RESTRICTED  
  
G/IT/M/63  
 
10 March 2016  
(16-1417)  Page: 1/10  
Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in 
Information Technology Products    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 14 OCTOBER 2015 
CHAIRMAN: MR ANDREW STAINES (UNITED KINGDOM) 
INTRODUCTION 
The Committee adopted the proposed agenda for the meeting circulated in 
document WTO/AIR/IT/2, dated 2 October 2015. An annotated agenda for the meeting was 
circulated in document JOB/IT/16, dated 5 October 2015. The Chairman stated that he would take up the issue of the date of the next meeting under "Other Business".  
INTRODUCTI ON ............................................................................................................... 1
 
1   REVIEW OF THE STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MINISTERIAL 
DECLARATION ON TRADE IN INFO RMATION TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS 
(G/IT/1/REV.53) ............................................................................................................. 1  
2   REVIEW OF PR ODUCT COVERAGE ................................................................................ 2  
3   NON-TARIFF MEASURES WO RK PROGRAMME (G/IT/28) ............................................ 3  
4   EMC/EMI PILOT PROJECT ............................................................................................ 7  
5   DIVERGENCES IN CLASSIFYING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS 
(G/IT/14/REV.1/ADD.1; G/IT/W/6/REV.3; G/IT/W/33; G/IT/W/34; G/IT/27; JOB/IT/12; AND G/IT/W/40, G/ITA/W/40/ADD.1-9, AND 
G/IT/W/40/SUPPL.1) ..................................................................................................... 8
 
5.1   Implementation of the Decision ................................................................................... 8  
5.2   Note by the Secretariat: Divergence of Classification: Possible HS2007 Classification 
for the Remaining 37 "Attachment B"  Items (document G/IT/W/40) ......................................... 8  
6   NEW PARTICIPANTS ................................................................................................. 10  
7   DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT (2015) OF THE COMMITTEE TO  THE COUNCIL FOR 
TRADE IN GOODS (G/IT/W/41) .................................................................................... 10  
8   OTHER BU SINESS ...................................................................................................... 10  
8.1   Date of next meeting ................................................................................................ 10 
 
1  REVIEW OF THE STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MINISTERIAL DECLARATION 
ON TRADE IN INFORMATION TECHNO LOGY PRODUCTS (G/IT/1/REV.53) 
1.1.  The Chairman informed Participants that an overview of the Status of Implementation of the 
Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information Technology Products could be found in 
document G/IT/1/Rev.54. As at the previous meetings, he flagged the following two issues: (1) the completion of domestic legal procedural requirements by El Salvador; and (2) the 
submission of the final ITA schedule of commitments by Morocco. 
1.2.  The representative of El Salvador stated  that there had been no update regarding the 
domestic legal procedural requirements and that she would continue to keep the Committee 
informed. G/IT/M/63 
 
