RESTRICTED  
  
G/MA/M/67  
 
27 September 2018  
(18-5973) Page: 1/25 
Committee on Market Access    
 
 
MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE ON MARKET ACCESS  
26 APRIL 2018  
VICE-CHAIR PERSON : MR MICHAEL CANNON  (CANADA ) 
Table of contents              Page 
A. INTRODUCTION OF HARM ONIZED SYSTEM 1996 C HANGES TO SCHEDULES OF 
CONCESSIONS (L/6905 AND WT/L/756) – STAT US REPORT  ................................ ...........  2 
B. INTRODUCTION OF HARM ONIZED SYSTEM 2002 C HANGES TO SCHEDULES OF 
CONCESSIONS USING TH E CTS  DATABASE (WT/L /605 AND WT/L/807) – STATUS 
REPORT  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................  2 
C. INTRODUCTION OF HARM ONIZED SYSTEM 2007 C HANGES TO SCHEDULES OF 
CONCESSIONS USING TH E CTS  DATABASE (WT/L /673 AND WT/L/830) – STATUS 
REPORT  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................  3 
D. INTRODUCTION OF HARM ONIZED SYSTEM 2012 C HANGES TO SCHEDULES OF 
CONCESSIONS USING TH E CTS DATABASE (WT/L /831) – STATUS REPOR T .....................  3 
E. INTRODUCTION OF HARM ONIZED SYSTEM 2017 C HANGES TO SCHEDULES OF 
CONCESSIONS USING TH E CTS  DATABASE (WT/L/995) – STATUS REPORT ......................  3 
F. OPERATION OF THE INT EGRATED DATABASE (ID B), INCLUDING STATUS  OF 
SUBMISSIONS (G/MA/ID B/2/REV.47), AND THE  CTS DATABASE - STAT US REPORT  ....... 4 
G. NOTIFICATIONS PURSUA NT TO THE DECISION O N NOTIFICATION PROCE DURES 
FOR QUANTITATIVE RES TRICTIONS (G/L/59/RE V.1, JOB/MA/101/REV. 1) ....................  5 
(1) NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 5 
(2) CAPACITY -BUILDIN G WORKSHOP ON THE NO TIFICATION OF QUANTI TATIVE 
RESTRICTIONS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  10 
(3) PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE NOTIFICATION OF QUANTITATIVE REST RICTIONS 
(JOB/MA/101/REV.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 11 
H. SITUATION OF SCHEDUL ES OF WTO MEMBERS (G /MA/W/23/REV.14)  .................  12 
I. REPORT BY THE SECRET ARIAT ON THE STATUS OF RENEGOTIATIONS UN DER 
ARTICLE  XXVIII OF TH E GATT  1994 (G/MA/W/ 123/REV.3)  ................................ ..........  13 
J. ANGOLA – CONSUMPTION  TAX - STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION  ..............  14 
K. CHINA - CUSTOMS DUTI ES ON CERTAIN INTEGR ATED CIRCUITS – STAT EMENTS BY 
THE EUROPEAN UNION, JAPAN, CHINESE TAIPE I, AND THE UNITED ST ATES  ................  14 
L. MODIFICATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF HAITI'S TARIFF SCHEDULE  XXVI  - 
STATEMENT BY THE DOM INICAN REPUBLIC  ................................ ................................ ... 16 
M. INDIA – CUSTOMS DUTI ES ON TELECOMMUNICAT ION AND OTHER PRODUC TS – 
STATEMENTS BY CANADA , CHINA, EUROPEAN UN ION, JAPAN, NORWAY, CHINESE 
TAIPEI, AND THE UNIT ED STATES (G/MA/W/120,  G/MA/W/128)  ................................  17 
N. OMAN – MFN CUSTOMS D UTIES ON CIGARETTES – STATEMENTS BY THE EUROPEAN 
UNION AND SWITZERLAN D ................................ ................................ ............................  21 G/MA/M/67  
 
- 2 - 
 
  O. KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARA BIA – EXCISE TAX ON ENERGY DRINKS AND CA RBONATED 
SOFT DRINK PRODUCTS - STATEMENTS BY THE EUROPEAN UNION  
AND SWITZERLAND  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 22 
P.  OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 23 
 UNITED STATES – PROH IBITIVE PROPOSAL ON COMMUNICATIONS EQUIP MENT OR 
SERVICES RELEASED BY  THE FCC– STATEMENT BY C HINA  ................................ .............  23 
 INDIA - QUANTITATIVE  RESTRICTIONS ON MUN G BEANS, BLACK LENTI LS, AND 
PIGEON PEAS  – STATEM ENT BY AUSTR ALIA  ................................ ................................ .. 24 
 CROATIA - REGULATION S ON IMPORT AND SALE  OF CERTAIN OIL PROD UCTS – 
STATEMENT BY THE RUS SIAN FEDERATION  ................................ ................................ ... 25 
 DATE OF THE NEXT MEE ETING  ................................ ................................ ...............  25 
Q.  ELECTION OF THE CHAI RPERSON  ................................ ................................ ..........  25 
 
The Committee adopted  the agenda as reproduced in document  WTO/AIR/MA/ 7 and 
WTO/AIR/MA/ 7/Add.1, with the inclusion of the following item s under Other Business: (i) United 
States – Prohibitive proposal on  communications  equipment or services  – Statement by China; 
(ii) India - Quantitative restrictions on mung be ans, black lentils, and pigeon peas – Statement by 
Australia ; (iii) Croatia – Regulations on import and sale  of certain oil products – Statement by the 
Russian Federation ; and (iv)  "date of the next meeting ". An annotate d age nda was circulated in 
document  JOB/MA/ 134. 
 
A. INTRODUCTION OF HARM ONIZED SYSTEM 1996 C HANGES TO SCHEDULES OF 
CONCESSIONS (L/6905 AND WT/L/756) – STAT US REPORT  
1. The Chairperson  recalled that there were two  procedures that had been used by Members to 
introduce HS96  changes to schedules of concessions : the general procedure  from October  1991, 
contained in GATT  document  L/6905 , and the specific procedure , contained in 
WTO document  WT/L/756 , dated 29  May 2009.  He recalled that , under the first procedure , Members 
were to transpose their own schedules, whereas under the second , the Secretariat  had been 
requested to transpose the schedules of 64  developing countries and LDCs.  South Africa 's was the 
only schedule  from the 64  Members covered by the specific procedure that remained pending. In 
this regard, he was  pleased to inform Members  that a revised version of the file  had been  posted  for 
review on 26  February  2018 and  that it would  be reviewed at the next multilateral review session.  
2. The Committee took note of the statement.  
B. INTRODUCTION OF HARM ONIZED SYSTEM 2002 C HANGES TO SCHEDULES OF 
CONCESSIONS USING TH E CTS  DATABASE (WT/L/605 A ND WT/L/ 807) – STATUS REPORT  
3. A member of the Secretariat  (Mrs Alya Belkhodja ) provided a brief report on the status of 
work on the HS 2002 transposition files  and recalled that a  full report had been issued as 
document  JOB/MA/42/ Rev.22, dated 14 December  2017. She indicated that the status of  the 
HS2002 transposition files  after th e multilate ral review of 15 January  2018 was as follows : 115 files 
had been certified  or were in the process of certification ; one file had been released for multilateral 
review and had received comments from other Members; and one draft file had been completed and 
sent to Member s for its  first review . Finally, she noted that  18 Members had  not been affected by 
the transposition , as eight Members had acceded in HS 2002, another eight Members had acceded 
in HS 2007, and two Members had acceded in HS2012 . 
4. The representative of the United State s thanked the Secretariat for its update and noted tha t 
China 's HS2002 schedule remained un certified, even though  it had been approved by the Committee 
over a year ago. He understood that the HS 2002 schedule was passing  through China 's domestic 
approval process and hoped that this process would conclude quickly. He looked forward to working 
with China when its HS 2007 sche dule came  up for review.  
5. The representative of China  thanked the US  delegation for its interest in this issue. China  had 
requested the Secretariat to help in preparing the HS 2002 document, which had been forwarded to 
Capital for technical review. She reported that such technical review was almost complete , and China G/MA/M/67  
 
- 3 - 
 
  would request the Secretariat to circulate China 's HS2002 file under the  1980 Procedures in due 
course.  
6. The Committee took note  of the Secretariat 's report and the statements made.  
C. INTRODUCTION OF HARM ONIZED SYSTEM 2007 C HANGES TO SCHEDULES OF 
CONCESSIONS USING TH E CTS  DATABASE (WT/L/673 AND  WT/L/830) – STATUS REPORT  
7. A member of the Secretariat  (Mrs Alya Belkhodja ) provided a brief report on the status of 
work on the HS2007 files and recalled that a  revised full report had been issued as  
document  JOB/MA/104/Rev. 17, dated 14 December  2017. She indicated that the status of the 
HS2007 transposition files  after th e multilateral review of 15 January  2018 was as follows : 106 files 
had been certified ; four files had been  released for multilateral review and had received comments 
from other Members;  three  draft files had been completed and sent to Me mbers for their first  review; 
12 draft files remained to be prepared.  Finally, she noted that  ten Members had  not been affected 
by the transposition as eight  Members  had acceded in HS 2007 and two  Members  had acceded in 
HS2012 . 
8. The Committee took note  of the Secretariat 's report.  
D. INTRODUCTION OF HARM ONIZED SYSTEM 2012 C HANGES TO SCHEDULES OF 
CONCESSIONS USING TH E CTS DATAB ASE (WT/L/831 ) – STATUS REPORT  
9. A member of the Secretariat  (Mrs Alya Belkhodja ) provided a brief report on the status of 
work on the HS2012  transpo sition files and recalled that a  revised full report had been issued as 
document  JOB/MA/129/Rev. 3, dated 14 December  2017. She indicated that the status of the 
HS2012  transposition files after the multilateral review of 15 January  2018 was as follows : 85 files 
had been certified or were in the process of certification ; two files had been released for multilatera l 
review and had received comments from other Members ; two files had been released for multilateral 
review  and would be examined at the next meeting ; nine draft files had been completed and sent 
to Members for their first  review;  and 35 draft files remained to be prepared . Finally, she noted that 
two Members had not been affected by the transposition as they had acceded in HS2012.  
10. The Committee took note  of the Secretariat 's report.  
E. INTRODUCTION OF HARM ONIZED SYSTEM 2017 C HANGES TO SCHEDULES OF 
CONCESSIONS  USING THE CTS  DATABASE  (WT/L/995 ) – STATUS REPORT  
11. A member of the Secretariat  (Mrs Alya Belkhodja ) reported that the Secretariat would start 
preparing the note on  the methodology for the HS2017  transposition, which woul d be issued in 2018. 
The HS2017  reference nomenclature and correlation tables in a standardized  format  were available 
for download on the IDB  File Exchange Facility ( https://IDBFileExchange.wto.org ). 
12. The representative of the United States  thanked the Secretariat for this report , as well as for 
its previous reports on HS changes to the Schedules of concessions. He appreciated the work that 
had been carried out by the Secretariat to ensure that the HS  transposition pr ocess was accurate, 
transparent , and efficient. In the United States ' view, ensuring that all M embers ' bound schedules 
were up -to-date ensured transparency, and ultimately promoted trade between Members'  
economies. His delegation was of the view  that the Secretariat 's work  was critical to that process.  
13. The representative of Ecuador  informed the Committee that a n inter -institutional  working 
group , including the technical coordination team of trade negotiations of the Ministry of Trade and 
Investment of Ecuador,  had concluded its analysis of the  draft HS2017  file that had been prepared 
by the Secretariat . She expected  that the file would be approve d with no comments.  
14. The Committee took note  of the Secretariat 's report and of the statements made.  G/MA/M/67  
 
