RESTRICTED  
  
G/MA/M/63  
 
1 August 2016  
(16-4102)  Page: 1/12  
Committee on Market Access    
 
 MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE ON MARKET ACCESS  
19 APRIL 2016 
CHAIRPERSON: MS. KRIZIA MATTHEWS (PANAMA)  
Subjects discussed                   Pages 
 
A. INTRODUCTION OF HARMONIZED SYSTEM 1996 (HS96) CHANGES TO 
SCHEDULES OF CONCESSIONS (L/6905 AN D WT/L/756) - STATUS REPORT ................... 2  
B. INTRODUCTION OF HARMONIZED SYSTEM 2002 (HS02) CHANGES TO 
SCHEDULES OF CONCESSIONS USING THE CTS DATABASE (WT/L/605 AND WT/L/807) - STATUS REPORT ......................................................................................... 2
 
C. INTRODUCTION OF HARMONIZED SYSTEM 2007 (HS07) CHANGES TO 
SCHEDULES OF CONCESSIONS USING THE CTS DATABASE (WT/L/673 AND WT/L/830) - STATUS REPORT ......................................................................................... 2
 
D. INTRODUCTION OF HARMONIZED SYSTEM 2012 (HS2012) CHANGES TO 
SCHEDULES OF CONCESSIONS USING THE CTS DATABASE (WT/L/831) - STATUS REPORT ............................................................................................................................ 2
 
E. INTRODUCTION OF HARMONIZED SYSTEM 2017 CHANGES TO SCHEDULES 
OF CONCESSIONS (G/MA/W/ 121 AND G/MA/W /122) .................................................... 3  
F. OPERATION OF THE INTEGRATED DATA  BASE (IDB), INCLUDING STATUS 
OF SUBMISSIONS (G/MA/IDB/2/REV.43), AND THE CTS DATABASE - STATUS 
REPORT ............................................................................................................................ 3  
G. NOTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO THE DECISION ON NOTIFICATION 
PROCEDURES FOR QUANTITATIVE RE STRICTIONS (G/L /59/REV.1) ............................... 4  
H. KYRGYZ REPUBLIC - NOTIFICATION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE X:1 OF THE 
GATT 1994 (G/MA/W/118) ............................................................................................. 7  
I.  KINGDOM OF BAHRAIN - CUSTOMS DUTIES ON CIGARETTES – STATEMENT BY 
SWITZERL AND ................................................................................................................. 7  
J. KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA – CUSTOMS DUTY INCREASE ON CIGARETTES 
– STATEMENT BY SWITZERLAND ...................................................................................... 8  
K. INDIA – CUSTOMS DUTIES ON TELECOMMUNICATION AND OTHER 
PRODUCTS – STATEMENTS BY EUROPEAN UNION, JAPAN, AND THE UNITED 
STATES (G/MA/W/120) ................................................................................................... 8  
L. SITUATION OF SCHEDULES OF WTO MEMBERS (G/MA/W/23/REV.12) ................ 11  
M. DRAFT REPORT BY THE SECRET ARIAT ON THE STATUS OF 
RENEGOTIATIONS UNDER ARTICLE XXVIII OF THE GATT 1994 (JOB/MA/122) ............. 11  
N. OTHER BUSINESS .................................................................................................. 12  
O. ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON .......................................................................... 12  
 
The Committee adopted the agenda as reproduced in WTO/AIR/MA/3 and WTO/AIR/MA/3/Corr.1, 
with the inclusion of the following item under Other Business: "Date of the next meeting." An 
annotated agenda was circulated in JOB/MA/123 and JOB/MA/123/Corr.1 (in English only). G/MA/M/63 
 
