RESTRICTED  
  
G/TBT/M/76  
 
 
7 February 2019  
(19-0734) Page: 1/48 
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETI NG OF 14-15 NOVEMBER  2018 
CHAIR PERSON : MS KATE SWAN (NEW ZE ALAND)  
Note by the Secretariat1 
1   ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  ................................ ................................ ........................  1 
2   STATEMENTS FROM MEMBERS UNDER ARTICL E 15.2 ................................ ...................  1 
3   SPECIFIC TRADE C ONCERNS (STCS)  ................................ ................................ ...........  2 
3.1   Reported resolutions  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 2 
3.2   Withdrawn concerns  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 2 
3.3   New concerns  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  2 
3.4   Previously raised concerns  ................................ ................................ ............................  7 
4   EXCHANGE OF EXPE RIENCES  ................................ ................................ .....................  42 
4.1   Adoption of the Eighth Triennial Review  ................................ ................................ ......... 42 
4.2   Organization of work in 2019  ................................ ................................ ....................... 42 
5   TECHNICAL COOPERATION ACTIVITI ES ................................ ................................ .... 44 
6   OBSERVERS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  44 
6.1   Updates from Observers  ................................ ................................ .............................. 44 
6.2   Pending Requests  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......44 
7   REPORT (2018) OF  THE COMMITTEE ON TE CHNICAL BARRIERS TO TRADE  ...............  48 
8   DATE OF NEXT MEETIN G................................ ................................ ............................  48 
 
1  ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA 
The Committee  adopted the agenda contained in WTO/AIR/TBT/ 12. 
2  STATEMENTS FROM MEMB ERS UNDER ARTICLE 15 .2  
2.1.  The Chairperson  reminded the Committee of Members' notification obligation under Article  15.2 
of the TBT Agreement and further informed the Committee that the latest list of statements on 
implementation submitted under this provision was contained in an annex to the Annu al Review of 
the Implementation and Operation of the TBT Agreement ( G/TBT/4 0), issued on 12 March  2018. 
Information on the list of statements is available on the TBT Information Management System  (TBT 
IMS). 
                                                
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility  and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 2 - 
 
  3  SPECIFIC TRADE CONCE RNS (STCS)  
3.1  Reported resolutions  
There were no reported resolutions.   
3.2  Withdrawn concerns  
The Chairperson  reported that the following STC  had been withdrawn from the agenda at the 
request of the concerned Member:  
a. European Union — EU Cyber Security Act  
 
The Chairperson  informed the Committee that lengthy statements would be prepared for 
circulation separately  and referred to in the minutes (see paragraph 3.4 below for an example) . She 
said that this was done because such statements were often technical and difficult to summarize 
without compromising accuracy and detail. At the last m eeting , 19 statements had been circulated  
this way; this had  significantly expedited the pre paration of the minutes. Prepared s tatements would 
be sent to delegations for check ing prior to  circulation.  
3.3  New concerns  
3.3.1   European Union — Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying 
down rules and procedures for compliance with and enforcement of Union harmonization 
legislation on products and amending relevant regulations (IMS ID 5652) 
3.4.  The representative of China  raised concerns with the EU's Regulation of the European 
Parliament and of the Council laying down rules and procedures for compliance with and enforcement 
of Union harmonization legislation on products and amending relevant regulations . The full 
statement is contained in G/TBT/W/578 . 
3.5.  The representative of Canada , echoing China's comments, was als o concerned that the 
measure may restrict trade because of the requirement contained in Article 4 that each exporter 
designate a person responsible for compliance information located in the EU. According to the 
measure, this designated responsible person w ould be required to provide compliance information – 
their name and contact information on the product label - and cooperate with market surveillance 
authorities where appropriate. His delegation considered that this requirement could create financial 
and administrative burdens for exporters, particularly SMEs, by requiring them to find and employ 
an EU -based person or entity to act as a representative for them.  
3.6.  The representative of the European Union  underlined the importance of the safety and 
compliance  of products for consumers. Considering this overall aim, the Commission ha d carefully 
evaluated the compliance of products with EU legislation and ha d concluded that there was room for 
improvement. Moreover, he stated, non-compliance hurt consumers and re duced their confidence 
in buying products and t he EU proposal aim ed to address this.  
3.7.  The proposal contained an updated framework for market surveillance and customs authorities 
for checking compliance of products with EU legislation. It also strengthened cooperation and 
coordination among the multiple market surveillance authorities of EU member States. The proposal 
further contain ed some requirements on economic operators to facilitate the work of market 
surve illance and customs authorities, t he main one being that there should be a person in the EU 
responsible for compliance information on products. He recall ed that this was not a completely new  
approach and that t he majority of EU legislation on products already ha d similar provisions but no 
longer achie ved this effect due to new types of e -commerce supply chains. He emphasized the 
importan ce of there being a contact person established in the EU to whom market surveillance 
authorities could address  questions regarding a product' s compliance with EU legisl ation. Moreover, 
he added, this also reinforce d the capacity of manufacturers to communicate with market 
surveillance authorities.  
                                                
2 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 565  (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 3 - 
 
