RESTRICTED  
  
G/IT/M/65  
 
14 June 2017 
(17-3177) Page: 1/12 
Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in 
Information Technology Products    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETI NG OF 1 NOVEMBER  2016 
CHAIR PERSON : MS ZSÓFIA TVARUSKÓ  (HUNGARY ) 
INTRODUCTION  
The Committee adopted the proposed agenda for the meeting circulated in 
document  WTO/AIR/IT/ 4, dated 21 October  2016. An annotated agenda for the meeting was 
circulated in document  JOB/IT/1 8, dated  24 October  2016. The Chair person  stated that she would 
take up the issue of the date of the next meeting under "Other Business".  
 
INTRODUCTION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  1 
1   REVIE W OF THE STATUS OF I MPLEMENTATION OF THE  MINISTERIAL 
DECLARATION ON TRADE  IN INFORMATION TECHN OLOGY PRODUCTS 
(G/IT/1/REV.55 AND G /IT/W/42)  ................................ ................................ ..................  1 
1.1 REQUEST BY THE E UROPEAN UNION, JAPAN , KOREA, AND THE UNI TED 
STATES REGARDING AN IMPLEMENTATION ISSUE CONCERNING INDIA  ..........................  2 
2   REVIEW OF PRODUCT CO VERAGE  ................................ ................................ ................  4 
3   NON-TARIFF MEASURES WORK  PROGRAMME (G/IT/28)  ................................ ............  5 
4   EMC/EMI PILOT PROJEC T – DRAFT LIST OF T YPES OF CONFORMITY 
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE S FOR EMC/EMI USED B Y ITA PARTICIPANTS 
(G/IT/W/17/REV.16)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 7 
5   DIVERGENCES IN CLASS IFYING INFORMATION T ECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS 
(G/IT/14/REV.1/ADD.1 ; G/IT/W/6/REV.3; G/ IT/W/33; G/IT/W/34; G/IT /27; 
JOB/IT/12; G//IT/29;  G/IT/W/40, G/IT/W/40 /ADD.1 -G/IT/W/40/ADD.13, 
AND G/IT/W/40/SUPPL. 2) ................................ ................................ ..............................  8 
5.1   Implementation of the Decision (G/IT/27)  ................................ ................................ ...... 8 
5.2   Note by the Secretariat: Divergence of Classi fication: Possible HS2007  Classification 
for the Remaining 37  "Attachment  B" Items (G/IT/W/40)  ................................ .........................  9 
6   SYMPOSIUM TO MARK TH E 20TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE I TA ................................ ..... 10 
7   DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT (2016) OF THE COMM ITTEE TO THE COUNCIL  FOR 
TRADE IN GOODS (G/IT /W/44)  ................................ ................................ ....................  12 
8   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 12 
8.1   Date of the next meeting  ................................ ................................ ............................. 12 
 
1  REVIEW OF THE STATUS  OF IMPLEMENTATION OF  THE MINISTE RIAL DECLARATION 
ON TRADE IN INFORMAT ION TECHNOLOGY PRODU CTS (G/IT/1/REV.55 AND 
G/IT/W/42)  
1.1.  The Chairperson  informed Participants that an overview of the Status of Implementation of 
the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information Products could be found  in 
document  G/IT/1/Rev.55.  She recalled the following two  pending issues: (1) the completion of its G/IT/M/65  
 
- 2 - 
 
  domestic legal procedural requirements  by El  Salvador; and (2)  the submission of the final 
ITA schedule of concessions  by Morocco.  
1.2.  In addition, under this agenda item, a sub -agenda item was added at the request of the 
European Union, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and the United States regarding Indian Customs 
Notification No.  11/2014.  
1.3.  The representative of El Salvador  informed the Committee that she had received no updated 
information from her capital  on this issue. She stated that she would continue to coordinate with 
her authorities and hope d to provide some more information to the Committee as soon as 
possible.  
1.4.  For Morocco, the Chairperson  stated that Moro cco had become a participant to the ITA on 
14 November  2003; however , it had not yet submitted its final ITA  schedule of concessions . 
Despite her predecessor's letter to the delegation of Morocco, dated 14  November  2011, and 
subsequent contact , the Committ ee had still not received a formal response . As the delegation of 
Morocco was not present at the meeting, the Chair person  proposed that she and the Secretariat 
contact the Moroccan delegation and then revert to the matter at the Committee 's next meeting.  
1.5.  On the question of certain re cently joined participants' ITA  schedules of commitments that 
were pending rectification and modification, as required by the 1980 Decision on Procedures for 
Modification and Rectification of Schedules of Tariff Concessions, the Chairperson  report ed that, on 
2 August  2016, the delegation of the Russian Federation had submitted its draft ITA  schedule of 
concessions  to the Secretariat for the said rectification and modification. She thank ed the 
delegation of the Russian Federation for their efforts and hard work  in this regard . She informed 
the Participants that the draft ITA  schedule of the Russian  Federation had been circulated on 
5 August  2016 in document  G/MA/TAR/RS/443 for rectification and modification under the 
1980 Decision.  
1.6.  The representative of the Russian Fed eration  thanked the Secretariat for its assistance . 
1.7.  The Chairperson  again urged those Me mbers that ha d not yet completed the procedures for 
the formal rectification and modification of their schedules, as required by t he 1980  Decision, to do 
so as soon as possible.  
1.8.  The Committee took note of all the statements made.  
1.1 REQUEST BY THE E UROPEAN UNION, JAPAN , KOREA, AND THE UNI TED STATES 
REGARDING AN IMPLEME NTATION ISSUE CONCER NING INDIA  
1.9.  The Chairperson  turned to this sub-agenda item, which was request ed by the European 
Union, Japan, Korea, and the United States , regarding an implementation issue concerning India. 
She referred to document  G/IT/W/42 dated 1  April 2016 and circulated at the request of th ose 
delegations . 
1.10.   The representative of  the European Union  recalled that , on 1 April 2016, her delegation , 
together with the United States and Japan, had submitted a set of questions to India seeking 
clarification on the classification of certain products covered under the ITA. Thus far, they had not 
received any official response from India to their questions about the levy of a 10% customs duty 
on ITA  products classified under tariff line 85 .17.62 .90 and 85 .17.69.90.  She expressed their 
concern  and emphasized that, despite exc hanges in other WTO bodies as well as bilateral contacts , 
they had not yet received a written response . She urged India to provide a thorough response to 
their questions and significant concerns.  
1.11.   The representative of the United States  stated that , as mentioned by the EU, 
four delegations had submitted a communication in April  2016 that outlined questions and 
provided an explanation of their serious concerns regarding inconsistencies between certain 
telecommunication equipment in India's 2015 -2016 MFN  Schedule, and India's WTO Schedule of 
Concessions.  She said that they had not yet received a substantive response from India on this 
very important matter.  As it had been over six months since their communication had been 
submitted they hoped that India ha d come to the meeting prepared to answer their questions . G/IT/M/65  
 