- 4 - 
 
  F. OPERATION OF THE INTEGRATED DATABASE (IDB), INCLUDING STA TUS OF 
SUBMISSIONS (G/MA/ID B/2/REV.47), AND THE  CTS DATABASE - STAT US REPORT  
15. The Chairperson  drew Members ' attention to document  G/MA/IDB/2/Rev.47, which contain ed 
the status of submissions to the IDB . 
16. A member of th e Secretariat  (Mrs Alya Belkhodja ) recalled that  the deadline for submission 
of 2018 applied tariffs  had been  30 March  2018, and that the Secretariat had received 
38 notifications. Of those , 26 notifications  included preferential trading regimes. On 10  April 2018, 
the Secretariat began sending  out reminders for out standing data gaps and appreciate d the positive 
responses that it had received from delegations. She also recalled that  the deadline for submission 
of 2016 imports had been  30 September  2017, and that  the Secretariat had  received 
54 notifications.  Regarding import notifications, s he further noted that  the deadline for submission s 
under the PTA -Transparency Mechanism (PTA -TM) was 30 October f or imports from the previous 
year. She also noted that  the required notification format for the PTA-TM was more detailed because 
Members had to notify imports at the national tariff line level , by partner and by duty  scheme, and 
to do so specifically on imports under thei r identified non -reciprocal PTA  trading  regime. She noted 
that w hile it w ould be good to have the import  data as early  as possible, for PTA -TM Members it was 
preferable to have  only the PTA -TM compliant submission , even if this was  submitted only at a later 
date, in order to avo id processing that data twice.  
17. The Secretariat estimated that the IDB was  79% complete as concerned MFN  applied  tariff 
data and 73% complete as concerned import  data. Hence 21% of MFN  applied tariffs and 27% of 
import data  were still outstanding and were still expected to  be notified by Members.  As had 
previously been mentioned, for the 2018  applied tariffs, only 38  (or 28 %) of 135  expected schedules 
had been notified. Similarly,  for 2016  imports, only 54 ( or 40 %) of 135  expected notifications ha d 
been received. The Secret ariat had recently sent out email  notifications to remind Members  of all 
data gaps from 1996. However, certain  delegations ha d informed the Secretariat  that–for specific  
historical years (for example, 1996 to 1998) –the data was simply not available and c ould not  be 
notified. The Secretariat had  excluded these years in the list of missing submissions for those 
Members in the notification reminders. However, in the complete status of submissions, these years 
were still indicated as "blank " or "outstanding ". 
18. The full status of submission reports , with all years from 1996 , had been uploaded and was 
available at the IDB  File Exchange Facility. She remind ed Members that the basic data used in 
matching imports to tariffs in the I ntegrated Database were the tariffs . Therefore , without the 
accompanying applied tariffs data, notified imports would get low priority in processing since it was 
not possible to disseminate imports without the corresponding tariffs. The online applications by the 
WTO Secretariat, TAO and TD F, could disseminate dataset s on tariffs only , without including imports , 
but could not disseminate import data without tariffs. Therefore , most of the unprocessed 
notifications , which had been  marked as "Yes*" in the status of submissions,  referred to import data  
that had been submitted wit hout the corresponding tariffs.  
19. As of 4 April 2018, the Secretariat had received  the following additional submissions : Armenia 
imports for 2016 ; Australia MFN  tariffs and preference s for 2018 ; Chile MFN  tariffs and preferences 
for 2018 ; Cuba imports for 2016; El Salvador MFN  tariffs for 2017 ; Kazakhstan MFN  tariffs and 
preferences for 2018 ; Macao, China imports for 2017 ; Madagascar imports for 1996, 1999, 2013, 
2014, 2015, and 2016; Mauritius imports for 2016 ; Mexico  MFN tariffs for 2018 ; Republic of Moldova 
MFN tariffs for 2018 ; Mongolia MFN  tariffs and preference s for 2018 and imports for 2017 ; Myanmar 
MFN tariffs for 2018 ; Nepal MFN  tariffs and preferences for 2017 , and imports for 2016 ; Peru 
MFN tariffs for 2016, 2017, and 2018, and imports for 2016 and  2017; the Philippines imports 
for 2016; Kingdom of Saudi Arabia MFN  tariffs for 2018 and imports for 2017 ; and the United States 
imports for 2017 . Singapore 's 2018  tariffs had been  notified before the deadline , but had been 
inadvertently omitted from the relevant tables in document  G/MA/IDB/2/ Rev.47. The Secretariat 
had issued a corrigendum and apologize d for this oversight. Hence, Singapore ha d no outstanding 
obligations.  
20. Concerning the IDB  dissemination, she indica ted that the database now contained 
2339 country  periods covering all WTO  Members , with the exception of  Afghanistan,  which had 
acceded in July  2016,  and five  countries in accession  (Algeria, Bahamas, Belarus, Iran, and Serbia) . 
The relevant data had been  made  available on the IDB  websites. With respect to IDB notification 
reminders , which had recently been sent out, the Secretariat  did not mention how the data was to G/MA/M/67  
 
- 5 - 
 
  be sent to the IDB. She noted that Members usually sent an email to the IDB  mailbox with t he data 
attached . However, for big files (more than 8MB) Members c ould upload the file to the IDB  File 
Exchange Facility. The complete status of submissions from 1996 to 2018 for tariffs and 
corresponding imports , in the three  languages , was downloadable f rom this facility.  
21. Since the last meeting of the Market Access Committee , in September  2017, the Secretariat 
had delivered the following technical assistance activities concerning the IDB/CTS : many Regional 
Trade  Policy Courses , including  Regional Trade Policy Courses for Asia in Bangkok and  for 
French -speaking Africa in  Côte d 'Ivoire ; the Introductory  Trade Policy Course for LDCs in Geneva ; a 
national workshop on tariff and tariff online tools in Myanmar ; and a s pecial national workshop for 
Nigerian capit al-based official s on goods and services scheduling and other issues in Geneva . 
22. On the Consolidated Tariff Schedule (CTS) database, the Secretariat had made CTS files 
available to  all Members on the WTO website1. Out of the  135 CTS files : 42 were available  in 
HS2012; 75 were available in HS 2007; 13 were  available in HS 2002; and five remained  in HS96. 
The latest release of the CTS  DVD had been  sent to each  delegation in September  2016. It had 
include d a compilation of original legal instruments , listed  by Me mber.  
23. The representative of Chinese Taipei  informed the Committee that his delegation  would submit 
its tariff data for 2018 and import statistics for 2017 in the near future . 
24. The Committee took note  of the Secretariat 's report and the statements made.  
G. NOTIFICATIONS PURSUA NT TO THE DECISION O N NOTIFICATION PROCE DURES 
FOR QUANTITATIVE RES TRICTIONS (G/L/59/RE V.1, JOB/MA/101/REV. 1) 
25. The Chairperson  recalled that there were three issues under this agenda item: (i) the review 
of notifications received ; (ii) the Chairperson 's report concerning  the first Capacity Building 
Workshop on the Notification of Quantitative Restrictions (QRs)  that had taken  place on 24  April; 
and (iii)  the revised practical guide for the notification of QRs , as prepared by the Secretaria t. 
(1) Notifications  
26. The Chairperson  recalled that , at its last meeting, the Committee had asked the Secretariat 
to rearrange the order in which notifications appear ed on the agenda so that all notifications from a 
given Member could  be discussed together  at one time . There were  QR notifications from 
11 Members to review.  
 Australia  (G/MA/QR/N/AUS/3)  
27. The Chairperson  recalled that, at its last meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert  to the  
notification by Australia for the period 2016 -2018. Questions had been raised by Switzerland.  
28. The representative of Switzerland  thanked the Secretariat for the update of the Practical 
Guide, which had been  useful for Switzerland 's QR notification. He also thanked  Australia for its 
responses, which had been circul ated to  all Members in November  2017. His delegation  had no 
further questions . 
29. The Committee took note  of this notification.  
 Brazil  (G/MA/QR/N/BRA/1)  
30. The Chairperson  recalled that, at its last meeting, he Committee had agreed to revert to the 
notification by Brazil for the periods 2012 -2014 and 2014 -2016. Questions had been raised by 
Switzerland and the United States.  
31. The representative of the United States  reiterate d the concerns that had been raised at 
previous meetings concerning  Brazil 's incomplete notification.  Brazil 's submission claim ed that the 
                                                
1 https://tao.wto.org . G/MA/M/67  
 
- 6 - 
 
  government "does not maintain import quantitative restrictions. " Previously, his delegation  had 
noted that Brazil maintain ed non-automatic import licenses and restrictions on the importation of 
certain goo ds, which appear ed to be measures that should be notified as quantitative res trictions 
under this decision. He invited  Brazil to advise th e Committee of when it intend ed to submit a revised 
notification that include d all relevant measures.  
32. The representati ve of Switzerland  echoed the comments made by the United States , as his 
delegation also considered that Brazil's  QR notification was incomplete . At the CMA's May  2017 
meeting , the delegation of Brazil had stated that : "Non-automatic import licensing measures should 
be notified under the QR  procedures, to the extent that they were means to implement any kind of 
QR restriction ". The Swiss delegate recalled that , as had already been suggested, Brazil could make 
a cross -reference to its import licensing n otification , as foreseen in the Q R template. Brazil had also 
indicated that a governmental working group had been established to identify the relevant measures, 
particularly those deriving from environmental and security agreements , that could be included in a 
revised notification. His delegation requested  Brazil to provide an update on the progress ma de so 
far. 
33. The representative of Brazil  informed the Committee that he had positive developments to 
report. Based on the work of the  task force that had been established, a first  draft of Brazil 's 
notification, which had taken  into consideration the comments made by several members of the 
Committee, had recently been prepared. Brazil was  in the process of revising the document and 
expect ed to incorporate into it suggestions that had been received from the Secretariat during the 
capacity -building workshop on quantitative restrictions . Brazil would circulate  the final version of its 
notification  as soon as possible . 
34. The Committee took note  of the statements made a nd agreed  to revert to this notification at 
its next meeting.  
 China  (G/MA/QR/N/CHN/3)  
35. The Chairperson  recalled that, at its last meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert to the 
notification by China for the period 2014 -2016. Questions had been  raised by Switzerland.  
36. The representative of Switzerland  recalled that his delegation had asked  China to spe cify which 
paragraph of Article  XX of the GATT was mentioned in the notification. His delegation h ad received 
a response from China that indicate d that they would consider including such information in 
subsequent notifications. He asked China to confirm  that this was indeed the case. 
37. The representative of the United States  noted that China 's last notification had been made  in 
2015 so his delegation wished to know  when China expect ed to submit its next QR  notification.  
38. The representative of China  confirmed that the comments from Switzerland would be taken 
into consideration  in the future QR  notification  by way of indicating specific WTO  justification.  On 
the US question, she clarified that China was working on the next n otification for the period 
2016-2018, which  would be submit ted as soon as it was finished.  
39. The Chairperson  thanked China for its response and asked Switzerland  if he preferred to revert 
to this notification at the next meeting or to continue . 
40. The representative of Switzerland  replied that , based on  China 's statement,  his delegation  
would  wait for China's next notification . With regard to the current notification  under review , he had 
no further question s. 
41. The Committee took note  of this notification.  
 Kazakhstan  (G/MA/QR/N/KAZ/1)  
42. The Chairperson  recalled that, at its last meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert to the 
notification by Kazakhstan for the period 2016-2018. Questions  had been raised  by Ukraine and 
Switzerland.  G/MA/M/67  
 