  
The EU indicated that t he proposal was currently under legislative discussions. In this context, 
the European Parliament ha d produced its report in September, largely following the initial proposal 
from the European Commission , and still being discussed by t he Council of Ministers. He said that 
once the legislative procedure was finaliz ed, Members would be kept duly informed about the final 
measure . 
3.3.2   Chile — Public Consultation for draft legislation setting out rules on the preparation, 
description and labelling of milk products deriving from milk , G/TBT/N/CHL/442  (IMS ID 
5663) 
3.9.  The representative of the European Union  thanked Chile for the opportunity to send written 
comments on the notification G/TBT/N/CHL/442  and proceeded to summarize those concerns. It was 
noted that the draft law would not allow cheeses made from milk powders or from 
recombined/reconstituted milk to be labelled as "cheese" but only as "milk product similar to 
cheese", meaning that cheese made from products other than milk, such as milk powders,  would 
not be allowed to be commercialised as cheeses and economic operators would have to relabel their 
products specifically for the Chilean market. He warned that this would result in an unnecessary 
burden and would likely have an adverse impact on inte rnational trade. The EU referred to Codex 
General Standard for Cheese, CODEX STAN 283 -1978, which, in relation to the essential composition 
of cheese, referred to the use of raw materials such as "Milk and/or products obtained from milk".  
His delegation wa s of the view that on the basis of this Codex standard, both liquid milk and/or 
preserved milk (in the form of milk powder, concentrated, etc.) may indeed be used in cheese 
manufacture.  
3.10.   The EU invited Chile to take into account its concerns and to reply t o its written comments. 
Chile was also encouraged to apply to the greatest extent possible the international standards 
adopted by CODEX. Finally, the EU enquired about the state of play of the preparation of this 
legislative piece.  
3.11.   The representative of th e United States  voiced  support for the EU on this issue and would  
follow  developments of th e regulation closely. Her delegation looked forward to receiving Chile' s 
response to their comments on the notified measure.  
3.12.   The representative of Chile announced th at the draft law was currently being debated in the 
Chamber of Deputies of the Chilean Congress following a joint proposal from the Ministry of 
Agriculture and that Members' concerns were being taken into account. He said that in the event of 
substantial c hanges to the draft law, or finalization thereof, notification would be made to the 
Committee to enable Members to formulate new remarks or comments or withdraw them at that 
time. 
3.3.3   Russian Federation — Federal law No 487 -FZ, providing a framework for 
compre hensive use of special labelling and traceability of goods and Decision No. 792 -r 
specifying the goods to which labelling will apply and the dates of introduction of the 
mandatory labelling  (IMS ID 5674) 
3.13.   The representative of the European Union  recalled th at on 28 April 2018 the Russian 
Government had adopted Decision No. 792 -r, listing goods which would be subject to mandatory 
marking, along with the dates of introduction of these labelling requirements for each product 
category. It had already been announ ced that the measure would cover tobacco, perfumes, tyres, 
different categories of clothing, footwear and cameras and pharmaceutical products. The EU was 
concerned that the measure may include technical regulations and potentially have a significant 
impact  on imports from the EU and from other WTO Members into Russia. Her delegation considered 
that the measure should therefore have been notified under the TBT Agreement before its adoption 
to give allow Members to provide comments and to allow sufficient tim e for industry to adapt. Russia 
was urged to notify the measure in accordance with the TBT Agreement, as some of the requirements 
were to begin as early as March 2019. Furthermore, in order to provide industry with the necessary 
information to adapt to the  measure, details were requested on the exact procedure to obtain the 
mandatory labels. It was the EU's understanding that the measure had been adopted as a means of 
identifying certain products, therefore her delegation requested information and the resea rch which 
                                                
3 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 566  (under dates raised and references) . 
4 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 567  (under dates  raised and references) . G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 4 - 
 