- 3 - 
 
  Most importantly, how d id India justify introducing a 10% import duty on products falling under 
tariff line 85.17.62 and 85.17.69 in light of India's commitment pursuant to the ITA and in light of 
its co ncessions in the WTO  schedule.  She wished  to understand when exactly her delegation could 
expect a response to their questions and, given the seriousness of their concerns, they wished to 
receive such  answers also in writing.  She further stated that t he situation with India's tariffs on 
telecom products ha d prompted her delegation to initiate a more thorough review of India's 
ITA commitments and it appear ed as though India m ight be similarly imposing tariffs on a number 
of ITA  covered products. Her delegati on reserve d its right to come back to this issue in this or 
other committees.  
1.12.   The representative of Japan  shared the concern expressed by previous speakers and 
emphasized that Japan had sent questions to India on this matter , together with the US, the EU, 
and the Republic of Korea, already in April.  They had so far not received any written answers from 
India. The questions request ed India to explain its current classification and implementation 
practice with regard to the product s concerned . He said that Ja pan could n ot understand why it 
was taking India more than six  months to  provide an  answer. Since  Japan thought it an important 
matter  also from a systemic point of view his delegation u rged India to reply to the questions as 
soon as possible.  
1.13.   The represen tative of  Korea  joined others in expressing their concern s and was monitoring  
these issues  closely . He again request ed India to provide a detailed written explanation as soon as 
possible.  
1.14.   The representative of Canada  share d the concerns raised by the EU, J apan, the U S, and the 
Republic of Korea regarding India's Customs Notification No.  11/2014. In his view, the issue raised 
in this committee and other WTO  bodies –the increase in applied rates under heading  85.17–could 
hinder  and have a negative impact upon Canada's exports to India for those products. For this 
reason, Canada looked forward to receiving responses to the co -sponsors' questions regarding this 
customs notification from India, and urge d India to provide its responses in writing as soon as 
possibl e. 
1.15.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  stated that his delegation held a systemic  interest in 
this issue  and share d the concerns of previous speakers . He encourage d India to offer more detail  
in this regard . 
1.16.   The representative of Australia  joined others i n expressing Australia's concern at a systemic 
level over these actions by India, and look ed forward to getting a full explanation from India of the 
policies they ha d put in place.  
1.17.   The representative of Singapore  register ed her delegation's interest in thi s issue  and in 
monitoring  it very closely.  
1.18.   The representative of Thailand  stated that her delegation took note of India' s Customs 
Notification No. 11/2014 and the questions that had been raised by the EU, Japan, the Republic of 
Korea, and the US. She indic ated that Thailand held a commercial interest in the products unde r 
heading  85.17 and share d the systemic concerns already expressed with regard to  this issue. 
Thailand look ed forward to India' s detailed responses to the questions posed and hope d that a 
mutually satisfactory solution would be found.  
1.19.   The representative of Norway  stated his delegation's systemic interest in the question and 
looked forward to the answers.  
1.20.   The representative of India thank ed the delegations of the EU, the US, Japan, the Republi c 
of Korea, Canada, Chinese Taipei, Australia, Singapore, Thailand, and Norway, for their interest in 
the matter of the imposition of customs duties on certain IT and telecom products.  The issue was 
raised previously in th is committee on 18 April 2016 and twice in the Committee on Market Access , 
on 19 April and 11 October  2016, and also in the CTG on 14  July 2016. In the most recent CTG, on 
14 July 2016, India ha d already clarified its stand on the matter.  
1.21.   The concerned Members ha d asked for the classificat ion of goods covere d under Customs 
Notification No.  11 of 2014, dated 11  July 2014, in an accurate and precise manner. As it had done G/IT/M/65  
 