- 7 - 
 
  43. The representative of Switzerland  stated that he would not repeat the  questions  that had been  
raised at the CMA's last meeting . His delegation 's understanding was that Kazakhstan was working 
with the Russian Federation  to provide a revised version  of its notification  that would incorporate 
Switzerland 's comments . Therefore, he asked Kazakhstan to confirm that this was indeed the case , 
and looked forwa rd to receiving the revised notification.  
44. The representative of Kazakhstan  thank ed Switzerland for the ir relevant comments. His 
delegation was in the process of  preparing a corrigendum, which would be submitted  very soon . On 
the comments and questions raised  by Ukraine , he noted  that the woodiness of the Republic of 
Kazakhstan accounted for only 4.7% of its total territory. To preserve the forest reserves , measures 
had been taken to prohibit deforestation for industrial purposes. To prevent il legal logging, a ban on 
the export of timber had also been established. Establishing a ban on the export of waste paper  had 
also prevented the  use of forest resources by domestic p roducers of paper. He also noted that, in  
the period between  2010 to 2017 th e forest reserves had remained stable, and a healthy biodiversity 
had, in general , been maintained . Kazakhstan  believe d that the measures that it had taken were 
justified in light of its goal of forest preservation. Regarding Ukraine 's second  question, he noted 
that, in accordance with the Decision of the Commission of the Customs Union N o. 130, dated 
27 November  2009, the importation of sugar cane into the territory  of the Republic of Kazakhstan 
was exempt from customs duties.  The condition for duty -free importation was further processing i n 
the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan. A licence system had been created to administer this 
measure . The measure itself would remain valid until 31 December  2019.  Kazakhstan indicated that 
it would provide Ukra ine with its written answers  in due course . 
45. The delegation of Ukraine  thanked Kazakhstan for its explanation and indicated that h is 
delegation would keep the Committee updated in case of follow -up questions.  
46. The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed  to revert to this notification at 
its next meeting.  
 Liechtenstein (G/MA/QR/N/LIE/2)  
47. The Chairperson  drew the Committee 's attention to Liechtenstein 's new notification.  
48. The Committee took note  of this notification . 
 Mauriti us (G/MA/QR/N/MUS/1, G/MA/QR/N/MUS/2, G/MA/QR/N/MUS/3)  
49. The Chairperson  recalled that, at its last meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert to the 
notification s by Mauritius, which cover ed the periods 2012 -2014, 2014 -2016, and 2016 -2018. 
Switzerland's questions remained pending.  
50. The representative of Switzerland  thanked Mauritius for the new notifications and for the 
responses provided and confirmed that his deleg ation had no further questions.  
51. The Committee took note  of the statement and the  notificati on. 
 Mexico (G/MA/QR/N/MEX/1/REV.1, G/MA/W/126)  
52. The Chairperson  recalled that, at its last meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert to the 
notification by Mexico for the period 2014 -2016. The European Union had raised questions that had 
been circulated in document  G/MA/W/126 , and Switzerland had also raised questions at the CMA's 
last meeting.  
53. The representative of the European Union  reiterate d its interest in receiving a written reply to 
the question s that had been raised in document  G/MA/W/ 126. 
54. The representative of Switzerland  asked Mexico to provide additional  information with regard 
to the import procedures for medical equipment. He understood that Mexico was preparing some 
replies and lo oked forward to receiving them.  G/MA/M/67  
 
- 8 - 
 
  55. The representative of Mexico  informed the Committee that her delegation had just submitted 
its responses to the EU's questions posed in document  G/MA/W/126 . She understood that the 
document  would be circulated shortly after this meeting. She also confirmed  that the responses 
included details, procedures, time -frames , and electronic links to where further relevant information  
could be found . 
56. The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed  to revert to this notification at 
its next meeting.  
 Russian Federation (G/MA/QR/N/RUS/2, G/MA/QR/N/RUS/3, G/MA/W/119)  
57. The Chairperson  recalled that, at its last meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert to the 
notifications by the Russian Federation for the periods 2014 -2016 and 2016 -2018. The European 
Union had raised questions that had been circulated in document  G/MA/W/119. At the last meeting, 
additional questions had been  raised by Ukraine and Switzerland.  
58. The representative of the European Union  recalled that her delegation had raised , on multiple 
occasions , both at the Committee meeting itself and in written questions, its concern over the 
Russian Federation 's export ban on raw hides and skins . It had been  initially introduced for 
six months by Government Decree No . 826, in August  2014, and had since then been extended 
several times. The latest extension had extended the ban until 5  April 2018. The EU welcome d the 
fact that the ban ha d not been pr olonged beyond that date and asked the Russian Federation to 
confirm that it d id not intend to reintroduce it at a later stage.  The EU recalled  that Russia had 
stated , at a previous meeting of this Committee , that it was analysing  how the measure would 
ensure the implementation of national defence  procurement. Although  the measure ha d not been 
prolonged, the EU still requested  to be kept informed of  any developments in this regard . Once 
more, the EU reiterate d its request for further information to help it understand how the use of 
domestic raw materials c ould ensure the implementation of the state defence  procurement , and how 
the ban was necessary to ensure such compliance. Her delegation  requested the Russian Federation 
to elaborate further on this aspect and, in particular, on the ban's compatibil ity with WTO  rules.  
59. The representative of Switzerland  noted that his delegation 's questions were similar to those 
that had earlier been addressed to Kazakhstan. From bilateral exchanges , it had emerged that the 
Russian Federation was preparing a revised notification that would incorporate Switzerland 's 
comments. Therefore, his delegation  looked forward to receiving this new document . 
60. The representative of Ukraine  shared the concerns expressed by the EU and Switzerland  over 
the Russian Federation 's notification . 
61. The representative of the Russian Federation  noted  that her delegation was cooperating with 
Kazakhstan to provide answers to Switzerland. The expected corrections would take  into account 
Switzerland's comments , and s he hoped that the revised notification would be circulated s hortly . On 
the issue  raised by the EU, the Russian Federation thanked the EU for its interest in its temporary 
limitation on export of raw hides and skins. To avoid repeating  what had been  said at previous 
meetings, she recalled that the restriction had been applied to ensure the imp lementati on of state 
defence procurement. T herefore, the measure had been introduced several times. The Russian 
Federation had carefully studied the questions from the EU , and the relevant  responses had been 
provided . Regarding the status of this restricti on, she would forward the EU's question to Capital 
and provide Russia's answer bilaterally.  
62. The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed  to revert to this notification at 
its next meeting.  
 Seychelles (G/MA/QR/N/SYC/1)  
63. The Chairperson  drew the Committee 's attention to Seychelles ' new notification for the period 
2016-2017. He thank ed Seychelles, a very recently acceded Member, for submitting a notification 
under this transparency obligation.  
64. The Committee took note  of this notification . G/MA/M/67  
 
- 9 - 
 
   United States (G/MA/QR/N/USA/2, G/MA/QR/N/USA/3, G/MA/W/116, G/MA/W/127)  
65. The Chairperson  recalled that, at its last meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert to the 
notifications by the United States , which cover ed the periods 2014 -2016 and 2016 -2018. The 
Europ ean Union had circulated questions in documents  G/MA/W/116 and G/MA/W/127.  
66. The representative of the European U nion thank ed the U nited States for the ongoing 
discussion that had taken place bilateral ly on this issue, as well as for the replies that had been 
received so far.  The EU remained concerned by  this issue as it remained  unclear why the 
US consider ed that: (i)  wild and farmed sturgeons and their products were not treat ed as  different 
categories; and (ii)  captive -bred sturgeon and their pr oducts were considered as detrimental to the 
survival of wild stocks. During past years, the EU ha d provided the U nited States with information 
on sturgeon aquaculture in the EU that had illustrate d the positive effects of captive breeding o n the 
survival of wild stocks. Consequently, lacking a similar demonstration from the US that the ban c ould 
be justified for captive -bred sturgeon products, the EU consider ed that this ban was an unjustified 
trade barrier given that trade in farmed products could not be considered detrimental to the surv ival 
of wild stocks. She recalled that,  at the last Committee meeting, the US had informed  Members 
about the ongoing review process carried out by the US Fish and Wildlife Service , and asked for  an 
update  in this regard . 
67. The representative of the United States  appreciated the EU 's continued interest in this matter. 
He explained that there were ten  species of sturgeon under review by the US Fish an d Wildlife 
Service. In December  2017, the US Fish and Wildlife Service had published a preliminary 
determination that one of the species  under review , the Yangtze River sturgeon, was  presently in 
danger of extinction and should therefore be considered endangered un der the Endangered Species 
Act. This had been provided fo r in Fede ral Register  61230 of  27 December  2017. The notice of the 
preliminary determination provided fo r a public comment period of 60  days. The next step was for 
the US Fish and Wildlife Service to issue a final determination , in December  2018, pursuant to 
statut ory time-frames  under the Endangered Species Act. With regard to the current status of the 
nine other proceedings that were under review, the US Fish and Wildlife Service was currently 
conducting the 12 -month status review on a petition to list nine  specie s of sturgeon under the 
Endangered Species Act. The Service was currently collecting and evaluating information , so it had 
not yet made a determination regard ing the listing of these species . A listing determination would 
be made on the best scientific and  commercial information available. He recalled  that the EU , and 
any other Members  too, could provide additional information to help the United States  make this 
determination  at any time during the Service 's review . Once the status review had been  completed , 
and if the Service found that listing was warranted, the Service would then prepare a proposed rule. 
At that point, the public would be given 60  days to comment on the proposed listing. This would 
give the EU another opportunity to provide the Service with information. The delegation of the United 
States  stood ready to facilitate a discussion among the relevant authorities , as appropriate.  
68. The Comm ittee took note  of the statements made and agreed  to revert to this notification at 
its next meeting.  
 Argentina (G/MA/QR/N/ARG/ 1/Rev.1) 
69. The Chairperson  drew the Committee 's attention to Argentina 's new notification for the period 
2016-2018.  The Chair infor med the Committee that there had been a processing error that had 
delayed th e circulation of this document.  
70. The representative of the United States  thank ed Argent ina for its notification and noted that 
Capital had not yet had the opportun ity to complete its review. He therefore asked to revert to th is 
notification at the next meeting.  
71. The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed  to revert to this notification at 
its next meeting.  G/MA/M/67  
 
- 10 - 
 
  (2) CAPACITY -BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE NOTIFICATION OF QUANTITAT IVE 
RESTRICTIONS  
72. The Chairperson  recalled that the Committee ha d been discussing for some time how to 
improve the timeliness and completeness of QR  notification s, including during an informal 
consultation that had taken  place on 17  July 2017. At its September  2017 meeting, the Committee 
had requested the Secretariat to organize a capacity -building workshop, which had taken place on 
24 April 2018.  In a fax dated 5  December  2017, the Chairman  had announced the logistics and 
contents of the workshop, and  had informed Members that the Institute for Training and Technical 
Co-operation (ITTC)  would finance  the participation of 25  capital -based officials. More than 
80 applications had been  received and the ITTC had finally been able to finance the participati on of 
30 capital -based officials , who were also present at this meeting . 
73. The Chair reported that the workshop had featured presentations from 14  speakers from 
six different divisions of the WTO  Secretariat and four  WTO Members. The workshop had been  well-
attended by both Geneva and capital -based officials, demonstrating the Memberships ' strong 
interest in better understanding and improving performance on QR notification . The workshop had 
been structured with the objective of addressing the common cha llenges to notifying quantitative 
restrictions as raised by Members in formal and informal meetings of this Committee in 2017. He 
reminded Members that these challenges had included difficulty in identifying what measures 
constitute d quantitative restricti ons, a lack of awareness or information on the wide variety of 
national measures in force, and difficulties coordinating the preparation of the notification among 
different national agencies and ministries with responsibility for administering the measures . 
Participants in the workshop had benefitted from presentations on the origins of the WTO 's 
quantitative restriction commitments, the status of notifications received to date, WTO  jurisprudence 
on quantitative restrictions, linkages between QR  notificatio ns and other WTO  notifications, sources 
of information and , finally , on how certain Members coordin ate the preparation of their 
QR notifications at the national level.  
74. He shared with Members a number of key observations from these sessions that could be 
useful to Members when preparing their own QR notifications:  
i. The definition of quantitative restrictions under Article  XI of the GATT was very broad and 
included a wide range of measures. This was evident from the wide range of measures that 
had been notifie d by Members to date.  
 
ii. The vast majority of WTO  Members in all probability implemented some form of quantitative 
restriction ; for example, pursuant to their participation in international conventions , such as 
CITES.  
 
iii. Very few WTO  Members had submitted QR  notifications since  2012, and there was significant 
room to improve the Memberships ' notification performance.  
 
iv. Despite the general commitment to eliminating quantitative restrictions under Article  XI of 
the GATT , certain quantitative restrictions were just ifiable under WTO  rules.  
 
v. The purpose of the QR  notification was not to ask Members to notify a possible violation of 
WTO rules, but rather to enhance the transparency of these measures for the benefit o f both 
importers and exporters.  
 
vi. There was some overl ap between the QR  notification and notifications under other 
agreements, such as the Import Licensing Agreement, Safegu ards Agreement , and 
Agreement on  Agriculture. Work to prepare a notification under one agreement could 
therefore help a Member meet multi ple notification commitments.  
 
vii. There were a variety of sources of information available at the WTO to assist a Member in 
begin ning its preparation of a QR  notification, such as other WTO  notifications, trade policy 
review reports, trade monitoring reports , and the environmental database.  
 
viii. Upon request from a Member, the Secretariat remained  available to assist in the preparation 
of a QR  notification, for example by providing possible sources of information and reviewing 
draft notifications before they were submitted to the Committee.  G/MA/M/67  
 
- 11 - 
 
  ix. There was no one -size-fits-all approach to national coordination of the QR  notification among 
various agencies and ministries. However, establishing and retaining records on contact 
points at different agencies appeared to be  a common strategy for overcoming this 
challenge. To include the name of the responsible agency in the notification could  also 
provide a helpful starting point for the preparation of future notifications. Some Members 
expressed interest in further discussion on strategies or systems to support the capacity to 
prepare notifications on a sustainable basis.  
 
