RESTRICTED  
  
G/TBT/M/75  
 
 
14 September 2018  
(18-5686) Page: 1/51 
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETI NG OF 20-21 JUNE  2018 
CHAIR PERSON : MS KATE SWAN (NEW ZE ALAND)  
Note by the Secretariat1 
1   ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  ................................ ................................ ........................  1 
2   ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON  ................................ ................................ ................  1 
3   STATEMENTS FROM MEMBERS UNDER ARTICL E 15.2 ................................ ...................  1 
4   SPECIFIC TRADE C ONCERNS (STCS)  ................................ ................................ ...........  2 
4.1   Reported resolutions  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 2 
4.2   Withdrawn concerns  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 2 
4.3   New concerns  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  2 
4.4   Previously raised concerns  ................................ ................................ ............................  6 
5   EIGHTH TRIENNIAL  REVIEW - CHAIR'S RE PORT AND NEXT STEPS  ...........................  46 
6   TECHNICAL ASSIST ANCE  ................................ ................................ ...........................  46 
7   OBSERVERS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  46 
7.1   ISO: ongoing revision of ISO/IEC Guide 59  ................................ ................................ ....46 
7.2   Updates from Observers  ................................ ................................ .............................. 48 
7.3   Pending Requests  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......48 
8   DATE OF NEXT MEE TING ................................ ................................ ............................  51 
 
1  ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA 
The Committee  adopted the agenda contained in WTO/AIR/TBT/ 11. 
2  ELECTION OF THE CHAI RPERSON  
The Committee  elected Ms Kate Swan (New Zealand ) as TBT Committee C hairperson for 
2018.  
3  STATEMENTS FROM MEMB ERS UNDER ARTICLE 15 .2  
3.1.  The Chairperson  reminded the Committee of Members' notification obligation under 
Article  15.2 of the TBT Agreement and further informed the Committee that the latest list of 
statements on implementation submitted under this provision was contained in an annex to the 
Annual Review of the Implementation and Operation of the TBT Agreement ( G/TBT/40 ), issued on 
                                                
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility  and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 2 - 
 
  12 March  2018. Information on the list of statements is available on the TBT Information 
Management System  (TBT IMS). 
The representative of The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu  
introduced the revision to their original statement  under Article 15.2 . She highlighted two areas of 
importance  to Chinese Taipei - transparency and  National Qu ality Infrastructure (NQI) . So as to 
enhance public participation in formulating government policy, an online public participation forum 
had been  put in place in 2015. NQI supported the implementation of the TBT Agreement. A well -
developed NQI gave regulat ors the confidence to  develop regulations that both achieved the 
legitimate objectives and addressed their implications to trade.  
4  SPECIFIC TRADE CONCE RNS (STCS)  
4.1  Reported resolutions  
There were no reported resolutions.  
4.2  Withdrawn concerns  
The Chairperson  reported that the following STC  had been withdrawn from the agenda at the 
request of the concerned Member:  
a. European Union — The harmonized standards and relevant conformity assessment 
procedure of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council.  
4.3  New concerns  
4.3.1   Brazil — Draft Technical Resolution n° 51, 7 April 2017 on labelling of beverages, 
wine, and grape derivatives , G/TBT/N/BRA /719 , G/TBT/N/BRA/719/Add.1  
The representative of the European Union  noted that Brazil had not yet replied to its 
comments on notification G/TBT/N/BRA/719 , which had been sent on 16 August 2017. She 
stressed the importance of clear and proportional requirements on labelling for European wine and 
spirits producers exporting to Brazil and asked for clarification of the relation of the draft to other 
regulations, including general rules on consumer protection and specific regulations on wine, which 
seemed to partly overlap; in the EU's opinion, this made the regulatory situation overly complex 
and less transparent.   
The EU noted that the draft provided for the mandatory indication of certain elements (e.g. 
denomination, commercial brand) on the main label, which would oblige economic operators to 
redesign the labels specifically for the Brazilian market. Brazil was requested to consider allowing 
all elements other than the trade mark to be shown on the back label, or to clarify whether specific 
wine and spirits regulations already provided for that exception. In addition, what was the 
rationale behind the provision t hat the product denomination must be written horizontally and with 
a minimum size, as well as the mandatory indication of the list of ingredients? In relation to the 
alcohol content, the EU asked Brazil to consider allowing the use of different expressions  for the 
alcohol content, in accordance with OIV standards.  
The EU invited Brazil to take into account its concerns during the preparations of the final 
resolution and to reply to its written comments; to report on the state of play of the adoption 
proced ure; and to apply to the greatest possible extent the international standards adopted by the 
OIV. 
The representative of Brazil  clarified that the process relating to this ordinance was still in 
progress and that it had been conducted in a very transparent manner, in accordance with the TBT 
Agreement. He said that in 2017, two public consultations had been conducted on this draft 
technical resolution, both of which had been notified as G/TBT/N/BRA/719  and 
G/TBT/N/BRA/719/Add.1 . Addressing the EU's request, h e reported that Brazil had extended the 
comment period of the second public consultation for an additional 37 days beyond the 60 days 
established at the draft. All comments from the EU were under analysis by the technical authorities 
of the Ministry of Agr iculture of Brazil.  G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 3 - 
 
  4.3.2   India — Testing and c ertification of telegraph (The Indian telegraph (Amendment) 
Rules, 2017) , G/TBT/N/IND/66  
The representative of the United States  raised concerns regarding India's scheme for testing 
and certification of telecom equipment. The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/540 . 
The representative of India said that the scheme of Testing and Certification of Telegraph 
(The Indian Telegraph (Amendment) Rules, 2017), notified as G/TBT/N/IND/66 , was intended to 
ensure  user safety and security of the network . He underlined that the scheme was non -
discriminatory with respect to Original Equipment Manufacturers as it did  not restrict testing to 
Conform ity Assessment Bodies (CAB s) located in India (Telecom Engineering Center  (TEC) -
designated labs ) but also allow ed testing fr om internationally recognized CAB s located in Mutual 
Recognition Agreement ( MRA) partner countries  worldwide . He inform ed that test results from 
ILAC-accredited labs would  be accepted  up to 31  March 2019, in order to offer flexibility in 
respo nse to  demand s from industry. Regarding t he concern  of possible overlapping certification 
requirements  for a few products under the Compulsory Registration Order and under t he Indian 
Telegraph (Amendment) Rules 2017, India reported that the issue was being  examined and would  
be settled prior to implementation of the scheme , assuring that industry would not be subjected to 
duplicate testing.  
4.3.3   United States – TSA c ertification on security screening equipment  
The representative of China  expressed concern that ever since 2014, Chinese companies 
which applied for TSA certifi cation on civil aviation security screening equipment ha d been treated 
unequally compared to  US domestic companies or those in other Members . Her delegation 
considered that t he TSA ha d applied  the certification process in an unpredictable and unclear 
manner, creating  a trade obstacle to Chinese exporters.  She said that i n the process of 
certification, TSA ha d failed to inform Chinese companies of the deficiencies and results in a 
precise and co mplete manner , as required by Article 5.2.2 of the TBT Agreement,  and Chinese 
companies ha d no chance to make corrections.  
Secondly, as no relevant guide or recommendation had been issued by an international 
standardizing body and as this conformity asses sment procedure ha d a significant eff ect on trade 
of other M embers, China hope d that the US would make prior notification of  the TSA certification 
measure to the TBT Committee and allow M embers to make comments.  Thirdly, according to 
Article 5.1.2 , conformity assessment procedures should not be prepared, adopted or applied with a 
view to or with the effect of creating unnecessary ob stacles to international trade; however, in 
China's view, TSA certification was undertaken in an unpredictable, unclear  manner, h aving 
negative impacts on China' s exports and creating unnecessary obstacle s to international trade.  
China hoped  that the US would follow  the relevant rules in the TBT Agreement, notifying  this 
certification, treating Chinese companies and produc ts equally to domestic or other Member s' 
companies and products, and not creating unnecessary obstacles to trade.  
The representative of the United States  said that China's concerns, also raised bilaterally, 
would be relayed to TSA. She stated that the TSA Security Screening Equipment Certification 
related to procurement of security screening devices by TSA and therefore was not a matter for 
discussion under the TBT Agreement.  
4.3.4   United States - Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Compressors , G/TBT/N/USA/1132 , G/TBT/N/USA/1132/Add.2   
The representative of China  appreciated efforts made by the US in energy -saving, but was 
concerned that some of the requirements prescribed in the regulation were inconsistent with 
relevant ISO standards and greatly impacted Chinese exports. China had submitted comments to 
the US on the regulation in 2016 but had received no response. Her delegation requested a 
scientific explanation for the methods of classification and energy -efficiency descriptions used  for 
air compressors. China also sought clarification of its concerns on technical content in order to 
avoid unnecessary obstacles to trade.  
 The representative of the United States  said that beyond the brief technical comments 
submitted on 8 August 2016, this was the first time China had expressed concerns on this G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 4 - 
 
  measure in the WTO, as well as bilaterally that morning. She reported that the US Department of 
Energy (DOE) had responded to all substantive comments received in the US federal register upon 
announcement of the final rule. The US had notified the measure as G/TBT/N/USA/1132  on 20 May 
2016, followed by addenda thereto on 23 June 2016 and 18 November 2016. The rule had been 
finalized on 16 December 2016 and the effective date of the test procedure regulations had been 
delayed until 3 July 2017. Her delegation would convey the remaining concerns to the DOE.  
4.3.5   Indonesia — Regulation of the Chairman of NADFC RI No.14 of 2016 on The Safety 
and Quality Standard of Alcoholic Beverages , G/TBT/N/IDN/110  
The r epresentative of Mexico  raised concerns on the regulation, notified on 31 August 2016 
in document G/TBT/N/IDN/110 , establishing the safety and quality criteria, and the labelling and 
advertising requirements for domestically produced and imported alcoholic  beverages distributed 
in Indonesia. She said that according to safety standards in the regulation, the maximum 
methanol content in alcoholic beverages should not exceed 0.01% of the volume of the product. 
The regulation also included a definition of tequi la and recognized the regulations applicable to this 
product, as well as its physico -chemical parameters. Her delegation was therefore concerned about 
the uncertainty and lack of clarity with regard to whether the regulation's maximum permitted 
level of me thanol in alcoholic beverages applied to Mexican tequila, as the provisions of the 
regulations applicable to tequila allowed for higher maximum methanol levels.  
Furthermore, the regulation included provisions prohibiting any type of advertising in any 
media, thus restricting advertisements, and displays of alcoholic beverages at authorized points of 
sale. Her delegation was concerned that this provision could infringe Article 2.2 of the TBT 
Agreement of the WTO, as it indirectly affected the advertising an d marketing of this type of 
product in Indonesia and created unnecessary barriers to trade.  
In light of the above, Mexico requested Indonesia to: (i) clarify whether the maximum 
permitted level of methanol established in the r egulation also applied to tequ ila; and (ii) explain 
the logic behind the implementation of restrictive measures on the advertising of alcoholic 
beverages.  
 The representative of Indonesia  thanked Mexico for their bilateral meeting held the 
previous day. His delegation would consult wit h relevant authorities in Indonesia on Mexico's 
calculation of alcohol levels and revert with a more detailed explanation in a future meeting. 
Regarding limiting publicity for alcoholic beverages, it was his delegation's understanding that the 
regulation h ad been created as one of the tools to support public morals in Indonesia, currently 
home to the largest Muslim population. He confirmed that limitation of publicity applied to alcoholic 
beverages regardless of their origin.  
4.3.6   Colombia — Technical Regulation  applicable to zinc -carbon and alkaline cells and 
batteries imported i nto or manufactured in Colombia, G/TBT/N/COL/228 , 
G/TBT/N/COL/228/Add.1  
 The representative of Mexico  noted that it had not submitted comments during the public 
consultation period for t his draft regulation, notified on 13 September 2017 as G/TBT/N/COL/228 , 
as it had not identified any sensitive issues that might affect Mexican industry. However, the final 
regulation i ssued through Resolution No. 721 on 16 April 2018 (notified in 
G/TBT/N/COL/228/Add.1 ), expected to enter into force nine months after publication, contained 
provisions which indirectly affected Mexican industry, in particular the toy industry, absent from 
the draft regulation initially notified in 2017. She said that Mexico's concern related to the last 
paragraph of Article 3 of the resolution, which stipulated that not only must such ba tteries and 
cells be certified in order to comply with the regulation in question, but that they must also be 
removed from products. The Mexican toy industry used the "try me" system, enabling users to test 
products before purchasing them. She noted that i f batteries and cells had to be removed from 
battery -powered products, this system would cease to work.  
Mexico was of the understanding that Colombia was the only country to have such a 
requirement, meaning that it would no longer be possible for the toy i ndustry to carry out one type 
of production process to meet regional requirements, thus forcing industry to establish a special 
production process for Colombia, and considerably increase costs. In light of Article 2.2 of the TBT G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 5 - 
 
  Agreement, Mexico considere d that this requirement would create an unnecessary barrier to trade, 
as the inclusion of batteries and cells in products (provided such batteries and cells were certi fied) 
would not be misleading and would not jeopardize human life, health, or safety, ani mal or plant 
health, or the environment.  
Furthermore, based on Article 2.9.2 of the TBT Agreement, although the draft regulation 
met the requirement concerning notification to the TBT Committee and providing a consultation 
period, it had not included, from  the outset, the provision on battery removal, indirectly impacting 
on all imported products that included such batteries and cells. While emphasizing that Mexican 
industry was in favour of the requested certification of batteries and cells, but was oppose d to their 
removal from imported products, Colombia was requested to consider revising its regulation to 
allow for battery -powered products to be imported together with batteries and cells, provided such 
batteries and cells were certified, as this did not affect the fulfilment of the legitimate objective 
stated by Colombia.  
The representative of the United States  expressed support  for Mexico's comments.  
 The representative of Colombia  expressed concern that Mexico had not informed 
Colombia's TBT contact poi nt that it would be raising this STC, as per common practice. She 
underlined that Colombia had notified the draft technical regulation on 13 September 2017 in 
document G/TBT/N/COL/228  with a comment period of 90 calendar days, thereby complying with 
Article 2.9.2 of the TBT Agreement and observing the principle of transparency. She did however 
note that Colombia had not received comments or observations from Mexico regarding the 
published draft, bearing in mind that the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and To urism had made 
the regulatory impact analysis for zinc carbon and alkaline cells and batteries publicly available on 
its website2 and that the draft technical regulation had also been submitted for public consultation 
nationally and internationally. As the  measure had already been adopted (the relevant 
administrative decision had been notified in document G/TBT/N/COL/228/Add.1 ) and would enter 
into force in January 2019, Mexico was invited to submit any comments to Colombia officially.  
4.3.7   Ecuador — RTE INEN 08 8 (1R) Surface tension agents, G/TBT/N/ECU/117/Rev.1  
The representative of Mexico  raised concerns about the draft Ecuadorian Standardization 
Institute Technical Regulation (RTE INEN) No. 088 (1R), "Surface tension agents" notified to the 
TBT Committee on 6  March 2018 in document G/TBT/N/ECU/117/Rev.1 , for which the public 
consultation process had ended on 27 May 2018.  The draft r egulation establishe d the requirements 
to be met by surface tension agents intended for use, with a view to protecting the environment 
and preventing practices likely to mislead end users.   
Her delegation was  concern ed that the draft technical r egulation only recognize d one te st 
method to demonstrate compliance with the biodegradability requirement and one method to 
determine the phosphate content, despite the international recognition of several methods to 
demonstrate the compliance of both requirements.  Concerning b iodegradab ility, the draft 
regulation only recognize d tests c arried out on the final product whereas i nternationally, both tests 
on the final product and tests on ingredients were recognized.  Mexico believed that b y recognizing 
tests on ingredients , it would be poss ible to eliminate tests on certain groups of ingredients the 
properties of which ha d been proven at international level  to be biodegradable, which would 
prevent both the duplication of tests and increased costs in the certification processes prior to 
expor tation. She explained that this type of "filter" had been  implemented in Mexican Standard 
NMX Q 901 CNCP 2016.  Concerning p hosphate content , the draft regulation also only allowed for 
one test method.  Mexico considered that by accepting only one of the man y internationally 
recognized methods in order to meet the aforementione d requirements, the draft r egulation may 
be creating a technical barrier to trade, as it appeared to violate  Articles 2.2 and 2.3 of the TBT 
Agreement, insofar as it establishe d require ments that may be more trade restrictive than 
necessary.  
Mexico was also concerned that the provision that conformity assessment tests must be 
conducted through an accredite d certification body in Ecuador could be in violation  of Article  5.1 of 
                                                
2 http://www.mincit.gov.co/minindustria/loader.php?lServicio=Publicaciones&id=31712  G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 6 - 
 
  the TBT Agr eement, as the draft regulation  impose d more restrictive conformity assessment 
processes for imported products.  
In light of the above, Ecuador was requested  to: (i) allow  for compliance with the 
biodegradability requirement to be demonstrated through the t wo internationally recognized test 
methods (tests on the final product and on surfactants) , thereby preventi ng the duplication of 
tests by exempting groups of surfactants that had proven to be b iodegradable from further tests; 
(ii) include all internationa lly recognized tests proven to demonstrate biodegradability and 
phosphate content, or provide a rational exp lanation for not including them; and (iii) a ccept 
declarations of conformity from providers and/or recognize tests conducted by foreign conformity 
assessment bodies . 
The representative of Ecuador  noted that whilst no comments had been received from 
Mexico before the deadline, comments by several other Members had been taken into account and 
would be implemented, such as the establishment of a biodegradability percentage that could go 
up to 70% repl acing the 90% notified; the establishment of an additional six -month period  for 
entry into force of the regulation; and related to one of the concerns expressed by Mexico, the 
inclusion of various testing methods to determine the content of phosphates and the level of 
biodegradability. Regarding the concern on conformity assessment bodies, her delegation would 
consult with capital. Ecuador remained available to continue to work bilaterally on this issue.  
4.3.8   Indonesia National Standard SNI 2973: 2011 and certi fication requirements for 
the import of biscuits , G/TBT/N/IDN/105 , G/TBT/N/IDN/105/Add.1  
The representative of Switzerland  expressed concern regarding the Indonesian National 
Standard SNI 2973: 2011 and certification requirements for the import of biscuits, as notified to 
the TBT Committee on 20 April 2016. Switzerland was concerned that should they be 
implemented, the prohib itive requirements would drive Swiss companies out of the Indonesian  
market as they exported quality products in small quantities. His delegation had submitted 
comments and questions in November 2017 and noted that an answer had only recently been 
provided  during th e meeting. He thanked Indonesia for this answer, confirming the postponement 
of the measure s, and asked Indonesia in addition  to provide an update on the regulatory 
development of these measures and confirm whether they would be implemented at a later stage 
or withdrawn. A timeline of the implementation of the requirements was also requested. 
Switzerland thanked Indonesia for bilateral exchanges held on this issue and looked forward to 
further cooperation and the additional clarifications as reque sted by Switzerland during the 
meeting . 
The representative of Indonesia  confirmed that the measure had already been postponed, 
as notified in G/TBT/N/IDN/105/Add.1 , date d 21 September 2016.  
4.4  Previously raised concerns  
4.4.1   India — Pneumatic tyres and tubes for automotive vehicles , G/TBT/N/IND/20 , 
G/TBT/N/IND/40  (IMS ID 1333) 
The representative of the European Union  reiterated previously raised concerns4 and asked 
India to engage in a dialogue to resolve the outstanding issues, i.e. the ISI marking fee and the 
USD 10,000 bank guarantee.  
The representative of India repeated the response  provided at the  previous Committee 
meeting5 regarding the amount of th e marking fee, the requirement of a bank guarantee and the 
Scheme for Testing & Inspections and expressed his willingness to discuss any outstanding issues 
with the Members concerned . 
                                                
3 For previous statements follow the thread und er IMS ID 133  (under dates raised and references) . 
4 G/TBT/M/74 , para . 2.52 and statement circulated in full in G/TBT/W/477 . 
5 G/TBT/M/74 , para . 2.54. G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 7 - 
 
  4.4.2   China — Provisions for the Administration of Cosmetics Application Accep tance , 
G/TBT/N/CHN/821  (IMS ID 2966) 
The representative of Japan  once again recalled China mentioning during previous meetings 
that the "Guidance for Application and Evaluation of New Cosmetic Ingredients" would be revised 
in accordance with the revision o f "Regulations concerning Hygiene Supervision over Cosmetics" . 
He noted that the regulation was  listed in the legislation plan for 2018  released by the State 
Council and the China Food and Drug Administration (CFDA).  China was asked to share details 
about the revision schedule and to provide a sufficient period of time prior to entry into force and 
sufficient time for public comments. Japan also reiterated previously raised concerns on 
examination, safety evaluation requirement and information disclosure.7 
The representative of the European Union  reiterated his delegation's request for an update 
on the status and planned adoption date of revisions to the Provisions for the Administration of 
Cosmetics Application Acceptance.  
The representative of Switzerland  supported the comments of Japan and the EU.  
The representative of China  said that it had offered detailed explanations on the concerns, 
most of which had already been raised in previous meetings. Since there were no updates, China 
invited interested Member s to refer to the minutes of previous meetings . 
4.4.3   India — New Telecommunications related Rules (Department of 
Telecommunications, No. 842 -725/2005 -VAS/Vol.III (3 December 2009); No. 10 -
15/2009 -AS-III/193 (18 March 2010); and Nos. 10 -15/2009 -AS.III/Vol.II/(Pt .)/(25 -
29) (28 July 2010); Department of Telecommunications, No. 10 -15/2009 -
AS.III/Vol.II/(Pt.)/(30) (28 July 2010) and accompanying template, "Security and 
Business Continuity Agreement") , G/TBT/N/IND/66  (IMS ID 2748) 
The representative of the European Un ion reiterated previously raised concerns .9 The full 
statement is contained in  G/TBT/W/553 . 
The representative of the United States  reiterated previously raised concerns .10 
The representative of Japan remained concerned with the Unified Access Service License 
Agreement,  request ing India to ensure that its telecom regulations did not impede market ac cess 
for foreign industries. Japan also reiterate d its request that the regulations be implemented in a  
transparent manner in terms of testing methods and certification requirements.  
The representative of Canada  continued to be concerned with India' s in-country security 
testing requirements and reiterate d previous ly raised  concerns .11 
The representative of India reiterated some of the points raised in previous meetings12 and 
provided inputs on India's notification  G/TBT/N/IND/66  submitted on 6 December 2017.   Telecom 
networks were a part of the critical infrastructure on which other critical infrastructures li ke power, 
transportation and defence relied on. He again clarified that India would rely on international 
standards to the extent possible.  For IT products, testing carried out against C ommon Criteria (CC) 
Process  under the Common Criteria Recognition Arra ngement (CCRA) would be leveraged.  
However, additional tests could be conducted, if required in the interests of the public and of 
national security. India recalled its earlier interventions mentioning that the CC process was based 
on and used for certifyi ng the claims of a vendor about the security features incorporated in the 
product without certifying that it had no vulnerabilities or backdoors. He specified that CC 
certification did not address national concerns on the security requirement of telecom ne tworks.  
                                                