- 4 - 
 
  on previous occasions, the  Indian delegation explained that , being technical in nature, the Indian 
authorities were consul ting on the matter . He said that each of the four  categories of goods under 
discussion was very broad in nature . It was difficult to present an accurate classification. The 
national authorities involved in the matter, namely Customs, Department of Commerce , 
Department of IT, and Department of Telecommunication s, were still in consultation with each 
other. Therefore, a response to the issue of classification would be made available as soon as 
possible once internal consultations had been concluded. He reques ted Participants ' understanding 
in this matter.  
1.22.   However, as his delegation understood it , the main issue here was not that of  classification 
but that of  tariff binding commitments. In this regard, India maintained  its stand , namely  that the 
goods in questi on were not covered under its ITA commitments. India had signed the 1996 ITA in 
1997 and had presented its schedule of concessions , which was subsequently ce rtified in 
document  WT/Let/181.  He further stated that , in this regard, India had explained in the previous 
meeting of the CTG that the IT and telecom technologies ha d evolved. New technologies, 
applications , and equipment ha d been developed that were neither existent nor even conceived at 
the time of signing the 1996  ITA. India was not intending to tak e any fresh commitment on the 
goods for which India did not sign the 1996 ITA, and that have subsequently evolved. In fact, it 
was evident that to take care of new developments in technologies and new products some 
Participants ha d chosen to conclude the ITA Expansion . India was not a signatory to the  
ITA Expansion . 
1.23.   Concerning s ome del egations ' references to India' s Schedule of Concessions , he stated that 
his delegation had previously pointed out that , for each line of commitment, the Schedule had 
clearly m ention ed its source, which in this case was document  WT/Let/181. India had committed  
to the ITA , as inscribed in document  WT/Let/181, but not beyond  that. His delegation ha d taken 
note of the points made  by interested delegations  and these  would once again  be communicated 
to Capital for consideration.  
1.24.   The Chairperson  suggest ed that the Committee take note of all the statements made  and 
return to this issue at a later stage.  
1.25.   It was so agreed . 
2  REVIEW OF PRODUCT CO VERAGE  
2.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that , since th e Committee meeting of 15  May 2012, the "Review of 
Product Coverage" had been reinstated  as a regular item on the  Committee 's agenda . It offered an 
opportunity for the Committee to receive reports and updates from those participants engaged in 
consultation s with regard to the review of product coverage pursuant to paragraph  3 of the Annex 
to the ITA.  
2.2.  The representative of Canada , speaking as Chair of the ITA  Expansion Group, thanked the 
Chairperson  for the  opportunity to provide the ITA Committee with an up date regarding efforts 
made to implement the Declaration on the Expansion of Trade in Information Technology Products, 
or the "ITA Expansion " as more commonly known.  Since concluding this important initiative in 
Nairobi just over ten  months ago, Participan ts had focuss ed on implementing their commitments 
according to each Participant's respective domestic procedural requirements.  First, he report ed 
that the majority of participants ha d implemented their tariff commitments in their domestic or 
national tarif fs, or were on track to do so by the agreed timelines in the declaration.  Second, he 
informed the Committee that 18 of 24  participants ha d submitted their modifications and 
rectifications to their respective schedule of concessions to the GATT  1994 in acco rdance with the 
Decision of 26  March  1980 on Procedures for Modification and Rectification of Schedules of Tariff 
Concessions.  
2.3.  He informed the ITA  Committee that the implementation of the Declaration on ITA  Expansion 
was well advanced and on track for full  implementation in the near future ; nevertheless, there 
remained some work still to be done . Some participants had not yet completed their domestic 
procedures  and were encouraged to do so  as soon as possible.  G/IT/M/65  
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.4.  He also update d the Committee on the potential for new participants to join the 
ITA Expansion initiative.  As noted on previous occasions , the ITA  Expansion Declaration was open 
to all WTO  Members and all WTO  Members were strongly encouraged to consider participating in 
this important initiative.  He informed the Committee that Macao, China, ha d formally initiated the 
process to join the Declaration on ITA  Expansion and was working on its draft schedule to this end.  
ITA Expansion participants welcomed this development and it was certainly a positive sign.  In 
addition, he reported to the Committee that a few Members ha d informally indicated that they 
intend ed to join the Declaration in the near future and would shortly take the necessary formal 
steps ; in addition, a few other Members ha d requested more info rmation for their own internal 
consideration.  Current ITA  Expansion participants st ood ready to provide more information to any 
Member that would benefit from such information for their internal consideration.  He expect ed 
that, at the next meeting , the ITA  Committee w ould continue to hear positive news in terms of the 
successful implementation and growth in participation of the ITA  Expansion Declaration.  
2.5.  The Chairperson  thanked the delegate from Canada for his very thorough overview  and 
suggest ed that the C ommittee take note of the statement made and agree to revert to this matter 
as appropriate at its next meeting.  
2.6.  It was so agreed . 
3  NON-TARIFF MEASURES WORK  PROGRAMME (G/IT/28)  
3.1.  The Chairperson  recall ed that the Non -Tariff Measures Work Programme was part of the 
original mandate of the ITA  Committee, as paragraph  3 of the Annex to the 1996  Ministerial 
Declaration required Participants to meet periodically to consult on non -tariff barriers to trade in 
information technology products.  The Committee had attached great importance to NTBs and, 
since 2000 , NTBs ha d become an essential part of the regular work of th e Committee.  
3.2.  She also recall ed that, at the Committee 's meeting of 14  Octob er 2013, agreement was 
reached on the Swiss proposal to organize an industry -driven workshop dedicated to NTBs 
affecting trade in ICT  products. The workshop took place on 7  May 2015, and the main issues 
raised at the workshop by industry representatives were: transparency ; standards for recognition 
of test results ; e-labelling ; and en ergy efficiency. A factual report by the Chair on this workshop 
was circulated in document  G/IT/28.  
3.3.  At the Committee 's meetings of 14  October  2015 and 18  April 2016, and based on the 
discussions that the Committee had held at those meetings, the Committee Chair had been asked 
to continue the consultations on the follow -up to the NTB Workshop  in 2015 . 
3.4.  After having held informal discussions with several delegations, including the delegations of 
Switzerland and the European Union, she had requested Participant s once again to give thought as 
to how the Committee should proceed in the follow -up discussion to the  NTB Workshop . 
3.5.  The representative of Switzerland  thank ed the Chair for sharing a summary of her 
consultations and also for recalling the mandate of addres sing NTMs. Switzerland continue d to be a 
strong supporter of the Work Programme on NTMs  and expressed its interest to engage with 
Members on possible outcomes in this area. Since then, his delegation had met with Members that 
had expressed interest in discussing NTMs in the context of the ITA. 
3.6.  During those meetings three  specific issues had been of  particular interest : (1) the role of 
test results ; (2) experience with suppliers' declaration of conformity ; and (3) transparency.  
Switzerland looked forward to deepening these topics with all interested Members and possibly 
other doable issues from the Workshop on the theme of NTBs,  as mentioned by the Chair . 
3.7.  The representative of the European Union  thank ed the Chair for her report and also thank ed 
Switzerland an d other Members who ha d participated in the se consultations.  In the context of 
these consultations, the EU hoped t o make progress on reducing non -tariff barriers in the area of 
ITA. The EU also wished to see an  engagement that was as broad as possible and encourage d 
other interested Members to join. The EU was happy to  share details of the  work with other 
Members and hoped to enlarg e the Group in the future.  The EU agreed with Switzerland that it was 
within reach to make progress in the areas that they were working on, and that these could G/IT/M/65  
 