75. The Chair recalled that  the Secretariat had held an additional technical capacity -building 
activity with capital -based participants aimed at preparing and re viewing their QR notifications. He 
hoped that the open-ended workshop and this additional activity would yield new notification 
submissions to the Committee. Finally, he  thanked  the speakers and panellists for their valuable 
contribution s that helped to make the Capacity -Building Workshop on the Notification of Quantitative 
Restrictions a successful event, as well as those  who had attended the workshop, particularly 
capital -based delegates traveling from near and far. He also thanked colleagues from the WTO's 
Market Access Division , particularly Roy Santana and Roberta Lascari,  for organizing a very valuable 
workshop.  
76. The representative of Colombia  joined the Chair in th anking the organizers of the workshop . 
She thanked the Secretariat, including the ITTC, for its organization and , in particular , for the 
possibility  of attending it  that had been  extended to many capital -based officials  tasked with  
preparing the QR notification s. She highlighted that the workshop 's topics  had been well prepared , 
the vast knowledge of the speakers during the first day, and the availability and interest of facilitators 
to ensure that the  best possible training  was provided . Taken together, the Workshop should assist  
Members to comply with this important QR transparency req uirement to the benefit of the overall 
functioning of the multilateral trading system. She also  thanked the staff of the Market Access 
Division , who had accompanied participants throughout the  three days and that  had provided  
individual technical  assistance to help participants better  to understand this broad and complex 
issue, and to enable them  to prepare  their notification once they had returned to Capital . Finally, 
she t hanked the Chairperson for his conclusions , which  properly reflected the w orkshop 's 
achievements . 
77. The representative of Chinese Taipei  thanked the Secretariat for the  workshop , which had 
helped them to better  understand quantitative restrictions  and better formulate their next 
notification.  
78. The Chairperson  recalled  that a  large number of materials had been prepared by different 
WTO divisions for this workshop  and, in his view , these materials would be very useful for future 
generations of capital -based officials in charge of preparing QR notifications. He propose d to instr uct 
the Secretariat to make all of these  materials available on the QR section of the WTO  webpage.  
79. The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed  to the proposal . 
(3) PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE NOTIFICATION OF QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS 
(JOB/MA/101/REV.1)  
80. The Chairperson  recalled that the Committee had asked the Secretariat to update the practical 
guide for the notification of quantitative restrictions, which had been circulated in 
document  JOB/MA/101/ Rev.1. Members had been  asked to provide comments and suggestions to 
the Secretariat, and the Chairperson had reminded them of the deadline via fax. Two delegations  
had provided comments, which the Secretariat  had taken into account. Nevertheless , the practical 
guide could be fu rther developed or adjusted by the Secretariat if Members ha d further  comments 
or new ideas.  
81. The representative of the United States  thanked the Secretariat for the revision of the practical 
guide and for organizing the workshop ; he considered that both the guide and the workshop had 
been helpful and informative. As Members kn ew from past statements made and proposals put 
forward at  the Council for Trade in Goods, the US focus was to address deficiencies and gaps in 
notifications an d transparency across the entire WTO. One such area was quantitative restriction 
notifications, for which the response rate had been low.  According to the Secretariat 's most recent 
report , only 33  Members had submitted their QR  notification as of Septembe r, and many of those G/MA/M/67  
 
- 12 - 
 
  had not submitted  their two -year notifications. The US hoped that the updated practical guide and 
the capacity -building workshop would  help to change this situation and improve the number a nd 
frequency of notifications.  
82. The representat ive of the European Union  thanked the Secretariat for its excellent job in 
organizing the workshop and the revision of the practical guide. The EU looked forward to a positive 
outcome with an increase in notification compliance.  
83. The representative of Brazil thanked the Secretariat for its work in revising the Practical Guide. 
Brazil  believe d that the information included in the document would  certainly be helpful to Members 
when  preparing their notifications. Comparing th e revised version with the original document, it was 
clear that the Secretariat had added many elements and delved deeper into the substance  of the 
issues, wh ereas the original document had been  more focused on procedures. He noted that , while 
this change was not negative per se , Members  might wish to review it more carefully. For example , 
Brazil was of the view that  some adjustments in the language of item 1.2 could be appropriate,  
regarding the treatment of "Article  XI in GATT/WTO dispute settlement ". 
84. The representative of China  thanked the Secretariat for its excellent work on the practical 
guide and for organizing the workshop  that, in her delegation 's view , had been  valuable and helpful.  
85. The Chairperson  encouraged Members with comments on the practic al guide to send them to 
the Secretariat . 
86. The Committee took note  of the statements made . 
H. SITUATION OF SCHEDUL ES OF WTO MEMBERS (G /MA/W/23/REV.14)  
87. The Chairperson  drew Members ' attention to document  G/MA/W/23/Rev .14, entitled 
"Situation o f Schedules of WTO Members ", and asked the Secretariat to introduce the paper . 
88. A representative of the Secretariat  (Mr Roy Santana)  gave an overview of the number of 
procedures and the types of changes that ha d been introduced to Schedules through the 
1980 Procedures  for Modification and Rectification of Schedules . He explained that the ultimate goal 
of these procedures was to keep the Schedules up -to-date, which was very important for surveillance 
purposes , because otherwise it would not be possible to compare the bound and the applied duties. 
To date , around 539  changes had been proposed to the Schedule s of concessions. Regarding the  
character  of these proposed changes , many related to rectification of erro rs, results of  Article XXVIII 
renegotiations , and changes resulting from the addition of  new concessions  by Members  or the 
unilateral reduc tion of bound duties , and other s relate d to plurilateral negotiations , such as  the ITA 
or the ITA  Expansion . However,  he observed  that the vast majority of such changes had result ed 
from the different  HS transposition  exercises , as had already been reported by the Secretariat under 
previous agenda items. While in some  cases, such as  the HS2002  transposition, Members were  close 
to achieving a  full update of all Schedules , much remained to be done in other transposition 
exercises . Another type of change  concerned the implementation of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision 
on the elimination of Export S ubsidies , where by Members had been submitting  changes to Part IV 
of their Schedules in order to eliminate them . Finally , a small number of procedures concerned other 
types of situations. He recalled that the 1980  Procedures concluded with a certification by the 
Director -General , and observed that the vast majority of procedures had been  successfully 
concluded, that is,  97% of all relevant procedures  had now been certified . Cumulatively, they 
represented  a substantial  change to the schedules of concessions, which in many cases were now 
close to be ing up to date. However, t here were also certain situations where reservations had been 
introduced and the procedures remained ongoing. S ome of these were relatively new and the 
Secretariat was aware of ongoing discussion among Members . Howe ver, others had been  raised 
many years ago , and the Secretariat was unaware of their status . For this reason, and with a view 
to advancing in this area , he invited Members to check the status of their respective  Schedule s and 
to contact the Secretariat if there were reservations pending or if the status of the procedure had 
been outstanding for some years. On the  HS2012  transposition , he noted that several  procedures 
had been circulated  recently such that the three -month  review period remained ongoing . He also 
informed the Committee that the Secretariat had lacked the  resources to prepare and format for 
circulation many of the  HS2012  files that had been approved  at the multilateral review session of 
January . The Secretariat had been  facing  resource constrai nts that would probably limit the G/MA/M/67  
 
- 13 - 
 
  Secretariat 's ability  to provide assistance both in terms of the  transposition work , which was  done 
by staff from the Economic and R esearch  Division,  and the preparation  and circulation of approved  
transposition files, which was carried out by staff from  the Market A ccess Division . Finally, he 
informed Members  that the WTO  Secretariat ha d updated the Analytical Index, which was a 
publication providing  information about  the jurisprudence of different legal provisions , and 
WTO practice with regard to different provisions . Of particular interest to this Committee  were the 
updated section s relating to  the WTO  practice of Articles  II, XI and XXVIII of the GATT  1994. The 
updated version of the Analytical Index could be accessed via the WTO website.  
89. The representative of Argentina  thanked the Secretariat for its detailed report, the 
organization of the workshop and , more generally , for its continued assistance and capacity building 
provided to Geneva -based delegates and capital -based officials  in carrying out their assignments. 
He expressed concern regarding the limited human resource s for the regular , but very important, 
work of the Market Access Division, particularly with regard  to transposition work. He hoped that 
this situation was temporary  and that the Organization , to avoid disruption to Members in their 
WTO activities,  would  recognize the importance of such work . 
90. The Committee took note  of the  Secretariat report and  statements made . 
I. REPORT BY THE SECRET ARIAT ON T HE STATUS OF RENEGOT IATIONS UNDER 
ARTICLE  XXVIII OF THE GATT  1994 (G/MA/W/123/REV .3) 
91. The Chairperson  drew Members ' attention to document  G/MA/W/ 123/Rev.3 and gave the floor 
to the Secretariat  to report on the status of renegotiations under Article  XXVIII of the GATT  1994. 
92. A representative of the Secretariat  (Mrs Roberta Lascari) summarized the content of the latest 
version of the report  in document  JOB/MA/123/Rev.3. Since the establishment of the WTO in 1995, 
there ha d been  44 Article  XXVIII renegotiations . The majority of those , around 28  renegotiations , 
had taken place  under paragraph  5 of Article  XXVIII, whereas other paragraphs had been  invoked  
only to a lesser extent . For example , the provision of paragraph  4 of Article  XXVIII  had been used 
in two  cases , and the provision  of paragraph  1 in three  cases . She observed that t here had recently 
been a n increase in the number of renegotiations  pursuant to  Article  XXIV:6 of the GATT, which 
dealt with regional trade agreement s, and in particular with the est ablishment of customs unions. 
Members that had joined customs unions  had, in certain circumstances , to modify their 
WTO schedules  and renegotiate concessions as a result of the application of a common external tariff 
in the context of such customs  union s. So far, there had been seven  renego tiation s that  had been 
triggered by Article  XXIV:6  of the GATT . With regard to the status of the 44  renegotiations , more 
than half (5 2%) had been concluded and certified. This meant  that all the steps of the procedures 
had been concluded, including the conclusion of the renegotiation process itself among the relevant 
parties , the notification of those agreements to the WTO, and the submission for certification of the 
resulting changes to the Schedule under the 1980  Procedures.  Returning  to the other procedures, 
23% of total procedures remained ongoing, a figure that took into account several renegotiation 
processes that had very recently  started . Finally, 18% of the renegotiations under  Article  XXVIII  had 
been withdr awn. T his was  the case , for example, of certain WTO Members that had notified their 
intention  to renegotiate certain concessions, but had subsequently withdrawn  their request  due to 
other  changes in their Schedule, for instance in the context of the differ ent enlargements of the 
European Union . A small percentage of the renegotiations (7%) had been concluded, but the draft 
changes  had not  yet been incorporated  into the Schedules of concessions  of the  relevant  Member. 
This could be the result, for example, o f situations where the three -month period for review  under 
the 1980  Procedures  remained  ongoing.  
93. The representative of Ukraine  thank ed the Secretariat for its comp rehensive and insightful 
report, as well as for the enhanced transparency that would help Members to trace the status of 
Article XXVIII renegotiations. Ukraine believed that it would be appropriate also to list in the report 
the M embers that were negotiating  the concessions with the Member that had triggered the 
procedure, as well as  the Members  that had applied for  such renegotiation . Ukraine took this 
opportunity to reiterate its  interest in the Article  XXVIII renegotiation s by Armenia and the Kyrgyz 
Republic, despite the fact that  trade between Ukraine and these two countries was governed by 
bilateral and multi lateral free trade agreements. He considered that the concurrent participation of 
Armenia and the Kyrgyz Republic  in both the Eurasian Economic Union and in free trade agreements 
with Ukraine could cause unpredictable consequences for Ukrainian exports in view of possible 
change s to those trade rules.  G/MA/M/67  
 