  had led Russia to conclude on the product scope of the measure. Finally, Russia was asked whether 
it intended to notify the related Federal Law No 487 -FZ, providing a framework for the 
comprehensive use of special labelling and traceability of go ods.  
3.14.   The representative of the Russian Federation  responded that Decision No. 792 -r of 28 April 
2018 determined the list of goods in respect of which the identification and traceability system would 
be applied and the date of introduction of the system for different types of goods. Procedures 
necessary f or the implementation of the decision would be further refined. He explained that the 
purpose of the decision was to improve the protection of trademarks of sensitive products against 
counterfeiting . Russia underlined that Decision No. 792 -r did not lay do wn product characteristics or 
production methods and therefore did not fall under the scope of the TBT Agreement.  
3.3.4   Brazil — Technical Regulation 14, 8 February 2018, to set the additional official 
identity, quality standards for wine and derivatives of grap e and wine products as well as 
the requirements to be acquainted and Technical Regulation No. 48, 31 August 2018 
published in the Official Gazette on 10 September 2018 , G/TBT/N/BRA/613  (IMS ID 5685) 
The representative of the European Union  noted that Technical Regulation 14 of 8 February 
2018, setting the additional official  identity, quality standards for wine and derivatives of grape and 
wine products had been amended by the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture. She said that whilst the 
adopted amendment had been notified to the TBT Committee on 11 September 2018 as an 
addendu m to notification G/TBT/N/BRA/613 , Members had not had the possibility  to submit 
comments. Her delegation expressed regret that its concerns expressed in the TBT Committee 
regarding  Technical Regulation 14/2018 had neither been discussed nor taken into account during 
the subsequent revision process. In particular, the EU win e industry exporting to Brazil was 
concerned about future serious disruptions to trade due to the long list of analytical parameters and 
their divergences with the OIV recommendations. The EU reiterated its invitation to the Brazilian 
authorities to make u se to the maximum extent possible of the OIV recommendations when 
preparing its regulations on wine and to consider accepting imported wines made according to 
oenological practices authorized by the OIV. Brazil was encouraged to consider addressing these 
concerns in the future and invited to work bilaterally with the EU in this respect.  
The representative of Brazil  responded to the concerns. The full statement is contained in 
G/TBT/W/561 . 
3.3.5   Dominican Republic — Regulation on Cosmetic and Hygiene Products  (IMS ID 5696) 
The representative of Mexico  raised concerns on the draft "Regul ation on Cosmetic and 
Hygiene Products", issued by the Ministry of Public Health of the Dominican Republic, not notified to 
the TBT Committee, setting out criteria for regulating the production, processing, quality control, 
supply, advertising, marketing, storage and evaluation of cosmetic and hygiene products as well as 
the principles, standards, criteria, obligations and basic requirements related to their safety and 
quality. She said that the regulation also encompassed the ingredients and materials used  for their 
production and packaging, all tasks necessary for sanitary surveillance and the facilities associated 
with cosmetic and hygiene products, besides establishing their specifications and functions. On the 
scope of application, Mexico was concerned that as the draft regulation encompassed different types 
of products, this could cause confusion as to the specific requirements and scope of application for 
each category (cosmetics and personal hygiene products on the one hand and domestic hygiene 
produc ts on the other). On requirements, she stated that the regulation imposed obligations 
normally required for pharmaceuticals and that, in Latin American countries, the US, Canada and 
the EU, were not required for cosmetics, personal hygiene products or dome stic hygiene products 
since they were considered low risk products. Moreover, her delegation considered the requirements 
established in the technical regulation to be more restrictive than necessary, going beyond the 
relevant international standards.  
On th e issue of notification, Mexico was aware that the regulation had undergone a domestic 
consultation process in June 2018 and was concerned that the Dominican Republic had failed to 
notify the draft technical regulation to the TBT Committee in line with Art icle 2.9 of the TBT 
Agreement, nor had it allowed for public consultation. Regarding advertising, Mexico deemed that 
                                                
5 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 568  (under dates raised and references) . 
6 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 569  (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 5 - 
 
  the regulation aimed to regulate advertising by prohibiting the inclusion of claims attributing specific 
qualities or properties to product s and that such a prohibition would prevent producers from 
conveying information to consumers about their function and properties and the type of consumer 
for which they were designed. Finally of concern was the fact that the new regulation was intended 
to have retroactive effect, which would affect licences or registrations already acquired. Her 
delegation believed that in such cases the period of validity and expiration date initially agreed 
should be respected, since the products registered complied with  in force legislation and did not 
generate any kind of risk for the health of consumers. In light of the above concerns, Mexico 
requested the Dominican Republic to (i) fulfil its obligation to notify the regulation and to submit it 
for public consultation to allow Mexico and other interested countries the opportunity to make 
comments; and (ii) review the provisions established, with a view to aligning the regulation with 
TBT obligations, or, alternatively, explain the technical reasoning underpinning its co ntent.  
The representative of the United States  expressed support for Mexico's comments on the 
issue and said that her delegation would be following developments of the regulation closely.   
The representative of the Dominican Republic  stated that the draft  regulation for hygiene and 
cosmetic products was aimed at regulating the production, quality control, supply, distribution, 
transport, marketing, advertising, promotion, importing, exporting, storage, sale, assessment and 
registration thereof, as well as the basic security and quality requirements. She added that the 
regulation also covered raw materials, ingredients and materials used for the preparation, 
manufacture and packaging of such goods as well as all activities necessary to ensure proper health 
monitoring. She stated that product registration requirements included a certificate from the country 
of origin of the product, a certificate of manufacturing best practice from the lab producing the goods 
(provided by the health authority of the country of  origin or failing that, a recognized international 
certification) and a power of attorney of the rights holder in the foreign country for the establishment 
requesting registration in the Dominican Republic.  
With respect to Mexico's concern on the scope o f the regulation, she stated that the ministry 
responsible for the monitoring of such products was acting in line with the General Health Law 4201 
and Decree 24606 as well as with other provisions in force. The initial proposal subject to public 
consultati on was also being assessed. On notification, the proposal had been subject to national 
consultation from 3 July to 27 August 2018 in keeping with Law 200/04, and published on the web 
portal of the Ministry of Health. As a result of this consultation, the p ublic health ministry had 
received 90 observations from domestic and foreign industry, on which basis the proposed regulation 
had been reviewed. Once revised, the Dominican Republic would notify the regulation to WTO 
Members. With respect to publicity, her  delegation believed this was a matter of significance, as 
rather than banning advertising, the issue was ensuring compliance with relevant legislation (Article 
164) of the Ministry of Public Health, and the registration requirements. Finally, on the conce rn 
regarding the retroactive nature of the measure, the Dominican Republic clarified that the draft 
regulation provided for an 18 -month period after which the health authorities would have to ensure 
compliance with all of the regulation requirements. Healt h, cosmetic and hygiene products that were 
previously licenced would have to have their licences reviewed within an 18 -month period to ensure 
compliance with the new draft regulation. Her delegation remained available for any further 
consultations.  
3.3.6   Chile — Regulations on the classification, labelling and notification of chemical 
substances and mixtures , G/TBT/ N/CHL/422  (IMS ID 5707) 
3.22.   The representative of Mexico  thanked Chile for its readiness to clarify bilaterally the status of 
the draft regulations, Article 1 of which established criteria for classification, labelling, notification 
and risk assessment for hazardous substances and mixtures with which manufactur ers and importers 
of such substances were to comply in order to protect human health and the environment. The 
criteria were established with a view to implementing the Globally Harmonized System of 
Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS). Whilst re cognizing that some of the issues which 
her delegation would raise may later be addressed in replies and possible revisions of the draft, she 
expressed concern on the lack of clarity of the measure; certain provisions failed to specify either 
the procedure s or the information necessary for compliance with the set requirements, a situation 
that her delegation believed could also generate confusion and possible technical and administrative 
barriers. On alignment with international standards, Mexico was of the  view that in the light of 
                                                
