RESTRICTED  
  
G/MA/M/72  
 
30 October 2020  
(20-7655) Page: 1/44 
Committee on Market Access  Original: English  
 
MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE ON MARKET ACCESS  
8 JUNE 2020  
CHAIRPERSON: MR CHRISTOPHER O'TOOL E (CANADA)   
The Committee adopted  the agenda as reproduced in document  WTO/AIR/MA/12/ Rev.1, with the 
inclusion of the following items under Other Business: "Russia n Federation  – Import Restrictions on 
Refined Fuel Products – Statement by the European Union" and "Turkey – Increase of Applied Duty 
Rates – Statement by Switzerland". A n annotated agenda was circulated in document  JOB/MA/144.  
 
1   INTRODUCTION OF HARMONIZED SYSTEM CHANGES TO SCHEDULES OF 
CONCESSIONS  – STATUS REPORT  ................................ ................................ ...................  2 
− HS2002 ( WT/L/605 and WT/L/807)  ................................ ................................ ..............  2 
− HS2007 ( WT/L/673 and WT/L/830)  ................................ ................................ ..............  3 
− HS2012 ( WT/L/831)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 3 
− HS2017 (WT/L/995)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 3 
2   THE HARMON IZED SYSTEM AND THE WORK OF THE WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  3 
3   OPERATION OF THE INTEGRATED DATABASE (IDB) AND THE CONSOLIDATED  
TARIFF SCHEDULES (CTS) DATABASE  ................................ ................................ .............  6 
− STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2019 IDB DECISION (G/MA/367) ............................  6 
− STATUS OF IDB NOTIFICATIONS (G/MA/IDB/2/REV.51)  ................................ ..................  7 
− LIST OF MEMBERS' OFFICIAL WEBSITES WITH TARIFF I NFORMATION AND IMPORT  
STATISTICS (G/MA/IDB/W/13/Rev.1)  ................................ ................................ ....................  9 
− STATUS OF THE CTS DATABASE  ................................ ................................ ..................  9 
4   NOTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO THE DECISION ON NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES  
FOR QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS (G/L/59/REV.1)  ................................ ....................  9 
A. NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 10 
5   SITUATION OF  SCHEDULES OF WTO MEMBERS (G/MA/W/23/REV.16)  ...................  16 
6   REPORT BY THE SECRETARIAT ON THE STATUS OF RENEGOTIATIONS UNDER 
ARTICLE  XXVIII OF THE GATT  1994  ................................ ................................ ..............  17 
7   TRADE -RELATED MEASURES RELATING TO THE COVID -19 PANDEMIC  .....................  18 
7.1 LIST OF NOTIFICATIONS RELATING TO COVID -19 – REPORT BY THE SECRETARIAT 
(G/MA/W/157)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  18 
7.2 COMMUNICATIONS WITH UNILATERAL MEASURES BY MEMBERS  ................................ .. 20 
8   TRADE IN PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS: CONSOLIDATED LIST OF PRODUCTS 
COVERED BY THE SECTORAL PHARMA AGREEMENT ( JOB/MA/142)  ..............................  22 
9   ENHANCING TRANSPARENCY IN APPLIED TARIFFS – COMMUNICATION BY THE 
RUSSIAN FEDERATION (JOB/MA/138)  ................................ ................................ .........  24 G/MA/M/72  
 
- 2 - 
 
  10   ANGOLA – IMPORT RESTRICTING PRACTICES – STATEMENT BY THE RUSSIAN 
FEDERATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  26 
11   CHINA - CUSTOMS DUTIES ON CERTAIN INTEGRATED CIRCUITS – STATEMENT  
BY THE EUROPEAN UNION, JAPAN AND CHINESE TAIPEI  ................................ .............  27 
12   EUROPEAN UNION - CARBON BORDER ADJUSTMENT MECHANISM (THE  
EUROPEAN GREEN DEAL OF DECEMBER  2019) - STATEMENT BY THE RUSSIAN 
FEDERATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  28 
13   ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION TO INCLUDE CROATIA –  
NEGOTIATIONS UNDER ARTICLE  XXIV:6 OF THE GATT  1994 – STATEMENT BY  
THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION ................................ ................................ ...........................  29 
14   EUROPEAN UNION – RENEGOTIATION OF TARIFF RATE QUOTAS UNDER 
ARTICLE  XXVIII OF THE GATT  1994 – STATEMENT BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  ...... 30 
15   UNITED KINGDOM – RENEGOTIATION OF TARIFF RATE QUOTAS UNDER 
ARTICLE  XXVIII OF THE GATT  1994 – STATEMENT BY  THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  ...... 32 
16   UNITED KINGDOM - RECTIFICATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS OF SCHEDULE  XIX – 
STATEMENT BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATI ON ................................ ................................ .. 33 
17   INDIA - CUSTOMS DUTIES ON TELECOMMUNICATION AND OTHER PRODUCTS – 
STATEMENTS BY CHINA AND CHINESE TAIPEI (G/MA/W/120, G/MA /W/128)  ............  35 
18   INDIA – QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN PULSES – 
STATEMENTS BY AUSTRALIA, CANADA, THE EUROPEAN UNION, THE RUSSIAN 
FEDERATION, AND THE UNITED  STATES  ................................ ................................ ....... 36 
19   INDONESIA  – CUSTOMS DUTIES ON TELECOMMUNICATION PRODUCTS – 
STAT EMENT BY THE UNITED STATES  ................................ ................................ .............  38 
20   MONGOLIA – QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS AND PROHIBITIONS ON 
IMPORTATIONS OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRO DUCTS - STATEMENT BY THE  
RUSSIAN FEDERATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 39 
21   NEPAL'S IMPORT BAN ON ENERGY DRINKS – STATEMENT BY THAILAND  ...............  39 
22   KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA, KINGDOM OF BAHRAIN, THE UNITED ARAB 
EMIRATES, OMAN AND QATAR – SELECTIVE TAX ON CERTAIN IMPORTED  
PRODUCTS – STATEMENTS BY THE EUROPEAN UNION, SWITZERLAND, AND  
THE UNITED STATES  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 41 
23   OTHER  BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 42 
23.1   Russian Federation – Import Restrictions on Refined Fuel Products – Statement by the 
European  Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  42 
23.2   Turkey - Increase of Applied Duty Rates - Statement by Switzerland  ..............................  42 
23.3   Dates of the next meetings  ................................ ................................ ......................  43 
 
1  INTRODUCTION OF HARMONIZED SYSTEM CHANGES TO SCHEDULES OF CONCESSIONS  
– STATUS REPORT  
1.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that a full version of the Secretariat's reports regarding the different 
transposition of Schedules had been made available in the back of the room and would be 
incorporated in to the minutes of the meeting.1 
− HS2002 ( WT/L/60 5 and WT/L/807)  
1.2.  The Secretariat  (Mrs Alya Belkhodja) recalled that a revised written report 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  February  2020 was as follows: 116  files had been certified or 
were in the process of certification; 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 
 
1 Document  RD/MA/64 . G/MA/M/72  
 
- 3 - 
 
  had acce ded to the WTO with a Schedule of concessions in HS2002, another eight  Members in 
HS2007, and two  Members in HS2012.  
1.3.  The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report.  
− HS2007 ( WT/L/673 and WT/L/830)  
1.4.  The Secretariat  (Mrs Alya Belkhodja) recalled that a re vised written report had been issued as 
document  JOB/MA/104/ Rev.23, dated 12  May 2020. The status of the HS2007  transposition files 
after the multilateral review of 28  February 2020 was as follows: 110  files had been certified or were 
in the process of cer tification; one  file had been released for multilateral review and had received 
comments from other Members; six  draft files had been completed and sent to Members for their 
first review; 8  draft files remained to be prepared. Letters had been sent by the Chair of the 
Committee on Market Access on 4  May 2020 to remind the following Members that the Secretariat 
could  provide assistance to finali ze their files: the Dominican Republic, Iceland, Indonesia, Japan, 
Malaysia, Morocco, Paraguay,  and Tunisia. Finall y, 10  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.  
1.5.  The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report.  
− HS2012 ( WT/L/831)  
1.6.  The Secretariat  (Mrs Alya Belkhodja) recalled that a revised written report had been issued as 
document  JOB/MA/129/ Rev.9, dated 12  May 2020. The status of the HS2012  transposition files after 
the multilateral review of 28  February  2020 was as follows: 99  files had been certified or were in the 
process of certification; two  files had been released for multilateral review and had received 
comments from other Members; two  files had been released for multilateral review and would be 
examined at the next meeting; fo ur draft files had been completed and sent to Members for their 
first review; and 26  draft files remained 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 HS201 2. 
1.7.  The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report.  
− HS2017 (WT/L/995)  
1.8.  The Secretariat  (Mrs Alya Belkhodja) reported that the  first two  groups of files had been 
released for multilateral review and announced in documents  G/SECRET/HS17/1 and 
G/SECRET/HS1 7/2. A first report on the HS2017  transposition had been issued as 
document  JOB/MA/143, dated 12  May 2020. The status of the HS2017  transposition files was as 
follows: 40  files had been released for multilateral review ; 15 draft files had been completed an d 
sent to Members for their first review ; and 80  draft files remained to be prepared.  Following the 
virtual informal meeting of the Committee on Market Access of 20  May 2020, where Members had 
requested not to consider an excessive number of files at the s ame time, it had been envisaged that 
the first group of 18 HS2017  files listed in G/SECRET/HS17/1 would be examined at the next 
HS multilateral review meeting.  Finally, she mentioned that the overall status of the different 
transposition exercises had been  reflected in slide  2 of the presentation.  
1.9.  The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report.  
2  THE HARMONIZED SYSTEM AND THE WORK OF THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION  
2.1.  The Chairperson  welcomed Ms  Gael Grooby, Deputy Director of the Tariff and Trade Affairs 
Directorate of the World Customs Organization (WCO), who had been invited to explain the 
HS amendment procedures, including the preparation of the correlation tables, and to present 
highlights of the upcoming HS2022  nomenclature.  He also recalled t hat Ms  Grooby had provided a 
document that had been made  available in the back of the room.2 
 
2 Document  RD/MA/67.  G/MA/M/72  
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.2.  The representative of the WCO  (Ms Gael Grooby) indicated that, besides the room document 
that had been mentioned by the Chairperson , which included a summary of the main highlights of 
the upcoming HS2022  changes, she had also prepared a presentation with background information 
about the main changes, why the changes had occurred, and what to look for with the 
implementation of HS2022. The starting point  was the classification problem, which related  to the 
challenge of trying to identify what goods had been traded across borders.  In reality , nobody really 
knew. In 2018, there had been approximately $18.5  trillion worth of goods that had been traded 
intern ationally, which had been comprised of millions of different types of goods. Hence tariff 
classification had been used to try to make sense of this complexity, and it required grouping 
commodities into different types, so there were fewer separate things t o consider.  But this had not 
been the only problem faced, as there were also challenges with the definition and selection of those 
types of commodities. The challenge of creating a definition included, for example, determining the 
meaning of the categories . A classification create d categories, and the more clearly defined that they 
were, the easier was the classification.  The HS covered all known and unknown physical goods in 
the world, but not all categories were visible.  She gave the example of HS heading  85.09, "Electro -
mechanical domestic appliances, with self -contained electric motors, other than vacuum cleaners of 
heading 85.08" , and asked whether delegates understood which products were classified therein.  
She also noted that products such as food gri nders and mixers and fruit or vegetable juice extractors 
were classified under specific categories, but everything else had been classified under "other 
appliances" or as "Parts". Therefore, creating categories to define a finite number of commodity 
groups  required making choices, and these choices could be quite political because anything that 
had not been specifically named automatically became part of "the  other".  Visibility had been 
considered an important issue because whatever was named was seen , and what was seen was 
valued.  
2.3.  She explained that changes to the HS had usually been introduced either to enforce greater 
uniformity in the classification of products within the existing provisions, or to increase the level of 
visibility that had been given to certain products by creating new categories. In any classification 
system, achieving uniform classification relied on two  principles. First, that everyone used the same 
categories , and second, that everyone used the same rules to resolve ambiguous classifi cations.  
This had been the reason why the Harmonized System had included General Interpretation Rules 
(GIRs).  And, evidently, the categories of the HS were created by the provisions of the headings and 
subheading s. Every review cycle of the HS had included  changes that had been considered necessary 
to enforce uniform classification, and there had been three different means by which to achieve this: 
(i) to change the interpretative rules themselves ; (ii) to change the wording of the terms of the 
headings or subheading s; or (iii) to include changes in the wording of the legal Notes , although  the 
GIRs had not thus far been changed.  These were the tools available to introduce and explain any 
changes. For exampl e, a new definition of oxygen function i n relation to headings  29.11, 29.12, 
29.14 , and so on. There could also be changes to have a better definition of , for example, what a  
shirt blouse or what a blouse was. However,  most of the changes introduced  that had been of 
particular interest to the t rading community were visibility changes. For example, in 2017, the HS 
had included a new heading for olive oil and its fractions, which had been achieved by creating 
two new categories for olive oil:  "virgin" and "other".  However, this did not give a lot of visibility to 
the trade in different types of virgin olive oil, which  had been considered a major issue for the 
industry.  For this reason, in HS2022, the category of "virgin" oil had been split with a view to 
introducing new subcategories: extra virgin olive oil, virgin olive oil, and other virgin olive oils. All 
the products classifiable in HS2022  subheadings  1509.20 to 1509.40 were, evidently, already 
contained in HS2017  subheading  1509.10.  Thus, the new change in HS2022 had simply split 
one category t o increase the visibility of some subcategories. She observed that the number of 
changes that would be introduced by HS2022 was huge, as it contained 351  sets of amendments. 
Previous amendments to the HS had been much  smaller. Therefore, HS2022 was an amen dment 
that would  be quite fundamental.  This had been  why she had prepared the room documents, which 
explained some of the more significant  changes. However, she  would not try to provide a full 
overview, which would rather  require a full day 's workshop.  
2.4.  She noted that the technical work on HS2027 had already begun , including both pending 
discussions from the HS2022  cycle that had not be en completed on time, as well as new proposed 
changes. It was expected that the HS2027  changes would be even larger and, unu sually, could 
include also an amendment to the GIRs  to resolve a lack of classification uniformity in certain areas. 
Discussions remained ongoing.  The WCO had also been considering the possibility of undertaking a 
strategic review of the Harmonized System.  At 31  years of age , the HS was not a young instrument.  
It had been based on the Brussels Tariff Nomenclature and, to a large extent, it had simply expanded G/MA/M/72  
 
- 5 - 
 
  headings into subheadings. Much of the nomenclature had been developed in the 1950s and, even 
then, it had been developed based on previous tariff nomencla tures. Thus, there was a question of 
whether the HS remained the best solution available today , in particular bearing in mind that the 
demand from governments, industries , and all sectors , was now higher . At the same time , 
information flows and the global trading system were also more complex.  For example, global value 
chains were producing a wider range of goods with shorter product cycles. Unfortunately, the 
pandemic had  resulted in a delay to the  consideration and technical discussion of these issues by 
Members.  These discussions would resume as soon as possible.  
2.5.  The representative of Sri Lanka thanked the representative of the WCO for its presentation and 
indicated that she would raise two  questions or comments. First she observed that the HS included 
several codes that belonged to the "other" categories, which in her view created confusion , in 
particular given that  an important product had not been recogni zed in the HS through a specific 
HS code.  As a result, a product that the HS considered to fall unde r the "other" had sometimes been 
very significant for Sri Lanka's trade. It could also happen in national classifications that went beyond 
6-digits, and sometimes 8 -digits or higher . Sri Lanka did not go beyond 8 -digits, but some countries 
went as far as 1 2-digits.  Her delegation had identified a particular issue , which related to 
investigations on anti -dumping, countervailing measures , or safeguard measures, where in many 
cases the products fell under the "other" category. Given that Sri Lanka was a small supplier, it 
would wish to seek shelter from some of these provisions to exempt the small suppliers.  When we 
are comparing like products, it is sometimes important to analyse the HS  codes, but sometimes the  
very vague  "other " categories , and the national c lassification , actually define the exact commodity. 
And there  were many occasions where the HS  codes and the national classifications did not tally. 
Her delegation had identified  this as a recurrent problem . Therefore, Sri Lanka supported effort s to 
create further classifications, particularly around those "other" categories.  Second, she asked what 
had been the basis in the HS to identify the necessity to create a new commodity group, in order to 
separate them from "other" , and then to attribute to them a specific HS  code. She asked if this 
determination had been based on the value of world trade in that product because she had 
understood that creating a 6 -digit subheading required proving that there existed  at least 
USD 15 million of world trade i n that particular product. She asked if there had been any change to 
this particular criterium and if a higher value threshold had been established.  
2.6.  The representative of the WCO  recalled that the points raised by Sri Lanka were linked, 
precisely, to the i ssue of visibility that she had previously explained. Once a product in the "other" 
category had been identified at domestic level it could become visible at domestic level.  But it would 
remain invisible for international comparisons, statistics , or the ap plication of anti -dumping 
provisions, or even for trade negotiations, because there had been no uniformity  established  in the 
classification worldwide. At international level, it was not possible to create new categories simply 
because a national classific ation had been created. However, one of the main problems in creating 
new categories was the sheer size of the HS. Currently, the HS had approximately 
5,000 subheadings, but there  could literally be millions of categories and subcategories if Members 
really wished them to be still more detailed. Therefore,  the scope of the provisions had been a 
limiting factor. Originally, the Brussels Tarif f Nomenclature had only a 4-digit heading level, until the 
HS moved to 6 -digit subheadings , precisely to give greater scope. And the HS had remained at 
6-digits since it had been introduced 31  years ago. When creating a subcategory within each 
subcategory labelled "other", there was a possibility of generating  nine splits. Thus, there could be 
a competition for choosing a mong those splits. And in terms of what actually received  a code in the 
HS, at the moment there was considerable room to introduce many more splits. Value had indeed 
been a criterium, which somehow limited these  proposals. Although it had not been the crit eria on 
which categories had been  chosen, it had been a limiting factor  to avoid creating  splits of very low 
value. However, this value criterium was easy to overcome. For example, the HS had adopted some 
low value splits that had been created to take account of the security of dual -use goods or for goods 
that had been restricted under various international conventions. Given this high degree of flexibility , 
the real question was how to decide. The first point that she wished  to clarify was that the 
WCO Secretariat itself did not take this decision; rather, it was a decision that came directly from 
Contracting Parties to the HS. If a trade  issue required its  own classification, it would then be 
proposed at the WCO, through the Harmonized System Committee, by the customs administration 
of a given  country. Once a proposal to have a split had been submitted, a number of questions would 
be raised, including wheth er the goods met the value threshold and could  be identified at the border. 
For example, some years ago, there had been a proposal to create a new category to specifically 
identify organic sugar. This proposal had not go ne through mainly because it had not  been clear how 
customs officers could have determine d, at the border, whether or not  the sugar was organic. Two G/MA/M/72  
 
- 6 - 
 
  other questions included whether there was an international standard and whether there was a way 
of testing. Another  factor that often determin ed whether or not  a proposal would succeed was who 
would be affected by any new category. For example, p roposals on global issues had a higher chance 
of getting through the H armonized System Committee (HSC) . And it was a very narrow issue, 
acceptance would  then depend on whether or not the HSC recogni zed that it was important to that 
particular Member and, therefore, whether it should be elevated at the international level. Another 
aspect to consider was that the splits and provisions that were defined by t he HSC did not necessarily 
reflect trade  realities;  rather, they reflected the proposals that had been made. For example, 
although "complete meals" had been around for almost 30 or 40  years, and involved billions of 
dollars' worth of goods produced and tra ded, the HS did not yet have a classification for them. In 
another example, the HS would only be getting a specific classification for drones in 2022, which 
had been the cause of a regulatory problem because drones  were currently considered as aircraft. 
Thus, to make the HS more useful for trade, it mattered that the proposals were relevant and 
important to the trade community. Although the proposals to amend the HS came from  the customs 
administrations, it was typically a whole government initiative which had also involved the trade 
department, foreign affairs, etc. Thus, there was a need to talk and coordinate with the relevant 
customs administration so the proposal could be tabled.  
2.7.  The Chairperson  noted that this exchange had underlined that there would b e a lot of detail in 
these changes.  In relation to the final section  of the WCO  paper , he proposed that the next 
Chairperson hold consultations on how to further study these amendment s with a view to fully 
understanding their scope. These discussions could take place after the capacity -building workshop 
that was being organized by the WCO and the WTO  Secretariat on the operation of the HS and 
HS2022  changes. Although the workshop had be en delayed, the plan remained to hold it before 
end-July; the details would be confirmed in due course.  
2.8.  The representative of the WCO  (Ms Gael Grooby) indicated that she had forgotten to add an 
important point relating to the correlation tables that were p roduced by the WCO. These guides, 
which were not legislative instruments, were simply intended to show how the classification of  goods 
would move from their current into the ir new positions . The WCO was aware that the correlation 
tables were extremely valu able. She noted that there would be a delay producing the correlation 
tables for HS2022 because the pandemic  had interrupted the meetings of the H SC. Moreover, the 
HSC had been obliged to postpone  the majority of its March  meetings. For this reason, they  had only 
been able to deal with certain  corrigenda items for HS2022.  She apologized for the delay , noting 
that the situation had been beyond their control.  It would be raised at the Committee as soon as 
possible.  
2.9.  The Committee took note  of the WCO  report an d statements  made . 
3  OPERATION OF THE INTEGRATED DATABASE (IDB) AND THE CONSOLIDATED TARIFF 
SCHEDULES (CTS) DATABASE  
3.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that were four  issues to discuss under this agenda item, namely: 
(i) the status of implementation of the IDB  Decisio n; (ii) the status of IDB  notification; (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  informed the Committee that the statement by the Secretariat  had been made 
available as a room document and would be included in the minutes.3 
3.3.  The Secretariat (Ms  Adelina Mendoza) reported that, in addition to the steps that had been 
outlined at the prev ious Committee on Market Access ( CMA) meeting , of 11  November  2019, the 
following additional actions had been undertaken . First, the provisional data for verification had been 
made available in MS  Excel format and the download link had been included in the  email notifying 
Member s that the data had been processed and was ready to be verified/consulted.  The MS  Excel 
file had included the national nomenclature tariff line data for the applied tariffs, as well as some 
summary tables for the import data. Because  of the file size, the download of formatted data for 
imports at the national tariff line level was optional. Second, the status of submissions to the IDB 
 
