers to ensuring t he avoidance of 
double counting. There is a likelihood  that said emissions are already accounted for and reported by 
the exporting country as part of its domestic emissions reduction measures. Fourth,  the Philippines 
is concerned that the implementation of  the CBAM could have a significant impact on our main 
exports  to the EU , namely electronic products, machinery and transport  equipment , and other  
manufactured goods. Such goods are likely to be covered by the CBAM based on the EU  Parliament's  
proposal . Fifth,  the target implementation date of the CBAM , which is 2023 , may be  ill-timed , since, 
at that time , the majority of the world's economies , especially developing countries , will still be 
recovering from the impact of the COVID -19 pandemic. The CBAM may only amplify the negative 
social and economic impact resulting from  the damage to international trade from the G/MA/M/74  
 
- 38 - 
 
  COVID -19 pandemic, especially in terms of unemployment and poverty ; it may only acerbate the 
post-COVID -19 challenges faced by many c ountries.  
12.28.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  indicated the following:  
12.29.   Chinese Taipei  commend s the European Union's  ambitious proposals and international 
leadership towards the goal of climate neutrality by 2050. However, it appear s to Chinese Taipei  
that the CBAM is part of a broader EU  industrial strategy that could have wide implications for 
international trade. As the CBAM is planned to be implemented in 2023, Chinese Taipei  would urge 
the European Union to engage further with international stakeholders in a more transparent and 
comprehensive manner, taking into account the relevant WTO  rules and international standard s, 
avoiding undesirable trade barriers arising from the mechanism , and ensuring sufficient transitional 
period s for industries . Chinese Taipei  will continue to follow this topic closely and would welcome an 
update from the European Union . 
12.30.   The representative of India indicated the following:  
12.31.   India echoes the concerns raised by several Members on this issue. India believe s that a 
thorough  legal examination will be required of the various elements of the European Green Deal, 
including the CBAM , to ascertain its conformity with the relevant WTO  rules. India believe s that there 
may be possible WTO  non-compliance issues relating to any such mechanism that will require further 
deliberation once more details of the CBAM are made available by the European Union . India would 
reiterate that any such mechanism must t ake into consideration the principle of comm on but 
differentiate d responsibilities and  the respective capabilities of different countries in light of their 
different national circumstances , and fiscal and development levels.  
12.32.   The representative of  Turkey  indicated the following:  
12.33.   Turkey shared its position on this issue at the most recent meeting  of the Council for Trade 
in Goods; therefore , Turkey limits itself, on this occasion, to restating its ongoing interest in this 
issue.  Turkey  continue s to closely follow the developments around the European Gr een Deal, and 
the C BAM in particular . As stated previously , Turkey believes that combat ting climate change  
requires coordination at the global level. That said, any necessary step to that end should take into 
account the historical responsibilities for gre enhouse gases and common but differentiated 
responsibilities. Turkey  believe s that the European Union will continue to inform the Membership of 
developments regarding this policy, making  sure to design its final measures in line with WTO  rules 
and principles, and pay ing special attention not to create any unintended negative effects on the 
development goals of developing Members . Finally, Turkey suggests that the European Union's 
proposal could also be discussed in the Climate Change Negotiations and Response Measures Forum, 
in the UNFCCC  negotiations, in the 26th Session of the UN Climate Conference to be held in Glasgow 
in November of this year in order to analyse the CBAM 's detailed economic, social , and environmental 
impact on developing countrie s' economies as well as on international trade.  
12.34.   The representative of  the United States  indicated the following:  
12.35.   The United States has been following with interest the EU  progress to develop a CBAM, 
particularly given our bilateral trading relationship.  The United States is committed to appropriately 
utilizing trade channels as another tool for tackling the potentially catastrophic impact of climate 
change, including through market and regulatory approaches to address greenhouse gas emissions 
and to achieve  net-zero global emissions by 2050 or before.  Regarding the EU 's CBAM under current 
development, the United States looks forward to additional and detailed information and 
engagement , as the EU promised, at the earliest possible convenience so that the United States  may 
better understand how the CBAM is being developed and how it would be implemented. The United 
States  further encourage s the European Union to fully consider the compati bility of any such 
measure it develops with applicable WTO  rules to ensure there is an open system of trade and that 
any such measure will not constitute a barrier to trade.  It will be important to ensure that our 
respective approaches to climate change mi tigation are complementary, achieve the desired climate 
and environmental benefit, and minimize interruptions to our transatlantic trade relationship.  
12.36.   The representative of  Australia  indicated the following:  G/MA/M/74  
 
- 39 - 
 
  12.37.   Australia is strongly committed to addressing cl imate change and believes that international 
trade can contribute to this objective. In particular, Australia believes that policies that facilitate 
increased trade in environmental goods and services, and related investment, can make a strong 
contribution  in support of international climate policy. Australia  welcome s the consultative approach 
that the European Union  has taken so far in respect to its CBAM.  Australia encourages the European 
Union to share to the maximum extent possible, in the WTO and in ot her relevant international 
bodies, details of its policy deliberations and the likely form a CBAM might take, consistent with the 
central WTO  principle of transparency. Australia  also note s the European Union's commitment to 
ensuring the consistency of its  eventual measure with its WTO  obligations. Further detail addressing 
the issue of WTO  consistency would be helpful for the many M embers , including Australia,  which 
have questions and concerns about border carbon adjustment policies, including their possible 
protectionist impact.  
12.38.   The representative of Mexico  indicated the following:  
12.39.   Mexico wishes to register its interest in this  issue. Mexico will closely follow the development s 
and implications of this measure, as well as the future policies of the European Union's Green Deal. 
Mexico thank s the European Union for the information and update that they can provide in this 
Committee.  
12.40.   The representative of  Brazil  indicated the following:  
12.41.   Brazil reiterates that it is carefully monitoring the European Union' s proposal for the 
establishment of a CBAM. While the exact contours of the EU's CBAM are still unclear, as there are 
several methodologies to quantify the carbon footprint of products, there are risks related to the 
establishment of carbon quantification , based on industry performance benchmarks from the EU , 
which may constitute undue privileges. Brazil expects that, once specific elements of the CBAM have 
been defined, opportunity for more direct dialogue between the competent authorities will be 
provided  in order to ensure that the measure does not have a discriminatory character and is fully 
compatible with WTO  rules. Finally, as ha s been highlighted by other delegations, Brazil  must also 
stress that the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, enshrined in the UNFCCC since 
it was agreed in Rio in 1992, cannot be ignored. Countries that have contributed the most to global 
warming so far must ensure they live up to their commitments towards the least developed and 
developing countries in the context of the UNFCCC if they want to exert a leadership role . Thus, 
establishing waivers for only a handful of LDCs with little impact on trade is not the best way forward.  
12.42.   The representative of  Canada  indicated the following:  
12.43.   Canada is following the European Union's  work on a new CBAM  with great interest . Canada 
anticipates that the design of a CBAM will account for the carbon pricing policies and climate 
measures of partner countries and be implemented in a manner consistent w ith the EU 's 
international obligations.  
12.44.   The representative of  the European Union  indicated the following:  
12.45.   The European Union  appreciates the interest of its partners in this important issue.  The 
European Union is determined to ensure that its declared gree nhouse gas reduction targets, required 
to keep the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement within reach, are implemented in practice. 
This is why the European Union is  fully translating into legislation the necessary steps. But the 
climate challenge is in herently global. As long as climate action is not equally taken at a global level, 
there is a risk of "carbon leakage "; put simply, companies transferring production to places where 
decarboni zation requirements are less strict and , as a result , increasing  their emissions there, thus 
leading to a global increase in emissions. This would end up undermining global climate action 
efforts. The Commission has announced in the European Green Deal that, should differences in levels 
of climate action worldwide persi st as the EU upgrades its own commitments, it will need to propose 
a carbon border adjustment mechanism, for selected sectors, to tackle the risk of carbon leakage.  
The decarboni zation objectives of EU  action would be sharply curtailed if EU  business es in certain 
emission -intensive sectors were to transfer production to other countries with less stringent 
emissions constraints, which  could lead to an increase in total emissions globally, thus undermining 
the effectiveness of the EU 's emissions  mitigation policies.  Importers will be treated in an 
even-handed manner and would not be subject to an adjustment that is higher than that applied G/MA/M/74  
 
- 40 - 
 
  domestically.  The European Union wishes to work with partners to promote effective methods of 
decarboni zation, from technological innovation to market -based approaches, and much in between. 
The European Union is  committed to stepping up its bilateral engagement.  The Commission is 
committed to working with EU  trading partners to ensure that adjustment measures wo rk in an open 
and fair manner while being in full compliance with WTO  rules. The European Union will  take account 
of all relevant provisions such as existing carbon pricing mechanisms applied to the proven actual 
carbon emissions of given products.  
12.46.   The Com mittee took note  of the statements made.  
13  EUROPEAN UNION – VACCINE EXPORT TRANSPARENCY MECHANISM - STATEMENT BY 
AUSTRALIA  
13.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that this agenda item had been included at the request of Australia . 
13.2.  The representative of Australia  indicated the following:  
13.3.  With the COVID -19 pandemic surging in many parts of the world, Australia would first like to 
recogni ze the immense loss and severe public health challenge facing many Members. It is in the 
interests of all Members to ensure timely, equitable , and global immunisation against  COVID -19, 
which will form one important component of our collective efforts to bring the pandemic under 
control.  Australia 's long -standing position is that COVID -19 vaccines should not be subject to  
restrictive trade measures, and that there is a global a nd moral responsibility upon all countries to 
share COVID -19 vaccines far and wide. While Australia understands the political and humane 
impulse that can lead to the imposition of trade restrictive measures, it believe s that such measures 
and the retaliati on that they may trigger may ultimately lead to fewer total vaccines being produced, 
thus being counter -productive . At the 14  April vaccine equity event hosted by Director -General 
Okonjo -Iweala, Members  heard from a wide variety of stakeholders involved in  the global vaccine 
effort that export restrictions and other trade barriers are making this health crisis worse. In that 
regard, Australia remains concerned by the imposition by some Members of trade barriers, including 
both formal and informal export res trictions, on COVID -19 vaccines and their inputs. In particular, 
Australia again expresses its concern regarding the European Union 's Vaccine Export Transparency 
Mechanism.  
13.4.  Australia recogni zes that, compared to some other vaccine manufacturing countries, the 
European Union  has played an important role as a significant exporter of COVID -19 vaccines.  At the 
same time, Australia has called upon the European Union to ensure that this measure is no m ore 
trade restrictive than necessary to achieve the objective of vaccine export transparency, and that it 
is consistent with the EU's WTO obligations. Australia is disappointed that , instead of exercising 
restraint, the European Union  has expanded the grou nds on which exports may be refused. Australia 
is particularly concerned that the measure can now be used to prevent exports based on the 
epidemiological situation, vaccination rate , and availability of vaccines in the country of destination , 
even when the  EU's own contracts have been fulfilled.  Australia views the scheme and its expansion 
as an inappropriate method of dealing with commercial contractual disputes. Australia  also believe s 
that it is inconsistent with the EU 's WTO  obligations.  The European Un ion is a global leader in the 
fight against COVID -19, and its decisions are closely watched. As such, the continued imposition of 
this measure sends a disturbing signal.  Widespread adoption of export restrictions on vaccines would 
have disastrous consequen ces for our collective efforts to combat the virus. Australia urges the 
European Union , and all Members maintaining unnecessary trade barriers on COVID -19 vaccines, to 
consider removing such measure s as soon as possible. Australia  urges Members to work tog ether to 
find ways to keep supply chains open to ensure the maximum possible production of vaccines.  
13.5.  The representative of Paraguay  indicated the following:  
13.6.  Paraguay reiterate s its concern, as reflected in document  WT/GC/W/818 , about the EU's 
export licensing mechanism for COVID -19 vaccines, as notified in 
document  G/MA/QR/N/EU/5/ Add.1. As we noted in our most recent  intervention on this issue at the 
Council for Trade in Goods , the extension and tightening of th is measure has increase d our concern 
regarding equitable access to vaccines. However, the problem goes beyond the specific measures 
adopted by the European Union.  Extreme inequity in access to vaccines is undermining the global 
fight against the pandemic. In the three  months sinc e vaccination has started  around the world, only G/MA/M/74  
 
- 41 - 
 
  a dozen  Members have administered the vast majority of approximately one  billion  vaccines 
distributed to date. Meanwhile, the COVAX  mechanism has benefited from only 5% of all vaccines 
administered globally,  which is equivalent to about 68  million vaccines. The problem of unequal 
distribution is further exacerbated when vaccines are distributed without taking into account the 
epidemiological or emergency situation in the allocation criteria. In this regard, Paraguay  would like 
to note that, although Latin America is currently the region most affected by the pandemic, it has 
benefited from only about 3  million COVAX  vaccines. The COVAX  mechanism claims that this is due 
to lack of supply and logistical problems,  leading to a delay in distribution. Recently, the 
WHO Director -General has pointed out that , while major economies have supported the initiative 
both financially and politically, they have also undermined it by hoarding vaccines through measures 
that rest rict export of vaccines and their components, many of which have been  announced and not 
notified , while  others  are simply de facto  restrictions since there are some Members that have not 
exported one single dose . It is urgent  to lift all these measures restricting  exports of vaccines and 
their components to advance in immuni zation against the virus, as well as to advance in measures 
concerning  trade facilitation and intellectual property, which enhance and increase the product ion 
capacity of vaccines. Paraguay  reiterate s the call to the entire Membership to refrain from imposing 
such measures that harm global health. Instead, measures should consider an equity component 
and the real health situation and promote international co operation and solidarity.  
13.7.  The representative of  Pakistan  indicated the following : 
13.8.  Pakistan is a staunch supporter of equitable, easy, affordable, and swift access to 
COVID -19 vaccines for the entire global population , for we understand that no one is safe until 
everyone is safe. Pakistan's  Prime Minister, in his letter to the UN  Health Assembly , has openly called 
for making the COVID -19 vaccine a global public good. In this regard, any steps that restrict vaccine 
availability are unwelcome in our collective fight against the pandemic. Pakistan  understand s that 
vaccine supply shortages are indeed a reality and can lead countries to take ce rtain steps in the 
interest s of only their own populations.  This issue is evidence and the reason that the current 
approach to vaccine sharing and equitable global supply is not working. Members  clearly need a new 
approach.  It is for this reason that Pakis tan, along with almost 60  other WTO Members , has been 
calling for the open availability of technology, and technical know -how, of vaccine manufacturing , to 
allow large-scale production of vaccines in all relevant countries. While manuf acturing capacity in 
developing countries remains idle, the shortages in production of the vaccines in developed countries 
is leading to a global shortage, thereby giving rise to phenomena such as vaccine hoarding and 
nationalism. The only way to avoid this eventuality is to s upport the proposal on a temporary waiver 
from certain TRIPS  obligations.  Pakistan will continue to follow developments on this issue and will 
remain committed to finding ways to allow vaccine s to be available across the globe in an equitable, 
affordable , and swift manner.  
13.9.  The representative of  the Republic of Korea  indicated the following:  
13.10.   The Republic of Korea shares the concerns raised by Australia and other Members that any 
trade restrictive measure may disrupt the global distribution of COVID -19 vaccines.  The Trade and 
Health Initiative includes trade facilitating actions and e xport restriction s that Members are to review 
in order promptly to eliminate any unnecessary existing restrictions on exports of essential medical 
goods. Actions in the init iative will contribute to ensur ing equitable distribution of scarce essential 
medical goods and vaccines. In this regard, Korea would like to urge all WTO  Members , as well as 
the European Union, to act pursuant to this initiative . 
13.11.   The representative of Ecuador indicated the following:  
13.12.   Ecuador wishes to refer to its statement made on this issue at the meeting of the Council 
for Trade in Goods of 31 March  2021. Ecuador  notes with concern the implementation of any 
measures restricting the export of COVID -19 vaccines and their components, while we are still facing 
a very critical situation in the fight against this pandemic.  Ecuador insists on the need to find a global 
and coordinated solution to the benefit of all. Ecuador therefore encourage s the WTO to promot e a 
spirit of transparency, cooperation , and international solidarity, not only among its Members , but 
also among the pharmaceutical companies and vaccine distributors , such that access to vaccines will 
be universal and guaranteed by collective action.  
13.13.   The representative of Switzerland  indicated the following:  G/MA/M/74  
 