7 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 570  (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 6 - 
 
  Article  2.4 of the TBT Agreement certain requirements not included in the GHS, such as the matters 
covered in Articles 313 and 314, could infringe the provisions of the TBT Agreement and generate 
an additional and unnecessary adm inistrative burden. We would therefore be grateful if the Chilean 
authorities could share with us the technical and scientific justification for these decisions, or else 
the international standard on which they are based.  
3.23.   Regarding entry into force, Mexic o was concerned that Article 328 of the draft established a 
time frame for entry into force that could jeopardize product export operations in the sector, the 
interval deemed to be rather short in view of the measures that the industry would have to 
implem ent in order to comply. Finally, on GHS labels, her delegation was of the view that their usage 
for household cleaning products did not provide consumers with relevant value in respect of the 
products and may in fact cause confusion if consumers did not in terpret the pictograms correctly. 
Moreover, she underlined the importance that labels of this kind be used mainly for substances 
handled in work environments and that very few countries had adopted this labelling system for 
hygiene and cleaning products fo r domestic use.  
3.24.   In light of the points raised, Mexico believed that the Chilean draft regulations could infringe 
Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement as they introduced measures that could be more trade restrictive 
than necessary to fulfil a legitimate object ive that could be accomplished using less restrictive 
alternatives based on international standards. Chile was therefore requested to (i) explain the 
technical and scientific basis and the international standards taken into consideration in the 
preparation  of the draft regulations and (ii) reconsider the time frame for the regulations' entry into 
force and revise them to incorporate a longer time interval allowing manufacturers and exporters to 
adapt their products or production methods to the requirements of the new measure. Mexico 
remained available for further bilateral discussions.  
3.25.   The representative of Chile reported that his delegation had informed Mexico of the current 
status of the regulation during a bilateral meeting. He confirmed that the regulati on was not currently 
in force and that the regulatory agency responsible was currently working on a series of responses 
to the seven or eight national or international comments sent. Mexico and the Committee would be 
kept informed concerning future develop ments in the regulation.  
3.3.7   Egypt — Halal requirements for Poultry Parts and Offal  (IMS ID 5718) 
3.26.   The representative of the United States  thank ed Egypt for its bilateral engagement regarding 
compliance with halal stan dards for certain meat products but expressed concern that Egypt 
continued to deny market access to US  poultry producers because of halal concerns, despite 
demonstrated assurance of compliance by US exporters. She expressed  hope for an early solution 
to the issue. She said that in September 2013, Egypt' s General Organization for Veterinary Services 
had inspected and confirmed that 22 US  producers interested in exporting to Egypt were in 
conform ity with Egyptian h alal and food safety standards  and therefore saw no reason why Egy pt 
continued to  restrict trade.  Moreover, t he US was well-positioned t o supply Egypt with wholesome 
US poultry parts, especially chicken leg quarters and turkey parts, which met Egypt's halal 
requirements. In light of the GOVS' s existing verification, her delegation requested the removal of 
these unjustified barriers t o trade and looked forward to working with the Government of Egypt to 
resolve this technical trade restriction and allow full market access for poultry parts and offal, as 
well as whole frozen birds meet ing Egypt' s halal and food safety standards.  
The representative of Egypt  thanked  the United States for the ir bilateral engagements and 
reaffirmed the  importance it attached to the compliance of imported poultry with halal requirements , 
whilst maintaining a balance between verifying compliance of imports and imposing no excessive 
burden on its trade partners. He confirm ed that Egypt did not intend  to limit import s of poultry, 
indeed imports of HS 0207 into Egypt had increased by 28% in 2017 compared to 2016. Moreover, 
imports from the US alone under this HS code had increased by almost 3500% in 2017 compared 
to the average imports of the five preceding years. He did h owever report  that the Egyptian 
concerned authorities were facing great  difficulty in verifying the compliance of poultry parts with 
halal requirements given the impossibility of identifying the source of all imported parts and the 
compliance of all the sourcing slaughtering houses with halal requirements. In addition , he 
underlined the difficulty of differentiating between various poultry parts which was an important 
element in the protection of consumer health. It was in this vein that Egypt import ed only whole 
                                                