3 Document  RD/MA/64.  G/MA/M/72  
 
- 7 - 
 
  had been further revised to show notified applied internal taxes, as well as other duties and charges  
(ODCs) and additional elements submitt ed. For example, ad valorem  equivalents of non -ad valorem 
tariffs  (A), correlation tables (C), and other references (O) , such as beneficiary list of PTAs and RTAs, 
and the exchange rate.  Third, in February  2020, the I DB had sent an email with a "Call to Notify" to 
all delegations reminding them of the 30 March deadline to submit the applied tariffs for the year 
2020. This was meant to address paragraph  19 of the new IDB  decision which had excluded the 
IDB notification reminders from the CRN  list. Hence, the email that had been sent was meant to 
replace the CRN  reminder. A follow -up email containing a comprehensive list of all outstanding 
notifications (applied tariffs and imports), if any, had been sent to the concerned  Members after the 
30 March deadline. Fourth, the new data derestriction policy for tariff line imports had been 
implemented in the Tariff Analysis Online (TAO) facility for those Members that had  not objected to 
the new conditions. Fifth, the applied inte rnal taxes and ODCs  that had been notified by Member s at 
the tariff line level had been processed and disseminated in TAO. Sixth, the Secretariat had continued 
to reach out and had conducted meetings with a handful of delegations to explore the possibility  of 
automatic submission of data, as had been set forth in paragraph  8 of the new IDB  decision. A 
successful technical test had been undertaken with one  delegation that had expressed interest on 
this new option. Based on these initial discussions, the Secr etariat had drafted a sample 
memorandum of understanding (MOU) with sample provisions for a possible arrangement that could 
be adapted on a case -by-case basis.  The draft had already been shared with interested delegations. 
The Secretariat had also been working on an additional draft based on the model of an exchange of 
letters. It was expected that these drafts would facilitate discussions with Members with the ultimate 
goal of facilitating data transmission and reducing the burden of submitting and process ing 
notifications. The draft MOU could be shared with any interested delegation. Seventh, the Secretariat 
had continued exploring ways to enhance IDB  data coverage and facilitate integration of the data in 
collaboration with Members.  With respect to the pr ovision in paragraph  6 of the IDB  decision, which 
required Members to notify the data in spreadsheet or database formats (or other related formats 
that could  easily be imported into these types), she noted that the Secretariat would stop 
downloading data from the framework sources ( namely , websites publishing country data suitable 
for IDB  notification) if such data was only available in PDF  format. The delegations concerned would 
be contacted by the Secretariat and requested to provide the data in the appropriate format.  She 
recalled that o ne of the issues that had been raised  by Members last year during the feedback 
session was that the Secretariat should try to improve the user -friendliness of the different 
applications, and to group them whenever possible.  In this regard, she reported tha t the Secretariat 
had been assessing how best to modify TAO to address these issues  while also including new 
functionalities, such as additional analytical reports (including for bound tariffs), cross -country/year 
selection, and other features.  
3.4.  The represe ntative of Canada  thanked the Secretariat for the presentation and indicated that 
it had agreed on the automatic submission to the IDB of its applied tariff information, both for MFN 
and preferential tariffs, each year. He reported that Canada’s 2020  tariffs had been accessed and 
uploaded in March by the Secretariat from the website of the Canada Border Services Agency, which 
was the government entity responsible for implementing its applied tariffs. Canada had not received  
any comment on the results that h ad been extracted by the Secretariat and, therefore, the 
provisional file had been approved. Canada encouraged other delegations to reach out to the 
Secretariat to explore whether or not this procedure could work for them too. 
3.5.  The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report and of the statements made.  
− STATUS OF IDB NOTIFICATIONS (G/MA/IDB/2/ REV.51) 
3.6.  The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to the Secretariat's report on tariffs and 
imports of Members, circulated in document  G/MA/IDB/2/ Rev.51. As with the previous item, the 
Secretariat 's statement had been made available as a room document and would be included in the 
minutes.4 
3.7.  The Secretariat  (Ms Adelina Mendoza) presented the status of notifications to the IDB, which 
had been circulated in documen t G/MA/IDB/2/ Rev.51, which  included information up to 
20 April 2020. An electronic copy for all years from 1996 was also available for download from the 
website https://IDBFileExchange.wto.org . She recalled that, although the current notification 
requirements under the IDB were for Members to submit the 2020  applied tariff data ( for which the 
 
4 Document  RD/MA/64.  G/MA/M/72  
 
- 8 - 
 
  deadline had been 30 March  2020) and the 2018  import data ( for which the  deadline had been 
31 October  2019), this report had included a more recent cut -off date, 31  May 2020, in order to 
reflect the most up-to-date statistics. On the 2020  applied tariff data, the IDB had received 47  files 
with applied tariff data, which accoun ted for 35% of the 135  expected Members' notifications. Of 
those 47  files, 43 had been official submissions , while the remaining four had been collected by the 
Secretariat from approved "framework sources" ( paragraphs  20 and 21 of the IDB  Decision). As to 
the inclusion of other applied tariffs beyond the MFN  rates, 32  submissions had included 
non-MFN duty schemes.  With respect to the other voluntary elements in paragraph  2 of the 
IDB decisions, five  notifications had included information on additional taxes  and ODCs. Slide  4 of 
the presentation had included a chart to visualize the overall situation currently, as well as that of 
the previous four years.  In terms of the completeness of the IDB  notifications, 36  Members 
representing 27% of notifying Members , had provided complete data on the ir MFN applied tariffs. 
There were, however, 49  members (36% of the notifying Members) , with six or more years of 
outstanding applied tariff data.  This was shown in slide 5 of the presentation.  On the 2018  import 
data, 59  notifications had been received as of 31  May 2020, which represented 44% of the 
135 expected notifications. As a result, import data for the year 2017 was 64% complete. This was 
also shown in slide  4, alongside the same statistics for tariffs. In t erms of the completeness of the 
import data for the period covering 1996 and 2018, 39  Members , or 29% of the notifying Members , 
had provided complete data. There were, however, 48  Members whose data was outstanding for six 
or more years , representing 36% o f the membership.  This could also be seen in slide 5 of the 
presentation. Overall, the IDB disseminated data consisted of 2,668  country periods of either applied 
tariffs with matched imports at the national tariff line level or applied tariffs only.  The Se cretariat 
estimated that IDB  notifications were approximately 81%  complete for data on MFN  applied tariffs 
until 2020, and 76%  complete for import data until the year 2018.  In terms of the sources of 
IDB data, she explained that the tariff information was more complete and with a higher percentage 
of data coming from other sources compared to the import data, as could be seen in slide  4 of the 
presentation. This had been partly due to the fact that tariff data was more easily available from 
other sources, s o the Secretariat could apply the "framework" provisions to source the data 
(paragraphs  20 and 21 of the IDB  Decision). However, the IDB  requirement on import data was 
quite detailed and there were very few sources from which such data could be obtained. 
Approximately 57% of the tariff data for the period 1996 -2020 had been notified by Members , while 
25% had been obtained through the framework provisions; the remaining 19%  remained 
outstanding.  For import data, the percentage of data submitted by Members had been higher, at 
59%, and 16% of the data had been sourced from framework sources.  The lack of alternative sources 
also explained why 24% of the expected import datasets remained outstanding.  On the submission 
of the data elements required by the Transparency Mechanism for Preferential Trade Arrangements 
(PTA-TM), she recalled that these were part of the mandatory IDB  elements that were provided for 
in paragraph  1(c) of the new IDB  Decision in document  G/MA/367.  For 2020  tariffs, of the 
23 Members (counting the EU -27 and the UK as one, as well as Switzerland and Liechtenstein as 
one) 15 had included the non -reciprocal GSP/LDC  schemes as part of their tariff submissions, while 
eight Members had n ot yet submitted the applied tariff data.  She also recalled that the Members 
concerned should also notify the preferential import data in a way that was disaggregated by duty 
scheme. In this regard, the Secretariat had received only 10  of the 23  expected n otifications for the 
year 2018. Slide  6 of the presentation summarized the overall situation. She noted that while some 
PTA-Members were expected to submit MFN  tariffs together with the relevant preferential tariffs and 
imports with the relevant breakdown by PTA -TM duty-scheme, some still submitted data without the 
additional datasets required by the PTA -TM. As stipulated in paragraph  5 of the new IDB  decision , 
and in order to avoid the Secretariat having to process similar data multiple times, she informed  the 
Committee that the Secretariat would wait for the complete PTA -TM datasets (tariffs or imports) 
before integrating the notifications  into the database . She also observed that the following additional 
notifications had been received after the cut -off date of 30  April 2020 that had been used in the 
report (G/MA/IDB/2/ Rev.51), up until 3  June 2020: Albania (2018  imports); Austr alia 
(2019  imports, with PTA -TM breakdown); Central African Republic (2015  MFN tariffs and 
2009-2013, 2015 -2019 imports); Jordan ( 2020 MFN tariffs); Macao, China (2019  imports); 
Malaysia (2020  MFN tariffs); Mexico (2019  imports and 2020  MFN tariffs); Morocco (2020  MFN, 
PTA-TM, and other preferential tariffs); New Zealand (2020  MFN, PTA -TM, and other preferential 
tariffs); Norway (2019  imports); Seychelles (2020  MFN); and Zimbabwe (2020  MFN tariffs and 
2018-2019 imports).  Since the previous  meeting of the Market Access Committee, in 
November  2019, the Secretariat  had participated in the following technical assistance activit ies 
concerning the IDB/CTS  databases: Advance Trade Policy Course in English (Geneva) and Regional  
Trade Policy Course for French -speaking Africa in Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire. She concluded by noting G/MA/M/72  
 
- 9 - 
 
  that the electronic copy of the publication , "World Tariff Profiles  2020" , was expected to be published 
on its regular release date, namely,  by end -June 2020.  
3.8.  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.1) 
3.9.  The Chairperson  recalled that that the new IDB  Decision required the Secretariat to prepare a 
list of Members' official websites containing tariff information and import statistics. An updated 
version of this document should already have been circul ated in document  G/MA/IDB/W/13/ Rev.1; 
however, there had been a technical glitch , which the Secretariat had only noticed over the weekend. 
He apologized on behalf of the Secretariat and informed Members that the document would be 
circulated that day. 
3.10.   The Secretariat  (Mr Simon Neumueller) recalled that the list of official websites contained in 
document  G/MA/IDB/W/13/ Rev.1 ha d been prepared pursuant to paragraph  16 of the new 
IDB Decision (G/MA/367).  This revision had been based on consultations  with Members at the 
beginning of the year , resulting in the update of links for 37  Members , and  also the removal of 
several dead link s. Since the document's circulation, three  additional Members had contacted the 
Secretariat with updated information ; subsequently, a new revision would be issued shortly.  He 
encouraged Members to test their links and to inform the Secretariat of any addit ion or correction 
they wished to introduce.  He concluded by noting that the Secretariat had been exploring alternative 
ways to disseminate this information , such as through different platforms.  
3.11.   The representative of Guatemala  indicated that she would submi t a change relating to 
Guatemala's statistics on imports so that the document could be updated.  
3.12.   The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report and of the statement made.  
− STATUS OF THE CTS DATABASE  
3.13.   The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to the Secretariat report on the status of the 
CTS database.  The statement by the Secretariat  had been made available as a room document and 
would be included in the minutes.5 
3.14.   The Secretariat  (Mrs 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, 97  had been made available in HS2012; 23 in HS2007; 13 in HS2002; and two  remained in 
HS96.  The complet e CTS  database had been made available to Members on a USB  key which had 
been sent to Members in September  2019. The USB  key included a more complete compilation of 
the original legal instruments, listed by Member. The full content of Release  16 of the CTS  USB key 
could be downloaded from the IDB  file exchange facility (https://idbfileexchange.wto.org) in 
directory WTO  Documents/CTS.  She also noted that all the legal instruments would also be made 
available through the new specialized website (https://goods -schedules.wto.org ). 
3.15.   The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report.  
4  NOTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO THE DECISION ON NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR 
QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS (G/L/59/ REV. 1) 
4.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that the Committee would consider the  quantitative restriction 
(QR) notifications of 22 Members.  He observed that many of these new notifications had made 
reference to the COVID -19 pandemic. On behalf of the Committee, he thanked those Members th at 
had provided information as soon as practicable. These timely actions had supported transparency 
and had informed Members about the changing conditions in an efficient way.  He also thanked those 
Members that had submitted their first  QR notification. Th is was an important foundation on which 
future notifications could be built.  
 
5 Document  RD/MA/64.  G/MA/M/72  
 
- 10 - 
 
  A. NOTIFICATIONS  
− Albania (G/MA/QR/N/ALB/1/Add.1)  
4.2.  The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new notification by Albania, which related to 
temporary measures necessary to combat the COVID -19 pandemic.  
4.3.  The representative of Albania  noted that the temporary measure which had prohibited the 
export of medicines and medical equipment from Albania had been adopted by the Order of the 
Minister of Health and Social Protection, dated 8  March 2020. The Ministry of Health and Social 
Protection had taken this measure, which had covered a broad  range of medical  products,  to 
effectively  cope with the COVID -19 situation. This measure had sought to better tackle  the 
prevention of the pandemic outb reak, to contain its further spread, and to guarantee the best 
possible treatment of cases concerning both the patients and the infected medical staff working in 
the health structures throughout the country. Although the state of emergency in the country h ad 
been successfully addressed, and based on the ongoing evaluation of the pandemic situation, and 
the fact that new cases were testing positive to COVID -19 on a daily basis, the competent authorities 
had considered  that the pandemic risk in Albania was not yet over. Therefore, this restrictive 
measure would continue to be in force until the authorities decided otherwise. His delegation hoped 
that the situation would improve shortly, which would allow his country to remove this conditional 
export prohibitio n measure. Albania would notify the Secretariat as soon as this decision had been 
taken.  
4.4.  The Committee took note of this notification.  
− Australia (G/MA/QR/N/AUS/3/Add.1, G/MA/QR/N/AUS/3/Add.1/Corr.1, G/MA/QR/N/AUS/4)  
4.5.  The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to new notifications by Australia.  The first, which 
had been circulated in document  G/MA/QR/N/AUS/3/ Add.1 and its corrigendum , related to 
temporary measures necessary to combat the COVID -19 pandemic. The second, which had been 
circulated in document  G/MA/QR/N/AUS/4, was a new complete notification by Australia for the 
period 2018 -2020.  
4.6.  The Committee took note of the se notifications.  
− Bangladesh (G/MA/QR/N/BGD/1, G/MA/QR/N/BGD/1/Corr.1)  
4.7.  The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new notification by Bangladesh, which was its 
first notification , and which was related to temporary measures necessary to combat the 
COVID -19 pandemic.  
4.8.  The representative of Bangladesh  recalled  that his country had introduced  temporary export 
restrictions on surgical mask s and disinfectant s on 12  March  2020, which had been notified in 
document  G/MA/ QR/N/BGD/1. He also noted that the measures had been withdrawn on 
2 April 2020. Bangladesh had notified these measures because it believed in the  multilateral trading 
system and the importance of transparency.  
4.9.  The Committee took note of this notification.  
− China (G/MA/QR/N/CHN/4/ Rev.1, G/MA/QR/N/CHN/5/ Rev.1) 
4.10.   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 had been raised by Switzerland and the United States.  
4.11.   The representative of Switzerland  thanked China for the information that had been provided 
in response to the questions that had been raised. While two of the three questions had been 
answered , there was still one  minor issue that remained pending . After this, Switzerland would be 
ready to accept the notifications.  G/MA/M/72  
 
- 11 - 
 
  4.12.   The representative of the United States  reiterated her delegation's  concerns, which had been 
expressed previously in the Committee on Market Access and many other WTO  bodies, regarding 
the negat ive trade and environmental impact resulting from China' s import ban, and accompanying 
measures, on certain recovered materials. The United States remained  concerned with what  
appeared to be different requirements for foreign and domestic commodities. She asked whether 
China planned  to apply the same bans and restrictive contaminant standards to both foreign and 
domestically -sourced materials . If that was not the case, China should expla in why. Additionally, the 
United States observed that these policy measures  appeared to be contrary to the pro-circular 
economy narrative that China  had been promoting in the WTO and internationally. As the world’s 
largest processor of scrap materials, the se measures had hinder ed China' s aspirations to transition 
to a more resource efficient, global circular economy by directly impacting global recycling networks.  
Furthermore, these restrictions were detriment al to the shared environment.  As a result of China's 
measures, and the consequent additional pressure on the capacity in smaller, less developed 
economies, there was now a greater risk that an increased volume of scrap would go  into landfills 
or other less desirable waste channels, and was becoming mari ne litter. The United States  reiterate d 
its request that China immediately halt  the implementation of its ban and revise the import 
restricting measures in a manner that was consistent with existing international standards for trade 
in scrap materials, whi ch provide d a global framework for transparent and environmentally sound 
trade in recycled commodities.  
4.13.   The representative of China  thanked Switzerland  and the United States for the comments and 
questions that had been raised. Regarding the solid waste pro hibition, she recalled that China had 
already responded on several occasions. In the interest of time, China referred Members to the 
statements that had been previously made in this Committee, the Committee on Import Licensing , 
and the Council for Trade in Goods. In brief, China's position was that solid waste was inherently 
polluting, which made it different from other normal goods. Every Member had the obligation to 
properly handle and dispose of its domestically -produced soli d waste. China had suffered pollution 
from imported solid waste for decades, so it was imperative to implement measures to limit the 
negative effect of solid waste. Regarding the specific questions that had been raised by Switzerland, 
China had provided in itial responses and would continue engaging with them.  
4.14.   The Committee took note of the statements made  and agreed to revert to the notifications at 
its next meeting . 
− Colombia (G/MA/QR/N/COL/1)  
4.15.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new notification by  Colombia, which was its 
first, and which related to temporary measures necessary to combat the COVID -19 pandemic.  
4.16.   The Committee took note of the notification.  
  G/MA/M/72  
 