- 14 - 
 
  94. A representative of the Secretariat  (Mr Roy Santana) explained that the information 
concerning ongoing Article  XXVIII procedures was highly restricted  and in many cases considered to 
be "secret". For example, the document symbol of Article  XXVIII renegotiations began with 
"G/SECRET ", and the documents were not publicly available . The Secretariat 's practice had been to 
derestrict the documents  in that series once the renegotiations  had been concluded and the 
1980 Procedures had  been concluded . If Members  agreed, the Secretariat could include additional 
information on the Members involved based on the official documents , but once all the steps of the 
procedures had been concluded, including certification . For anything more than that, t he Secretariat 
and the Chairperson would need to  consult with Members.  
95. The Chairperson  suggested holding consultati ons on the proposal by Ukraine.  
96. The Committee took note  of the statements made . 
J. ANGOLA – CONS UMPTION TAX - STATEM ENT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION  
97. The Chairperson  recalled that this agenda item had been included at the  request of the 
European Union.  
98. The representative of the European Union  reiterated its concern s over the provisions contained 
in the Presidential Legislative Decree No.  5-15. As presented  in document  G/MA/W/129 , of 
22 November  2016, as well as  the last meeting of th e committee of  September  2017, the EU was 
concerned by the fact that Angola had increased the consumption tax in a discriminatory manner on 
several products, such as spirits, juices, foodstuffs and certain industrial products. Consumption tax 
rates were higher on goods that were imp orted, which were listed in the Decree 's Annex  I, than on 
the same goods produced domestically, which were listed in the Decree 's Annex  II. Therefore , the 
EU considered that there existed  discrimination between products imported into Angola and like 
domestically manufactured products. In April , the EU had received a l etter from the Angolan Minister 
of Trade stating that the discriminatory element in its consumption tax rates would be eliminated 
once the Government 's proposal for a new tariff book would be adopted by Parliament.  In this regard, 
the EU  delegation  asked  Angola to clarify how exactly the tariff book, which did not set consumption 
taxes, would address the discriminatory nature of its consumption tax regime. She further asked 
Angola to pr ovide an indication of the time -frame within which it expected to be a ble to ensure its 
comp liance with its WTO  Commitments and , in particular , Article  III of the GATT , which prohibited 
fiscal discrimination between do mestic and like imported goods.  
99. The representative of Angola  thanked the EU for its interest in Angola 's leg islation on 
consumption tax. He took note of the ongoing EU  concerns and explained that, as had previously 
been mentioned at the  meetings of other Committees, as well as bilaterally to the EU, Angola was  
working to find a solution satisfactory to all parties involved. Angola  had reviewed the consumption 
tax and had inform ed the EU bilaterally of all of the technical work  that had been undertaken. Angola 
informed Members that the technical work had now been finalized  and so revised measures would 
soon be approved  and enter into force . 
100.  The Committee took note  of the statements made . 
K. CHINA  - CUSTOMS DUTIES ON CERTAIN INTEGRAT ED CIRCUITS  – STATEMENTS BY 
THE EUROPEAN UNION , JAPAN , CHINESE TAIPEI , AND THE UNITED STATES  
101.  The Chairperson  recalled that this agenda item had been included at th e request of the 
European Union, Japan, Chinese Taipei, and the United States.  
102.  The representative of the European Union  stated that multi -component semiconductors 
(MCOs), which were listed under  Attach ment B in the ITA  Expansion  Agreement , had been 
separately classified by each Member as inputs to different products in their HS  nomenclatures. 
MCOs had received a common classification in the revised HS2017  version of the Harmonized 
System, under  HS codes  8542.31, 8542.32, and 8542.39. Since  China ha d negotiated a tariff staging 
of five years, these duties ha d to be progressiv ely reduced within that period. However, a s China 
had regrouped all MCO  products into these new common categories, it was now applyi ng duties on 
these lines. The new duties ha d been calculated by mean s of the duty averagin g method. Before 
this new classification, China had identified 17  MCO products . Some of these tariff lines were already G/MA/M/67  
 
- 15 - 
 
  duty-free but, f or certain lines, importers now had to pay duties. This had been very  disappointing 
for European industry  because, since the agreement, duties had actually been increased on MCOs. 
In her view, t his went at the very least  against the spirit of the ITA  Expansion . In its certified 
WTO schedule, China had committed to maintaining zero  tariffs on some of the product lines 
identified as MC Os that were already duty -free. The 2017  duty rate for some MCOs ha d increased, 
for example from 0% in 2016 to 3.4% in 2017. S ome were previous ly covered under IT A duty-free 
lines. The new duties seem ed to be well above the arithmetic average of the old duties, which was 
also against the letter of the A greement and could constitute a violat ion of China 's ITA obligations. 
At the 18th GAMS  meeting that took place in  November  2017, China had agreed to provide written 
official explanations on this issue an d to share its calculation method. The EU  appreciate d the 
information that had been received from China in March  2018. However, the information that had 
been provided had been  limited and lack ed written explanations, which prevent ed the EU  from 
adequately assessing China 's calculation method or the reasons for why it used that particular 
method. More specifically, the EU asked China to clarify: (1) why three  different sub -categories of 
MCOs had to  be created  with different applied duties ; and (2) if the new duties on average were 
higher than the arithmetic average of the old duties before the HS re -categorisation of pr oducts 
(staging accounted for).  The EU  reiterate d its request for China to provide written and official 
explanations for its calculation method with a view to clarifying  this matter as soon as possible. 
Finally, s he request ed China to consider restoring a zero  tariff on all MCO  product lines covered by 
the ITA  Agreement . 
103.  The representative of Japan  joined other Members in expressing its concern over China's 
customs duties on certain MCO  products. Japan wished to thank  the government of China for 
providing some explanatory material, which  showed  China 's commitment to the ITA  Expansion 
schedule, including the elimination of duties on all MCOs in 2021. However, Japan shared the 
concerns expressed by other Members , at the last CTG  meeting , as it understood that integrated  
bipolar transistors (IGBT), HS  code 8504 4091, were also MCO product s. Therefore, Japan asked 
China to explain why customs duties of 5% , as opposed to 2.7% , had been applied to IGBT.  
104.  The representative of the United States  reiterated US concerns over the change in China 's 
applied rate for semiconductor products, which had been raised at the previous meeting of the 
Committee , as well as at the Council for Trade in Goods  and at the ITA  Committee. Since 
1 January  2017, China had been imposing tariffs on a numb er of semiconductor products that were 
previously duty -free by virtue of China 's WTO  bound commitments. To date, the situation had not 
changed and semiconductor shipments were still subject to duty when a year ago they would have 
been duty -free. He took no te of China 's recent information sharing on its transposition calculations. 
Unfortunately, this information had not  alleviate d the US concerns. Putting the specific calculations 
aside, the WTO  General Council Decision on HS  transpositions , which  China ofte n referenced , made 
it clear that the bound rates in the new HS  nomenclature should fully reflect the same level of 
concessions as in the old nomenclature ; namely , that  the scope of the concessions should remain 
unchanged. The US continued to assert, in lin e with the General Council Decision on 
HS transpositions, that the scope of China 's concessions had changed substantially, and  that the 
value of the concession had been impaired, in that these semico nductor products that were duty -free 
for over a decade were now subject to duties. The 17  tariff lines that China had identified in its 
WTO schedule as MCO s under the previous nomenclature –whether previously dutiable or duty free  –
should be incorporated into HS2017 heading 8542 with the tariff rate that was applicable on 
31 December  2016. He wanted to clarify  that the US was not asking China to apply a zero duty to 
all products that were previously  subject to a duty. Instead, his delegation  asked China to maintain 
its duty -free concession s by creating additional national tariff lin es under HS8542 for certain end -use 
products , such as appliances. In his view, this was the standard methodology that Members should 
apply in a transposition. The US question ed this situation  in light of China 's WTO binding tariff 
commitments, and was concerned that this appear ed to be part of a worrying trend in support of 
the "Made in China 2025 " campaign.  
105.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  thanked China for sharing the calculation of its tariff 
transposition  and for its explanations provided so far. However, her delegation shared the view s of 
other delegations , and remained concerned that the results of the HS2017  transposition should 
follow the principle  of tariff-rate neutral ity, meaning that the value of the tariff concess ion for the 
ten MCO  products, which had effectively been duty-free tariffs, should not be impaired as a result 
of a change in HS  nomenclature. Chinese Taipei had noted  that China had also applied the princip le 
of tariff rate neutral ity in its HS2017  transposition. For example, China had specifically put tariff 
line 8542.31.11 in HS2017 from tariff line  8504.40.91 (IGBT) in HS 2012 as an ex-out, in order  to G/MA/M/67  
 
- 16 - 
 
  comply with its tariff concession s. Therefore, Chinese Taipei  wondered  why China had not applied 
this same principle to the other MCO  products, which were duty -free on the HS2012 as ex -outs 
under subheading  8542.31 in HS2017. She noted that , since last year , China had imposed tariffs on 
MCO products at a rate higher than China's current W TO bound rate , and that China was, therefore , 
in violation of its obligati ons under Article  II of the GATT , as well as its ITA obligations. 
Chinese  Taipei urged China immediately to delete the tariff rates applied to im ports of the 
MCO products at issue.  
106.  The representative of  the Republic of Korea  share d the concern s that had been expressed by 
previous delegations . Korea believe d that transposition into a new Schedule should not be used as 
an opportunity to dismantle the balanced commitments among Members , by imposing duties on 
products subject to the ITA. All Members should  fully respect the spirit of the ITA.  
107.  The representative of China  took note of the comments made. Regarding the MCO  issue, China 
had made comments in previous meetings of the Mark et Acce ss Committee, the ITA  Committee , and 
the CTG , and had conducted several rounds of bilateral consultations  with interested Members to 
clarify the technical questions . She reiterated China 's position and recalled  that China was the major  
trading partner in IT products, which had fully participated in the ITA  expansion negotiation and was 
seriously implementing its commitments. Pursuant to the HS2017  rules of the World Customs 
Organization (WCO), China had re grouped the tariff lines of MCO  products and had identified new 
duty rates based on the original tariff lines, which was consistent with the transposition rules and 
China 's commitments in the WTO. In accorda nce with the results of the ITA  expansion negotiation, 
MCO products covered 17  ex-out tari ff lines i n the 2007  tariff nomenclature of China. Those ex -out 
tariff lines had been changed to five  national tariff lines in the HS2017  transposition , in accordance 
with the HS  amendments of the WCO. As such, specific parts of several subheadings had been 
regroupe d in new subheadings. Pursuant to the WTO  document "Procedure s for the Introdu ction of 
Harmonized System 2017  Changes to Schedul es of Concessions Using the CTS  Database " 
(WT/L/995), and because it was  impractical to establish reasonably accurate trade allo cations, China 
had used the fourth  method suggested by the WTO  document, which was applying the simple 
average of the previous rates of duty. In China 's view, this was fully consistent with the WTO  rules 
on HS2017  transposition. Technically, it was unavoi dable to increase the duty rate  on some products 
with the simple average method, while the duty rates on some other products would necessarily be  
reduced. In this case, even if the duty rates on 10  MCO products were relatively higher compared 
with those in HS2012, the duty rates on seven  MCO products had been  substantially reduced. As an 
example, before the transposition, the duty rate of tariff line 8450.9090 had been  13.3%, and the 
duty rates of tariff line 8415.9010 and 8415.9090 had each been 8.3%. After  transposition, the duty 
rate was just 3.4% for all these tariff lines, with a reduction of 74% and 59% , respectively. China 
had seriously undertaken, and would continue to fulfil, its tariff reduction commitments under the 
ITA Expansion . The linear reduct ion of duties on MCO  products would be implemented across a 
five-year period. Among the five  MCO products in HS2017, the duty rates on three  products since 
1 July 2018 would be further reduced to 2.1%, and the duty rates on the other two  products would 
be reduced to 5% and 1.9% respectively. According to China 's tariff reduction commitments in the 
ITA Expansion , all duties on MCO  products would be eliminated in July  2021.  On the new technical 
question that had been raised by Members, she took note and indic ated that it would be forwarded 
to Capital for consideration before further clarification  could then be provided at bilateral level.  
108.  The representative of Singapore  expressed his delegation 's interest in this implementation 
issue and would continue to moni tor it closely . 
109.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
L. MODIFICATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF HAITI 'S TARIFF SCHEDULE  XXVI - STATEMENT 
BY THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC  
110.  The Chairperson  recalled that this agenda item had been included at the request of the 
Dominican Republic.  
111.  The representative of the Dominican Republic  noted that her delegation  had asked to include 
this agenda item  so as to inform  Members that the Dominican Republic  had been holding bilateral 
negotiations with Haiti pursuant to Haiti's notification of its modification to Schedule  XXVI, annexed 
to Article  II of the GATT  1994 and the Marrakesh Agreement , and pursuant to the  procedures in G/MA/M/67  
 