8 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 571  (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 7 - 
 
  poultry in full compliance with halal requirements. His delegati on welcomed further  discussions and 
communication on a technical level between the competent authorities in the two capitals.  
3.3.8   Kingdom of Bahrain, State of Kuwait, Qatar, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Oman, United 
Arab Emirates, Yemen — GCC Technical Regulations  for the Restriction of the use of certain 
Hazardous Substances in electrical and electronic equipment  (IMS ID 5729) 
3.28.   The representative of the United States  said that her delegation looked forward to receiving 
detailed responses to comments on the draft me asure submitted by US stakeholders on 25 May 
2018, and by the US government on 2 October 2018 . Beyond the detailed questions and concerns 
contained in those written comments , overarching questions were raised . Could  an update be 
provide d on the status of th e regulation, including whether any changes were anticipated based on 
comments received and when the regulation  was expected to be finalize d? Would  each GCC member 
state implement the final GCC regulation under its own respective timefr ames, or would  the GCC 
member states implement the GCC regulation simultaneously? It was her delegation's  understanding 
that GSO technical regulations were in principle intended to replace nati onal regulations of GCC 
members;  would the UAE be required to w ithdraw its existing regulation?  
The US also sought greater clarity on how manufacturers and importers must demonstrate 
conformity with th e measure as it was of concern that the conformity assessment methods of GCC 
restrictions on hazardous substances ( RoHS) appear ed to include a pre -market testing and model 
inspection certification scheme with an annual update, which would be a significant deviation from 
the international norms on conformity assessment procedures for RoHS. GCC member states were 
urged to allow the use of only the self -declarations of conformity, which was a common practice 
used throughout the world. Moreover, would  the results of conformity assessment procedures in one 
GCC member state be accepted/recognized by another without additional co nditions to show 
conformity? If not, why not?  GCC members were asked to notify any implementing guidelines for 
the conformity assessment procedures to the WTO for comment when drafts were available and 
before th e regulation went into effect.  
The representa tive of the  European Union  express ed interest in the questions raised by the 
US and welcome d any additional information.  
The representative of the State of Kuwait , on behalf of the GCC , said that the US questions 
received in June 2018 had been forwarded to  the secretary general of the GCC to coordinate with 
the GSO to take necessary step s. The regulation was still under drafting and discussion.  
3.4  Previously raised concerns  
3.4.1   China — Provisions for the Administration of Cosmetics Application Acceptance , 
G/TBT/N/CHN/821  (IMS ID 29610) 
3.32.   The representative of  Japan  recalled that at the previous meeting, China had agreed to revise 
the "Guidance for Application and Evaluation of New Cosmetic Ingredients" in accordance with the 
updated "Regulations on the Supervision and Administration of Cosmetics". Although the notification 
(2018 N o.35) released by the State Council, and dated on 10 October, indicated that the revision 
process was proceeding, she requested China to provide details of the schedule. In addition, Japan 
also requested China to provide a sufficient period of time for the  public comment procedure, as well 
as between  publication and entry into force. Japan reiterated previously raised concerns regarding 
the requirements on safety evaluation and information disclosure in the "Guidance for Application 
and Evaluation of New Co smetic Ingredients " and stated that her delegation remained concerned 
with the speed of examination as only four ingredients had been registered since the new system 
was introduced.  
3.33.   Although the representative of the European Union  welcomed China's plans t o set up a 
differentiated approach between priority cosmetics ingredients (which posed a higher risk and 
required a pre -market registration) and ordinary ingredients (which only required notification to the 
competent Chinese authorities), she requested Chi na to indicate the state of play and the planned 
                                                
9 For previous statements follow the thread unde r IMS ID 572  (under dates raised and references) . 
10 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 296  (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 8 - 
 