- 6 - 
 
  eventually bring value to the Committee's work on NTBs. They were also encouraged by the 
contribution s made by  industry associations from the EU, the US, and Japan, which was available 
as a room document . The paper outline d areas where industry sought meaningful progress. The 
EU viewed this as a valuable contribution to their work on NTBs and encourage d other participants 
to read the document and then to exchange their views with the EU , bilaterally or otherwise.  Like 
Switz erland, t he EU looked forward to making progress in the Group , building a common view and 
eventually bringing back to the Committee the results of th e Group 's work . 
3.8.  The representative of Japan  thank ed Switzerland . Japan was interested in the discussion of 
NTB issues and support ed Switzerland's comments . Japan felt that it was important to respond to 
the interests of global industry, as outlined in the room document  mentioned by the EU. Japan was 
willing to discuss the issue with interested Members with a vi ew to achiev ing possible outcomes.  
3.9.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  stated that her delegation, as indicated at the 
previous meeting, was ready to engage in a discussion of the NTB Work Programme . Hong Kong, 
China, as  participant s to both ITA and ITA Expansion agreement s, was keen to see greater trade 
liberalization for ICT  products , including tackling non -tariff barriers . Her delegation was happy to 
join the discussion led by Switzerland on the role of test results , conformity assessments , and 
transp arency , with a view to finding outcome s. Hong Kong, China looked forward to further 
develop ments in the area of NTBs , and to collaborat ion with interested participants . 
3.10.   The representative of the United States  thank ed Switzerland for its report  on the work of 
the Small Group. She believe d that it was important that the market access issues discuss ed in the 
ITA Committee were relevant to and reflect ed the interests of global industry and the challenges 
facing ICT  companies in the global supply chain. The US also welcome d the industry statement 
issued by the three  associations.  In addition , with respect to the work on NTBs, she believe d that 
the key benefit was working with industry to identify upstream emerging issues that were facing 
the sector and to determi ne avenues to address those issues before they bec ame barriers behind 
the border.  She said that the Committee had begun this work at the NTB Workshop held in 
May 2015, at which i ndustry experts had highlighted various emerging issues, for example, 
electron ic labelling . This issue had also been included in the recent industry statement.  Her 
delegation wished to build on these types of forward -looking issues in order to share best practices 
and to identify opportunities for greater alignment between regulator y systems.  In their view, this 
was the value -added benefit of the ITA  Committee.  For e -labelling, as the example, regulators in 
several ITA  member countries ha d or were actively pursuing e -labelling options for ICT  devices . 
Thus, they saw this as a ripe ar ea for work within the Committee.  
3.11.   The representative of Singapore  stated that her country attach ed high importance to 
advancing work on NTBs in th e Committee , and was interested specifically in further discussion in 
three  areas: (i) transparency; (ii) conformity assessment procedures; and (iii) e-labelling.  These 
topics had been raised  at the ITA  Committee's 2015 NTB Workshop . She noted that these ideas 
had also been mentioned in the room document and hoped that the  discussion with interested 
Members  would continue . Singapore also hoped that this pool of interested Members would 
continue steadily to grow.  
3.12.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  echoed previous speakers and thanked Switzerland for 
organiz ing a constructive discussion to explore ways of improving  the ICT  trade and adjusting to  
global trends. Chinese Taipei held a strong commercial and system atic interest in terms of NTBs 
and look ed forward to  progress in these discussions. Chinese Taipei wanted to engage 
constructively  and actively to achieve a po ssible outcome  in this area . 
3.13.   The representative of China  thanked the Chair for her report. She thank ed Switzerland and 
the EU for sharing the information on the NTM  discussion s. She also thank ed the EU for sharing 
the room document of industry associations  from the EU, the US, and Japan. China had engaged in 
the small group discussion s on NTMs but still th ought that further careful examin ation of these 
issues in Capital was necessary. China wished to discuss these issues with other Members . The 
room documen t would be dispatched to Capital for careful review.  
3.14.   The representative of  Korea  thank ed Switzerland for the initiative  and saw the value of 
discussion s on NTBs in the ITA sector. His delegation was supportive of progress o n the NTB Work G/IT/M/65  
 