- 42 - 
 
  13.14.   Switzerland takes note of the EU  export authorization mechanism introduced in 
January  2021, which has recently been made more restrictive. Switzerland also notes with 
satisfaction that the EU has been very transparent regarding this mechanism , and that it is one of 
the major vaccine exporters.  However, Switzerland regrets the EU's  decision regarding the export 
authorization mechanism, particularly because of the highly integrated production chains across 
national borders for the manufacture of vaccine active ingredients and preparations, which makes a 
smooth flow in supply chains essential, especially during the fight against this pandemic . Switzerland 
underlines the importance of open and ba rrier-free supply chains for these essential products as well 
as the need for cooperation and solidarity in addressing this global challenge. Switzerland itself being 
a contributor to the production of vaccines aims for a frictionless production chain and will continue 
these efforts. Switzerland also takes this opportunity to note that other countries have either taken 
restrictive export measures on inputs needed for the manufacturing of COVID -19 vaccines or on 
COVID -19 vaccines themselves, in view of prior itizing the vaccination progress of their own 
population s. All these restrictive measures have a chilling effect on the global supply value chain 
and run the risk of a domino effect, which is not in the interest s of anyone . As this pandemic affects 
every c ountry around the world, cooperation and solidarity are needed more than ever. Switzerland 
calls upon all WTO  Members to remove as soon as possible their trade restrictive measures and to 
ramp up their production capacities and contribute to the sharing of  vaccines. It is only by working  
together , with a collective effort , that we  will be able to put an end to this pandemic.  
13.15.   The representative of Turkey  indicated the following:  
13.16.   Turkey notes that this  measure was discussed at the most recent meeting of the General 
Council , where Members voiced their concerns over the possible negative repercussions it could have 
on global trade and health. After that meeting, however, this measure was extended both in scope 
and duration, as was then discussed at the most rece nt meeting of the  Council for Trade in Goods 
(CTG). Turkey has  taken note of the underlying concerns of the EU in terms of the ongoing third  wave 
of the pandemic and the continuing shortfalls. However, Turkey wishes to underline the important 
role the EU has played in the global response to the pandemic and thus the danger of any possible 
domino effects its measures may have on other Members in terms of what many call "vaccine 
nationalism. " Once again, Turkey  would like to invite the European Union to act in line with the 
principles put forward in the Trade and Health Initiative and with its commitments to "fair and 
equitable access to critical supplies ". Turkey  hopes that the EU will exercise restraint in imposing 
export restrictions on essential medical goods and vaccines and will not extend the duration of this 
measure.  
13.17.   The representative of the United Kingdom  indicated the following:  
13.18.   The Unit ed Kingdom wishes  to echo some of the concerns raised by Members over the recent 
changes to the EU 's vaccine regulations. The extension of the Transparency and Authori zation 
Mechanism until the end of June, coupled with the addition of new criteria to be u sed when assessing 
vaccine export authorization requests, sends the wrong signal in terms of both trade and public 
health. The United Kingdom  asks that the EU  reviews this measure to ensure that it does not 
constitute an unnecessary barrier to coordinated global COVID -19 efforts, and is duly adherent to 
WTO obligations, including on non-discriminatory application of export restrictions . The delivery and 
creation of the vaccine has been a multinational effort. These are international projects that require 
international cooperation because this virus knows no borders. Trade -restrictive measures hinder 
our global immunization efforts, causin g negative spill over  effects  on highly  complex supply chain 
systems and  barriers to the flow of critical medical goods. The United Kingdom would like to conclude 
by recogni zing the shared challenges of the pandemic. The United Kingdom  looks forward to 
continuing to work closely with partners on this important issue, and leveraging on existing work 
through the Trade and Health Initiative (TAHI) to ensure trade measures adhere to the principles 
underpinning it. The United Kingdom  will continue to support dis cussions on the role of trade in 
combatting COVID -19, ensuring fair and equitable access to vaccines globally, and enabling us to 
build back better.  
13.19.   The representative of New Zealand  indicated the following:  
13.20.   The COVID -19 pandemic has imposed risks to publi c health and human security on an 
unprecedented global scale. As a global community, we have a responsibility to ensure that access 
to COVID -19 vaccines, therapeutics , and diagnostics , is available for all, especially for the most 
vulnerable, and that the global supply chains for COVID -19 medical supplies remain uninterrupted.  G/MA/M/74  
 
- 43 - 
 
  Export restrictions on these essential products , particularly for vaccines,  will only introduce 
inefficiencies into supply chains and slow global pandemic recovery.  Members need to ensure that 
any trade measures applied to  the export of vaccines should be facilitative and implemented strictly 
in accordance with WTO  obligations.  It is for these reasons that New Zealand  has support ed the 
TAHI. New Zealand recognizes the vital role of t he European Union, as one of these Members, in  
producing vaccines for supply internationally, even while experiencing the devastating impact of the 
pandemic at home. However, New Zealand is  troubled by  the implications of restrictions on 
COVID -19 vaccines for global supply chains and equitable access.  New Zealand encourage s 
governments to work together with pharmaceutical companies to optimize supply chains to ensure 
the uninterrupted availability of vaccines to all and to make full use of existing global m anufacturing 
capacity  alongside  global  leadership to bring the pandemic to an end.  
13.21.   The representative of Colombia  indicated the following:  
13.22.   As indicated under agenda item  5, Colombia express es its interest in this issue , not only for 
the measures adopted by  the European Union, but more generally and systemically for the various 
restrictions on export s of vaccines , including those measures that have been  notified as well as more  
opaque measures that are complex to understand and that have not been made transparent before  
the Membership . Colombia reiterates the call to strengthen world trade and global value chains as 
the right response to the global health crisis. The basic principles of free tra de that have been so 
strongly advocated in this house must continue to guide us. Export restrictions on inputs and 
vaccines, and the resulting retaliation by aggrieved countries, can trigger unpredictable risks and a 
domino effect. As we have stated since the beginning of the pandemic, the global health crisis 
requires a coordinated  and multi-level solution. Colombia has participated constructively in all the 
different spheres allowed by the WTO to improve trade in protective equipment , medical devices, 
medicines , and vaccines , that is , in the General Council , in the Council for Trade in Goods , in the 
TRIPS  Council, and also in this Committee. These are crucial discussions. Colombia  urges all 
Members to continue to work together to avoid vaccine nationalism.  
13.23.   The representative of India indicated the following:  
13.24.   India believes that an export restriction is  a legitimate policy tool . If used in the right 
manner , it could lead to equitable delivery of scarce  commodities and prevent countries with deep 
pockets  from cornering such supplies. While India demonstrated  this during last year 's first wave of 
the COVID -19 pandemic , where it used this tool for ensuring equitable distribution of critical 
medicines , diagnostic kits , ventilators , and PPEs , to more than 150  countries based on mutually 
assessed needs , and also this year , where it provided more than 60  million vaccines to more than 
80 countries , ensuring their equitable distribution , some have chosen  to do the opposite and are 
using  export res trictions as a tool to prevent cross -border shipment of vaccines from its territory. 
Therefore , export restrictions will continue to play their role as  a policy tool although all depends 
upon how a Member chooses to use them.  
13.25.   The representative of Panama  indicated the following:  
13.26.   Panama reiterates its statement delivered on this issue at the most recent meeting of the 
Council for Trade in Goods.13 Panama is particularly concerned about the implementation of 
measures that restrict exports of vaccines and the ir ingredients, which are necessary for global 
concerted efforts in the fight against COVID -19. Panama calls upon Members to refrain from 
implementing this type of policy. COVID -19 does not recognize levels of development or borders. 
The problem is global,  and Members will continue to suffer globally because of it. Panama believes 
that the efforts of the Director -General, Dr  Ngozi Okonjo -Iweala, to identify places with 
manufacturing capacity, especially in developing countries, are necessary to expand vacci ne 
production and reduce the access gap. However, her efforts will only be successful if Members all 
work together to avoid interruptions in supply chains. Otherwise, we risk seeing an even slower 
economic and social recovery for all. The solution to the p andemic lies in ensuring that the means 
to control COVID -19 are distributed equally across the world.  
13.27.   The representative of the European Union  indicated the following:  
 
13 G/C/M/139, paragraphs  9.29-9.31. G/MA/M/74  
 
- 44 - 
 
  13.28.   The European Union  takes note of the views and comments of Members . As explained at the 
General Council 's meeting of  2 March , and at the Council for Trade in Goods on 31  March, the EU 
introduced a mechanism to ensure the transparent distribution of vaccines. The objective is to avoid 
a situation where the much -awaited vaccine  goes to the highest bidder , or where distribution is left 
to the arbitrary decision of vaccine producers. As persistent delays in vaccine deliveries continued 
on 25  March , the EU  decided to extend the measure until the end of June. As already explained, the 
European Union revised the scheme to take into account export openness towards the EU of the 
destination country and the epidemiological situation in that country. This was adopted  in the spirit 
of ensuring fairness and equity in vaccine distribution.  The mechanism has been in operation for 
three  months  already . During this time, the European Union has  exported , under this mechanism , 
more than 140  million doses of vaccines to the world. In total, since the introduction of the vaccines 
to the market in De cember, and counting also exports exempted from the mechanism, the European 
Union has exported more than 175  million doses. No other OECD  member and vaccine producer has 
matched that effort.  Vulnerable, low , and middle -income countries will continue to be exempted 
from the scope of the mechanism, as are any exports to the COVAX  facility. In the meantime, as all 
of us here, the European Union  continue s to struggle with a speedy delivery of vaccines to our own 
citizens. We are all of us under enormous pressur e to deliver. The question is how to increase access 
to vaccines for those countries that are not vaccine producers and that do not have sufficient 
resources to set up production on their own.  
13.29.   The WTO  event on equity of vaccine distribution of 14  April has shed further light on the fact 
that equitable access requires very close cooperation between governments, regulators, financial 
institutions , and companies themselves , to scale up production. To do that , a scale -up must take 
place across the whole valu e chain. There is a need to have more information about markets and 
government measures.  The European Union  has taken note of the call of the Director -General to 
reduce the number of export restrictions. However, Members  should distinguish between measures  
that operate as an effective ban on exports and measures that are intended to ensure some degree 
of fairness in the distribution of scarce goods and which do not restrict exports more than absolutely 
necessary. As the European Union has  reiterated on nume rous occasions in the past, the EU 's 
measure is not an export ban.  The EU has  also already explained that it has promptly and diligently 
reported all versions of the mechanism to the WTO 's monitoring of trade measures relating  to 
COVID -19. The EU  notified them under the relevant requirements, such as the Decision on 
Quantitative Restrictions . The European Union is committed to ensuring the greatest degree of 
transparency and calls on other Members to do the same with respect to any measure that may 
have a t rade-restricting effect. As export controls are rooted in underlying scarcity of goods, 
Members  must make every effort to help manufacturers to increase production in cooperation with 
reliable partners globally with whom they could share their know -how and  technology. This is a 
wide-ranging topic with many angles to it, and many international actors involved. The European 
Union  appreciate s the efforts of the Director -General in this respect  and looks forward to working 
with her on concrete actions that the WTO can take to help fight the pandemic.  
13.30.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
14  INDIA – CUSTOMS DUTIES ON TELECOMMUNICATION AND OTHER PRODUCTS – 
STATEMENT BY CHINA  
14.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that this agenda item had been included at the request of China.  
14.2.  The representative of China  indicated the following:  
14.3.  China  regrets having to raise this matter  again ; however, China continue s to have concerns 
about India's customs duties on telec ommunication and relevant products, especially mobile phones 
and their components , which China believe s exceed India 's bound rates and are inconsistent with 
WTO rules.  In addition, China is also concerned that India has further increased its customs duties  
on some ICT  products and other products in its 2021 -2022 national budget . China urges India to 
immediately withdraw its customs duties on the relevant  ICT products . 
14.4.  The representative of the United States  indicated the following:  
14.5.  The United States  regret s that it, and others, have to raise yet again the apparent 
inconsistencies between India 's WTO  commitments to provide duty -free access on a range of G/MA/M/74  
 
- 45 - 
 
  information and communication technology products and the non -zero import duties of up to 20 % 
that I ndia continues to charge on imported products , including  commercially significant products 
from the United States.  As the proceedings for the disputes brought by the European Union, Japan, 
and Chinese Taipei get under  way, the United States  looks forward t o its continued participation as 
a third  party in those disputes . The United States would also like to note its new concerns over 
possible further tariff increases in products identified in India 's 2021 -2022 budget proposal.  Once 
again, the United States calls upon India to provide duty -free access for the ICT and 
telecommunications equipment products for which India has a WTO  commitment to do so.  
14.6.  The representative of the European Union  indicated the following:  
14.7.  In recent years , the European Union has observed a worrying trend in India 's policy, namely , 
the promotion of its domestic industry sometimes irrespective of its WTO  commitments. The 
European Union  recall s that, under the ITA , India undertook a commitment to remove duties on 
printed circuit boards as well as other items of telecommunications apparatus. The European Union 
observes  now a reversal in this commitment. For this reason, the EU would  appreciate further 
clarification from India regarding  the exact tariff classifica tion in India 's schedule of the items for 
which duties are increased as per Notification No.  03/2021 , dated 2  February  2021. This would  allow 
the EU to properly ascertain the impact of the measures on its exports.  The EU regret s that India 
has chosen to in crease levels of tariff protection in an attempt to curb imports. The EU urges India 
to make sure that its policy choice remain s in line with its WTO  commitments. The European Union  
urges India to rectify the current situation and to reinstate the duty -free status of items for which 
India had undertaken  WTO commitments.  
14.8.  The representative of Singapore  indicated the following:  
14.9.  Singapore  share s the concerns that have been expressed by previous speakers about India's 
applied tarif fs on certain IT  products  exceeding its bound rates. Singapore wishes  to reiterate our 
systemic and commercial interest in this matter . Singapore will continue to monito r this issue closely.  
14.10.   The representative of Canada  indicated the following:  
14.11.   As mentioned in our interventions in this Committee, the Council for Trade in Goods, and 
the ITA  Committee over the past few years, Canada views the continued application of tariff s above 
India's bound rates on a broad range of ICT  products to be inconsistent with India 's 
WTO commitments. It is Canada 's understanding that India has made further increases to certain 
tariffs on ICT  products above its bound rate in its 2021 -2022 nation al budget.  Canada notes the 
ongoing dispute settlement processes on this issue brought by Japan, Chinese Taipei, and the 
European Union,  and is actively participating as a third  party in those  proceedings.  
14.12.   The representative of India indicated the followin g: 
14.13.   On the issue of customs duty imposed on certain products, alleged to be ITA -1 products by 
some of the Members, India had already made statements in various WTO  bodies, namely the 
Council for Trade in Goods , the ITA Committee , and this Committee. For the sake of saving time, 
India will  not repeat those statements. However, India would like to reiterate that it has been fully 
abiding by its obligations and commitments under the ITA -1, as contained in 
WTO document  WT/Let/181. Mor eover, India does not intend to commit what is there beyond the 
scope of its ITA -1 commitments, as inscribed in  that document . India has also stated in its earlier 
interventions that Members have a right to revisit any errors or mistakes committed in assig ning 
bound tariffs while transposing their HS  schedule s, and to place the necessary rectification request 
before the WTO  body concerned . Accordingly, India has filed a rectification request for correcting 
certain errors in its HS2007  transposition Schedule . This rectification request is in accordance with 
the Procedures for Modification and Rectification of Schedules of Tariff Concessions contained in the 
Decision of 26  March  1980, under the category "other rectifications ". India would urge Members to 
go through India 's rectification request, and in case any Member has any other views on the technical 
aspects of these products , as well as their classification, India would  be happy to discuss the same 
with the Member concerned.  
14.14.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  G/MA/M/74  
 