- 17 - 
 
  Articles  XXIV:6 and XXVIII:5 of the GATT  1994, which had been  circulated in 
document  G/SECRET /39. Since  Schedule  XXVI was an integral part of the  terms of the  agreement 
that had established the WTO and the GATT  1994, and that it also represented a common agreement 
that was relevant to all WTO Members, the government of the Dominican Republic wanted  to put on  
the record that the negotiations remained ongoing, with a view to try ing to maintain a general level 
of reciprocal and mutually advantageous concessions , as established in Article  XXVIII:2 of the 
GATT  1994. In this regard , and for as long as the negotiati ons had not led at a satisfactory 
conclusion, the Dominican Republic reserved all its rights, and particu larly those related to Articles  II, 
XXIV and XXVIII of the  GATT  1994 in their entirety, as well as with regard to any modification or 
factual situation  that affected the rights of the Dominican Republic covered under thes e provisions.  
112.  The representative of the United States  indicated that his delegation would  continu e to monitor 
the situation. As one of Haiti 's largest trading partners, the United States  had a particular interest 
in these negotiations, and Haiti 's proposal raise d systemic implications. Of particular concern  to the 
US was Haiti's proposal to raise its bound rates well above  those of the CARICOM  common external 
tariff. According to his dele gation 's initial analysis, Haiti sought  to raise its rates, on average, nearly 
50 percentag e points above the CARICOM  CET. From the US perspective, Article  XXVIII had never 
been intended to be used as a protectionist tool to ren egotiate a Member 's commitments, n or was 
it intended to be used to create policy space. The US hoped that  Haiti would  reconsider its request, 
particularly in light of the concerns that had been raised at the meeting , and looked forward to 
continuing its  discuss ions with Haiti  on this issue.  
113.  The representative of Brazil  stated that his delegation was one of the Members that had 
submitted a claim of interest in order to conduct negoti ations with Haiti under Article  XXVIII of the 
GATT  1994. Brazil looked forward to advancing  ongoing bilateral negotiations with Haiti on this 
matter.  
114.  The representative of Canada  stated that her delegation had also submitted a claim of interest 
to Haiti in response to its communication on 10  February  2017 regarding Haiti 's inte ntion to modify 
its concessions . Canada  looked forward to further discussions with Haiti on Canada 's claim of 
interest.  
115.  The representative of Guatemala  thanked  the Dominican Republic for having includ ed this 
item on the agenda. Her delegation expressed its systemic interest in the issue and would follow  the 
matter  in accordance with  WTO rules.  
116.  The representative of Haiti thanked the Dominica n Republic for adding this item to the agenda 
and also thanked all delegations that had taken the floor. Indeed, after  reserving its right s, in 
January  2015, the Republic of Haiti had initiated , in February  2017, the procedures  to modify its 
Schedule of concessi ons in accordance with Articles  XXIV:6 and XXVIII :5 of the GATT  1994. This 
had been done with two  objectives  in mind : (i) the full a nd complete participation of Haiti in the 
CARICOM  common market; and (ii)  the alignment of Haiti 's tariffs  with its WTO  obligations . 
Following the 90 -day period for the submission of claims of interest, Haiti  had received several claims 
of interest with re gard to  the proposed modification, after which it had engaged in consultations  with 
the five  Members that had submitted such claims. Negotiations had yet to start with  some of those 
Members , and thus the process of modification of Haiti's Schedule of conce ssions  remained  ongoing. 
The results would be notified to the WTO  in accordance with the established procedures once the 
negotiations had been  concluded. Haiti stood ready to engage in bilateral dialogue with any 
interested delegation.  
117.  The Committee took note of the statements made.  
M. INDIA – CUSTOMS DUTI ES ON TELECOM MUNICATION AND OTHER PRODUCTS – 
STATEMENTS BY CANADA , CHINA , EUROPEAN UNION,  JAPAN , NORWAY , CHINESE  TAIPEI , 
AND THE UNITED STATES  (G/MA/W/120, G/MA/W/128 ) 
118.  The Chairperson  recalled that this a genda item had been included on the agenda at the request 
of Canada, China, the European Union, Japan, Norway, Chinese Taipei, and the United States. Some 
of these Members had submitted questions to India, which had been circulated  in 
document  G/MA/W/120, and to which India had replied in document  G/MA/W/12 8. G/MA/M/67  
 
- 18 - 
 
  119.  The representative of the United States  noted that it was unfortunate that his delegation  had 
needed to raise yet again the issue of India 's tariff increase s on telecommunications and 
ICT products. However, rather than responding to concerns raised by the US and numerous other 
Members, India had continued down the same troubling path  as before . Indeed, it  appeared that 
India had continued to raise its rates on products for which India had a  WTO binding commitment 
to provide duty -free access. As the US had said on previous occasions , and had now sadly to 
emphasize again, the issue at hand was two -fold. Fundamentally, this was about India 's binding 
tariff commitments. Put simply, there were a pparent discrepancies between India 's WTO  bound 
commitments to provide duty -free access to certain products, and the non -zero import duties that 
India was charging on imported products at the border. India 's actions lacked transparency and 
created uncertai nty for US and global companies. As the US had previously highlighted India's  
numerous tariff increases at the C ouncil  for Trade in Goods  (CTG)  of March  2018, he would not 
restate here all of the details and all of the product examples. Collectively, India 's increases had 
impacted upwards of USD15-20 billion in global exports, not to mention countless traders worldwide 
and importers in India. And this did not include more recent increases. In the few short weeks since 
the previous meeting of the CTG, India had managed to implement increases on several essential 
information technology products , such as printed circuit boards for cell phones. In addition, the lack 
of transparency surrounding India 's actions had made matters still  worse. The US had discovered  
discrepancies between Customs Notifications and the applied tariff rates published on India 's 
customs website. Furthermore, India had not notified its applied rates to the Committee for the past 
two years, as its las t submission had been in 2012 a nd, in a rather unprecedented move, India had 
placed a reservation on its own draft HS2012 Schedule. He asked  India how a trader was supposed 
to function in such an  opaque environment. Given that the ICT  sector was  a key enabling sector for 
other industries, his delegation  underscore d that the lack of certainty and transparency in this sector 
had not only a negative impact upon US  businesses looking to export to India, but also negatively 
affect ed other sectors of the Indian economy , as well as India 's positi on in the global supply chain. 
As noted  before, the US was not asking India to take on new commitments or binding tariff 
obligations. Rather, it only looked  to India to honour  its existing WTO  commitments by reinstating  
duty-free access where India had committed in its WTO  Schedu le to provide it. 
120.  The representative of the European Union  expressed the EU's serious concern over the recent 
further notifications and announcement that had been made in India 's Union budget for the Financial 
Year 2018 -2019 concern ing increased customs duties in key sectors, such as ICT  products , as well  
as cars and car parts. The European industry, including companies that had invested in India, were 
seriously concerned about this move towards import substitution and increased protectionism. While 
the EU understood India 's "Make in India " initiative, this drive should not lead to a situation where 
foreign companies were increasingly concerned about a protectionist impact and about  India's 
commitment to ensuring a predictable trade and investment environment , in full respect of 
WTO rules. Regarding ICT  goods, she noted that the new duty hikes were even more regrettable as 
the announcement had followed t he imposition of duties on several telecom products of July  2014, 
with the introduction and further increase of duties on a wide range of ICT  products in June, July 
and December of 2017, and in April  2018 on mobile phones, mobile phone accessories and 
comp onents, electricity meters, LED lamps, microwave ovens, cameras, and monitors. The EU had, 
on several occasions, and in bilateral and multilateral meetings, expressed concern over the 
protectionist trend  in India's trade policy . In particular, India 's incr eased duties appeared to 
contravene its GATT  concessions, which were also  covered by its commitm ents under the  ITA-1. 
Therefore , the measures were contrary to India's WTO obligations . In 2017 and 2018, t he EU 's 
Ambassador in India had sent letters on this issue on three  occasions to the Minister of 
Communi cations, the Electronics and IT  Secretary, and the Revenue Secretary, and the EU did not 
receive a reply  to any of these letters . The re -introduction and increases in import duties contradicted 
India's desired image as an open, non -protectionist economy , as well as India's efforts to attract 
more foreign direct investment into the country. These new duties not only had a negative impact 
upon European and other foreign companies, but also led to higher prices for Indian consumers and 
hampered the development of "Digital India ". The EU thus called upon India to reconsider these duty 
impositions or increases  that, in the case of IC T products , contradicted India 's WTO  commitments.  
121.  The representative of Canada  expressed disappointment over India's further increase in tariffs 
on ICT  products above its bound commitments, despite the concerns previously raised by 
WTO Members in the CMA, the ITA  Committee, and the Council for Trade in Goods . Since the tariff 
increases of its 2018 -2019 Budget, India had further i ncreased tariffs on certain ICT  products for 
which it s bound level was zero. Canada had assessed that India now applied tariffs on ICT  product s 
above its bound commitments for at least USD77 million of Indian imports from Canada. The G/MA/M/67  
 
- 19 - 
 
  continued application of tariffs above India 's boun d rates on a broad range of ICT  products remained 
inconsistent with India 's WTO  commitments and ran contrary to t he objectives of multilateral tariff 
liberalization. Canada continued to have both systemic and commercial concerns with regard to 
India's decision to introduce tariffs on ICT  products  that were  in excess of its WTO  bound 
commitments, as well as with India 's lack of response to Members ' concerns in this area. Canada 
did not accept India 's justification for applying tariffs above its bound commitments , and called on 
India to rescind its tariff increases and refrain from pursuing any further tariff increases above its 
WTO commitments.  
122.  The representative of Norway  noted  that his delegation had joined this agenda item as a 
co-sponsor , in line with Norway 's position on this matter as expressed in other fora. As this  issue 
had not yet been resolved, he emphasized that this was a WTO  trade concern at its most basic level . 
A Member 's applied tariffs  could not  exceed those  that were bound  in the ir Schedule . In his 
delegation 's view, technological advancement within a product segment clearly did not change this 
simple fact. This was a basic and self -evident starting point for how the WTO Agreements  must be 
read and Members ' obligations understood. An interpretation that implied  that a product segment 
could automatically be released from binding commitments a fter technological advancement would 
seriously undermine the system. Norway held both an economic and a systemic interest in this 
matter and considered that it was fundamental that all Members abide d by their WTO  obligations. 
His delegation continued to an ticipate further clarification from India on this issue.  
123.  The representative of Japan  continued t o express its concern over India's customs duties on 
ICT products. It was highly regrettable that , following the CTG's meeting in Mar ch, the government 
of India had further increased  customs duties on mobile phones and their parts  on 2 April 2018. 
Japan understood that the relevant  subheadings for mobile phones (HS8517 .12) and their parts 
(HS8517 .70) were classified as zero-duty goods  in India's WTO  bound Schedule . However, as a 
result of a series of duty increases made by India 's customs notifications  and the 2018  Finance bill , 
mobile phones had been subjected to a 20% customs duty and their parts to a 15% duty. In her 
delegation 's view, these tariff rates  were clearly inconsistent with India 's duty-free binding 
commitments. Japan had sent a questionnaire to India 's government  that consolidated the  relevant 
legal issues  and was awaiting India's response. Japan recognized that the series of duty increases 
made by India was a serious problem ; it created a systemic issue for the WTO and also had a serious 
impact on international trade and the global economy. Japan asked I ndia to withdraw these customs 
duties as soon as possible.  
124.  The representative of Chinese Ta ipei shared the concerns that had been expressed by other 
Members and would  refrain from repeating each of those concerns  again . However, besides the 
concerns raised regarding I ndia's Customs Notification No.  11/20 14 and Customs Notification 
No. 57/2017, C hinese Taipei had been  particularly disturbed to learn that , in December  2017, India 
had further increased import duties on seven  products, including mobile phones , digital cameras, 
and micro -ovens  under Customs  Notification No.  91/2017. Moreover , India 's 2018-2019 Budget 
proposal  of February  2018 had increased customs duties on certain ICT  products. In Chinese Taipei 's 
view, an increase in customs duties by India on the goods in question was totally inconsistent with 
Article  II of the GATT. As his delegati on had noted at several WTO  meetings, India referred to the 
goods at issue as being "new technologies " or "new products " and that, as such, they were products 
covered neither by India 's ITA commitments nor by its tariff -binding commitments. However, based 
on the Secretariat Note on "HS2007  Amendments in Relation to ITA  Products and A Model List in 
HS2007 ", the goods in que stion were covered in the ITA -1 commitments . India had already 
incorporated them as such into its 1996  Schedule of Concession s, as well a s its current Schedule of 
Concessions. Therefore, h is delegation had no hesitation in asking India kindly to eliminate  the tariffs 
at issue. His delegation would closely monitor India 's compliance with its commitments.  
125.  The representative of China  had noticed that India had increased its applied rates on mobile 
phone s and related parts in February  2018, some of which had exceeded India 's bound rates at the 
WTO. She considered that this was  inconsistent with the ITA and Article  ІІ of the GATT , especially 
for tariff lines under subheading  8517.12, which cover ed "telephones for cellular networks or for 
other wireless networks ", and subheading  8517.70, which cover ed "parts". China had also noticed 
that, on 2 April 2018, India had further increase d its duty rates on camera or camera module s of 
cellular mobile phones, connectors and printed circuit board a ssemblies  (PCBA s). China was of the 
view that these products fell within the scope of the ITA, and that India's measures were therefore 
inconsistent with it s ITA commitment s and its WTO  Schedule. China believe d that India's measures G/MA/M/67  
 