- 7 - 
 
  Programme in the I TA Committee and hope d to see a positive and meaningful outcome in 
addressing NTBs. Korea wanted to engage on NTBs in a very constructive manner.  
3.15.   The representative of India thanked the Chair for her report on the NTB Work Programme.  
He also thank ed delega tions who ha d provided their input on the initiative in th e small group so as 
to take the work forward.  He recalled the questions raised by his delegation at the previous 
meeting, and noted that those questions remained unanswered.  He said that his delegat ion had 
carefully noted the statements made by other delegations underlining the importance of work on 
NTBs in this Committee as well as in the small group. At the same time, he noted that NTBs were 
also under discussion in some other WTO  bodies, such as t he TBT  Committee, and that they were 
also an important pillar of the NAMA  negotiations. Therefore, it was unclear to his delegation how 
discussions on the same issues in multiple places would impact upon each other. This might lead 
to an overlap of work an d anomalies  in possible outcomes. India believe d that such a situation 
should be best avoided.  He also emphasized the importan ce of keeping in mind the horizontal 
linkages of NAMA  negotiations with other areas of WTO  negotiations. His delegation t herefore  
believe d that the Committee should wait and see how discussions in NAMA  were taking shape , in 
due course, before initiating work on NTBs in this Committee.  
3.16.   The representative of Norway  thanked Switzerland for its initiati ve with the small group  
discussion.  Norway would con tinue to  participat e in this small group discussion and ensure that its 
results would be useful . He hoped that later on this work could align with the other discussions 
that India had mention ed. 
3.17.   The representative of Egypt stated that his country's position remained unchanged  and 
shared India's concern  that NTBs had already been negotiated u nder NAMA . 
3.18.   The representative of the European Union , in response to the comments made by India and 
Egypt,  reminded de legations of the specific mandate of the Committee on NTBs. In her view, the 
specific mandate on NTBs in the area of ITA was quite separate and different from the mandate for 
negotiations in other fora of the WTO . She believe d that it was perfectly possible to try to make 
progress on IT -specific NTBs in the ITA  Committee . 
3.19.   The representative of India respond ed to the statement made by the EU that the work in 
other WTO bodies should not affect the mandate d work of this Committee. India believe d that if 
Members were considering the same issues in multiple fora there ha d at least to be a coherent 
approach.  
3.20.   The Chairperson  suggest ed that the Committee take note of all the statements made, that 
she continue her consultations , and that the Committee revert to this matter at its next meeting , 
as appr opriate.  
3.21.   It was so agreed . 
4  EMC/EMI PILOT PROJECT  – DRAFT LIST OF TYPES OF CONFORMITY ASSESS MENT 
PROCEDURES FOR EMC/E MI USED BY ITA PARTI CIPANTS (G/IT/W/17/ REV.16 ) 
4.1.  The Chairperson  moved on to the draft list of types of conformity assessment procedures for 
EMC/EMI used by ITA  Participants and stated that the relevant information for this agenda item 
was included in document  G/IT/W/17 /Rev.16 . 
4.2.  She recalled that o ne of the outcomes of the NTM  Work Programme mentioned earlier was 
the completion of a pilot project  that led to the adoption of the "Guidelines for Electromagnetic 
Compatibility (EMC) and Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) Conformity Assessment Procedures" 
on an ad referendum  basis. Upon adoption of these "Guidelines", the Secretariat, based on the 
survey responses submitted by and notifications received from participants, had prepared a note 
on the "Draft List of Types of Conformity Assessment Procedures for EMC/EMI used by 
ITA Participants" ( document  G/IT/W/17).  
4.3.  She stated that, d uring subsequent proce edings of the Committee, Participants had indicated 
that they had found the information contained therein very useful and wished to have it 
completed.  When the Committee last met, among the 53  ITA Participants, 28 had provided such G/IT/M/65  
 