- 46 - 
 
  15  INDIA - IMPORT POLICIES ON TYRES  - STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION  
15.1.  The Chairperson  noted that this agenda item had been included at the request of the European 
Union.  
15.2.  The representative of the European Union  indicated the following:  
15.3.  The European Union wishes  to reiterate its concerns raised already in the context of the Import 
Licensing Committee regarding India's  licensing regime for the importation of pneumatic tyres for a 
number of products  under Notificat ion N o. 12/2015 -2020, on "Amendment in Import Policy of 
Tyres ", of 12  June 2020.  As already discussed at the April 2021 meeting of the Import Licensing 
Committee, the measure has not been duly notified to the WTO , either at the Import Licensing 
Committee , for being a licensing regime, or, to our knowledge, to the Market Access Committee , in 
view of the non -automatic licensing requirements.  The European Union  continues to be concerned 
about the effect of this measure on imports of tyres, which have been high ly impacted since 
June 2020. Only a limited number of licences have been granted to EU  tyres manufacturers. These 
licences are limited in terms of duration, quantities , and types of tyres.  The European Union  therefore 
urges India:  (i) to comply with the applicable notification requirements under the WTO;  (ii) to 
increase transparency with respect to the applicable requirements and procedural steps to follow by 
tyre importers;  and (iii) to reconsider and eliminate any implicit or explicit quantitative or o ther 
restrictions on the import of replacement tyres that could go contrary to WTO  requirements.  
15.4.  The representative of Thailand  indicated the following:  
15.5.  Thailand wishes to reiterate its concern raised at the CMA  meeting of November  2020 
regarding India 's import policies on tyres under Notification No. 12/2015 -2020, which changed  the 
import condition s for tyres from "Free" to "Restricted ". Additionally, Thailand's concerns  extend also 
to import policies on television sets and air conditioners , for which import conditions have changed 
subject to two  additional notifications , Notification  No. 22/2015 -2020 and Notification 
No. 41/2015 -2020. Thailand had requested India to provide clarification regarding these matters , 
including the import licensing  procedures applied to the importation of t yres and television sets, and 
the specific public policy together with legal acts under India's legislation justified for the measures  
concerned ; however, t o date, Thailand has not yet received any responses from India. Therefore, 
Thailand  again request s India to provide detailed clarification of the three  aforementioned 
notifications , as well as notifying the above amendments on India 's import policies to the WTO at 
the earliest  opportunity . Thailand wishes  to rei terate the importance  of transparency and the 
principle of non-discrimination in this rule s-based trading system . Thailand requests India to give 
this matter its attention , including  by exploring a less restrictive alternative measure and by sharing 
all necessary information with other Members . Thailand stand s ready to meet bilaterally with India 
with a view to achieving a mutually satisfactory solution to this issue.  
15.6.  The representati ve of Chinese Taipei  indicated the following:  
15.7.  Chinese Taipei wishes  to echo the concern raised by the European Union . India announced 
the restrictive import measure on new pneumatic tyres on 12 June 2020. The product list included 
tyres for motor cars, bus es or lorries, and motorcycles and bicycles. Importers must apply to the 
Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT)  for a licence or special approval before importing those 
items . Chinese Taipei has  been informed by our exporters that they have encountere d difficulties in 
India because the applications of their Indian importers in June  2020 for import licences from the 
DGFT were delayed and not approved until December  2020. Furthermore, it seems that import 
licences being issued by India are only for pneumatic tyres which are not produced domestically. 
This has constituted a ban on tyre imports, which is in violation of WTO  rules concerning QRs. As 
such, Chinese Taipei urges India to comply with the regulations as set  out under the Agreement on 
Import Licensing Procedures and Article  XI of GATT  1994. In particular, non -automatic licensing 
procedures should be implemented in a transparent and predictable manner and should  not have 
trade-restrictive or trade -distortive e ffects on imports additional to those caused by the imposition 
of restrictions.  
15.8.  The representative of  the Republic of Korea  indicated the following:  G/MA/M/74  
 
- 47 - 
 
  15.9.  The Republic of Korea has expressed its concern over India's import policy on tyres in other 
meetings ; however, this concern remains unchanged . Korea wishes to seek further clarification from 
India regarding the criteria it followed in selecting items  as well as  the legal basis for its policy. 
Lastly, Korea wishes to ask when India will complete the necessary notification. The polic y 
substantially bans import s of tyres and this is inconsistent with Article  3.2 of the Agreement of 
Import Licensing Procedures. Korea urges India to introduce  improvements to this policy so that it 
does not become a barrie r to trade.  
15.10.   The representative of the United States  indicated the following:  
15.11.   The United States  continues to share the European Union's  concerns and to monitor this 
issue. The United States is interested to hear India 's response to the issues raised.  
15.12.   The representative of India indicated the following:  
15.13.   India notes that this  issue has also been raised in the Committee on Import Licensing  
recently , where  India also replied to some of these queries.  In this context, India notes that it has 
changed its import policy in respect of certain specific new pneumatic tyres and is in the process of 
notifying these changes to the Committee. Moreover, the process of implementation of import 
authorizations by India is fully transparent and predictab le. The p rocedure for issuance of such 
import authorizations is provided under paragraphs  2.50 and 2.51 of the Handbook of Procedures 
2015-2020, which is available in the public domain and can be accessed at  the Director ate General 
of Foreign Trade (DGFT ) website. Applications for such import authorizations can be filed online. The 
DGFT  Trade Notice No.  49, dated 15  March  2019, provides the procedure. After scrutiny of 
applications regarding submission of the documents required and receipt of the relevant technical 
inputs from the concerned administrative ministries and departments , such applications are 
considered by the Exim Facilitation Committee for a decision on the grant ing of import 
authorizations, This process is being administered in a fair and equi table manner and a number of 
licences have been granted after approval by the Exim Facilitation Committee.  
15.14.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
16  INDIA - IMPORT RESTRICTION ON AIR CONDITIONERS  -  STATEMENT BY JAPAN  
16.1.  The Chairperson  noted that this agenda item had been included at the request of Japan.  
16.2.  The representative of Japan  indicated the following:  
16.3.  As mentioned at the previous TRIMs Committee and CTG  meetings, Japan  consider s that 
India's import ban on air conditioners , includi ng refrigerants, introduced on 15  October last year, is 
a measure that unreasonably imposes a restructuring of corporate supply chains. Japan is strongly 
concerned that this measure is likely to be an import ban that is inconsistent with GATT  Article  XI:1. 
In this respect, India has thus far explained that the measure is consistent with India 's obligations 
under the Montreal Protocol and also the relevant regulations on HCFCs, which are ozone -depleting 
substances. However, this import ban is superfluous and  irrational in that it covers a wide range of 
air conditioners that use refrigerants. Furthermore, these air conditioners are subject to neither 
India's domestic regulation nor India's reduction and elimination obligation under the Montreal 
Protocol.  Japan calls upon India to proceed with the early withdrawal of this measure. In addition, 
Japan is  preparing some written questions for India after receiving its request at the previous 
TRIMs committee meeting. If India considers the measure to be justified , Japan would like India to 
explain in more concrete terms the reasons why.  
16.4.  The representative of Thailand  indicated the following:  
16.5.  Thailand share s similar concerns to those of Japan and encourage s India to provide detailed 
clarifications of its import pro cedures, the specific public policy and legal acts under India's legislation 
justifying this measure , as well as its notification process to the WTO. Thailand reiterates the 
importance  of transparency and the principle of non -discrimination in this rule s-based trading 
system . Thailand requests India to give this matter its attention, including by exploring a less 
restrictive alternative measure and by sharing all necessary information with other Members. G/MA/M/74  
 
- 48 - 
 
  Thailand  stand s ready to meet bilaterally with India with a view to achieving a mutually satisfactory 
solution to this issue.  
16.6.  The representative of the United States  indicated the following:  
16.7.  The United States  thank s Japan for raising this issue and share s their concerns.  The United 
States is monitoring this issue and is interested to hear India 's response.  
16.8.  The representative of India indicated the following:  
16.9.  India wishes to reiterate its response given on this issue in the most recent meeting of the 
Council for Trade in Go ods, namely that this measure was necessary for the application of standards 
and regulations for the marketing of the item, besides reducing risks to human, animal and plant 
life and health, consistent with India 's commitment to the Montreal Protocol. Furt hermore, as per 
the Ozone Depleting Substances (Regulation and Control) Amendment Rules of 2014, the import of 
air conditioners containing Group  VI substances (HCFCs) has been prohibited since 1  July 2015.  
16.10.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
17  INDIA – QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN PULSES  - 
STATEMENTS BY AUSTRALIA, CANADA, THE EUROPEAN UNION, THE RUSSIAN 
FEDERATION , AND THE UNITED STATES  
17.1.  The Chairperson  noted that this agenda item had been included at the request of Australia, 
Canada, the European Union, the Russian Federation, and the United States.  
17.2.  The representative of Australia  indicated the following:  
17.3.  Australia 's concerns with India 's restrictive measures on pulses imports are well known to all 
Members, particularly India 's QRs. Australia was extremely disappointed with India 's decision to 
renew the QRs for mung beans (Moong), pigeon peas (Tur) , and black gram (Urad) , for the 
2021-2022 marketing year. The renewal of the QRs means that India will have had these 
WTO-inconsistent measures in place over five  marketing years, noting that the QRs were first 
introduced in August  2017. Australia  would request India to clarify the status of peas, which were 
also the subject of a QR in 2020 -2021. These QRs are clearly no long er temporary and must be 
removed. Despite Australia's  regular requests, India has failed to provide a sufficient explanation of 
the WTO -basis for the QRs. In the recent Council for Trade in Goods, Australia, along with Canada, 
the European Union , the Russian Federation , Ukraine, and the United States, submitted formal 
questions to India. It is imperative that India provide detailed answers to explain the market and 
other conditions behind its decision and to explain how its measures are WTO -consistent. Whil e the 
WTO Agreements contain exceptions, the onus is on the Member implementing the measure to 
explain how such exceptions may apply.  Pulses are not a "small" commodity for India, neither by 
tonnage nor the value produced and consumed, nor with respect to trade. Therefore, India 's 
measures matter in the global pulses market. India 's current suite of measures on pulses, including 
significant levels of market price support, high tariffs , and QRs, continue to negatively impact the 
stability and predictability of the global pulses market and are demonstrably ineffective. In this 
Committee, Australia posed a series of questions to India at the last three  meetings , held in 
November  2020, June  2020, and November  2019, including providing them to India in writing. 
Australia has  still not received a response. Australia  will avoid repeating the questions, but note s 
that it was requesting India to provide a detailed explanation of how India 's QRs satisfied the 
requirements of GATT  Article  XI:2(c)(ii) and Article  XX(a) a nd (b), which Australia does not believe 
are appropriate or legally available in respect of India 's import restrictions on pulses.  Australia again 
requests India to provide prompt and fulsome responses bilaterally, and to table those responses in 
this Committee expeditiously.  Australia  request s India to remove the measures immediately.  
17.4.  The representative of  the Russian Federation  indicated the following:  
17.5.  The Russian F ederation recalls its long -standing concern over India's pulses import policy and 
urges its trading partner to stop applying restrictive measures on import s of yellow peas that are 
inconsistent with its WTO  commitments. During the period from 2018 to 2021,  India has been 
progressively restricting the access of pulses to its market through measures  that India has been G/MA/M/74  
 
- 49 - 
 
  calling "temporary " for three  consecutive years. Due to India 's import restricting policy , in 2020 , 
export s of yellow peas from Russia into In dia declined by a factor of 145, compared  to the value 
exported in 2017.  At the same time, India fell short of providing sound reasoning for its introduction 
of measures that hinder pulses imports into India to such an extent. Import quotas, an import ban,  
a minimum import price requirement , and ports of entry restriction s have led to a situation where 
import volumes of yellow peas have plunge d almost to zero. As expressed on many occasions, these 
restrictive measures contravene Article  XI:1 of the GATT and Article  4 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture and cannot be justified under Article  XI:2(c) or paragraphs  (a) and (b) of Article  XX of 
the GATT . Specifically, on paragraphs  (a) and (b) of Article  XX of the GATT , India failed to provide 
the causal link between the protection of public morals, human, plant or animal life or health and 
import restrictions and prohibition on yellow peas.  As we are at the beginning  of the new financial 
year, the Russian Federation wishes to clarify whether India has extended its import quota on pulses 
and import prohibition on yellow peas for the 2021-2022 financial year.  In line with written questions 
circulated prior to the most recent  Council for Trade in Goods, the Russian Federation was wondering 
what market conditions or other conditions are needed for these restrictions to end.  The Russian 
Federation once again urges India to remove its unjustified import restrict ions on yellow peas and 
to bring its policy into compliance with  WTO rules. 
17.6.  The representative of  Canada  indicated the following:  
17.7.  The last quantitative restriction of India on dried peas was scheduled to expire on 
31 March  2021. However, India has not yet been able to clarify if this measure was extended or if it 
has expired.  This situation is creating significant uncertainty for tra ders. 29  days after the end of 
the application period of the quantitative restriction for peas, exporters and importers of dried peas 
are still unaware of the importing rules and restrictions surrounding dried peas.  Canada asks for 
India to clarify the sit uation promptly and to notify its procedures to import dried peas in a timely 
manner in order to ensure predictability for traders.  That said, Canada remains  disappointed that 
India continues to use QRs on the import of dried peas and other pulses. This si tuation has been 
ongoing for more than three  years. It is difficult for Canada to see how India can still be claiming 
these measures to be temporary. Canada also continues to question the legal interpretation provided 
by India to justify its QRs, minimum i mport prices, and discretionary import licensing procedures, 
such as limiting imports of dried peas to a single port of entry.  To conclude, Canada calls for India 
immediately and expeditiously to review its trade restrictive measures put in place on dried peas 
and other pulses and to implement alternative and WTO-consistent policy options that promote a 
predictable and transparent import regime for pulses.  
17.8.  The representative of Ukraine  indicated the following:  
17.9.  Ukraine wishes  to once again reiterate its concerns about India's pulses policy and draw 
attention to its statement on this issue made during the most recent meeting of the Council for Trade 
in Goods. Ukraine express es its disappointment at the recent decision to extend the restrictive 
measures and  wishes to seek clarification on this matter.  
17.10.   The representative of  the United States  indicated the following:  
17.11.   As has been previously stated in this and other WTO  committee meetings, the United States 
remains concerned with India 's use of domestic support policies, multiple increases in tariff rates, 
and the application of import restrictions for pulses , including pigeon peas, mung beans, black gram 
lentils, and peas.  The United States  repeat s its previous requests for information on how the 
measures reflec t India 's WTO  commitments, and when and how the measures will be ended.  
17.12.   The representative of the European Union  indicated the following:  
17.13.   The European Union  would like to again voice the concerns it has  been raising for a long 
time now. This supposedly temporary measure has been in place for more than three  years. Every 
time Members have raised this issue, India has referred to its responses in other committees ; 
however , in none of these  committees has India actually provided a substantive rep ly. The European 
Union  urges India to engage meaningfully  on this issue . The European Union notes that India,  in its 
reply in the 31  March meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods, referred to Article XI:2(c)(ii) of the 
GATT , relating to the removal of a temporary surplus. Could India therefore provide a balance sheet 
for pulses for each of the years 2017, 2018, 2019 , and 2020? In case of a repeated surplus of pulses G/MA/M/74  
 