6 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 296  (under dates raised and references) . 
7 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.57.  
8 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 274  (under dates raised and references) . 
9 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.60.  
10 G/TBT /M/74 , para. 2.62. 
11 G/TBT/M/70 , para. 2.68.  
12 G/TBT/M/70 , para. 2.64.  G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 8 - 
 
  
Concerning the in -country testing requirement and the security certification thereof, it was 
noted that these guidelines could not be treated as trade barriers in view of the fact that the 
guidelines were equally applicable to the manufacturers an d vendors irrespective of the source of 
procurement, including domestic manufacturers.  
India also noted that it had published its Mandatory Testing and Certification of 
Telecommunication Equipment (MTCTE) on 5 September 2017  contained in Notification No G .S.R. 
1131(E), which would enter into force on 1 October 2018. Meanwhile, it had also been notified in 
G/TBT/N/IND/66  on 6 December 2017. Under the scheme, all telecom equipment, whether 
imported or indigenously manufactured, was required to be tested and certified against Essential 
Requirements (ERs) notified by Telecom Engineering Centre (TEC). The ERs included EMI/EMC, 
safety, technical requirements, specific absorption rate (SAR) requirements and security 
requirements.  
He explained that the testing was carried out with the objective of ensuring that the radio 
frequency emissions from the equipment were within the limits, the equipment did not degrade the 
performance of the network to which it was connected, and that it complied with the relevant 
national  regulations. Quality and performance were not tested and certified under MTCTE. The ERs 
were based upon international standards with suitable modifications so that they were in 
compliance with Indian requirements and regulations. The testing of telecom pr oducts was to be 
carried out in Indian Accredited Labs designated by TEC, called designated CABs, or recognized 
CABs of MRA partner countries. TEC was required to issue certificates based on their test reports. 
A surveillance  mechanism  was also included in  the scheme. The d ates of entry into force of 
security testing of telecom products had been aligned and would take effect  from 1 October 2018.  
4.4.4   China — Requirements for information security products, including, inter alia, the 
Office of State Commercial Cry ptography Administration (OSCCA) 1999 Regulation on 
commercial encryption products and its on -going revision and the Multi -Level Protection 
Scheme (MLPS) ; China — Banking IT Equipment Security Regulation ; China — Insuran ce 
Regulatory Commission (CIRC) ; Information and Communication Technology Regulation , 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1172  (IMS IDs 294 , 457 and 48913) 
The European Union  reiterated previously raised concerns with respect to the above -
mentioned measures.14 The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/554 . 
The United States  supported the EU's statement refer red back to the ir own statement from 
the March 2018 Committee meeting .15  
The representative of Japan  support ed the statements of the EU and US. Japan  remained 
concern ed about the "Regulation on the Administration of Commercial Cipher Codes " and the 
"Multi-Level Protection Scheme (MLPS) ". At the previous meeting, China had explained that it 
would continue to revise the Regulations on Commercial Cryptogr aphy according to the Law on 
Cryptography after its promulgation, and that the regulations on the cybersecurity MLPS were 
being drafted to fulfil the requirements of the Cybersecurity Law. Japan request ed China to provide 
information regarding the revision  process of both regulations. In addition, Japan request ed China 
to notify the revision of these regulations to the WTO in order to provide Member s with 
opportunity for comment.  
The representative of Australia  supported  concerns expressed by other  Members  regarding 
the proposed Insurance Regulatory Commission and Information and Communication Technology 
Regulation , and referred to previous statements in this regard .16 He understood China's desire to 
protect ICT infrastructure, but Australia nevertheless  questioned whether the proposed measures 
were more trade restrictive than necessary.  Australia asked for more  information from China on 
the status of the regulations and whether they would be permanently withdrawn.  
                                                
13 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 294 , IMS ID 457  and IMS ID 489  (unde r 
dates raised and references) . 
14 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.65.  
15 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.66.  
16 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.68; G/TBT/M/73 , para . 2.22; G/TBT/M/72 , para. 3.75; G/TBT/M/71 , para. 
2.162; and G/TBT/M/71 , para. 2.175.  G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 9 - 
 
  
The representative of China  said that it was organizing the revision of the regulations on 
Commercial Cryptography to further reduce the administrative licenc es, and strengthen 
supervision in the whole process. The revision of the regulation on Commercial Cryptography was 
still being research ed. Afte r the promulgation of the Law on Cryptography of the People 's Republic 
of China, China would  continue to revise the regulation on Commercial Cryptography according to 
the Law on Cryptography, and release the regulation for public consultation at an appropriate 
time. 
Regarding the MLPS , the C ybersecurity Law stipulate d that China would  carry out the 
cybersecurity MLPS based on the experience of past years. To fulfil the requirements in 
Cybersecurity Law, the regulation on the cybersecurity MLPS was currently being  drafted; it would 
replace the former administrative measures on information security MLPS. When completed, the 
regulation would  be open for comments.  Regarding banking , the Guideline for Promoting the 
Application of Secure and Controllable In formation Technology in Banking Sector (2014 -2015) had 
been suspended in April 2015, and ha d already expired. China would  always abide by its WTO 
commitments and be open and transparent in drafting the measures for commercial banking 
information system.  On the issue of insurance , the CIRC 's regulation was still at the  drafting  
stage . It was stressed that during this whole process, China had been open, transparent, and ha d 
made notification s to the WTO. All the comments ha d been studied and evaluated  and, in  parallel, 
bilateral communication s and consultation had been conducted.  
4.4.5   Russian Federation — Draft Technical Regulation on Alcohol Drinks Safety 
(published on 24 October 2011), G/TBT/N/RUS/2  (IMS ID 33217) 
The representative of Ukraine  reiterated previously raised concerns18 and asked Russia to 
provide the Committee with a practical update on this regulation, including on any modifications 
made.  
The representative of the European Union  reiterated previously raised concerns19 and again 
requested Russia to notify the revised text to the TBT Committee, if the draft measure had been 
modified and included substantial changes.  
The representative of Guatemala  recalled Russia's statements at the November 2017 and 
March 2018 meetings20 that internal  work was underway within the Eurasian Economic Union to 
consider comments received on this technical regulation. Guatemala requested Russia to provide 
information on the current situation and asked whether there had been any progress in the 
discussions. A dditionally, Guatemala asked for a tentative date for the final version of th e draft. 
She asked whether the final version of the draft would  be notified to the WTO and when the 
measure would enter into force.  
The representative of the Russian Federation  repeated the response s provided at previous 
Committee  meetings 21 and said the board of the Eurasian Economic Commission may approve the 
draft technical regulation by the end of this summer. After the approval, the draft would  be 
published on the web site of the Commission. In addition, Russia offered to send the draft to 
interested WTO Members, and inform them of any further developments regarding the adoption of 
the technical regulation . 
                                                
17 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 332  (under dates raised and references).  
18 G/TBT/M/74  para. 2.72; G/TBT/M /73, para. 2.26;  G/TBT/M/72 , para. 3.81; and  G/TBT/M/71 , para. 
2.79. 
19 G/TBT/M/74  para. 2.73; and G/TBT/M/73  para. 2.27.  
20 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.75; and G/TBT/M/73 , para. 2.30.  
21 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.75; and G/TBT/M/73 , para. 2.30. G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 10 - 
 
  4.4.6   Republic of Korea — Regulation on Registration and Evaluation of Chemic al 
Material , G/TBT/N/KOR/305 , G/TBT/N/KOR/305/Add.1 , G/TBT/N/KOR/478 , 
G/TBT/N/KOR/547 , G/TBT/N/KOR/592 , G/TBT/N/KOR/700 , G/TBT/N/KOR/775  (IMS 
ID 30522) 
The representative of the United States  raised concerns regarding Korea's regulation on 
registration and evaluation of chemical material. The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/542 . 
The representative of the Republic of Korea  said t hat the new K -REACH amendment had 
been approved in the National Assembly and published on  20 March  and that it would enter into 
force on 1 January 2019. It was not possible to delay further the effective date of the amended K -
REACH. The draft enforcement d ecree and rules for implementation had been notified to the WTO 
under G/TBT/N/KOR/775  on 11 June 2018. Consequently, interested parties including foreign 
stakeholders could still submit any comments they had. Second, with regard to concerns on 
Confidential  Business Information (CBI), he invited the US to send detailed information on relevant 
cases in writing so that they could be delivered to the Ministry of Environment for a thorough 
investigation. Anonymous, simplified or modified information could be pro vided for their 
consideration in order to address concerns regarding exposure of companies. Lastly, all current 
acts were available in Korean through the website "The National Law Information Center ". Korea 
had also taken note of other comments, which woul d be conveyed to the relevant authorities. 
Korea expressed its readiness to communicate transparently with any interested parties, including 
the US, to resolve the concerns raised.  
4.4.7   Indonesia — Technical Guidelines for the Implementation of the Adoption and  
Supervision of Indonesian National Standards for Obligatory Toy Safety, 
G/TBT/N/IDN/64 , G/TBT/N/IDN/64  Add.1 -2 (IMS ID 32823) 
The representative of the European Union  reiterated previously raised concerns24 regarding 
the review of the Regulation of Minister  of Industry No. 55 revising Regulation of Minister of  
Industry No. 24, which concerned  the mandatory implementation of SNI  (Indonesia national 
standard) for Toys . With respect to the  separate ongoing revision/update of SNI  on toys, he 
recalled Indonesia's explanation at the previous  meeting that consensus among stakeholders had 
already been  reached at technical level and that the issue was now up for consultation at nat ional 
level through e -bulletin. The revised SNI would t hen become the basis for the revision  of the 
Ministerial Regulation. In addition, he expressed his delegation's hope that this  ongoing review 
would also remove  the different treatment  concerning testing requirements for imported and 
domestically produced t oys. Instead, he stated, t he system should provide for the same testing 
methods and the same validity of test reports for domestic products and for products imported 
from the same factory (currently six months validity).  
The representative of Japan  expres sed support for the position  of the EU. After noting that 
in previous meetings  Indonesia had explained that the draft Ministerial Regulation was still under 
review , he asked Indonesia to notify  the revised  measure promptly. He asked whether the 
proposed dr afts of these revisions were subject to public comment s under the Indonesian 
procedure. He also  requested Indonesia to provide , in accordance with TBT rules , sufficient time 
until the date of entry into force  of this measure, once adopted . 
He noted that si nce the end of April  2016, economic operators ha d not been able to use 
overseas laboratories , resulting in an increase in  testing costs and serious delays for  export s. 
Japan thus request ed Indonesia to revise its  laboratory accreditation requirement s for overseas 
laboratories and accept the testing results conducted by these laboratories.  As noted by the US 
delegation at the last meeting, it could ha ve been the case that some overseas laboratories were 
approved to conduct toy testing under agreement w ith LSPro. Japan ask ed Indonesia whether this 
was the case, and, if so, requested  Indonesia to officially announce the names of such 
laboratories.  Regarding testing frequency, Japan said that, while testing was imposed every six  
months  for domestic product s, for imported pr oducts it was on "each –and-every import shipment" . 
                                                
22 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 305 (under dates raised and references) . 
23 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 328  (under dates raised and references) . 
24 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.78  and statement circulated in full in G/TBT/W/482 . G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 11 - 
 
  Japan considered these different testing frequencies to be discriminatory and requested Indonesia 
to revise them.  
The representative of the United States  expressed her delegation's suppo rt for the 
comments from the EU and Japan.  
The representative of Indonesia  reported that  it was currently  in the process of revising 
national standards of toy safety based on international standards by the ISO. The balloting process 
had been  conducted in t he beginning of March 2018. The regulation revision process had started in 
June 2017 and several public consultations to capture stakeholders' concerns ha d taken place .  
4.4.8   European Union — Draft Implementing Regulations amending Regulation (EC) No. 
607/2009 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 
479/2008 as regards protected designations of origin and geographical indications, 
traditional terms, labelling and presentation of certain wine sector products , 
G/TBT/N/EEC/264 , G/TBT/N/EEC/264/Add.1 , G/TBT/N/EU/571  (IMS ID 34525) 
The representative of the United States  once again raised concerns with the EU's revisions 
to this draft regulation and the persistent failure by the EU to provide information on the pending 
applications for traditional terms. The US noted that while the EU had notified revised draft 
regulations on wine labelling, including geograph ical indications and traditional terms, it remain ed 
unclear whether and how these revisions were relate d to the delays in pending applications.  Could 
the EU confirm that the 11 pending  US applications for traditional terms would  continue to be 
governed by  existing regulations and not be subject t o these draft regulations when  finalized?  If 
this indeed was  the case, what was the reason for the ei ght-year delay in processing the 
applications ? The US was  reviewing the notified regulations and would submit co mments, but from 
an initial review  the revisions did  not appear to include  changes that would ensure that the current 
delays could not happen again. She again ask ed the EU to commit to expediting US applications 
and process  them in a transparent and timely  manner.  The US was also concerned about a lack of 
clarity in the revised draft regulations regarding  the kind of rules or legislation that the  
Commission would consider the " same or equivalent " as those pr ovided in EU m ember States. 
These factors could im pact the ability of producers to use certain words on their labels . She sought 
clarity from the Commission on this issue.  At the previous  TBT meeting the US had asked  the EU 
whether the Commission was  processin g applications from m ember States, specificall y France and 
Croatia, but not from trading partners.  She a gain ask ed the EU to confirm whether they were  
reviewing m ember State applications  and, if so, why these applications were being processed  but 
not others.  
The representative of Argentina  reiterate d its concern s regarding the EU's unjustified delay 
in resolving this specific trade concern, which Argentina and other Members ha d been raising for 
some ten years.  The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/549 . 
The representative of Brazil  reiterated previously raised concerns .26 
The representative of the European Union  said that the EU had underta ken an internal 
assessment on traditional terms with sta keholders and experts from the m ember States (i n 
accordance with Article 114(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 establishing a common 
organization of the markets in agricultural products). This was now part of the Draft Commission 
Implementing Regulation (EU) laying down rules for the application of Re gulation (EU) No 
1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council , recently notified in G/TBT/N/EU/571 .  
As the pending applications for traditional terms were still under consider ation, no precise timeline 
could  be provided.  
                                                
25 For previous statements fo llow the thread under IMS ID 345  (under dates raised and references) . 
26 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.85.  G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 12 - 
 
  4.4.9   India — Electronics and Information Technology Goods (Requirements for 
Compulsory Registration) Order, 2012 , G/TBT/N/IND/44 , G/TBT/N/IND/44  Add.1 -5, 
G/TBT/N/IND/47 , G/TBT/N/IND/47  Add.1 -3, G/TBT/N/IND/47/Add.1/Corr.1  
(IMS ID 36727) 
The representative of the Republic of Korea  reiterated previously raised concerns, in 
particular concerning acceptance of laboratory test results .28 
The representative of the European Union  restated  his delegation's interest in particular in 
the further simplification of the compulsory registration scheme and the wider acceptance of 
foreign test results as a basis for the registration and reiterated  previously raised concerns .29 
The representative of the United States  reiterated previously raised concerns  with respect to 
India's Compulsory Registration Order (CRO) requirements.30 
The representative of the Russian Federation  support ed the concerns of other Members on 
compulsory registrati on requirements in I ndia and express ed interest in further simplification of 
the procedure. Russia was  interested in receiving additional information about the scope of the 
measure and any plans India had to change the scheme.  
The representative of Canada  express ed support for the previous interventions with respect 
to the ongoing concerns related to India 's Compulsory Registration  Requirements .  
In response to the comments made by Members, the representative of India recalled the 
statement made by his delegation at  the previous meeting31 and flagged the latest relevant 
notifications to the Committee.32  
4.4.10   European Union — Revised Proposal for the Categorization of Compounds as 
Endocrine Disruptors of 19 February 2013 by DG Environment G/TBT/N/EU/383 , 
G/TBT/N/EU/383/Add. 1, G/TBT/N/EU/384 , G/TBT/N/EU/384/Add.1 , 
G/SPS/N/EU/166 , G/SPS/N/EU/166/Add.1  (IMS ID 39333) 
The representative of the United States  continued to raise concerns regarding the EU's 
hazard -based approach to regulating substances identified as endocrine disrup tors. The full 
statement is contained in G/TBT/W/541 . 
The representative of Canada  raised concerns with the hazard -based approach on the 
regulation of active ingredients. H azard -based cut -offs, without giving any consideration to 
exposure or without performing a complete risk assessment appeared to be at odds with WTO 
commitments. There  were a growing number of examples where active ingredients were prevented 
from going thro ugh the entire re -authorization process in the EU due to these hazard -based cut -
offs. The EU 's proposed criteria for identifying co mpounds as endocrine d isruptors  was also of 
concern . The European Chemical Agency classification decisions could trigger regu latory non -
approval and default maximum residue limits (MRLs), regardless of actual risk, in the opinion of 
the European Food Safety Authority. Canada was disappointed that the regulatory amendment for 
derogation based on negligible risk originally notifie d to the WTO in 2016 was not included in 
Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/605. Without the inclusion of this technical amendment, default 
MRLs for food and feed were required once a substance was identified as an "endocrine disrupting 
chemica l", regardless of actual risk under real world exposure scenarios.  
As previously expressed at the TBT and SPS Committee meetings and in Brussels, Canada 
remain ed deeply concerned with the EU 's movement towards a hazard -based approach for 
regulatory decisions for pest con trol products. This was at odds with good regulatory practice and 
                                                
27 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 367  (under dates raised and references) . 
28 G/TBT/M/74 , para.  2.88.  
29 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.87 and statement circulated in full in G/TBT/W/484 . 
30 G/TBT/M/74 , para.  2.89.  
31 G/TBT/M/74 , para.  2.92. 
32 G/TBT/N/IND/47 , G/TBT/N/IND/47/Add.1 , G/TBT/N/IND/47/Add.2  and G/TBT/N/IND/47/Add.3 . 
33 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 3 93 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 13 - 
 
  not in line with the EU 's WTO obligations. While Canada agreed  that hazard identification of a 
chemical was an important first step in the scientific risk assessment framework , it was impera tive 
that potential adverse effects be put into context with consideration of potency, and the level of 
likely human and environmental exposure based on the conditions of use.  Canada sought concrete 
assurance from the EU that decisions on setting MRLs and import tolerances would continue to be 
made based on complete risk assessment as set out in Regulation 396/2005. Canada did 
appreciate the consultations undertaken by the EU and requested that detailed information be 
shared with trading partners on how its  revised measure would work, ensuring it was consistent 
with international trade obligations.  
The representative of Argentina  reiterate d concerns with respect t o the approach taken by 
the EU in  identifying substances with endocrine disrupting properties. The full state ment is 
contained in G/TBT/W/550 . 
The representative of  Israel  informed the Committee that there had been c ontinuous 
exchanges with the EU on this matter. While Israel share d the objectives of health and the 
environmental protection , the European C ommis sion should maintain a risk -based approach to 
setting MRLs consistent with its TBT and international obligations. Israel express ed strong concern 
regarding the uncertainty of th e pending renewals and possible impacts on MRLs and import 
tolerances  for many plant protection products under existing legislation.  
The representatives of Costa Rica , Brazil , Panama , Colombia , Guatemala  and Thailand  
support ed the concerns raised by other  delegations and reiterated concerns raised in previous 
Committee meetings .34 
The representative of India joined other Members' concerns on the EU R egulation. While 
globally, risk -based approaches were used in regulating pesticides, some countries required both 
hazard - and risk -based approaches in decision -making. Departure from fundamental principles of 
the scientific risk assessment framework without identifying the actual risk would have significant 
adverse consequences for sustainable agricultural produc tion due to removal of many crop 
protection tools from the market despite their established safety in use. Further, different risk 
management responses by countries in regulating endocrine disrupting chemicals as pesticides 
might not lead to any food safet y gains but would lead to trade disruption. It was necessary to 
develop guidelines when taking risk management decisions which facilitated Members and didn't 
create unnecessary obstacles to trade. India requested the EU to withdraw the hazard -based 
measure . 
The representative of  Australia  remained interested in the EU's proposed approach for 
regulating pesticides, including approaches for regulating endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), 
and the herbicide glyphosate. He thanked the EU for its ongoing engage ment with Australia on 
these issues and look ed forward to continuing their constructive engagement.  In April 2018, the 
European Commission adopted a new regulation setting criteria for the identification of endocrine 
disruptors used in pesticides which would apply from 10 November 2018 to all new substances 
subject to an approval or a renewal of approval in the EU. Australia understood that the EU 
legislation for pla nt protection products provided that active substances which are endocrine 
disrupto rs would not be approved, unless there was negligible exposure , in which case they may 
be approved under restricted conditions. The technical amendment to the clause of negligible 
exposure for plant protection products envisaged in 2016 had been  put on hol d until the adoption 
of the criteria for identification of endocrine disruptors. Now that the criteria had been adopted, 
Australia requested that the EU provide information on plans to resume discussions on this 
amendment . 
The representative of New Zealand  echoe d the concerns raised by other M embers and 
thanked the EU for their exchanges of information to date. Concerns remained that t he EU hazard -
based approach to regulating substances identified as endocrine disruptors could be an 
unnecessary barrier to t rade. She requested an update from the EU on the derogation and any 
plans on its progress.  
                                                
34 G/TBT/M/73 , para. 2.51 ; and G/TBT/M/74 , paras. 2.99, 2.96, 2.102, 2.103 and 2.100, respectively.  G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 14 - 
 