- 2 - 
 
  1.3.  With respect to Morocco, the Chairman stated that Morocco had become a participant to the 
ITA on 14 November 2003. However, it had not yet submitted its final ITA schedule of 
commitments and, despite his predecessor's le tter to the delegation of Morocco, dated 
14 November 2011, and subsequent contacts with them, the Committee had still not received a 
formal response. As the delegation of Morocco was not present at the meeting, the Chairman 
proposed that he and the Secretariat contact the Moroccan delegation and revert to the matter at the Committee's next meeting. 
1.4.  On the question of certain recently joined  participants' ITA schedules of commitments that 
were pending rectification and modification, as required by the Decision of 26 March 1980 on Procedures for Modification and Rectification of Schedules of Tariff Concessions, the Chairman 
recalled that the Russian Federation had beco me an ITA Participant on 13 September 2013; 
however, the submission of the Russian Fede ration's ITA schedule of commitments to the 
Secretariat for such rectification and modification was still pending. He invited the delegation of the Russian Federation to report and update. 
1.5.  The representative of the Russian Federation  stated that her authorities would be submitting 
the Russian ITA Schedule for modification and rectification after the fulfilment of internal 
procedures, which were still under consideration in her capital. 
1.6.  The Chairman thanked the delegation of the Russian Federation and urged those Members 
that had not yet completed the procedures for the formal rectification and modification of 
schedules, as required by the Decision of 26 March 1980 on Procedures for Modification and 
Rectification of Schedules of Tariff Concessions, to  do so as soon as possible. He suggested that 
the Committee take note of the all the statements made. 
1.7.  It was so agreed. 
2  REVIEW OF PRODUCT COVERAGE 
2.1.  The Chairman recalled that, since the Commi ttee meeting of 15 May 2012, at the request of 
some delegations, "review of product coverage" had been reinstated as a regular item on the 
Committee's agenda. It offered an opportunity for the Committee to receive reports and updates 
from those participants who were engaged in consultations with regard to the review of product 
coverage pursuant to Paragraph 3 of the Annex to the ITA. He invited delegations to report on this matter. 
2.2.  The representative of the European Union reported that, in July 2015, and under its 
Chairmanship, the participants that had participated in the review of product coverage 
negotiations had been able to reach an agreement on ITA Expansion. All participants in the ITA Expansion negotiations had confirmed that th ey could accept the coverage agreed in July. 
Nevertheless, the participants to the ITA Expans ion Agreement were not a closed group. Their 
intention remained that the ITA Expansion Agreement should be open to all original ITA Participants, and therefore that all ITA Participants were welcome to join the ITA Expansion 
Agreement. 
2.3.  He highlighted the reasons why participants wa nted to join the expanded ITA. First, he went 
back to the reasons behind countries and economies wanting to join the original ITA, which was that they wanted the tariffs on high tech goods to be cut to zero among participating countries and 
economies, and to increase exports by opening tariff-free markets abroad. But the original ITA, 
very importantly, was not only about exports. This  was not a mercantilist type of agreement. What 
was very important was that the elimination of tariffs allowed countries and economies to import 
cheaply the hardware necessary to develop an IT sector, and that countries and economies 
thereby attracted investment from companies who wanted to have some guarantees that they could import components for their production. By developing the IT sector, countries and 
economies could create highly skilled jobs for qu alified young people and achieve positive spinoff 
effects for their domestic industry by expanding IT systems more widely. 
2.4.  He went further by emphasizing that industry could become more efficient overall thanks to 
its use of IT. It was important to give consumers the best value for money, and countries and G/IT/M/63 
 
- 3 - 
 
  economies wanted their industry to become part of international supply lines, product cycles, and 
the often mentioned global value chains. 
2.5.  The question was therefore whether a count ry or economy could really achieve those goals 
by applying only the old ITA, whose coverage was outdated as it had not been reviewed over the 
past 15 years, when the IT industry had developed, and its products were now totally different to 
those produced 15 years ago. 
2.6.  In the new product coverage for the expand ed ITA, key new areas were covered, including 
more advanced semi-conductors and microchips, IT-related machine tools, manufacturing 
industry, components essential for modern IT manufacturing, medical equipment and advanced measuring instruments, digital media, and sophisticated software. Participation in the updated and expanded ITA would become necessary to convince industry to invest in a country and economy. 
2.7.  He invited other WTO Members to think about the systemic benefits of the newly and 
successfully concluded ITA Expansion Agreement, which would take place in Nairobi. He encouraged all original ITA Participants to join the ITA Expansion Agreement. 
2.8.  The representative of Japan echoed the EU's comments. She said that her delegation was 
a l s o  v e r y  h a p p y  a t  t h e  c o n c l u s i o n  i n  J u l y  o f  a  p r o d u c t  c o v e r a g e  a g r e e m e n t .  I n  a d d i t i o n ,  h e r  
delegation would also be happy if other original ITA participants were to join the new 
ITA Expansion Agreement. 
2.9.  Given Japan's current chairmanship of the ongoing negotiations, she also reported on the 
recent meetings of the Group. First, the Expansion Participants had a meeting, from 29 September to 1 October, where they began to discuss staging issues and technical aspects of 
the draft schedules. Many Members emphasized the importance of respecting the time frame 
outlined in the Declaration (namely, document WT/L/956), which gave 30 October as the deadline 
for the submission of a draft schedule, and 4 Dece mber as the deadline for the completion of the 
review and approval of draft schedules. Second, the Group had also had a meeting that morning 
for stocktaking and information-sharing purposes. 
2.10.  The representative of the United States stated that her delegation was also incredibly 
pleased with the successful outcome of the negotiations on product coverage for an ITA Expansion 
in July. In her view, this was a very importan t achievement. She echoed the comments of the 
European Union, and agreed that it would be a ve ry beneficial agreement to all WTO Members, and 
particularly Members of this Committee. She en couraged Members of the ITA Committee who had 
not yet joined the ITA Expansion to consider seriously doing so prior to MC10. For her own 
delegation, and for those already part of it, this new Agreement was being considered as a very important deliverable for MC10. 
2.11.  The Chairman thanked the delegations that  had made interventions, suggested that the 
Committee take note of the statements made, and agre e to revert to this matter as appropriate at 
its next meeting. 
2.12.  It was so agreed. 
3  NON-TARIFF MEASURES WO RK PROGRAMME (G/IT/28) 
3.1.  The Chairman recalled that, at the Committee meeting on 14 October 2013, agreement was 
reached on the Swiss proposal to organize an industry-driven workshop dedicated to non-tariff 
barriers affecting trade in ICT products. The wo rkshop took place on 7 May 2015, and the main 
issues that were raised at the workshop by indu stry representatives were: transparency, standards 
for recognition of test results, e-labelling, and energy efficiency. A factual report by his 
predecessor was circulated following that meeting in document G/IT/28. In his view, it was a good 
and very detailed report. 
3.2.  He further recalled that at the Committee meeting on 8 May he was asked to consult 
informally with interested delegations on the fo llow-up to the ITA NTB workshop, with a view to 
examining the recommendations and avenues that we re suggested by industry representatives at 
the NTB workshop and to report back to the Committee at this meeting. G/IT/M/63 
 