- 2 - 
 
  A. INTRODUCTION OF HARMONIZED SYSTEM 1996 (HS96) CHANGES TO SCHEDULES 
OF CONCESSIONS (L/6905 AND WT/L/756) - STATUS REPORT  
1.1.  The Chairperson recalled that there were two procedures which had been used by Members 
to introduce HS96 changes to schedules of concessi ons. Firstly, the general procedure contained in 
GATT document L/6905 dated October 1991 and, secondly, the specific one contained in WTO 
document WT/L/756 dated 29 May 2009.  Under the first one, Members had to transpose their own schedules, whereas under the second one the Secretariat had a mandate to transpose the 
schedules of 64 developing countries and LDCs. 
1.2.  There were three Members whose HS96 files remained to be finalized namely Bangladesh, 
South Africa, and Venezuela. The Secretariat and Bangladesh had been in contact since last year to discuss next steps, but the status had not change d. In the case of South Africa, questions were 
raised by a delegation concerning the changes in the binding status of some tariff lines in 
HS chapters 04, 33 and 35.  South Africa had indica ted that they were looking into these questions 
in capital.  In the case of Venezuela, last year Venezuela had requested the Secretariat to clarify 
some issues and the Secretariat hoped to send such information to the Member in the coming 
days. 
1.3.  The Committee took note of the report and the statement.  
B. INTRODUCTION OF HARMONIZED SYSTEM 2002 (HS02) CHANGES TO SCHEDULES 
OF CONCESSIONS USING THE CTS DATABASE (WT/L/605 AND WT/L/807) - STATUS REPORT  
1.4.  A member of the Secretariat (Mr. Jurgen Richtering) recalled that a revised full report had 
been issued as JOB/MA/42/Rev.17 on 2 March 2016. The status of the HS02 transposition after the 
multilateral review held on 17 March 2016 was the following; 111 HS02 files had been certified; five HS02 files had been released for multilateral review and had comments from other Members; 
one draft HS02 file had been completed and sent to Members for its first review; and one Member 
had circulated its schedule in HS 2002. Finally, 15 Members had not been affected by the transposition as the schedule at the time of their accession had been either in HS02 (seven 
Members) or in HS07 (eight Members). 
1.5.  The Committee took note of the Secretariat report. 
C. INTRODUCTION OF HARMONIZED SYSTEM 2007 (HS07) CHANGES TO SCHEDULES 
OF CONCESSIONS USING THE CTS DATABASE (WT/L/673 AND WT/L/830) - STATUS 
REPORT  
1.6.  A member of the Secretariat (Mr. Jurgen Richtering) stated that a revised full report had 
been issued as JOB/MA/104/Rev.11 on 1 March 2016.  The status of the HS07 transposition after 
the multilateral review held on 17 March 2016 was the following: 101 HS07 files had been 
certified; two HS07 files had been approved in th e multilateral review process; three HS07 files 
had been released for multilateral review and ha d comments from other Members; five draft HS07 
files had been completed and sent to Members for their first review; and 14 draft HS07 files 
remained to be prepared. Finally, eight Members ha d not been affected by the transposition as the 
schedule at the time of their accession was in the HS07 nomenclature.  
1.7.  The Committee took note of the Secretariat report.  
D. INTRODUCTION OF HARMONIZED SYSTEM 2012 (HS2012) CHANGES TO 
SCHEDULES OF CONCESSIONS USING THE CTS DATABASE (WT/L/831) - STATUS REPORT  
1.8.  A member of the Secretariat (Mr. Jurgen Richtering) noted that the Secretariat has started 
the technical work on files for developing Me mbers. The Secretariat had received only two 
Members' submission for the HS2012 transposition: by the United States on 3 October 2012 and 
by New Zealand on 4 September 2015. 
1.9.  The Committee took note of the Secretariat report.  G/MA/M/63 
 