  time-frame for the adoption of the change. In addition, the EU requested China to provide some 
clarification on the new Chinese draft on Cosmetics Supervision and Administration Regulation.  
3.34.   The representativ e of China  stated that detailed explanations to Members' concerns had 
previously been provided; she invited the Members to refer to the minutes of previous meetings.  
3.4.2   India — New Telecommunications related Rules (Department of 
Telecommunications, No. 842 -725/2005 -VAS/Vol.III (3 December 2009); No. 10 -
15/2009 -AS-III/193 (18 March 2010); and Nos. 10 -15/2009 -AS.III/Vol.II/(Pt.)/(25 -
29) (28 July 2010); Department of Telecommunications, No. 10 -15/2009 -
AS.III/Vol.II/(Pt.)/(30) (28 July 2010) and accompanying templ ate, "Security and 
Business Continuity Agreement") , G/TBT/N/IND/66  (IMS  ID 27411) 
The representative of the European Union  requested India to confirm that the effective date 
of the entry into force of the testing requirements was April 2019 . The EU also asked India to clarify 
when the notifications specifying the products for which in -country testing and certification would 
be mandatory would be published and to explain which products would be covered. In addition, the 
EU requested India to confirm the scope of the measures, as her delegation was of the view that 
these requirements should allow adequate time before entering into force to give stakeholders the 
opportunity to review the final requirements as well as any applicable standards and  procedures. 
The EU was concerned with the possible extension of the requirement of in -country 
testing/certification not only to telecom network elements, but also to all equipment to be connected 
to Indian networks.  The EU was also of the view that batch testing would be unnecessary and 
excessively burdensome and asked India to consider type testing, the results of which could then be 
applied to all products covered by the same production series. On the recognition of test results 
carried outside India, th e EU reiterated previously raised concerns that in -country testing did not 
appear to add any value to the enhanced security of the covered equipment and noted that the 
testing and certification related rules should be considered in light of policies affect ing the telecom 
sector and in that regard the EU was closely following the public comment procedure on "Promoting 
Local Telecom Equipment Manufacturing'' recently launched by India.  
3.36.   The representative of the United States  remained concerned that India 's telecommunications 
domestic security testing requirements would create onerous and unnecessary requirements for 
industry, particularly on small - to medium -sized enterprises (SMEs). She requested India to inform 
stakeholders of the new in -country testing effe ctive date through a public notice and to send a 
notification to the TBT Committee. In addition, the US requested India to provide an adequate time 
between the announcement of the effective date and the actual effective date for producers to 
comply. The US  noted that India had only identified security concerns and circumstances that existed 
in most countries which did not find it necessary to require in -country testing or an MRA and was of 
the view that India did not appear to have provided an adequate basi s for departing from 
international practice. In addition, the US stated that the security testing requirements would 
potentially compromise companies ' proprietary information such as source code and other 
intellectual property and created an unnecessary ba rrier, which in her delegation's view, was 
unacceptable. Finally, the US requested India to honour the commitment under the CCRA to accept 
the results of CC tests conducted internationally and to accept international testing standards and 
schemes regardles s of whether the tests were performed in India or at accredited labs outside of 
India.  
3.37.   The representative of Japan  expressed her delegation's support for the position of the EU and 
the US and added that she remained concerned with the Unified Access Servic e License Agreement. 
Japan requested India to ensure that the telecom regulations did not impede market access for 
foreign industries and to ensure that the regulations would be implemented in a transparent manner 
in terms of testing methods and certificat ion requirements.  
The representative of Canada  remained concerned with India 's in-country security testing 
requirements and expressed his delegation's view that in -country testing and certification was 
duplicative, costly and delayed production and market introduction. Canada also reiterated previous 
concerns raised in previous TBT Committee meeting s.12  
                                                
11 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 274  (under dates raised and references) . 
12 G/TBT/M/70 , para 2.68. G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 9 - 
 
  
The representative of India responded to the concerns raised. The full statement is contained 
in G/TBT/W/582 .  
3.4.3   China — Requirements for information security products, including, inter alia, the 
Office of State Commercial Cryptogra phy Administration (OSCCA) 1999 Regulation on 
commercial encryption products and its on -going revision and the Multi -Level Protection 
Scheme (MLPS) ; China — Banking IT Equipment Security Regulation ; China — Insuran ce 
Regulatory Commission (CIRC) ; Information and Communication Technology Regulation , 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1172  (IMS IDs 294 , 457 and 48913) 
The representative of Japan  said that his delegation continued to have concerns regarding 
China's "Regulation on the Administration of Commercial Cipher Codes ". At the previous meeting, 
China had explained that it would continu e to revise the Regulations on Commercial Cryptography 
according to the Law on Cryptography after its promulgation. Japan requested that China provide 
relevant information regarding the revision process and submit a notification regarding the revision 
of the regulation in order to allow Members the opportunity to comment. Japan had evaluated the 
public comment process of Multi -Level Protection Scheme (MLPS) in June from the viewpoint of 
transparency of procedures. Japan requested that China consider the com ments provided by Japan 
regarding four specific issues: (i) clarifying the definitions of terms, the concrete requirement for 
review, and the scope of the regulation; (ii) clarifying the relevance of this regulation to existing 
security regulations; (iii) making sure that foreign company market access to China was not 
hampered and that confide ntial technology was not leaked;  and (iv) making sure that the 
development of relevant regulations and procedures was consistent with international standards and 
practices. 
The representative of the European Union  raised concerns with China's new cybersecurity law 
and Multi Level Protection Scheme (MLPS). The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/567 . 
The representative of the United States  remained troubled by wh at seemed to be a wide -
spread effort by China to impose "secure and controllable " requirements, largely based on the MLPS 
system, on ICT products. The MLPS was inflexibly prescriptive and could restrict the ability of 
consumers to purchase technologies est ablished as safe everywhere else in the world. Additionally, 
the requirements raised national treatment concerns by mandating domestic intellectual property 
and equipment usage in sectors deemed "critical ". This was particularly concerning given the 
extens ive scope of projects that were classified as level 3 or above. Other Members had rules to 
ensure security of critical infrastructure, but without stifling international competition. The fact that 
China was now expanding the MLPS to include a wide array of  commercial sectors that did not 
constitute critical infrastructure raised further concerns. The US sought further clarification as to the 
linkage between MLPS and the Cybersecurity Classified Protection Scheme referenced in the 
Cybersecurity Law. The US h oped that China would take into account all stakeholder comments 
made on the draft standards related to MLPS, but more broadly, adopt international standards 
instead of creating country -specific ones.  
The representative of Australia  recalled his delegation 's previously raised concerns14 and 
supported the concerns raised by other Members. Australia understood China's desire to protect ICT 
infrastructure, but questioned whether the proposed measures were more trade restrictive than 
necessary.  
The representativ e of China  said that in order to deepen the administrative reform and 
transform government functions in the domain of commercial cryptography, China was organizing 
the revision of the Regulations on Commercial Cryptography to further reduce the administrat ive 
licenc es and strengthen supervision in the whole process. The revision of the Regulations on 
Commercial Cryptography was still at the research stage. After the promulgation of the Law on 
Cryptography, China would continue to revise the Regulations on C ommercial Cryptography 
according to the Law on Cryptography, and release the Regulations for public consultation at the 
appropriate time. Regarding MLPS, the Cybersecurity Law stipulated that China would carry out the 
cybersecurity MLPS based on the experi ence of past years. To fulfil the requirements in Cybersecurity 
                                                