- 12 - 
 
  − Costa Rica (G/MA/QR/N/CRI/3/Add.1)  
4.17.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new notification by Costa Rica , which related 
to temporary measures necessary to combat the COVID -19 pandemic.  
4.18.   The Committee took note  of the notification.  
− Egypt (G/MA/QR/N/EGY/1, G/MA/QR/N/EGY/1/ Rev.1) 
4.19.   The Chairperson  drew Me mbers' attention to a new notification by Egypt, which was its first 
notification , and which related to temporary measures necessary to combat the 
COVID -19 pandemic.  
4.20.   The Committee took note  of the notification.  
− European  Union (G/MA/QR/N/EU/4/Add.1, G/MA/QR /N/EU/4/Add.2)  
4.21.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to two  new notifications by the European Union, 
which related to temporary measures necessary to combat the COVID -19 pandemic.  
4.22.   The representative of the European Union  recalled that the two  EU notifica tions on the agenda 
referred to a temporary export authori zation scheme for personal protective equipment, which the 
EU had initially introduced on 15  March and revised on 24  April. This scheme was meant to protect 
public health and to ensure the adequate supply of such products in the European Union during the 
coronavirus crisis. The implementation of the authori zation regime showed that it had struck the 
right balance between delivering on public health needs and securing trade flows. According to the 
information that had been submitted by EU  member States, exporters had requested more than 
1,300 authori zations based on the regulation which had entered into force on 26  April. 
Approximately  95% of all applications had been approved. In addition, based on member States ' 
reports, more than 13  million protective masks, around 1  million protective garments , and more 
than 350 ,000 protective masks and visors had been exported from the EU since 26  April. As had 
been planned, this temporary measure ceased to apply on 26  May. The EU had kept its commitment 
to ensure that all export restrictive measures were proportionate, targeted, transparent ( that is,  
notified to the WTO) and temporary. Finally, the  EU had prepared a further ad hoc  notification, which 
the EU would circulate  very shortly, which contained temporary measures that had been taken by 
some EU  member States , as well as the United Kingdom. Should there be comments or questions 
on these measur es, her delegation would be ready to engage with Members outside the Committee 
meetings on a bilateral basis.  
4.23.   The representative of the United Kingdom  welcomed the opportunity to discuss the 
QR notifications. A s the European Union had just explained , the EU had submitted a notification with 
measures that had been taken by EU  member States and the United Kingdom, including 
UK measures regulating the exports of medicines. These UK  measures had been designed to prevent  
hoarding.  The UK  measures that had been covered within that notification had previously been 
highlighted by the United  Kingdom, including in our response to the Director -General 's request for 
information for the Trade Monitoring Report, as well as in the UK's regular contributions to the 
COVID -specific surveillance platform that was being hosted on the WTO  webpage.  The United 
Kingdom would continue to communicate further information on its COVID -related measures to the 
WTO and Members, both formally and in formally, as appropriate.  
4.24.   The Committee took note  of the notification and of the statements made.  
− Georgia (G/MA/QR/N/GEO/2, G/MA/QR/N/GEO/2/Add.1)  
4.25.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to two  new notifications submitted by Georgia. The 
first was a complete notification for the periods 2016 -2018 and 2018 -2020, while the second related 
to temporary measures necessary to combat the COVID -19 pandemic.  
4.26.   The Committee took note  of the notifications.  G/MA/M/72  
 
- 13 - 
 
  − India (G/MA/QR/N/IND/2, G/MA/QR/N/IND/2/Add.1)  
4.27.   The Chairp erson  recalled that, at its previous meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert 
to the notifications by India that had been circulated in documents  G/MA/QR/N/IND/2, and 
G/MA/QR/N/IND/2/Add.1. Questions had been raised by Australia and the United States.  
4.28.   The representative of the United States  noted that her delegation would like, once again, to 
express concern over the quantitative restrictions  that, according to its understanding,  India had 
been implement ing on certain pulses.  Although the US  would addres s this issue separately under 
agenda item  18, her delegation remain ed concerned that India had not updated its QR  notification 
to reflect these restrictions. India had p reviously  informed th e Committee that its restrictions on 
pulses were temporary.  Howeve r, some of the restrictions ha d been in place since August  2017, and 
India had recently extended them for a full year through March of 2021.  The United States  
question ed how these measures could be considered to be " temporary ". The 2012  Decision on 
Notific ation Procedures for Quantitative Restrictions d id not differentiate between temporary and 
permanent restrictions. Rather, Members were required to report "complete notifications of all 
quantitative restrictions in force ". She observed  that the agenda of the meeting include d numerous 
temporary measures to combat COVID -19. The United States  urged India to update its 
QR notification accordingly.  
4.29.   The representative of India thanked the delegation of the United States for its comments 
concerning  India's QR notification  on pulses . Since there was a separate agenda item  on the same 
issue, and to avoid repetition, his  delegation would respond  under agenda item  18. 
4.30.   The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed to revert to the notifications a t 
its next meeting.  
− Israel (G/MA/QR/N/ISR/1)  
4.31.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new notification by Israel, which was its first , 
and which related to temporary measures necessary to combat the COVID -19 pandemic.  
4.32.   The Committee took note  of the not ification.  
− Republic of Korea ( G/MA/QR/N/KOR/2/Add.1 ) 
4.33.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new notification by the Republic of Korea, 
which related to temporary measures necessary to combat the COVID -19 pandemic.  
4.34.   The Committee took note  of the notification.  
− Kyrgyz Republic (G/MA/QR/N/KGZ/1, G/MA/QR/N/KGZ/1/Add.1)  
4.35.   The Chairperson  recalled that, at its previous meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert 
to the notification by the Kyrgyz Republic which had been circulated in document  G/MA/ QR/N/KGZ/1. 
Questions had been raised by the United States.  Since then, the Kyrgyz Republic had submitted a 
notification which related to temporary measures necessary to combat the COVID -19 pandemic.  
4.36.   The Committee took note  of the notifications.  
− Maldives ( G/MA/QR/N/MDV/1)  
4.37.   The Chairperson  recalled that, at its previous meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert 
to the notification by Maldives, which had been circulated in document  G/MA/QR/N/MDV/1. 
Questions had been raised by Switzerland.  
4.38.   The representative  of Switzerland  indicated that her delegation had no additional questions 
and could agree to complete the examination of this notification.  G/MA/M/72  
 
- 14 - 
 
  4.39.   The Committee took note  of the notification.  
− Moldova, Republic of (G/MA/QR/N/MDA/1)  
4.40.   The Chairperson  drew Members' at tention to two  new notifications by the Republic of Moldova. 
The first was a complete notification covering all biennial periods from 2012 to 2020, and the second 
related to temporary measures necessary to combat the COVID -19 pandemic . 
4.41.   The Committee took n ote of the notifications.  
− Montenegro (G/MA/QR/N/MNE/1)  
4.42.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new notification by Montenegro for the biennial 
period 2018 -2020.  
4.43.   The Committee took note  of the notification.  
− North Macedonia (G/MA/QR/N/MKD/1)  
4.44.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to new notifications by North Macedonia, which 
related to temporary measures necessary to combat the COVID -19 pandemic . 
4.45.   The Committee took note  of the notification.  
− Paraguay (G/MA/QR/N/PRY/1, G/MA/QR/N/PRY/1/Corr.1, G/MA/QR/N/PRY/1/Add.1)  
4.46.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to two  new notifications by Paraguay, both of which 
related to temporary measures necessary to combat the COVID -19 pandemic . 
4.47.   The Committee took note  of the notification s. 
− Singapore (G/MA/QR/SGP/4)  
4.48.   The Chairperson  recalled that, at its previous meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert 
to the notification by Singapore  which had been circulated in document  G/MA/QR/SGP/4. Questions 
had been raised by Switzerland.  
4.49.   The representative of Switzerland  thanked Singapore for its clarificati ons, which had answered 
all its questions. Switzerland did not have additional questions and could agree to conclude the 
examination of Singapore's notification.  
4.50.   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, 
G/MA/QR/N/THA/2/Add.3)  
4.51.   The Chairperson  drew Members'  attention to a new notification by Thailand covering the 
periods 2014 -2016, 2016 -2018, and 2018 -2020. At the Committee's previous meeting, questions 
had been asked by the European  Union.  Since then, Thailand had submitted two  new notifications 
which related to temporary measures necessary to combat the COVID -19 pandemic.  
4.52.   The representative of the European Union  recalled that her delegation had previously noted  
that Thailand's notif ication did not include the import licensing requirements for feed wheat, which 
the EU considered to be non -automatic licensing requirements.  Yet they had not been included in 
Thailand's notification. The EU had expressed concern over Thailand's import pro cedures for feed 
wheat numerous times in this Committee, the Committee on Import Licensing , and the Committee 
on Agriculture. The EU wished to remind Thailand that it had not provided written replies to the G/MA/M/72  
 
- 15 - 
 
  questions that had been submitted by the EU in th e Committee on Import Licensing in April  2017 
and March  2018 (documents  G/LIC/Q/THA/3 and G/LIC/Q/THA/4).  The EU wished to reiterate its 
interest in understanding the basis of the measure, why a measure which had been announced to 
be temporary could be maintained for so long (over three  years), and when it would cease to apply.  
Also, t he EU remained  concerned about the WTO  compatibility of Thailand's import licensing regime 
for feed wheat. Further, given the market and policy developments affecting corn since last year, 
the EU understood that no economic reasons remained to keep the measure in place.  The EU wou ld 
also like to understand whether, pending the removal of the licensing regime, Thailand intended to 
notify it in accordance with Articles  1.4 and 5 of the Import Licensing Agreement, and to include 
them in its notification on quantitative restrictions. T he EU acknowledged that a new price support 
programme for corn had been launched since 20  December  2019. Her delegation would like to seek 
an update on the implementation of the new price support programme and requested Thailand to 
notify it to the WTO  Committee on Agriculture.  
4.53.   The representative of Thailand  thanked the EU for its continued interest in Thailand's import 
licensing regime  for feed wheat . She reiterated that this measure was temporary. Her authorities 
had been in consultations with the relevan t stakeholders in Thailand, including famers and industry, 
with a view to improving  the supply chain of feed wheat  and stabilizing the domestic prices. Thailand 
would review these measures , which would require an in -depth examination of the various sectors  
affected,  as well as an analysis of its economic and social impact. Thailand looked forward to sharing 
more information in due course.  
4.54.   The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed to revert to the notifications at 
its next meeting.  
− Ukraine (G /MA/QR/N/UKR/4/Add.2, G/MA/QR/N/UKR/4/Add.3, G/MA/QR/N/UKR/4/Add.4)  
4.55.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to three  new notifications by Ukraine, two of which 
related to temporary measures necessary to combat the COVID -19 pandemic . 
4.56.   The Committee took note  of the notifications.  
− 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/W/116, G/MA/W/127)  
4.57.   The Chairperson  recalled that, at its previous meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert 
to the three  notifications by the United States, covering the periods 2014 -2016, 2016 -2018, and 
2018-2020. The European Union had circulated questions to the United States in 
docum ents G/MA/W/116 and G/MA/W/127. Since then, the United States had submitted a new 
notification, which related to temporary measures necessary to combat the COVID -19 pandemic.  
4.58.   The representative of China  wished to reiterate China's concerns over quantitativ e restrictions 
on steel and aluminium which had been introduced by the United States. She recalled that, on 
3 October  2018, the United States had submitted a complete QR  notification, which had been 
circulated in document  G/MA/QR/N/USA/4. Measures No s. 17, 18, 19 , and 20 of this notification had 
referred to "import quota on steel mill products from Korea", "import quota on steel mill products 
from Argentina", "import quota on steel mill products from Brazil" and "import quota on aluminum 
products from Argen tina", which were based on the US  Trade Expansion Act of 1962, Section  232 
(19 U.S.C.  1862). China wished to ask the US for detailed information on these measures, including 
the specific quantities and requirements for these import quotas. China also wishe d to ask the US 
for additional clarifications with a view to understanding how these import quotas could address its 
so-called national security concerns. China believed that these import restrictive measures were 
inconsistent with Article  XI "General Elim ination of Quantitative Restrictions" and Article  XXI 
"Security Exceptions" of the GATT.  
4.59.   The representative of the European Union  recalled that her delegation had been expressing 
concerns over the US  trade prohibitions on sturgeon products in this Committe e since 2015. In the 
latest US  notification (G/MA/QR/N/USA/4), these restrictions had been listed in measure No s. 9 and 
10. Her delegation had also submitted written questions to the US on two  occasions. Given the 
limited explanations that had been receive d, it still remained unclear to the EU why the US had G/MA/M/72  
 
- 16 - 
 
  considered: first, that wild and farmed sturgeons and their products were not separate categories ; 
and, second, that captive -bred sturgeon and its products were considered to be detrimental to the 
survival of wild stocks. At past meetings of this Committee, the US had informed Members about an 
ongoing  review that had been carried out by the U S Fish and Wildlife Service on the listing of 
sturgeon species as endangered. The EU would appreciate an update of  this review.  
4.60.   The representative of the United States  thanked China for its interest on this issue. She 
referred China to the notification in G/MA/QR/N/USA/4/Add.1, which had included the links and 
references to the U S Federal Register notices which had im plemented the measures.  The US also 
appreciated the EU 's continued interest in the matter regarding sturgeon. She recalled that there 
were five  foreign species of sturgeon which had been listed as endangered under the U S Endangered 
Species Act (or ESA).  The ESA applied to not only wild animals, but also those in captivity as well.  
When a species had been listed under our ESA, the listed entity include d both captive animals and 
wild animals. The U S had not made a finding under the ESA that farmed sturgeon pr oducts were 
considered to be detrimental to the survival of wild stocks.  This was not a criterion under the ESA. 
There had been  10 additional species of sturgeon under review by the U S Fish and Wildlife Service 
(the USFWS). In December of 2017, the USFWS had published a preliminary determination that one 
of those species, the Yangtze River sturgeon, was presently in danger of extinction and should be 
considered endangered under the Enda ngered Species Act. She referred delegates to  82 of the 
Federal Register  61230 of 27 December  2017. The final determination was currently under review 
by USFWS  leadership. With respect to the current status of the nine  other species under review, the 
USFWS  was conducting a 12 -month status review on the petition to list those species of sturgeon 
under the Endangered Species Act. The Service was collecting and evaluating information and had 
not made a determination regarding the listing of these species. A li sting determination would be 
made on the best scientific and commercial information available. More specifically, the Service was 
currently reviewing the Amur and Caspian sturgeon.  The Caspian sturgeon review include d Russian, 
Persian, ship, and stellate s turgeon.  At any time during the Service’s review, the EU was able to 
provide additional information to help the United States to  make this determination. Once the status 
review had been completed, if the Service f ound that listing was warranted, the Servic e would then 
prepare a proposed rule. At that point, the public would be given 60  days to comment on the 
proposed listing. This would give the EU another opportunity to provide the Service with information. 
Her delegation would be happy  to facilitate a dis cussion among the relevant authorities , as 
appropriate.  
4.61.   The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed to revert to the notifications at 
its next meeting.  
4.62.   The representative of Brazil  took the floor to inform Members that her delegation had form ally 
notified its 29  May adoption of QRs in the context of the COVID -19 pandemic. The notification had 
been circulated as document  G/MA/QR/N/BRA/2/Add.1 , and would  be included on the agenda of the 
Committee's next meeting . 
5  SITUATION OF SCHEDULES OF WTO MEM BERS (G/MA/W/23/REV.16)  
5.1.  The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to document  G/MA/W/23/Rev.16 , entitled 
"Situation of Schedules of WTO  Members". He noted that the statement6 and the presentation7 by 
the Secretariat for this agenda item had been circulated as room documents.  
5.2.  The Secretariat  (Mr Roy Santana) reported on the procedures that had been undertaken to 
rectify or modify Members' Schedules of concessions, which had been summarize d in the an nual 
report that had been circulated in document  G/MA/W/23/Rev.16. The presentation that he made 
had been updated to include the most recent figures. In this regard, he noted that Members were 
close to reaching the milestone of 600  notifications under the 1980 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, and tariff 
concessions resulting  from plurilateral Agreements modifying schedules of concessions, such as the 
ITA, the ITA  Expansion, and the Agreement on Pharmaceuticals (Pharma). However, the majority of 
notifications, 399 to be exact, had been the result of different HS  transposition procedures. More 
recently, as a result of the Nairobi Declaration eliminating agricultural  export subsidies, Members 
 
6 Document  RD/MA/64.  
7 Document  RD/MA/66.  G/MA/M/72  
 
- 17 - 
 
  had also submitted notifications to eliminate or phase -out these entitlements from Part  IV of their 
Schedules. Finally, these notifications  had also included the certification of renegotiations under 
Article  XXVIII of the GATT, which would be reported separately in the next agenda item. He referred 
delegates to slide  2 of the presentation. This report by the Secretariat sought to highlight th e work 
that remained pending for each Member, including the procedures on which reservations remained 
pending or where the Member concerned had indicated that the procedures were subject to the 
completion of domestic procedures which had not been concluded  after several years. Overall, of 
the 597  procedures thus far, 573 had been certified ( that is,  96%) and a total of 19  procedures 
remained pending either because reservations had been raised (15  procedures) or Members had yet 
to notify the conclusion of th eir domestic procedures (4  procedures). He referred delegates to slide  3 
of the presentation. He also noted  that the Secretariat stood  ready to assist Members if necessary.  
He reminded Members that the new Goods Schedules e -library had been made available to Members 
and could be accessed through the following link: goods -schedules.wto.org . He invited Members to 
explore it and to provide their feedback.  
5.3.  The Committee took note  of the statement and the document . 
6  REPORT BY THE SECRETARIAT ON THE STATUS OF RENEGOTIATIONS UNDER 
ARTICLE  XXVIII OF THE GATT  1994  
6.1.  The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to document  G/MA/W/123/Rev.6 entitled 
"Factual report on the status of renegotiations under Article  XXVIII of t he GATT  1994". He reminded 
delegates that the statement8 and the presentation9 by the Secretariat for this agenda item had 
been circulated as room documents.  
6.2.  The Secretariat  (Mrs Roberta Lascari ) recalled that the "Factual Report on the Status of 
Renegotiations under Article  XXVIII of the GATT  1994" (G/MA/W/123/Rev.6 and Corr.1) provided 
an overview of all the renegotiations undertaken by WTO  Members pursuant to Article  XXVIII of the 
GATT  1994. There had been a total of 48  renegotiation procedures, which were at different stages 
of the procedures. The overall status as of 4  March  2020 was as follows (see slide  4 of the 
presentation)10: there had been eight  renegotiation procedures that had been wi thdrawn; 
one request to initiate a renegotiation pursuant to Article  XXVIII:4 had not been approved; 
five negotiations had been concluded and the draft changes to the Schedule resulting from such 
negotiations had been submitted for certification under  the 1980 Procedures; 24  renegotiations had 
been concluded and certified; and 10  renegotiations remained ongoing. She also provided additional 
details with respect to each of those categories. With respect to the eight  requests to initiate a 
renegotiation that had been withdrawn, some of these related to procedures linked with 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 Article  XXVIII:4 of the GATT  1994 had not been approved by the Council for 
Trade in Goods. In general, Article  XXVIII renegotiations fo llowed a two -step procedure from the 
initiation to their full completion. Under the first  step, Article  XXVIII renegotiations were undertaken 
and concluded once the renegotiating Member had circulated the bilateral Agreements with the 
Members holding right s 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 involved a submission by the renegotiating 
Member under the "1980  Procedures for the Modification and Rectification of Schedules", of its draft 
modifications to its Schedule. In the absence of objections within a three -month period from the 
date of circulation, this second  step would be concluded with a certification of the changes by the 
Director -General. As of the date of this report, there were five  procedures where Members had 
concluded their renegotiations, submitted the bilateral Agreements and the final report, and had 
begun the  1980 Procedures, which had not been concluded. Four  of these procedures were on hold 
due to reservations from other Members, and one remained pending due to the completion of 
domestic procedures. Of the 48  renegotiations, 24  had been successfully conclude d and the 
modifications had been certified through the 1980  Procedures. This meant that half of the 
renegotiations had been successfully concluded and both steps of the procedures had been 
completed. Finally, there were 10  renegotiations that had been launched, or the authorization to 
 
8 Document  RD/MA/64.  
9 Document  RD/MA/66.  
10 Document  RD/MA/66.  G/MA/M/72  
 
- 18 - 
 
  launch a renegotiation had been authorized, which remained ongoing because the negotiations with 
the Members holding rights had not been concluded yet or the Member had not taken any further 
action under the 1980  Procedures.  
6.3.  The Committee took note  of the statement and document.  
7  TRADE -RELATED MEASURES RELATING TO THE COVID -19 PANDEMIC  
7.1  The Chairperson  recalled that the Committee would examine two  issues under this agenda item. 
First, the document  that had been prepared by the Secretariat , which listed all notifications which 
had been submitted by Members to this Committee relating to COVID -19. Second, communications 
which had been submitted by Members with unilateral measures to facilitate trade d uring the 
pandemic.  
7.1 LIST OF NOTIFICATIONS RELATING TO COVID -19 – REPORT BY THE SECRETARIAT 
(G/MA/W/157)  
7.2  The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to a report that had been prepared by the 
Secretariat and circulated in document  G/MA/W/157, which listed the communications that had been 
submitted by Members referring to the COVID -19 pandemic and including QR  notification s. He also 
invited the representative of the WCO, Ms  Grooby, to say a few words about the room document 
that had been shared by the WCO on this issue , entitled "COVID -19 – work undertaken by the 
WCO Secretariat in the disaster response phase ".11 
7.3  The repres entative of the World Customs Organization  indicated that the WCO  Secretariat had 
undertaken a great deal of work relating to COVID -19. This had included some extremely unusual 
measures for the WCO  Secretariat, such as issuing a document with the indicativ e classification in 
the Harmonized System of goods essential to combat the pandemic. This was not a normal practice, 
and in fact, it had been the first  time and probably a one -off situation. The purpose of the document 
was to facilitate the work of the cus toms administrations and not to take the place of advice on 
national measures. They had also made a considerable effort in trying to bring together the different 
practices of the different customs administrations. The WCO hoped that this information had be en 
useful not only to customs administrations, but to the wider trade community and other government 
agencies. She asked Members to look at the information and to contact the WCO with suggestions 
of anything they could do to help further facilitate trade at this time.  
7.4  The representative of China  thanked the Secretariat for preparing the report, as well as the 
WCO expert for her presentation. Her delegation believed that the fight against a global crisis, such 
as the COVID -19 pandemic, required global cooperation and collaboration. China called on Members 
to avoid unnecessary trade restrictions, and to refrain from erecting trade barriers. In response to 
the COVID -19 pandemic, China had adopted a series of trade -facilitating  measures, including on 
custo ms clearance, standard s certification, and logistics. In the meantime, China had exported 
essential medical supplies to 200  countries and regions in order to support the global fight against 
the COVID -19 pandemic.  
7.5  The representative of the European Union  wished to make remarks of a general nature based 
on this informative report and on the notifications that had been received so far. First, with respect 
to Members ' transparency efforts, her delegation knew, especially from business and in particular 
MSMEs, that information was critical to minimize disruptions. The EU thanked those Members which 
had provided notifications, especially as they were aware that, for some, this had taken place in a 
context of strong capacity constraints. A number of other Members had yet to contribute to this 
transparency effort. The EU was  aware of various measures that it considered to constitute 
quantitative restrictions , but which had not yet been notified. She urged those Members to notify 
their measures promptly. Second, with  respect to the duration  of the emergency restrictive 
measures, the EU observed that , while many of the measure s that had been notified did have an 
end date, others did not. To minimize their economic impact, restrictive measures should be 
reassessed regul arly and last no longer than necessary. Third, a number of trade -facilitating 
measures had been adopted, often on a temporary basis. Thus, her delegation considered that it 
would be worth engaging in an assessment to see whether longer -terms lessons could be drawn. 
 