- 3 - 
 
  E. INTRODUCTION OF HARMONIZED SYSTEM 2017 CHANGES TO SCHEDULES OF 
CONCESSIONS (G/MA/W/121 AND G/MA/W/122) 
1.10.  The Chairperson informed Members that the Secretariat had received from the WCO copies 
in English and French of various documents relating to a new amendment to the Harmonized 
System, which would enter into force on 1 January 2017.  These documents comprised the 
amendments which had been adopted and the correl ation tables.  As had been done in previous 
occasions, the Secretariat circulated these documents as G/MA/W/121 and G/MA/W/122.  The 
WTO Secretariat had informed her of a special situation that should be borne in mind.   
1.11.  A member of the Secretariat (Mr. Roy Santana) indicated that he wanted to draw Members' 
attention to two issues.  Firstly, that there were  two sets of HS amendments that would soon be 
implemented by many customs administrations.  Th e first one had been accepted pursuant to the 
Recommendation of 27 June 2014 of the Customs Cooperation Council, and a second set that 
included necessary corrections and certain comp lementary amendments to Chapter 44 that had 
been accepted afterwards, pursuant to the Recommendation of 11 June 2015 of the Customs 
Cooperation Council.  Contracting parties to the HS Convention were required to implement the 
first set of amendments from 1 January 2017, and the second set from 1 January 2018.  However, they had been strongly encouraged by the WCO and the Harmonized System Committee to 
implement both of them from 1 January 2017.  This presented a rather unique situation which 
could lead to Members applying slightly different versions of the same HS amendment.  Secondly, 
documents G/MA/W/121 and G/MA/W/122 had been circulated to reproduce information received from the WCO Secretariat in English and Fren ch, which are the official languages of the 
Harmonized System.  These documents had taken account of updates and discussions in the HS 
Committee up to March 2016.  While verifying the French version of the correlation tables in G/MA/W/122, minor differences with respect to the English version had been identified.  A 
correction to the English version would have to be circulated in order to align both versions.   
1.12.  The Chairperson noted that, in addition to the technical issues that had been explained by 
the Secretariat, the Committee would normally have to decide on two additional issues relating to 
the introduction of HS2017 amendments.  The first had to do with the procedures for the 
transposition and update of schedules of concessi ons in order to introduce these amendments. The 
second one was the adoption of a waiver for those Members that would begin applying the amendments on 1 January 2017.  She instructed the Secretariat to prepare drafts of both 
documents and to circulate them at the latest by  the end of July so that Members had sufficient 
time to prepare and discuss at the autumn session of the Committee. 
1.13.  The representative of Chile asked whether there would be a document in which the 
Secretariat's explanation would be described, which would be important in order to communicate 
with capital. 
1.14.  The Secretariat clarified that the situat ion had been explained in the introduction of 
documents G/MA/W/121 and G/MA/W/122.   The only thing that had been clarified in addition at 
the meeting was that the English version of G/MA/W/122 had to be corrected. 
1.15.  The Committee took note of the statements.  
F. OPERATION OF THE INTEGRATED DATA BASE (IDB), INCLUDING STATUS OF 
SUBMISSIONS (G/MA/IDB/2/REV.43), AND THE CTS DATABASE - STATUS REPORT 
1.16.  The Chairperson drew the Committee's attention to document G/MA/IDB/2/Rev.43 and 
G/MA/IDB/2/Rev.43/Corr.1 (in English only), which contained the status of notifications to the 
IDB. In line with the Committee's decision of 29 September 2015, the format had been adjusted to 
reflect only the last ten years. The Secretariat had also prepared a room document that was made available to Members in printed copies. 
1.17.  The representative of Brazil informed Member s that it had received im port and tariff data for 
2014 from capital, but that it had encountered te chnical problems in submitting them to the 
Secretariat.  His capital was still working on the 2015 data. G/MA/M/63 
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.18.  A member of the Secretariat (Mr. Jurgen Ri chtering) stated that the Secretariat was grateful 
for the favourable response to the reminders on outstanding IDB notifications that had been sent 
out at the end of March.  Unfortunately, not all the submissions were valid for integration into the database. The relevant delegations had been informed accordingly.  Since the circulation of the 
Status of Submissions in document G/MA/IDB/2/Rev .42, the Secretariat had received the following 
additional submissions:  Benin: imports for the period 1996 to 2014, of which imports for 2000 to 2010 were a revision; Chile: MFN tariffs and LDC preferential duty rates for 2016, and imports 
for 2015; China: a revision of the MFN tariffs for 2013, including the general duty rates; Colombia: 
MFN tariff for 2016 and imports for 2015; Costa Rica: MFN tariffs and preferential duties for 2015, and imports for 2014 and 2015; Jamaica: imports for 2014; Jordan: MFN tariffs for 2016; Macao, China: imports for 2015; Mexico: MFN tariffs for 2016 and imports for 2015; Moldova: MFN 
tariffs for 2016 and imports for 2014; New Zealand: MFN tariffs, including preferences, for the 
year 2000; Peru: revised of imports for 2013 and 2014, and imports for 2015; Saint Vincent and 
the Grenadines: imports from 1996 to 2014, of which imports for the years 2000-2012 were a 
revision. 
1.19.  On the status of IDB dissemination, he noted that the database now contained 2049 
country-periods, which covered almost all WTO Members and six acceding countries (Algeria, 
Bahamas, Belarus, Iran, Liberia, and Serbia). These data were all available on the IDB websites of 
the WTO.  As had been proposed at the la st Committee meeting of 29 September 2015, the 
Secretariat report in G/MA/IDB/2/Rev.43 had been  reformatted to include the number of non-MFN 
tariff regimes that had been notified.  The status of submissions with full information from 1996 
onwards had been posted in the new IDB File Exchange facility. This cloud-based application had 
been put in place to make document and data exchanges relating to IDB and CTS simpler and more organized. A Room Document describing this new application, called "IDB File Exchange 
Facility", had been made available at the room. This new application allowed for an easier and 
more efficient way to transmit big files related to IDB notifications, as well as to exchange working 
files relating to the CTS transposition exercises. This was a restricted site and user access 
information (e.g. user id and password) would be communicated to the WTO Geneva delegation 
coordinator via e-mail or fax to those without a notified e-mail address in the Secretariat's database.  The Secretariat had already started sending out the e-mails.    
1.20.  On technical assistance missions concerning  the databases, the Secretariat noted that three 
activities had taken place since September 2015:  A regional trade policy course for 
English-speaking countries in Asia, Central Asia and Europe; A regional trade policy course for French-speaking African countries; and an advanced trade policy course in English.  
1.21.  On the CTS database, the Secretariat noted that there were 133 files in the new CTS 
formats (described in G/MA/244), which were available on the Members' website. Out of these 133 CTS files, 109 were available in HS07 and 17 in HS02. The remaining seven were still in the 
HS1996 nomenclature and based on the previous CTS format.  
1.22.  The Committee took note of the Secretariat report and the statements. 
G. NOTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO THE DE CISION ON NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES 
FOR QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS (G/L/59/REV.1) 
1.23.  The Chairperson drew Members' attention to the fact that this agenda item had been 
amended by document WTO/AIR/MA/3/Corr.1, which had included in the agenda a reference to 
two notifications that the Committee had previously agreed to discuss at this meeting, but which 
had been accidentally omitted. She recalled that Paragraph 1 of the QR Decision provided that 
notifications would be automatically placed in the agenda of the Committee.  The Committee had two notifications pending from the previous meeting, two new documents with questions on 
previous notifications, and two new notifications. She suggested that the Committee begin with the 
two pending notifications, to then follow the order of the agenda. 
- China (G/MA/QR/N/CHN/3) 
 