13 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 294 , IMS ID 457  and IMS ID 489  (under 
dates raised and references) . 
14 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.47; G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.68; G/TBT/M/73 , para . 2.22; G/TBT/M/72 , para. 3.75; 
G/TBT/M/71 , para. 2.162; and G/TBT/M/71 , para. 2.175.  G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 10 - 
 
  Law, regulations on the cybersecurity MLPS were being drafted and would replace the former 
administrative measures on information security MLPS. The new regulation was already open for 
comment s. Regarding banking, the Guideline for Promoting the Application of Secure and 
Controllable Information Technology in the Banking Sector (2014 -2015) had been suspended in April 
2015 and had already expired. China would always abide by its WTO commitments and be open and 
transparent in drafting the measures for the commercial banking information system. Regarding 
insurance, the CIRC 's regulation was still at the drafting stage. Throughout the whole process, China 
had been open, transparent, and had made notifications to the WTO. All comments submitted had 
been studied and evaluated and in parallel, bilateral communications and consultations had been 
conducted.  
3.4.4   Russian Federation — Draft Technical Regulation on Alcohol Drinks Safety 
(published on 24 Octobe r 2011) , G/TBT/N/RUS/2  (IMS ID 33215) 
3.45.   The representative of the European Union  recalled  previous concerns regarding the adoption 
and implementation of the draft technical regulation on alcohol products safety that had been notified 
in 2012. The EU stated that if the draft text notified in 2012 had been modified and included 
substantial changes, then it requested Russia to update the Committee on any change of status 
and/or new information, to comply with WTO transparency provisions and to notify the revised text 
through the TBT Committee.  
3.46.   The representative of Ukraine  remained c oncerned with Russia's certification requirements for 
alcohol drinks, from a substantive technical context and in view of the administrative burden for 
exporters. Ukraine reiterated its request to Russia to update Members about the alcohol regulations 
to remove unjustified technical barriers to trade. Finally, taking into consideration the information 
provided by the Russian Federation to the Committee meeting in June 2018 regarding the approval 
of the draft technical regulations by the end of 2018, Ukraine  requested Russia to provide information 
on outcomes of the meeting of the Eurasian Economic Commission board and any developments 
made regarding the adoption of the technical regulation.  
3.47.   The representative of Guatemala  requested Russia to provide Members  with information on 
the status and progress made from the meetings held throughout the Eurasian area to review the 
comments received on the technical regulation.  
The representative of the Russian Federation  responded to the concerns r aised by WTO 
Members by repeating  its statement delivered at previous Committee meeting s.16 He noted that the 
draft technical regulation was being discussed internally within the Eurasian Economic Union and 
would be published on the Commission's website after approval by the board of the Eurasian 
Economic Commission. He added that at the previou s Committee meeting interested Members were 
asked to request the draft technical regulation in order to receive feedback on its development. His 
delegation further noted that no requests had been received.  
3.4.5   Republic of Korea — Regulation on Registration and  Evaluation of Chemical Material , 
G/TBT/N/KOR/305 , G/TBT/N/KOR/305/Add.1 , G/TBT/N/KOR/478 , G/TBT/N/KOR/547 , 
G/TBT/N/KOR/592 , G/TBT/N/KOR/700 , G/TBT/N/KOR/775  (IMS ID 30517)  
The representative of the United States  raised concerns  with Korea's Regulation on 
Registration and Evaluation of Chemical Materials. The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/594 . 
The representative of the Republic of Korea  thanked the US for its interest and comments on 
the regulation. Regarding discordance between AREC (the Act on Registration and Evaluation of 
Chemical Substances) and ISHA (the Korea Industrial Safety & Health Act), he said the enforcement 
rule of ISHA wa s currently under review. Therefore, companies did not need to submit additional 
reports of new chemical substances if already registered in accordance with AREC. In addition, to 
resolve discrepancies between the two regulations, the relevant Korean minist ries were currently 
reviewing the resolution method. Korea planned to offer English versions of guidelines on AREC to 
relevant industries, after finalizing subsequent laws and notices of AREC. Regarding the request for 
CBI protection, Korea asked that Memb ers submit examples of refusals in written form so that they 
                                                