11 Document  RD/MA/68.  G/MA/M/72  
 
- 19 - 
 
  Incidentally, as the Secretariat report had focused on those measures that had been notified to this 
She also wished  to point out that the EU had also notified various trade -facilitating measures under 
the T rade Facilitation Agreement (TFA),  on 9 April 2020, including the following : import duty and 
VAT relief on products needed to fight coronavirus; border management measures, including Green 
Lanes to ensure availability of essential goods and services; and facilitation of air cargo operations. 
In conclusion, the EU would continue to analyse the various notifications and information that had 
been gathered by them and the Secretariat. They would also welcome pursuing a conversation on 
COVID -related measures in future meetings of this Committee, in c oordination with other bodies, 
and in particular the Council for Trade in Goods ( CTG) and the Trade Policy Review Body ( TPRB). 
7.6  The representative of Australia  noted that the WTO 's transparency function had proven to be 
valuable throughout the COVID -19 pandemic. Some Members had introduced emergency measures 
in response to the COVID -19 pandemic. As had been affirmed in various recent statements, Australia 
believed that such measures had to be targeted, proportionate, transparent , and temporary. In 
addition, they should not create unnecessary disruptions to supply chains, and they should be 
consistent with WTO  rules. It was important to hono ur commitments to roll  back  COVID -19-related 
measures, to ensure that temporary measures did not become permanent fixtures. Australia 
considered that the availability of information on production, trade , and stocks of products , could 
have help ed to prevent Members from imposing export restrictions.  
7.7  The representative of New Zealand  stated that, in the intere sts of time, his statement would 
cover both agenda items  7(a) and 7 (b). While the pandemic required robust and dynamic responses, 
trade -related measures should be implemented in a manner consistent with WTO  rules. These 
measures should be necessary, target ed, proportionate, transparent , and temporary. They should 
not create unnecessary barriers to trade or disruption to global supply chains. Where these standards 
were not met, New Zealand continued to encourage Members to keep these measures under review. 
Since New Zealand was a strong believer in transparency and sharing information, it had 
communicated to the CMA the New Zealand/Singapore Declaration on Trade in Essential Goods for 
Combating the COVID -19 pandemic, which had been circulated in document  G/MA /W/150. While 
there had been no requirement to notify in this way this sort of declaration and /or the elimination 
of MFN  applied tariffs, New Zealand saw considerable value in transparency, including their collective 
policy responses. New Zealand stressed that the door remained open for all Members who sought to 
effect meaningful change to join them, and that his delegation would be happy to discuss this further 
with interested delegations.  
7.8  The representative of Indonesia  thanked the Chairperson of the Comm ittee for the opportunity 
to discuss these quantitative restrictions. He recalled that the COVID -19 pandemic had caused global 
uncertainty, especially in terms of the economy and trade. His delegation recognized that the 
majority of WTO  Members, Indonesia included, had put in place certain policies and measures in 
order to overcome the economic effect of this pandemic. These measures had been either facilitative 
or restrictive in the area s of TBT, SPS , and QRs. Indonesia recogni zed the importance of 
transpa rency in the implementation of measures related to COVID -19, in order to ensure that these 
measures served their purpose temporarily, and did not serve as a barrier to international trade. To 
this point, Indonesia commended Members that had already notifie d their regulations. In order to 
support transparency during COVID -19, the government of Indonesia had notified several measures 
related to COVID -19 in the area s of TBT and SPS. Indonesia had also reported several trade and 
trade -related measures to the cu rrent WTO  trade monitoring report. The government of Indonesia 
was in the process of preparing the notification of an array of measures, including on quantitative 
restrictions and import licensing, in order to support the transparency mechanism under the W TO. 
7.9  The representative of Japan  expressed appreciation for the ongoing efforts by the Secretariat 
to monitor trade -related measures by Members, including the special Secretariat report of 23  April. 
While the number of notifications by Members had been grow ing, Japan called on Members to make 
timely notifications in line with the WTO  rules and to provide information promptly in response to 
requests from the Secretariat. Any emergency measures designed to tackle COVID -19 should be 
targeted, proportionate, tra nsparent , and temporary, and should be consistent with the WTO  rules. 
Furthermore, as had been confirmed by the "Ministerial statement on COVID -19 and the Multilateral 
Trading System " which had been agreed to on 5  May by 42  Members, including Japan, Members had 
been requested to lift these measures as soon as possible. Japan considered that it was in the 
Committee's interest to have a mechanism t o ensure transparency and to review whether the 
emergency measures had been lifted once they had been deeme d no longer to be necessary. Japan G/MA/M/72  
 
- 20 - 
 
  expected the Secretariat to continue to play a central role in monitoring and analysing trade -related 
measures.  
7.10  The delegate of Singapore  indicated that she would address agenda items  7(a) and 7 (b) 
together. Singapore tha nked the Secretariat for the compilation of trade -related measures and 
notifications which had been implemented to address the pandemic.  Singapore supported the 
continuing  work to track and discuss these measures. Singapore believed that  trade-related 
meas ures implemented during COVID -19 should be transparent, temporary, proportionate, and 
targeted, and should be consistent with WTO  rules. Like other delegations, Singapore believed that 
transparency and timely notifications were important to help importers and exporters cope with any 
disruptions to their supply chains. This exercise in transparency should continue in future 
WTO meetings, including in the Committee on Market Access, and could provide a foundation for 
discussions, such as this one. She also wi shed to highlight that, together with  New Zealand, 
Singapore had issued a Declaration on Trade in Essential Goods for Combating the 
COVID -19 pandemic, where both countries had agreed to eliminate MFN  applied tariffs on a range 
of products. They had also ad dressed import and export measures and other non -tariff barriers. This 
declaration had been conveyed in a communication to this Committee which had been circulated in 
document  G/MA/W/151.  
7.11  The representative of Switzerland  thanked the Secretariat for having  compiled this information 
in a report. Switzerland also attached a great deal of importance to transparency in these times of 
pandemic , where global value chains had been disrupted. Like other delegations, Switzerland 
believed that these measures should b e targeted, proportionate, transparent, and temporary. In 
addition, they should not create unnecessary disruptions to supply chains, and should be consistent 
with WTO  rules. Switzerland also supported the idea of continuing this transparency exercise in 
future meetings.  
7.12  The Committee took note  of the report by the Secretariat and of the statement s made . 
7.2 COMMUNICATIONS WITH UNILATERAL MEASURES BY MEMBERS  
7.13  The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to the communications with unilateral 
measures that had be en submitted by Members and listed in the Airgram. He observed that most of 
these measures were trade liberalizing in nature. He thanked the Members that had informed the 
Committee of the introduction of these measures despite the fact that no such obligat ion to do so 
existed in the WTO  Agreements. He would first provide an opportunity to make statements of a 
general nature and would then give Colombia the opportunity to explain its proposal to include a 
standing agenda item to monitor the COVID -19 communications and notifications within the 
mandate of this Committee.  
7.14  The delegate of Canada  drew Members ' attention to the two  notifications containing  
trade -facilitating  measures that had been introduced to ensure the flow of vital medical supplies in 
response to the COVID -19 crisis. In the first  notification, Canada had waived tariffs and sales taxes 
on all goods imported by or on behalf of public health agencies, hospitals and testing sites, and first 
response organizations ( for example,  police, fire , and local civil defen ce groups, including medical 
response teams), as well as seniors ' residences, retirement homes, nursing homes , and shelters , 
until further notice. Canada's second  notification informed Members that it had waived otherwise 
applicable cu stoms duties on imports of specified medical supplies, including personal protective 
equipment (PPE), by all importers , in order to support efforts to combat the spread of COVID -19. 
Canada stated that it supported the work of the Committee, which had facil itated and highlighted 
the importance of transparency during this unprecedented crisis. For this reason, Canada suggested 
that this agenda item b e maintained for the next formal meeting.  
7.15  The representative of Paraguay  thanked the delegations that had prese nted communications 
under this agenda item, as well as their notifications on quantitative restrictions. Paraguay had 
informed the Secretariat of the measures that it had taken in this context and , in particular , the 
introduction of a non -automatic export licensing scheme for medical protection equipment. As had 
been previously mentioned, these notifications had already been considered under agenda item  4. 
Paraguay recalled that any measure should be consistent with the rules of this Organization and 
called  upon Members to give special consideration to goods in transit, particularly those shipped to 
landlocked countries. Her delegation had seen that a number of essential items to fight COVID -19, G/MA/M/72  
 
- 21 - 
 
  including PPE and ventilators, had been seized before they arri ved at their final destination. The 
manufacturing of these products, and ventilators  in particular, was concentrated in a very small 
number of countries. Therefore, export restrictions imposed by these countries could be devastating 
to small countries, and  landlock ed countries in particular , which had neither  the capacity nor the 
technology to build this type of product by themselves. Paraguay understood that, in these 
extraordinary circumstances, it may be necessary to introduce extraordinary measures. How ever, 
just as moderation had been asked from the exporters of agricultural products in order to ensure a 
stable flow of food, Paraguay requested the same from exporters of non -agricultural products, and 
in particular with respect to essential medical equip ment and medicines for fighting this crisis. In 
closing, Paraguay supported Colombia's suggestion to have a standing  item on the Committee's 
agenda to discuss such measures. In this regard, Paraguay called upon the Secretariat to prepare a 
brief report lis ting all of the topics and all of the measures which had been introduced and raised, 
including statistics. The document could be circulated ahead of every Committee meeting so as to 
facilitate the discussion and monitoring of these measures. Such a report would be of great benefit 
to small delegations.  
7.16  The representative of Switzerland  recalled that her delegation had indicated during the May 
informal meeting that the demand for medical goods during the COVID -19 pandemic had 
skyrocketed, in particular for some essential products such as hand sanitizers, masks, gloves , and 
protective garments or ventilators. In order to meet the demand for such goods, Switzerland had 
been obliged to rely upon imports. For this reason, Switzerland had decided t emporarily to suspend 
its tariffs on these essential medical goods  until 9  October. In taking  this decision, the Swiss 
authorities had sought to facilitate the distribution of essential medical supplies to hospitals, care 
workers , and patients. This measur e had reduced the costs and administrative burden related to 
importing the goods concerned as no proof of origin had been required to benefit from the duty -free 
tariffs. Switzerland also supported having a permanent agenda item concerning the transparency of 
these measures.  
7.17  The delegate of Colombia  thanked the Chairperson and Secretariat for its efforts to hold the 
meeting in virtual format. As had already been mentioned in the informal meeting of the Committee, 
Colombia had suggested to introduce a standin g item onto the agenda to review all notifications , 
communications , and other documents that had been submitted by Members and the Secretariat in 
relation to the COVID -19 pandemic. The purpose of this proposal had been to compile, under a single 
agenda ite m, all the notifications on quantitative restrictions as well as the other communications 
with unilateral measures and Secretariat reports. This item would be included at future meetings of 
the Committee on Market Access to the extent that new notification s and other documents relating 
to the pandemic were still being presented. It would also be an opportunity for Members to present 
a clear and exhaustive overview of all the measures that were being implemented, as some Members 
had already done at this meet ing. It would facilitate access to information and help Members in 
following -up and analysing the documents. Similarly, the aim of the proposal was to promote 
transparency, encourage Members to submit the relevant notifications, and promote cooperation , 
which was essential in facing this global crisis. This initiative was in line with other proposals that 
had been put forward to other committees and councils, in order to analyse the effects of the 
pandemic and complement the regular work of the committee. C olombia also supported the work 
by the Secretariat in drafting factual reports on the measures which had been taken in response to 
the pandemic including, among other things, information on the potential impact of trade flows and 
tariffs. Access to such fa ctual information had been extremely useful when decisions were being 
taken back in Capital. In conclusion, Colombia thanked the Secretariat for the report, which had 
been circulated as document  G/MA/W/157, which Colombia considered to be very useful, and asked 
that it be updated and broadened to include new measures as these were notified by Members. 
Finally, Colombia thanked the WCO for its presentation on the measures that had been taken by 
them in response to the pandemic.  
7.18  The representative of the United States  thanked Colombia for the presentation of their 
proposal. While the US agreed that this was an important issue, her delegation had general, 
horizontal concerns regarding adding standing items to the agenda. It was the US  view that if a 
Member want ed to add an item to the agenda, that Member should seek to do so under the normal 
procedure. The US did not support creating a standing agenda item and did not support the proposal.  
7.19  The Chairperson  noted that there was no consensus to have a standing agen da item. The 
Chairperson proposed that the Committee ask the Secretariat to continue updating its 
document  G/MA/W/157 , as appropriate , and to circulate it to Members so that they maintained an G/MA/M/72  
 
- 22 - 
 
  overview. The Chairperson also suggested that Members continue to consult on this idea but, at the 
same time, to understand that, as the delegate of the United States had said, Members should seek 
to add agenda items under the normal procedure in advance of formal meetings.  
7.20  The Committee agreed  to the proposal by the Chairperson and took note  of the statements 
made.  
8  TRADE IN PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS: CONSOLIDATED LIST OF PRODUCTS COVERED 
BY THE SECTORAL PHARMA AGREEMENT (JOB/MA/142)  
8.1  The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to a note by the Secretariat entitled "Trade in 
Pharmaceutical Products: Consolidated List of Products Covered by the Sectoral Pharma Agreement", 
which had been circulated in document  JOB/MA/142.  He also noted that a room do cument was 
available with the presentation.12 
8.2  The representative of the European Union  indicated that, as the coordinator on the Pharma 
Agreement, her delegation would speak on behalf of all the participants which had concluded this 
Agreement back in 1994, including Canada; the European Union; Japan; Macao, China; Norway; 
Switzerland; and t he United States. Although the current crisis had put the Agreement in the 
spotlight, the work which had led to the circulation of the consolidated list of products covered by 
the Pharmaceutical Agreement, as captured in document  JOB/MA/142, had been under  way well 
before that. The objective of the presentation had been to present the outcome of detailed technical 
efforts over several months which had come to fruition recently. The Pharmaceutical Agreement had 
undergone four  reviews since its entry into for ce. The concessions that had been made under the 
initial Pharma Agreement and its subsequent Reviews could be consulted with the Secretariat. What 
the new report had done was to consolidate all concessions in one  single document, thereby 
facilitating acces s to the information on the coverage of the Agreement. This consolidated list had 
been prepared by the Secretariat at the request of the participants to the Pharma  Agreement . The 
European Union thanked the Secretariat for its tremendous work in this consol idation exercise and 
asked the Secretariat to make a presentation to explain how the note had been prepared . 
8.3  The Secretariat  (Mr Darlan Marti), explained that he would first provide an overview of the 
Pharmaceutical Agreement and then explain the contents of the new note by the Secretariat. 
Although this sectoral Agreement was probably not familiar to some delegations, it had been 
concluded in 1994 by Canada; the European Union; Japan; Macao, China; Norway; Switzerland; and 
the United States. It was a secto ral agreement , like the ITA, which meant that although the 
Agreement was plurilateral in nature, the concessions had been applied on a n MFN basis and, 
therefore, extended to all other WTO  Members. The original Agreement had been concluded in 1994, 
but it h ad been reviewed and expanded four  times. As had been mentioned by the EU, the list of 
items covered by this Agreement had only been available for consultation with the Secretariat, which 
had not been a very practical way of accessing the list. A full cons olidated list of items had never 
been prepared or circulated. Some time ago, participants had asked the Secretariat to prepare a 
single document compiling all items covered by the Pharma  Agreement , which had resulted in the 
list in document  JOB/MA/142. In terms of the documents that the Secretariat had compiled in this 
exercise, he noted that it had included the original 1994  Agreement , as well as the first, second , and 
third reviews, which had been adopted in 1996, 1998 , 2007 , and 2010 , respectively. As mentioned  
previously, the concessions which were contained in these instruments had been incorporated in the 
WTO Schedules of concessions of the participating Members through the 1980  Procedures for 
Modification and Rectification of Sched ules. In terms of the structure of the Pharma Agreement, the 
peculiarity of this sectoral Agreement was that it had liberali zed trade by binding duties at zero on 
final pharmaceutical products, which had been identified using HS  codes in chapter  30 of the 
Harmonized System nomenclature, but the Agreement had also liberali zed the active ingredients 
and chemical components which were used for the production of those final pharmaceutical products. 
And these chemical components and active pharmaceutical ingredi ents could not be identified only 
by making use of HS  codes because they had to  be described at a much higher level of specificity 
than that used by the Harmonized System. Therefore, participants in 1994 used a variety of other 
nomenclatures in order to id entify these products. These complementary nomenclatures included 
the "Chemical Abstract Service" (CAS) codes, which were used to identify chemical components and 
chemical formulas of some products. Other products were identified using the International 
Non-proprietary Names (INN), which were codes maintained by the World Health Organization and 
 