- 50 - 
 
  for four  years, the European Union  would welcome clarification as to what steps India has taken to 
reduce such surplus . India has also referred in the CTG to Article  XX of the  GATT as its justification 
for an import ban on pulses to protect small farmers. The European Union  would welcome 
clarification as to the reference to the protection of pu blic morals and of human life.  
17.14.   The representative of India indicated the following:  
17.15.   India notes that  many of the issues raised here in this Committee have also been raised in 
the meetings of other committees, as also at the CTG . In this context, India wishes to reiterate that 
its QRs on imports of certain varieties of pulses are aimed at alleviating distress caused to small and 
marginal farmers and its consequent impact on their food and livelihood security.  This measure is 
temporary, as it is being periodically reviewed with a view to regulate and monitor imports. As 
regards the specific WTO  provisions under which such measures have been imposed,  India has 
already replied to similar queries by Members in the earlier meetings of this Committee and the 
Council for Trade in Goods. India would urge Members to refer to its replies in th ose Committees 
and in the  Council for Trade in Goods.  
17.16.   The C ommittee took note  of the statements made.  
18  INDONESIA – CUSTOMS DUTIES ON TELECOMMUNICATION P RODUCTS – STATEMENT 
BY THE UNITED STATES  
18.1.  The Chairperson  noted that this agenda item had been included at the request of the United 
States . 
18.2.  The representative of the United States  indicated the following:  
18.3.  The United States  continue s to note concerns that I ndonesia is applying tariffs at the border 
on a category of ICT  products that appear to exceed its WTO  bound tariff commitments.  The United 
States has  been raising this issue repeatedly with Indonesia over the past year, along with others, 
including in the  Council for Trade in Goods and the ITA Committee, as well as bilaterally. 
Unfortunately, Indonesia has yet to provide a substantive response to US concerns.  The United 
States has  even provided concrete examples of its concerns, specifically with tariff 
subheading  8517.62. Unfortunately, US concerns are growing, and the United States has  identified 
additional examples of applied tariffs of ICT  products that do not appear to reflect Indonesia 's bound 
commitments. In an effort to further engage with Indonesia on these concerns, the United States 
has prepared several questions, which have been circulated in the ITA  Committee as 
document  G/IT/Q/1. The United States  would expect a detailed, substantive response to those 
questions in writing.  In addition to raising questions with respect to Indonesia 's bound commitments, 
the costs of Indonesia 's policies in this space are not insignificant as a practical matter. Indonesia 's 
tariffs not only impose a financial burden on foreign firms, but they also limit ac cess for Indonesian 
consumers and firms to important high -tech products.  
18.4.  The representative of the European Union  indicated the following:  
18.5.  The European Union  has made repeated requests and calls for aligning the tariff treatment of 
certain ICT  products cla ssified under subheading  8517.62 with Indonesia 's WTO  commitments. 
However , it appears that Indonesia continues to charge a significant tariff (10%) on products 
classified under tariff line  8517.62.49.  In this particular category of products , the EU has recorded 
a significant drop of exports to Indonesia. The EU has  observed a 60%  drop in the value of 
EU exports in 2020 compared to 2019, and a 21%  drop in 2020 compared to 2018.  The EU  therefore 
reiterate s its calls for bringing the tariffs in tariff subheading  8517.62 down to zero. The EU  seeks 
further clarification from Indonesia as to how it intends to apply tariffs that are not in line with 
Indonesia 's WTO  bound commitments.  Considering that this issue has been raised on several 
occasions, the European Union  count s on receiving a meaningful reply from Indonesia at this 
meeting.  
18.6.  The representative of Indonesia  indicated the following:  
18.7.  Indonesia thank s the delegatio ns of the United States and the European Union for raising 
their interest again concerning our tariff applied to certain ICT  products. Indonesia is paying serious G/MA/M/74  
 
- 51 - 
 
  attention to the imposition of import duties on several Information Technology products of concern 
to the United States and the European Union. Indonesia reiterate s its statement s made at the 
ITA Committee meeting s of 31 October  2019 and 30  October  2020, and the CMA meetings of 
11 November  2019, 8  June 2020, and 12  November  2020, that the Indonesian Government is 
commi tted to comply with the WTO  Agreement s, and in particular Indonesia 's commitment s under 
the ITA. Information Technology products have developed rapidly and dynamically in recent years ; 
therefore , Indonesia's technical authorities still need time to analyse and coordinate with other 
related parties in ord er to find the best solution regarding this issue . Indonesia has no intention of 
taking measures beyond our obligations under the ITA.  
18.8.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
19  INDONESIA – IMPORT RESTRICTION ON AIR CONDITIONERS  - STATEMENT BY JAPAN  
19.1.  The Chairperson  noted that this agenda item had been included at the request of Japan.  
19.2.  The representative  of Japan  indicated the following:  
19.3.  As it has mentioned in other relevant meetings, Japan is concerned about Indonesia 's import 
permits system for  air conditioners under the Minister of Trade Order No.  68 of 2020 , enacted in 
August  2020. The measure has virtually the same effect as an import restriction and could be 
inconsistent with Article  XI:1 of the GATT.  Japan  found a number of cases in which i t took a few 
months from the time of application to the issuance of the import permits , with no explanations 
provided for this delay.  This occurred particularly during the first  six months after the Order was 
enforced. In addition, the number of air conditioning units approved for importation is restricted to 
less than the number requested in applications made by importers , without any reason provided as 
to why. Regarding this point, the Order specifies neither the time for the permission nor the crit eria 
of the determination about how many applications would be approved. For these reasons, Japan is 
concerned that the measure lacks transparency and is seriously diminishing predictability for 
businesses.  Japan  therefore request s Indonesia to explain the  rationale behind the quantitative 
restriction measure and the criteria it is based upon. Japan also wishes to ask Indonesia to explain 
why the procedures took several  months. Japan  further request s that Indonesia improve its 
transparency by providing the duration period and the criteria for any restrictions in the rules and 
regulations.  Japan requests Indonesia to provide further clarification about the background and the 
WTO-consistency of this measure ; ultimately , Japan  urges Indonesia to eliminate this measure.  
19.4.  The representative  of Indonesia  indicated the following:  
19.5.  Indonesia thank s Japan for its intervention with regard to importation of air conditioners. 
Indonesia  understand s that Japan has addressed this concern in other committees , such as the 
TRIMs Committee and the Committee on Import Licensing, therefore , the government of Indonesia 
would like to take note of Japan 's concern on this matter. Indonesia also encourages Japan to submit 
written questions through the C MA. In the meantime, Indonesia is  currently coordinating with related 
parties regarding the aforementioned issues.  
19.6.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
20  MEXICO – IMPORT QUOTA ON GLYPHOSATE  - STATEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES  
20.1.  The Chairperson  noted that  this agenda item had been included at the request of the 
United  States.  
20.2.  The representative of the United States  indicated the following:  
20.3.  The United States would like to register its concern with the 4 April announcement by Mexico 's 
National Council for Sc ience and Technology (or CONACYT ) recommending an import quota on 
glyphosate and glyphosate -containing products.  Our industry estimates that the announced quota 
represents a 20 % reduction from the Mexican market 's annual need for glyphosate. The 
announcement of this import quota comes 18  months after Mexico implemented a de facto  import 
ban on glyphosate -containing products. Since November  2019, Mexico has rejected all applications 
for import permits for glyphosat e-containing products.  During that time, Mexico has not provided an G/MA/M/74  
 
- 52 - 
 
  opportunity for public comment, submitted a notification to the WTO of these QRs, or provided 
scientific evidence for the rejections.  How does Mexico justify these measures in light of its  
GATT  obligations, including Article  XI of GATT  1994?  Does Mexico intend to notify this import quota 
to the WTO?  Can Mexico explain how the quota level was determined? Did Mexico solicit and consider 
public input when making its determination?  When does Me xico intend to provide additional 
information to traders on how this quota will be administered? What HS  codes are affected? How 
will the quota be allocated?  Furthermore, CONACYT 's announcement indicates different quota 
volumes for formulated glyphosate an d for technical glyphosate, which is then further processed 
within Mexico into formulated glyphosate. How does Mexico justify such differential treatment under 
GATT  Article  III? 
20.4.  The representative of Canada  indicated the following:  
20.5.  Article  XI of the GATT prohibits Members from imposing QRs. While paragraph  2 of Article  XI 
of the GATT provides carve -outs for very specific circumstances under which Members may impose 
certain import or export restrictions, these do not appear to be relevant in the context of Mexico 's 
measure limiting imports of glyphosate.  Canada  requests Mexico to provide a justification for the 
imposition of this measure.  
20.6.  The representative of Mexico  indicated the following:  
20.7.  Mexico has taken note of the comments from the United States and Canada and will pass 
them to Capital . Unfortunately, the lack of further information prior to this meeting on the issues to 
be addressed  and the specific questions raised today  limits our ability to address them subs tantively.  
The Decree to which the United States  has alluded was published in the Official Journal of the 
Federation on 31  December  2020, and the work of the agencies responsible for its implementation 
has not been completed and is still in progress. Mexic o reiterate s the commitment of the Federal 
Government and the agencies involved in the implementation of the Decree to ensure that the 
execution of this instrument will be carried out according to its terms  and taking into consideration 
Mexico's  internatio nal obligations and commitments.  This is the only information that Capital was 
able to send given the absence of prior information regarding the concern raised by the United 
States . In addition, the aforementioned decree is a Presidential Decree , and not n ecessarily  the 
decree about which the United States is requesting information. Finally, Mexico takes this 
opportunity to reiterate the importance of improving the functioning of our Committee, which could 
undoubtedly benefit from a greater exchange of information. That is, if the intention is to allow for 
substantive feedback from Members that genuinely wish to respond on the first  occasion on which  
an issue is raised, all Members would benefit from including at least a few lines on each item on the 
annotated agenda, and not just mentioning which Member has requested the inclusion of that  item. 
Mexico  therefore encourage s all Members to consider providing the WTO  Secretariat and the Member 
to which the issue is addressed  a brief explanation or references t hat would allow  that Member  to 
better  identify the issue.  
20.8.  The Chairperson  clarified that Members rais ing trade concerns during a committee meeting , 
especially new concerns , are generally encouraged to contact the relevant  delegations and inform 
them on the main aspects of the concern in advance of th at meeting.  
20.9.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
21  MONGOLIA - QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS ON THE IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN 
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS  - STATEMENT BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  
21.1.  The Chairperson  recalled  that this agenda item had been included at the request of the 
Russian Federatio n. 
21.2.  The representative of  the Russian Federation  indicated the following:  
21.3.  In 2013, Mongolia introduced legislative changes establishing a quota regime for the 
importation of certain agricultural products, including wheat flour, wheat, milk, drinking water, and 
beef. Since then , implementing secondary legislation has been evolving , resulting in different market 
access conditions for the above -mentioned products , from total ban to limited quantities allowed for 
import.  In March  2021, Mongolia informed the Memb ership that the National Food Security Council G/MA/M/74  
 
- 53 - 
 
  of Mongolia,  at its 4 March meeting , had issued a recommendation not to set a precise cap on wheat 
flour and liquid milk import quantities and therefore not to enforce its import quota regime for these 
products in 2021. Past practice shows that , despite this decision , there can be difficulties during 
import customs clearance. The Ru ssian Federation  request s Mongolia to submit the Security Council 
recommendation in writing to Russia so that Russian exporters can present it at the border.  Russia 
draws attention to the fact that flour and milk are still not excluded from the legislative  list of 
agricultural products subject to import QRs, which means that the import quota or ban may be 
imposed in future. In this context, Russia calls upon Mongolia to specify the timeline of its legislative 
changes to completely eliminate its import quota  regime for wheat flour and milk , since such a 
regime is inconsistent with WTO  rules.  
21.4.  The representative of Mongolia  indicated the following:  
21.5.  Mongolia thank s the Russian Federation for its statement and questions.  Mongolia wishes to 
reiterate its statement s made at the last meetings of the Committee on Agriculture , the 
TBT Committee,  and the CTG . Mongolia continues working with its respective agencies internally.  
Measures are being taken step -by-step. Import quotas on wheat flour and liquid milk have been 
eliminated since the beginning of 2020.  Due to the upsurge in COVID -19 infection s in recent months, 
followed by strict lockdown measures, the pace of work has slowed. However, Mongolia continue s 
taking the necessary measures.  With regard to the specific concerns of the Russian Federation , 
Mongolia is preparing to submit its comments to the specific questions raised. In the meantime, 
Mongolia continues to import wheat flour from the Russian Federat ion. For example, b y the end of 
2020, approximately 500  tonnes of wheat flour had been imported from Russia.  
21.6.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
22  RUSSIAN FEDERATION – EXPORT PROHIBITION ON TIMBER PRODUCTS  - STATEMENT 
BY THE EUROPEAN UNION  
22.1.  The Chairperson  recalled  that this agenda item had been included at the request of the 
European Union.  
22.2.  The representative of the European Union  indicated the following:  
22.3.  The European Union  would like to reiterate its concerns over the Russian Federation's 
recurrent practice of apply ing export -restricting measures. The European Union would like in 
particular to express its concerns about the announced introduction of an export ban on timber, 
starting from 1  January  2022. It would seem th at Russia also plans to reduce from four to one the 
number of railway border crossing points with the EU for the export of round wood. Moreover, the 
chosen crossing point has practically no infrastructure to handle wood trade, which would make 
exports of w ood to the EU de facto  impossible. The European Union  regrets that Russia has adopted 
another measure  that deviates from the prohibition of QRs set out in Article  XI of the GATT . The EU 
looks forward to Russia 's explanations as to how such an export ban an d related measures may be 
compatible with WTO  rules. Moreover, as part of its accession to the WTO, Russia committed to a 
schedule of concessions on goods , including tariff -rate quotas for the export of certain conifers.  In 
this regard, the European Union  and Russia signed an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of 
Letters on the administration of tariff -rate quotas applying to exports of wood from the Russian 
Federation to the European Union, and a Protocol on technical modalities pursuant to that 
agreement. The European Union  would appreciate receiving detailed explanations in response to the 
questions that follow regarding this restriction , which the EU will also circulate in writing to Russia . 
Is Russia going to notify this new measure to the WTO?  According to the latest available information , 
the reduction in the number of border crossing points shall only concern the export of conifers. Could 
Russia confirm this information?  The export restriction seems to be incompatible with 
WTO commitments under Article  XI:1 of the GATT ; how could Russia justify the measure in this 
regard? Is the measure compatible with Russia 's Schedule of Concessions and Commitments on 
Goods in the WTO, and , in particular , with the Annex to part  V, which specifies Tariff -Rate Quotas 
for certain conifers?  How is Russia planning to respect the obligations of the EU -Russia agreement 
for the administration of those Tariff -Rate Quotas for exports of wood to the EU?  As mentioned, t he 
EU will circulate these questions in writing and  thanks Russia in advance for its responses to these 
questions.  G/MA/M/74  
 