  
The representative of the European Union  thank ed Members for their interest in the ongoing 
work in the EU on defining criteria to identify endocrine disruptors both  for plant protection 
products and biocides.  She was p leased to announce that scientific criteria were now in place to 
identify endocrine disruptors for biocides and pesticides. The new criteria would be applicable – 
also to on -going processes for the appr oval or renewal of approva l of active substances - from 
7 June 2018 (biocides) and from 10 of November 2018 (pesticides). They were set via Delegated 
Regulation (EU) 2017/21 00 and Regulation (EU) 2018/605  for biocides and pesticides , 
respectively, which had been notified under the TBT A greement.  The criteria for pesticides and 
biocides were the same in practice and thus ensure d a harmoniz ed approach  and were  based on 
the WHO definition of endocrine disruptors. They require d consideration of all relevant sci entific 
information (including scientific publications), as well as the application of a weight of evidence 
approach.  As regards the act including the technical amendment to the clause on negligible 
exposure for plant protection products, the Commission in tended  to resume discussions with EU 
member States at the meeting of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed on 
19/20 July. A guidance document for the implementation of the adopted criteria ha d been finalised 
by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and 
published on the ir websites . The EU reiterated  its commitment to act in full transparency and 
would  keep Members duly informed about further developme nts. 
4.4.11   Russian Federation — Safety of products for children and adolescents , 
G/TBT/N/RUS/29  (IMS ID 41835) 
The representative of the European Union  continued to raise concerns regarding Russia's 
measure on the safety of products for children and adolescents. The EU renewed  its request for 
information about the time -frame needed for the adoption and entry  into force of the 
amendments. He also recalled  his question  on what was exactly meant by "artificial leather"  and 
what materials it covered.  The EU also aske d whether its comments had been taken into account 
and expressed interest in receiving the final adopted text once available.   
The representative of the Russian Federation  informed the Committee that the decision had 
been published on the website of the Co mmission on 25 September 2017  and would come into 
force on 25  September 2018. The amendments prohibit ed the use of artificial leather in insol es for 
children' s shoes. Russia defined "artificial leather" , in accordance with the EAEU related standard, 
as a f abric coated or impregnated with a polymer or composition of polymers. However, the use of 
other artificial materials (for example, textiles) in insoles for children' s shoes was allowed.  
4.4.12   Thailand — Draft Notification of the Alcoholic Beverages Control, Re:  Rules, 
Procedure and condition for Labels of Alcoholic Beverages, issued under B.E. , 
G/TBT/N/THA/437  (IMS ID 42736) 
The representative of the European Union  continued to have concerns  over the Rules, 
Procedure and condition for Labels of Alcoholic Beverages. The full statement is contained in 
G/TBT/W/555 . 
The representative of the United States , whilst supporting Thailand's efforts t o manage the 
public health challenges associated with excessive alcohol consumption, continued to raise 
concerns about the trade impacts of  Thailand's regulation on the labelling and packaging of 
alcoholic beverages. The US requested a status update on con sultations on the regulation 
guidelines, flagged by Thailand at the previous Committee meeting, and asked whether 
stakeholders could engage in them. Thailand was asked for the location of the publication of a 
preliminary assessment of warning labels for al coholic beverages, also mentioned at that meeting. 
Her delegation once again asked for an update on Thailand's plans with respect to such labels and 
requested that any proposed changes to alcohol labelling regulations be notified to the TBT 
Committee to pr ovide trading partners with the opportunity to comment before those regulations 
were finalized.  
                                                
35 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 418  (under dates raised and references) . 
36 For previous stat ements follow the thread under IMS ID 427  (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 15 - 
 
  
The representative of Japan  shared the concerns raised by the EU and US delegations, and 
requested an update on scheduled consultations and that Members'  commen ts on the measure  be 
taken into account . 
The representative of Australia  reiterat ed previously raised concerns  about the Rules, 
Procedure and C ondition for Labels of Alcoholic Beverages .37 
The representative of Argentina  shared the concerns raised by other Members. Argentina 
was paying closer  attention  to developments in the implementation of the standard and asked 
Thailand to provide new information on the measure.  
The representative of Guatemala  recognized the need to protect the health of consumers 
and the legitimate objective of Thailand to reduce alcohol consumption in its population. However, 
Guatemala considered that the measure may be more trade restrictive than necessary.  At the 
previous  Committee meeting, Thailand had informed that they would conduct consultations in May 
2018. Guatemala asked whether there was a report on those consultations and whether another 
public consultation would be organized.  
The representative of New Zealand  reiterat ed previously raised concerns on  the Rules, 
Procedure and C ondition for Labels of Alcoholic Beverages .38 
The representative  of Chile echoed the concerns raised by other Members and requested 
detailed information on the next steps from new public con sultations, if planned, to entry into 
force.  
The representative of Thailand  updated Members on progress on the technical document of 
the regulation on the labelling control of alcoholic beverages. Thailand recalled its focus on two 
priorities: (i) revision  of the second version of the technical document; and (ii) evaluation plan of 
the regulation. He noted that the revision was in the stakeholder consultation s phase  and that 
three planned consultation sessions had been completed a couple of weeks previously . All 
interested parties , including the private sector, foreign embassies, governments and civil society 
organizations  had joined group discussions. Thailand was currently compiling and reviewing all 
submitted comments and would officially publish them on the website of the Office of Alcohol 
Control Committee. In addition, those comments would be proposed to the responsible working 
group and committees, to consider further improvement of the technical document.  
Finally, he informed Members that Thailand had  posted the primary evaluation of the 
technical regulation on the websites of the Center for Alcohol Studies of Thailand and the Office of 
Alcohol Control Committee. The evaluation concluded that pictorial warning labels  on alcoholic 
beverages had a signif icant impact on consumers' decision -making for buying alcoholic beverages 
in Thailand. Photos of movie stars, performers, singers and athletes particularly attract ed the 
attention of consumers . The referred regulation had been in effect for two and a half years, thus 
another evaluation – a long -term impact assessment in various aspects - was needed.  With 
respect to the pictorial warning measure, Thailand reiterated that it would follow the TBT 
Agreement and notify the measure to the TBT Committee in due course. Thailand also reaffirmed 
its full compliance  with respect the principles of free  trade and  its right to protect the health of the 
Thai population, especially the young generation.  
4.4.13   China — Regulations for the Supervision and Administration of Medical Devices 
(Order No. 650 of the State Council) , G/TBT/N/CHN/1022 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1023 , 
G/TBT/N/CHN/10 24, G/TBT/N/CHN/1025 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1026 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1029  
(IMS ID 42839) 
The representative of the European Union  raised concerns regarding the Chinese R egulation 
for the Supervision  and Administration of Medical D evices. The full statement is contained in 
G/TBT/W/556 . 
                                                
37 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.111; G/TBT/M/73 , para . 2.82;  G/TBT/M/72 , para . 3.126; and  G/TBT/M/71 , 
para. 2.141.  
38 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.109.  
39 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 428  (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 16 - 
 
  
The representative of the Republic of Korea  stated that in licensing and registering imported 
medical devices, China only recognized test reports issued by laboratories located in China . This 
led to unnecessary duplication of testing and additionally incurred costs and delays. Therefore, 
Korea respectfully requested China to designate or recognize not only laboratories located in China 
but also those in foreign countries, or to recognize  test reports issued by internationally accredited 
laboratories in the process of licensing imported medical devices.  
The representative of China  said detailed explanation had been provided at previous 
meetings, for most of th e questions raised . She added that in January 2018, China Food and Drug 
Administration (CFDA) had released a guideline  to instruct the work on the acceptance of the 
clinical trials results of medical devices overseas as clinical evaluation materials. This guideline was 
to reduce the du plication of clinical trials, and speed up the marketing process.  
4.4.14   Kingdom of Saudi Arabia , Kingdom of Bahrain, State of Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, 
United Arab Emirates, Yemen — The Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf 
Draft Technical Regulation fo r "Requirements of Handling Energy Drinks" , 
G/TBT/N/ARE/262 , G/TBT/N/QAT/389 , G/TBT/N/SAU/669 , G/TBT/N/ARE/299 , 
G/TBT/N/BHR/426 , G/TBT/N/KWT/309 , G/TBT/N/OMN/23 8, G/TBT/N/QAT/423 , 
G/TBT/N/SAU/910 , G/TBT/N/YEM/29 , G/TBT/N/ARE/301 , G/TBT/N/BHR/428 , 
G/TBT/N/KWT/311 , G/TBT/N/OMN/240 , G/TBT/N/QAT/425 , G/TBT/N/SAU/912 , 
G/TBT/N/YEM/31  (IMS ID 44240) 
The representative of the European Union  continued to raise concerns regarding the 
regulation on the r equirements of handling energy drinks and reiterated previously raised 
concerns .41 
The representative of Switzerland  reiterated previously raised concerns.42 Switzerland had 
submitted additional comments in December 2017 and looked forward to receiving replies. He 
requested that the GCC GSO take all the comments submitted into account.  
The representative of the State of Kuwait , on behalf of the GCC , reported  that the GCC  GSO 
was still drafting the regulation based on comments received by Members. Since the last meeting , 
no updates ha d been received on this matter.  
4.4.15   European Union — Common Criteria for Information Technology Security 
Evaluation (Common Criteria)  certification in the EU  (IMS ID 44843) 
4.99.   The representative of China  reiterated previously raised concerns.44 
4.100.   The representative of the European Union  repeated the responses provided at previous 
Committee meetings.45  
4.4.16   China — Administrative Measure on Cosmetic s Labelling (AMCL) 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1064  (IMS ID 45646)  
The representative of Japan  noted that the revision of "Regulations on the Supervision and 
Administration of Cosmetics " was scheduled to be deliberated in 2018 and requested that China 
provide a sufficient time -period prior to its entry into force as well as for public comments. She 
understood that AMCL would be revised in accordance with the revision of "Regulations conce rning 
Hygiene Supervision over Cosmetics " and requested that China consider Japan's concerns on 
manufacturer labelling, evaluation of cosmetics efficacy claims, and efficacy assessment testing 
organization.  
                                                
40 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 442  (under dates raised and references) . 
41 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.117 and statement circulated in full in G/TBT/W/489 . 
42 G/TBT/M/73 , para . 2.88; and G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.118.  
43 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 448  (under dates raised and references) . 
44 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.120; and G/TBT/M/73 , para. 2.85.  
45 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.121 and statement circulated in full in G/TBT/W/490 ; and G/TBT/M/73 , para. 
2.86. 
46 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 456  (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 17 - 
 
  
The representative of the European Union  reiterat ed previously raised concerns47 which 
were also reflected in what was sent to the Chinese authorities on 12 January 2015.  
The representative of Switzerland  supported concerns raised regarding this measure.  
The representative of New Zealand  expressed ongoin g interest in the development of the 
measure and welcomed any updates by China on the timeline for a revised version of the measure 
for entry into force. She reiterated previously raised  concerns48 regarding labelling requirements, 
third party verification of test results and timelines and fees for product registration and approval.  
The representative of China  emphasized that registration fees for drugs and medical 
devices are common practice internationally. The registration fees in China are calculated on the 
basis of costs. The difference between the drugs and medical devices only reflects the different 
workloads and pricing levels.  
4.4.17   China — Registration Fees for Drugs and Medical Device Products (IMS ID 46649) 
The representative s of the Republic of Korea  and Australia  reiterated previously raised 
concerns regarding China's discriminatory registration fees for drugs and medical device 
products.50 
The representative of China  repeated the response provided at the previous Committee 
meeting.51 
4.4.18   China — Interim Measures for Quality Management of Commercial Coal 
(IMS  ID 47752) 
The representative of Australia  thanked China for continuing bilateral discussions on 
Chinese coal standard and conformity assessment measures. Australia noted that the 
implementation and the  application of these measures continued to represent great interest for 
Australian industry and exporters. According to statistics and advice from the Australian coal 
sector, a direct negative impact of the coal standards on Australian exports of coal to China had 
been indicated.  Australia expressed its support for China's environmental objectives of improving 
air quality and promoting the efficient and cleaner use of coal. He recalled China's advice from the 
previous  Committee meeting that both imported and domestic coal had to satisfy the same 
standards and stated that the requirement to retest coal in China was causing significant delays for 
Australian exports and greatly adding to trade costs. His delegation noted that Australian testing 
facilities wer e equipped to accurately test for quality standards, and that Australian coal was 
exceeding these high standards. In light of this, Australia continued to maintain that a suitable 
solution to the problem would be for China to accept coal test results by in dependent test 
laboratories in Australia, in line with other coal -importing countries.  
The representative of China  recalled the Interim Measures for Quality Management of 
Commercial Coal that had entered into force in January 2015. Both imported coal and domestic 
coal in China were required to meet the same standards set in Interim Measures for Quality 
Management of Commercial Coal.  
4.4.19   India — The Stainless  Steel Products (Quality Control) Order, 2015 , 
G/TBT/N/IND/50  (IMS  ID 48653) 
The representative of the European Union  reiterated previously raised concerns on India's 
Stainless Steel Products (Quality Control) Order, 2015.54 
                                                
47 G/TBT/M/74 , para . 2.123 and stateme nt circulated in full in  G/TBT/W/491 . 
48 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.124; G/TBT/M/73 , para . 2.91; G/TBT/M/72 , para. 3.144; and G/TBT/M/71 , 
para. 2.155.  
49 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 4 66 (under dates raised and references) . 
50 G/TBT/M/74 , para s. 2.126 and 2.127 , respectively . 
51 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.128 . 
52 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 477  (under dates raised and references) . 
53 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 486  (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 18 - 
 
  
The representative of India repeated  the responses provided at previous Committee 
meetings55, and looked forward to discussing any issues bilaterally should clarification be required.  
4.4.20   India — Draft Food Safety and Standards (Alcoholic Beverages Standards) 
Regulations, 2015, G/TBT/N/IND/51 , G/SPS/N/IND/119  (IMS ID 49456) 
The representative of the European Union  reiterated previously raised concerns .57 The EU 
welcomed the publication of the regulation on additives for alcoholic beverages in the Gazette in 
August 2017 , though not all concerns had been  taken on board. The EU noted that the regulation 
covering standards for alcoholic beverages had been  published in April 2018  and would come into 
force in April 2019. While this regulation answered some of the points  raised by the EU, there were 
still issues of concern.  
The EU noted that in order to be fu lly in line with Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement, India 
should align its draft alcoholic beverages regulations with those international practices and 
standards. Issues of concern continued to be  (i) lack of st ock-exhaustion clause to minimiz e the 
impact f or economic operators ; (ii) lack of acknowledgment of geographical indications ; (iii) the 
presence of some technical specifications (maximum alcohol content, sugar content) not in line 
with international standards that could prevent some EU wines, spirits or beers enter ing the Indian 
market ; (iv) over-labelling (residues of additives in the final product) potentially triggering 
additional technical controls that might result i n unjustified barriers to trade;  and (v) excessive 
analytical parameters that wou ld result in additional technical controls (residual extracts, higher 
alcohol, iron , etc). 
The representative  of Japan  reiterated previously raised concerns .58 
The representative of India recalled the responses provided at  previous Committee  
meetings .59 He noted that after conclusion of the previous meetings, his delegation had passed on 
written responses to the delegation of EU. On some of the additional queries raised by EU prior to 
the last meeting of TBT Committee, relevant information  had already be en provided on 22 March 
2018. Accordingly, India believed that most of the questions raised had been responded to . A 
bilateral meeting with the EU had also taken place on the margins of this meeting . In brief, India 
stated that: (i) A comprehensive set of standards on Alcoholic Beverages namely "Food Safety and 
Standards (Alcoholic Beverages) Regulations, 2018 had been notified on 28 March 2018. These 
regulations had been formulated based on existing national standards (BIS) and international 
standards like  OIV keeping in view the prevailing Indian conditions and practices ; (ii) The draft 
regulations had already been notified to the  TBT/SPS Committees (G/SPS/N/IND/119  dated 14 
December 2015 and G/TBT/N/IND/51  dated 1 December 2015 ); (iii) Comments submitted by EU 
had been  duly considered and wherever appropriate, suitable amendments had been  made to the 
Regulation. The provisions of Additives were now largely harmonized with OIV standards as 
requested. Accor dingly, standards for additives /enzymes/processing a ids for use in category 14.2 
(Alcoholic Beverages including alcohol free and low alcoholic counterparts) were prescribed in table 
14 of FSS (Food Product Standards and Food Additives) R egulations, 2016 (notified on 
5 September 2016). Further prov isions of additional additives/ processing aids and enzymes for 
grapes wine, distilled spirituous beverages and aromatized alcoholic beverages had been notified 
on 31 July 2017 in FSS (Food Product Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2017 , and 
(v) With regard to GI products, all GI products had been omitted from the Food Safety and 
Standards (Alcoholic Beverages) Regulations, 2018 as the GI products in general were regulated 
through "Intellectual Property Act" (IPR act) of India. India remained available to mee t bilaterally 
on any remaining or additional issues . 
                                                                                                                                                  
54 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.136.  
55 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.137; G/TBT/M/73 , para . 2.100; G/TBT/M/72 , para. 3.158; and G/TBT/M/71 , 
para. 2.185.  
56 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 494  (under dates raised and references) . 
57 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.140; and G/TBT/W/495 . 
58 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.141.  
59 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.142; G/TBT/M/73 , para. 2.123; G/TBT/M/72 , para. 3.163; and G/TBT/M/71 , 
para. 2.197. G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 19 - 
 
  4.4.21    Indonesia — Halal Product Assurance Law No. 33 of 2014 (IMS ID 50260) 
The representative of the European Union  continued to have serious concerns with  regard 
to the Indonesian Halal Product Guarantee Law  No 33 . The full statement is contained in 
G/TBT/W/557 . 
The representative of the United States  said that the US recognized the importance for 
Indonesian consumers to know whether products were halal, and wanted to work with Indonesia 
to ensu re that the law would be implemented to achieve the objective without creating any 
unnecessary barriers to trade. As Indonesia had finalized a draft implementing regulation on Halal 
Product Assurance that would be signed and issued soon, she requested that  this draft regulation 
be notified to the TBT Committee prior to finalization to allow for comments from stakeholders and 
to allow time for those comments to be considered. She also requested that Indonesia provide 
sufficient transition time for stakeholde rs to provide feedback on, understand, and comply with 
requirements.   
She asked that Indonesia confirm that the most recent version of the draft implementing 
regulation would allow for phased implementation of the Halal Law 's mandatory halal certification  
requirements, and that Indonesia would continue to allow the sale of non -certified products.  
Concerns remained with any mandatory requirement that both "halal" and "non-halal" products be 
labelled . The US supported providing consumers with the necessary information to make informed 
decisions. However, mandating labels for both halal and non -halal information would create 
confusion for consumers and would be costly and challenging for companies, both foreign and 
domestic, to implement.  
The registration re quirement for foreign halal certificates included in the draft regulation 
appeared to be cumbersome, duplicative, and more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve the 
objectives and did not seem to apply to local products. She requested Indonesia to mo dify this 
registration requirement to reflect the fact that Indonesia 's Halal Product Assurance Agency 
("BPJPH ") would already be conducting verification of foreign halal agencies issuing halal 
certificates for imported goods.  
The representative of Brazil  supported the concerns raised by the EU and the US . There 
were many doubts concerning the process of implementation o f this l aw. He requested Indonesia 
to provide an u pdate on recent developments on its internal discussions and  that any draft 
technical re gulation be notified to the TBT Committee.  
 The representative of Australia  reiterated previously raised concerns.61 Indonesia 's Halal 
Product Assurance Law No.33 of 2014 was due to take effect from 1 November 2019 and Australia 
noted the importance of publ ication of the regulatory changes sufficiently in advance to ensure 
that businesses had time to prepare for and adjust to the changes. Australia welcomed Indonesia 's 
response in the previous  TBT Committee meeting that Indonesia was developing implementing 
regulations. Australia recogniz ed the importance of halal product assurance to many Indonesian 
consumers  and wanted to work cooperatively with Indonesia through ongoing and early 
engagement on developments with the halal law and its implementing regulations. Australia also 
sought clarification that " halal" and "non–halal" labelling requirements would be voluntary rather 
than mandatory,  which would ensure the requirements were not more trade restrictive than 
necessary.  
The representative of Indonesia  informed that the related government institutions were 
still discussing the implementation stage regarding the product scope which included both food 
and beverage products and non -food and beverage products. On the labelling of halal products, it 
was not necessary to put a "non-halal" label for products containing non -halal substances. It was 
sufficient to provide non-halal information in the form of pictures, mark or statements so as to 
ensure the protection and human rights of vulnerable groups, particularly disabled people. 
Indonesia would ensure that the regulation would be in line with the TBT Agreement.  
                                                
60 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 502 (under dates raised and references) . 
61 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.145.  G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 20 - 
 
  4.4.22   China — Formula Registration Regulation for Infant and Follow -up Formula, 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1165  (IMS ID 49362)  
The representative of the European Union , whilst sharing China's objective of ensuring  the 
highest level of protection in the area of infant and follow -up formula , continued to raise concerns  
on some aspec ts of the new regulatory regime. His delegation considered that t he limitation of 
each manufacturing company to a maximum of nine registered recipes within three  product lines 
would have a significant negati ve impact on  EU exports to China. The EU did not find a justification 
for this limitation, neither on the basis of food safety nor on the basis of other legitimate 
objective s. He also noted that the foreseen  one-year transition period  was not sufficient 
considering that significant changes  were required and once again proposed an 18 -month  
transition period. China was asked to take these comments into account and modify the 
implementing rules accordingly.  
The representative of the United States  support ed the EU's  intervention and thanked the 
China Food and Drug Administration (CFDA) for providing additional information on Decree 26 over 
the past year, and for showing flexibility with regard to implementation dates for registration of 
infant formula and othe r "special foods".  However, a number of issues still required clarification, 
and her delegation hoped that China could work with the US and other Members to avoid any 
trade disruptions.  
The representative of China  said that the purpose of on -site inspectio n was to check the 
R&D data of formula and the production capacity, which was different  from any  other  inspection . 
In this regard , competent authorities had strengthened coordination  and cooperation  to avoid 
duplication of inspections . Domestic and foreign  enterprises would be treated equally. Meanwhile, 
she reported, a reasonable transitional period had been given to prevent an unnecessary negative 
impact  on international trade.  Regarding reg istration, China  on the one hand  carrie d out review  
and approval works strictly following the rules, and on the other hand  made efforts to secure 
smooth transition and stable supplies in the market.  As of 8  June 2017, the CFDA had  approved 
1,156 formula in 151 enter prises, comprising  876 formu la in 104 dom estic enterprises and 280 
formula  in 47 overseas enterprises. Members were invited to  refer to CFDA 's website .  
4.4.23   Russian Federation – Rules of cement certification , G/TBT/N/RUS/48 , 
G/TBT/N/RUS/49  (IMS ID 49763) 
 The representative of the European Union  reiterated previously raised concerns64 
regarding the Russian Federation's rules for cement certification. The full statement is contained in 
G/TBT/W/558 . 
The representative of Ukraine  reiterated its previously raised concerns65 regarding the 
Russian Federation's certification requirements for cement. Access to the Russian Federation 
market for cement depended on meeting conformity assessment requirements established in the 
Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), meaning that the applica nt needed to have an entity or agent on 
the territory of the EAEU and the business relationship needed to be demonstrated via a written 
contract with the foreign producer, which was also required to be registered pursuant to the 
legislation of the EAEU mem ber state. He noted that these mandatory registration requirements 
for applicants created additional burdens on other WTO Members' producers as compared to those 
in the EAEU, which might contravene Article 5 of the TBT Agreement. Ukraine also took note of the 
EU's concerns and requests contained in their statement from the previous Committee meeting.66 
Ukraine expected a much greater willingness from the Russian Federation to provide the 
information requested by WTO Members, which represented fundamental WTO  transparency 
commitments necessary for predictable and non -discriminatory international trade. Ukraine invited 
the Russian Federation to engage in a positive manner and restore conditions which would enable 
renewed trade in cement.  
                                                
62 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 493  (under dates raised and references).  
63 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 497  (under dates raised and references) . 
64 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.153 and statement circulated in full in G/TBT/W/498 ; and G/TBT/M/73 , para. 
2.110.  
65 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.152; and G/TBT/M/73 , para. 2.1 11. 
66 G/TBT/W/498 . G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 21 - 
 
  
The representative of  Mexico  continued to raise concerns regarding the rules of cement 
certification, specifically the conformity assessment procedure GOST P 56836 2016. She noted that 
despite the various statements made by Mexico and by other countries in the Committee, i ndust ry 
had notified that  to date there had been no changes regarding the conformity assessment 
procedures, which discriminated against importers of cement. Imported cement continued to be 
classified as a product posing an environmental risk, which meant that c ement imports were 
stopped at Russian customs to undergo an inspection, which could last up to one month, leading to 
losses and creating additional costs. In addition, few certification authorities issued the required 
certificates and the majority of such authorities did not work with importing enterprises, which 
clearly made it complicated to obtain a certificate and to comply with the requirement. For Mexico 
in particular, the measure implemented by Russia had led to the liquidation of the company branch 
in Russia as it had beco me impossible to sustain business due to the significant losses experienced 
in the previous two years. She pointed out that the measure implemented by Russia could infringe 
Articles 5.1.1, 5.1.2 and 5.2.1 of the TBT Agreement as app lying a conformity assessment 
procedure to imported cement had discriminatory and trade restrictive effects and resulted in 
higher costs for importers of the product. In this context, Mexico requested Russia to take into 
consideration the comments made by Members affected by the measure and propose a revision of 
the measure to improve the application of the conformity assessment procedure for shipments of 
cement from third countries that were destined for countries in the EAEU.  
The representative of the Russian Federation  recalled statements made during previous 
Committee meetings67 and indicated that the draft amendments to the certification requirements 
were expected to be adopted by the end of the summer.  
 