- 4 - 
 
  3.3.  On 1 September 2015, he sent a fax to all the delegations and informed them that he 
intended to convene informal discussions with in terested delegations during the week commencing 
28 September 2015. In that fax, he posed the following questions: How might the follow-up 
discussion be structured? Should the Committee focus on one or two "easier" issues? What are 
your priority issues? And do you have any ideas on how the Committee might address these 
issues? 
3.4.  He reported that he had had an opportunity to hold informal discussions with 
three delegations, and had received written answers to his questions from one further delegation. 
Among the delegations to which he had spoken, and from the delegation that had provided a 
written response, emphasis was placed on the importance of transparency and standards for recognition of test results, with some interest in also exploring e-labelling and energy efficiency. 
Conformity assessment procedures were also highlighted, and would be covered under the 
following agenda item. 
3.5.  Before offering the floor for an open discussion, he emphasized that his door was always 
open to delegations wishing to discuss any issues affecting NTBs involving trade in the ICT sector. 
3.6.  He then invited any reports or updates by participants concerning their own work on NTMs, 
including any efforts undertaken in the context of bilateral or plurilateral consultations. 
3.7.  He said that, in spite of it being a busy pe riod, he would be very interested to receive further 
responses to the questions that he had posed in his fax last month. 
3.8.  The representative of the European Unio n thanked the Chairman for having conducted the 
consultations and for his report. Further to those consultations, he reaffirmed his delegation's 
commitment to engage in the preparation of an u pgraded work programme on non-tariff barriers. 
He thought it was very clear from the workshop in May that there was a lot of material on which to work, such as regulatory divergence. In addition, there were other issues, like transparency which, 
in spite of agreements like the TBT Agreement,  still could be improved. He did think that 
information technology could be the pioneer in an improvement in this area in particular. 
3.9.  He supported the preparation of an upgr aded work programme. He thought that the steps 
should focus upon identifying those issues which corresponded to the criteria. In his view, firstly, it 
should provide value to citizens, to industry, to traders. Secondly, it should be realistic. The issues were not overly controversial. In sum, the Chai rman had mentioned a number of issues and, as a 
result of the consultations, his delegation considered these to be a good point from which to start. 
3.10.  He also announced that they had receiv ed a preliminary submission from three large 
industry associations, namely Digital Europe, USIT I, and JAITA, and that, with the permission of 
the Chairman, this paper could be distributed af ter the meeting. He informed the Committee about 
some of the issues proposed by industry, includin g an increase in transparency rules, convergence 
on conformity assessment, and work on e-labellin g. In his view, the consultations could give the 
Committee a positive basi s for its future work. 
3.11.  The representative of Switzerland thanke d the Chairman for the workshop held in May, 
noting that it had made abundantly clear that NTBs nowadays mattered actually much more than 
tariffs for trade in ICT products. And the message was also clear that Participants needed to act in order to ensure that market access resulting from trade liberalization was not hampered by NTBs. 
The workshop was ambitious in its conclusions. He considered that the conclusions helped to 
identify areas of work where the Committee could add value. He believed that the areas mentioned by the Chairman in his consultations were a good starting point for the Participants to 
continue their work and hopefully surpass the past achievements of the Committee in the field of 
NTBs. He encouraged the Chairman to co ntinue his consultations with Members. 
3.12.  The representative of Chinese Taipei a ppreciated the factual report prepared by the 
Chairman. In his view, the report highlighted several issues and recommended possible solutions. 
His delegation was willing to collaborate with all Participants to eliminate NTBs and to promote free trade in ICT products. G/IT/M/63 
 