12 Document  RD/MA/69.  G/MA/M/72  
 
- 23 - 
 
  used to identify pharmaceutical compon ents and ingredients. Thus, it had been a combination of 
HS codes, description of the chemical formulas, CAS  codes , and INN  codes, which had allowed the 
participants of the Pharma Agreement to very specifically identify the products which needed to be 
liberalized. The note by the Secretariat had been designed to take account of these elements. In 
summary, some products had been d efined using their HS  codes, which were mostly in Chapter  30 
but also included some Subheadings of Chapter  29, and the others had been defined using the 
chemical components and active ingredients that had been used in the production of pharmaceutical 
produ cts. These had been divided into four  annexes, depending on their nature and the designation 
used to identify them. Overall, and taking into account all the changes, the Pharma Agreement now 
covered approximately 10 ,000 items without including the HS  codes . To arrive to this result, the 
products covered by the different instruments and reviews had been mechanically aggregated. This 
meant that, given the number of items, the nature of these products, and the way that they were 
defined, the initial list could  contain  duplications. Given all these issues, a note by the Secretariat 
had been prepared to  serve as the basis  of, and be corrected by , the participants to the Pharma 
Agreement. Therefore, he stressed that the note should not be considered to be an offic ial list, but 
rather a work in progress. Nevertheless , the Secretariat believed that the list was already quite 
advanced and close to being fully accurate and finalized . They did not anticipate finding any major 
mistakes in the document.  
8.4  The Secretariat th en presented an overview of the note, including its four  annexes. In Annex  1, 
a new "WTO  ID code" had been added for each product in the first  column, with a view to simplifying 
the identification of products in the communications. The second  column contained the HS  codes in 
the original nomenclature, as they had appeared in the original Pharma Agreement instruments. 
Finally, a third  column was added to indicate the source of the concessions and the instrument from 
which they were taken; namely,  the original Agreement from the Uruguay Round or from the first, 
second, third , or fourth  Reviews. Depending on the annexes one could also see the codes that had 
been used to identify specific items. In the example shown in the presentation, one could see 
CAS codes, which were codes that were used to identify chemical codes, followed by the product's 
chemical name. Annex  2 had been structured in exactly the same manner and, although they did 
not have INNs, CAS  codes , or HS  codes, they did have the product's chem ical formula. Exactly the 
same approach had been used in Annex  3, where column  4 showed the INNs, and column  G showed 
the CAS  codes, as well as the HS  codes , so a variety of instruments were being used to designate 
the chemical products. Annex  4 listed other products of a similar structure. This is how the 
four annexes had been conceived  in JOB/MA/142. These annexes had been reproduced in full 
electronic format which, as previously mentioned, listed the 10 ,000 products covered by the Pharma 
Agreement. The S ecretariat stressed that the purpose of this document was not only to provide 
transparency about the product coverage in this sectoral plurilateral Agreement, but also to receive 
comments should Members find any duplications, or mistakes , or if they wished to update the 
nomenclature of any of item. The Secretariat stood ready to revise the document as many times as 
the participants deemed necessary. For WTO  Members that had not participated in this initiative, 
the Secretariat would be happy to answer any qu estion. The email addresses of Mr  Darlan Marti and 
Mr Thomas Verbeet had been listed in the documents that had been circulated should any Member 
wish to provide comments or raise questions.  
8.5  The representative of the European Union  noted that the Pharmaceut ical Agreement had been 
an important Agreement for the EU. Pharmaceutical products constituted a particularly large share 
of EU  trade with the rest of the world. Approximately 9% of EU -27 exports were pharma products,  
namely  finished products, whereas on t he import side they accounted for approximately 5% of 
overall imports. At the time of the conclusion of the Agreement,  the signatory parties of the Pharma 
Agreement covered over 90% of global trade in pharmaceutical products. However, to date, that 
participation had been reduced to 68% of global trade. The European Union had noted that, over 
time, and in a context where the size of global pharma trade had itself been augmented, it had seen 
the share of other Members increasing. For example, based on WTO statistics, China currently 
accounted for approximately 13%  of global trade; India,  4%; and the Republic of Korea,  3%. The 
consolidation work which had been undertaken by the Secretariat had enhanced transparency about 
the coverage of the Agreement. Although some further work, such as the update of HS  codes, 
remained pending, the current document had provided a solid basis to give further consideration to 
this Agreement.  In the current pandemic, the disruption of global supply chains through a 
proliferation of export curbs and the existence of tariffs, had deprived many people of the access to 
necessary, and often life -saving, medications. The unilateral tariff suspension  measures which had 
been taken by a number of countries had demonstrated that, in times of crisis, tariffs could impede 
access to affordable healthcare. Therefore, in light of the current situation, it had been worth looking G/MA/M/72  
 
- 24 - 
 
  again at the Agreement at hand.  It would also be worth rethinking the relevance of the tariff 
commitments that WTO  Members had taken decades ago and to consider undertaking bound 
commitments as enshrined in the Pharma Agreement.  
8.6  The representative of Chinese Taipei  thanked the Secretari at for the detailed introduction and 
their hard work in consolidating the list of products covered by the Pharma Agreement. Together 
with the explanations from the participants, her delegation now had a clearer picture of the 
background and current situati on. She was of the view that, under  current circumstances , no one 
could deny the importance of facilitating trade of essential medical and medicine supplies. The 
increased flow of these products would not only help to cope with the health crisis, but it wo uld also 
help to revitalize the economy. Certain sensitivities aside , Chinese Taipei saw positive implications 
for the further liberalization of certain  sectors critical to human health. Chinese Taipei would engage 
with other Members in  any efforts that wo uld contribute  to the multilateral trading system.  
8.7  The representative of the United States  thanked the Secretariat for its efforts to collect and 
consolidate the list of products covered by the Pharma Agreement and its subsequent reviews. The 
United States  appreciated this effort and hoped that it would help other Members to better 
understand the products covered by this Agreement.  
8.8  The Committee took note  of the report by the Secretariat and of the statements made.  
9  ENHANCING TRANSPARENCY IN APPLIED TARIFFS – COMMUNICATION BY THE 
RUSSIAN FEDERATION (JOB/MA/138)  
9.1.  The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to a communication from the Russian 
Federation entitled "Enhancing Transparency in Applied Tariffs", which had been circulated in 
document  JOB/MA/138.  
9.2.  The representative of the Russian Federation  recalled that, w ith a view to promoting a 
discussion on the possible ways of improving transparency in applied tariffs, and sharing Members' 
experiences in that area, Russia had organized a round table discussion t hat had taken place on 
31 January  2020. The summary report of the Round Table Discussion had been circulated in 
document  JOB/MA/145 and she wished to briefly report on the discussions. At the Round Table, it 
had been emphasized that timely and accurate inf ormation was essential for both importers and 
exporters. The availability of such information affected their decisions whether to continue trading 
or to look for alternative supply destinations. The following conclusions had been drawn from the 
discussions : (i) a substantial part of tariff changes entered into force on the date of publication of 
the respective decisions; (ii)  a lack of predictability in tariff policy could impede the effective 
integration of medium and small enterprises (MSMEs) into global value chains (GVCs); and (iii)  the 
availability of online databases and portals was essential for facilitating access to trade information. 
Taking into account the results of the discussions which had been held at the Round Table, the 
Russian Federation wo uld continue to seek ways of improving transparency in applied tariffs, in order 
to prepare concrete proposals for MC12.  
9.3.  The representative of Australia  expressed his support for giving consideration to how to 
improve the transparency of Members' applied tariff schedules. Unexpected increases in applied 
tariffs created uncertainty for exporters, as well as additional costs for importers, and could be a 
significant disincentive to trade. Australia wished to draw to the Committee's attention the work  
within the Committee on Agriculture to identify options on improving transparency in applied tariffs. 
In particular, document  JOB/AG/185 outlined the results of consultations that had sought to gain a 
better understanding of the scope of potential problem s resulting from changes to applied tariffs. 
The document outlined options on possible pathways forward. As it was a cross -cutting issue, 
involving both agricultural and non -agricultural trade, he encouraged Members to consider 
developing a workable and re alistic approach to addressing this issue.  
9.4.  The representative of New Zealand  thanked the Russian Federation for its efforts in this area. 
Given the challenges that businesses, and particularly MSMEs, were facing in the current difficult 
environment, transp arency, including of applied tariffs, remained important. Therefore, the issue 
had to be discussed further, taking into account the challenges that Capitals were facing.  G/MA/M/72  
 
- 25 - 
 
  9.5.  The representative of China  thanked the Russian Federation for the work it had done on  the 
topic. China believed that it was important to enhance transparency in applied tariffs. The increase 
of MFN  applied rates, even if they did not exceed the Members' bound rates, had to be implemented 
in a transparent and predictable way, and with a suf ficient transition period so as to avoid additional 
obstacles for businesses, in particular MSMEs. China understood applied tariffs in the proposal to 
refer to MFN  applied rates and asked the Russian Federation to clarify whether other applied rates 
were a lso included within the proposal. China wished to engage in further discussions with other 
Members in order to find a balanced solution.  
9.6.  The representative of South Africa  thanked the Russian Federation for its report on the 
Round  Table that had taken plac e in January  2020. South Africa understood and appreciated the 
importance of transparency in applied tariffs. As the Russian Federation had pointed out in its paper, 
Members had committed in Article  1.1(b) of the Agreement on Trade Facilitation to promptly  publish 
the applied rates of duties in a non -discriminatory manner, namely an accessible manner, in order 
to enable governments, traders, and other interested parties to become acquainted with them. South 
Africa considered that this was already the case a nd did not understand what gap the Russian 
Federation was trying to close with this particular proposal. In its own practice, South Africa was 
following a transparent process in which changes in applied tariffs were published on South Africa's 
Revenue Serv ices website, which was accessible to everyone. He did not see what the value -added 
would be in undertaking further notification obligations, especially for those countries that had 
capacity constraints.  
9.7.  The representative of Guatemala  agreed on the import ance of transparency, but believed that 
the adequate forum for discussing the issue was the special negotiating forum. Delegates in the 
Committee on Market Access were not clear on whether the Committee had the mandate to discuss 
matters of transparency in  tariffs. Moreover, Members were currently discussing a similar matter 
regarding agriculture in the context of the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session , and 
Guatemala preferred to keep the discussion of such matters within that context.  
9.8.  The represen tative of Canada  observed that transparency in applied tariffs was an important 
issue for his country. Canada worked with Members in the context of the Committee on Agriculture, 
Special Session (CoASS), to deepen their understanding of current practices an d issues in applied 
tariffs. One key issue that had arisen from the discussions was how to manage shipments en route  
when an applied tariff changed. In document  JOB/AG/185, Members had developed a series of 
options that could enhance transparency, taking i nto account Members' different systems for 
changing tariffs. Canada looked forward to discussing these options in the CoASS and intended to 
circulate the paper in the Committee on Market Access in the near future to enable a discussion 
across agricultural and non -agricultural tariffs.  
9.9.  The representative of Singapore  expressed her continued support for the aim of the proposal 
to improve the transparency of applied tariffs at the WTO. Singapore was happy to continue engaging 
in further discussions on the issu e at the CMA.  
9.10.   The representative of India expressed his appreciation for the efforts which had been made 
by the Russian Federation in organizing the Round Table discussion. India considered that 
transparency was an important pillar of the WTO and all Membe rs were committed to it. Despite 
best efforts, the level of compliance with the existing notification obligations was yet to reach the 
required satisfaction level. Therefore, at the present moment, India did not support an ever -growing 
list of obligations that sought to circumscribe Members' negotiated rights under the 
WTO Agreements. Having said so, India wished to reiterate earlier comments on the Russian 
Federation's discussion paper. First , it was important to understand how a consignment in transit 
was being treated by Members in case of changes in tariffs. In this regard, India looked forward to 
the document mentioned by Canada, containing a compilation of country practices, which had 
previously been circulated in the Committee on Agriculture. Second,  India wished to know how 
Members dealt with the likelihood of manipulation or misuse of such facility, particularly in respect 
of high-sea sales for shipments  in transit destined for other countries. With regard to the immediate 
notification of changes in  the applied tariffs, India wished to inform Members that all such changes 
were in the public domain, could be obtained from the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs 
(CBIC)'s website immediately after the imposition of the changes, and could also be  seen in the 
Gazette notifications through the e -gazette system. India had notified to the WTO, including under 
the TFA, the websites from which such information could be obtained. Moreover, any changes in 
MFN tariffs were incorporated into the WTO  Integra ted Data Base (IDB). Such changes were also G/MA/M/72  
 
- 26 - 
 
  reflected in the WTO  Trade Monitoring Report on a regular basis. Any further notification obligations 
with respect to MFN  applied tariff changes would create an additional burden to a number of 
developing country  Members. Moreover, if the intention of the Russian Federation was to make 
available information to the business community immediately, in particular to MSMEs, India doubted 
the added value of such obligations, given that the gap between actual imposition of tariff changes 
and notifications to the WTO would normally be within five to seven days, so it would not meet the 
intention to immediately make available the information to traders.  
9.11.   The representative of Paraguay  thanked the Russian Federation and reite rated her 
delegation's interest in the discussion.  
9.12.   The representative of the United States  recognized that greater transparency in tariffs would 
benefit all traders. Therefore, the US was following the issue with interest and looked forward to 
future engag ement on the issue.  
9.13.   The representative of the European  Union  indicated that her delegation was interested in all 
constructive initiatives to enhance transparency on trade measures. The EU was willing to further 
explore the issues highlighted by Russia with  Members.  
9.14.   The representative of the Russian Federation  highly appreciated the interest that had been 
expressed by Australia, Canada, China, the EU, Guatemala, India, New Zealand, Paraguay, 
Singapore, South Africa, and the US, and would try to answer some o f the questions that had been 
raised. First, regarding the question raised by China as to whether the initiative covered only 
MFN tariffs or preferential tariffs as well, Russia responded that it only covered MFN  applied rates, 
because preferential duty ra tes were subject to special arrangements between certain WTO  Members 
and not the whole membership. Second, regarding the concern raised by South Africa, the Russian 
Federation noted that there were decisions that were being published on the same date of th eir entry 
into force. Since, for traders, it was difficult to track changes in applied tariffs, there was a 
value -added in providing more transparency regarding such tariff changes. Russia also appreciated 
the work that had been undertaken by Australia and  Canada regarding the importance of enhancing 
transparency in applied tariffs. Third, regarding the statement that had been made by Guatemala, 
Russia had conducted work in parallel at the CMA and the Committee on Agriculture, as well as the 
CoASS. Her dele gation believed that that work should continue in order to allow Members to cover 
all goods in the nomenclature rather than trying to address them on a separate path. Finally, 
regarding the questions that had been raised by India, the Russian Federation in dicated that some 
replies could be found in the paper by Australia and Canada. Her delegation had taken note and 
would respond to India bilaterally on the question concerning the high -sea sales.  
9.15.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
10  ANGOLA – IMPO RT RESTRICTING PRACTICES – STATEMENT BY THE RUSSIAN 
FEDERATION  
10.1.   The Chairperson  recalled that this agenda item had been included at the request of the 
Russian Federation.  
10.2.   The representative of the Russian Federation  explained that Angola had introduced import 
restrictions on certain agricultural and industrial products, in accordance  with Presidential Decree 
No. 23/19. Under Article  1 of the Decree, the measure had prioritized domestically manufactured 
products and promoted the consumption of goods made in Angola. In accordance with the provisions 
of the Decree, locally produced goods  had to be given priority over foreign like products; only 
wholesalers and domestic producers had been authorized to import; importers had to confirm the 
non-availability of locally produced products on the internal market that they intended to import; 
import authorization included submission of contracts on the purchase of national products. In 
Russia's view, the measure at issue could not be justified under Articles  III and XI  of the GATT  1994. 
The Russian Federation urged Angola to bring these measures i nto conformity with the 
WTO Agreements and to lift the import bans on agricultural products. So far, Angola had failed to 
provide Russia with an explanation as to how the measures were consistent with WTO  rules. She 
urged Angola to work bilaterally with he r delegation.  G/MA/M/72  
 
- 27 - 
 
  10.3.   The representative of the European Union  noted that her delegation was supportive of 
Angola's intention to diversify its economy and to develop its domestic industry. However, the EU 
maintained its concern over Decree No.  23/19. The Decree se emed to protect domestic industries in 
a manner that was incompatible with WTO  rules and that could be highly detrimental to foreign 
investments in Angola. The EU urged Angola to review the relevant measures in order to ensure 
their compliance with WTO  rules. 
10.4.   The representative of the United States  wished to reiterate her country's concern over 
Angola's Presidential Decree No.  23/19, issued in January  2019. It was her delegation's 
understanding that the decree had aimed to restrict Angola's imports with the  goal to increase 
domestic economic development. The US understood that the Decree had targeted 54  products, 
mainly agricultural goods, and could potentially target more in the future. Furthermore, it seemed 
to cover any imports that competed with goods pr oduced in the Luanda -Bengo special economic 
zone. Since the implementation of the Decree, the US had received reports of confusion over how it 
was being enforced and of delays facing goods at the border. The US  poultry and other agricultural 
exporters had been particularly concerned over delays that perishable goods faced amidst the 
uncertainty. The US was also concerned that those actions could do a great deal to discourage 
overseas companies from doing business in Angola and could compromise Angola's rela tionships 
with key trade partners. In fact, the US  Embassy had heard from local companies that the lack of 
import licences had been negatively affecting Angolan businesses as they had faced supply shortages 
due to the import restrictions. She asked Angola to explain if it planned to revise the Decree, or how 
it planned to implement it in light of WTO  rules, and what the potential impact on trade, investment, 
and businesses operating in Angola would be.  
10.5.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
11  CHINA - CUSTOMS DUTIES ON CERTAIN INTEGRATED CIRCUITS – STATEMENT BY THE 
EUROPEAN UNION, JAPAN AND CHINESE TAIPEI  
11.1.   The Chairperson  recalled that this agenda item had been included at the request of the 
European Union, Japan,  and Chinese Taipei.  
11.2.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  recalled  that this issue had been raised in different 
WTO meetings , including  in this Committee , the ITA , and the  CTG. Chinese Taipei's main concern 
was that China' s HS2017  transposition  amendment  should  not change the scope of its tariff  
concessions under the WTO. However, 10  tariff lines that were bound duty -free in China' s 
WTO schedule , and which were covered by China 's ITA-1 commitments , had been  subject to duty 
rates since 2017. Chinese Taipei was of the view that this could not be justified by the claimed 
transposition methodology that China had  used to create the new tariff rates of MCO  products under 
HS heading  8542 in its HS2017  schedule.  She noted that , since January  2020, the applied tariff rate 
of tariff line  8542.32.10 in China ha d been temporarily modified and reduced from 1.4% to zero, 
which was a positive step . Chinese Taipei urged China to do the same on the other MCO  products at 
issue without delay.  
11.3.   The representative of the European Union  expressed her deleg ation's continued  concerns over 
China's  duties on MCO  semiconductors. The fact that several delegations had continued to raise  the 
issue demonstrate d that the information that had been provided so far by China ha d not alleviated 
their concerns. As the WTO  Secretariat had pointed out last year in response to a communication by 
the Government/Authorities Meeting on  Semiconductors ( GAMS ), tariff lines should normally have 
been broken down to a more detailed level , so that the draft HS2017  file fully reflect ed the same 
level of the concessions.  Therefore, China could have created additional tariff lines in order to 
continue apply ing a zero  duty on previously duty -free products, thereby maintaining the value of 
concessions and keeping the spirit of the ITA  Expansion. This had not been the case. The 
WTO Secretariat had also pointed out that China should have consulted other Members in advance. 
The European Union  regret ted that the issue had remain ed unresolved and that China was still being 
requested to recti fy this situation at its earliest convenience by modifying the classification or by 
eliminating the remaining duties.  
11.4.   The representative of Japan  noted that, a s this issue had continue d to be raised on successive 
occasions, including at the previous meeting of the Committee on Market Access , the previously 
duty-free original level of concessions by China had been increased. Japan also shared the concerns G/MA/M/72  
 
- 28 - 
 
  which had been expressed by other Members over this issue. His delegation was closely monitoring 
the sit uation regard ing China' s commitment to abolishing customs duties in July  2021 on all relevant 
items in line with the staging of the ITA  Expansion.  
11.5.   The representative of the United States  support ed the statements and questions which had 
been raised by the E U, Japan, and Chinese Taipei , and reiterate d her delegation's  concern with 
regard to the change in China' s applied duty rates for certain semiconductor products. The facts 
were simple. Certain semiconductor products ha d been duty -free for over a decade, bu t were now 
being charged import duties at the border. China' s transposition for those products should have not 
result ed in changes to tariffs being imposed.  The US remain ed concerned, in line with the General 
Council Decision on HS  transpositions and the G uidance approved by this Committee, that the scope 
of China's concessions appear ed to have changed substantially, and that the value of the concessions 
appeared to have been impaired.  
11.6.   The representative of China  thank ed the delegations of Chinese Taipei, the EU, Japan,  and 
the U nited States  for their intervention s. As some of them had stated, this item had been included 
on the agenda of the Committee since September  2017. Since then, China had reiterated on many 
occasions  that it had used a method ology  that was consistent with the  WTO rules. China had also 
clarified various technical questions bilaterally. China had always undertaken its tariff reduction 
commitments seriously and would implement the fifth  tariff reduction  of the ITA  expansion the 
following month. The duty rates on MCO  products would be further reduced to 0.6%, 0.7% , and 
1.7% , respectively. All the duties on MCO  products would be eliminated by next July, as had been 
scheduled. China expected that this item w ould then be removed from the agenda.  
11.7.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
12  EUROPEAN UNION - CARBON BORDER ADJUSTMENT MECHANISM (THE EUROPEAN 
GREEN DEAL OF DECEMBER  2019) - STATEMENT BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  
12.1.   The Chairperson  recalled that this ag enda item had been included at the request of the 
Russian Federation.  
12.2.   The representative of the Russian Federation  recalled that, on 11  December  2019, the 
European Union had announced its new strategy, the "European Green Deal", with the aim of 
mitigating global climate change by means of imposing ambitious actions, including considerable 
carbon emission reductions. Inter alia , the European Commission intended to introduce a carbon  
border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) in respect of certain sectors with high c arbon footprint, such 
as steel, cement, and chemicals. The European Commission had stated on a number of occasions 
that, regardless of the form of the mechanism, it would be in full conformity with the EU's 
international obligations, including WTO  rules. H owever, she considered that, judging from the 
currently available information, the opposite could be concluded. All respective proposals, such as 
import carbon tax or additional import duties, appeared to be inconsistent with WTO  rules. She 
affirmed that s uch measures must not create additional obstacles to trade and disrupt international 
trade. In the Inception Impact Assessment, which had been published on 4  March  2020, the EU had 
said that a "dialogue with third  countries [would] take place through WTO  channels and other 
channels". Therefore, the Russian Federation requested the EU to provide answers to its questions 
regarding: (i)  the stage which the development of the draft legislative act was at; (ii)  the design 
that the mechanism was expe cted to have; (iii)  the legal justification of the new carbon customs 
duty or tax on imports in respect of Articles  II or III of the GATT; and (iv)  the sectors and products 
that were considered by the EU to be subject to that mechanism , and why. The Russia n Federation 
expressed its concern over the inclusion of import carbon duty revenues  into "[t]he EU  budget 
powering the recovery plan for Europe" and the statements within the EU on improving the level  
playing field of some domestic industries, such as ste el, under the pretext of mitigating 
consequences of climate change. Russia shared the ambitions of the EU and the other WTO  Members 
for achieving climate neutrality with a view to accomplishing the sustainable development goals and 
industrial decarbonizati on. However, those goals should not impede international trade flow s of 
goods. Russia encouraged the EU to engage in consultations with Members in order to assess the 
possible economic impact of the proposed measures, as well as their consistency with WTO  rules.  
12.3.   The representative of the United States  indicated that her country was monitoring the 
development of the proposed EU  CBAM  with interest. She looked forward to hearing further details G/MA/M/72  
 