4.4.24   Egypt — Manufacturer Registration System (Decree N o. 43/2016 and Decree No. 
992/2015) , G/TBT/N/EGY/114 , G/TBT/N/EGY/115  (IMS ID 50568) 
The representative of the European Union  reiterated previously raised concerns regarding 
the implementation of the Egyptian decrees .69 In addition, in relation to the transp arency of the 
process, she asked whether the Egyptian authorities could confirm that a list of registered 
companies was publicly available, and to indicate where such a list could be found.  
The representative of Switzerland  reiterated previously raised concerns.70  
The representative of Canada  thanked  Egypt for the p roductive bilateral meeting they had 
held at the margins of the meeting and expressed her delegation's hope that it would  lead to a 
better understand ing of  Egypt's registration requirements.   
The representative of Thailand  expressed his delegation's interest in Egypt's system. Thai 
exporters were currently in the pending process for final approval by Egypt authorities, despite 
applications in 201 6. He encouraged Egypt to facilitate the registra tion process in a transparent 
and timely manner to avoid any trade disruption.  
The representative of Egypt  said that Decrees 991/2015 and 43/2016 had different scopes, 
as the first related to pre -inspection, while the second was an administrative measure a iming at 
protection against trade deceptive practices. Decree 991/2015 did not introduce any new 
measures as it was simply  an update to the executive regulation to Law 118/1975 on Import and 
Export. Decree 43/2016 was not technical in nature and it include d no obligation to comply with 
any technical requirements, neither did it require the application of a specific quality control 
system. Decree 43/2016 covered only a limited number of tariff lines whose exports had invaded 
the Egyptian market despite the f act that they represented a minimal share of Egypt's imports, 
merely due to illegal manufacturin g practices  that were seriously jeopardizing the health and 
safety of Egyptian consumers. The registration process according to Decree 43/2016 did not 
require a ny complicated procedures as all the documents required were ones that any credible 
company should hold; and, furthermore, no renewal of the registration was required as long as the 
                                                
67 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.155; G/TBT/M/73 , para. 2.113; and G/TBT/M/72 , para. 3.181.  
68 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 505  (under dates ra ised and references) . 
69 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.156 and statement circulated in  full in G/TBT/W/499 . 
70 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.158;  G/TBT/M/73 , para. 2.144; and  G/TBT/M/72 , para. 3.184.  G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 22 - 
 
  documents presented were valid. Decree 43/2016 was also in full compliance  with the national 
treatment principle, as Egyptian manufacturing plants were equally subject to registration, 
surveillance, and inspection requirements by numerous Egyptian regulatory authorities to ensure 
their compliance with relevant standards and regu lations. Decree 43/2016 was also not more trade 
restrictive than necessary, and, in this respect, it was worth mentioning that despite the initial 
decrease in the value of Egypt's imports after the entry into force of the decree, Egypt's imports 
had witnes sed a significant increase in 2017.  
She also underscored that the Egyptian government was constantl y reviewing its trade -
related measures and regulations to ensure  the facilitation  of trade flow with trade partners. Egypt 
was therefore grateful for all the  comments raised on this topic during this meeting or during 
bilateral meetings held with interested Members.  
4.4.25   Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi — East African Community alcoholic 
beverage standards , G/TBT/N/KEN/472 -477, G/TBT/N/KEN/479 , G/TBT/N/KEN /482 -
483, G/TBT/N/KEN/556 -561 G/TBT/N/KEN/563 -565 G/TBT/N/KEN/567 , 
G/TBT/N/UGA/434 -435, G/TBT/N/UGA/437 -441 (IMS ID 510 and 51971) 
The representative of the United States  recalled that her delegation had previously 
expressed appreciation for the efforts Ken ya and other EAC countries had made to engage with 
WTO Members on their draft regional East African Community (EAC) alcohol standards.72 Like 
others, the United States continued to be interested in hearing from Kenya about the status of 
those draft standard s. At the Committee's last meeting, Kenya had indicated that the regulatory 
review process at the EAC level had been completed. Could Kenya provide an update about 
whether the standards had already been agreed by the EAC?  
The representative of the European Union  supported the EAC members in their efforts to 
ensure the quality standards of alcoholic beverages consumed in their territories. The EU invited 
Uganda and Kenya to further update the Committee on the status of the revision and on how other 
comments presented by other WTO Members were being taken into account in the standard's 
revision process. Also, in relation to the process of revision, the EU encouraged EAC members to 
keep ensuring that foreign stakeholders had an opportunity to present vi ews on the revision 
process. Could Kenya and Uganda explain the process foreseen in order to incorporate these 
standards into the appropriate technical regulations? In this regard, the EU encouraged all EAC 
members to adopt the standard in a harmonized way  as national deviations from the regional 
standard would create additional barriers to trade. Also, the EU recalled that the minimum time for 
the entry into force of new technical regulations should be at least six months; EAC members were 
encouraged to pr ovide an even longer transition period to allow companies to adapt to the new 
requirements.  
The representative of Argentina  shared the concerns expressed by other Members and said 
Argentina was closely followed the development of the relevant standards.  
The representative of the Kenya  responded to the concerns . The full statement is 
contained in G/TBT/W/544 . 
4.4.26   European Union — Quality Schemes for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs, 
G/TBT/N/EU/139 , G/TBT/N/EU/139/Add.1  (IMS ID 51273) 
The representative of Uruguay  raised concerns with the Quality Schemes for Agricultural 
Products and Foodstuffs. The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/543 .  
The representative of the United States  reiterated concerns raised in the previous 
meeting.74 The registration of the name "danbo" disregarded, without justification, the existing 
Codex standard and the US failed to see why the EU was not recognizing the ex istence of  an 
                                                
71 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 510  and IMS ID 519  (under dates raised and 
references) . 
72 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.162.  
73 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 51 2 (under dates raised and references) . 
74 G/TBT/M/74 , paras. 2.164 -2.166.  G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 23 - 
 
  applicable international standard.  The US felt the application under consideration for havarti also 
lacked transparency and once again asked the EU for a status update. She reaffirmed opposition to 
the EU granting GI protection for havarti as  there was an international Codex Alimentarius 
standard of identity for havarti, which Codex members – including the EU –  had reconfirmed in 
2007, 2008 and 2010.  
The representative of the European Union  repeated the response provided in the previous 
TBT Committee meeting contained in G/TBT/W/501 . 
The representative of Uruguay  regretted that the EU had not respond ed to its request to 
engage in dia logue. He informed the Committee that Uruguay would request that this matter be 
included in the agenda of the next meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods, scheduled to take 
place on 3 July  2018. 
The representative of the United States  said that this was  a TBT matter. The EU had 
correctly notified its quality schemes regulation under the TBT Agreement precisely because of the 
TBT elements such as labelling requirements.  
4.4.27   The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Pen ghu, Kinmen and Matsu – Draft of 
the Org anic Agriculture Act, G/TBT/N/TPKM/225 , G/TBT/N/TPKM/225 /Add.1 -2 
(IMS  ID 51175) 
The representative of the European Union  thanked Chinese Taipei for written 
communication and bilateral dialogue on the proposed regulation on organic products, noting that 
the new bill had been published on 30 May 2018. His delegation understood that Chinese Taipei 
would enact a series of implementing measures before the bill's enforcement in May 2019. The bill 
contained a two -year transition period after which the unilateral re cognition of 16 member States 
would expire. He reiterated the EU's concern that the two -year period would be too short to 
conclude an MRA due to lengthy internal technical and political procedures, including the adoption 
of a negotiation authorization and the ratification by the EU co -legislators. The EU considered that 
the measure would disproportionately affect  trade partners and suggested that a more flexible 
transitional arrangement be considered in the future. His delegation was also concerned how the 
new provisions would be implemented. Therefore, the EU asked Chinese Taipei to be closely 
involved before the new implementing laws were adopted, notably regarding how the system of 
control bodies would be set up and implemented.  
The EU further requested that Chinese Taipei effectively apply the unilateral equivalency of 
standards for EU products, which it believed to not be the case since, in practice, compliance with 
Chinese Taipei standards still seemed to be checked. In addition, Chinese Taipei was req uested to 
find a way to extend the unilateral recognition to all 28 member S tates, recalling that the EU was a 
single market with single production standards. As such, u nequal treatment by Chinese Taipei was 
therefore not justified.  
The representative of The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and 
Matsu  appreciated the EU's continued concern on the Organic Agriculture Promotion Act , 
previously notified as the Organic Agriculture Act. He explained that the act had been promulgated 
on 30 May  2018 and would enter into effect one year later, on 30 May 2019. Implementing 
measures would soon be proposed which would bridge current practi ces and those specified in the 
Act. Relevant draft measures on certification and management of organic agricultural products and 
processed products would be notified for comments once available.  
He stated that the Act marked a very important milestone in the history  of agricultural 
development. The draft text had been notified to the WTO in October 2015 and an impressive 
number of comments had been received from domestic and foreign stakeholders as well as 
hundreds of discussions held to better address identified needs. The adopted text provided for a 
comprehensive system which would not only drive the efforts towards friendly, eco -balanced and 
sustainable agriculture, but would also enhance the competitiveness of organic agric ultural 
products. However, the a ct would require subsequent re negotiations of equivalence agreements 
                                                
75 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 511  (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 24 - 
 
  concluded  previously.  Taking into account the EU's request to extend the transition period, he 
recalled that one extra year had been added for the renegotiation process.  
Concerning  the requirements applying to organi c products, Chinese Taipei clarified that, in 
the absence of international standards, Members usually maintained their own requirements to 
accommodate different organic environments they intend ed to preserve and such requirements 
were also respected in equ ivalence arrangements.  Chinese Taipei viewed equivalence acceptance 
as a process towards harmonization and welcomed any opportunity to further exploring this issue 
bilaterally. He also acknowledged the necessary time to seek the ratification of an equivale nce 
arrangement in the EU and as an alternative recalled Article 17 of the act which invited 
certification  bodies to be accredited  to certify products for exports to Chinese Taipei. Chinese 
Taipei stated its willingness to provide further information to fa cilitate the application process.  
4.4.28   China — National Standards on Limits of Volatile Organic Compounds for 
Furniture, G/TBT/N/CHN/1094 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1095 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1096  
(IMS  ID 50976) 
The representative of the European Union  reiterated previously raised con cerns77 about 
China's mandatory National Standards on Limits of Volatile Organic Compounds for Furniture.  
The representative of China  noted that the three notifications in question had been  
submitted in July 2015.78 In 2016, in accordance with the six measu res from "Deepening the 
Reform Program of Standardization Work", China had simplified and integrated all mandatory 
standards, including those related to the furniture industry. Furthermore, according to the relevant 
requirements of "Notification of complet ing the follow -up work for the conclusion of the simplifying 
and integrating of mandatory standards " (Document no. 464 of the Department of Science and 
Technology, Ministry of Industry and Information Technology in 2017), the integration and 
development wo rk of standards was ongoing. China added that due to the reform of the State 
Council in March 2018, the relevant standards had not yet been introduced. Foreign parties were 
welcome to consult with China on the technical issues of the standard. The relevant  contact person 
was Luo Jufen, the Secretary General of the National Technical Committee for the standardization 
of furniture.  
4.4.29   Ireland — Public Health (Alcohol) Bill 2015, G/TBT/N/IRL/2  (IMS ID 51679) 
The representative of Mexico  reiterated previously raised concerns on this measure.80 
These concerns were on labelling requirements – the inclusion of health warnings with no scientific 
basis; the setting of minimum prices; advertising restrictions; the physical separation of products  
at points of sale; and restrictions on sales promotion techniques.  
The representative of the United States  reiterated previously raised concerns .81 The US 
remained concerned that Ireland had not yet notified the amendments to the TBT Committee, thus 
denyi ng Members the opportunity to submit comments. The US asked if Ireland would accept 
products that had been labelled for other EU markets or would producers have to relabel any 
product  that first entered another EU m ember State that they subsequently wished  to send to 
Ireland for sale.  
The representative of Argentina  reiterated concerns regarding Ireland's Public Health 
(Alcohol) Bill 2015. The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/551 . 
The represen tative of Guatemala  stated his delegation's systematic concern with this 
measure. At the previous meeting of the Committee, the EU had said that the European 
Commission had until 2 May to issue an assessment of the measure. He asked that this 
                                                
76 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 509  (under dates raised and references) . 
77 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.171 and statement circulated in full in G/TBT/W/503.  
78 G/TBT/N/CHN/1094 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1095  and G/TBT/N/CHN/1096 . 
79 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 516 (under dates raised  and references) . 
80 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.187; and G/TBT/M/73 , para. 2.165.  
81 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.190.  G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 25 - 
 
  information b e shared and whether the internal process within the EU was being followed and what 
was the date of entry into force of the measure.  
The representative of New Zealand  reiterated previously raised concerns .82 
The representative of Australia  recognized the ri ght of governments to take measures 
necessary to protect public health and Ireland's efforts to address a legitimate public health 
concern. Australia sought clarification as to the evidence on which this draft legislation and 
labelling requirements were ba sed, including how the proposed measures would contribute to 
public health objectives. Australia also sough t clarification on the details and implementation of the 
new requirements, in particular the recent amendments regarding labelling. Clarification of the 
impact of the requirements on importers and exporters was also requested. Australian exporters 
were concerned about the impact of the labelling requirements on their business, in particular the 
cost involved in developing bespoke labels for the Irish m arket. Noting that significant 
amendments had been made to the Bill since it was last notified to the WTO, Australia encouraged 
Ireland to re -notify the new Bill through the TBT notification procedure, to allow trading partners 
to comment on the revised pr oposal. Australia requested advice on the expected timing for 
implementation of the new requirements, and urged Ireland to consider a transition period to 
enable businesses time to prepare for the new requirements.  
The representative of Chile supported the  comments made  by other delegations. Chile had  
reviewed the labelling requirements and requested further information on the outcome of the 
studies undertaken.  
The representative of the European Union  reiterated previously raised concerns .83 
Comments receive d through the internal notification procedure had been analysed by the Irish 
authorities and replied to on 12 March 2018. Some of the labelling provisions (health warnings) 
had been notified under another notification procedure laid down by Regulation (EU)  1169/2011 on 
food information to consumers. The Commission was not in a position to provide comments 
without having more detailed information in relation to the modalities of the labelling provisions in 
question, including the wording of the notified heal th warnings. Ireland had been invited to notify 
the relevant draft regulation once the modalities were defined. On 19 January 2018 Ireland had 
notified three amendments to the draft "Public Health (Alcohol) Bill 2015". These amendments had 
been assessed by  the European Commission and the m ember States in accordance with both the 
above -mentioned internal procedures. Ireland had received comments from the Commission and 
detailed opinions and comments from some E U member States. These reactions were currently 
being analysed by the Irish authorities.  Ireland would duly notify WTO Members about these 
amendments and provide a period for Members to comment on them. As regards comments 
received from WTO Members under the WTO TBT notification procedure, these would be equally 
examined and written replies would be provided in due course.  
4.4.30   Kazakhstan, Russian Federation — The amendments No. 2 to the Technical 
Regulation of the Customs Union on Safety of Toys (TÐ ÌÑ 008/2011) , G/TBT/N/KAZ/7 , 
G/TBT/N/RUS/73  (IMS  ID 51484) 
4.160.   The representative of the European Union  reiterated previously raised concerns regarding 
the amendments to the Safety Toy EAEU Technical Regulation.85 In addition, he recalled that 
during the March 2018  Committee meeting , the representative of Kazakhstan had stated that draft 
amendments were still being discussed by the working group. It was added that no developments 
had occurred since March 2017, the authorities were analysing the ISO standard on age 
determination, and that positive consideration was being  given to this alternative. The EU 
understood that a meeting of the Working Group was scheduled for 18 June 2018. The meeting 
was to discuss amendments to the technical regulation regarding the introduction of psychological 
and pedagogical examination of t oys at the EAEU level. The EU asked for an update about the 
process related to the draft amendments both at EAEU and national level in Kazakhstan and 
Russia. In particular, the EU requested an update about the activities of the working group. What 
                                                
82 G/TBT/M/ 74, para. 2.192.  
83 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.167.  
84 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 514  (under dates raised and references) . 
85 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.178 and statement circulated in full in G/TBT/W/505 . G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 26 - 
 
  was the outcome of the meeting of 18 June 2018? Had the possibility of replacing the proposed 
criteria by age grading requirements based on ISO 8124 been discussed?  
4.161.   The representative  of Ukraine  reiterated previously raised concerns.86 
4.162.   The representative of the United States  supported the intervention of the EU and Ukraine.  
 The representative of Canada  echoed the concerns raised by other WTO Members and 
looked forward to updates regarding possible revisions to the draft amendments, including with 
respect to the con sideration of ISO standards for age -grading.  
4.164.   The representative of Kazakhstan  confirmed that a dis cussion of the Working Group had 
focused on how to strike a balance between the protection of children's interest and the interests 
of producers and importer s. Also, as stated at the last meeting, there was a positive consideration 
on implementation of ISO standards in Kazakhstan. The Working Group ha d been created for the 
purpose of adaptation of the standards into the domestic legal framework. In addition to  that, 
preparatory work ha d been held in order to ensure effective implementation of the ISO standard. 
For example, sales of toys in open air markets would be prohibited. With respect to Ukraine's 
comment, she explained that certification of conformity of toys ha d always been applied in 
Kazakhstan, even before adoption of custom union of technical regulation on safety of toys. 
Kazakhstan authorities ha d never registered any problems with obtaining conformity certificates 
for products originating from Ukrain e. She noted, in this respect, that the TBT Agreement did not 
preclude a Member from choosing a type of conformity assessment scheme which it considered 
appropriate in ensuring its legitimate objective. She also directed Members to Kazakhstan 
statements in  previous meetings.  
The representative of the Russian Federation  lent his delegation's support to Kazakhstan's 
efforts aimed at protecting children's health. Within the EAEU , a special Working Group had been  
established to review the draft amendments, as well as all the comments received according to the 
procedure of drafting, adoption, modification and cancellation of the EAEU technical regulations. 
The Working Group was looking for a balance between childre n health protection and trade effects 
of the measure. His delegation took note of the concerns raised by the interested Members and 
would relay them to the Working Group.  
4.4.31   Russian Federation — Medical Devices , G/TBT/N/RUS/51 , G/TBT/N/RUS/52 , 
G/TBT/N/RUS/53 , G/TBT/N/RUS/55  (IMS ID 52087) 
The representative of the European Union  welcomed and acknowledged the efforts of the 
Russian authorities regarding the common rules in the field of medical devices and recalled that his 
delegation had submitted comments on the drafts on 15 June 2016.  The EU asked Russia whether 
the special work ing group of the Eurasian Economic Commission ensured that registration 
procedures were the same for foreign and domestic importers of goods and whether it reviewed its 
position confirming that 300 days was a normal period for expert evaluations.  In relati on to 
G/TBT/N/RUS/51 , he reminded that the timeline for expert evaluations in the EU was normally 
between 30 and 60 days. The EU believed that the long review time established in the draft 
measure would not allow the market to keep up with the pace of inno vation. As regards 
G/TBT/N/RUS/53 , the EU understood that all the relevant information regarding safety and 
efficiency for medical devices had to be put on the label of that medical device. The EU asked 
Russia whether the announced consultations with the M inistry of Health on labelling requirements 
had taken place and what their outcome  had been . 
The representative of Ukraine  reiterated its concern s and supported those raised by other 
Members in the previous five Committee meetings. Russia had not yet provi ded a response to the 
questions regarding certification requirements which placed additional burdens on those exporting 
to Russia compared with domestic producers. Ukraine requested that Russia be more willing to 
provide basic information in line wi th WTO transparency commitments so as to ensure predictable 
and non -discriminatory trade.  
                                                