- 5 - 
 
  3.13.  The representative of India recalled his de legation's statement at the previous meeting of 
the Committee, in which it had reserved its position on a possible way forward with regard to the 
NTB work program, in particular in light of the industry-driven NTB workshop. He stated that India 
was not a "demandeur" for legislating further rules on NTBs. However, India would like to engage 
constructively if the work was initiated and guided by the ITA mandate. He flagged two important 
issues: (1) any possible work on ITA NTBs should be  a proponent-driven process, and it should be 
based on proposals coming from the proponents; and (2) the Committee, particularly the potential 
proponents, should keep in mind the administrative constraints of developing countries in 
complying with onerous rules. In this context, he emphasized that there should be effective special and differential treatment provisions in line with the constraints faced by such countries. 
3.14.  The representative of the Philippines than ked the Chairman for reminding the Participants 
about the consultations, and for keeping his doors open for that. She regretted that her delegation 
had been unable to participate in that first round of consultations. She stated that NTBs were very close to the Philippines' heart, not as a promoter  of NTBs, but as something that they should do 
less. 
3.15.  She thanked Switzerland for reminding her delegation of what had happened in May, and 
reported that the Philippines were one of the speakers during that workshop. As reflected in the 
report, there was a call from industry to have one global certificate, one global standard, and one 
global test for ICT products. She thought that one thing that the Committee could strive for in the follow-up to the workshop was to think about concrete activities that could lead to that; this was something that industry was calling for and something that would benefit all industries, be they 
multinational companies or small and medium-sized enterprises which formed part of the global 
value chains supplying electronics to the ICT industry. 
3.16.  The representative of the United States believed that it was important that the market 
access issues discussed in the ITA Committee were relevant to and reflected the interests of the 
global ICT industry. She said that the Committee had heard many expressions of interest from industry at the May workshop. And it was therefore important that the IT NTB work programme be 
focused on outcomes that would have clear commercial benefits and strong industry support. 
3.17.  On the specific issues that were mentioned in the Chairman's report on the workshop, she 
believed that e-labelling was a particularly good candidate for further work in the ITA NTB work programme. In this regard, she noted that regula tors in several ITA participants had already 
embraced or were actively pursuing e-labelling for ICT devices, including Australia, Canada, China, 
Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, and South Africa, in a ddition to the United States. She said that the 
United States strongly supported efforts to increase the use of e-labelling, and encouraged other 
ITA participants to consider flexible labelling methods that would reduce the burden for 
ICT companies to comply with conformity labelling requirements. 
3.18.  With respect to other issues discussed in  the workshop and mentioned in the Chairman's 
report, she noted that some were already bein g discussed at length in this Committee and 
elsewhere, and that the issues generated a degree of controversy. She thought that ITA Participants would need to be involved in any further discussion as to which direction that work should take. Her delegation would also need to consult further with its industry. 
3.19.  The representative of Japan stated that Japan was interested in NTB issues. As for the 
process, he thought that ITA Participants needed to be realistic. Many issues had been raised at 
the workshop and, as previously stated by the EU, ITA Participants needed in particular to look at 
the recent views of the global industry. 
3.20.  The representative of Peru stated that, based on her delegation's responses already sent in 
writing to the Chair, Peru believed that all aspects and matters reflected in the Chairman's report 
on the 7 May workshop were relevant and nece ssary for the NTB work programme. She agreed 
with the EU that the Committee should focus on those aspects where agreement could most easily be reached. 
3.21.  The representative of China thanked the Chairman for his consultations on NTB issues. 
China recognized the importance of the NTB issue but felt that, since the ITA expansion 
negotiation had not finished, Participants needed to focus on a discussion of staging. For this G/IT/M/63 
 