- 54 - 
 
  22.4.  The representative of the United States  indicated the following:  
22.5.  The United States echoes the EU 's concerns about Russia 's proposal to ban exports of certain 
unprocessed coniferous round -wood.  While the United States  support s efforts to fight illegal logging, 
it is concerned that this measure may have trade -distorting effects.  Moreover, based on the history 
of Russia 's "temporary " measures with regard to raw hides and birch logs, the United States  will 
closely monitor both the measure itself, if it is enacted, as we ll as any renewals.  The United States 
encourage s Russia to be mindful of its WTO  obligations with respect to this proposal.  
22.6.  The representative of the Russian Federation  indicated the following:  
22.7.  The Russian Federation has  carefully studied the practice of W TO Members in this area. Russia  
notes that a number of WTO  Members, including certain Members of the EU, apply different 
restriction s related to export of timber for different reasons. The final design of Russia's future 
measure is still under development.  Taking into account the current practices of WTO  Members, the 
Russian Federation  believe s that it will be able to ensure the compliance of its measure with the 
WTO rules.  
22.8.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
23  RUSSIAN FEDERATION – TRACK AND TRACE REGIME – STATEMENT BY THE 
UNITED  STATES  
23.1.  The Chairperson  recalled  that this agenda item had been included at the request of the United  
States.  
23.2.  The representative of the United States  indicated the following:  
23.3.  The United States  would like to thank the g overnment of Russia for its responses to its 
questions on the track and trace regime.  The United States  remain s concerned about the potential 
scope of the measure, which may cover products for which there is not a counterfeiting or tax 
evasion concern . In addition, the United States is  particularly concerned about the technical matter 
of obtaining the required enhanced qualified electronic digital signature.  As the United States  
understand s it, obtaining this digital signature is required to register on the  Chestnyznak Track and 
Trace System. Furthermore, a company must be registered with the Chestnyznak System in order 
to obtain the required labels. In response to US written questions, Russia has confirmed that "foreign 
participants can obtai n an Enhanced E lectronic Digital Signature only through its representative in 
Russia which will operate in its territory in accordance with the legislation of the Russian 
Federation" ." The United States  continue s to review the requirement that foreign participants use 
local representatives and will monitor whether this requirement limits the ability of legal persons, 
and particularly individual entrepreneurs, to import or export goods to Russia.  
23.4.  The representative of  the European Union  indicated the following:  
23.5.  The European Union  shares the concern s of the United States with regard to the negative 
trade impact of this measure, which the EU has consistently raised at the TBT  Committee. The EU  
indeed consider s that the measure falls within  the scope of the TBT  Agreement and its notification 
requirements . The EU appreciates the necessity to fight counterfeit and illegal imports. However , 
individual tracking and tracing is a particularly demanding requirement. It may be justified for those 
goods of higher value where evidence of counterfeit or tax avoidance is clear. The measure may 
thus be justified for tobacco or furs, and the EU recalls  that it also has a system of individual tracking 
for tobacco products and for medicinal products. However , the scope of the Russian measure also 
includes tyres, bed and kitchen linen, footwear, and other products. The EU  consider s that the 
measure is not proportionate for these and therefore constitutes a non -justified trade barrier as far 
as they are concern ed. Moreover, Russia has announced plans to extend the scope to all goods 
placed on the Russian market by 2024.  The EU thus calls upon Russia to revise the current scope of 
the measure. The European Union also  calls upon Russia to reconsider the plans to e xtend the 
measure so that the labelling and tracking scheme be applied in a highly selective, targeted manner.  
23.6.  The representative of  the Russian Federation  indicated the following:  G/MA/M/74  
 
- 55 - 
 
  23.7.  The Russian Federation emphasizes  that the track and trace system is fully compliant with 
WTO rules and applies to both national and  imported products. The measure is intended to protect 
against counterfeiting and  smuggling as well as tax evasion.  Russia notes that before the system 
enters into force the relevant sufficient transition periods in respect of each particular product are 
always provided. In  addition, the Operator of the System , and responsible authority , conduct pilot  
projects  in respect of  each ca tegory of products subject to Track and Trace. As for application of the 
system in  respect of inexpensive products, Russia stress es that textile s, tyres, cameras , among 
other goods, are subject to illegal trade, which has a negative impact both on consumer s and faithful 
suppliers.  Russia believe s that this measure is proportional and note s that the Government of the 
Russian Federation is in constant contact with suppliers of the covered products.  
23.8.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
24  KINGDOM OF SA UDI ARABIA, KINGDOM OF BAHRAIN, THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, 
THE STATE OF KUWAIT, OMAN, AND QATAR - SELECTIVE TAX ON CERTAIN IMPORTED 
PRODUCTS (G/MA/W/169) - STATEMENTS BY THE EUROPEAN UNION, JAPAN, 
SWITZERLAND, AND THE UNITED STATES  
24.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that this item had been included on the agenda at the request of 
the delegations  of the European Union, Japan, Switzerland,  and the United States.  He drew Members' 
attention to document  G/MA/W/169 , which included questions from these Members to the Gulf 
Cooperation Council ( GCC) countries.  
24.2.  The representative of Switzerland  indicated the following:  
24.3.  Unfortunately, since the Committee's  last meeting , Switzerland cannot report any progress 
concerning the selective tax. Switzerland recalls  that, about two  weeks in advance of the March  2021 
CTG meeting, it submitted , together with the European Union , Japan,  and the United States , written 
questions to the GCC  member States (G/C/W/792), where Switzerland  sought clarifications about 
the state of play of the planned reform regarding the selective tax. Although the representative of 
the Kingdom of Bahrain provided a partial oral explanation, Switzerland  still expect s to get detailed 
written answers to the questi ons raised before any decision on the tax reform is taken. In this regard, 
Bahrain said that a formal communication will be made to the WTO once t he decision is taken at the 
GCC level. In Switzerland's  view, this will not allow interested partners to provi de comments and 
suggestions , if needed. In addition, Bahrain indicated that "the objective was to switch to a 
graduated tax base as soon as the GCC  member States complete the review. " As there are very 
different tax models available, Switzerland  would be k een to receive  more details on the future 
graduated tax structure. Referring to the Bahrain statement, Switzerland  notes that fruit juices and 
dairy products will be subject to the selective tax. Switzerland would appreciate to know when this 
will be the case, and if before or at the same time as the reform implementation?  In the absence of 
detailed answers from the GCC  member States, it is hard to find accurate information and 
Switzerland has  submitted some additional questions in document  G/MA/W/169 with a view to better 
understanding the situation . As the release of the study on the tax reform has been postponed, 
partly d ue to COVID -19, Switzerland  would be interested to know about the new timeline  for the 
review  in the GCC  member States. Switzerland also request s to receive a copy of the study. In 
addition, Switzerland  would like to know what are the opportunities foresee n by the GCC  member 
States to hold discussions with the interested governments before any final decision  is taken ? To 
exchange only at the WTO or through our embassies does not allow us to make sufficient progress.  
In its questions, Switzerland also raised  the issue of consistent implementation of the future tax 
model , as there are currently differences in the implementation of the ad  valorem selective tax. 
Switzerland  expect s that the GCC  member States will announce their respective timeline for 
domestic i mplementation in a coordinated manner.  More importantly, Switzerland  seeks to receive  
clarifications on the future treatment of the different beverages that will be subject to the tax in 
order to ensure that there will not be any more  discrimination. For example , Switzerland is looking 
for information on the scope of the beverages covered, on how the different categories will be 
defined, and on the same treatment, including  the same tax rate for beverages containing similar 
amounts of sugar. The definition of the different categories will play a central role and Switzerland  
needs to get clarifications enough in advance to be ready.  The absence of an answer to our 
longstandin g request  for a harmonization of the tax rate at 50% for all sweetened beverages means 
that the current discrimination between energy drinks and other sweetened beverages will remain 
in place at least until the new tax model is implemented, which is a sour ce of concern. Switzerland  G/MA/M/74  
 
- 56 - 
 
  looks forward to receiving written answers to its questions contained in document  G/MA/W/169 and 
stand s ready to hold a future meeting with the competent authorities.  
24.4.  The representative of  the United States  indicated the followin g: 
24.5.  The delegation of the United States, as well as those from the European Union, Japan , and 
Switzerland, circulated questions on 12 April regarding the GCC  Selective Tax on Certain Imported 
Products.  The United States  looks forward to receiving written re sponses to those questions from 
each of the member State governments of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf 
(GCC) regarding their implementation of the selective tax on carbonated soft drinks, malt beverages, 
energy drinks, sports drink s, and other sweetened beverages.  As noted in the questions, the 
European Union, Japan, Switzerland, and the United States have raised concerns with GCC  Member 
States regarding the transparency and application of this tax since it was introduced in 2016, 
including in this Committee, as well as other WTO and bilateral fora.  The United States  understand s 
that the GCC  member State governments are currently conducting a study on a new excise tax 
model and its implementation plan under the GCC  Unified Exc ise Tax Agreement.  The United States  
looks forward to hearing from the GCC  member State governments on  the following : the timeline 
for that study ; the point in that process at which private industry, trading partner governments, and 
other interested partie s will have an opportunity to provide input on possible outcomes and 
suggested revisions in advance of any final decisions; and  how any amendments to the Unified 
Excise Tax Agreement will address differences among the GCC  member State governments in their 
implementation of the selective tax.  The United States  also look s forward to hearing from the 
GCC member State governments on the possible scope of coverage of a new excise tax model, 
including confirmation that the tax:  will be applied to all beverages in  which the total sugar content 
– from either naturally occurring or added sugars – exceeds a minimum threshold, including fruit 
juices and milk -based products;  will be e xempt from the selective tax for those beverages with no 
added sugar and low caloric be verages; and  will h armonize and apply the same tax rate to all 
beverages subject to the tax. Furthermore, the United States considers that active  engagement with 
private industry, trading partner governments, and other interested parties in advance of any final 
decisions on amendments to the Unified Excise Tax Agreement is critical to addressing the concerns 
that have been raised regarding the transparency and application of this tax.  
24.6.  The representative of Japan  indicated the following:  
24.7.  In spite of  the concerns that Japan has been expressing  thus far , this issue of the selective 
tax on carbonated soft drinks taken by certain GCC  members has not yet been resolved , and Japan 
remain s concerned. Especially in the United Arab Emirates , a high tax rate is  imposed on some 
Japanese carbonated soft drinks due to their classification as energy drinks based not only on the 
drinks ' ingredients but also on the marketing and merchandizing methods used for them.  Japan has 
no objection to the imposition of a tax for achieving  health policy o bjectives. At the same time, Japan 
also believe s that such imposition should consist of a volume -based tax in accordance with the ratio 
of ingredients that could cause health problems. Otherwise, the tax system will not function a s an 
incentive to control the intake of these kinds of ingredients. Japan  request s that such tax be 
administrated in a transparent and reasonable manner based on objective evidence . At this 
Committee last year, on behalf of the GCC, the United Arab Emirate s explained that the selective 
tax was undergoing a review. Howev er, no information on the review was provided in the relevant 
meetings, and the businesses concerned  have not  been given any information about it either. Japan 
therefore request s that the GCC  provide those concerned with an update on the current status of 
the review.  In addition, the details of the schedule should be shared as soon as possible after the 
selective tax system has been amended as a result of the review.  
24.8.  The representative of  the European Union indicated the following:  
24.9.  The European Union  maintains its serious concerns voiced in the Council for Trade in Goods, 
the Market Access Committee , and in bilateral contacts with the GCC  countries , in relation  to the 
GCC "Treaty on Excise Tax " of December  2016.  The EU would like to reiterate the importance of 
harmonizing the implementation of the Excise Tax law and the need for a close engagement with 
private industry stakeholders on the process for revising the tax.  The EU would also like to underline 
the call for providing immediate relief for industry until the ongoing GCC  excise taxation revision 
takes effect, by exempting all zero  sugar beverages from the tax and harmonizing the tax rate at 
50% for energy drinks and all other categories of  sugar -sweetened beverages subject to the tax.  
The EU would like to thank the GCC  countries for the reply received to the written questions from G/MA/M/74  
 
- 57 - 
 
  the United States, Switzerland,  and the European Union  following previous discussions . The 
European Union  looks forward to receiving further clarifications from GCC  countries in response to 
the additional written questions from the United States, Switzerland,  and the European Union , 
preferably in writing, as well as the results of the study concerning the revision of the Excise Tax as 
soon as it is available.  
24.10.   The representative of  the Kingdom of Bahrain  indicated the following:  
24.11.   On behalf of the Kingdom of Bahrain, the State of Kuwait, the Oman, the State  of Qatar, the 
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,  and the United  Arab Emirates , the Kingdom of Bahrain  would like to thank 
the delegations of the European Union, Japan, Switzerland, and the United States for their interest 
in the application of the excise tax on beverages in the GCC  member States and for the questions 
reflected in document  G/MA/W/169.  In this regard, the Kingdom of Bahrain would like to refer to its 
statement delivered before the Council for Trade in Goods during its meeting of 31 March  2021, in 
which it addressed the questions raised by its partners and gave all the clarifications available at 
this moment on the issue of the excise tax in the GCC  member States.  As for the timeline and the 
other questions  posed , the Kingdom of Bahrain recall s its last statement to the Council for Trade in 
Goods in which it stated that the change in the current tax regime is a standing process of the 
"GCC Tax Working Group " to regularly review different aspects and issues with respect to taxation, 
including excise tax on beverages.  On the issue of consultations,  the Kingdom of Bahrain wishes to 
stress   that the GCC  member States remain committed to working closely with industry leaders ; to 
that end, they welcome their comments and suggestions on regulatory and legislative issues that 
affect the industry and take t hem into consideration as they develop and improve legislative 
frameworks.  The Kingdom of Bahrain  continue s to remain open for bilateral discussions on this 
matter.  
24.12.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
25  SRI LANKA – IMPORT BAN ON VARIOUS PRODUCTS – STATEMENTS BY AUSTRALIA 
AND THE EUROPEAN UNION  
25.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that this agenda item had been included at the request of Australia  
and the European Union.  
25.2.  The representative of Australia  indicated the following:  
25.3.  Australia welcomes the update provided by Sri Lanka on the series of import restrictions ahead 
of, and at , the Council for Trade in Goods in March, as well as its recent bilateral engagement. 
Australia  remain s interested in engaging further with Sri Lanka on this matter, includi ng in Geneva.  
Despite the March  update, Australia continues to share the concerns of the European Union with 
respect to these measures implemented by Sri Lanka. These measures appear to be overly 
trade-restrictive, do not appear to have a clear end -date, a nd have not been notified to the WTO.  
Australia appreciates the difficult circumstances that Sri Lanka is under as a result of the impact of 
COVID -19 on its economy and trade. Nevertheless, a well -functioning, transparent, predictable , and 
stable global tr ading system is and will remain fundamental to global economic stability during the 
pandemic and the economic recovery post -pandemic. This is true for Sri Lanka and all other 
WTO Members . Australia reiterates its request for Sri Lanka to notify the WTO of these measures as 
soon as possible and to provide an explanation of the ir WTO basis. Australia also requests  Sri Lanka 
to update Members on when these measures will be lifted. The lack of certainty has been trade 
disruptive and  has impacted upon the ability of Australian exporters to provide staple food stuffs to 
Sri Lankan consumers. Finally, Australia requests that Sri Lanka reassure Members that the 
measures will only be implemented to address the immediate impact of the COVID -19 pandemic , 
that they will not be maintained longer than necessary, and  that Sri Lanka will  ensure that they are 
being implemented in a manner consistent with its WTO obligations.  
25.4.  The representative of the European Union  indicated the following:  
25.5.  The European Union also continue s to have serious concerns over the broad import restrictions 
imposed by Sri Lanka, in various forms, since April last year. In terms of trade, over 2020 , 
EU exports to Sri Lanka decreased by 27% , which is way beyond the average decline in exports of 
9% that we have noted in total EU  exports. These figures show that these measures are causing G/MA/M/74  
 