1.24.  The Chairperson recalled that the United States and the European Union had raised 
questions at the last meeting, and that Chin a had indicated that these questions would be 
transmitted to capital. G/MA/M/63 
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.25.  The representative of the United States recalled that her delegation had asked several 
questions regarding China's QR notification at an informal meeting of the Committee held on 
4 June 2015.  To her knowledge, however, her dele gation had not received a reply from China.  
She asked China if they intended to provide a response at the meeting or soon thereafter. 
1.26.  The representative of China noted that, with  regard to the questions from the United States, 
China implemented export quotas on certain industrial raw materials on the basis of Article XX of 
GATT 1994. China had always respected WTO rules and proactively fulfilled its obligations under 
the WTO agreement and undertaken in China’s accession. China believed that the WTO advocated 
free trade, but also respected Members’ right over  natural resources, permitting them to take 
measures necessary to protect the environment and resources. The implementation of certain 
export measures on some resource products, which aimed at protecting the environment and 
conserving exhaustible natural resources, were consistent with WTO rules. 
1.27.  The representative of the United States thanked China for its response. Her capital had 
instructed her to reiterate the questions posed to  China at the last meeting as they remained 
relevant.  In its quantitative restrictions notification, China had identified export quotas that it 
continued to maintain on numerous industrial raw materials, including natural sand, magnesium 
sand, talc, tin and its products, and indium and its products, and antimony and its products, as 
well as coal. For these export quotas, China had listed Article XX of GATT 1994 as its WTO 
justification. To date, the United States and other WTO Members had brought two WTO cases 
successfully challenging export quotas maintained by China on several other industrial raw 
materials.  In those cases, "China – measures related to the exportation of various raw materials", 
DS394, DS395 and DS398, as well as "China – measures related to the exportation of rare earths, 
tungsten and molybdenum", DS431, DS432 and DS433, China had raised defences under 
Article XX(b) and Article XX(g) of GATT 1994.  The WTO panels and the Appellate Body had 
rejected those defences.  For each industrial ra w material that had been identified above, she 
asked whether China could indicate which paragraph of Article XX it was invoking as its WTO 
justification.  To the extent that China's WTO justification was Article XX(b) or Article XX(g) of 
GATT 1994 for a particular industrial raw material, she asked China to explain why it believed that 
this justification remained viable in light of the rulings made by the WTO in "China – Measures 
related to the exportation of various raw materials", DS394, DS395, DS398 and "China – Measures 
related to the exportation of rare earths, tungsten and molybdenum", DS431, DS432 and DS433. 
1.28.  The representative of China took note of th e questions from the United States.  He observed 
that the questions had been the same as the last meeting, so he did not wanted to repeat China's 
position.  The questions would be conveyed to capital and a response provided as soon as 
possible. 
1.29.  The Committee agreed to revert to this notification at its next meeting. 
- Japan (G/MA/QR/N/JPN/2/Rev.1) 
 
1.30.  The Chairperson recalled that Japan had submitted a revised notification, which had not 
been processed in time for review at the last Committee meeting. 
1.31.  The Committee took note of this notification. 
- Mauritius (G/MA/QR/N/MUS/1) 
 1.32.  The Chairperson noted that Mauritius had su bmitted its first notification on quantitative 
restrictions that were in force. 
1.33.  The representative of Switzerland thanked Mauritius for its notification. With respect to QR 
number 1, Switzerland was of the view that the WTO justification cited by Mauritius was not 
appropriate given that salt (HS 25.01) was an industrial product, and Article XI:2 of the GATT only 
applied to agricultural products. 
1.34.  The representative of Mauritius took note of Switzerland's comment and indicated that it 
would be sent to capital for response. G/MA/M/63 
 
- 6 - 
 
  1.35.  The Committee agreed to revert to this notification at its next meeting. 
- Ukraine (G/MA/QR/N/UKR/2/Rev.1) 
 1.36.  The Chairperson noted that Ukraine had submitted a revision to its second notification.  
1.37.  The Committee took note of this notification. 
- Russian Federation (G/MA/QR/N/RUS/2, G/MA/W/119)  
1.38.  The Chairperson recalled that the European Union had submitted questions to the Russian 
Federation, which had been circulated in document G/MA/W/119.   
1.39.  The representative of the European Union began by making general remarks on the status 
o f  n o t i f i c a t i o n s .   T h e  E U  r e g r e t t e d  t h a t  o n l y  few WTO Members were in compliance with the 
notification requirement set out in the QR decision. She noted that a large number of Members had 
not yet submitted a notification. As transparency was the key aspect of work at the WTO, and the 
EU had been raising the issue in several other committees, she urged the Members concerned to 
submit their notifications in due time.  The EU stood ready to discuss compliance issues and how 
transparency could be improved. On the notification by the Russian Federation, she asked the Russian Federation to clarify which WTO provision they considered was a justification for this ban. 
In addition, they wished to know whether the Ru ssian Federation was considering prolonging this 
measure after May 2016.  Should that be the case, the EU wanted the Russian Federation to clarify 
the state of play of the legislative process.  If  this was the case, and the prolongation was being 
considered, the EU wished to have the reasons for such a Decision, and asked the Russian 
Federation to indicate which provisions under WTO law justified the introduction and prolongation 
of the ban. 
1.40.  The representative of the United States thanked the Russian Federation for its detailed 
notification on quantitative restrictions.  This notification included certain "encryption devices" that 
were subject to import and/or export licensing. Th is list of devices, however, did not appear to 
reflect the three-tiered system to which Russia had committed in its Working Party Report for its 
Accession to the WTO (WT/ACC/RUS/70, WT/MIN(11)/, paragraphs 471-487). According to that 
system, "goods subject to current and any future exemptions, indicated in all of the Notes to 
Category 5, Part 2 'information security' of th e Wassenaar Arrangement Dual Use List" could be 
imported "without any formalities related to encryption".  Other goods would be subject to a 
one-time notification. The third category would rema in subject to an import licensing regime.  The 
United States wished to know, firstly, whethe r the three-tiered system to which Russia had 
committed to in its Working Party Report was still in place in Russia.  Secondly, they wanted to 
know why this system had not been reflected in Russia's QR submission.  In addition, the United 
States was interested in the responses to the questions by the European Union regarding the export ban on raw hides and skins.  
1.41.  The representative of Switzerland thanked the Russian Federation for its notification. He 
observed that Switzerland had several questions concerning quantitative restrictions number 17, 
18, 19, 22, and 23.  His delegation would submit the questions in writing.  
1.42.  The representative of the Russian Federa tion thanked delegations for the questions and 
comments which had been raised in document G/MA/W/119 from 18 March 2016. She noted that 
the questions had been subject to thorough cons ideration and answers had been provided to the 
European Union in written form prior to the meeting. As for the questions from the United States 
and Switzerland, she requested that they be prov ided in written form after the meeting so they 
could be provided to her capital.  
1.43.  The representative of the European Unio n thanked the Russian Federation for the written 
replies which had just been received. They would be carefully reviewed.  The European Union 
remained interested in the response on the prolongation of the export ban.  
1.44.  The Committee agreed to revert to this notification at its next meeting. G/MA/M/63 
 