- 6 - 
 
  reason, China considered that the timing was not good for a discussion of NTB issues. She also 
recalled that, in NAMA negotiations, the view had been expressed that the NTB issue should be discussed together with tariffs, and that there was no convergence as to how to carry forward the NTB issue. She thought that the Committee should wait to see how the NTB issue were dealt with 
in NAMA. 
3.22.  The representative of Korea appreciated the Chair's report on his consultation and 
recognized the importance of effectively addressing trade restrictions caused by NTBs in the 
ICT sector. Korea also gave its support to the idea that an ICT NTB work programme should be 
discussed and developed in this Committee. While acknowledging the importance of IT NTB issues, 
Korea felt nevertheless that the Committee should turn to the NTB issues only after completion of the ITA Expansion negotiations. He also felt that a large part of IT NTBs overlapped with TBT. He 
said that, in order to avoid duplication, a clear picture was needed as to what were the specific 
issues with regard to IT NTBs, and how these could best be handled under this Committee. 
3.23.  The representative of Australia echoed Switzerland and supported the work that had been 
done by this Committee on NTBs. He felt that NTBs would eventually play a more prominent role 
than tariffs. Therefore, the Committee needed to consider NTBs as a priority issue, moving forward, in order to provide a better platform to allow industry to benefit from greater trading 
opportunities. 
3.24.  The representative of Singapore supported the NTB work programme and agreed that the 
Committee should focus on those aspects upon which agreement could be reached most easily. 
She suggested that it would be useful to look into recent trends, including further work on energy 
efficiency and e-labelling. 
3.25.  The representative of Egypt supported the discussion relating to NTBs and emphasized 
two points. First, he felt that priority should be given to removing or totally eliminating all NTBs 
affecting exporters from developing countries and LDCs, which would be compatible with the DDA 
in general, and especially paragraph 16. Second, he believed that NAMA negotiations were totally different from the negotiations of  ITA NTBs, because NAMA negotiations were multilateral, whereas 
negotiations under the ITA were plurilateral. In his view, under NAMA there were proposals on how 
to treat or discuss all NTBs, while under ITA, the discussion of NTBs was limited to the covered agreement. At this point his delegation prefe rred to wait and see how the NAMA negotiations 
developed, especially with regard to what  would be proposed for NTBs under NAMA. 
3.26.  The representative of Colombia echoed the view that the Committee should start by 
addressing the easiest subjects. In practical terms, there was a clearly expressed demand from 
the private sector, and areas highlighted where obtaining outcomes would be important. His 
delegation supported the idea of the Committee moving forward in any possible way. 
3.27.  The Chairman thanked those delegations th at had intervened. In his summary, he noted 
that some delegations had called for the Committee's work to be realistic. Some delegations had 
highlighted the potential benefits to SMEs, and some had highlighted the need to meet and to 
react to industry needs. However, he also noted that some delegations had expressed caution. It 
was a busy period, and Members were preparing for the Nairobi Ministerial in December. And there were several proposals on the table for the Minist erial Conference that connected to the work of 
this Committee. He had heard several delegation s mention the need to ensure that any work 
carried out should address the needs of developing and least developed countries. He had also heard one delegation mention the need for the Committee's work on NTBs to be proponent-driven. 
And he, as Chair, believed that this was absolutely the way forward. 
3.28.  Since he had not heard any delegation saying that the Committee should not carry on 
consulting and examining what it might do in this regard, he proposed to continue his 
consultations over the coming months. He suggested that. given how extremely busy many 
delegations would be in the run up to December, he would be cognizant of that, and so perhaps early next year might be the right time. He said that he was struck by the fact that more delegations had spoken today than had requested consultations. He encouraged delegations with 
views and questions to come and talk to him, to reach out to him and to share with him their 
views, whatever those might be, and regardless of whether they were with regard to process or to substance. G/IT/M/63 
 