- 58 - 
 
  real damage to our commercial and economic interests. The EU  does not dispute that Members can 
take import restrictions in the case of a critical balance -of-payments  situation. However, when doing 
so, a WTO  Member must comply with its main WTO  obligations under the GATT , specifically the 
"Understanding on the Balance -of-Payments Provisions of the GATT  1994", and also the GATS, and 
in particular  the following : the obligation to notify the import restriction to the General Council and 
to enter into consultations with other WTO  Members; the need for the measures to be temporary in 
nature , given that  the measures in this case have no expiration date  and apply "until further notice "; 
the obligation to present timetables for progressive relaxation and phasing out until final elimination 
of the measures; and the need to administer the import restrictions in a transparent manner.  The 
EU notes that, since the initial measure of April  2020, Sri Lanka has repeatedly modified the 
regulations  and has gradually moved products from the banned category into the category where 
imports are subject to a 90 or 180 -day credit facility. However, despite this relaxation , the measu res 
remain heavy, complex , and non -transparent. Also, on a select number of tariff lines, such as cars 
and tyres, or the import of some textiles, a full import ban remains in place. This seems clearly 
targeted to protect a particular domestic in dustry. According to the EU's  information , imports on 
510 product lines remain banned, while 1 ,300 product lines can enter, but only under credit 
provisions.  The EU  acknowledge s that Sri Lanka has recently taken some positive steps to ensure 
more transpare ncy. The EU  welcome s Sri Lanka 's announcement at the last meeting of the Council 
for Trade in Goods that its Geneva Mission had  contacted the WTO  Secretariat in order to notify the 
measures . The EU  would also welcome an update by Sri Lanka in this regard.  The EU stands  ready 
to continue working together with Sri Lanka, in a constructive manner, to get a clearer picture of 
the measures currently in force , with the objective of further liberalizing and eventually removing 
the measures.  
25.6.  The representat ive of the United States  indicated the following:  
25.7.  The United States shares the concerns of  the European Union and Australia.  The United States 
continue s to monitor the issue and is interested to hear Sri Lanka 's response to the issues raised.  
25.8.  The represent ative of Japan  indicated the following:  
25.9.  Japan shares the concern expressed by Australia and the European Union regarding the 
possibility of an inconsistency in Sri Lanka's measures with Article  XI:1 of the GATT.  Japan 
understand s that Sri Lanka advocates t he need for this measure because of difficulties  with its 
balance of payments (BOP). At the same time, such import restriction due to BOP should not be 
introduced unless it is carried out with utmost caution and due consideration for the substantive and 
procedural requirements set out in the WTO  Agreement . Japan request s Sri Lanka to explain how 
this measure meets these requirements and why Sri Lanka considered the measure to be justified. 
Also, considering Sri Lanka 's explanation that this measure is to be applied temporarily, Japan  calls 
upon Sri Lanka to proceed to its early withdrawal.  
25.10.   The representative of Sri Lanka  indicated the following:  
25.11.   Sri Lanka appreciate s the interest shown by the delegations of Australia, the European Union , 
the United States,  and Japan,  on Sri Lanka 's trade policies in general , and for directing their specific 
concerns on the current trade measures taken by Sri Lanka  to curb the COVID -19 pandemic in the 
island  in particular . Many  delegatio ns have urged Sri Lanka to share the rationale behind these 
measures. Again, Sri Lanka wishes to reiterate its statements made at the previous  CTG and Market 
Access Committee sessions when this matter was raised, and the texts of its delegation 's 
interventions will again  be shared with interested delegations that had not previously receive d them. 
From the statements which interested delegations made in this Committee and the  meetings  of the 
CTG, it is evident that the major concerns raised by these delegations evolve around Sri Lanka 's 
transparency obligations and the duration of the temporary measures.  Having considered their 
concerns in a pragm atic manner, Sri Lanka has already taken the initial steps towards ensuring Sri 
Lanka 's transparency obligations. In this regard, Sri Lanka is  pleased to inform the Committee that 
its delegation has already contacted the WTO  Secretariat and shared an overv iew of the measures 
currently in force for the purpose s of seeking its guidance and for further information on notification 
formats and technical assistance to enable Sri Lanka to notify the existing measures to the 
appropriate council  or committee in the very near future by way of  fulfilling its transparency 
obligations.  In response to this, the WTO  Secretariat has shared with us an initial draft, which has 
already been shared with our Capital -based officials for their concurrence. Sri Lanka's Capital -based 
officials are careful ly reviewing the initial notification and a final decision on it , with the ir G/MA/M/74  
 
- 59 - 
 
  amendments , is expected soon. However, due to the third  wave of the  COVID -19 pandemic that Sri 
Lanka is also experiencing, access to stakeholder quarters by officials , and their attendance on daily 
basis, have been severely restricted. In view of this, Sri Lanka is  not certain whether its Geneva 
Mission will be able to receive them soon, although best efforts are being made to secure the final 
draft notification as expeditiously as possible so that an initial draft may be shared with interested 
delegatio ns. For the benefit of delegations, Sri Lanka's notification will be submit ted to the Council 
for Trade in Goods . 
25.12.   With respect to the second  matter, on the duration of the temporary measures , which were  
targeted for an intended purpose , and their progressive liberalization at regular intervals, Sri Lanka  
wishes to share the following development that ha s taken  place since August  2020.  The 
EU delegation alluded earlier to some of th ese developments in its statements. First, the requirement 
to obtain import licences was removed in relation 451  products , and for th ose products no prior 
approval is required as the temporary suspension is no longer applied.  Second, c lose to around 
1,300  items were made available to be imported on a credit basis, which includes certain motor 
vehicles, ceramic articles, garments , and rubber items.  In addition to the payment terms under this 
credit basis, Sri Lanka here make s reference to the specific regulation  that governs the payments 
for imports , whereby instructions are given to the commercial banks as to how  the foreign exchange 
can be released. T hese measures have already been notified to the WTO  by Sri Lanka  in 2014 , and 
under this particular regulation there are an array of payment terms, includin g a letter of credit, 
documents against acceptance , documents against payment , open account payment s, advance 
payment s, on a consignment basis , and combinations thereof.  On certain items, importation  can 
take place either on a 90 day or a 180-day credit basis . In addition, because the measures have 
been regularly liberalized , the Government has now permitted two other types of payment methods, 
namely  advance payment s and open account payments, enabling importers to benefit from those 
additional pa yment terms as well. Finally, t he import  of telecommunication items has been allowed 
subject to  price-based measures, such as  customs duty . While noting  the concerns of many 
delegations that the importation of motor vehicles has been hampered by these measures, Sri Lanka 
allows certain types of motor vehicles to fall under HS8705 , relaxing their importation as part of its 
COVID -19 economic revival plan. In  addition, special attention is being paid to the importation of 
eco-friendly vehicles, as the flood of motor vehicles over the past decade has been identified as one 
of the main causes for Sri Lanka's poor air quality. The Government will lift  existing re strictions as 
and when the country 's foreign exchange situation improves. This is why Sri Lanka is liberalizing 
these measures at regular intervals.  Sri Lanka stands  ready to engage constructively with interested 
delegations with a view to presenting a cle ar picture of the measures currently in force. However, 
the vi rtual format is the only means for Sri Lanka to hold such further  consultations . The intention 
of this interaction is to inform  interested delegations  of the remaining measures, as most of the 
measures have either been removed or eased by Sri Lanka over the past few months given Sri 
Lanka's belief  in the gradual liberalization of its measures.  
25.13.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
26  SRI LANKA - IMPO RT BAN ON PALM OIL  - STATEMENT BY INDONESIA  
26.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that this agenda item had been included at the request of Indonesia.  
26.2.  The representative of Indonesia  indicated the following:  
26.3.  In the coming months , during the ongoing COVID -19 pandemic, all economic activities around 
the globe are likely to remain low-key. As such, the devastating impact of the pandemic  on the 
economic activities and livelihood s of millions of people across the world will continue to prevail , 
including in Indone sia. Sri Lanka's  policy of prohibiting the importation of palm oil further harms the 
welfare of palm oil farmers , including small and medium -scale producers in Indonesia,  who are 
relying heavily  on trade activities in order to sustain their lives.  Indonesi a regrets the unilateral steps 
taken by Sri Lanka in imposing a temporary suspension on imports of palm oil products, without 
prior notification and consultation with the relevant stakeholders , and especially during the present 
difficult times.  Sri Lanka s hould also note that this import ban is inconsistent with WTO  rules, in 
particular Article  XI:1 of the GATT regarding the obligation to eliminate QRs. Therefore , Indonesia 
requests  Sri Lanka to conduct a reassessment or review of this import  suspension in the near future, 
by accommodating and responding to the objections on the said policy, as advocated by several 
stakeholders.  On this occasion, Indonesia seeks information and clarification from Sri Lanka in 
relation  to the following points : (i) the rationa le behind the imposition of the temporary suspension G/MA/M/74  
 
- 60 - 
 
  of palm oil import s; (ii) how the import prohibitions are administered; and (iii) the expected 
implementation period for such prohibitions.  In conclusion , Indonesia looks forward to Sri Lanka 
abiding by  its commitments under the WTO rules and address ing this issue accordingly.  
26.4.  The representative of Malaysia  indicated the following:  
26.5.  Malaysia would like to raise its concerns regarding the palm oil import ban  imposed by Sri 
Lanka. Malaysia also seeks clarification from Sri Lanka on the notification and the timeline for the 
measures imposed. Malaysia is of the view that Sri Lanka should have informed WTO  Members in 
advance before imposing import restrictions on  palm oil , in line with the WTO's principles of 
international trade openness and transparency.  On 5 April 2021, the Controller General, Imports 
and Exports Control Department , Sri Lanka,  issued Operating Instruction  08/2021 for a Temporary 
Suspension of Im ports of Palm Oil. The Operating Instruction instructed all commercial banks not to 
affect advance payments or establish Letters of Credit  effective from  5 April 2021. It also stated that 
the Sri Lanka Customs shall not clear items under HS  Codes 1511.10.0 0 to 1511.90.90, shipped on 
or after 5  April 2021 until further notice.  On 6  April 2021, the Import and Exports (Control) 
Regulation No.  04 of 2021 was issued by the Ministry of Finance, which banned the imports of items 
under HS  1511.10.00, 1511.90.00, 1511.90.20 , and 1511.90.90 while imposing  licensing 
requirements for importing other palm oil products under HS  1511.90.00, 1511.90.10, 1511.90.30 , 
and 1511.90.90.  Based on Article  XI of the GATT, the General Elimination of Quantitative 
Restric tions, a WTO  Member should not impose a ban or restriction other than duties or other 
charges on any product imported or exported from or to other countries. Article  XI:1 of the 
GATT  states  the following : "No prohibitions or restrictions other than duties,  taxes or other charges, 
whether made effective through quotas, import or export licenses or other measures, shall be 
instituted or maintained by any contracting party on the importation of any product of the territory 
of any other contracting party or on the exportation or sale for export of any product destined for 
the territory of any other contracting party."  Although the Article does allow prohibition or temporary 
restriction, it must be based on preventing critical shortages of foodstuff s, applying st andards or 
regulations, and others allowable under this provision.  Malaysia is also concerned about the 
notification process. Based on Article  X of the GATT , any new measures affecting trade shall be 
published promptly and in such a manner as to enable gov ernments and traders to become 
acquainted with them. Article  1 of the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) also states that a Member 
shall promptly publish such information in a non -discriminatory and easily accessible manner.  
Therefore, Malaysia wishes to r aise its concern over such trade measures, which must be based on 
reasons provided under the said provisions to ensure that they are aligned with the WTO's principles 
of international trade openness and transparency.  
26.6.  The representative of Colombia  indicated the following:  
26.7.  Colombia  express es its interest in this issue and its concern regarding Sri Lanka's measures 
to restrict palm oil imports.  Colombia is a producer and exporter of palm oil, palm oil products , and 
palm oil biofuels. Global market dynamics in these products directly  affect  Colombia's export ers. 
Colombia is especially  concern ed by th e so-called  "Operating Instructions" issued by the Sri Lankan 
government , whereby  imports of palm oil  and derived products  have been suspended or restricted. 
Colombia observe s that Sri Lanka has not submitted any notifications to the WTO on these measures, 
which limi t Members' knowledge  of them . In this regard, Colombia seeks clarification regarding  the 
reason for th e import suspension, its policy objectives, the period of its application, the justification 
for these measures , and the authorities responsible for their administration.  
26.8.  The representative of Sri Lanka  indicated the following:  
26.9.  First, Sri Lanka  wishes to thank  the delegations of Indonesia, Malaysia,  and Colombia . At the 
same time, Sri Lanka notes that Colombia is not exporting these products to Sri Lanka; nevertheless, 
Sri Lanka  understand s that Colombia may have a systemic concern  on this issue . These products, 
as Malaysia and Indonesia indicated, fall, broadly speaking , into two  categories under the HS  at 
6-digit level, namely for palm oil and refined palm oil. Delegations that have intervened have 
misunderstood the measures ; they refer to a particular notificatio n, but if they look carefully at that, 
they will understand that the kind of measures that we have imposed differ from one to another.  
When it comes to Sri Lanka's imports , particularly from Indonesia and Malaysia, and the rest of the 
world, except Colombi a, they have  significantly increased over the period 2019 -2020. Therefore, it 
is not true  to say that Sri Lanka has reduced its imports ; rather, during 2019 -2020, imports have 
increased by 83% , and Sri Lanka, despite having its own domestic production of p alm oil and other G/MA/M/74  
 
- 61 - 
 
  substitutes, has nevertheless been importing these items  during this time . There is no evidence to 
cite that imports have been hampered, because these measures were only  introduced in April ; 
therefore , it is not true  to say that small farmers are being affected. Coming to the two  countries 
that have a significant interest in this issue, that is , Malaysia and Indonesia, compared to the 
two product categories, that is, crude palm oil and refined oil, Sri Lanka is  import ing significantly 
less quantities of crude palm oil from these two  countries , and the majority of Sri Lanka's imports 
are actually of refined oil ; this must also be flagged because , as just mentioned , the measure s differ 
between crude palm oil and refined oil. Coming to the other measures , and the reasons for their 
introduction , Sri Lanka wishes  to draw Members' attention to two  notifications that Sri Lanka has 
made to the TBT and SPS  Committees. With reference to document  G/TBT/N/LKA/36, of 
28 May 2018, Sr i Lanka notes that these items have been made subject to special import  licences 
because , under the requirements  of the TBT  Agreement,  these products can contain certain 
myco toxins. The reference here is to an SPS  measure, so Sri Lanka is not adopt ing arbitrary 
standards, but rather the Codex standards that relate to aflatoxin  (a carcinogenic material ). Sri 
Lanka has adopted this particular standard and converted it into a national standard , as notified to 
the WTO  in full transparency . When Members  read carefully the list of product s covered under  that 
particular notification, they will see that it includes palm oil , but the notification and the relevant 
regulation that is attached to that notification  must be read c arefully . So here Sri Lanka's obligation s 
have been met. The item is subject to licence and the importer must obtain a certificate ; a sample 
will then be taken by the Sri Lanka Standard institution, and if the quality meets the standard then 
importation is  permitted. With regard to the  Import Licensing Agreement, Sri Lanka notes that these 
are not automatic licences; rather, they  fall under the category of a non-automatic licence regime , 
and this regime has already been notified to the WTO. Turning  to the SPS  notification , Sri Lanka 
submitted a notification in 2009 ( document  G/SPS/N/LKA/18) where it again included this item as 
there are certain SPS  requirements to be met according to the CODEX  requirement on aflatoxin 
levels. Sri Lanka  also shared another draft regulation via an SPS  notification to Members on 
12 September  2019, seeking  any observations from interested parties in this regard . Sri Lanka then 
submitted a further and supplementary notification by way of a reminder to Members. By way of 
response, Sri Lanka only received comments from India ; in contrast, Sri Lanka did not receive any 
responses from any of its principal suppliers. Therefore, Sri Lanka is not at fault in a context where  
its principal suppliers did not provide any comments ; indeed , they failed to do so , and the notification 
will now soon be introduced . In short, Sri Lanka has followed due process by submitting the 
notification to the WTO and seeking comments on it from other Members. In addition, Members 
should recall  that this item has never really been freely importable ; it was subject to import licensing 
requirements and trade has been carried out under those requirements . Turning  to the measure that 
Sri Lanka recentl y introduced , Sri Lanka notes that crude palm oil is not actually intended for human 
consumption because it contains heavy metals and all types of myco toxins. The only product in this 
context intended for human consumption is refined oil, which is subject to maximum residual level s 
of aflatoxin , as expressed in particles per billion , and if there are more than five particles  per billion 
the product is rejected and cannot be imported because it is a health concern. Sri Lanka has been 
quite relaxed about this  requirement with the result  that the market became flooded with various 
types of oil coming from different countries . Sri Lanka noted that this oil was adulterated or 
contaminated and also that importers were engaging in such unethical practices as claimi ng that 
crude oil was in fact refined oil. For this reason, Sri Lanka had to adopt severe measures to stop this 
practice and restore consumer confidence. This is why crude oil was placed under highly restrictive 
measures and refined palm oil was made subje ct to licensing requirements. Sri Lanka is  pleased that 
Malaysia indicated that the operating instructions run up to 2021 , and that there has been a further 
operating instruction , of 9/2021 , issued on 12  April 2021, which clearly spells out that crude oil is 
under a list of banned products because Sri Lanka does not know how to address the situation of 
crude oil , which is  carcinogenic and not intended for human consumption , and which, in addition, is  
contaminated , and refined oil , which  is placed under non -automatic licensing requirements. In other 
words, any importer , any interested party , can go to the import controller /export controller and 
obtain an import licence to import into Sri Lanka. Indeed, this  has been th e practice and there is no 
significant difference between the measure as it was applied either before or after this date.  
Therefore, Sri Lanka wishes to reassure those principal suppliers that they may continue to export 
refined palm oils that are categori zed under the HS codes in question by obtaining the relevant 
import licences . However, on crude oil, the Sri Lankan authorities must check every consignment to 
avoid adulteration ; for this reason,  importation is permitted only after each and every consignment 
has been inspected. As a small country, and because of the COVID -19 situation , the engagement of 
Sri Lanka's  officials at this time is limited , meaning that it is not possible at this time to check each 
and every consignment that is coming into the country ; for this reason, Sri Lanka considered it best 
to address the issue of adulter ated crude oil coming into its market i s by imposing a  very severe G/MA/M/74  
 