86 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.177; and G/TBT/M/73 , para. 2.169.   
87 For previous statements follow the thread under  IMS ID 520  (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 27 - 
 
  
The representative of the Russian Federation  informed the Committee that concerning the 
establishment of the single market of pharmaceutical products in the EAEU  through th e relevant 
treaties, all the necessary acts had entered into force on 6 May 2017.  He added that their entry 
into force did not mean significant changes in the existing system of registration. Currently, 
producers and importers had an opportunity to registe r medical devices in the national system of 
registration or in the system of the EAEU . Registration certificates issued in the Russian 
registration system would be valid only on the territory of the Russian Federation . Registration 
certificates issued in accordance with the rules of the EAEU would operate on the territory of all 
countries of the EAEU. This transition period would last until 31  December 2021. In 2022, the 
Russian registration system would be replaced by the EAEU system. However, previously issued 
registration certificates would be valid until 31 December 2025. During this transitional period, a 
special working group of the Eurasian Economic Commission would continue to work with the aim 
of considering all comments from stakeholders. He clari fied that the timeline for the expert 
evaluation normally lasted 100 days, but that the manufacturer (or applicant) had an opportunity 
to suspend the expert evaluation. In such cases of suspension, the maximum period of evaluation 
could not exceed 330 days .  
4.4.32   Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic — Pharmaceutical products - 
Resolution 1314 of the Government of the Russian Federation on determining 
compliance of medicinal products' manufacturers with the requirements of Good 
Manufacturing Practice ( non-notified); draft decisions of the Board of the Eurasian 
Economic Union,  G/TBT/N/RUS/54 , G/TBT/N/RUS/58 , G/TBT/N/RUS/63  
(IMS  ID 52188) 
The representative of  the European Union  reiterated previously raised concerns89 regarding 
measures which the Russian Fe deration had adopted introducing certification requirements for 
medicinal products, both for human and animal use.  
The representative of the Russian Federation  said that the situation with regards to the 
implementation of the Agreement on Common Principles  and Rules of Pharmaceutical Products 
Circulation was similar to that of the Agreement on Common Principles and Rules of Medical 
Devices Circulation (see IMS ID 520). All requirements and conformity assessment procedures 
were identical for domestic and imp orted pharmaceutical products. He underlined  that the Russian 
Good Manufacturing Practice ( GMP) inspection system fully complied with international standards 
and recommendations. The State Institute of Pharmaceutical Products and Good Practice was the 
body authorized to conduct GMP inspections. As an illustration of its capacities, during the period 
from 1 January 2016 to 30 October 2017, the institute had conducted 738 inspections of 
manufacturers (626 foreign and 112 domestic) for compliance with GMP rule s. The number of 
inspections of foreign manufacturers was 188 in 2016 and 438 for the  first 10 months of 2017. 
Statistics showed that the number of inspections of foreign manufacturers was almost six times 
the number of domestic ones. In addition, the numb er of inspections of foreign manufacturers in 
2017 was almost 2.5 times the number in 2017. The appro ved GMP inspection schedule for  
producers  of imports  was published on the website of the Ministry of Industry and Trade and 
included more than 300 inspecti ons from February to August 2018.  Finally, he noted that the step -
by-step registration procedure of applying for GMP certification, waiting for the inspection, 
obtaining a certificate and in the end registering the medicine had been slowly streamlined. The  
draft amendments to the Federal Law "On the Circulation of Medicines" (№ 61 -FZ) had been 
adopted by the Federal Law № 140 -FZ and had entered into force on 15 June 2018. The 
amendments allowed the possibility to provide a copy of the GMP certificate or a c opy of the 
decision of the Ministry of Industry and Trade to initiate the medicine registration process. In 
addition, it was not a requirement anymore to provide a GMP certificate and repeat the inspection 
in case of changes in the medicine's quality and/o r in the methods of its control. The changes were 
designed to simplify and speed up the registration of new medicines in the Russian market. Russia 
had taken note of the concerns raised by the EU and was ready  to continue to work with the EU on 
this matter . 
                                                
88 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 521  (under dates raised and references) . 
89 G/TBT/M//74 , para. 2.185 and state ment circulated in full in G/TBT/W/507 . G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 28 - 
 
  4.4.33   China — Cybersecurity Law (IMS ID 52690) 
The representative of the United States  referred the Committee to the concerns raised at 
the previous meeting.91 There had been no new developments in the meantime.   
The representative of Japan  reiterated previously raised concerns.92 Japan requested that 
China provide a clear definition of the terms "secure and controllable" or "secure and trustworthy", 
as they had not yet done so.  
The representative of the European Union  reiterated concerns raised in the previous TBT 
Committee meeting. The full statement is containing in G/TBT/W/509 . 
The representative of the Republic of Korea  reiterated previously raised concerns .93 
The representative of Australia  reiterated previously raised concerns .94 Australia 
appreciated China's April 2018 public consultation on its draft Provisions on Internet Security 
Supervision and Inspection. He highlighted the importance of benchmarking new business 
regulations against int ernational best practices and working in consultation with the foreign 
business community. Aus tralia was concerned the draft p rovisions could require Australian 
businesses to disclose trade secrets or intellectual property. Such requirements would run coun ter 
to China 's repeated statements about improving the business environment for foreign companies 
in China. He asked that China advise how it would protect intellectual property as it implements 
internet security and supervision regulations.  
The representa tive of China  repeated the response provided at the previous Committee 
meeting.95  
4.4.34   European Union — Organic production and labelling - Maté (erva -mate) (IMS  ID 
52496) 
The representative of Brazil welcomed the entry into force of EU Regulation 2018/848 on 
17 June, which included yerba mate in the European list of organic products and thanked the EU 
for addressing its requests on this matter. However, the regulation would entry into force only on 
1 January 2021, renewing the concerns of producers. Brazilian exports of yerba mate to the 
European market had not enjoyed a seal that could legitimately be attributed to their production 
for purely historical reasons. The previous law (EC 834/2007) was base d on Annex I of the Treaty 
establishing the European Communities (the Treaty of Rome) in order to define the list of organic 
products and, at the time, there had been  no concerns with maté. The  fact that it was not possible 
for yerba mate to receive the or ganic seal had been damaging the exports of Brazilian producers 
to the European market for years, mainly small producers, which invested their scarce resources 
towards the recognition of their sustainable way of production. In order to prevent Brazilian 
exporters from continuing to suffer for the next two and a half years, Brazil asked for a transitional 
solution so that mate producers could benefit from the organic seal before 2021.  
The representative of the European Union  repeated  the response provided at the previous 
Committee meeting97, as well as bilaterally , and recalled  that the new Regulation, which included 
mate in its scope, would enter into force on 1 January 2021.  
                                                
90 For previous statements follow t he thread under IMS ID 526  (under dates raised and references) . 
91 G/TBT/M/74 , para . 2.195.  
92 G/TBT/M/74 , para . 2.196. 
93 G/TBT/M/73 , para . 2.189 ; and G/TBT/M/74 , para . 2.198.  
94 G/TBT/M/73 , para . 2.192.  
95 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.201.  
96 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 524  (under dates raised and references) . 
97 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.213 and statement circulated in full in G/TBT/W/512  G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 29 - 
 
  4.4.35   China — Cyberspace Administration of China – Draft implementing measures for 
the Cy bersecurity Review of Network Products and Services  (IMS  ID 53398) 
The representative of Japan  reiterated previously raised concerns .99 Although China had 
provided explanations on these measures at previous meetings, there was still a lack of clarity as 
to the articles regulating the terms definitions, the concrete requirement for review and  the 
evaluation , and the scope of regulation. Japan was concerned that the measures may hamper 
market access of foreign companies to China or cause leakage of confidential  technology, 
depending on concrete details of rules or their implementation. Therefore, Japan requested China 
to implement this measure in a non -discriminatory manner in line with TBT Agreement.  Japan also 
requested China to clarify the terms definitions,  the concrete contents of requirements and the 
scope of regulation as well as to ensure transparency and that the relevant regulations and 
procedures were consistent with international standards and practices. Finally, Japan requested 
China to implement th e regulation transparently and in full consideration of the views held by 
Japan and other Members.  
The representative s of the United States,  the European Union  and the Republic of Korea 
reiterated previously expressed concerns100 on this measure.  Korea requested China to clarify the 
scope and procedure of the 'cooperation' of network security evaluation foreseen under Article 12 . 
The representative of China  reiterated the response provided at the previous TBT 
Committee meeting.101  
4.4.36   China — Draft revised En cryption Law of the People's Republic of China by the 
Office of State Commercial Cryptography Administration (OSCCA) (IMS ID 534102) 
The representative of the European Union  reiterated previously raised concerns. The full 
statement is available in G/TBT/W/ 514. 
The representative of Japan  reiterated previously raised concerns .103 She asked if China 
was, as had been stated, actively researching and adopting the relevant suggestions from all 
parties while working on further revision s of the draft.   
The representative s of the Republic of Korea  and the United States  reiterated previously 
raised concerns.104 
The representative of China  repeated its response provided at the previous  Committee 
meeting . 105 He assured the Committee that t he revision of the Draft would fully reflect the spirit of 
the administrative reform and trans forming government functions, and take WTO rules and 
globally accepted practices into full consideration . 
4.4.37   European Union — Regulat ion (EC) No 1107/2009 - non-renewal of approval of 
the active substance picoxystrobin G/TBT/N/EU/437  (IMS ID 535106)  
The representative of Brazil  reiterated previously raised concerns107 and noted that the EU 
position was not in line with technical and scient ific negative findings on the genotoxicity of 
picoxystrobin, such as those from the US Environmen tal Protection Agency (EPA) and  the CODEX 
Committee on Pesticides Residues (CCPR), which had recently approved picoxystrobin maximum 
residue levels (M RL) for various raw materials. In addition , Brazil recalled previous scientific 
consensus on the matter, some of which emanated from  European authorities . The Council 
                                                
98 For previo us statements follow the thread under IMS ID 533  (under dates raised and references) . 
99 G/TBT/M/74 , para . 2.127 . 
100 G/TBT/M/74 , paras. 2.214 -2.216; and G/TBT/M/73 , paras. 2.221 -2.224.  
101 G/TBT/M/74  para. 2.217.  
102 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 534  (under dates raised and references) . 
103 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.218; and G/TBT/M/73 , para. 2.216.  
104 G/TBT/M/74 , paras. 2.220 -2.221; and G/TBT/M/73 , paras. 2.217 -2.218.  
105 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.222; and G/TBT/M/73 , para. 2.220.  
106 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 535  (under dates raised and references) . 
107 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.223 . G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 30 - 
 
  Directive 91/414/EEC had declared picoxystrobin to be non -toxic and the recommendations of the 
FAO WHO Joint Meeting on Pesticides Residues (JMPR) had concluded that  the substance was not 
genotoxic. In addition,  nearly 70 countries  had already approve d the use of the substance, 
including t he USA, China, Canada and Japan among others. Furthermore,  European authorities 
such as the Standing Committee on Plants Animals, Food and Feed  and the A ppeal s Committee 
had not reached a conclusive decision on this  issue ( "no opinion ") and  the report of the European 
Food Safety Authority had highlighted that " it was not possible to conclude on the genotoxicity 
potential of picoxystrob in based on the available data". Finally, there were the findings of the EU 's 
Rapporteur Mem ber State, the Czech Republic. In this context , Brazil  requested the  EU to take into 
considerat ion that  the possible reduction of  maxim um residue levels (MRL) for the substance  could 
have serious consequences for Brazil's trade in agricultural  commodities, such as soy and coffee. 
Therefore, Brazil asked for its  concerns  to be taken  into account, in compliance with Articles 2.2 
and 2.5 of TBT Agreement. Brazil  also requested the EU to take in to consideration the standards 
being discussed in CODEX, in order to avoid  the creation of unnecessary restrictions to trade and, 
finally, to declare  picoxystrobi n as safe for the protection of crops and renew  the licensing of 
products treated with this substance. " 
The representative of Canada  reiterated previously raised concerns108 and requested clarity 
around the status of existing MRLs to manage imports.  
The representative of the European Union , recalling the detailed explanation provided at 
the previous TBT Committee, said that the European Commission had decided not to renew the 
approval of picoxystrobin through Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 20 17/1455. 
Authorisations for plant protection products containing picoxystrobin in the EU were required to be 
withdrawn by 30 November 2017 while Member States were permitted to allow for a grace period 
until 30 November 2018 at the latest. The EU had notif ied third countries of the draft Regulation 
via the WTO TBT transparency procedures. The measure had not lead to immediate disruptions in 
trade, as the measure itself did not amend the maximum residue levels (MRLs) and provided for a 
grace period for use o f products containing picoxystrobin. Given the issues identified by the 
European Food Safety Agency (EFSA), the existing MRLs would likely be reviewed in a separate 
measure in view of their safety to consumers. Import tolerance requests would however remai n 
possible and would be assessed case by case by EFSA. While the Commission had entered into 
discussions with EU Member States regarding possible changes in the MRLs for picoxystrobin, a 
concrete draft measure had not yet been prepared. When such a draft w as available, the EU would 
notify it under the WTO SPS agreement and consult its trading partners before submitting it for 
vote to the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed.  
4.4.38   European Union — Titanium dioxide: Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (CL P 
Regulation), Annex VI, Part 2 (IMS ID 539109) 
The representative of the United States  recalled  that over the years, her delegation  had 
raised transpa rency concerns regarding the EU' s process to develop regulations and standards for 
the registration and use  of chemicals, both as substances and in products.  The EU' s WTO 
notifications tended to come only after its own scientific and regulatory committees had completed 
their years -long reviews, raising transparency concerns regarding the consideration of 
international stakeholder input at an early and appropriate stage in the development of a 
regulation.  Further, she explained that for highly complex products, such as chemicals, where the 
science of assessing hazards and risks was quickly evolving and scientifi c studies could take years, 
this was a missed opportunity to meaningfully integrate international participation and comments, 
which her delegation believed brought  the consultative intent of the EU 's notifications into 
question. She said that as a result , EU's regulatory decisions might overlook the best available 
science and  not align with other countries'  chemical classifications , which could lead to potential 
trade barriers that could  hinder innovation and unnecessarily disrupt trade.   
She said that the  EU's recent decision to classify Titanium Dioxide  (TiO2), a white mineral -
based pigment used in products ranging from paints to sunscreens, as causing cancer when 
inhaled, illustrated these transparency concerns . TiO2 was widely acknowledged as a safe add itive, 
supported by extensive studies on con sumer and industrial use. As TiO 2 could irritate the lungs via 
                                                
108 G/TBT/M/74  paras. 2.226 -2.227; G/TBT/M/73  para. 2.213; and G/TBT/M/72  para. 3.19.  
109 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 539  (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 31 - 
 
  extensive industrial exposure, decades -standing practice was for workers to wear protective gear 
against inhalation, including in the EU.  The US believed the EU to be  overturning current 
international standards for cl assifying chemicals by labelling TiO2 as cancerous. T he decision was 
controversial both among EU member S tates and overseas, and it was unclear whether the 
classification would  result in b etter protection for consumers and workers.  It would , however , 
create confusi on in the $20 billion global TiO 2 industry and the $80 billion in do wnstream 
industries using TiO 2 in their products , due to  costly, new cancer labelling requirements.  The U S 
therefore asked that the EU delay this classification to allow time for meaningful stakeholder 
consultation on TiO2  and recalled its  offer to consult with experts from the US  government and 
industry.  
The representative of the European Union  explained that  TiO2 had been included in the 
2018 Adaptation to Technical and Scientific Progress (ATP) amending the CLP Regulation. Several 
discussions on the classification of TiO2 and the classification of mixtures containing TiO2 had 
taken place in the expert group for REACH and CLP ("CARACAL"), in November 2017 and March 
2018. At the request of and based  on the comments received from m ember States and 
stakeholders , the Commission had organised a dedicated discussion on TiO2 on 23 April 2018 , 
which a US delegate had attended. Following that meeting and considering other comments and 
input received, the Commission Services had proposed a wording for the inclusion of TiO2 in Annex 
VI to CLP. The proposal had been  presented to and discussed in the CARACAL meeting of 12 J une, 
as well as in the REACH Committee meeting of 13 June. The Commission's proposal was to limit 
the entry in Annex VI to the respirable (powder) form of TiO2. In addition, many notes would be 
included indicating that mixtures containing TiO2 only need to  be classified if placed on the market 
in powder form.  
Participants to both meetings had been  invited to provide their comments  and b ased on 
these, the entry and notes might be further refined. It was foreseen to take the vote on the ATP to 
CLP (containin g the TiO2 entry) in September 2018.  The EU reassured the Committee that any 
proposal to classify TiO2  as a carcinogenic substance to be included in Annex VI of the CLP 
Regulation would be notified to the WTO, as usual, at the latest 60 days before the vot e in the 
REACH Committee. All comments sent by Members would be duly considered by the Commission 
in the decision -making process for the formal adoption of a RAC opinion.  Finally, the EU stressed 
that ECHA's RAC committee had considered in its scientific a ssessment all available data, including 
the information submitted during the public consultation period. Review of a RAC opinion was only 
possible  if new scientific information was  available.  
4.4.39   China — Catalogue of Solid Wastes  Forbidden to Import into China , 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1211 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1224 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1225 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1226 , 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1227 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1228 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1229 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1230 , 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1231 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1232 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1233 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1234  
(IMD ID 545110) 
The representative of New Zealand  reiterated previously raised concerns .111 
The representative of the United States  reiterated previously raised concerns112 on the 
negative trade and environmental impacts resulting from China 's import ban  and accompanying 
measures further  restricting imports of recovered materials. She noted that although China had 
invoked the legitimate objective of environmental protection, no details had been provided on the 
specific environmental concerns the country was hoping to address, nor how the restrictive 
measures were expected to improve these concerns. Moreover, China's current approach appeared 
to be having the opposite effect. She said that the most likely outcome was that the ban on post -
consumer plastics and restriction of trade in post -industrial plas tics would redirect reusable plastics 
from productive purposes, such as recycling, to the waste stream.   
While the US recognized and appreciated China's interest in addressing valid 
environmental concerns, regret was expressed that requests had been refuse d to meet with 
experts from China's Ministry of Environmental Protection to understand the environmental 
                                                
110 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 545  (under dates raised and references).  
111 G/TBT/M/74 , paras. 2.236 -2.237.  
112 G/TBT/M/74 , paras. 2.233 -2.234; and G/TBT/M/73 , paras. 2.8-2.9. G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 32 - 
 
  concerns, the necessity of the measures, and to work cooperatively to ensure that valid 
environmental concerns were met in the least trade -restrictive manner possible. Instead, China 
had moved forward with the implementation of those highly trade -restrictive measures and 
moreover had recently expanded the scope of restricted materials. On 19 April, several ministries 
had issued a notice adding 32 types o f scrap and waste to the Catalogue of Prohibited Import Solid 
Waste.  
The US requested that China immediately suspend implementation of its import ban and 
import control standards for recovered materials and urged China to break its silence if it really 
hoped to address valid environmental concerns. China was also asked, at least in the interim, to 
revise the measures in line with existing international standards for trade in recycled commodities. 
Further, China was requested to observe the 60 -day comment pe riod consistent with the 
Committee recommendations and to subsequently grant a reasonable implementation timeframe. 
She recalled that China's notifications G/TBT/N/CHN/1211 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1212 , and 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1224  through G/TBT/N/CHN/1234  had entered into force well before the customary 
six-month minimum tim eframe for technical measures.  
Finally, her delegation noted that for a vast number of materials outlined in both the ban 
and import control standards, China appeared to have no mandatory commensurate domestic 
standard in place. For example, for the 21 ca tegories of non -ferrous metal commodities subject to 
China's import control standard notified in G/TBT/N/CHN/1228 , China appeared to have only 
voluntary standards for just three categories of non -ferrous metal: copper, aluminium, and zinc, 
and no domestic standards, voluntary or otherwise, for the remaining non -ferrous materials 
specified in the measure. The US remained concerned that a ban and related import control 
standards with such a broad scope may be more trade restrictive than necessary to fulfil th e 
stated objectives, and that there appeared to be fundamental differences between requirements 
for foreign and domestic commodities.  
The representative of Canada  thanked China for the response to its written comments on 
the set of measures contained in n otifications G/TBT/N/CHN/1224  through G/TBT/N/CHN/1234 . 
Though it outlined some of China's objectives, Canada continued to have questions and concerns 
over the restrictive standards on imports of recyclable materi als. Canada reiterated its comments 
provided at the previous TBT Committee meeting.113 His delegation again highlighted that the 
trade in recyclable materials between Canada and China was mutually beneficial.  Chinese 
manufacturers had a long history of obtai ning valuable raw materials from Canada, which were 
now being impeded by uncertainty related to China's standards. Canada therefore sought a more 
precise definition of what was supposed to be considered "carried waste" for each standard as well 
as a precis e explanation of the testing procedures performed by Chinese inspectors upon entry 
into China. While recognizing its goal of limiting harmful environmental impacts, Canada 
encouraged China to consider all possible mechanisms to ensure that trade could cont inue in a 
predictable manner.  
Concerning the import ban notified in G/TBT/N/CHN/1211 , Canada continued to share 
concerns over the uncertainty that China's restrictions on the import o f solid waste was creating 
for traders and reiterated its comments provided at the previous TBT Committee meeting.114 
Canada also recalled China's Ministry of Ecology and Environment announcing its plan to ban the 
import of more scrap and waste products by t he end of 2019. Canada encouraged China to notify 
those additional measures to the TBT Committee as soon as possible to provide other Members 
time to comment on them and to take those comments into account.  
The representative of Australia  appreciated Chin a's efforts to reduce pollution through a 
broad range of measures but nevertheless echoed the concerns of other Members. He noted that 
the measures were already having a significant impact on Australian exporters and the 
environment, with scrap materials p otentially being sent to landfill, instead of being recycled in 
China and recovered for intermediate materials.  Australia remained concerned that the measures 
were more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve the desired objectives and supported other  
Members in finding the timeframe for comments  to be insufficient. Australia urged China to 
withdraw the measures, and to consider all possible mechanisms to meet its environmental 
                                                