- 8 - 
 
  informati on. However, th ere were still 25  participants, including some of those who had most 
recently joined  the Committee , who had neither submitted a survey response nor a notification 
regarding the type s of conformity assessment procedures used by their authorities for EMC/EMI . 
4.4.  During  the summer  break , she had sent letters to the 25 Ambassadors  concerned  to remind 
them that their delegations had thus far submitted neither their survey responses nor notifications 
regarding the type of assessment procedures for EMC/EMI currently used by their authorities.  
Subsequently, and as a follow -up to her letters to Ambassadors , the Secretariat had also sent 
e-mail messages to the ITA  delegates at those missions. Delegations concerned should not 
hesitate to contact the Secretariat for furthe r information and clarification  if required . 
4.5.  She reported that  five new submissions ha d been received by the Secretariat ; these  were 
from the Republic of Seychelles, Guatemala, Ukraine, Qatar, and , most recently , Montenegro.  She 
thank ed these delegations f or submitting their survey responses.  
4.6.  The representative of Montenegro  informed the Committee that her country had just 
submitted its responses regarding the information on conformity assessment procedure for EMC  
and EMI used by Montenegro. Her delegation stood ready to work together  with the Secretariat 
and other Members  towards a full transparency in notifications . She request ed the Secretariat  to 
update the draft list and include Montenegro's information in document  G/IT/W/17 . 
4.7.  The Chairperson  thanked Mon tenegro and stated that t he Secretariat w ould update the list of 
survey responses currently contained in document  G/IT/W/17/Rev.16 . A 
document  G/IT/W/17/ Rev.17  would be issued to reflect Montenegro's contribution . 
4.8.  She further stated that , since this inform ation on EMC/EMI had increased transparency on the 
types of conformity assessment procedures used by ITA  Participants, and facilitated international 
trade in this very important sector, she encourage d the remaining 20  delegations that ha d not yet 
done so t o provide this information to the Secretariat as soon as possible so as to allow the 
Committee to complete this work.  Should any delegation have questions or require assistance  they 
should  contact the Secretariat.  In parallel, she requested the Secretariat  to continue to contact the 
delegations  concerned , in particular those that had joined mo st recently, with a view to providing 
technical assistance as needed to facilitate the preparation of survey responses.  
4.9.  She once again ask ed Participants to reflect up on what steps, if any, they would be prepared 
to consider with a view to maximizing the usefulnes s of the information on EMC/EMI  conformity 
assessment procedures that ha d been provided and that would hopefully be soon forthcoming. She 
invited Participants to share their insights in this regard with her and the Secretariat, at any time, 
or with the Committee now or at its next meeting.  
4.10.   The Chairperson  proposed that the Committee take note of the dis cussion held under this 
agenda item.  
4.11.   It was so agreed . 
5  DIVER GENCES IN CLASSIFYIN G INFORMATION TECHNO LOGY PRODUCTS 
(G/IT/14/REV.1/ADD.1 ; G/IT/W/6/REV.3; G/ IT/W/33; G/IT/W/34; G/IT/27; 
JOB/IT/12; G//IT/29; G/IT/W/40, G/IT/W/40 /ADD.1 -G/IT/W/40/ADD. 13, AND 
G/IT/W/40/SUPPL. 2) 
5.1.  The Chairperson  turned to the next agenda it em on divergences in classifying information 
technology products, and indicated that, under this item, there were two sub-items: 
(i) implementation of the Decision (document  G/IT/27); and (ii)  the Note by the Secretariat on this 
issue ( document  G/IT/W/40 ). 
5.1  Implementation of the Decision (G/IT/27)  
5.2.  The Chairperson  recalled that , on 20 July 2013, the Decision ( document  G/IT/27) regar ding 
the endorsement of List IA  items of document  G/IT/W/6/Rev.3, or the so -called 18  items (as 
reproduced in document  G/IT/W/34)  had been approved. As  required by the Decision, each 
Participant must reflect the agreed classifications in their respective WTO Schedule of Concessions , G/IT/M/65  
 
- 9 - 
 
  as appropriate, and following the procedures set forth in the 1980  Decision  on Procedures for 
Modific ation and Rectification of Schedule s of Tariff Concessions (BISD  27S/25). Participants must 
submit the relevant documentation no later than 30 April 2014, as spe cified in the Decision. The 
WTO Secretariat would provide technical assistance in making such m odifications to developing 
country participants ' schedules , upon request.  
5.3.  She said that, a s mentione d at previous meeting s of the  Committee , the Sec retariat had 
been approached by five  ITA participants, namely : Guatemala;  Philippines;  Japan;  El Salvador;  
and Macao, China . Of these,  four were developing country participants. The technical work in the 
Secretariat with regard to these requests was ongoing. She also  noted that this  technical work was 
time-consuming and thus c ould be undertaken only on a gradual  basis. In the previous year , the 
Secretariat had prepared a document of rectification and modification at the request of t he 
delegation of Macao, China. The Secretariat ha d also helped the Philippines in the preparation of a 
rectification and modification  document concerning its endorsement of 6 out of the 18  items 
(document  G/MA/TAR/RS/421).  
5.4.  She also noted that, i n anticipation of additional requests, the Secretariat ha d undertaken a 
preliminary analysis of the remaining developing country participants. She urged those developing 
country participants to contact the Secretariat if they required any technical assistance.  
5.5.  The representative of Guatemala  wished  to know exactly what work was being undertaken 
with regard to their request  so as to be able  to inform her capital -based technicians . 
5.6.  The Secretariat  explained that the process for these 18 items  was ongoing  and connected to  
the transposition exercise. Since the work on transposition was for the moment not complete the 
issue regarding the se 18 items was likewise unfinished.  
5.7.  The Chairperson  thanked the Secretariat for their response and suggest ed that the 
Committee take n ote of the discussion under this sub-agenda item . 
5.8.  It was so agreed . 
5.2  Note by the Secretariat : Divergence of Classification: Possible HS200 7 Classification 
for the Remaining 37  "Attachment  B" Items  (G/IT/W/40)  
5.9.  The Chairperson  move d on to the second sub -item, which was the Note by the Secretariat on  
the Divergence of Classification: Possible HS2007  Classification for the Remaining 
37 "Attachme nt B" Items, which was circulated in document  G/IT/W/40 on 17  December  2014 and 
based on the Swiss proposal for a three -step procedure as contained in document  JOB/IT/12.  
5.10.   She highlighted that , at the Committee meeting of 31  October  2014, it was agreed that : 
"Participants are expected to submit a communication to the Secretariat no later than 30  June last 
year, indicating: (a)  the items that, in the participant's opinion, should be classified differently 
from the HS2007  codes listed in column  8 of the Annex to this document; and (b)  the 
HS2007  subheading(s) that, in the participant's opinion, are relevant for the classification of the 
item in question." "The Secretariat will compile communications re ceived in a separate document. 
And, o n that basis, Participa nts would then be expected to assess the next steps that could be 
taken to reduce any remaining classification divergence s." 
5.11.   She reported that , by 1 November  2016, the Secretariat ha d received comments from 
13 participants, namely : Norway (G/IT/W/40/Add.1) ; Chinese Taipei (G/IT/W/40/Add.2); 
Switzerland (G/IT/W/40/Add.3); the European Union (G/IT/W/40/Add.4); Hong Kong, China 
(G/IT/W/40/Add.5); China (G/IT/W/40/Add.6); Japan (G/IT/W/40/Add.7); Canada 
(G/IT/W/40/Add.8); the United States (G/IT/W/40/Add.9); In dia (G/IT/W/40/Add.10); Macao, 
China (G/IT/W/40/Add.11); El Salvador (G/IT/W/40/Add.12); and Korea (G/IT/W/40/Add.13).  
5.12.   She stated that , based on the submissions received, it appear ed that there was no objection 
to the proposed HS2007  classification of 15  ITA items, corresponding to ITA  item numbers: 129; 
130; 133; 135; 138; 139; 143; 144; 15 0; 153; 154; 155; 157; 169; and, lastly, 191. And it was 
to be  noted that most of these items relate d to HS2007  heading  8486 ( machines and apparatus G/IT/M/65  
 