- 7 - 
 
  - United States (G/MA/QR/N/USA/2, G/MA/W/116) 
 1.45.  The Chairperson recalled that the European  Union had submitted questions to the United 
States, which had been circulated in document G/MA/W/116.   
1.46.  The representative of the European Union noted that her delegation had submitted 
questions to the United States in November last year, which sought clarification on certain aspects 
of the notification in G/MA/QR/N/USA/2.  While her delegation thanked the United States for the 
replies that had been provided to their questi ons, the EU sought a couple of additional 
clarifications on the measures applicable to trade in sturgeons.  Firstly, the response by the US 
had stated that five sturgeon species and their products, both wild and farmed, were prohibited. The EU wanted to have some clarification on how the ban could be justified for captive bred 
sturgeon products, given that these products could not be considered to be detrimental to the 
survival of wild stocks. In fact, her delegation had provided information on sturgeon aquaculture in the EU, which had illustrated the positive effects of captive breeding on the survival of wild stocks.  
Secondly, the response had stated that an exception to the ban was possible where products were 
accompanied by an ESA permit or if the specimen  met pre-ESA or antique criteria under the ESA. 
The European Union wanted to know whether this meant that the ban on these five species coming 
from the EU was not definitive, and whether EU producers were eligible for an ESA permit.  She 
also invited the United States to clarify how exporters of sturgeon's products had to label the caviar from 'hybrid species', which was not affected by the ban, in order to distinguish it from the products in the prohibited listed species.  The lis t of codes that had been submitted by the United 
States did not contain the code for caviar, i.e. “HS 1604.31".  She asked the United States to 
confirm whether caviar was excluded from the list of banned products. 
1.47.  The representative of the United States no ted that, with regard to the questions posed by 
the European Union in G/MA/W/116, as had been noted by the EU delegate, her delegation had 
provided a written response bilaterally before the meeting. With respect to the additional queries 
which had been raised by the EU delegate, she noted that the questions would be considered and 
responded to shortly.  She reiterated that US fish and wild life service was undertaking at that 
time a review of the endangered species Act, so interested Members were invited to provide comments and information to the fish and wild life service. 
1.48.  The Committee agreed to revert to this notification at its next meeting. 
H. KYRGYZ REPUBLIC - NOTIFICATION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE X:1 OF THE GATT 1994 
(G/MA/W/118) 
1.49.  The Chairperson recalled that the Kyrgyz Re public had submitted a notification pursuant to 
Article X:1 of the GATT 1994. 
1.50.  The Committee took note of the notification. 
I.  KINGDOM OF BAHRAIN - CUSTOMS DUTIES ON CIGARETTES – STATEMENT BY 
SWITZERLAND 
1.51.  The Chairperson recalled that this agenda  item had been included at the request of 
Switzerland. 
1.52.  The representative of Switzerland indicate d that information had been recently received 
from Bahrain, and that additional questions had been sent the week prior to the meeting.  He 
thanked Bahrain for its efforts to provide information on this issue and he was confident that a mutual satisfactory solution would soon be found.  
1.53.  The representative of the Kingdom of Bahrain thanked Switzerland for its interest on this 
matter and took this opportunity to update the Committee on the issue. He reminded Members 
that the situation had originated in an error in the manner in which the exceptions to the general 
ceiling binding of 35% on agricultural products had been reflected in Bahrain's Uruguay Round 
schedule. While the intention of the kingdom of Bahrain had always been to include an exception to bind at 100% all tobacco products of HS Chap ter 24, the schedule that had been submitted had 
been misinterpreted as being limited to HS 24.01. Since the last Committee meeting, Bahrain had G/MA/M/63 
 