- 7 - 
 
  3.29.  He suggested that the Committee take note of all the statements and comments made and 
agree that the Chair continue his consultations. Finally, the Chair proposed that the Committee revert to this matter as appropriate at its next meeting. 
3.30.  It was so agreed. 
4  EMC/EMI PILOT PROJECT 4.1.  The Chairman turned to the draft list of the types of conformity assessment procedures for 
EMC and EMI used by ITA Participants, and stated that the relevant documentation for this agenda 
item was included in document G/IT/W/17/Rev.13. 
4.2.  He recalled that one of the outcomes of the NTM Work Programme mentioned earlier was the 
completion of a pilot project that led to the adoption of the "Guidelines for Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) and Electromagnetic Interfer ence (EMI) Conformity Assessment Procedures" 
on an ad referendum  basis. Upon adoption of these "Guidelines", the Secretariat, based on the 
survey responses submitted by and notifications re ceived from participants, prepared a note on 
the "Draft List of Types of Conformity Assessment Procedures for EMC/EMI used by 
ITA Participants" (document G/IT/W/17). 
4.3.  He stated that, during subsequent proceedings of the Committee, Participants had indicated 
that they had found the information contained in the document to be very useful, and they wished 
to have it completed. To date, amongst the 53 ITA participants, 28 had provided such information. 
Nevertheless, there were still 25 participants who had neither submitted a survey response nor a notification regarding the types of assessment proc edures used by their authorities for EMC/EMI, 
including some of those that had joined more recently. 
4.4.  He felt that such information had increa sed transparency with regard to the types of 
conformity assessment procedures used by ITA Participants, and facilitated international trade in this important sector. He encouraged those 25 delegations that had not yet done so to provide the 
relevant information to the Secretariat as soon as possible so as to enable the Committee to 
complete its work. He requested that delegations with questions contact the Secretariat for more detailed information, clarification, or assistance. He also suggested that the Secretariat reach out 
to those delegations concerned, particularly Members that had joined the ITA more recently, with 
a view to offering technical assistance as necessary on the completion of those survey responses still outstanding. 
4.5.  He asked Participants to reflect on what st eps, if any, they would like to see taken with a 
view to maximizing the utility of the information on EMC/EMI conformity assessment procedures 
that had been or would soon be provided. 
4.6.  He invited Participants to share their comments and updates on the draft list, found in 
document G/IT/W/17/Rev.13. 
4.7.  The representative of Switzerland believed that this was an interesting pilot project and 
certainly one that enhanced transparency in this area. He also encouraged the 25 participants who 
had not yet submitted their information to do so at the earliest opportunity. He said that, as also 
mentioned by several delegations under the previous agenda item, it was very important to know what the NTBs faced by industry actually were. And he commented that this, potentially, could be one item for inclusion in the Chair's consultations with Members. 
4.8.  The Chairman thanked Switzerland and suggested the Committee take note of the 
statements made. 
4.9.  It was so agreed. G/IT/M/63 
 