- 10 - 
 
  for the manufacture of semiconductor boules and wafers) and one  item related to subheadings 
within HS2007  heading  8471 (automatic data processing machines and units thereof).  
5.13.   She recall ed that, at the Committee meeting on 18  April 2016, the Committee had agreed 
on a "Decision  for the HS2007  Classification of 15  Additional 'Attachment  B' Products" on an ad 
referendum  basis with  10 days for comments on the text of the Decision. Finally,  without any 
comments received,  this Decision had been circulated on 17  May 2016 in document  G/IT/29.  
5.14.   On the issue of possible HS2007  classification for the remaining 22  "Attachment  B" Items, 
she recall ed that, on 29  July 2016, in a separate fax from the Chair to all ITA  Participants, she had 
encouraged those participants that ha d not yet done so t o submit  their comments  to the 
Secretariat on the remaining 22  "Attachment  B" items as contained in 
document  G/IT/W/40/Suppl.2, and they were requested to do so by 14  October  2016.  
5.15.   She reported that to date the Secretariat ha d received feedback from two  delegations , and 
that both delegations had informed the Secretariat that their comments were presently under 
finalization in capitals and would be forwarded to the Secretariat as soon as possible.  
5.16.   She also r ecalled that , at the Committee 's meeting on 18  April 2016, the Chair had 
summarized that , for the remaining items, the Committee was extremely close to finalizing the 
HS2007  classification of five  ITA item numbers, namely: 122; 137; 142; 168; and 194.  However, 
since it seem ed that some delegations need ed more time to finalize their comments, she 
suggest ed that the Committee look to reach agreement on the classification of these five  additional 
items at the next Committee meeting, if agreeable to all Members.  
5.17.   The representative of the Russian Federation  stated that her authorities were  analysing 
these items with a classification divergence in Capital . She further stated that her delegation was 
not part of the process from the beginning and therefore required  more time ; nevertheless, they 
would soon be providi ng their comments.  
5.18.   The representative of El Salvador  stated that they had no objection to the format suggested 
by the Chair on how to proceed on this issue but  wanted further clarification on the process for 
looking at these five  items given that her deleg ation had comments . 
5.19.   The Chairperson  thanked El Salvador and advised El Salvador's  delegate to approach either 
the Secretariat or herself for more information. She suggest ed that the Committee wait for more 
comments from concerned delegations before taking  up th ese items again at the Committee 's next 
meeting.  
5.20.   It was so agreed . 
5.21.   The Chairperson  encouraged delegations that had questions or concerns about these items  
to get in touch  with the Secretariat for further clarification  as soon as possible.  She also 
encourage d those delegations that had not yet provided their comments to continue working to 
assess possible next steps to be taken to reduce any divergence s in classification with regard to 
the remaining 22  ITA items.  
5.22.   It was so agreed . 
6  SYMPOSIUM TO MARK TH E 20TH ANNIVERSARY  OF THE ITA  
6.1.  The Chairperson  recall ed that, at the Committee meeting  of 18 April 2016, it was proposed to 
hold a symposium in 2017 to mark the 20th anniversary of the ITA, as the Committee had done for 
its 10th and 15th anniversaries  in 2007  and 2012 respectively . She also recall ed that, at that 
meeting, the Chair had been asked to consult on the "sensible suggestion" of holding such a 
symposium . She reported that , since taking  over as  Chair in May  2016, and in particular during 
the course of  the Summer Break, she had taken a number of opportunities to talk to delegations 
on matters falling within the portfolio of the Committee, including when the proposed symposium 
should be held. At the informal meeting of the C ommittee on 26  September  2016, she had 
proposed that the symposium be held on 10 -11 May 2017. The Committee had agreed to begin 
the Symposium on Wednesday, 10  May 2017, and for it to continue to the morning of Thursday, G/IT/M/65  
 