- 29 - 
 
  on this proposed mechanism, and continued to encourage the EU to f ully consider the compatibility 
of any such measure with the applicable WTO  rules in order to ensure an open trade system and 
that any such measure would not constitute a barrier to trade.  
12.4.   The representative of Paraguay  recalled that her country had previo usly expressed an interest 
in this item within the Committee on Agriculture, which had been suspended following the 
COVID -19 pandemic. She took the opportunity to encourage the European Union to address the 
following concerns: (i)  when the EU was planning to adopt the relevant legislation; (ii)  how the EU 
was planning to ensure that the legislation was in conformity with its commitments under the WTO; 
(iii) whether the EU was planning on notifying the draft measure to the WTO, so as to ensure a 
reasonable p eriod of time for comments from Members; (iv)  whether the EU was planning to provide 
for an additional duty for products with greater carbon emissions; and (v)  whether the EU was 
considering a carbon credit for products with a lower carbon footprint than t hose produced in the 
EU. Paraguay would appreciate receiving answer s to these questions as soon as possible.  
12.5.   The representative of Uruguay  observed that the announcement of the adoption of the CBAM 
by the EU, as part of the European Green Deal, had generat ed interest among many WTO  Members, 
including Uruguay. He hoped to obtain further details regarding the mechanism, including its stage 
of development, the time of expected adoption of the measures, the design of the measures, and 
their sectoral and product  coverage. Uruguay wished to remind the EU of the need to respect its 
WTO commitments  at all times.  
12.6.   The representative of China  took note of the EU's plans to introduce a CBAM  and affirmed 
that China would follow the issue closely. She urged the EU to ensure its compliance with WTO  rules 
and to act in a transparent manner.  
12.7.   The representative of the European  Union  expressed her appreciation for  the interest of the 
Russian Federa tion and all the other Members that had taken the floor on this  issue. She recalled 
that the EU had committed to climate neutrality by mid -century and the Commission had pledged 
to increase the EU's climate ambition for 2030. As long as the EU's trading pa rtners did not take 
comparable climate action, there would be a risk of carbon leakage that the EU had to address. In 
the European Green Deal, the European Commission had announced that, should differences in 
levels of ambition worldwide persist as the EU increased its climate ambition, the Commission would 
propose a CBAM, for selected sectors, in order to reduce the risk of carbon leakage. The European 
Council of 12  December  2019 had endorsed the objective of achieving climate neutrality by 2050, 
which inc luded "developing effective measures to tackle carbon leakage in a WTO  compatible way". 
The Commission intended to make a proposal for a CBAM for selected sectors in 2021. Before that, 
the Commission would first  carry out an impact assessment to support th e preparation of the 
initiative, which would notably look at environmental, social, and financial impacts, economic 
efficiency , and legal feasibility, in particular with respect to WTO  rules and EU  trade agreements, as 
well as in terms of complementarity w ith the EU  Emissions Trading Scheme. As part of the impact 
assessment, the Commission would actively consult citizens and stakeholders, encouraging them to 
give their views on the best option to enforce ambitious policies against climate change in an open 
economy, while addressing the risk of carbon leakage. The Commission was committed to 
transparency and the inputs for the consultation s would be published on the Commission's central 
consultation page, once all consultation activities had been  completed.  
12.8.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
13  ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION TO INCLUDE CROATIA – NEGOTIATIONS 
UNDER ARTICLE  XXIV:6 OF THE GATT  1994 – STATEMENT BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  
13.1.   The Chairperson  recalled that this agenda item had been included at the request of the 
Russian Federation.  
13.2.   The representative of the Russian Federation  wished to  reiterate her delegation's  deep 
concerns regarding the European Union' s negotiations under Article XXIV:6 of the GATT  1994 within 
the framework of its enlargement to include Croatia.  The Russian Federation had repeatedly raised 
this issue bilaterally, as well as at the Committee on Market Access and the Council for Trade in 
Goods . The concerns had been transmitted to the European Union in writing  and circulated among 
the WTO  Members.  She recalled  that, through  document  G/SECRET/35/Add.4, the Russian G/MA/M/72  
 
- 30 - 
 
  Federation ha d objected to the conclusion of these negotiations.  She regretted that, t o date, the EU 
had failed to enter into a constructive discussion with R ussia on this issue.  For this reason, Russia 
once again wished to note  that these negotiations could not  be considered to have been completed, 
and call ed upon the E uropean Union  to engage into compensatory adjustment negotiations with 
Russia.  
13.3.   The represent ative of the European Union  remind ed the Russian Federation  of the 
explanations that had been provided at previous meetings. She also recalled that t he EU had 
informed WTO  Members about the conclusion and outcome of the negotiations following Croatia' s 
accession to the EU on 26  July 2018, through document  G/SECRET/35/Add.2  and pursuant to 
paragraph  5 of the Guidelines on Procedures for Negotiations under Article  XXVIII. The outcome of 
the Article  XXIV:6 process would  be faithfully reflected in the EU -28 Schedule  CLXXV which was 
currently in the process of certification. She was pleased t o note that the European Union had been 
able to clarify and accommodate the comments and questions of all Members except one.  The EU 
had extensively and repeatedly explained, orally and in writing, the reasons for not having accepted 
the compensation claims of the Russian Federation in the context of the EU's last enlargement. For 
the record, the EU wished to point out that the indication of a WTO  Member as principal supplier in 
a notification under Article  XXIV:6 /XXVIII  of the GATT  did not constitute an automatic recognition 
of a right for that WTO  Member to obtain compensation. Some principal suppliers would make  a 
claim, while others would not. The notifying Member would then enter into 
negotiations/consultations with those Members who ha d submitted a claim in conformity with the 
procedures and within the applicable deadlines under WTO  rules, with a view to identifying if there 
was an ent itlement for compensation.  
13.4.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
14  EUROPEAN UNION – RENEGOTIATION OF TARIFF RATE QUOTAS UNDER 
ARTICLE  XXVIII OF THE GATT  1994 – STATEMENT BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  
14.1.   The Chairperson  recalled that this agenda item had been included at the request of the 
Russian  Federation.  
14.2.   The representative of the Russian Federation  reiterated her country's concern in respect of 
the EU  approach to the tariff rate quotas (TRQ) negotiations in the cont ext of BREXIT. She noted 
that the EU -28 approach to the apportionment of TRQs could neither be considered as 
WTO-consistent, nor provide the EU with the possibility to maintain a general level of reciprocal and 
mutually advantageous concessions. The Russia n Federation took the view that the negotiations 
could not be concluded without a respective agreement on compensation with principal suppliers of 
the products concerned. For this reason, the Russian Federation urged the European Union to submit 
its compen satory proposal.  
14.3.   The representative of New Zealand  indicated that his intervention would cover agenda 
items  14, 15, and 16. New Zealand expressed persisting concerns over the approach which had been 
taken by the EU and the UK to TRQs and referred Members t o past statements made in the CMA on 
9 October  2018, and 28  May and 11  November  2019; in the Committee on Agriculture , in February, 
June, and October  2019; and in the CTG , on 12  November  2018 and 11  April, 8  July, and 
14 November  2019. In particular, his delegation wished to draw attention to document  RD/CTG/5, 
which reflected a broad range of Members' views on the issue. New  Zealand encouraged the EU to 
work creatively with Members to ensure the preservation of the full value of the commit ments that 
it had made to WTO  Members and urged the UK to engage with Members on its own recourse, in 
order to find a solution that preserved the value of its existing commitments in an appropriate 
manner, based on the UK's specific situation and the legit imate interests of its trading partners.  
14.4.   The representative of Uruguay  reiterated the concerns which had been previously expressed 
on this issue and in other fora by Uruguay, including in document  RD/CTG/5. Uruguay stressed the 
importance for the multilate ral trading system of this issue be ing resolved based on substantive 
discussions with all interested parties and in accordance with WTO  rules. Uruguay considered that 
the EU was not respecting the market access commitments and the TRQs it had previously 
negotiated, which prolonged the  significant uncertainty as to how the future relationship between 
the UK and the EU would advance as of 1  January  2021. There was a real risk that the EU and the 
UK would exhaust a large part of each other's erga omnes  TRQs, t hereby leaving out other Members G/MA/M/72  
 
- 31 - 
 
  who wished to make use of those  TRQs. The close proximity and other factors such as existing 
commercial relations could lead to economic harm for third  countries that were currently making use 
of those TRQs , or which could use them in the future. Uruguay recalled that, under 
GATT  Article  XXVIII, bilateral negotiations with other WTO  Members had taken place in parallel to 
those between the UK and the EU, and emphasized the need to take into account the concerns which 
had been  raised at the WTO.  
14.5.   The representative of Australia  indicated that his intervention would cover both agenda 
items   14 and 15. Australia reiterated that it recogni zed the legal rights of both the EU and the UK 
to modify their existing Schedules under Articl e XXVIII of the GATT. However, his delegation could 
not accept the assertion by both the EU and UK that no compensation was required as there would 
be no loss in the value of the concessions. The proposed modifications to the EU and UK  TRQs would 
lead to s ignificant economic loss not only by removing flexibility in terms of where a product could 
be sent year -to-year, but also by rendering some TRQ  allocations too small to be commercially 
viable. Australia believed that both the EU and UK had to proceed with  compensatory adjustments 
that factored in the significant commercial losses and maintained a general level of reciprocal and 
mutually advantageous concessions. Australia had remained constructive during these discussions 
and did not seek significant marke t access gains. Rather, it wanted to ensure that the current quality 
and level of market access was maintained. Since Australia had submitted formal proposals for 
compensation for all of its country -specific TRQs recogni zed by the EU and the UK, the onus w as 
now on them to respond formally to the proposals and to engage in negotiations to find product and 
Member -specific solutions. Otherwise, the entire process over the last few years of recogni zing 
negotiating rights under Article  XXVIII and engaging in re gular bilateral meetings would appear to 
have been in vain. Australia stood ready to solve these issues before the end of the transition period.  
14.6.   The representative of China  indicated that her intervention would apply to both agenda 
items  14 and 15. China's  concerns and requests on this issue remained unchanged as her delegation 
could not accept the approach which had been taken by the EU and the UK to apportion the 
EU-28 TRQs, which China believed would impair WTO  Members' interests. She encouraged the EU 
and the UK to continue to engage and take full consideration of all the comments and requests which 
had been raised by Members, both at WTO  meetings and in bilateral consultations.  
14.7.   The representative of Canada  indicated that his statement would cover agenda items  14 and 
15. Canada wished to express continued and significant concerns over the UK and EU's approach to 
apportioning the EU -28's TRQs, which had been made clear to the UK and the EU through multilatera l 
discussions  in the Committee on Market Access, the Committee on Agriculture, and the Council for 
Trade in Goods. Canada had also expressed these concerns in bilateral discussions. While these 
concerns remained, he noted the EU and UK's willingness to dis cuss the issues. Canada looked 
forward to continuing discussions during their separate and distinct bilateral Article  XXVIII 
negotiations.  
14.8.   The representative of Paraguay  indicated that she would address agenda items   14 and 15 
together. She wished to expre ss her delegation's continued concern over the potential saturation of 
the erga omnes  TRQs between the EU and the UK. There was a risk that the negotiations would not 
lead to an agreement and that the UK would have to extend those negotiations beyond 
Decem ber 2020. In the context of its trade policy review, and in response to questions that had 
been raised by Paraguay, the EU had said that it did not expect that the EU or the UK would use the 
erga omnes  TRQs of each other. However, to date, this remained un certain because it remained 
unclear whether the EU and the UK would reach a bilateral agreement. For this reason, Paraguay 
urged the EU and the UK to review their policies, in order to exclude each other from those 
erga omnes  TRQs. Finally, Paraguay wished  to recall that both the EU and the UK had said that they 
would ensure that Members would  not be in a less favourable position on the market with respect 
to that which existed prior to apportionment. Her delegation invited the EU and the UK to hono ur 
this commitment.  
14.9.   The representative of India indicated that his intervention would cover agenda items  14, 15, 
and 16. He echoed the concerns which had been raised by Members. India had already expressed 
its concerns, both in writing and during the formal consul tations with the EU and the UK  delegations, 
over the approach they had taken in TRQ  apportionment. India had explained how the proposed 
methodology , including the threshold years that had been taken into account for the apportionment 
of TRQs , was affecting  Members' rights on those specific tariff lines. Those concerns still remained. 
India encouraged the EU and the UK to take into account the concerns which had been raised by G/MA/M/72  
 
- 32 - 
 
  Members, including India, and to work creatively to ensure the preservation of the  full value of the 
commitments which had been made to WTO  Members. The UK's recent document relating  to 
Rectifications and Modifications of Schedule  XIX was still being examined by Capital. However, as a 
preliminary comment , and apart from concerns on the apportionment of the domestic support value 
for agricultural goods, India wanted to hear more from the UK  delegation about the basis for the 
number of years chosen, as well as the source of the data for the exchange rate from Euro to Pound.  
14.10.   The representat ive of Indonesia  requested the EU and the UK to comply with WTO  rules in 
the context of these renegotiations. The EU and the UK, together with other partner countries, 
including Indonesia, had an interest in maintaining market access in goods and services that would 
be beneficial for all parties. Regarding the process of modification of the TRQs on agricultural and 
non-agricultural products, Indonesia wished for the EU and the UK to cooperate in order to 
accommodate the aspirations of all WTO  Members, particularly developing countries , in the midst of 
the COVID -19 pandemic.  
14.11.   The representative of the United States  indicated that her intervention applied to both 
agenda items  14 and 15. The US remained concerned that the approach which had been undertaken 
by the EU and the UK would lead to a loss of access for US  goods into both markets. She referred 
Members to past statements in this and other Committees and noted that a more detailed statement 
on the issue would be made at the CTG later that week.  
14.12.   The rep resentative of Mexico  indicated that her statement would address agenda items  14 
and 15. She shared the concerns which had been expressed by other Members, and wished to 
express a systemic concern with regard to the EU and UK's intention to modify the TRQs  in their 
Schedules of concessions. As Mexico  had previously indicated, there were inherent problems with 
the proposed methodology, which would result in a reduction and even elimination of market access 
opportunities in those markets. Mexico believed that  any methodology should maintain the balance 
of rights and obligations that had been negotiated and agreed by Members. Therefore, Mexico urged 
the EU and the UK to continue engaging with the other Members and to bear in mind the systemic 
and trade concerns  which had been expressed in order to find a mutually satisfactory outcome 
through procedures in line with WTO  rules.  
14.13.   The representative of the European Union  observed that negotiations under Article  XXVIII 
remained ongoing with the partners which held rig hts under that provision. The next round had been 
planned for July  2020 and the EU welcomed WTO  Members' engagement in the negotiations in good 
faith. The EU aimed to make progress with as many Members as possible at the following round. 
She reiterated tha t the apportionment of the WTO  TRQs had been based on an "EU -UK joint 
approach", which dated back to October  2017 and ensured that the overall existing level of market 
access of other WTO  Members was maintained. The "joint approach" and the ongoing 
EU-UK separate but complementary negotiations with WTO  Members under Article  XXVIII of the 
GATT were set to continue. There would be no change to the current EU  WTO TRQ levels and 
management until the end of 2020. In particular, as agreed in the Withdrawal Agreem ent between 
the EU and the UK, EU  law would continue to apply in and to the UK, including the common 
commercial policy and the common external tariff.  
14.14.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
15  UNITED KINGDOM – RENEGOTIATION OF TARIFF RATE QUOTAS UNDE R 
ARTICLE  XXVIII OF THE GATT  1994 – STATEMENT BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  
15.1.   The Chairperson  noted that this agenda item had been included at the request of the Russian  
Federation.  
15.2.   The representative of the Russian Federation  reiterated her country's significant concern over 
the UK's approach to the TRQ  renegotiations and stressed the impossibility of concluding 
negotiations without an agreement on compensation to be provided by the UK. She also underlined 
the importance of es tablishing the UK's independent Schedule of tariff concessions in full compliance 
with WTO  rules. The Russian Federation  urged the UK to provide its compensatory proposal.  
15.3.   The representative of Uruguay  thanked the UK for having launched the negotiations pr ocess 
under Article  XXVIII with interested Members, and highlighted the importance that it be concluded G/MA/M/72  
 
- 33 - 
 
  as a result of these negotiations and not unilaterally. Given the uncertainty about the form that the 
future commercial relationship between the EU and the UK would take, he emphasized the need to 
take into account in the negotiations the significant levels of trade existing between the EU and the 
UK for various products in the erga omnes  TRQs. Uruguay considered that there was a real risk that 
these TRQs  would be exhausted by such trade, thereby leaving out all other Members. In sum, 
Uruguay hoped that, as a result of the bilateral negotiations, market access commitments would be 
secured in a manner consistent with the reality of bilateral trade and the s pecific interests of the 
parties involved, would not detract from the current market access opportunities, and would fully 
comply with the provisions of the relevant multilateral rules.  
15.4.   The representative of the United Kingdom  recalled that, on 1  February  2020, the UK had 
circulated document  WT/GC/206, which had set out the main implications arising from its departure 
from the EU in the WTO. The UK had undertaken its transition in the WTO with the aim of maintaining 
the existing balance of rights and obliga tions with its trading partners, and had set out its Goods 
Schedule, circulated in document  G/MA/TAR/RS/570, on that basis. The UK had engaged extensively 
with Members on that Schedule since it had been circulated and remained open to discussions to 
ensure  that conditions remained no less favourable to trade after the end of the transition period 
agreed between the EU and the UK, which was due to end on 31  December  2020. She recognized 
that the UK was currently undergoing a process under Article  XXVIII to s eek agreement with relevant 
WTO Members on how to extract the UK's TRQ  commitments from those of the EU -28. The last round 
of those  negotiations had taken place in February  2020 in Geneva. The UK looked forward to 
continuing its engagements going forward a nd adapting those engagements as necessary to account 
for the logistical challenges presented by COVID -19. 
15.5.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
16  UNITED KINGDOM - RECTIFICATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS OF SCHEDULE  XIX – 
STATEMENT BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATI ON 
16.1.   The Chairperson  noted that this agenda item had been included at the request of the Russian  
Federation.  
16.2.   The representative of the Russian Federation  expressed concerns over the modification of the 
draft Schedule proposed by the UK in document  G/MA/TAR/RS/570/Add.1. First, she recalled that 
the initial draft schedule of the UK, circulated on 24  July 2018, had been based on the draft 
EU Schedule provide d for in document  G/MA/TAR/RS/506. During the period 2018 -2019, the EU had 
circulated certain amendments to its draft Schedule, and it had been unclear whether those 
amendments would be incorporated by the UK in its draft Schedule or not. Second, the actua l 
calculations based on the methodology of apportionment of Aggregate Measurement of Support 
(AMS) were missing, taking into account that the EU's AMS  commitments had not yet been reduced 
proportionally. Third, in Russia's view, currency conversion could n ot be considered as a change of 
a purely formal character and required further consideration and bilateral discussions. For the time 
being, the Russian  Federation objected to the proposed rectification and modification of the UK's 
Schedule.  
16.3.   The representat ive of Uruguay  recalled that the original draft Schedule  XIX, presented by the 
UK in July  2018 under the 1980  Procedures , had been contested by several Members. This had 
resulted in the launch of negotiations under Article  XXVIII of the GATT with respect t o the 
TRQ concessions in the draft Schedule, which were currently under  way. The additional amendments 
that had recently been proposed by the UK in document  G/MA/TAR/RS/570/Add.1 added an 
additional layer of complexity to that process. Uruguay would contin ue to study these proposed 
amendments and would comment on them in due course. However, Uruguay's objections to the 
original draft would remain in force until an agreement was reached on the concessions and 
commitments that should appear in Schedule  XIX. U ruguay would continue to constructively engage 
with the United Kingdom with a view to reaching an independent Schedule of concessions that was 
formally established in the WTO.  
16.4.   The representative of Paraguay  noted that the most recent submission by the UK w as still 
being studied by her Capital. Her delegation understood that this rectification sought to convert into 
Pounds Sterling  the concessions that had been  denominated in Euros, which appeared to be a 
rational change. However, such a change could potenti ally have an impact on the value of the TRQs, G/MA/M/72  
 