- 62 - 
 
  form of restrictions , thus the measures Sri La nka has adopted under Article  XX of the GATT. Some 
Members consider that Sri Lanka's measures fall under Article  XI of the GATT, the Agreement on 
Agriculture ; in this regard, Sri Lanka draws their attention to the Agreement on Agriculture, which 
comes  above all of these other provisions in terms of the legal hierarchy of the GATT and 
WTO Agreements. F or example, f ootnote  1 says that you cannot have any QRs except under any 
provision under the GATT  1994. Therefore, this measure has been imposed in response t o Article  XX 
of the GATT and it has been duly notified to the WTO. For this reason, one cannot say that Sri Lanka 
is in violation of its WTO  commitments. Sri Lanka wishes  to assure other Members that it will be 
engaging constructively with delegations on these measures . Sri Lanka wishes especially to thank 
the delegation of Malaysia, which has approached Sri Lanka bilaterally ; this led to a very constructive 
meeting immediately prior to this Committee me eting, where many aspects of these measures could 
be clarified.  In any case, Sri Lanka's intervention here will be shared with interested parties.  
26.10.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
27  UNITED KINGDOM - RENEGOTIATION OF TARIFF RATE QUOTAS UNDER 
ARTICLE  XXVIII OF THE GATT 1994  - STATEMENT BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  
27.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that this agenda item had been included at the request of the 
Russian Federation . 
27.2.  The representative of the Russian Federation  indicated the following:  
27.3.  The Russian  Federation continues to have significant concern s regarding the United Kingdom's  
approach to its TRQ renegotiations. The Russian Federation stress es the impossibility of concluding 
negotiations without an agreement on compensation from the United Kingdom . The Russian 
Federation urges the United Kingdom  to provide its compensatory proposal.  
27.4.  The representative of Australia  indicated the following:  
27.5.  Australia has consistently raised its concerns with the EU and UK 's approach to splitting the 
previous EU -28 TRQs as a result of Brexit since it was first  proposed in 2017. It is clear that the 
proposed modifications to TRQs will diminish the commercial value of Australia 's existing market 
access, not only by removing flexibility in where product is sent year -to-year, but also by rendering 
some TRQ  allocations too small to be commercially viable. That said, Australia appreciates the 
constructive and pragmatic engagement from the UK on these issues before the end of the transition 
period in late  2020. Australia has  reached in -principle agreement with the UK on revised TRQ  splits 
and is working with the UK to finalize the overall agreement. Australia is  seeking to ensure the 
implementation of the agreed arrangements in a timely manner. This will provide certainty to 
Australian exporters with in the new post -Brexit trading environment.  
27.6.   The representative of New Zealand  indicated the following:  
27.7.  New Zealand's intervention will cover agenda items  27 and 28 on the UK  renegotiations. As 
noted at the recent meeting of the Goods Council, New Zealand was  pleased to see that 
"Article  GOODS  18: Use of Existing WTO  Tariff Rate Quotas " of the EU -UK Trade and Cooperation 
Agreement makes clear that each Party is precluded from using the other 's WTO  MFN tariff rate 
quotas.  This also needs  to be reflected in the respective Member 's WTO  Goods Schedules in due 
course, so New Zealand  would appreciate receiving an update from the UK and the EU on when the 
necessary notification of modification to this effect is g oing to be submitted. On the treatment of 
tariff rate quotas , New Zealand first  raised its concerns over the UK 's proposed reductions in its tariff 
rate quota commitments nearly four  years ago.  It is very disappointing that, despite the active 
efforts it has made over this period to engage with the UK on practical ways to resolve this matter, 
New Zealand still need s to register the very real concerns it continue s to have about the outstanding 
aspects of this issue that are yet to be addressed. T he UK's proposed changes are substantial. They 
include doing away completely with access to the UK  market ( that is,  zero quotas) for 55 of the 
142 existing WTO  quotas and o ffering such small volumes for a number of other quotas as to render 
them commercially unmeaningful.  Unfortunately, New Zealand's ongoing efforts to seek practical 
solutions notwithstanding, there has been little discernible progress in resolving these mat ters with 
the UK to date.  Rather, New Zealand continue s to experience direct, negative, commercial impacts, 
with exporters being denied access to even the reduced quotas the UK put in place unilaterally at G/MA/M/74  
 
- 63 - 
 
  the start of this year for exports into Northern I reland. This is a clear and present example of the 
kind of disadvantage the UK 's actions to modify its WTO  quota commitments in this way have caused 
for other WTO  Members.  New Zealand , for its  part, remain s committed to continuing to work with 
the UK to arrive at practical solutions to address these important  concerns , and New Zealand urges 
the UK to redouble its efforts to engage constructively with concerned WTO  Members to this end . 
27.8.  As it has previously  indicated , New  Zealand also continues to have concer ns about some 
aspects of the UK 's draft WTO  goods schedule. The UK 's Aggregate Measurement of Support 
(AMS)  claim is quite extraordinary. At EUR 5.914  billion , the UK 's 2017  claim  amounts to some 20% 
of the total value of UK  agricultural production. If fully utilized , this would see the UK become one 
of the world 's largest agricultural subsidizers and put the UK on a course that is at odds with one of 
the fundamental objectives WTO  Members have set themselves of working to red uce trade-distorting 
agricultural support. The UK is also seeking the right to apply the agricultural special safeguard on 
up to 680 products, c overing 31% of agricultural goods, including  goods not produced in the UK; as 
well as to apply 'minimum entry pr ice' and "Mesuring Table" market management systems that do 
not form part of the UK 's new global tariff regime. Given the broader systemic concerns several of 
these issues raise, they cannot be resolved through bilateral engagement alone, but will need to be 
addressed instead as part of a multilateral process. New Zealand strongly encourage s the UK to 
engage in discussions in Geneva w ith other WTO  Members to resolve these issues.  
27.9.  The representative of Uruguay  indicated the following:  
27.10.   Uruguay  wishes to thank  the United Kingdom for having launch ed this process  under  
Article  XXVIII  of the GATT . Uruguay stress es the importance of concluding this process  as a result 
of substantive negotiations between interested Members and the UK so that the UK can have an 
independent schedule  of concessions  established within the WTO , and that , at the same time,  the 
rights of other WTO  Members  are preserved . Uruguay hopes to continue its discussion with the UK 
with a view to ensuring market access  commitments adapted to the reality of its bilateral trade with 
the UK rather than detracting from current market access  opportunities.  
27.11.   The representative of Canada  indicated the following:  
27.12.   Canada's  intervention also applies to item  28. Canada's n egotiations with the United 
Kingdom  on its draft WTO  goods schedule and proposed TRQ  commitments are still ongoing.  Canada 
looks forward to continuing a positive discussion with the United Kingdom . 
27.13.   The representative of China  indicated the following:  
27.14.   China 's consistent concern over this issue remain s unchanged. It is our view that the UK's 
approach simply to split the EU existing TRQs will diminish the commercial value of China 's existing 
market access and does not reflect the reality of its bilateral trade  with the United Kingdom . China 
urges the United Kingdom to give full consideration to Members ' requests and to redouble its efforts 
to conclude the se negotiations at an early date. China stands ready to  continue its engagement  with 
the United Kingdom on this issue.  
27.15.   The representative of Brazil  indicated  the following:  
27.16.   Brazil recalls that it has been demonstrating, over the past few years, dissatisfaction with 
the fact that little has been done to prevent "Brexit " from negatively affecting UK and EU  obligations 
vis-à-vis other WTO  Members. Brazil's  concerns comprise both specific and system ic issues. Among 
systemic issues relating  to the United Kingdom, such as relaxations in border controls for agricultural 
goods from the EU, the self -allocation of a n FBTAMS , followed by the conversion of it using an 
arbitrary exchange rate despite there not being any legal basis for this in the GATT or in the 
Agreement on Agriculture , is one of Brazil's  major concerns. When invoking its right to a n FBTAMS 
based on being an original WTO  Member as part of the EC -15, the UK should also be linked to the 
full ra nge of obligations that was negotiated for agricultural goods during the Uruguay  Round . At 
that moment, a delicate balance was reached in terms both of domestic support, through reductions 
commitments, and market access, which involved consolidation and re duction of customs rights; the 
elimination of QRs; and the creation of agricultural TRQs. Brazil's attention has been especially drawn 
to the fact that, in the current consolidation of its "schedule", under the argument that it is only 
replicating obligati ons contracted when it was part of the European Union, the United Kingdom has G/MA/M/74  
 
- 64 - 
 
  chosen to use different base periods to define the exchange rate used in the conversion of its 
schedule and the basis for establishing the apportionment of the TRQs, which, in bo th cases, seem 
conducive to less liberalization in terms of domestic support and market access than before. Brazil's  
concerns regarding the FBTAMS intensify as, even after the end of the transition period, it seems 
that there is some resistance from the EU  in adjusting its own FBTAMS accordingly.  
27.17.   The representative of Paraguay  indicated the following:  
27.18.   Paraguay will address items  27 and 28 together and wish es simply  to reiterate its concerns 
expressed on previous occasions and to emphasi ze that AMS rights have been included without 
equivalent reductions in EU  rights. Paraguay  request s that its past interventions be reflected in the 
meeting's minutes , as follows:  Paraguay's reiterates its concern with regard to the market access 
conditions which could be negatively affected by these processes. The uncertainty surrounding Brexit 
is a matter of concern to the EU and UK  trading partners, which continue to suffer from the lack of 
clarity on  certain issues relating to TRQs, which could lead to a significant loss of market in those 
markets. Paraguay calls on both parties to ensure that they have fulfilled the commitments they had 
undertaken and that market access opportunities would remain una ltered after this process. In 
addition, Paraguay notes that her delegation shares the concerns that have been mentioned by other 
delegations regarding the exchange rate, the AMS, and special safeguards. Paraguay has discussed 
the issues at length bilateral ly with the UK. Paraguay hopes for a satisfactory outcome in answering 
these concerns, and notes that we have not seen a proposal by the European Union to reduce its 
AMS entitlement in the same proportion as that the United Kingdom has proposed to establis h in its 
new Schedule.14 
27.19.   The representative of  the United Kingdom  indicated the following:  
27.20.   The United Kingdom thanks  Members for their statements on the UK 's Article  XXVIII 
negotiations on its bound tariff rate quota commitments. The United Kingdom would l ike to refer 
Members to document  WT/GC/226, circulated to Members at the beginning of the year, in which the 
United Kingdom confirmed that , with effect from 11pm GMT on 31  December  2020, the UK fully 
respects the concessions and commitments laid out in its  independent Goods Schedule. As the UK 
has expressed on numerous occasions before, its objective has always been, and remains, to 
maintain the existing balance of rights and obligations between the UK and its trading partners upon 
its withdrawal from the E uropean Union. The United Kingdom has  set out its Goods Schedule 
(document  G/MA/TAR/RS/570 , together with subsequent addenda), on that basis. The United 
Kingdom has engaged extensively with Members on that Schedule since its circulation in 2018, and 
remains open to further discussions to resolve outstanding concerns. As part of the process of 
certifying its schedule, the United Kingdom is currently undertaking negotiations and consultations 
under the Article  XXVIII process to seek agreement with relevant WTO  Members on the extraction 
of the United Kingdom 's TRQ  commitments from those of the EU -28. The United Kingdom has 
undertaken several negotiation rounds and would like to thank the relevant Members for their 
continued engagement in this matter, and the UK is pleased that it is close to completing negotiations 
with multiple trading partners. Thi s engagement has continued through the COVID -19 pandemic, 
through virtual negotiation rounds, and the United Kingdom  thank s all those Members involved in 
this process for their flexibility and understanding during these challenging times. The United 
Kingdo m is committed to continuing its engagement with Members in its Article  XXVIII negotiations 
to resolve matters as soon as possible . Negotiations within the process under Article  XXVIII have 
been positive and productive, and the United Kingdom would like to  remind Members that, as set 
out in document  G/L/1386 and referenced at the March Council for Trade in Goods, the United 
Kingdom has extended the timelines envisaged under Article  XXVIII:3 of the GATT by six months , 
until 1  January  2022. The United Kingdom  believe s that this extension will enable it to continue 
constructive engagement with Members towards the resolution of their outstanding concerns.  
27.21.   Regarding the United Kingdom 's AMS entitlement, the  United Kingdom set out its intention 
to apportion the pr e-existing EU -28 level of commitment on domestic support between the UK and 
EU in October  2017, using an objective methodology based on previous cases at the WTO. This is 
not a new AMS  entitlement  and the UK is continuing dialogue with Members to address their relevant 
questions and concerns. On special safeguards, the United Kingdom would note to Members that the 
UK's Schedule replicates the concessions and commitments applicable to the UK as expr essed in the 
EU-28 Schedule.  On the statements relating to Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom has made 
 