- 11 - 
 
  11 May 2017. It would then be followed by a formal ITA Committee m eeting in the afternoon of 
Thursday, 11  May 2017. 
6.2.  She further reported that she and the Secretariat ha d in recent months begun to consult with 
certain delegations regard ing possible themes for the symposium , and for ideas, in particular, for 
the format and  structure of the event, including the identification of speakers and panellists. She 
wished to continue her consultations in the coming weeks  and to count on delegations' support 
and assistance  in that process . She planned to share the first draft of the programme for the 
symposium with the Members of the Committee  at an informal open -ended meeting with all 
interested delegations on 8  November  2016, and invited Members to look at the draft programme 
and to provide their comments.  
6.3.  The representative of India thanked the Chair for her statement on the proposed Symposium 
to mark the 20th anniversary of the ITA. He also thank ed the Chair for her consultations with 
delegations with a view to taking the work forward  and expressed his delegation 's wish to be  
consu lted in the imminent and future deliberations.  He recall ed that the symposium had been 
proposed to mark the 20th anniversary of the ITA  and that his delegation viewed it as an informal 
exchange of experiences regarding the ITA that should not feed into the  formal Committee 
process.  
6.4.  The representative of the United States  thanked the Chair for the update  on her consultations 
with regard to the symposium , as well as for her efforts , and the Secretariat's efforts , to begin 
preparation s for this important miles tone in the ITA.  She believe d that the symposium would be an 
important and appropriate moment to highlight and celebrate the successes of the ITA , including 
the recent ITA Expansion . She felt that the symposium should be focused on the benefits of 
particip ation in the ITA with a view to expanding that participation. She also viewed it as an 
occasion to highlight the commercial and economic benefits achieved through implementation of 
the original ITA as well as ITA  expansion.  Her delegation hoped that the symposium would act as a 
showcase  for the ITA , demonstrating its full range of benefits to countr ies' economies, industries, 
and companies, as well as to consumers.  
6.5.  She then recalled that at the WTO Public Forum  a session sponsored by the 
US Semiconductor In dustry Association was entitled , "How ITA Expansion Benefits Consumers and 
Small and Medium Enterprises, Spurring Innovation through  Tariff Elimination ". One of the 
industry group's stated goals for the session was to encourage additional WTO  Members to jo in 
both the original ITA and the expanded ITA.  In the session, panellists  had explained how the 
ITA benefits developing countries specifically, by spurring productivity and innovation, enhancing 
the competitiveness of domestic producers, facilitating the g rowth of ICT  service industries and 
exports, attracting foreign investment, and fostering participation in global ICT  supply chains.  More 
specifically, o ne panellist had explained that global value chains d id not care about nationality ; 
they care d about va lue, in describing how participation in the ITA had expedite d the transfer of 
goods across the globe.  This in turn had compel led global tech nology companies to develop and 
retain local talent in countries around the world and to create jobs and economic op portunities.  
The panellists in this session had also discussed the harm to economic growth of maintaining 
tariffs and taxes on ICT  products. Over 80 % of the benefits from ICT were related to their use by 
consumers and businesses rather than their productio n by domestic firms.  Maintaining tariffs 
constrain ed ICT adoption and thus slow ed economic growth throughout every sector of the 
economy.  For every 1% drop in the price of ICT  products there was a 2% increase in demand.  
Furthermore, tax gain ed from this in creased demand and greater economic growth quickly offset 
and could even surpass tariff revenue lost from initial tariff cuts on ICT  products.  In her view, t he 
symposium  would be an important opportunity to further explore and expand on these benefits of 
the ITA and the ITA expansion . Her delegation hoped that that could be one of the themes of the 
symposium.  
6.6.  The representative of Japan  thank ed the Chair for her update on this matter  and express ed 
Japan's support for the symposium . He noted that Japanese industry had already expressed  
interest in participating in the symposium . He l ooked forward to join ing the discussion about the 
programme. He also encouraged other Members to participate in the symposium.  
6.7.  The representative of Guatemala  stated that her delegation was interested in participating in 
the symposium and wanted the issues dealt with to be well balanced , including those from  the G/IT/M/65  
 
- 12 - 
 
  perspective of  developing countr ies. She hoped that the symposium would include  a speaker from 
Guatemala . 
6.8.  The Chair person  thanked delegation s for their interventions and suggest ed that the 
Committee take n ote of all the statements made . 
6.9.  It was so agreed. 
7  DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT (2016) OF THE COMMIT TEE TO THE COUNCIL F OR TRADE IN 
GOODS (G/IT/W/44)  
7.1.  The Chairperson  noted that the C ommittee reported annually to the Council for Trade in 
Goods and that a draft report had been prepared in document  G/IT/W/44 , which would be updated 
to reflect developments from this meeting. She turned to the draft report and opened the floor for 
comments . 
7.2.  The representative of Guatemala  proposed that, in paragraph  4, after "… document  G/IT/28", 
the text "under the Chair's responsibility"  be added . 
7.3.  The draft annual report was approved  with the proposed amendment by Guatemala as well 
as updates to reflect the discussion  that had taken place  at this meeting.  
8  OTHER BUSINESS  
8.1  Date of the next meeting  
8.1.  The Chairperson  stated that the  next meeting of the Committee had been scheduled for 
11 May 2017, which would be back -to-back with the forthcoming symposium to mark  the 
20th Anniversary of the ITA. However, if necessary, the Committee m ight meet again in a formal or 
informal setting  prior to that date . 
8.2.  It was so agreed . 
__________