113 G/TBT/M/74 , paras. 2.15 -2.16. 
114 G/TBT/M/74 , paras. 2.238 -2.239.  G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 33 - 
 
  objectives and reduce hazardous waste, while not disrupting valuable trade in recyclable 
materials.115 
The representative of the European Union  supported the statements and concerns made by 
New Zealand, the US, Canada and Australia.  
The representative of China  responded to the concerns raised. The full statement is 
contained in  G/TBT/W/546 . 
4.4.40   India — Amended regulation on toy imports,  G/TBT/N/IND/68  (IMS ID 546116) 
The representative of the European Union  expressed concern that the notified measure 
required toys imported into India to be tested by a test laboratory accredited by National 
Accreditation Board and Calibration Laboratories (NABL), India. His delegation considered this 
obligation for third -party testing to be costly and time -consuming, especially for producers in 
exporting countries who were obliged to duplicate testing with very limited or no added value in 
terms of safety. He stated that the notified measure replaced the earlier requirement ac cording to 
which imported toys had to conform to international standards (such as ISO 8124) and testing had 
to be done by laboratories accredited under ILAC MRA. The EU continued to urge India to explain 
the rationale for this change in policy, and to cons ider allowing conformance to the relevant 
international standards as an alternative to the BIS standards. The EU asked India whether it could 
confirm that the amended regulation allowed NABL accreditation to be granted to international 
laboratories, i.e. l aboratories not located in India.  
Regarding implementation, his delegation was concerned that difficulties and delays faced 
by international laboratories in getting accredited by NABL could lead to the amended regulation 
corresponding to de facto in -countr y testing. India was asked to clarify whether international labs 
had applied and whether accreditation requests were being processed expeditiously. Clarification 
was also requested on the issue of the validity period of test reports as uncertainty on this issue 
was likely to create additional problems to foreign producers. The EU stated that a test report 
should not had limited validity if there had been no change to the material or the production 
process or in standards, and that test reports should remain  valid for a minimum of 36 months. He 
noted that it had transmitted written questions and concerns to India, as requested at the previous 
Committee meeting, and looked forward responses and clarifications to be provided in the 
Committee, or bilaterally.  
The representative of the United States  supported India's goal of ensuring toy safety but 
had serious concerns with the burdensome nature of the amendment, which harmed the US toy 
industry's ability to access the Indian market.  The US was surprised by the e xtent to which the 
measure unfairly targeted imported toys. She recalled that prior to regulatory changes, India 
employed what many considered the "gold standard" of toy regulatory regimes, meaning that toy 
manufacturers could test to either the ASTM, ISO,  or EN toy safety standards in the country of 
manufacture by a lab accredited under the ILAC system.  
India had noted that the measure had been put into place immediately due to issues 
concerning safety of children, yet despite numerous requests India had not provided important 
information regarding the evaluation of specific toy hazards. The US therefore requested detailed 
information on the safety concerns of imported toys that had led to the new standard and in -
country testing requirements. It was her de legation's understanding that India might be replacing 
the existing measure with a new regulation that would apply to all toy producers, both domestic 
and foreign. He requested that India notify the new regulation and allow interested parties to 
comment. S he further recalled that in 2016 the US had been the seventh largest exporter of toys 
to India, primarily specialty toys from small and medium sized manufacturers. The US was also 
home to two of the world's largest toy companies, for which the value of the  Indian toy market 
was estimated at $75 -100 million for 2016.  As such, the US viewed the measure's potential effect 
on trade to be of deep concern.  
                                                
115 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.235.  
116 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 54 6 (under dates raised and references).  G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 34 - 
 
  
The representative of China  supported India's efforts to ensure toy safety but remained 
concerned that the amended regulation required the imported toy to be in conformity only with 
Indian standards, rather than international, EU or US standards which had been accepted in the 
past. China also noted that the new regulation required that the imported toys be tested by NABL, 
instead of labs accredited under ILAC MRA which had already caused higher costs to toy 
enterprises in China. He hoped India could modify its present toy imports reg ulations, to allow for 
toys to be in compliance with international, EU or US standards, and tested by ILAC MRA labs for 
imports. Additionally, China hoped India would notify the measure, and provide comment and 
transitional period for any future amended re gulations, to enable companies to adjust their 
production and adapt to new requirements.  
The representative of Canada  supported the concerns raised by other Members and 
referred to its statement in previous meetings.117 
The representative of India explained that the measure had been imposed through DGFT 
notification No. 26 dated 1 September 2017 revising the import policy for toys and notified to the 
TBT Committee in G/TBT/N/IND/68  dated 7 December 2017. As previously stated, the measure 
had been put in place  to immediately stop the imports of toys posing health hazards to users, 
particularly children and had been based on analysis and inputs received from stakeholders. He 
said that it had been found that toys being imported into India were unsafe for children  from a 
health angle and hence, as an emergency measure, action had been taken to ensure appropriate 
standards and correct conformity assessment. Detailed information on safety concerns on toys had 
already been highlighted in the referred standards i.e., I S 9873 and IS 15644.  
India informed the Committee that the regulation was equally applicable domestically, and 
therefore not discriminatory. He said that the number of NABL -accredited labs was sufficient and 
that there was no delay in testing. Moreover, te st costs were lower than international rates. He 
also confirmed that there were no foreign labs outside India which were accredited by NABL for 
toys under this regulation. Applications had been received and were in process by the relevant 
authority. Concer ning the validity of testing, reports were given for a particular consignment or lot.  
4.4.41   China — Certification requirements for processed foods , G/TBT/N/CHN/1209  
(IMS ID 547118) 
The representative of the United States  thanked China for its bilateral engagement to date 
on the concerns raised on the proposed official certification requirements for imported foods and 
also for its September 2017 announcement notifying WTO Members of the two -year transitional 
period for enforcement from 1 October 2017 until 30 Septem ber 2019 . The US also welcomed the 
clarifications provided by China thus far, and understand China was considering further changes 
and clarifications to the measure in the coming months. The US asked China to confirm that it 
intended to notify a revised me asure to the WTO and to provide an estimate of when that 
notification may be transmitted. The US, however, remained concerned about the potential trade 
implications of this measure. The broad scope of products affected was of particular concern . The 
propos ed measure also appeared to include processed, shelf -stable foods that ordinarily posed 
little to no  risk for food -borne illnesses. The types of concerns addressed by this measure were not 
commensurate with the enormous administrative burden and increased cost that it would impose 
on manufacturers, exporters, importers and ultimately consumers. The US also believed that 
China's proposed requirements appeared to deviate significantly from the extensive array of 
relevant Codex guidelines and principles which Members were obliged to take into account when 
developing official certification requirements, absent a risk assessment appropriate to the 
circumstances. The US welcomed the opportunity to work with China to assess the requirements of 
the proposed measure consistent with legitimate food safety and health protection goals, and to 
present a manageable information exchange consistent with those objectives to support fair trade 
in food products.  
The representative of the European Union  reiterated previously rai sed concerns .119 The EU 
also supported the statement made by the US.  
                                                
117 G/TBT/M/73 , para. 2.22; and G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.246.  
118 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 547 (under dates raised and references).  G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 35 - 
 
  
The representative of the Republic of Korea  share d the concern s raised by the US and the 
EU and  request ed China not to unnecessarily expa nd the scope of this regulation . He also asked 
China  to share and notify a revised draft of the regulation in a transparent manner.  
The representative of Japan  shared concerns raised by the US, the EU and Korea and 
recognized that China was in the process of taking into account comments received at various 
occasions and was considering the new measure. Japan requested China to provide timely updates 
and appropriately include responses to the comments provided.  
The representative of Switzerland  stated that his delegation's main concern was that the 
measure ap plied to all processed foods and did not apply a risk -based approach. Switzerland  
therefore encouraged China to structure its certification requirement for processed foods in 
accordance with established international standards. Switzerland welcomed the decision by China 
to postpone the date of enforcement to 1 October 2019. By doing so , China ha d shown its 
willingness to adjust the measure to make it more effective, practical and to minimize its negative 
effects on trade. The measure was scheduled to enter into force in approximately 15  months from 
the date of this meeting. In order not  to forego this opportunity, China should engage with 
Switzerland  and other Members and use the time for further discussions. As a first step towards 
this goal, China could provide responses to questions and comments submitted by Switzerland and 
other Memb ers. 
The representative of Guatemala  thanked China for its willingness to amend the entry into 
force of this measure to October 2019 giving industry necessary time to adapt to the new 
measures. However, she also requested that China respond in writing to h er delegation's 
comments submitted in August 2017, with i nformation on the current state -of-play of the 
measure, in particular concerning  the situation of processed low -risk non -perishable products. She 
also asked China to inform when it expected the final  version of the regulation would be made 
available prior to entry into force as well as the restructuring of the measures.  
The representative of China  stated that, in order to ensure the safety of imported food and 
improve the traceability system thereof , the former General Administration of Quality Supervision, 
Inspection and Quarantine had formulated the Administration Measures for Certificate 
Accompanied with Imported Food, notified to WTO in June 2017. The measures required exporters 
to provide certific ates accompanied with the food exported to China, certifying that the pro -
duction, processing, storage, transportation, and export process of relevant products were under 
supervision, so as to ensure the safety and the complete traceability information of the relevant 
products. Whilst  exporters had different supervision systems, the procedures for issuing 
certificates needed coordination and arrangement of several institutions. In September 2017, 
China decided to postpone the implementation date by two year s to 1 October 2019. After the 
notification, interested parties responded actively and provided comments. China was willing to 
consider all the reasonable comments and adjust this measure to make it more effective and 
practical. In March 2018, the First Me eting of the Thirteenth National People's Congress reviewed 
and approved the Institutional Reform Plan of the State Council, and, as a result, the management 
responsibility of entry -exit inspection and quarantine of General Administration of Quality 
Superv ision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ) was assigned to the General Administration of 
Customs (GACC). This reform would be in place by the end of 2018. At present, the relevant 
departments from former AQSIQ were studying the integration plan with the depa rtments of 
General Administration of Customs. China welcomed Members ' comments and suggestions.  
4.4.42   Viet Nam — Decree on the regulation on conditions for automobiles 
manufacturing, assembling importing and automotive warranty & maintenance services , 
G/TBT/N/VN M/116  (IMS ID  549120) 
The representative of Thailand  recognized the efforts of Vietnam to protect legitimate 
objectives of human health, safety and environment. However, Thailand's automobile industry 
faced difficulties and obstacles in exporting cars to Vie tnam due to the application of the Decree 
116, which was inconsistent with the TBT obligations. Thailand deemed that t he regulation was 
applied in a non-transparent, trade -restrictive and discriminatory manner.  
                                                                                                                                                  
119 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.249  and statement circulated in full in G/TBT/W/518 . 
120 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 549 (under dates raised and references).  G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 36 - 
 
  
He noted that the retroactive notification of  Decree 116 had not allow ed any time for 
comments by Members. The short gap between the publication and the entry into force of Decree 
116 was not a reasonable interval of time for the automotive industry since car importers typically 
needed several months  of lead time prior to importation. Therefore, Thailand urged Vietnam to 
delay the implementation of the Decree 116 to allow time for producers in exporting countries to 
adapt their products to Vietnamese requirements.  
He added that Decree 116 required Vehicle Type Approval ( VTA) certificates and emission, 
quality and safety inspection for every single lot of imported cars. This was inconsistent with 
international practice and significantly time -consuming and costly. He reminded that according to 
the TBT Ag reement, conformity assessment procedures should  be undertaken and completed as 
expeditiously as possible. The requirement to test by lot was clearly not expeditious since Vietnam 
had only one emission testing laboratory and it took up to two months to und ertake all the test 
and inspection and customs clearance for only one import shipment. The d ocumentation 
requirement was not limited to what was necessary to assess conformity and not clearly prescribed 
in the regulation. These requirements were applied mo re strictly than necessary to give Vietnam 
adequate confidence that products conform ed to the applicable regulations and therefore created 
unnecessary obstacles to international trade.  
Additionally, Thailand stated that cars of Vietnamese origin were treat ed more favourabl y 
than those originating in other countries , resulting in discriminatory treatments to exports. This 
was the case because results of automobile checking and certificate s were valid for 36 months for 
cars of Vietnamese origin, whereas imported cars were subject to lot -by-lot inspection. Thailand 
requested Vietnam to suspend the requirements for inspection and testing of each shipment. 
Thailand hoped that Vietnam would take  into consideration its concerns and fulfil its obligations 
under the TBT Agreement, eliminating unnecessary obstacles to international trade.  
The representative of Japan  reiterated previously expressed concerns121 on this measure. 
Since  the entry into forc e of Decree  116 on 1 January 2018, the automobile industry had faced 
challenge s with meeting requirements.  Japan requested Viet Nam to consider industry 's comments 
and to  revise the Decree immediately.  
The representative of the European Union  thanked Vietn am for providing the opportunity 
to discuss G/TBT/N/VNM/116  and reiterated previously expressed concerns.122 The EU noted that it 
had sent comments to Viet Nam on 12 April 2018, however Vietnam 's answer received on 31 May 
did not sufficiently address the iss ues raised by the EU. In particular, the EU 's concern about the 
discrimination of imported vehicles in relation to domestically produced ones, stemming from 
Article 6 of the Decree, had not been addressed. Since the answers provided by Vietnam to EU 
commen ts did not address EU 's concerns, the EU invited Vietnam to reassess the EU comments, 
and to provide relevant replies, in line with the spirit of the TBT Agreement. The EU called upon 
Vietnam to consider all the comments made by the EU and the other WTO Me mbers and to modify 
the Decree accordingly.  
The representative of the United States  remained extremely concerned with the pro visions 
contained in Decree 116, i n particular, the VTA certificate and lot -by-lot testing requirements.  The 
United States request ed again that Vietnam notify the implementing circular for Decree 116, 
Circular 3 (Circular No. 3/2018/TT - BGTVT), to the WTO TBT Committee, as commit ted at the 
March 2018 TBT Committee meeting. This was important since Circular 3 la id out conformity 
asses sment procedures, including mandatory certification requirements.  
The representative of Canada  thanked Vietnam for the bilateral meeting held earlier in the 
week. Canada continued to have concerns with Vietnam 's requirements, echoed the comments of 
other W TO Members, and looked forward to receiving Viet Nam's response to its questions.  
The representative of the Russian Federation  joined interested delegations in expressing 
concern regarding Decree 116/2017. The Russian Federation requested Viet Nam to suspe nd the 
application of the Decree and to allow sufficient time for comments by Members.  
                                                
121 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.254.  
122 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.256.  G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 37 - 
 
  
The representative of Viet Nam  thanked Canada for the bilateral meeting. Viet Nam noted 
that the objective of Decree 116 was to protect customer safety and the environme nt. Decree 116 
had been promulgated and implemented on the basis of non -discrimination between domestic and 
foreign car manufacturers. Viet Nam explained that the VTA requirement was mandatory not only 
for imported cars but also for all cars produced or assembled domestically. Viet Nam informed the 
Committee that the Viet Nam Register under the Ministry of Transport had accepted 119 
applications for import registration  with total 56 different motor vehicle types, and had granted 
technical and environment safety certificates for 26 vehicle types, with 4 ,385 cars placed on the 
market. Up to June 2018, some manufacturers from US, Korea, Thailand and several developed 
Membe rs had successfully imported vehicles into Viet Nam. The lot -by-lot testing and inspection 
for imported cars was one of the appropriate measures to ensure the quality consistency which 
had been being applied by many countries in parallel with vehicle type approval. Viet Nam took 
note of all comments and said it would provide further responses.  
4.4.43   Viet Nam — Cybersecurity Measures  (IMS ID 544123) 
The representative of Japan  express ed its concern and strong inter est and  recognize d that 
Viet Nam ha d revised the dra ft law, but that the revised draft law still include d various provisions 
which could hinder participation of foreign companies in the Vietnamese market.  He said his 
delegation was aware that the Vietnamese government wo uld provide the details of the 
"cybe rsecurity condition"  under the draft law. At the previous  meeting, Japan had requested Viet  
Nam to clarify its requirement and procedures and not to hinder participation of foreign companies 
in the Vietnamese market , to which Viet Nam had replied that Memb ers' comment s would be 
conveyed to the relevant authorities for responses. Japan recognize d that the Viet Nam National 
Assembly had passed the Cybersecurity Law on 12 June and enquired whether other Members'  
concerns ha d been taken into account in the fina l draft. Japan request ed Viet Nam to consider the 
comments  from Japan and other M ember s, and to implement the law in a transparent manner to 
avoid it being more trade -restrictive than necessary.  
The representative of the United States  expressed deep concern with the draft law and 
disappointment that Viet  Nam had failed to notify it formally to  the WTO with a  comment period 
while still in draft form. Viet Nam was therefore  urged to immediately notify the l aw and any draft 
implementing measures  and to work with US and other stakeholder s to resolve concerns with the 
law. Her delegation encourage d Viet Nam to consider a risk -based approach to cybersecurity 
drawing  from industry best practices, widely accepted definitions, and international standards. Viet 
Nam was also request ed to consider the Common Criteria Recognition Arrangement (CCRA) 
certification process when preparing  implementing measures for the l aw.  
The representative of Canada  supported  the comments of other delegations and continue d 
to follow the measure with interest.  
The representative of the European Union  said th at her delegation shared Member s' 
concerns with the potential of the Vietnamese draft Cybersecurity law to create unnecessary 
barriers to trade. She noted that  according to the latest available information, th e law had been  
adopted by the Vietnamese Na tional Assembly on 12 June 2018 and  asked Viet Nam to confirm 
this and to provide any additional information on the following steps regarding  the law as well as 
any plans for  the development of imple menting measures, in particular  concerning  cybersecurity 
verification. She reiterated the statement made by her delegation in the previous  meeting 
concerning the need for Viet Nam to notify this measure under Article 2.9 of the TBT  
Agreement.124 
The representative of Viet Nam  thanked delegations for their comments and confirmed 
that the draft Cybersecurity law had been  adopted by Viet Nam National Assembly on 12 June 
2018. She stressed that the legitimate objective of this measure was to protect national security. 
Furthermore, the requirement of cybersecurity conditions under this measure applied to important 
informatio n system of national security, which mainly belonged to governmental agencies. She 
said that her  delegation  had taken note of all the comments and concerns raised by Members, and 
would duly relay them to relevant authorities for fur ther consideration and r esponse .  
                                                
123 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 544 (under dates raised and references).  
124 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.262 and stateme nt circulated in full in G/TBT/W/520 . G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 38 - 
 
  4.4.44   European Union — The establishment and operation of a traceability system for 
tobacco products , G/TBT/N/EU/505 , G/TBT/N/EU/507  (IMS ID 550125) 
The representative of Cuba reiterated previously raised concerns regarding the 
establishment and operatio n of a traceability system for tobacco products. The full statement is 
contained in G/TBT/W/545 . 
The representative of the European Union  recalled their statement  made in the previous 
TBT Committee  meeting.126 She noted that the adoption of these acts was preceded by a detailed 
consultation process, during which relevant stakeholders from the EU and third countries had been 
invited to share their views. This included notification of the draft acts und er WTO TBT procedures 
and detailed analysis of all comments received from third countries, including Cuba. Justified 
comments had been considered and replies had been issued to the countries concerned. She 
confirmed that the situation of third countries, a s well as the potential impact that the new 
systems may have on them, had been borne in mind throughout the preparation process. She also 
recalled that the obligation to ensure overall compliance with the provisions of the legislation fell 
on the importer of the products into the EU.  
4.4.45   European Union — Amendments to the Directive 2009/28/EC, Renewable Energy 
Directive  (IMS ID 553127)  
The representative of Malaysia  continued to raise concerns over the proposed amendments 
to the European Union's Renewable Energy  Directive . The full statement is contained in 
G/TBT/W/548 . 
The representative of Indonesia  informed the Committee that during a recent bilateral 
meeting further clarification had been sought on the amendments of the EU Renewable Energy 
Directive (RED II) jointly agreed by the European Parliament, the Council of Europe and the 
European Commission on 14 June 2018. Indonesia thanked the EU for the clarification provided on 
16 June 2018 entitled " Palm oil, Outcome of the Trilogue EU's Renewable Energy Directive RED II 
Factsheet " ("EU clarification"). Indo nesia requested further clarification on several issues. 
Regarding the initial proposal to ban palm oil and phase out palm oil in biofuel mix by 2030, would 
the ban still apply to palm oil? He also asked the EU to clarify the categories concerned by the 
agreement reached which included gradual reduction of the amount of certain categories of biofuel 
counted towards the EU's renewable energy target. If the categories included palm oil, did it also 
apply to rapeseed oil? Indonesia requested that the RED II pr oposal be notified to the WTO and 
allow 60 days for comment.  
Given the negative perception of palm oil in the EU, Indonesia believed that the EU would 
refuse biofuels produced from raw materials obtained from land with biodiversity such as primary 
forests  regardless of the outcome of the future study . He requested the EU to provide the list of 
vegetable oils that presently were considered as high risk and low risk in the context of indirect 
use chains. Under the study mandated by the European Commission, h ow did the EU intend to 
weight Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC) in developed countries in relation to, for example, palm 
oil in developing countries? Indonesia strongly believed that any weighting should consider the 
2030 SDGs and the commitment towards ach ieving these goals. Indonesia also sought clarification 
on whether the EU would agree that in both developed and developing countries different 
vegetable oils should not be treated differently, and w hether the I LUC study would be adapted to 
the SDGs. He st ressed the importance of addressing environmental concerns at the level of 
vegetable oils to include, for example, the contamination of soils and oceans from nitrates in both 
developed and developing countries. Although the EU had explained that the gradua l phasing out 
of palm oil within the biofuel targets would not affect palm oil exports, it would cause significant 
adverse impacts on the palm oil sales in the EU. Therefore, the measure would advantageously 
position European  vegetable oils, in particular  rapeseed oil . Was the intention of such a ban, in 
whole or in part,  to give preference to domestically produced rapeseed oil? While recognizing that 
the protection of the environment was a legitimate objective under the TBT Agreement, did the EU 
                                                