- 34 - 
 
  on the Meursing  tables, and on the AMS  calculation that had been proposed by the UK. She further 
noted in this respect that the EU had yet to propose a corresponding reduction to its AMS and that 
discussions un der Article  XXVIII remained ongoing. The fact that there were so many objections to 
the initial proposal added an additional layer of complexity as the procedures had not yet been 
certified. Paraguay stood ready to engage in constructive discussions with t he UK with a view to 
reaching a compromise.  
16.5.   The representative of Australia  noted with interest that the UK had recently decided to submit 
a further rectification of its draft WTO  Goods Schedule in order to convert all references to Euros 
into Pound Sterling. While Australia was still analysing the latest proposed rectification and the 
impact it would have on the UK's tariff bindings and domestic support entitlements, it was still 
concerned that the issues raised by Australia and other Members with the UK's initial rectification 
had still not been addressed. In addition to concerns relating to TRQs, which had been discussed 
under the prior agenda items, Australia considered that the UK's draft Goods Schedule, circulated 
on 24  July 2018, contained substantive changes to the UK's current WTO  concessions, including the 
UK's AMS  commitments, and Special Safeguard  (SSG)  entitlements. Australia did not believe that 
the UK should have automa tic rights to AMS without scrutiny from the Membership. Nor should it be 
able to simply "copy and paste" SSG  rights from the EU's WTO  Goods Schedule, which had a distinct 
history and basis from the Uruguay Round and could result in the perverse outcome of providing the 
UK SSG rights for products that the UK did not produce. Australia did not believe that the UK's 
proposed changes met the requirement in paragraph  2 of the "1980  Decision" that any changes "do 
not alter the scope of a concession" and must be " of a purely formal character". Australia stood 
ready for constructive discussions with the UK to help resolve these matters.  
16.6.   The representative of China  noted that the UK had circulated an amendment to its draft 
Schedule recently and that her Capital was carefully analy sing the UK approach to redenominate all 
currency components and the relevant procedure. China looked forward to further discussions with 
the UK.  
16.7.   The representative of the United States  indicated that it had received the proposal by the 
United Kingdom to convert all the references to Euros in their Schedule into Pounds Sterling. The 
technical experts in Washington  DC were reviewing the propo sal and would contact the UK in due 
course. As had previously been explained, the main goal of the US was to ensure that this conversion 
was fair and did not result in a loss of market access into the UK  market.  
16.8.   The representative of the United  Kingdom  began by recalling that the UK had circulated for 
certification its Goods Schedule, contained in document  G/MA/TAR/RS/570, in July  2018. The UK 
had circulated that document under the rectification procedure, which had been used because the 
UK's Schedule repli cated the concessions and commitments applicable to the United Kingdom, and 
avoided potential disruption to trade. More recently, the UK had announced the "UK  Global Tariff" 
on 19  May 2020. This was the applied MFN  tariff regime that the UK would apply fro m 
1 January  2021, following the Transition Period that had been in place since the UK's departure from 
the European Union on 31  January  2020. For the duration of the Transition Period, the UK would 
continue to apply the EU's Common External Tariff. As the UK Global Tariff was a bespoke tariff, 
tailored to the UK's economy, it had been expressed in the UK's national currency. As a consequence 
of that change, and to ensure stability and transparency between the UK's bound and applied 
Schedules, the UK had cir culated document  G/MA/TAR/RS/570/Add.1, which sought to rectify its 
bound Goods Schedule to redenominate all currency components in Part  I and Part  IV of Section  I 
of the Schedule, from Euros into Pound Sterling. That had brought the UK into line with most  other 
WTO Members, who denominated their Schedules in their own currency. The exchange rate at which 
the Schedule had been redenominated was 1  Euro=0.83687  GBP, which represented the average of 
the daily exchange rates between 2015 and 2019. In choosing t he exchange rate, the UK had looked 
at relevant precedent and used a methodology that avoided speculation on the "natural" exchange 
rate, avoided the inherent volatility of day -to day exchange rate fluctuations, and reflected recent 
economic conditions, th ereby ensuring the scope of the concessions and commitments offered for 
application to the UK were not altered. Thus, as set out in the formal documentation which had been 
circulated, all currency components in Part  I and Part  IV, Section  I of the Schedule  had been 
redenominated, including the UK's AMS  limit. All other aspects of draft Schedule  XIX remained 
unchanged as a result of that technical rectification. On the AMS, she could not comment on the 
EU's ongoing processes, but recalled that it had been cl ear in the joint UK -EU letter of 
11 October  2017 that the final bound commitment level for domestic agricultural support would be 
apportioned between the EU and the UK. This had also been restated in the explanatory note to the G/MA/M/72  
 
- 35 - 
 
  UK's Goods Schedule in document  G/MA/TAR/RS/570 and was a clear commitme nt. She also 
reminded Members that the explanatory note contained details on how the AMS  apportionment had 
been calculated. Finally, the UK welcomed the positive responses that had been received from 
Members and stakeholders, in particular on the simplific ations and tariff reductions included in the 
UK Global Tariff. The United Kingdom looked forward to continuing to engage with WTO  Members 
on its transition.  
16.9.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
17  INDIA - CUSTOMS DUTIES ON TELECOMMUNICATION AND OTH ER PRODUCTS – 
STATEMENTS BY CHINA AND CHINESE TAIPEI (G/MA/W/120, G/MA/W/128)  
17.1.   The Chairperson  noted that this agenda item had been included at the request of China and 
Chinese Taipei.  
17.2.   The representative of China  regretted having to raise again this issue. China remained 
concerned over India's customs duties on telecommunication products, in particular with regard to 
mobile phones and their components. India had increased customs duties on these products several 
times, with applied rates in excess of its bou nd rates, which did not comply with WTO  rules. China 
again urged India to withdraw its customs duties on the relevant products, and to abide by its 
WTO commitments. She also noted that India had been increasing customs duties on many other 
products, includ ing edible vegetable oils, fruit juices, car engines, toys, and organic chemicals. India 
had also adjusted technical trade measures on toys and other products. China had both systemic 
and commercial concerns regarding these measures and urged India to enha nce the transparency 
and predictability of its measures, and to introduc e a sufficient transition period  in order to avoid 
unnecessary trade restrictions.  
17.3.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  reiterated the concerns over India's imposition of tariffs 
on at  least 32  ICT products since 2014, which surpassed India's duty -free bound commitments in 
the WTO. Chinese Taipei had requested and held bilateral consultations with the government of India 
pursuant to the procedure in the Dispute Settlement Understanding and had subsequently notified 
to the Dispute Settlement Body ( DSB) its request for an establishment of a panel in dispute DS588. 
Therefore, Chinese  Taipei would not have further comments on this issue in the Committee.  
17.4.   The representative of Japan  echoed th e concerns that had been raised by other Members over 
India's imposition of tariffs on ICT  products. On 19  March  2020, Japan had requested the 
establishment of a panel in dispute DS584. Nevertheless, Japan had requested that India withdraw 
the measure as s oon as possible.  
17.5.   The representative of Thailand  expressed its ongoing commercial and systemic concerns over 
India's re -imposition of customs duties on a number of ICT  products. Thailand joined other 
delegations in requesting India to abide by its WTO  commitments and noted that it would continue 
to monitor this matter closely.  
17.6.   The representative of Singapore  echoed the concerns which had been raised by previous 
speakers, and reiterated Singapore's interest in this matter for commercial and systemic reasons.  
17.7.   The representative of the United States  support ed the statements that had been  made by 
others with regard to India's continued imposition of duties – of up to 20 %– on imported 
ICT products, including on commercially significant products from the United States. The US had 
given India many opportunities over many years, both bilaterally and in relevant WTO  Committees, 
to address its actions, in light of its WTO  tariff commitments. Unfortunately, tariff increases had 
continued. She noted with interest that the EU, Japan, and Chinese Taipei had taken the ne xt steps 
to request the formation of panel. Once again , the US called on India to provide duty -free access for 
the ICT  products for which India had a WTO  commitment. Her delegation would continue raising the 
issue in the relevant Committees until it had be en addressed.  
17.8.   The representative of Canada  supported the statements that had been made by others on 
this issue. As had been mentioned in previous interventions in this Committee, the CTG and the 
ITA Committee over the past several years, Canada viewed the continued application of tariffs above G/MA/M/72  
 
- 36 - 
 
  India's bound rate on a broad range of ICT  products to be inconsistent with India's 
WTO commitments.  
17.9.   The representative of India thanked the delegations of Canada, China, Japan, Thailand, 
Singapore, Chinese Taipei, an d the United States,  for their continued interest in India's customs duty 
regime on certain telecommunication and other products. On the issue of customs duties imposed 
on certain products, which some Members had alleged were ITA -1 products, India had made  
statements earlier in various Committees, including this Committee and the ITA, as well as the CTG. 
India's position remained the same. However, India wished to reiterate that it had been fully abiding 
by its obligations and commitments under the ITA -1, as contained in WTO  document  WT/Let/181, 
and had not intended to make commitments beyond the scope of the ITA -1. India had also stated 
in its earlier interventions on this issue that Members had the right to revisit any errors or mistakes 
which had been com mitted in assigning bound tariffs while transposing their HS  Schedules and to 
place the necessary rectification request before the Committee  concerned. Accordingly, India had 
filed its rectification request for the purpose of correcting certain errors in i ts HS2007  Schedule, 
which had been 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 urged Members to go through its rectification request and , in case a Member 
had any other views on the technical aspects of the products concerned, as well as their 
classification, India would be happy to discuss such views with the Member concerned. As to the 
increase in tariffs on products other than ICT  products, which had been mentioned by China, India 
considered that increases in tariffs were within the bound tariffs committed by India.  
17.10.   The Committe e took note  of the statements made.  
18  INDIA – QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN PULSES – 
STATEMENTS BY AUSTRALIA, CANADA, THE EUROPEAN UNION, THE RUSSIAN 
FEDERATION,  AND THE UNITED  STATES  
18.1.   The Chairperson  noted that this agenda item had been inc luded at the request of Australia, 
Canada, the European Union, the Russian Federation, and the United States . 
18.2.   The representative of Canada  observed that, as the largest supplier of pulses to India, Canada 
had been most negatively affected by India's measur es to limit the import of pulses. Pulses were an 
important source of protein for many Indian consumers and Canada had been a high -quality and 
reliable supplier. Canada was disappointed that India had continued to use QRs on the import of 
dried peas and oth er pulses – a situation that had been going on for more than two  years. It had 
been difficult for Canada to see how India could still be claiming these measures to be temporary. 
On 28  March  2020, the Government of India had extended certain requirements an d established 
new, more stringent requirements , which had been designed to further limit the importation of dried 
peas in the fiscal year 2020 -21. These restrictions had included: (i)  a requirement that all shipments 
of dried peas enter via the port of Kol kata; (ii)  a minimum import price for dried peas set at around 
six times the price which imported dried peas had traditionally been traded at; and (iii)  a quantitative 
restriction allocation of zero metric tonnes for the imports of yellow dried peas, which  implicitly 
banned all imports of yellow peas in India. Canada had previously expressed its views on the 
WTO-consistency of India's QRs and remained concerned by India's continued trend to establish 
even more stringent import restrictive measures. At the l ast meeting of the Committee on Market 
Access, India had claimed Article  XI:2(c)(ii) and Article  XX(a) and (b) of the GATT as the legal 
justifications for its quantitative restrictions on dried peas. Canada would be very interested in 
hearing more about th e compliance of India's import ban for yellow peas and the minimum import 
price for dried peas with these provisions. Canada also requested that India clearly indicate how its 
import ban and minimum import price policy for yellow peas were compliant with A rticle 4 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture. The elimination of import bans and quantitative restrictions was a 
fundamental principle in both the GATT and the WTO. Canada reiterated its call for India to 
immediately and expeditiously review its trade restrict ive measures put in place on pulses and to 
consider alternative, WTO -consistent policy options that promoted a predictable and transparent 
import regime for pulses.  
18.3.   The representative of Australia  noted that his country's long -held concerns with India's 
restrictive measures on pulses imports were well  known to Members, particularly India's quantitative 
restrictions on a variety of pulses. These concerns were held not just by Australia, but by other 
Members too, including a number of developing Members. Aust ralia had been disappointed by India's G/MA/M/72  
 
- 37 - 
 
  recent continuation of its QRs on pulses for the 2020 -21 fiscal year with further restrictions which 
had been placed on peas. The previous 150,000  tonne quantitative restriction on peas had now been 
divided , with 75,000  tonnes allocated for green peas and 75,000  tonnes for other peas, and an 
effective import ban on yellow peas. India ha d characteri zed the se QRs as being "temporary " 
measures , which had been difficult to accept, given they had been in place for  nearly three  years for 
some varieties.  Australia had continued to review the previous explanation provided by India for the 
WTO basis for the quantitative restrictions during the meeting held in November  2019. That 
explanation had generated more questions  and concerns with respect to these measures. India had 
claimed that the quantitative restrictions on pulses were permitted under Article  XI(2)(c)(ii) of the 
GATT, which excluded from the general prohibition of QRs those import restrictions imposed on 
agricultural products to remove a temporary surplus of the like domestic product, by making the 
surplus available to certain groups of domestic consumers free of charge or at prices below the 
current market level. Australia noted that Members could not maintai n quantitative import 
restrictions on agricultural products that satisfied the requirements of Article  XI:2(c) of the 
GATT  1994 without violating Article  4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. India had also indicated 
that its quantitative restrictions, even  if otherwise inconsistent with their obligations, could 
nevertheless be justified under GATT  Article  XX(a), namely,  being necessary to protect public 
morals , and Article  XX(b), namely,  as necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health. 
Austral ia had posed a series of questions at the last meeting in November and had subsequently 
provided them to India in writing. Australia had still not received a response. In this regard, Australia 
requested India to provide a detailed explanation of how India 's quantitative restrictions satisfied 
the requirements of GATT  Article  XI:2(c)(ii) and Article  XX(a) and (b), which Australia did not believe 
were appropriate or legally available in respect of India's import restrictions on pulses. Australia 
once again r equested India to provide prompt and fulsome responses bilaterally, and table those 
responses in the next meeting of the relevant WTO  Committee; or otherwise to remove the measures 
immediately.  
18.4.   The representative of the European Union  observed that, since the quantitative import 
restrictions had been in place for about three  years, the EU would expect India to be in a position to 
provide clearer explanations about how its policies conformed to WTO  rules. Members had repeatedly 
been told that the measure was  temporary. However, the European Union considered that a measure 
that had been in place for three  years was not a temporary measure . The EU urged India to quickly 
eliminate this trade -distorting measure s. 
18.5.   The representative of the Russian Federation  wishe d to express its concern regarding India's 
policy on the importation of yellow peas. In addition to the quota for the 2019-2020 year, on 
1 January  2020 India had introduced a minimum import price requirement for yellow and green 
peas. From that date, ports  of entry for yellow and green peas had also been limited to only 
one seaport – Kolkata. In April  2020, India had introduced a new quota of 150 ,000 MT on peas for 
the 2020 -2021 fiscal year. This new quota for peas had been divided into three  sub-quotas , with 
allowed import volumes specified for each type of peas as follows: green peas – 75,000 MT, and 
other peas – 75,000 MT. For yellow peas, an import quota volume of zero had been established, 
which had given the impression that the importatio n of yellow peas had been totally prohibited up 
until the end of March  2021. The Russian Federation asked India to clarify the terms for the 
importation of yellow peas under the new quota for the 2020 -2021 fiscal year. Russia noted that, 
over the last two  years , and due to the measures that had been applied by India, imports of yellow 
peas had decreased significantly and the newly introduced restrictive measures had narrowed "the 
window for import" of yellow peas to an even greater degree. Russia maintained  its concern 
regarding the inconsistency of India's measures in respect of yellow peas imports with WTO  rules. 
Her delegation considered that the imposition of a minimum import price requirement, import 
quotas, import prohibition, and restriction on the po rt of entry violated both Article  XI:1 of the GATT 
and Article  4 of the Agreement on Agriculture. The Russian Federation requested India to explain 
the reasons for the introduction of the new restrictions for products the importation of which had 
already b een restricted, and to bring these measures into conformity with WTO  rules.  
18.6.   The representative of the United States  recalled that, as had been previously stated in this 
and other WTO  Committee meetings, the US remained concerned by 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. Despite India having stated several 
times that its restrictions on pulses had been  intended to be temporary, in April, the Indian Ministry 
of Commerce and Industry had issued Trade Notice No.  05/2020 -21, which had extended import 
restrictions on pulses for the Indian fiscal year through 31  March  2021. Therefore, the United States G/MA/M/72  
 
- 38 - 
 
  reiter ated its previous requests for information on how the measures reflected India's 
WTO commitments, and when and how the measures would be brought to an end.  
18.7.   The representative of India thanked the delegations of Australia, Canada, the European Union, 
the Ru ssian Federation, and the United States for expressing their views on these measures. Some 
of these issues had also been raised in the meetings of the Committee on Agriculture, the Committee 
on Import Licensing, the Committee on Market Access , and the CTG.  Although his delegation would 
not repeat what it had previously stated, his delegation did wish to reiterate that the decision on the 
imposition of a quota had been based on the domestic demand and supply situation of pulses in 
India. Hence, the extension  or removal of these QRs from time to time had been aimed at alleviating 
the distress caused to small and marginal farmers by the influx of cheap imported pulses, and the 
consequent impact on their food and livelihood security. The government had been regu larly 
reviewing these measures based on the market situation of pulses owing to which the quota of 
pulses had been increased from time to time. On the quota allocation, India wished to inform 
Members that: (i)  concerning peas, in the financial year  2019-20, an import quota of 
0.15 million  MTs had been allowed, whereas in the financial year  2020-21, a total of 0.7  million  MTs 
had been allowed; and (ii)  concerning other pulses such as urad, in each of the financial years 
2019-20 and 2020 -21, an import quota o f 0.4 million  MTs had been allowed. With respect to 
Members' questions on the relevant WTO  provisions under which India had imposed these temporary 
measures, India had previously replied that the QRs on pulses were necessary for the enforcement 
of governmental measures to remove any surplus of pulses, as permitted under Article  XI:2(c)(ii) of 
the GATT  1994 and the protection of public morals and human, animal or plant life or health in India, 
as recognized under Article  XX(a) and (b) of the GATT  1994. At the meeting, Members had raised 
additional questions with respect to the legal basis that had  been raised by India. India would look 
into the issues and discuss them with interested Members in due course. India would also 
communicate to Capital the additional issues raised at the meeting, including the legal basis for MIP.  
18.8.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
19  INDONESIA  – CUSTOMS DUTIES ON TELECOMMUNICATION PRODUCTS – STATEMENT 
BY THE UNITED STATES  
19.1.   The Chairperson  noted that this agenda item had been included at the request of the 
United  States.  
19.2.   The representative of the United States  noted that it had been brought to their attention that 
Indonesia had been applying tariffs on certain ICT  products that appeared to be in excess of its 
bound tariff rates. By way of example, Indonesia had a duty -free tariff commitment for all products 
that we re classified under tariff subheading  8517.62. However, US and Indonesian traders reported 
that a 10 % duty had been being levied for certain products in this tariff category. The US had also 
raised this issue in the ITA  Committee. Her delegation requested Indonesia to provide an explanation 
of the matter, and how Indonesia intended to resolve it, as soon as possible.  
19.3.   The representative of the European Union  noted that, in past meetings, Indonesia had 
mentioned that it had been consulting internally. The EU continued monitoring this issue and would 
welcome an update.  
19.4.   The representative of Japan  echoed the concerns that had been raised by other Members over 
Indonesia's imposition of tariffs on certain telecommunication products. While Japan recognized that 
the issue was still under investigation by the relevant authority in Indonesia, and in order to 
scrutinize the facts, Japan requested Indonesia to provide in formation on this matter.  
19.5.   The representative of Indonesia  thanked the European Union, Japan, and the United States 
for their concern regarding the customs duties on certain telecommunication products. Indonesia 
was committed to comply with and respect its agreements. At the same time, Indonesia observed 
that tel ecommunication products were highly dynamic products in terms of their HS  transposition. 
The ITA had been first  signed in 1996 and the product list in each annex defined based on HS96. 
However, since then, there had been many changes due to the transpositi on process. Therefore, 
certain products may have been affected by the splitting and merging process during the 
transposition. Indonesia reiterated that it would try to fulfil its commitments in the WTO and would 
continue conducting internal coordination to resolve this problem.  G/MA/M/72  
 