- 8 - 
 
  held several constructive meetings with Switzerlan d, as well as informative consultations with the 
WTO Secretariat, in order to resolve this issue and find a mutually agreed solution. The Kingdom of Bahrain remained fully committed to its WTO obligations and stood ready to continue consulting with the Swiss delegation and the WTO Secretariat with a view to rectifying this simple 
typographical error in its schedule.  
1.54.  The Committee took note of the statements. 
J. KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA – CUSTOMS DUTY INCREASE ON CIGARETTES – 
STATEMENT BY SWITZERLAND 
1.55.  The Chairperson recalled that this agenda item had been included in the agenda at the 
request of Switzerland. 1.56.  The representative of Switzerland noted th at the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia had implemented 
in March 2016 a 100% increase in the specific part of its applied duty on cigarettes. The new MFN 
applied rate amounted to 100%, with a minimum of SAR 200 per 1,000 units. While this action 
staid within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s WTO bound rate for cigarettes, such an increase 
exceeded the Common External Tariff (CET) of th e Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). Should other 
GCC Member States consider following the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s increase of MFN rates, or should the GCC envisaged increasing the CET for cigarettes to the level of the Kingdom of Saudi 
Arabia, Switzerland noted that this might result in those other GCC Member States exceeding their 
respective WTO bound rates. He called on the Kingdom of Bahrain, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and other GCC Member States to refrain from such an increase of the CET for cigarettes, and to abide by their respective WTO commitments. Swit zerland also asked about the manner in which 
GCC members intended to address this situation.  His delegation stood ready to meet bilaterally 
and find a solution to this issue.  
1.57.  The representative of the Kingdom of Saud i Arabia thanked Switzerland for raising the issue 
and observed that it was first time he had heard such concern, as no previous bilateral 
coordination had taken place on this issue.  He also thanked Switzerland for recognizing that the 
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was in full compliance with its WTO bound tariff rates. With regard to the 
question raised of how other GCC members intend ed to address the issue in the common external 
tariff, Saudi Arabia, as coordinator of this group, would transmit this question to the GCC. He stressed that the GCC members took their obligations very seriously, in particular those of the WTO, and that these would be taken into consideration in any increase in applied tariffs.  Should 
additional information be required, he requested Switzerland to consult with them bilaterally. 
1.58.  The representative of Switzerland noted th at he had been aware of the very short notice 
given, but noted that the information notice had been circulated through the bilateral channels 
before the meeting. He stood ready to share more  information with GCC members in case needed. 
1.59.  The representative of Qatar thanked Switzerland for its interest on the issue. He stressed 
that Qatar took all its WTO commitments and obligations very seriously, including its binding 
commitments, and that these would be taken into account in the event of any increase in applied 
tariffs.  Should Switzerland require more information, they were invited to contact Qatar. 
1.60.  The Committee took note of the statements. 
K. INDIA – CUSTOMS DUTIES ON TELECOMMUNICATION AND OTHER PRODUCTS – 
STATEMENTS BY EUROPEAN UNION, JAPAN, AND THE UNITED STATES (G/MA/W/120) 
1.61.  The Chairperson recalled that this agenda item had been included at the request of the 
European Union, Japan, and the United States. 
1.62.  The representative of the European Union observed that the Indian Customs Notification 
No. 24/2005 exempted products classified under HS 85.17 from customs duty, thereby 
implementing India’s commitments under the In formation Technology Agreement (ITA). On 
11 July 2014, India had adopted Customs Notificati on No. 11/2014 which had raised duties to 10% 
ad valorem  for a set of four products.  In accordance with a recent Customs Notification 
No. 12/2016, these products had been classified under tariff lines 8517.62.90 and 8517.69.90.  G/MA/M/63 
 
- 9 - 
 
  These tariff lines were subject to a 10 % MFN duty, as had been also reflected in the 2015-2016 
version of India’s MFN tariff schedule.  India was a signatory of the ITA and should, therefore, provide duty-free treatment for products listed in  its Attachments A and B, which India had bound 
in its GATT Schedule.  Therefore, imposing duties on these products was contrary to the duty-free 
tariff concessions scheduled by India and was in br each of India's obligations under the WTO.  The 
ITA covered all items at national tariff level classified under tariff line 8517.62 without exceptions.  It had full HS-6 coverage.  The EU further noted that, while the original ITA had used older 
versions of the Harmonized Systems, HS1996 and HS2002, the corresponding HS2007 correlation 
tables showed that all items classified today under 8517.62 in HS 2007 were fully covered under the scope of the ITA. Therefore ITA signatories had to exempt these items from import duties, 
including items classified by India under 8517.62.90.  Furthermore, according to India’s recently 
certified GATT Schedule of Concessions in HS2007, India had bound tariff line 8517.62.90 to 
"zero" under the WTO.  The European Union, to gether with the United States and Japan, had 
recently submitted to India a set of questions seeking clarifications on the classification of certain 
ICT products, as well as the implementation of  India’s commitments under the GATT and the 
Information Technology Agreement (ITA) for thes e products.  The EU was interested to know 
whether the set of four products that had been clearly listed in the questions fell under codes 
8517.62.90 or 8517.69.90. Should it not be the case, they invited India to clarify under which 
tariff lines those products were classified.  The EU sought confirmation that those four products were subject to a 10% duty rate.  He also wished to know India’s WTO bound tariff commitments for each of the four product categories subject to Customs Notification No. 11/2014 and how India 
justified introducing a 10% import duty for products falling under 8517.62 in light of India’s 
commitment pursuant to the ITA and its WTO Sc hedule, which had been updated in HS2007 by 
binding the whole subheading at 0%.  In case In dia considered that the products falling under 
8517.62 were not covered by India’s commitment pursuant to the ITA, he asked India to clearly 
present the reasons. In the same vein, should India consider that the products falling under 8517.69 were not covered by India’s commitment purs uant of the ITA, the EU would like India to 
present the reasons.  
1.63.  The representative of Japan observed that, regarding India's customs duties on 
telecommunication products, Japan had a doubt that such duties being imposed by India were 
consistent with India's schedule of tariff concession in HS2007 and the ITA.  He noted that, 
according to the amendment No.12/2016-Customs dated 1 March 2016, India had raised customs 
duties on telecom products.  For example, a 10% customs duty was being imposed on tariff lines 8517.62.90 and 8517.69.90, which might exceed the corresponding bound duty rates.  Thus, 
Japan, the EU, and the United states had requested this agenda item and co-sponsored a set of 
questions, which had been circulated in document G/MA/W/120.  Japan invited the Indian delegations to provide answers to the questionnaire at this meeting or as soon as possible. 
1.64.  The representative of the United States recalled that the communication that had been 
transmitted by her delegation, together with the EU and Japan, on 1 April 2016 outlined questions 
and explained the serious concerns they had rega rding apparent inconsistencies between the MFN 
tariff that India charged on certain telecommunication equipment classified under HS 8517.62, and 
India's certified WTO schedule of concessions. Industry in the United States had expressed 
concerns about India's tariff increase on telecommunications products that were outlined in Indian Customs Notification 11/2014 in the summer of 2014, when tariffs were first imposed. The 
commercial impact of the increase in customs duty from zero to 10% on these products – 
including various telecommunication switches, voice-over internet protocol phones, optical transport equipment, and so on – had been felt immediately by companies shipping these products 
to India. For the sake of brevity, she did not read  out all of questions that they had posed to India 
in document G/MA/W/120, but her delegation wanted to ask the Indian delegation if they could provide an explanation or justification for introducing a 10% import duty for products falling under 8517.62 in light of its binding commitment pursuant to  the ITA and in light of its concessions in its 
WTO schedule.  The United States had raised these questions the previous day at the ITA 
Committee, and they understood that their questions were being reviewed in capital. However, the Indian delegate in that meeting had also characterized the issue as one of a technical nature.  She 
wanted to ask a rather straightforward question: did India charge an MFN applied rate of 10% on 
products that Indian customs classified under 8517 .62?  The bound rate for all products classified 
under 8517.62 was zero according to India's certified bound schedule.  Therefore, she asked again 
the Indian delegate to explain this apparent in consistency with India's binding commitments.  The 
United States was undertaking an in-depth review  of India's ITA commitments, and it reserved the 
right to raise the issue again at this Committee. In addition to these specific questions on tariff G/MA/M/63 
 