- 8 - 
 
  5  DIVERGENCES IN CLASSIFYING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS 
(G/IT/14/REV.1/ADD.1; G/IT/W/6/REV.3 ; G/IT/W/33; G/IT/W/34; G/IT/27; 
JOB/IT/12; AND G/IT/W/40, G/ITA/W/ 40/ADD.1-9, AND G/IT/W/40/SUPPL.1) 
5.1.  The Chairman turned to the agenda item on  divergences in classifying information technology 
products, and indicated that, under this item, ther e were two sub-items: (i) the implementation of 
the Decision (document G/IT/27); and (ii) the Note by the Secretariat on this issue (document G/IT/W/40). 
5.1  Implementation of the Decision 
5.2.  He recalled that, on 20 July 2013, the Decision (document G/IT/27) regarding the 
endorsement of List IA items of document G/IT/W/6/Rev.3, or the so-called 18 items (as reproduced in document G/IT/W/34), was approved. As required by the Decision, each participant 
would reflect the agreed classifications in their WTO Schedule of concessions, as appropriate, and 
in accordance with the procedures set forth in the 1980 Decision on Procedures for Modification 
and Rectification of Schedules of Tariff Concessions (BISD 27S/25). Participants would then submit 
the relevant documentation in connection with such modification no later than 30 April 2014, as 
specified in the Decision. The WTO Secretariat would provide technical assistance in making such modifications to developing country participants upon request. 
5.3.  He said that, as mentioned at the Committee's previous meeting , the Secretariat had been 
approached with requests for technical assistance by five ITA participants, namely: Guatemala; the Philippines; Japan; El Salvador; and Macao, China. Of these, four were developing country participants. The technical work in the Secretariat with regard to these requests was ongoing. He 
also noted that this technical work was time-consuming and thus could be undertaken only on a 
gradual basis. During the first half of this year, the Secretariat had prepared a document of rectification and modification at the request of the delegation of Macao, China. More recently, the 
Secretariat had helped the Philippines in the preparation of a rectification and modification 
document concerning its endorsement of 6 of the 18 items (document G/MA/TAR/RS/421). 
5.4.  He also noted that, in anticipation of additional requests, the Secretariat had undertaken a 
preliminary analysis of the remaining developing country participants. He urged those participants 
to contact the Secretariat if they required technical assistance. 
5.5.  The representative of Switzerland thanked th e Secretariat for its work, both in compiling the 
document and for its outreach with delegations, and encouraged the Secretariat to continue its 
outreach activity, and for Participants to  take up this very generous offer. 
5.6.  The Chairman suggested that the Committee take note of the statements made. 
5.7.  It was so agreed. 
5.2  Note by the Secretariat: Divergence of Classification: Possible  HS2007 Classification 
for the Remaining 37 "Attachment B" Items (document G/IT/W/40) 
5.8.  The Chairman moved on to the Note by th e Secretariat on "Divergence of Classification: 
Possible HS2007 Classification for the Remaining 37 'Attachment B' Items", which was circulated 
as document G/IT/W/40 on 17 December 2014, and based on the Swiss proposal for a three-step procedure (document JOB/IT/12). 
5.9.  He highlighted to Participants that, at the Committee meeting of 31 October 2014, it was 
agreed that: "Participants are expected to submit a communication to the Secretariat no later than 
30 June 2015, indicating: (a) the items that, in the participant's opinion, should be classified differently from the HS2007 codes listed in column  8 of the Annex to this document; and (b) the 
relevant HS2007 subheading(s) that, in the participant's opinion, are relevant for the classification 
of the item in question." "The Secretariat will  compile communications received in a separate 
document. On that basis, Participants would then be expected to assess the next steps that could 
be taken to reduce any remaining divergence in classification." G/IT/M/63 
 