14 G/MA/M/73, paragraphs 14.7 and 16.5.  G/MA/M/74  
 
- 65 - 
 
  numerous efforts to support traders following the end of the transition with respect to moving goods 
into Northern Ireland. The UK  Trader Scheme was es tablished to enable authori zed businesses to 
undertake that the goods they are bringing into Northern Ireland are "not at risk " of onward 
movement to the EU and therefore not liable to EU  tariffs. Additionally, the UK  government 's 
GBP 200 million Trader Su pport Service provides education and guidance for all traders moving 
goods into Northern Ireland. The United Kingdom has been clear that it wants to address the specific 
TRQ issue raised today by working constructively with traders and international partne rs, including 
particularly with the European Union as part of ongoing dialogues on the implementation of the 
UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement. The United Kingdom  will continue to engage bilaterally with 
WTO Members on this.  
27.22.   The Committee took note  of the stateme nts made.  
28  UNITED KINGDOM - RECTIFICATIONS AND MODIFICATION OF SCHEDULE  XIX - 
UNITED KINGDOM  - STATEMENT BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  
28.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that this agenda item had been included at the request of the 
Russian Federation . 
28.2.  The representative of the Russian Federation  indicated the following:  
28.3.  The Russian Federation  would like to reiterate its concern in respect of the UK 's approach to 
establishing its schedule of tariff concessions. In spite of its bilateral consultations wit h the UK, the 
Russian Federation is still worried about the methodology of apportionment of aggregate 
measurement of support  and the proposed currency conversion. The Russian Federation  notes that 
Article  XXVIII of the GATT, as well as the Agreement on Agr iculture , do not provide the possibility 
to amend Members ' AMS commitments. As for the currency conversions , the Russian Federation is 
troubled by their potential impact on the general level of concessions, which may result in 
substantive changes to the UK 's current WTO  concessions.  Following the discussion that took place 
at the most recent meeting of the ITA Committee , and a recent bilateral meeting , the Russian 
Federation considers that the United Kingdom should provide a detailed list of its tariff comm itments 
under the Information Technology Agreement in due course to be included in its schedule of tariff 
commitments.  The Russian Federation  looks forward to further consultations w ith the United 
Kingdom to resolve these issues.  
28.4.  The representative of the United States  indicated the following:  
28.5.  The United States has made significant progress in its Article  XXVIII  negotiations on TRQs 
with the United Kingdom . The United States looks forward to finalizing an agreement.  The United 
States has  also had productive conversations with the UK regarding its draft Schedule  XIX. The 
United States  remain s concerned about the UK 's copy and paste approach to the Special Agricultural 
Safeguard (SSG) in its post -Brexit goods schedule. The United States wou ld like to hear the rationale 
for keeping the SSG for products that are not sensitive, and in some cases not even produced, in 
the UK.  The United States  will continue to engage with the United Kingdom to ensure its trading 
interests are not adversely affec ted. 
28.6.  The representative of Uruguay  indicated the following:  
28.7.  Uruguay wishes to reiterate its position on the following points. The UK's request to have a 
total consolidated AMS needs  to be analysed and discuss ed by the Membership . It would  not seem  
appropri ate for the UK to just replicate the right  to invoke the  SSG under Art icle 5 of the Agreement  
on Agriculture  for all of its products and under  the same criteria and conditions established in the 
EU schedule. In addition , the proposal to introduce a currency conversion in the draft schedule on 
the basis of an average of daily exchange rates for the period 2015 -2019 also gives rise to certain 
concerns , for the following reasons:  first, this is due  to the impact that it might have on  generating  
particul arly high bound tariffs and authorized levels of  AMS, and at levels higher , especially,  than 
would result if other comparative periods  were used , for example, the period 1986-1988, which was  
the period  used as a basis for the Uruguay Round negotiations ; and second,  because of the link to 
the ongoing process under  Article  XXVIII  of the GATT . In this respect,  Uruguay hopes to continue a 
constructive dialogue with the UK on this issue.  G/MA/M/74  
 
- 66 - 
 
  28.8.  The representative of Australia  indicated the following:  
28.9.  Australia has cons istently raised its concerns with the EU and UK 's approach to splitting the 
previous EU -28 TRQs as a result of Brexit. Beyond the TRQ  splits, Australia continues to be 
concerned that the issues it has  raised with the UK 's initial rectification remain unaddressed. 
Australia considers that the UK 's draft goods schedule , circulated on 24  July 2018, contains 
substantive changes to the UK 's current WTO  concessions, including the UK 's FBTAMS  entitlement, 
and Special Safeguard ( SSG) entitlements.  Australia does not believe that the UK should have 
automatic rights to an AMS  entitlement without some scrutiny from the Membership and potential 
changes. Australia is concerned with the UK 's inclusion of AMS  entitlement of GBP 4.95 billion, and 
it is worth noting that the EU still has not formally proposed any corresponding reductions to its 
AMS entitlement. The UK needs to find a multilateral solution to this issue and demonstrate to other 
Members that its expected future domestic suppo rt program mes will not unduly distort global 
agricultural trade. Australia  calls upon the United Kingdom to reassure Members that the UK is a 
strong advocate for domestic support reform, and to help show that it will be part of the solution, 
even if it has  such a large initial AMS  entitlement. Australia  also do es not think that the UK should 
be able simply to "copy and paste " SSG rights from the EU 's WTO  goods schedule , which have a 
distinct history and basis from the Uruguay Round and could result in the p erverse outcome of 
providing the UK  SSG rights for products that the UK does not produce.  Australia request s the UK 
to engage in a plurilateral meeting with interested Members in the coming weeks to seek to resolve 
Members' concerns relating to the UK 's proposed AMS and SSG  entitlements. Australia stands ready 
to have constructive discussions with the UK to help resolve these matters and to move towards the 
certification of the UK 's goods schedule.  
28.10.   The representative of the United Kingdom  indicated the fo llowing:  
28.11.   The United Kingdom would like to thank the Russian Federation and other Members for their 
statements under this item. The United Kingdom has set out its position regarding the rectification 
to redenominate its goods schedule at previous meetings o f this Committee . To avoid repetition, the 
United Kingdom would refer Members to those statements. The United Kingdom remains open to 
engaging with Members to explain its methodologically rigorous approach to the redenomination of 
its goods schedule, which  builds on previous examples at the WTO, as well as providing relevant 
data and answering any remaining questions that Members may have. Regarding the Russian 
Federation 's comments on the United Kingdom 's ITA commitments, the United Kingdom would refer 
Members to its statement made at the recent ITA  Committee meeting. The United Kingdom  thank s 
the Russian Federation for its bilateral engagement on this issu e and look s forward to further 
discussion.  On AMS and SSG, the United Kingdom refers Members to its recent statement on this 
matter and stand s ready  to continue its engagement on this.  
28.12.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
29  EGYPT  – MANUFACTURER REGISTRATION SYSTEM (DECREE N° 43/2016) - STATEMENT 
BY THE  RUSSIAN FEDERATION  
29.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that this agenda item had been included at the request of the 
Russian Federation . 
29.2.  The representative of the Russian Federation  indicated the following:  
29.3.  The Russia n Federation  wishes to express its very deep concern in respect of the Decree of 
the Ministry of Trade and Industry of Egypt No. 43/2016 on registration of foreign companies in 
order to be eligible to export into the territory of Egypt.  Russia reiterates the statements made 
during previous meeting of the TBT Committee and the Council for Trade in Goods. However, this 
measure also has certain elements that are covered by the GATT  1994. The mechanism for 
registration of foreign companies applied by Egypt implies the submission of an applicatio n and other 
documents to the General Organization for Export and Import Control. The approval of the 
application by the Minister of Industry and Trade of Egypt is a condition for the importation of certain 
products into the customs territory of Egypt. With out such approval the import of certain products 
is not allowed. This measure appears to be non -automatic licensing , which falls within the provisions 
of Article  XI of the GATT.  Russian steel manufacturer s have been trying to successfully complete the 
registration procedures since 2016. According to the information  available , the documents of Russian G/MA/M/74  
 
- 67 - 
 
  exporters have been under the consideration of the Minister for a long time now without any 
explanation.  The Russian Federation  consider s Egypt 's measure to be  a quantitative restriction 
incompatible with Article  XI of the GATT . Russia  notes that its exporters faced challenges only in 
respect of products with low tariff rates applied by Egypt. This system seems to work in order to 
handle trade flows and to ensur e the protection of domestic industries , keeping them profitable.  The 
Russian Federation  urges Egypt to reconsider its ' registration system and to bring it in to line with 
the WTO  rules.  
29.4.  The representative of the European Union  indicated the following:  
29.5.  The European Union  would like to reiterate its concerns with regard to the registration of 
companies exporting to Egypt under Decrees No. 991/2015, No.  43/2016 , and No.  44/2019.  This 
registration procedure constitutes a considerable obstacle to trade. It imposes an unnecessary 
administrative burden and blocks or substantially delays EU exports. The European Union therefore 
continue s to question Egypt 's justification for this manda tory registration of EU  companies. The EU  
notes with concern that most of the known pending registration cases have still not been successfully 
processed , and that some sectors , like ceramic tiles , continue being disproportionately affected by 
the discreti onary application of Decree  No. 43. Moreover, the European Union wishes  to highlight 
the structural problems relating  to Decree  No. 43/2016, such as  the lack of transparency in the 
registration process, the lack of clear deadlines for processing requests, the lack of a clear appeal s 
procedure, and the high level of discretion in granting registrations. Therefore, the European Union 
considers that this measure should either be terminated or substantially impro ved. The European 
Union stands ready to work with Egypt in order to finalize  the registrations of pending applications 
and to work on solutions  that would prevent delays in future registrations.  
29.6.  The representative of Turkey  indicated the following:  
29.7.  Turkey  will refrain from repeating the points it has raised previously in different 
WTO platforms on this item and suffice with stating that Turkey's  concerns are still ongoing regarding 
Egypt's manufacturer registration system.  Rather than problems faced by indi vidual companies, 
there are structural problems relating  to this Decree and its implementation that lead to 
unpredictability and arbitrariness.  In this sense, it is still unclear how applications to the GOEIC are 
evaluated, whether the completion of the pr ocess is subject to any time-limits , and which steps 
should be followed to complete a registration process. In addition, companies are not regularly 
informed of the status of their application. As is to be expected , companies are facing long delays 
and must bear additional costs in the registration process.  As a result, Turkey wishes to request  
Egypt to review its measures considering its obligations under the WTO  Agreements and to ensure 
their implementation in full transparency. Turkey  believe s this hindrance will be overcome given the 
continued dialogue among our countries and Turkey stands ready to engage with Egypt on all 
trade-related measures.  
29.8.  The representative of Egypt  indicated the following:  
29.9.  Egypt thank s the Russian Federation for including this item on the agenda and for the ir 
constructive bilateral consultations. Egypt  also thank s the delegations of the European Union and 
Turkey for the ir interventions.  Egypt wishes to refer to its statements delivered at previous meetings 
of the TBT Committee  and the CTG, in which it highlighted that the sole purpose of the 
above -mentioned decree is market surveillance and combat ting deceptive trade practices further to  
massive import surges of counterfeited products that were detected  entering Egypt , and , 
furthermore,  that by no means does the decree aim at restricting access to the Egyptian market  or 
constitute a quantitative restriction . Egypt has also highlighted to M embers the measures 
undertaken by the Egyptian Organization of Export and Import Control to enhance transparency in 
the administration of the registration system.  Having said that, observing the  evolution of Egyptian 
imports from the Russian Federation, it  is noteworthy that , despite an initial decrease of 13% in the 
value of imports in 2016, the year of entry into force of Decree  No. 43, compared to 2015 , in 2017 , 
imports witnessed a 25%  increase, followed by another 39%  increase in 2018. Therefore, Egypt is 
not of the view that Decree No. 43/2016 restricted the access of Russian imports into the Egyptian 
market . Nonetheless, Egypt has  already conveyed to Capital the call from several M embers to 
enhance transparency in the administration of the registration  system, and while Egypt  fully 
subscribe s to the essential principle of transparency, it is worth highlighting that transparency 
enhancement efforts have been slowed and hindered by the COVID -19 pandemic and the 
subsequent containment measures that have fu rther complicated the coordination process among G/MA/M/74  
 
- 68 - 
 
  the governmental authorities  concerned . Egypt  takes note of the comments and concerns raised and 
we will shortly convey these to Capital ; Egypt will revert to the concerned Members in due course.  
29.10.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
30  OTHER BUSINESS  
30.1  Nepal - Import Ban on Energy Drink s – Statement by Thailand  
30.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that this agenda item had been included at the request of Thailand.  
30.2.  The representative of Thailand  indicated  the following:  
30.3.  Thailand acknowledges Nepal 's statement delivered at the Committee's November meeting 
regarding Nepal 's import prohibition on energy drinks , in which  Nepal justified its action on 
balance -of-payment grounds. Thailand notes that Nepal has notified the import prohibition to the 
WTO Secretariat via email ; however , the notification has not yet been circulated to WTO  Members.  
Thailand requests  Nepal to provide official notification of its measure to the re levant 
WTO committees in order to further clarify the precise legal basis under the WTO  covered 
agreements justify ing Nepal 's adoption of an import prohibition on energy drinks.  
30.4.  The representative of Nepal  indicated the following:  
30.5.  Nepal  refers to its statement s delivered at the meetings of this Committee held in June and 
November  2020. The statements have indicated that Nepal 's export -import ratio of trade in goods 
reached to 1:15.3 in 2017/2018 from 1:2.5 in  2004/2005 after its accession to the WTO , resulting 
in a huge trade gap. Such import surge s posed severe challenges to the entire economic 
development process of the country. The main legal basis of this measure is Section  3(1) of the 
Export and Import Act  1957, which allows the Government of Nepal  to take necessary measures , if 
conditions  require , such as to safeguard the external financial position and balance of payments and 
to stop a serious decline in foreign currency reserves. This Act was under implementation during the 
accession period of Ne pal and had been notified to the WTO at that time. This measure is neither 
concentrated on any specific area and issue nor focused on only trade restriction for a few products; 
rather , it broadly covers trade regulation and facilitation aspects of Nepal 's international trade to 
make it standard ized and smooth er. This measure has been applied on a temporary basis as part of 
the Export and Import Act  1957. Furthermore, it fully complies with WTO  law and is applied on an 
MFN basis to all WTO  Members. The Government of Nepal is in consultation with the agencies 
concerned and is assessing this regulation via a detailed study. It may be reviewed periodically and 
revised based on the study findings . Any necessary and appropriate step s will be taken  once this 
consultation and assessment process has been completed. However, the  process of assessment and 
consultation may take some time given that the entire state mechanism is currently fully engaged 
in the fight against the COVID -19 pandemic.  Regarding  the notification, the Permanent Mission of 
Nepal in Geneva sent an official note and notification to the WTO  Secretariat on 21  January  2020 
and follow ed up on that official note and notification in June and November  2020 via  email. After 
having consulted  with the Secretariat, the Secretariat extended its support by rearranging the 
document notified by Nepal in the proper format. The reformatted draft document has been shared 
with Capital for its final verification , and Capital is working on  it. The notific ation will be made public 
by the Secretariat once consent to do so has been received from Capital. Nepal extends its sincere 
appreciation to the Secretariat in this regard . 
30.6.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
30.2  E-Agenda  
30.7.  The Chairperson  recalled that this was the first time in which the Committee had used an 
e-Agenda for the preparation of its formal meeting , following the  mock session where several 
Members had provided inputs that had  helped the Secretariat to refine the system. He hoped that 
delegates in Geneva and in Capital s had found the e-Agenda to be a useful tool through which to 
submit items and other issues for consideration by th e Committee. As the system was still  at an 
initial stage in the context of  the Market Access Committ ee, he informed Members that they would 
have another opportunity to provide feedback aimed at improving the system at the next informal G/MA/M/74  
 
- 69 - 
 
  meeting of the Committee , which  was scheduled to take place  in June. At th at meeting, Members 
could provide their  views on how the system work ed and whether adjustments or other actions 
would be required.  
30.8.  The Committee took note  of the statement.  
30.3  Dates of the Next Meetings  
30.9.  The Chairperson  asked the Committee to take note of the following arrangements. The next 
informal meetings  would take place on 26 May and 16  June 2021. The next formal meeting of the 
Committee had been scheduled for 11-12 October  2021. The specific arrangements for holdi ng these 
meetings would be communicated closer to the date of each meeting.  
30.10.   The Committee took note  of the statement.  
31  ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON  
31.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that the rules of procedure for the Committee stated that a 
Chairperson shall be elected at the end of the first  meeting of the Committee every year. However, 
as Members were aware, the Chairperson of the Goods Council had been holding consultations with 
Membe rs on a slate of names to chair the CTG's subsidiary bodies, and a list would be considered at 
a subsequent CTG meeting. Consequently, the appointment of a chairperson for the Committee had 
been delayed. He therefore suggested to proceed as in 2020 , namely  that, as soon as there was 
consensus on a slate of names, the Secretariat would circulate an email with the name of the 
proposed Chairperson for the C MA for 2021. If no objection was received within the time -frame 
indicated in that email, the candidate wo uld be deemed to have been elected by the Committee by 
acclamation. The Secretariat would send a second  email by way of confirmation . 
31.2.  The Committee took note  of the statement.  
31.3.  The meeting was adjourned . 
__________