- 20 - 
 
  were not consistent with WTO  rules, and urge d India promptly to adjust the duty rates on the 
relevant products, making sure to return to and to abide by its WT O bound rates.  
126.  The representative of Switzerland  expressed Switzerland's  strong systemic concern over the 
introduction of customs duties on tariff lines that had been  bound at zero in India 's Schedule. 
Furthermore, his delegation expressed its concern over the increasing trend that saw the Indian 
authorities introduce customs duties also on other products , which indicated the risk of this becoming 
a systemic problem . 
127.  The representative of Thailand  shared the concerns of other Members  on this issue , which 
regrettably continued to escalate . She reiterated that Thailand held a commercial  interest in the 
products in question , as well as systemic concerns.  Her delegation looked forward to receiving 
further clarification from India and urged India to brin g its tariffs in to line with its WTO  commitments. 
Thailand would continue to monitor this issue closely.  
128.  The representative of  the Republic of Korea  also expressed  Korea's systemic concerns over 
the continued impos ition by India of  tariffs on additional  products subject to the ITA. Korea request ed 
India to give duty -free access to any goods belonging to those HS tariff lines on which India had 
commit ted to provide duty -free access.  
129.  The representative of Australia  joined others in expressing  its concerns  over India's customs 
duties . 
130.  The representative of Singapore  noted that this issue had been on the agenda s of the Market 
Access Committee, the ITA  Committee , and the CTG , for some time . Singapore  remained concerned 
by India's  continued imposition of tariffs on ICT  products that were covered by India 's 
ITA commitments. Singapore  had been engag ing bilaterally with India on this issue and hoped to 
resolve the situation quickly and with a minimum impact on trade . 
131.  The representative of India thanked  delegations fo r having raised  their concerns, which India 
had heard also at earlier meetings. For the sake of explaining the issue again to the Committee, he 
would touch  upon some of the issues  that had previously been raised by India about  technological 
development, bu t also  regarding  some of the issues that had been raised by the United States and 
the European Union  regarding transparency and increased duties. The US delegation had mentioned 
the issue of transparency of India's duty calculation and its availability on the website. He had 
previously informed Members that  the Department of Revenue in the  CBEC  had a  website 
(http://www.cbec.gov.in/ ), which was a website of the Ministry of Finance , where it was possible to 
find the cu stoms notifications  at issue , as well as the duty calculation s. Before February  2017, 
Members and importers had to check duties using the custom s notification that had increased  or 
imposed the duty . However, in February  2017, the Department had made an eff ort to facilitate 
importers  and exporters ' access to information concerning the duty compelled on each of the tariff 
lines and each of the elements . As a result, the duty calculator had  been updated with an additional 
feature.  The update of the website had taken place in February  2017, and would be updated again  
as often as possible. However, it was not possible to update the website  immediately  every time . In 
response to the US question on what an importer or exporter  had to do to access the information , 
he explained that, following the  February  2017 update of the website , they had to go to the website 
and click on the tariff lines , which would then give them  the duty  component  of a specific  product . 
After that, the notification that had been issued would be shown  in English on the website , and it 
would be possible to see whether the specific  duty ha d been increased t hrough  that notification. 
India stood  ready to discuss with the US the problem s being faced in terms of getting the duty 
calculations for impo rters or exporters , and suggested holding a bilateral meeting with the US on 
this issue.  With regard  to the concern s that had been raised  by the EU on the duty escalation  of a 
number of  alleged ITA  products  as well as the "Made in India " initiative , he recalled  that these were 
not ITA but other products. He also recalled that India ha d exercised self -restraint and not increas ed 
duties on several products  since 1991. I n fact , India had reduc ed its import duties over this time 
period . Although  India had  bound tariff s on a number of products on which it had the right under 
the WTO to increase the duties , it had never done so to date . However, India's domestic situation 
now required that duties be increased within India's bound tariffs. With regard  to the  alleged  
ITA products , Members had raised concern s on the  imposition of custom duties on items  in 2014, 
2017, and 2018. Several Members had also referred to the budget announcement  and its  
compatibility with India 's commitments under the ITA -1. In this reg ard, he recalled that  India had 
provided its written responses in document  G/IT/W/45. He also referred Members to  the replies that G/MA/M/67  
 
- 21 - 
 
  India had given at  various meetings of the Committee s on Market Access , and the ITA,  as well as  at 
the CTG. He request ed the concerned Members to read India's written replies , as well as the oral 
statement s delivered by India at  the aforesaid meetings. While noting that it  was important to keep 
in perspective both the technological progression as well as the HS transposition of telecom  and 
IT products, h is delegation would be willing to examine  any specific view that  delegations might 
have with regard to the technical aspects of these products as well as their classificati on. On the 
issue of duties  imposed on certain telecom prod ucts in 2017 -2018, as a preliminary response , he 
observed that  India was fully aware of its obligation s and com mitments under the ITA -1 and had  
been abiding by the same. India had signed ITA-1 in 1997 , and had also presented its Schedule , 
which had been  subsequently certified in document  WT/Let/181. In this regard , India d id not intend 
to commit beyond the scope of its ITA-1 commitment s as inscribe d in this document. There ha d 
been extensive discussions and stake holder consultations among  India's relevan t agencies on the 
coverage of these products and India's ITA commitments. India consider ed that the items on which 
duties had been  raised were not part of ITA-1 as signed by India. His delegation was willing to  seek 
inputs from other Members as concerned their perception of certain aspects relating  to the product 
coverage under ITA-1, as well as the customs duties imposed by other Members on such products. 
Members had raised classification issue s, particularly with reference to specific tariff lines , such as 
HS8517.12 and 8517 .17 and their relation to the 1996  ITA schedule. India stood ready to  discuss 
with those  Members  their specific concerns on the techn ological  issues. At the last meeting , one of 
the Members had raised the issue of India 's bound rates f or certain specified products in  the 
HS2007  Schedule  as notified  to WTO. In this regard, it was noteworthy to mention that  Members 
had the right , in India's view,  to revisit the document  and to place the  necessary rectification request 
before the Committee . India had been w orking on such rectification and would revert back to the 
issue soon. His delegation remained  ready to discuss bilaterally the technicalities of the products 
with any Member in case they ha d any specific query.  
132.  The representative of the United States  reiterated that this was an issue concerning  India's 
tariff binding commitments. Any product that was classified within the scope of a tariff category that 
was covered by India 's bound duty -free commitments must be accorded duty -free treatmen t, even 
if it was a product that had not been  on the market at the time that India undertook such binding 
commitment s. 
133.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
N. OMAN – MFN CUSTOMS D UTIES ON CIGARETTES – STATEMENTS BY THE EUROPEAN 
UNION AND SWITZER LAND  
134.  The Chairperson  recalled that this item had been included on the agenda at the request of the 
European Union and Switzerland.  
135.  The representative of Switzerland  recalled  that this was not the first  time that his delegation 
had raised the issue of the consistency of Oman's  MFN customs duties on cigarettes. In 
September  2016, Oman had increased the specific part of its customs duties on cigarettes through 
the Customs Decree on Adjustment of the Minimum Specific Rate for Tobacco and its products in 
the Unified Customs Tariff for the GCC  countries. The MFN applied rate was set at 100% or a 
minim um specific rate of 15  Omani Ri al (OR) per 1'000 cigarettes, whichever was higher. Since then , 
Switzerland had held numerous bilateral meetings with the Omani authorities, including 
three  meetings with Omani Customs . The last meeting  had taken place  in March  2018. The purpose 
of these meetings had been  to raise Switzerland 's concern over the consistency of the decree in 
question with Oman 's WTO bound rates on cigarettes, which was set at 150%. In Switzerland's  view, 
the doubling of the minimum specific part of the tariff had raised the minimum specific duty on 
cigarettes to an ad valorem  equivalent  that largely exceeded Oman 's WTO  bound rate w hen the 
value of the consignment was below a certain level. On certain brands, the 15  OR specific rate 
represented an ad valorem  equivalent 480%  of the customs invoice price , which was significantly 
higher than 150% . Switzerland had shared this information  and supporting documentary evidence 
with the Omani customs  authorities . In addition, during the March  meeting , Omani Customs had 
questioned the declared transaction value of cigarettes. However , even if the customs held doubt s 
over the declared value, thi s did not justify  apply ing a customs duty that was in breach of Oman 's 
WTO commitments. The Omani customs authorities had also indicated that they would replace the 
customs duty when a selective tax would be introduced. A selective tax of 200% on cigarette s had 
been mentioned by the Omani authorities. In this context, Switzerland invited Oman to explain in 
detail  why the figure of 200% might be introduced in June, when the selective tax on cigarettes in G/MA/M/67  
 