- 39 - 
 
  19.6.   The representative of the United States  wished to underscore that, as had been reflected in 
General Council Decisions and in the Secretariat's guidance to the Committee on Market Access, 
HS transpositions must not modify the scope of  concessions.  
19.7.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
20  MONGOLIA – QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS AND PROHIBITIONS ON IMPORTATIONS 
OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS - STATEMENT BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  
20.1.   The Chairperson  noted that this agenda item had been included at the request of the Russian  
Federation.  
20.2.   The representative of the Russian Federation  observed that, i n 2013, Mongolia had 
established a quota regime for the importation of certain agricultural products, including wheat flour, 
wheat, milk, drinki ng water, and beef. According to Government Resolution No.  329, the responsible 
authority determined the volumes of the corresponding quotas each year and imports outside of 
these quotas were prohibited. The Russian Federation had raised the issue of using  quotas at several 
WTO Committee meetings and, as a result, in late  2019, Mongolia had issued a recommendation not 
to establish a quota on imports of bottled water, liquid milk, and wheat flour for 2020. In light of 
this, the Russian Federation asked Mongo lia to clarify the temporary application of the 
recommendation, which covered only 2020, and wondered whether the quantitative restrictions were 
expected to be eliminated also in the future. The fact that Mongolia was still planning to determine 
quota volu mes for imports of agricultural products, including wheat flour and milk, was not in line 
with WTO  rules. Thus, Mongolia's quota regime continued to be inconsistent with its obligations 
under the WTO  Agreements and, in particular, Article  XI of the GATT  1994 and Article  4.2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture, as well as Mongolia's accession commitments under paragraph  20 of the 
Working Party Report. The Russian Federation called upon Mongolia to undertake promptly all the 
necessary further steps to bring its l egislation and measures in to compliance with the relevant 
WTO provisions. The Russian Federation would continue monitoring the issue closely.  
20.3.   The representative of Mongolia  thanked the Russian Federation for its continued interest in 
Mongolia's trade polic y on agricultural products. Mongolia reiterated its position that liquid milk and 
wheat flour were strategic food products in accordance with Mongolia's food law. With regard to the 
quotas, Mongolia had already informed the Russian Federation of the recomm endation of the 
National Food Security Council of 29  November  2019 not to impose quotas on the imports of these 
products in 2020. She confirmed no quotas were being imposed on these products following the 
recommendation.  
20.4.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
21  NEPAL'S IMPORT BAN ON ENERGY DRINKS – STATEMENT BY THAILAND  
21.1.   The Chairperson  noted that this agenda item had been included at the request of Thailand.  
21.2.   The representative of Thailand  noted that her  government had been informed about the Nepali 
Government's Order of 17  June 2019, which had imposed an import ban on caffeinated energy 
drinks, flavoured synthetic drinks, and other similar drinks. Since the regulation had entered into 
force, Thailand's private sector had been unable to exp ort energy drinks to Nepal. Companies had 
been severely affected because their products had already been produced with models and labels 
designed for the Nepali market only, and hence they could not sell such products in other countries. 
Furthermore, Thail and had been concerned that Nepal had not submitted complete notifications 
related to those measures to the WTO. In this regard, Thailand requested further information from 
Nepal regarding the se measures , as followed : (i) the objective that had been pursue d by Nepal by 
banning the importation of energy drinks and how it complied with its WTO  commitments; and 
(ii) whether Nepal's import ban had been based on any scientific evidence concerning the effects of 
energy drinks. Thailand stood ready to engage with Nepal with a view to solving the issue amicably 
in the near future.  
21.3.   The representative of Nepal  began by noting that Nepal had joined the WTO in 2004 and had 
become the first  acceding LDC  Member and the 147th Member of the WTO. Despite being an 
LDC Member,  Nepal's level of commitments at the WTO had been mostly similar to some developed G/MA/M/72  
 
- 40 - 
 
  Members and its situation could be the same as that of other Members joining the WTO through an 
accession process. For instance, Nepal's binding coverage was 99.4%, simple a verage bound tariffs 
were 26.3%, and the simple average MFN  applied rate was around 12%. Since Nepal had joined the 
WTO, it had been doing its best to honour its obligations. It had taken several policy measures to 
fulfil commitments made during the access ion and had been expediting its market -friendly policy 
reforms through various initiatives. All domestic legal and other measures had been in compliance 
with WTO  rules. WTO  membership was simply the starting point of the process to integrate Nepal 
into the  global economy in a meaningful way. Nepal understood that the journey to the WTO meant 
a balance between rights and obligations and was fully committed to it. While assessing the trade 
performance of the country since joining the WTO in 2004, Nepal had no t benefitted from the 
membership as expected, particularly in export performance; it had rather faced a huge import 
surge. The export -import ratio of trade in goods had reached to 1:15.3 in 2017 -2018 from 1:2.5 in 
2004-2005. The world's merchandise exports  had increased from about USD 9 trillion in 2004 to 
about USD 19 trillion in 2018 , but Nepal's export s had mostly remained stagnant , with just a nominal 
growth from USD 730.5  million in 2004 to USD 783.5  million in 2018. However, Nepal's merchandise 
imports had significantly increased , from USD 1.85 billion in 2004 to USD 12.9 billion in 2018. The 
situation of mostly stagnant exports but a skyrocketing import surge had resulted in a huge trade 
gap and had posed severe challenges to the ent ire economic development process of the country. 
In view of this difficult situation, the Government of Nepal had assessed the causes of such trade 
imbalance and had taken import and export regulation measures  accordingly, while ensuring that 
its trade reg ulations were applied on an MFN  basis to all WTO  Members and in accordance with 
WTO rules. Nepal had taken this temporary measure because of the country's unique situation as 
an LDC and a landlocked developing country (LLDC) facing various constraints and challenges 
regarding its  export performance. The regulation had not only focused on trade restrictions on a few 
products ; it had also aimed at trade facilitation. Furthermore, it had included provisions to comply 
with the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). 
The objective of this measure had not been to restrict trade but to regulate and facilitate Nepal's 
international trade and safeguard the country from the severe challenge of trade imbalance, 
threateni ng the balance of payments , which had been  caused by these developments. In the context 
of the COVID -19 pandemic and its impact, the Government of Nepal had been in consultations with 
relevant agencies in Capital regarding the potential health implications  of energy drinks and some 
other non -essential products which were being imported on a large scale in recent years. The 
measure was temporary and would be reviewed periodically and revised based on the new findings. 
Nepal had sent an official note and a no tification to the WTO  Secretariat on 21  January  2020 in this 
regard. Upon receipt of Thailand's concerns, Nepal had requested to resolve the issue through 
bilateral consultations. In this regard, a bilateral meeting had been held in Kathmandu and the 
matte r had been discussed at length. The discussions would continue, and the matter could be 
settled once the COVID -19 outbreak had been normalized. However, Thailand had raised this 
concern at the CMA  meeting without taking into account these bilateral discuss ions and the current 
challenging situation relating to the COVID -19 pandemic. With regard to Thailand's statement that 
their products had already been produced with models and labels designed specifically for the Nepali 
market only, Nepal asked what had be en the reasons for this, what had been the quality standards 
of those products, and why such products could not be sold on Thailand's domestic market. Nepal 
underlined that there was a need for a study on whether those products were in line with the qualit y 
standards  set. Nepal had conveyed all concerns raised by Thailand to the Ministries concerned 
(Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Supplies, and Ministry of Foreign Affairs) in Kathmandu. Finally, 
Nepal requested all WTO  Members, including Thailand, to po sitively consider the unique situation of 
Nepal as an LDC and LLDC  Member facing a huge trade gap with an export -import ratio of 1:15.2 , 
meaning that imports were more than 15  times greater than exports,  and facing several constraints 
and challenges in international trade.  
21.4.   The representative of the United States  supported Thailand's concern over Nepal's ban on the 
import of certain energy drinks. In January  2020, the United States had requested Nepal to notify 
the measure through the WTO  TBT Enquiry Point, but had not yet received a response. She urged 
Nepal to notify the measure to the TBT  Committee and to suspend the measure until WTO  Members 
had had an opportunity to review and comment  upon it . 
21.5.   The representative of Nepal  responded that he would communicate the concern by the 
US delegation to Capital and would revert back with a response as soon as it was available.  
21.6.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  G/MA/M/72  
 
- 41 - 
 
  22  KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA, KINGDOM OF BAHRAIN, THE UNITED ARAB  EMIRATES, 
OMAN AND QATAR – SELECTIVE TAX ON CERTAIN IMPORTED PRODUCTS – STATEMENTS 
BY THE EUROPEAN UNION, SWITZERLAND, AND THE UNITED STATES  
22.1.   The Chairperson  recalled that this item had been included on the agenda at the request of 
the delegations of the E uropean Union, Switzerland, and the United States.  
22.2.   The representative of Switzerland  noted that  the situation had not evolved much since the 
Committee's last meeting , despite several contacts with Members  of the Gulf Cooperation Council 
(GCC). For this rea son, Switzerland wished to refer delegates to its  previous statements on this 
matter. Since it was hard to find information, and with a view to better understanding the situation, 
her delegation would like to raise some additional questions. First, the exp ansion of the tax base to 
include other sweetened beverages as of 1  December  2019 by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the 
United Arab Emirates had not alleviated Switzerland's concerns, as it had maintained the 
discrimination between energy drinks, on the one hand, and carbonated soft drinks and other 
sweetened beverages , on the other. At the meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods that had taken 
place in November  2019, the Kingdom of Bahrain had indicated that "as a second  phase, the GCC 
was currently stu dying replacing the ad valorem  tax on sweetened beverages with a specific tax ". 
Thus, Switzerland remained keen to be updated on the state of play regarding the change of tax 
structure. Second, she noted that Switzerland's request for a harmonization of th e tax rate at 50% 
for all sweetened beverages had remained unanswered. Such a harmonization would constitute a 
first step towards eliminating the discrimination and remained a pending issue. Third, Switzerland 
wished to know if there had been any developme nt as concerned  the different rates applied to sports 
drinks. Once again, Switzerland urged the GCC  countries to apply, without delay, the same excise 
duty rate to all sports drinks irrespective of the brand names or origin and to eliminate any 
discriminat ion. Fourth, turning to the Digital Tax Stamp (DTS), her delegation had welcomed the 
postponement of the stamp 's implementation in Saudi Arabia. However, Switzerland would be 
grateful if Saudi Arabia could indicate if and when it intended to implement the DTS. Switzerland 
continued to strongly oppose the introduction of the DTS on energy drinks and carbonated soft drinks 
and called upon the Saudi authorities to reach out to the industry and examine more efficient and 
non-discriminatory alternatives. Fifth, her delegation strongly encouraged the GCC  members to 
engage with the private sector in order to modify the selective tax, so that the tax was applied in a 
transparent and non -discriminatory manner and, at the same time, met the legitimate health policy 
objectives. Finally, as each GCC  member would implement the selective tax at its own pace and, as 
there had been differences of interpretation, Switzerland would be most grateful if each GCC  country 
could answer these questions individually, as the GCC  Secre tariat had only been able to provide 
general answers. Her delegation would welcome finding a mutually satisfactory solution as soon as 
possible.  
22.3.   The representative of the European Union  indicated that her delegation maintained serious 
concerns in relation to the GCC "Treaty on Excise Tax " of December  2016. These concerns had been 
voiced in the Council for Trade in Goods, the Market Access Committee, and in bilateral contacts 
with the GCC  countries. Her delegation welcomed the expansion of the tax base to include other 
sweetened beverages by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates with a view not 
to discriminate against soft drinks containing sugar. However, the EU remaine d concerned that the 
GCC countries had not decreased the tax for energy drinks from 100% to 50% in order not to 
discriminate between energy drinks and other sugary drinks. The EU did acknowledge the recent 
positive steps that had been taken by the GCC  countries to revise the excise tax, switching from an 
ad valorem  tax to a specific tax based on content, which was in line with international best practices 
linking the amount of tax to a product 's actual sugar content. However, as the implementation of 
this tax might vary between GCC  jurisdictions, the EU strongly encouraged the GCC to engage with 
private industry stakeholders on the process for revising the tax, as well as to provide immediate 
relief for industry until the revision had taken effect, by exempt ing 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. Her delegation also wished to acknowledge recent 
positive steps that had been taken by  Saudi Arabia to suspend requirements for a D TS on beverages. 
The EU welcomed its commitment to work with private industry stakeholders to address the concerns 
which had been raised regarding such a system, including the discriminatory effect on carbonated  
soft drinks, malt beverages, and energy and sports drinks. Her delegation looked forward to 
confirmation that less trade restrictive, less costly , and more effective measures would be used to 
ensure proper payment of the relevant taxes. Finally, she wishe d to recall that, with the exception 
of the Kingdom of Saudi  Arabia and the UAE, her delegation was still waiting for written replies from G/MA/M/72  
 
- 42 - 
 
  the GCC  countries to letters which had been sent by the EU  Trade Commissioner to their ministers 
in the Spring of 201 9. 
22.4.   The representative of the United States  noted that her delegation's concerns remained as had 
been stated in previous meetings of this Committee and the CTG. Unfortunately, those concerns had 
yet to be addressed. She asked when her delegation could expec t to receive responses that would 
address these concerns and when the information that had been requested would be provided.  
22.5.   The representative of Japan  indicated that, despite the expressions of concern which had been 
expressed by several Members, this is sue had yet to be resolved. His delegation continued to have 
concerns , especially in the context of the UAE, where a high tax rate was being imposed on some 
Japanese carbonated soft drinks due to their classification as energy drinks, which was based not 
only on the drinks ' ingredients, but also on the marketing and merchandizing methods that had been 
used. In terms of the sugar tax, his delegation recognized that, since December  2019, some 
GCC countries had introduced a 50% tax on all drinks containing sug ar or sweeteners. In a context 
where there were different theories on the relationship between various sweeteners and health, 
Japan requested to receive information on the reasons for deciding this tax rate. Last but not least, 
his delegation expected that  the excise tax would be implemented in a transparent and persuasive  
manner, and be based on objective grounds.  
22.6.   The representative of the Kingdom of Bahrain  noted that he was taking the floor as the focal 
point for the GCC  Excise Tax issue at the WTO. The GCC thanked the delegations that had taken the 
floor for their interest in this matter.  The GCC wished to refer Members to the previous statements 
under this agenda item which had been made at the CTG, and reiterated that the GCC was still in 
the process o f reviewing the legislation, which would take into account the comments that had been 
received from delegations. The GCC would endeavour to keep its trading partners updated on any 
developments regarding this legislation, and remained open to engage when n eeded.  
22.7.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
23  OTHER  BUSINESS  
23.1  Russia n Federation  – Import Restrictions on Refined Fuel Products – Statement by 
the European  Union  
23.1.   The Chairperson  recalled that this issue had been included under other business at the request 
of the European Union.  
23.2.   The representative of the European Union  indicated that, on 22  May 2020, Russia had very 
recently adopted Government Decision No.  732, according to which Russia had temporarily banned 
imports of certain refine d oil products. The provisions of this Government decision had affected the 
exports of several EU  member states to Russia, including those with investment s in the oil industry 
in Russia itself. The EU would like to enquire about the rationale for this meas ure. Her delegation 
wanted Russia to explain how it considered that the measure complied with WTO rules, notably with 
Article  XI of the GATT. Since Russia was a major exporter of oil and oil products, the EU asked Russia 
to clarify the reasoning behind thi s decision. As Russia had not yet notified the measure to the WTO, 
the European Union asked Russia to indicate when it intended to notify this decision. Considering 
that this issue had been raised under other business, her delegation recogni zed that the Ru ssian 
delegation might  not be in a position to respond at the meeting. However, the EU would welcome 
Russia's  follow -up bilaterally after this meeting.  
23.3.   The representative of the Russian Federation  thanked the European Union for their interest in 
Russia's p olicy and wished to inform the EU that the measure was temporary, as it would expire on 
1 October  2020.  
23.4.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
23.2  Turkey - Increase of Applied Duty Rates- Statement by Switzerland  
23.5.   The Chairperson  recalled that this issue had been included under other business at the request 
of Switzerland.  G/MA/M/72  
 
- 43 - 
 
  23.6.   The representative of Switzerland  noted that it had recently been brought to the attention of 
her delegation that Turkey had significantly increased its applied  rates on around 4 ,000 tariff lines. 
The increases had been announced in three  presidential decisions, namely, Presidential Decision 
No. 2424 of 17  April 2020, Decision No.  2430 of 20  April 2020, and Decision No.  2524 of 
11 May 2020. Switzerland wished to seek clarifications regarding these increases in applied rates , 
especially  given that  they were quite significant. Her delegation asked Turkey to explain, for 
example, the criteria that had been used to determine the tariff lines that had been affected by the 
increase; whether all the tariff rates, including MFN and preferential duties, would be affected by the 
increase; whether Turkey would notify these changes to the WTO; for how long these increased 
rates would apply ; and how Turkey would ensure that the se increased tariffs remained within the 
framework of its WTO  commitments , as set out in its Schedule of concessions. Switzerland looked 
forward to continuing this dialogue to clarify the situation and to come to a better understanding of 
the impact of Turkey's measure.  Considering that this issue had been raised under other business, 
Switzerland  recogni zed that Turkey  might  not be in a position to respond at the meeting.  
23.7.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  echoed Switzerland's statement. Her delegation ha d 
systemic  concerns over Turkey's increases in applied tariffs, even if they appeared to be within its 
bound rates. Chinese Taipei hope d that Turkey would provide more detailed information.  
23.8.   The representative of the Russian Federation  shared the concerns w hich had been expressed 
by Switzerland. Her delegation knew that Turkey had applied additional duties on a wide range of 
products and that this measure had covered more than 3 ,000 tariff lines. Since the customs 
authorities of Turkey had collected the additional duties separately from the remaining import duties 
established in Turkey's custom tariffs, it appeared that they fell within the concept of "other duties 
and charges" within the meaning of the second  sentence of Article  II:1(b) of the GATT  1994.  The 
Russian Federation considered that the imposition of these other duties and charges  (ODCs)  was 
inconsistent with Turkey's WTO  tariff commitments. The Russian Federation urged Turkey to abolish 
these  additional duties and to bring the measure in to conformity with its WTO  commitments.  
23.9.   The representative of Turkey  thanked Switzerland, Chinese Taipei , and the Russian 
Federation,  for their interest in this subject. Turkey's commitments in its Schedule of concessions, 
Schedule  XXXVII, included bound rates wh ich set the upper limits on the tariffs that could be 
imposed on the relevant products. In line with its Schedule of concessions, and in accordance with 
its commitments enshrined in Article  II of the GATT, all the tariff rates that were being applied by 
Turkey were within the limits of Turkey' s bound rates at the WTO. The new customs tariffs, which 
had been introduced considering the global market conditions, had also taken into account the scope 
of Turkey' s obligations stemming from Articles  II and XXIV of  the GATT. Accordingly, preferential 
tariff regimes had been maintained. Turkey would also like to recall that, during the 
COVID -19 outbreak, Turkey had not only increased some customs tariffs, but it had also lowered or 
eliminated several others in certai n products. While doing so, Turkey had published all the new 
customs duties in the Official Gazette. Moreover, necessary provisional arrangements had been 
made to avert any negative impact on ongoing transactions. Furthermore, Turkey had notified its 
applied tariff rates annually to the Integrated Database and had regularly updated that data through 
diverse channels, such as the information shared with the Trade Policy Review Division, and trade 
remedy notifications or notifications foreseen by the T FA. Tur key's recent TFA  transparency 
notification, which had included new information sources related to customs, had already been 
submitted to the WTO and would soon be released. She also noted that Turkey had been in close 
contact with the Market Access Committ ee to keep its website with tariff information updated at all 
times. In fact, the last update of the links for Turkey' s websites with tariff rates had been sent to 
the Secretariat on 28  April 2020.  
23.10.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
23.3  Dates of t he next meetings  
23.11.   The Chairperson  asked the Committee to take note of the following arrangements. The next 
HS Multilateral Review session would take place on 10  July 2020, which would include a review of 
the first  batch of HS2017  files listed in document  G/SECRET/HS17/1. A second  HS Multilateral 
Review session had been provisionally scheduled for 7  October  2020, and would include the 
second  batch of H2017  files listed in document  G/SECRET/HS17/2. The next formal meeting of the 
Committee had been provisionall y scheduled for 8  October  2020. Given the current situation, the G/MA/M/72  
 
- 44 - 
 
  specific arrangements for holding these meetings would be communicated closer to the date of each 
meeting.  
23.12.   The meeting was adjourned . 
__________