125 For previous statements follow the  thread under IMS ID 550 (under dates raised and references).  
126 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.265, and statement circulated in full in G/TBT/W/521 . 
127 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 553  (under dates raised and references).  G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 39 - 
 
  consider t hat the only environmental challenge in the vegetable oil sector was vegetation and 
ILUC? Indonesia looked forward to discussing this matter further with the EU.  
The representative of Colombia  reiterated previously raised concerns.128 According to news 
in the local press, "the contribution from biofuels and bioliquids produced from palm oil shall be 
0% from 2030"; in other words, it expressly stated that biofuels produced from palm oil would not 
count towards the target for road and rail transport from 2030 o nwards. This created  a clear 
disincentive for transport operators to use biofuels produced from palm oil, since they could not 
report this as consumption of energy from renewable sources . It would therefore  be more difficult 
for EU countries to achieve the  minimum levels for consumption of energy from renewable 
sources.   Colombia requested the EU to increase the transparency  related to "Trilogue"  talks and 
provide official information about the agreement reached on 14 June as soon as possible.   
The represen tative of Guatemala  supported the concerns raised by other Members. Her 
delegation considered that t he Tripartite decision on renewable energy would affect trade and have 
a negative impact on palm oil. Guatemala understood that while the measure did not prohibit the 
use of palm oil, it discouraged its use and thereby discriminated  against palm oil compared 
to other vegetable oil s, in particular oils produced in the EU. 
According to Fairhurst and Harder , 0.26 hectares of land was required to produce one 
metric tonne of palm oil while 0.75 hectares was required for the same amount of rapeseed oil. 
The measure constituted a barrier to trade and discrimination which would  have significant 
implications for rural development. In 2017, palm oil was among the top six export s of Guatemala. 
The new measure would affect bilateral trade, as the EU was one of the top export destinations for 
palm oil exports. The palm oil agro -industry was a source of direct employment in Guatemala and 
generated some 28,000 jobs, in part icular in rural areas. Moreover, 85,000 families benefited from 
palm oil production.  Guatemala was recognized as the most productive country per hectare. These 
achievements stemmed from the commitment that Guatemalan producers had made to 
sustainability an d good agricultural practices, which had enabled them to increase their efficiency 
per hectare . Furthermore, Guatemala believed that a geographical distinction was necessary for 
palm oil production and its production conditions. Generalizations could conde mn global 
production.  Guatemala was committed  to meeting the SDGs and its support for sustainable palm 
oil certification to meeting the Millennium Goals. In light of the above, Guatemala requested open -
ended participation in the discussions on this matter in Brussels so as to prevent implementation 
of discriminatory measures.  
The representative of Honduras  echoed the concerns raised by other delegations. While 
recognizing the legitimate right of WTO Members to adopt environmental protection policies, such 
measures should be in line with the WTO Agreements and should not create unnecessary 
restrictions to trade. Phasing out palm oil based biofuels by 2030 would negatively affect the 
economy as palm oil was an extremely important part of the agri -industry and generated 
thousands of permanent jobs and supported small farmers. Honduras oil palm plantation was 
controlled so as  to properly protect tropical forests. They had recorded significant growth in this 
area with minimal environmental impact. Like Malaysia, H onduras requested further information 
on the outcome of the trilogue negotiations. Honduras called on the EU to notify those measures to 
the TBT Committee.  
The representative of Ecuador  referred to a press release released by the European 
Parliament saying  it had exerted pressure to reach an agreement to include a complete removal of 
palm oil by 2030 and freeze imports at their 2017 levels. Ecuador asked for a global assessment of 
how it  would be implemented in practic e and how it would lead to a 2023 revie w. The Directive 
would significantly impact palm oil producing countries exporting to the EU. The EU proposal to 
gradually reduce first -generation biofuels including palm oil based biofuels did not take into 
account the production specificities of African palms of each country. Ecuador was a sustainable 
producer of African palms with strict governmental oversight to ensure that Ecuador was 
committed to environmental and social responsibility. Ecuador noted that the EU Directive lacked 
any technical and scie ntific rationale. The representative requested the EU to provide clarification 
on the scope and content of the proposed amendment, the time -frame for changes and whether 
there was still an opportunity to take into account comments before the adoption was f inalized.  
                                                
128 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.33 and statement circulated in full in  G/TBT/W/465 .  G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 40 - 
 
  
The representative of Costa Rica  joined the concerns raised by other delegations. Costa 
Rica shared the objective pursued by the EU of promoting the use of renewable energy sources. 
However, it was essential that any restriction to the consumpti on of this product in the EU as a 
source of biofuels was based on risk analysis to guarantee that it was not a disguised restriction on 
trade. Further information was requested on the scientific basis that had led the EU to choose 
discriminatory treatment on palm oil -based biofuels and an update on the status of the proposed 
amendment.  
The representative of Thailand  registered its interest in the matter which it would follow 
closely . The adoption of the Directive would needlessly lead to the reduction of p alm oil biofuel 
production in future. Thailand would welcome  any positive statement from the EU on this matter.  
The representative of the European Union  said the revision of the Renewable Energy 
Directive had been discussed in a number of recent expert bil ateral meetings. He informed the 
Committee that the co -legislator s, the Council and the European Parliament, had agreed to 
gradually reduce the amount  of certain categories of biofuels towards the EU renewable energy 
targets earlier in June. However, this did not constitute a ban or a restriction on the imports on 
palm oil or palm oil -based biofuels to the EU, but aimed to regulate the extent to which c ertain 
biofuels could  be accounted towards the EU Renewable Energy targets. The text did not single out 
palm oil or any other specific biofuel or feedstock. He added that there was still further work th at 
needed to be finaliz ed at technical level. The agre ement also foresaw that the Commission would 
develop rules to implement those provisions based on the latest and best available solid scientific 
information. The EU expressed its availability to discuss the issue through appropriate bilateral 
channels.  
4.4.46   European Union — Application of Regulation No. 1169/2011 and Regulation (EC) 
No. 1924/2006 as regards the labelling of food products, in not prohibiting or examining 
the use of "palm oil free" labels (IMS ID 555129) 
The representative of Colombia  reiterated previously raised concerns .130  
The representative of Indonesia  expressed concern that as the major crude palm oil (CPO)  
producer export ing products to the EU , the use of "palm oil free " labelling by several EU food 
product companies led to consumer confusion a nd misunderstanding on the impact of food 
products containing palm oil. His delegation believed that a llowing food exporters to apply this 
labelling in the absence of scientific evidence created unfair trade  and therefore encouraged the EU 
to be consistent  with EU regulati on 1169 Chapter 5 article  36.2 which stated that voluntary 
labelling should  not mislead and be ambiguous for consumers , and where necessary should  be 
provided with scientific evidence. Based on EU regulation No. 1924/2006 on nutrition and health 
claims made on foods, the EU did not authoriz e food to be produced with palm oil containing 
carotene due to insufficient scientific evidence , in contradiction with the current situation whereby  
the EU was allowing food producers to use "palm oil fre e" labelling without scientific justification.  
Indonesia emphasised that worldwide research related to the content of palm oil existed, 
the result s of which could be taken into consideration as scientific justification for the positive side 
of palm  oil. This  included: (i) palm oil contained saturated fatty acids and unsaturated fatty a cids 
at a balanced level; (ii) p alm oil was not associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular 
disease; (iii) palm oil contained microelements of antioxidants ben efitting health (carotene, 
vitamin e, and sterols; and (iv) palm oil had a quality advantage as an oil for frying c ompared to 
other vegetable oils,  associated with free fatty acids.  
In view of the  above , his delegation  encouraged the EU to be consistent i n conducting 
surveillance especially labelling that was not based on scientific evidence and might mislead 
consumers. The EU was also encouraged to consider the principle of non -discrimination on the 
treatment given to palm oil compared to other vegetable oils such as sunflower , soybean and 
rapeseed oil. It was therefore deemed important to provide scientific evidence related to the 
impact of palm oil in food products on human health compared to other vegetable oils. Indonesia 
also urged the EU to be consis tent with Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement on discrimination and 
                                                
129 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 555  (under dates raised and references).  
130 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.40 and statement circulated in full in G/TBT/W/467 . G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 41 - 
 
  Article 3.4 on measures by local governments and NGOs that should  be in line with WTO 
Agreements.  
The representative of Ecuador  expressed the view that "palm oil free " labelling of food 
products was a negative campaign against a specific product without any scientific or technical 
basis. She stated that it created  unfair competition and that it misled the consumer; further it was 
not based on scientific studies and did not take into account t he specificities and positive 
nutritional content o f palm oil.  
The representative of Malaysia  expressed support for the concerns of other Members and 
would  monitor developments in the Committee.  
The representative of Guatemala  shared the concerns expressed  by others. She noted that 
these measures and campaigns identified palm oil as a product that damaged health and 
destroyed the environment. "Palm oil free" and "No palm oil" labels had a negative impact and 
discouraged the consumption only of palm oil and not of other oils, which constituted 
discrimination. In addition, t his type of labelling misinformed consumers and constitute d a form of 
deceptive advertising. Furthermore, she added that it was unclear how the analyses had been  
conducted and methodologies  formulated for authorizing the display of nutritional properties on 
labelling. The measures took no account of the efforts made by the Guatemalan palm oil agro 
industry to ensure that production was sustainable and in conformity with international 
environ mental sustainability standards; or of the ways in which production differed between the 
various palm oil producing regions and countries. Guatemala endorsed the questions posed by 
Colombia and asked the EU for clarification in response to the comments mad e in this Committee.  
The representative of Honduras  shared the concerns raised by others and requested more 
information on the questions that had been raised .  
The representative of Costa Rica  also shared th e concerns raised by others. His delegation 
was particularly concerned that the quantity of products in the EU contain ing the label "free of 
palm oil" was worrying. This kind of labelling was unfounded as it  did not have any scientific basis; 
it also aimed  to convince consumers that products that were free of palm oil were preferable to 
those that included palm oil. Costa Rica reiterated that there was no scientific justification to 
generalize the idea that palm oil products were harmful to health and there  was no basis for the 
EU to accept "free of palm oil" labels on products.  
The representative of Thailand  shared the concerns raised by others and encouraged the 
EU to provide further scientific justification on the matter.  
The representative of the Europe an Union  repeated  the response provided at  the previous 
Committee meeting.131 
4.4.47   China — Chinese e nvironmental protection control standards for imported solid 
waste as raw materials (IMS ID 551132) 
The representative of Australia  expressed appreciation for China's efforts to reduce 
pollution and pursue sustainable development through a broad range of measures in the economy, 
but remained concerned that t he Chinese standards were already having a significant impact on 
Australian exporters. Australia did not h ave the waste management infrastructure or recovered 
materials markets to be able to process and recover a range of waste products exported to China. 
This had led to concerns that a large amount of waste would go to landfill, instead of being 
recycled in C hina and recovered for intermediate materials.  Australia noted other Members' 
comments that many of the contaminant levels appeared different to domestic regulations within 
China. Australia requested  further information about the technical and scientific a nalysis 
under pinning the standards and whether domestic Chinese standards would be aligned with those 
for imports.  
                                                
131 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.46 and statement circulated in full in G/TBT/W/476 . 
132 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 551  (under dates raised and references).  G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 42 - 
 
  
Australia also expressed concern about compliance with the Code of Good Practice for the 
Preparation, Adoption, and Application of Standards in Annex 3 of the TBT Agreement.  China had 
advised that its government would take into full consideration calls from domestic and 
international communities. However, neither the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) nor 
SAC had provided for a 60 -day comment period on the draft standards in either the domestic 
consultation process or the notification to the WTO, according to Article L of the Code. Finally he 
asked for an explanation as to how comments from other Members had been or would be taken 
into account given that consultation process was already closed. Australia urged China to 
reconsider the standards and allow for a comprehensive consultation process.  
The representative of the European Union  raised concerns regarding the Chinese 
environmental p rotection control standards for imported solid waste as raw materials. The full 
statement is contained in G/TBT/W/472 . 
The representative of the United States  supported the comments raised by Austr alia and 
the EU and asked that the concerns raised earlier in the meeting also be considered under this 
STC.133 
The representative of China  responded to the concerns raised. The full statement is 
contained in G/TBT/W/547 . 
4.4.48   Thailand - New certification requirements under the Thai Ministry of Finance 's 
Ministerial Notification on Importation of Spirits into the Kingdom of Thailand (B.E 
2560)  (IMS ID 556134) 
4.262.    The representative of the United States  noted that Thailand had not yet notified the 
measure, despite flagging at the March 2017 Committee meeting that it would do so, to enable 
trading partners the opportunity to comment. She did however express appreciati on that Thailand 
had issued guidelines to the measure in March 2018 and that full implementation had been 
deferred until September. Nevertheless, the guidelines did not clarify a number of her delegation's 
concerns, such as what testing was required. Given  that full entry into force was due in September 
2018, Thailand was urged to notify the measure as soon as possible in an effort to resolve US 
concerns before trade  became impacted, and requested that Thailand delay enforcement until 
trading partners' conc erns had been taken into account.  
4.263.    The representative of the European Union  expressed concern with regard to certain 
elements in the Thai requirement to provide a Certificate of Analysis for the marketing of 
fermented and distilled alcoholic beverages (win es, spirits or beer). Whilst supporting the 
importance of ensuring the protection of public health, the EU was nonetheless concerned that the 
testing criteria and methods foreseen for the issuing of the Certificate of Analysis may unduly 
impact trade in al coholic beverages. Her delegation appreciated that the grace period for 
submitting samples or certificates of analysis after importa tion had been extended until 
14 September 2018. Also appreciated was the adoption on 22 March 2018 of implementing 
guideline s on the submission of alcohol beverages samples for quality compliance test ing as part of 
the import licence application, in particular  the clarification that samples had to be submitted only 
once, unless there was a change in the production process, and that their size should be of at least 
0.50 litres.  
4.264.   Furthermore, she expressed appreciation for the openness of the Thai Excise Department 
to address remaining concerns. Based on a recent discussion on 18 June between her delegation 
and the Thai Excise Dep artment in Bangkok, Thailand had indicated its intention to amend the Thai 
Industrial Standards Institute (TISI) standards and accept producer self -certifications as of 
15 September 2018. Pending the amendment of TISI standards, market surveillance would t ake 
into consideration the differences in testing methods and thresholds in international standards 
(including exemptions for sweet wines in OIV standards) in order to avoid market disruptions.      
The EU requested confirmation on these next steps and rem ained available to work with Thailand 
on the review of the TISI standards, including through discussions at expert level on substances 
                                                
133 China — Catalogue of Solid Wastes Forbidden to Import into China G/TBT/N/CHN/1211  
(paras. 4.194.    4.197.   ) 
134 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 556  (under dates raised and references).  G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 43 - 
 
  for which testing was not foreseen in international standards. Thailand was encouraged to notify 
the requirement to the T BT Committee, sufficiently in advance to allow Members to become 
acquainted with it and submit comments in accordance with Article 2.9.2 of the TBT Agreement.  
4.265.   The representative of Australia  reiterated previously raised concerns.135 
4.266.   The representative of Japan expressed  concerns on this issue  and recalled Thailand 
flagging at the March 2018 Committee meeting  that the competent authority was in the process of 
preparing a TBT notification for the measure. His delegation sought an update on the notification 
and request ed that a sufficient comment period be provided. In addition, Thailand was urged to 
amend th e issue appropriately and sufficiently before entry into force, taking into account 
Members ' comments.  
4.267.    The representative of New Zealand  acknowledged and su pported Thailand's right to 
introduce new regulations to address specific public health concerns. Her delegation appreciated 
that in seeking to address the harmful use of alcohol, the technical regulation was directed 
towards achieving a legitimate public health objective. She stated, however, that New Zealand 
exporters faced ongoing uncertainty regarding the implementation of the regulations and were 
keen to work with the Thai government and importers to comply with the new requirements. 
Thailand was reque sted to update Members on the progress of any implementing guidance.  
4.268.    The representative of Thailand  stated that the Thai ministerial notification on obtaining 
permission to import liquor into Thailand, issued in accordance with the excise tax act of 2017, 
required any person to "submit samples of liquors to be imported to the director general for  quality 
examination and analysis prior to file an application for permission or subject to certification of 
source of liquor samples analyses. Later they qualify  in accordance with the industrial product 
standards provided that the certification be issued by the agencies as is done by the Director 
General to be the liquor coordination and analyses agencies or the agencies of foreign 
governments or the agencies ack nowledged by foreign governments to have duty control the 
liquor production or the liquor producers in foreign countries" (quotation taken from an official 
translation of the ministerial notification).  
4.269.   He informed Members that the justification for requir ing this sampling or certificate of 
analysis  was to protect consumer health and safety. The ministerial notification had been in force 
since 16 September 2017 and was now in the process of being notified to the TBT Committee. 
However, the excise department  had issued another notification extending the period of entry into 
force of the measure in order to provide flexibility whereby importers were allowed to provide 
sampling or certificate of analysis  to the excise department within 30 days after importation . This 
flexibility had been extended to 14  September 2018.  
4.270.   Thailand explained that the sampling or certificate of analysis  need only be provided once 
for each product, but that any change in production procedure required liquor samples  to be 
submitted for  quality analysis. There was, however, no requirement for a product -wide sample 
submission . In addition, he clarified that the issuance of this ministerial regulation was intended to 
facilitate liquor importation into Thailand, given that importers were to  submit samples  of liquors 
for quality examination and analysis to the excise laboratory prior to applying for import 
permission, and that there would be no charges associated with this submission. Alternatively, if 
samples were not submitted, a certificat e of analysis would be accepted, issued by either the 
government in accordance with the industrial standard that aligns with international practices, or 
by government -recognized agencies responsible for quality and production certification.  
4.271.   Thailand said that other authorities were in the process of considering the certification for 
liquor producers in accordance with industrial standards that align ed with international practices. 
Regarding the testing criteria and methods for liquor importation, he confir med that Thailand 
applied Thai industrial standards or TISI standards, and therefore the issue regarding the 
reviewing of the standards had been taken into account. Thailand reaffirmed its determination to 
guarantee consumer protection and safety to ensure  flexibility and not trade barriers.  
                                                
135 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.47. G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 44 - 
 
   
4.4.49   Israel — Addendum to the Pharmacist Regulations (Cosmetics 5778 -2018) 
G/TBT/N/ISR/709/Add.2  (IMS ID 552136) 
The representative of the European Union  reiterated previously raised concerns .137 
The representative of the United States  thanked the Ministries of Health and Economy and 
the Knesset for agreeing to temporarily suspend discussion in committee of the current draft of the 
Pharmacists Regulation for Cosmetics. While both the US  government and industry appreciated t he 
efforts of Israel to align its cosmetics regulations with international best practices via a transition 
from a notification of marketing system, there were still concerns that the regulation may cause 
trade barriers, if reintroduced in its current form.  The US also believed that the  current version of 
the proposed regulations, for which the Knesset Committee suspended review, were 
disproportionate to the lower risk to consumer health associated with cosmetic products that were 
not regulated as pharmaceut ical products. The US was also particularly concerned with the 
requirement in the draft that the Responsible Person (RP) be an individual, and not a business 
entity as such. In US's view, besides not being in conformity with international best practices, s uch 
a requirement was not realistic to implement, since no one individual could be responsible for 
sometimes thousands of individual products that would need to be managed. Another source of 
concern was how Product Information Files would be managed, and t he potential requirements 
that manufacturers and their local distributors would be responsible for providing product 
information for parallel imports. G iven the extensive nature of the comments and the potential 
trade barriers raised by the ordinance, the US ask Israel to re -notify any revised draft (if it was 
reintroduced or reconsidered) to the TBT Committee at an early enough stage of at least 60 to 90 
days so as to allow stakeholders to provide comments, and for those comments to be taken into 
account b efore issuan ce of the final version of the r egulation. The US also ask that Israel provide 
at least two years for industry to adap t to the new measures once the o rdinance was adopted and 
went into force.  
The representative of Switzerland  supported the com ments made by other delegations.  
The representative of the Republic of Korea  express ed his delegation's ongoing interest in 
the development of the "Addendum to the Pharmacist Regulation" and requested Israel to provide 
information on the developments of t he regulation, and its implementation date.  
The representative of Israel  explained that the process of aligning Israel's cosmetic 
regulation with international best practices had started several years ago. The purpose of the 
regulation was to open the mark et to more competition while still maintaining the safety and 
quality of the cosmetics market in Israel. This was part of a broader effort to further lower barriers 
for imports into the Israeli market in order to improve the quality and prices of all goods  for the 
benefit of consumers . The process involved aligning the new regulations with those of its major 
trading p artners. The Israeli Government therefore  valued and took into consideration the 
contribution and experience -sharing of industry and Israel's trading partners in formulating the 
regulations suitable for the Israeli environment. Israel  took note of the issues raised in the 
Committee. Members were familiar with and had been actively involved in the process of 
developing the regulations.  
4.4.50   Italy — Labelling requirements of the origin of grains used in the preparation of 
dried pasta  (IMS ID 530138) 
The representative of Canada  recalled that many interventions in the Committee 
underlined the importance of respecting the transparency and notification oblig ations set out in the 
TBT Agreement to ensure a non -discriminatory and predictable regulatory environment that 
facilitated open trade. Canada was particularly concerned with the way many EU m ember State 
labelling measures had been allowed to enter into for ce over the previous two years without ever 
being notified to the TBT Committee. For instance, Italy 's country -of-origin labelling measure for 
pasta products had come into effect in February 2018, but the path that it had taken to entry into 
                                                