- 10 - 
 
  increases in the ICT sector, the United States noted a general trend of tariff increases in India.  
India's 2016-17 budget had advocated the use of tariffs to support "incentivizing domestic value addition" and its "make in India" campaign.  In addition to promoting market inefficiencies and 
crippling global supply chains, the tariff increases appeared inconsistent with India's stated goals 
of facilitating manufacturing, promoting clean energy or improving access to healthcare.  Given 
India's "Make in India" campaign, the United States was confused by tariff increases in 96 tariff lines falling under capital goods, which was the very equipment needed to boost manufacturing.  
She urged India to eliminate or reduce these tariffs.  There were companies currently 
manufacturing fiber optic cable in India, companies that had moved their production facilities to India and created jobs there.  But India had rece ntly increased the customs duty on preform of 
silica, a key input, which had driven up the cost of  fiber optic cable production in India. The United 
States requested that India eliminate or reduce this tariff. In renewable energy, India had 
proposed tariff increases on industrial solar water heaters and solar tempered glass. Given India's goals of reducing the costs of clean energy, and specifically India's goal of increasing solar 
production, they encouraged India to eliminate or reduce these tariffs.  She noted that India 
imported over 70% of its medical devices, and ye t India had just increased the basic customs duty 
on medical devices. The press release that had announced the duty increase had expressly noted 
that the change had been instated to promote domestic manufacturing in India. India had also 
recently withdrawn a duty exemption for approximately 70 lifesaving drugs.  Ultimately, duty increases on medical devices and on pharmaceuticals were passed on to consumers, meaning that those most in need of lifesaving devices and drugs would be the ones that suffered the most.  
They strongly encouraged India to eliminate its tariffs on medical devices and drugs. There were 
only some of the recent tariff increases that India had imposed, but the trend was of concern. Global companies had a choice in where to invest and where to source. Those countries that 
erected barriers, tariffs or otherwise, for the expr ess purpose of import substitution, would lose out 
in the long run. History had played this out time  and again.  She noted that India's February 2016 
Economic Survey had stated that "India's policies have a significant impact on global markets and 
it has become a large economy in which partner countries have a legitimate stake in seeking 
market access – just as India should in relation to its partners' markets" That same Economic Survey report called on India to "resist calls to seek recourse in protectionist measures." For the sake of India's economic growth, and for the sake of the global market place that was inextricably 
interconnected, the United States requested and urged India to follow the advice of its own 
economists by re-evaluating its tariff increases, and ultimately rolling them back. 
1.65.  The representative of Korea associated his delegation with the statements by the European 
Union, Japan, and the United States.  He expre ssed concern about India’s implementation of its 
WTO schedule.  He refrained from repeating the statement that had been delivered the day before at the ITA committee.  However, Korea wanted to highlight that it had a commercial and systemic 
concern about this issue.  Korea noted India’s statement at the ITA committee that it was 
examining the issue very carefully.  Thus, Korea l ooked forward to having India’s answer as soon 
as possible.  
1.66.  The representative of Canada echoed the concerns that had been raised by the United 
States, European Union, Japan, and Korea.  Canada had significant trade with India in the products 
at the centre of these concerns, namely products under heading 85.17.  The application of import duties on these products above India’s bound commi tments were, therefore, of concern to Canada 
for commercial and systemic reasons.  Canada looked forward to India’s detailed responses to the 
questions which had been raised by other Members. 
1.67.  The representative of Chinese Taipei noted that, concerning the measures described in 
G/MA/W/120, his delegation had a commercial interest in heading 8517. In addition, they had 
systemic concerns relating to questions which had been raised pursuant to the ITA implementation and market access commitments.  He urged India to provide further detailed information in this regard. 
1.68.  The representative of Norway took note of India's customs notification No. 11/2014 and the 
questions which had been raised by the EU, Japan,  and the United States. Her delegation had also 
raised this issue the day before at the ITA Committee meeting. Norway had a systemic interest in 
this matter and looked forward to examining India's written response to the questions posed as 
soon as possible. G/MA/M/63 
 