- 9 - 
 
  5.10.  He reported that, by 7 October 2015, the Secretariat had received comments from 
9 participants, namely: Norway (document G/ IT/W/40/Add.1); Chinese Taipei (document 
G/IT/W/40/Add.2); Switzerland (document G/IT/W/40/Add.3); the European Union (document G/IT/W/40/Add.4); Hong Kong, China (document G/IT/W/40/Add.5); China (document 
G/IT/W/40/Add.6); Japan (document G/IT/W/40/ Add.7); Canada (document G/IT/W/40/Add.8); 
and the United States (document G/IT/W/40/Add.9). A new submission by India had arrived on the day of the meeting and would shortly be circulated as a new addendum to 
document G/IT/W/40. 
5.11.  He stated that, based on the 9 submissi ons previously received, it appeared that no 
objection had been raised with respect to the proposed HS2007 classification of 15 ITA item numbers, namely: 129; 130; 133; 135; 138; 139; 143; 144; 150; 153; 154; 155; 157; 169; and 
191. It should be noted that most of these items related to HS2007 heading 8486 (machines and 
apparatus for the manufacture of semiconductor boules or wafers) and one item related to subheadings within HS2007 heading 8471 (automatic data-processing machines and units 
thereof). 
5.12.  He further stated that no objection had been raised with respect to the HS2007 codes of the 
following five ITA item numbers: 122; 137; 142; 168; and 194. However, Participants held 
differing views with respect to the relation of th ese items to other HS codes, as proposed in the 
"Secretariat's comments" column. Therefore, for the remaining 17 ITA item numbers, divergences among Participants appeared to persist. Document G/IT/W/40/Suppl.1 compiled all comments received. 
5.13.  He indicated that, as India's notification had only been received that day, the Secretariat 
had not been able as yet to go through it but th at, for the sake of completeness, the notification 
would of course be reviewed and then incorporat ed into the compilation document of all comments 
received. 
5.14.  The representative of India thanked the Secretariat for presenting a comprehensive paper in 
document G/IT/W/40, which indicated a number of possible classifications for the 37 ITA products. 
He stated that his capital, in inter-ministerial consultations, was examining this document with 
great interest. Meanwhile, his delegation that same day had forwarded to the Secretariat India's views on classification of the 15 items in ques tion. For the remaining items, his delegation 
intended to furnish further comments in the course of future discussion. 
5.15.  The representative of Switzerland than ked the Secretariat for compiling the answers 
received. He thanked India for its submission and looked forward to examining it. He said that his 
delegation would be interested in knowing how delegations perceived the way forward on this 
issue, if they had any views, and also, from th ose who had not submitted their answers, whether 
they were grappling with technical difficulties or whether they required further information or support. 
5.16.  The Chairman considered the comment from Switzerland to be pertinent. Based on 
submissions received, there was a certain degree of convergence with regard to at least some of 
the lines. He considered that certain delegations had not yet submitted their replies either because they were broadly in agreement with the classification, or because they had not yet been able to 
consult fully with capital, or because they required more support from the Secretariat with analysis 
and understanding of the proposals. 
5.17.  He felt that there was some agreement on some lines or, at least, that there was agreement 
on certain classifications from those delegations that had responded. So, in the interest of making 
progress where the Committee did agree, he suggested to re-circulate the document, indicating those lines where there appeared to be broad agreement, or where no participant had so far 
explicitly expressed disagreement. 
5.18.  He suggested that the Committee take note of all the statements made and revert to this 
sub-agenda item at its next meeting, subject t o  w h a t  i n  t h e  i n t e r i m  h e  w o u l d  h e a r  f r o m  
participants in terms of informal consultations. He said that his intention would be to revert back 
to this at the first meeting of the Committee in 2016 with a view to approving the classification of 
those lines to which no objection had thus far been raised. G/IT/M/63 
 
- 10 - 
 
  5.19.  It was so agreed. 
6  NEW PARTICIPANTS 
6.1.  The Chairman turned to the issue of ne w participants, and welcomed the Republic of 
Kazakhstan, which had become the 82nd Participant to the Committee on 27 July 2015. He stated 
that the Republic of Kazakhstan's ITA commitments would be implemented upon its accession to 
the WTO. He suggested that the Committee take note of his statement. 
6.2.  It was so agreed. 
7  DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT (2015) OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN 
GOODS (G/IT/W/41) 
7.1.  The Chairman noted that the Committee repo rts annually to the Council for Trade in Goods, 
and that a draft report had been prepared in document G/IT/W/41, which would be updated to 
reflect developments from the meeting. He turned  to the draft report and opened the floor for 
comments. 
7.2.  The draft annual report was approved wi th the proposed updates mentioned earlier and 
modifications, where appropriate, to reflect the discussion at this meeting. 
8  OTHER BUSINESS 8.1  Date of next meeting 
8.1.  The Chairman stated that, while normally the next ITA Committee meeting would take place 
in the spring, given various areas of ongoing work of relevance and interest to this Committee, in 
particular at or post-MC10 in Nairobi, there might be value in reconvening sooner. Consequently, he proposed that the exact date of the next Committee meeting be decided in consultation with 
delegations. 
8.2.  It was so agreed. 
__________