136 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 552  (under dates raised and references).  
137 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.19 and  statement circulated in full in G/TBT/W/473 . 
138 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 530  (under dates raised and references).  G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 45 - 
 
  force had skip ped many steps required by WTO rules. Italy 's pasta measure had been published in 
the Official Gazette of the Italian Republic on 17 August 2017. Despite repeated requests by 
Canada to both Italy and the European Commission, the measure had never been noti fied to the 
TBT Committee, despite the measure 's evident and clear potential to impact trade, as well as the 
Committee 's decisions regarding transparency. Canada was disappointed with the lack of 
transparency demonstrated by Italy and the European Commissi on and with the fact that Canada 
and other WTO Members had not been provided with an opportunity to comment on the measure 
in the normal course of procedures. Canada was also disappointed that trading partners had not 
been afforded a proper transition peri od to adapt to the measure, which would normally follow the 
notification of the final measure. Canada once again requested tha t the EU, Italy, and any other 
member State notify all country -of-origin labelling measures to the TBT Committee, in order to 
comp ly with their transparency obligations under the TBT Agreement.  
The representative of Brazil  expressed  support for the concerns raised by  Canada.  
The representative of Argentina  raised concern s regarding the labelling requirements of 
the origin of grains used in the preparation of dried pasta. The full statement is contained in 
G/TBT/W/552 . 
The representative of Mexico  supported concerns raised by Canada, Brazil and Argentina.  
The representative of the Europea n Union , referring to  the response s provided  in previous 
TBT Committee meetings139, recalled that  on 12 May 2017, Italy had notified to the Commission a 
draft decree on the origin indication of durum wheat for pasta, in accordance with the specific 
notificat ion procedures established in Regulation (EU) 1169/2011  on the Provision of Food 
Information to Consumers, but had withdrawn the notification on 25 July 2017. As a result, the 
Commission had not pursued the assessment of the measure. The Italian decree  had entered into 
application on 17 Februa ry 2018 and would be  in force for a limited period, until 3 1 December 
2020. The decree stated  that the national measure would lose its effectiveness from the date of 
the entry into force of the European Commission's im plementing act determining how the 
indication of the origin of the primary ingredient was to be provided, where different from the final 
food. She added that the Commission Implementing Regulation ( EU) 2018/775 of 28 May 2018, 
laying  down rules for the app lication of Article 26(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 as regards 
the rules for indicating the country of origin or place of provenance of the primary ingredient of a 
food, which had been notified to  the TBT Committee , had entered into force on 1 June 2 018 and 
would apply from 1 April 2020. This Regulation was of great importance in the context of the 
increasing the number of national notifications  and should reduce the need for further resort to 
national provisions regulating indication of origin . The E U had taken note of Member s' concerns 
and was available  for bilateral discussion s. 
4.4.51   Viet Nam — Alcoholic Beverages , G/TBT/N/VNM/86  (IMS ID 532140) 
The representative of Mexico  recalled that Viet Nam first notified this measure on 26 
August 2016, in document G/TBT/N/VNM/86 . However, at previous Committee meetings, Viet Nam 
had stated that there was a new version of the d ecree in question, in the process of being 
approved for publication, and that this version would be notified to the WTO and subject to public 
consultation for the receipt of comments. Mexico said that it had received, through alternative 
channels,  a version of the d ecree in Vietnamese dated 14 May 2017 (No. 105/2017/ND CP), which, 
to Mexico's knowledge, had not been notified to the TBT Committee , and which would infringe 
Article 2.9 of the TBT Agreement on transparency, notification and the time frame for public 
consultation.  
Regarding the non -notified version, Mexico had a specific concern about Article 31 which 
established specifications for im ported samples. In particular, this Article indicated that 
enterprises, including those without a certificate for the industrial production of alcohol or the 
distribution of liqueurs, were permitted to import alcoholic beverages with the aim of carrying ou t 
procedures to obtain certificates demonstrating conformity with regulations or food safety 
standards, up to a maximum of three litres per label.  
                                                
139 G/TBT/M/73 , para. 2.176 . 
140 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 532  (under dates raised and references).  G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 46 - 
 
  
On the understanding that the three litres authorized per label referred to on ly one brand, 
Mexico said this article would have a negative impact on imports of alcoholic beverages, as three 
litres was a very small amount. The logistical costs would therefore increase and the lack of a 
specific agreement with an enterprise in Viet Nam would create losses that woul d make it less 
attractive for shipments of such samples to meet the certification requirements, and would set a 
precedent for the marketing of this type of product in Viet Nam. Furthermore, the provision could 
infringe Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, ins ofar as it established regulations that create d 
unnecessary barriers to trade and made the measures more stringent than necessary. Considering 
the above, Mexico requested Viet Nam to: (i) provide a clearer explanation of the "three litre limit 
per label" f or the importation of samples, if Mexico's understanding of the permitted limit by label 
was erroneous; and (ii) supply in formation on the status of the d ecree in question and the 
estimated date of notification to the TBT Committee, and on the time frame f or public consultation.  
The representative of Viet Nam  thanked Mexico for comments and clarification in the 
bilateral meeting held that morning. She  noted that the Law on Alcohol T rading had been  notified 
to WTO by Viet Nam on 26 August 2016 ( G/TBT/N/VNM/8 6) with a comment period of 60 days 
from the  date of notification. After this  period, Viet Nam had received comments f rom stakeholders 
and the draft d ecree had been amended accordingly. The d ecree had been promulgated on 
14 September 2017 and had come into  force from 1  November 2017. All comment s on the 
implementation of the d ecree would be delivered to Viet Nam's competent agencies for further 
study and response.  
5  EIGHTH TRIENNIAL REVIEW - CHAIR'S REPORT AND NE XT STEPS  
The Chairperson  recalled that the Comm ittee had agreed on the timeline and approach to the 
Eighth Triennial Review at the June 2017 meeting ( G/TBT/W/450 ). Following Tuesday's informal 
meeting (on the 8th Triennial Review) the Committee  now had an advance copy of the Chair's 
report which covered the full list of all proposals tabled in the context of the 8th Triennial 
Review.141 With respect to next steps, the Chairperson said that the Secretariat would, over the 
summer, prepare a first dr aft of the report based on Members' submissions. Members would then 
be invited to submit comments on that draft.142 An informal meeting on 20 September had been 
tentatively scheduled to discuss the draft . Further informal meetings would be held as necessary 
ahead of the Committee's November meeting.143  
6  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  
The representative of the United States  reported on upcoming and recent events that the 
United States had conducted. This included activities in India (USTDA), Africa (USAID Standards 
Allian ce) and a commercial law development program in Uk raine – as well as transparency -related 
activities in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/559 .  
The representative  of Canada  said that Canada's Enquiry Point had been working with the ITC 
on a capacity building exercise similar to one provided last year, with Trinidad and Tobago – in this 
case it would be with Afghanistan. Hopefully this would not duplicate work the U S was 
undertaking.  
The Secretariat  provided an update on ePing; the full statement is contained in 
G/TBT/GEN/249 . 
7  OBSERVERS  
7.1  ISO: ongoing revision of ISO/IEC Guide 59  
The Chairperson  recalled that at the last meeting of the Committee the United States had 
raised a number of issues regarding ongoing work to revise the 1994 Guide 59 on the Code of 
                                                
141 Comments from Members on the draft report  were taken into account and the report was 
subsequently circulated as JOB/TBT/240/Rev.4  on 3 July 2018.  
142 The draft report was subsequently circulated on 10 August 2018 in document JOB/TBT/248 . 
143 A follow -up fax to the meeting with dates and deadlines was circulated on 25 June 2018 . The fax is 
contained in RD/TBT/246 . G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 47 - 
 
  Good Practice for Standardization.144 Accordingly, the ISO had agreed to make a presentation  on 
the topic.  
The representative of the ISO145 introduced the revision of ISO/IEC Guide 59 Code of Good 
Practice for Standardization. Selected points in no particular order are summarized below. The full 
presentation is contained in G/TBT/GEN/248 . 
a. The current Guide  is voluntary in nature ; was first published in 1994 , has not previously 
been revised and does not have a clear scope ;  
b. ISO guides  are documents that provide advice  to both national standards bodies – those 
who are actually  developing standards – and to standards writers. They are prepared by 
either an ISO group reporting to the ISO technical management board (TMB) , or by the 
ISO/IEC Joint Coordinating Group . These are not technical committees.  
c. For the revision of Guide 59,  the ISO TMB and the IEC  Standardization Management 
Board  (SMB) created a Joint Working Group  composed of representatives nominated by 
the ISO/TMB and IEC/ SMB. The working group is composed of 15 experts acting in their 
personal capacity. Under the current  timeline, the Guide will be published in 2019.  
d. The purpose  of the revision is to align it with the TBT Committee 's Six Principles146 and 
the WTO TBT Agreement's Code of Good Practice (Annex 3). Moreover, the structure  – 
as well as the content and language u sed – is being updated and clarified  to allow easier 
application. In addition, the general format and structure is being aligned with current 
rules for drafting of ISO/IEC deliverables . 
e. The revised guide will apply  (on a voluntary basis)  to national member s of IEC and ISO  
and has two distinct sections : one on "Principles of Standards Development" (Section 4) , 
and another  on "Guidance to the implementation of Code of good practice for the 
preparation, adoption and application of standards"  (Section 5). The latter (Section 5) 
does not provide an official interpretation of Annex 3 of the TBT Agreement.  
f. Regarding the process , there will be opportunity for comment  at the "Enquiry DIS " stage 
(Stage 4 in slide 15 in G/TBT/GEN/248 ); at this point, the document will  go out to every 
single ISO and IEC member. Comments can be made through national member bodies 
over a period of 16 weeks.  
The representative of the  United States  noted that she had learned about the ongoing 
revision through one person in the US Governmen t who had expressed concerns because of the 
lack of participation of the right people in the process. It had been noted that the ISO standards at 
issue had been developed in 1994 and that the WTO TBT Agreement had come into force just after 
that time. Ther efore, the fact that the standard was being revised was confusing. Also, the work 
was being done in a technical management board with only 15 experts developing this guide while 
the WTO's Annex 3 Code of Good Practice (Annex 3 of the TBT Agreement) - or ev en the TBT 
Committee's Six Principles – had involved the participation of all WTO Members.  
She said that US lawyers had expressed concern about this work. For instance, there was 
concern about how the standard was being developed and how national standard s bodies might 
use that guide to interpret the WTO Agreement itself. Even with a disclaimer (to the effect that the 
standard did not interpret the WTO Agreement) national standards bodies and standards 
developers all over the world were likely to use the d ocument to implement their practices, or they 
might create documents of their own. And although the ISO argued that it was limiting the 
applicability of the standard to only ISO and IEC members, this did not mean that any other 
organisation could develop a  similar guide resulting in a situation where there were several 
                                                
144 The full US statement from the previous meeting is contained in  G/TBT/W/471 . 
145 Mr. Sean McCurtai n, Director , Conformity Assessment and Co nsumer Matters, ISO Central 
Secretariat.   
146 G/TBT/1/Rev.13 , p.54.  G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 48 - 
 
  competing guides; what if, for example, Codex decided to develop a guide like this? Which one 
would apply?  
Thus, fro m the perspective of US lawyers , this work was troubling. Why would an out side 
organization interpret agreements that were made in the WTO? When developing a guide there 
would always be the chance that someone reading would misinterpret it and then claim that they 
were using the ISO Guide to comply with good practices. The US ma in concern was that they did 
not want this guide to be used to interpret either the TBT Agreement's Code of Good Practice, or 
the Committee decisions because this was inherently a function of the WTO.  
The representative of South Africa  thanked the US for having brought the issue to the 
attention of the Committee, as well as the ISO for the presentation. South Africa too was 
concerned mainly because not all WTO Members had full membership status in the ISO  to 
contribute to the revision of Guide 59 . Neverthe less, South Africa recognized that ISO and IEC had 
the right to amend their own Guide 59. It needed to be clarified in this regard that Annex 3 , the 
Code of Good Practice (of the WTO TBT Agreement) was not the same as Guide 59 of ISO and IEC. 
Of course, on ly WTO Members could change Annex 3 of the TBT Agreement . The new, revised 
Guide 59 would not necessarily result in any change of Annex 3. Therefore, South Africa 
encouraged Members to engage in the process when the revised Guide went for ballot, and that 
they make an informed decision at that point.  South Africa  requested that the ISO and IEC keep 
Members informed of developments in the revision of Guide 69.  
The representative of ISO said that the views of the US and South Africa would be fed back 
to the working group that were developing the standard . He emphasized again that the intent of 
the revision was not to interpret, and if the document was not clear in that respect, the matter 
needed to be looked into again. The ISO made a commitment to ensure  that the WTO was kept 
informed of the progress of the document  (including when the DIS ballot is launched) .  
The representative of the United States  asked if the WTO's lawyers were aware that an 
outside organization was developing a guidance's document th at closely mirrored a WTO 
Agreement as well as one of its Committee's key decisions (on international standards), and, also 
if it could opine on the matter?  
The representative of the Secretariat  said he did not think the Legal Affairs Division was 
aware o f this issue; the WTO did not systematically look at guidance developed by other 
organizations unless it became a matter o f relevance in a dispute settlement procedure. Whether 
or not the WTO LAD would look into the matter would depend on whether there was  a specific 
request from Members for it to do so.  
7.2  Updates from Observers  
Updates were provided from the following organizations: Codex (G/TBT/GEN/ 251); CROSQ 
(G/TBT/GEN/252 ); UNECE ( G/TBT/GEN/247 ), UNIDO ( G/TBT/GEN/250 ), BIPM and IEC.  
 The representative of Canada  referred to the UNECE report regarding on -going work on 
gender and standards. He said that this tied in nicely with Canada's proposal on standards and 
gender ( G/TBT/W/532 ) and provided examples. For instance, in the context of the testing of 
seatbelts, cr ash test dummies that were used for automotive testing were not always 
representative of the population, including with respect to pregnant women. Similarly, Canada's 
health departments in their assessment of the efficacy of pharmaceutical products and med ical 
devices had not always taken into account differences in gender.  
7.3  Pending Requests  
The representative of the European Union  said that his delegation attached importance to 
the issue of accreditation and valued the important work that ILAC and IAF did i n terms of 
international accreditation schemes, and the positive impact that these had on facilitating trade. 
However, it had to be recognized that ILAC and IAF did not meet the formal requirements for 
observer status. Rule Number 11 contained in document G/TBT/1/Rev.13  (page 76) read: 
"Representatives of international intergovernmental organizations may attend the meetings as 
observers on the invitation of the Committee in accordance with the  guidelines in Annex 2 to these G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 49 - 
 
  Rules". In the EU view, since ILAC and IAF were not international intergovernmental organizations, 
it was not possible to agree to the request.  
The representative of Kenya  expressed her country's support for IAF and ILAC as observers 
at the WTO TBT Committee due to the important role the two organizations played in the 
facilitation of trade and eliminating unnecessary technical barriers to trade. Kenya's full statement 
is contained in document G/TBT/W/560 .   
The representative of Trinidad and Tobago , a member of ILAC and an associate member of 
IAF, supported these organizations' request for observer status in the Committee. Clearly, she 
said, the work of these two orga nizations facilitated trade - allowing small developing countries to 
achieve market access in important markets.  
The representative of South Africa  referred to his statement expressing support for ILAC 
and IAF at the last meeting of the Committee147 and added that South Africa supported the 
statements made by Kenya, and Trinidad and Tobago. However, listening to the European Union, 
South Africa had a different interpretation of the Committee's Rules of Procedure and referred 
specifically to: (i) the 5th and 6th paragraphs of Annex B ( G/TBT/1/Rev.13 , p.81)148; and, Article V 
para 2 of Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization.149 South Africa was of 
the view that organizations like ILAC and IAF could be grant ed observer status although they were 
not intergovernmental organizations. These organizations were directly involved in the work of the 
Committee and there was therefore no reason why they could not be invited to become observers. 
There was a need for a c lear interpretation of the rules. He proposed that the matter be referred to 
the WTO Legal Affairs Division for clarification so that the Committee could get a clearer 
understanding of the issue and whether it was possible to grant ILAC and IAF observer st atus.  
The representative of Chinese Taipei  supported the application of IAF and ILAC for observer 
status i n the TBT Committee. He stressed that accreditation was mentioned in Article 6.1.1 of the 
TBT Agreement. Also, the use of accreditation to qualify co nformity assessment bodies was one of 
the approaches to facilitate the acceptance of conformity assessment results. MRAs developed by 
IAF and ILAC were good examples of internationally recognized schemes and  were widely used by 
Members; hence, these two or ganizations played important role s in eliminating unnecessary 
barriers to trade and reducing costs. Moreover, the TBT Committee could benefit from the 
participation of IAF and ILAC  because Members could follow closely the progress of MRAs ' 
development and have their concerns conveyed directly. On the legal issues, it was not  clear that 
international non -governmental organization – such as ILAC and IAC – could not  be allowed to 
become observers under the Committee's procedures mentioned above.  
The represent ative of Uganda  confirmed his delegation's support for ILAC and IAF.  
                                                
147 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 5.4 and G/TBT/W/525 . 
148 Which reads:  
Requests for observer status shall be considered on a case by case basis by each WTO body to 
which such a request is addressed, taking into account such factors as the nature of work of the 
organization concerned, the nature of its membership, the number o f WTO Members in the 
organization, reciprocity with respect to access to proceedings, documents and other aspects of 
observership, and whether the organization has been associated in the past with the work of the 
CONTRACTING PARTIES to GATT 1947.  
 
In addit ion to organizations that request, and are granted, observer status, other organizations 
may attend meetings of the Ministerial Conference, the General Council or subsidiary bodies on 
the specific invitation of the Ministerial Conference, the General Counc il or the subsidiary body 
concerned, as the case may be. Invitations may also be extended, as appropriate and on a case -
by-case basis, to specific organizations to follow particular issues within a body in an observer 
capacity  
149 Which reads:  
"Article  V  
Relations with Other Organizations  
1. The General Council shall make appropriate arrangements for effective cooperation with other 
intergovernmental organizations that have responsibilities related to those of the WTO.  
2. The General Council may make appropr iate arrangements for consultation and cooperation 
with non -governmental organizations concerned with matters related to those of the WTO."  
 G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 50 - 
 
  
The representative of the United States  supported the comments made by South Africa, 
Chinese Taipei and Uganda. She also agreed with South Africa's statement that the matter was not 
clear. Currently there were observers in the TBT Committee that were not wholly 
intergovernmental: both the ISO and IEC had private members and were not wholly 
intergovernmental organizations. Therefore, the United States was not sure on what basis these 
organ izations were allowed observer status while ILAC and IAF were not.  
The representative of Brazil  supported the applications of ILAC and IAF.  
The representative of China  valued the accreditation and the contribution made by ILAC and 
IAF in facilitating inte rnational trade and agreed with the statements of South Africa and the 
United States. China therefore supported granting observer status to both ILAC and IAF.  
The representative of New Zealand  recognized that while IAF and ILAC were not 
intergovernmental o rganizations . However, on the basis that the Committee had approved 
observers status for other non -intergovernmental organizations in the past – as others had pointed 
out – and recognizing the significant relevance of their work to the Committee, New Zeala nd 
support ed the application of both ILAF and IAF.  
The representative of Mexico  supported the application of IAF and ILAC.  
The representative of Canada  joined  others and  strongly supported the application of ILAC 
and IAF for observer status in the TBT Committee. As South Africa had eloquently explained, as 
well as others, the Committee would be remiss not to accept the request given these two 
organizations' contribution t o its work.  
The European Union  respond ed that his delegation agreed with the many remarks made in 
respect of the value of the activities of ILAC and IAF. By contrast, the EU disagreed with South 
Africa about there being any lack of clarity about whether no n-governmental organizations could 
be granted observer status. The word "organizations" in paragraph 5 and 6 of Annex B to which 
South Africa had referred, meant, as explained in the first paragraph of Annex B, international 
intergovernmental  organizations .150  
The representative of South Africa  said that the term "non -governmental organizations" was 
mentioned in both the  Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization and in 
Committee's rules and procedures. This needed to be taken into conside ration.  
The Chairperson  noted that while there were many voices in support of ILAC and IAF for 
observer status in the Committee, there was no agreement to grant observer status at the current 
time. She also recalled that South Africa had asked the Secreta riat for an interpretation of the 
Committee's rules of procedure.  
The Secretariat  said that it would consult with the Legal Affairs Division, if that was the 
Committee's wish. On a more general point, in terms of rules of procedures the issue was really 
with the Committee itself: the Committee had created the rules and could decide how it wished to 
interpret them, including with respect to changes, amendments or exceptions.  
The Chairperson  asked if Members wished to consult with the Secretariat's Legal Af fairs 
Division?  
The representative of South Africa  reiterated the need for clarity on the rules. The specific 
question would be: if, in terms of existing rules and procedures of the TBT Committee, and the 
provisions of Article V.2 of the Marrake sh Agreeme nt Establishing the WTO, whether ILAC and IAF 
could be granted observers status in the Committee.  
                                                
150 The first paragraph of Annex B ( G/TBT/1 /Rev.13, p.81) reads:  
"The purpose of observer status for internati onal intergovernmental organizations (hereinafter 
referred to as "organizations") in the WTO is to enable these organizations to follow discussions 
therein on matters of direct interest to them."  G/TBT/M/75  
 
- 51 - 
 
  
The Chairperson  said that as Members appeared comfortable with this proposal, it was so 
agreed. Moving on, she asked if Members had any other comments on the other six pending 
request s for observer status listed in G/TBT/GEN/2/Rev.14 . 
The representative of Turkey  reiterated his delegation's support for the application from the 
Standards and Metrology Institute for Islamic Countrie s (SMIIC) made at the last meeting of the 
Committee.151 
The representative of Pakistan  echoed Turkey's statement. As an active member of the 
SMIIC, Pakistan believed that the aims of SMIIC and of the TBT Committee were concurrent; they 
both facilitated trade  through the harmonization of standards, technical regulations, and 
conformity assessment procedures.  
The representative of Egypt  supported the application from SMIIC.  
The representative of Uganda  supported consideration of the application of SMIIC at the  
November meeting of the Committee.  
The Chairperson  asked the Committee if Members were in a position to grant observer's 
status to SMIIC?  
The United States  said her delegation had understood that only the request from ILAC/IAF 
would be considered at the c urrent meeting. Therefore, without prejudice to SMIIC, the issue 
would need to be reverted to in November.  
In response , the Chairperson  said that it would not be possible for the Committee to agree 
on observer status for SMIIC at the current meeting.  She nevertheless thanked Members for their 
engagement and asked the Secretariat to keep relevant organizations updated on developments. 
She proposed that the Committee would revert to the full list of pending observer requests 
contained in document G/TBT/GEN/2/Rev.14  at the November Committee meeting and asked that 
Members com e prepared to discuss the list.   
8  DATE OF NEXT MEETING  
The next regular meeting of the Committee will be held on 14-15 November 2018 , with one  
day set aside for discussion on the Eighth Triennial Review on 13 November 2018 . 
 
__________  
                                                
151 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 5.8 and G/TBT/W/526 .