- 22 - 
 
  the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates,  and the State of Kuwait was set at 100%. 
Switzerland was of the view that the introduction of the selective tax would not solve the problem 
of the consistency of the MFN  applied duty with Oman 's bound rate on cigarettes. Switzerland 
requested  Oman to abide by Article II of the GATT and not to exceed  its bound rates. His delegation  
expected that Oman would quickly put its MFN  applied rate in to compliance with its 
WTO commitments and that this problem would therefore be resolved  soon. He thanked the Omani 
delegation in Geneva for recent bilateral meetings and hoped that they could work together quickly 
to resolve this issue.  
136.  The representative of the European Union  reiterated the EU's concern s over the Oman 's 
applied import tariff s on tobacco and tobacco pr oducts. At the Committee meeting of 
11 October  2016, the EU had explained why, in its view, Oman 's tariff increase for cigarettes 
following a decision taken at GCC  level was not in line with its WTO  commitments. The EU was of 
the view that, by having doubl ed the minimum specific duty on cigarettes, Oman was in breach of 
its bound tariff of 150%. The EU was aware that Oman had reduced the specific minimum duty from 
20 to 15  OR per 1,000  cigarettes in December  2017. While  the EU appreciated this move, it was 
nevertheless of the view that a specific duty of 15  OR Oman still exceed ed Oman's bound tariff 
commitment. Therefore, t he EU requested Oman to further reduce the specific minimum duty in 
order to bring itself into conformity with its WTO  obligations.  
137.  The representative of the United States  indicated that his delegation would continue to monitor 
the situation . He hoped that any changes in the method applied for calculating and collecting tariffs 
for these products would be consistent with Oman 's WTO  bound tariff rates. The US held  the view 
that, for all WTO -bound tariffs , Members should abide by their commitments and not exceed those 
bound rates.  
138.  The representative of Oman  thanked the delegations of the European Union, Switzerland, and 
the United Stat es for t heir ongoing interest in Oman 's duties on cigarettes. As Switzerland had 
mentioned , Oman had held bilateral meetings with Switzerland two days before and had agreed on 
the next steps necessary to clarify and resolve this issue, including a meeting with the customs 
authorities in Oman after mid -June.  
139.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
O. KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARA BIA – EXCISE TAX ON ENERGY DRINKS AND CA RBONATED 
SOFT DRINK PRODUCTS - STATEMENTS BY THE EUROPEAN UNION AND SWITZERLAND  
140.  The Chairper son recalled that this item had been included on the agenda at the request of the 
European Union and Switzerland.  
141.  The representative of Switzerland  recalled  that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia had implemented 
a selective tax on energy drinks and carbonated soft drinks  on 11  June 2017. Even b efore the 
implementation of this  selective tax, Switzerland had been in contact with Saudi Arabia to seek 
in-depth  explanations of certain  elements of the selective tax legislation. On 5  September  2017, 
Switzerland had se nt several questions  to Saudi Arabia. His delegation thanked Saudi Arabia for the 
answers that it had provided on 9 April and which had been circula ted to the Membership . While his 
delegation continued to review Saudi Arabia's  answers, he wished neverthele ss to share some 
preliminary comments . Switzerland was not convinced by some of the answers that had been 
received  and still considered that the selective tax was discriminatory , at least in its application . 
There was no scientif ic basis to set a different  tax of 100% for energy drinks and 50% for other 
carbonated soft drinks  that contained the same amount  of sugar. In fact, Switzerland did not 
understand  why the differentiation had not been based on ingredient content s or volu me, as had 
been recommended by the World Health O rganization.  Switzerland would communicate follow -up 
questions to Saudi Arabia  and looked  forward to receiving  Saudi Arabia's answers as quickly as 
possible . 
142.  The representative of the European Union  expressed again its int erest in this matter further 
to its conce rns as raised at the Committee's last meeting . The EU appreciated the fact  that 
Saudi  Arabia had provided replies to the questions that had been posed by Switzerland, which the 
EU supported. However, the EU wanted t o request further clarification, in particular with regard to 
how the level of tax imposed on energy drinks and sweetened soft drinks could be reconciled with  G/MA/M/67  
 
- 23 - 
 
  the non -discrimination obligation under Art icle III:2 of the GATT. It seemed that the decision that 
the GCC countries  had taken  on the tax level , including Saudi Arabia, was not based on scientific 
evidence. Caffeine and taurine, whose presence in energy drinks had been  used as an argument for 
subject ing those drinks to  higher tax, were also present i n other products. However, these other 
products had not been subjected to the tax  at all, or if then at a much lower rate. The EU requested  
Saudi Arabia to review the basis for its imposition of this tax.  
143.  The representative of the United States  noted that his delegation was also following this  issue 
closely and also had questions for Saudi Arabia. First, they wished  Saudi Arabia  to explain why only 
carbonated soft drinks, with and without sugar, and energy drinks, had been targeted . Second,  his 
delegation wished to know how Saudi Arabia intend ed to treat the large number of domestic products 
in the Saudi market that contained similar amounts of sugar and the other targeted substances. 
Third, he asked whether Saudi Arabia had undertaken any risk -based scienti fic analysis to justify 
these proposed fiscal policies. The US requested  Saudi Arabia to provide answers to these questions  
and also to provide a copy of the GCC  policy and  relevant  Saudi laws enacted to implement the 
policy in question, as well as  any evi dence that had be en used to justify this policy.  
144.  The representative of  the Kingdom of  Saudi Arabia  thanked the European Union, Switzerland , 
and the United States for their questions and comments . He noted that t he question s that had been 
posed by the US remained under  review in Capital . He asked the EU and Switzerland to provide their 
questions in writing  so that these could also be forward ed to experts in Capital for their consideration . 
145.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
P.  OTHER BUSINESS  
 UNITED  STATES  – PROHIBITIVE  PROPOSAL  ON COMMUNICATIONS  EQUIPMENT  OR SERVICES  
RELEASED  BY THE FCC– STATEMENT  BY CHINA  
146.  The Chairperson  recalled that this item had been included on the agenda at the request of 
China.  
147.  The representative of China  noted that the  Federal Communications Commission (FCC) of the 
United States had released a Noti ce of Proposed Rulemaking on 18  April 2018, the intention of which 
was to prohibit the use of the Universal Service Fund to purchase equipment or services from any 
communicati ons equipment or service providers identified as posing a n ational security risk to the 
US communications networks or to the communications supply chain. The FCC 's proposed measure 
would impose restrictions on commercial purchases by providers of the telep hone, broadband 
service , and health care. China expected the US to consider  the consistency of its  draft legislation 
with WTO  rules, and especially to ensure their transparency  and compliance with the MFN  principle. 
In China 's view, the propose d measure wo uld violate the MFN  principle if it created de jure  or de 
facto discriminatory treatment on a country -specific basis. China was aware  that the US had recently 
launched a series of so -called national security measures, including the Section  232 measures on 
imported steel and aluminium . China was seriously  concern ed over such a policy trend , and opposed  
all protectionism in the name of "national security ". During the G20  Summit in 2016, the Chinese 
and US  leaders had reached consensu s by agreeing on a text th at read, in relevant part, as follows: 
"consistent with WTO  agreements, commit that their respective ge nerally -applicable ICT 
security -related meas ures in commercial sectors: (1)  should treat technology in a  
non-discriminatory manner, (2)  are not to unnecessarily limit or prevent commercial sales 
opportunities for foreign suppliers o f ICT products or services, (3)  should be narrowly tailored, take 
into account international norms, be non -discriminatory, and not impose nationality based conditions 
or restrictions, on the purchases, sales, or use of ICT  products by commercial enterprises 
unnecessarily ". China asked the  US to adhere to the se commitments  and to ensure that the 
measure s that the FCC had proposed were consistent with WTO  rules.  
148.  The represent ative of the United States  stated that , because  China had not inscribed this item 
on the agenda but had raised  it, rather,  under other business, his delegation  would  not comment  on 
China 's intervention in  substance or detail . However, h e noted that  interes ted parties may learn 
more about this issue and were welcome to send their public co mments during the proposed 
rule-making period via the  FCC website  (https://www.fcc.gov/ ). G/MA/M/67  
 
- 24 - 
 
  149.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
 INDIA  - QUANTITATIVE  RESTRICTIONS  ON MUNG  BEANS,  BLACK  LENTILS,  AND  PIGEON  PEAS – 
STATEMENT  BY AUSTRALIA  
150.  The Chairperson  recalled that this item had been included on the agenda at the request of 
Australia.  
151.  The representative of Australia  was seriously concerned that , the day prior to this  meeting, 
India had announced the implementation of a new quantitative restriction on yellow peas. From 
1 April to 30  June 2018, imports into India of yellow peas would be limited to only 100,000  tonnes. 
He noted  that India had imported over 1.5  million tonnes of th is product  in 2017 , such that the new 
quantitative restriction's limit was particularly low. Th is new restriction c ame on top of India 's 
existing restrictions on mung beans, black lentils , and pigeon peas , which had been  introduced 
in 2017. Australia understood that these restrictions we re still in effect and sought  confirmation from 
India that this was indeed still the case . He also requested India to submit a QR  notification , as it 
had promised to do. Australia  continue d to question the WTO  consistency of all of these quantitative 
restrictions . Australia had  engaged with India on this issue on several  occasions and would  continue 
to do so. His delegation  request ed India to remove t hese restrictions immediately.  
152.  The representative of Ukraine  shared the concern that had been expressed by Australia, 
particularly from a systemic point of view, and requested India to align its measure with the 
provisions of Article  XI:1 of the GATT  1994.  
153.  The representative of the United States  shared the concerns that had been raised  by Australia  
and his delegation would continue to monitor the situation.  
154.  The representative of Canada  expressed its concern over the announcement on 25  April that 
India had begun  implementing a quantitative restriction on yellow peas to be limited t o 
100,000  tonnes. Her delegation was monitoring  this situation  very closely , as the measure as 
announced would have a significant impact  on Canadian exports . During the same period  in 2017,  
India had imported 773,000  tonnes of peas , of which Canadian exports represented 77% of the total 
volume. As her delegation had indicated at other Committees , regarding quantitative restriction s on 
pulses , Canada wished  to understand the legal ba sis on which India had implemented this most 
recent quantitative restriction. Canada encouraged India to notify this measure as soon as practical ly 
possible  and to explain to Members its rationale for implementing  it. 
155.  The representative of the Russian Fede ration  shared the concern s that had been  expressed 
by Australia and other Members . India's quantitative restriction of yellow peas could significant ly 
disturb Russia 's shipment s of such products to India. Her delegation asked  India to provide 
information on this matter and to remove the measure  in question . 
156.  The representative of the European Union  shared the concern s expressed  by Australia and 
noted that this  new measure  was in addition to India's new quantitative restriction on wheat. The 
EU delegation wa s closely monitoring  the situation.  
157.  The representative of India thanked delegations for having raised the issue . Regarding the 
recent not ification referred to by Australia, he said that, as had been mentioned in other committees , 
the measure ha d been taken  as a temporary measure , which is allowed in the WTO. As part of the 
biannual notification on quantitative restrictions , India was in the process of consolidating  the 
QR-related information as per the prescribed WTO document and would shortly notify the 
consolidated QR  notification to the Market Access Committee and , if required , to the I mport 
Licensing C ommittee. Regarding the notification  of 25 April, he noted that this notification specifically 
mentioned a time-period for which the restriction was valid. Therefore , he would send the Members ' 
statement s to Capital and, based on its replies , would  revert to the concerned Members.  
158.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  G/MA/M/67  
 
- 25 - 
 
   CROATIA  - REGULATIONS  ON IMPORT  AND  SALE  OF CERTAIN  OIL PRODUCTS  – STATEMENT  BY 
THE RUSSIAN  FEDERATION  
159.  The Chairperson  recalled that this item had been included on the agenda at the request of the 
Russian Federation.  
160.  The Russian Federation  reiterated its concern over the Decree of the Government of Croatia 
on the procedures for wholesale sales and trade with third  countries for certain types of goods. She 
recalled  that this matter had been raised on several occasions before the CTG. However, the Decree 
in question  remained in force. As a result, the import and wholesale of petrol eum products from the 
Russian Federation remained  subject to permission under certain conditions , including possession of 
special storage, whereas like products from the EU, the member States of the European Economic 
Area, and the Republic of Turkey,  were exempt from such requirement s. The Russian Federation 
considered that the differentiated wholesale trade regime had led to the violation of the Republic of 
Croatia 's obligations under  the WTO, particularly  under  Articles  I and III of the GATT. The Russian 
Federation asked the EU to provide an  update on the revision of the respective regulat ion of the 
Republic of Croatia.  
161.  The representative of the European Union  appreciated the  Russian Federation 's interest in 
Croatia 's legislation on the import of oil products. The European Commission was working closely 
with Croatia on this issue. The EU ha d regularly updated the R ussian Federation  on the relevant 
developments and stood  ready to continue doing so.  
162.  The Committee took n ote of the statements made.  
 DATE OF THE NEXT  MEEETING  
163.  The Committee took note  that its next  HS Multilateral Review session ha d been scheduled for 
Monday, 28  May 2018. In addition , the next formal meeting of the Committee ha d been provisionally 
scheduled for Tuesday, 9  October  2018. 
Q.  ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON  
164.  The Chairperson  recalled that the rules of procedure of the Committee stated that a 
Chairperson shall be elected at the end of the first  meeting of the Committee eve ry year. The 
Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods had carried out informal consultations on a slate of 
names for the appointment of Chairpersons of standing bodies in accordance with the established 
Guidelines of Appointment of Officers. On the basis  of this understanding, he had proposed that the 
Committee elect Ms Zsófia Tvaruskó (Hungary) as Chairperson.  
165.  The Committee so agreed . 
166.  The meeting was adjourned . 
__________