- 11 - 
 
  1.69.  The representative of Switzerland joined others on the systemic concerns which had been 
raised in the communication.  Switzerland looked forward to receiving India's responses and stood 
ready to examine them.  
1.70.  The representative of Australia shared the systemic concerns which had been raised by a 
number of Members. Australia considered that bound rates and binding commitments were 
fundamental to the operation of the WTO. He looked forward to receiving India's answers. 
1.71.  The representative of India thanked the delegations of Japan, United States, European 
Union, Korea, Canada, Chinese Taipei, Norway, Switzerland, and Australia for their interest in 
India’s customs duties on certain products.  His delegation also thanked them for bringing some specific matters in respect of telecom products.  His delegation had carefully noted the statements made and issues that had been raised at this m eeting.  Regarding the written questions circulated 
in document G/MA/W/120, he pointed out that the same matter had been raised the day before in 
the ITA Committee, where his delegation had indicated that the written questions were under consideration of the authorities in the capital. The status had not changed.  Regarding customs 
duties on certain other products that had been raised by the United States, he noted that almost 
the same concerns had been expressed at the CTG meeting that had been held on Friday of the 
previous week.  In that meeting, his delegation ha d noted that the issues were being raised for the 
first time and that capital needed to be consulted.  He had to repeat the same at this meeting.  As 
the statement of the United States at this meeting had been very long, he requested the delegation of United States to communicate it in writing so that it could be forwarded to the authorities in the capital in an accurate and precise manner.  Finally, he considered it important 
and pertinent to remind the concerned Members that WTO rules allowed a Member to adjust its 
applied duty rates within the bound rates in re sponse to its domestic development objectives. 
1.72.  The Committee took note of the statements. 
L. SITUATION OF SCHEDULES OF WTO MEMBERS (G/MA/W/23/REV.12) 1.73.  The Chairperson informed Members that the Secretariat had prepared a revision to the 
report on the status of schedules, which had b een circulated in G/MA/W/23/Rev.12. She also 
informed Members that the Secretariat was considering changing the format of the report. 
1.74.  A member of the Secretariat (Mr. Roy Santana) explained that, like in previous years, the 
Secretariat had updated the report, which provided a broad overview of all changes in the 
schedules of concessions for each Member and highlighted the outstanding issues.  However, over 
time, the Annex of the document had grown quite considerably and the column format did not 
seem to be as user-friendly as it had been some years ago. The Secretariat was exploring the possibility of changing the format of the Annex for next year's report while keeping the same 
information.  However, before doing the change, he invited any Member having a preference or 
idea on how best to organize the information, to please contact the Secretariat.  The Secretariat would report any comment received at the next meeting of the Committee. 
1.75.  The Committee took note of the statements. 
M. DRAFT REPORT BY THE SECRETARIAT ON THE STATUS OF RENEGOTIATIONS 
UNDER ARTICLE XXVIII OF THE GATT 1994 (JOB/MA/122) 
1.76.  The Chairperson recalled that, as had been  agreed at the informal meeting of 17 March 
2016, the Secretariat had prepared a report containing factual information on the status of the 
various negotiations under Article XXVIII of the GATT 1994.  She had been informed that the Secretariat had already received comments.  
1.77.  A member of the Secretariat (Mr. Roy Santana) confirmed that comments had already been 
submitted by the European Union.  There was one very clear case where the Secretariat had made 
an editorial mistake relating to G/SECRET/26, "EU enlargement to 27", where the status should 
read "ongoing".  In addition, the European Union had explained that at least three renegotiations 
that had been labelled as "unclear" in the table had been in fact specifically referred to in the Technical Note and correlation tables that had been submitted together with document G/MA/TAR/RS/357.  The Secretariat would correct these errors in the report.  He invited Members G/MA/M/63 
 
- 12 - 
 
  to inform the Secretariat of any other factual error or omission so that the document could be 
corrected and finalized.   
1.78.  The Chairperson thanked the Secretariat and suggested that Members took two more 
weeks, until 3 May 2016, to review the document and inform the Secretariat of any factual error or 
omission. After this deadline, the Secretariat would modify the report. 
1.79.  The Committee so agreed. 
N. OTHER BUSINESS 
1.80.  The Chairperson noted that the next formal meeting of the Committee had been 
provisionally scheduled for 11 October 2016.  In addi tion, informal multilateral review sessions for 
HS transposition had been scheduled for 16 June and 27 September 2016.  She asked Members with outstanding issues to meet bilaterally and try to solve the issues.  
O. ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON 
1.81.  The Chairperson noted that this agenda it em foresaw the election of a new Chairperson for 
the Committee. However, as Members were aware, consultations in the Council for Trade in Goods 
(CTG) remained ongoing.  Therefore, she proposed  that, once the CTG had resolved the issue, the 
Secretariat would send a fax with the name of the proposed candidate, who would be considered elected if no objection was raised within a week of circulation of the fax.
1 
1.82.  The Committee so agreed. 
1.83.  The meeting was adjourned. 
 
__________  
                                               
1 In a fax dated 12 May 2016, the Secretariat informed Members that the Council for Trade in Goods 
had adopted, on 11 May 2016, a slate of names concerning the appointment of officers to the CTG subsidiary 
bodies, which nominated Ms Hanna Olsen BODSBERG (Nor way) to Chair the Committ ee on Market Access and 
gave a deadline for objections until Thursday, 19 May 2016.   No objections were re ceived, so she was elected 
Chairperson of the Committee on Market Access on that date.