15 For previous statements follow the thread un der IMS ID 332  (under dates raised and references) . 
16 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.53;  G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.75; and G/TBT/M/73 , para. 2.30.  
17 For previous statem ents follow the thread under IMS ID 305 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 11 - 
 
  could be reviewed closely. Lastly, regarding the issue of transparency, he assured the Committee 
that the subsequent laws of CCA (the Chemical Control Act) would be notified so as to collect the 
opinions of foreign stakeholders. Korea would continue to cooperate with stakeholders on the 
regulation in a transparent manner.  
3.4.6   Indonesia — Technical Guidelines for the Implementation of the Adoption and 
Supervision of Indonesian National Standards for O bligatory Toy Safety, G/TBT/N/IDN/64 , 
G/TBT/N/IDN/64  Add.1 -2 (IMS ID 32 818) 
The representative of the European Union  reiterated previously raised concerns.19 
The representative of the United States  said that her delegation was deeply disappointed by 
the lack of substantive progress on multiple technical issues, despite dialogue  stretching back to 
2014 and commitments from Indonesia to address US concerns. The US asked for an update on the 
status of the latest revisions and corresponding implementation guidelines, since it was their 
understanding that the Ministry of Industry had  revised the Ministerial Regulation in the fall of 2018. 
The US once again urged Indonesia to notify the subsequent draft of the regulation to the WTO at 
an early enough stage so that all stakeholders could provide comments, which could then be taken 
into account. From the March 2018 TBT Committee meeting, it was not clear how the revision of the 
regulation would treat the government -to-government (G2G) mutual recognition agreement (MRA) 
requirement for acceptance of foreign lab test results. She asked whet her Indonesia intended to 
remove the MRA requirement in the next revision of the regulation and urged Indonesia to allow toy 
testing to be performed by any ILAC/MLA -accredited laboratory on a permanent basis, without 
requiring a G2G MRA. The US saw no basi s for Indonesia to require an MRA for the recognition of 
US labs. Furthermore, it was the understanding of the US that some foreign labs were permitted to 
perform toy testing provided that they had an agreement in place with an LSPro – a product 
certificat ion body in Indonesia. The US asked for further details on the arrangement and on what 
would be required for a US lab to establish an agreement with an LSPro in Indonesia. The US also 
asked for an update on Indonesia 's deliberations on testing frequency, f or which the same treatment 
needed to apply to importers and domestic producers. Importers were still subject to testing for 
every shipment while domestic industry products were tested once every six months, which was 
unacceptable. Therefore, the US wished  to see changes to testing frequency reflected in the 
subsequent revision of the Ministerial Regulation.  
The representative of Japan  expressed support for the positions of the EU and the US 
regarding the Indonesian toy regulation. In the previous TBT meeti ng, Indonesia had explained that 
it had started the revision process for the toy regulation in June 2018 and had already conducted 
consultations among certain interested parties several times. However, the proposed draft of the 
revision had not yet been su bject to formal public comments. Japan asked Indonesia to announce 
the proposed revision to the regulation as early as possible and notify the WTO with sufficient time 
until the date of entry into force. Since the end of April 2016, the operators had not b een able to 
use overseas laboratories, resulting in an increase in testing costs and serious delays in exports. 
Therefore, Japan requested that Indonesia revise the laboratory accreditation requirement for 
overseas laboratories and accept testing results c onducted by them. Regarding testing frequency, 
while domestic products were subject to testing every six months, for imported products, testi ng 
had to be conducted for each and every import shipment. Japan asked Indonesia to revise the 
regulation and remov e the discriminatory treatment.  
The representative of Indonesia  said that the revised standard had recently been published 
and that the review process had reached the final steps. Several public consultations had been 
conducted along the process. Indonesia  had carefully noted, discussed, and examined all inputs, not 
only from domestic stakeholders but also from foreign partners. Indonesia paid special attention to 
the type of certification scheme, including the issue of sampling method. As part of the revis ion, 
Indonesia would give all parties more flexibility to meet the sampling method requirement(s). The 
final draft would be notified once finalized internally . 
                                                
18 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 328  (under dates raised and references) . 
19 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.56;  and statement circulated in full in G/TBT/W/482 . G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 12 - 
 
  3.4.7   European Union — Draft Implementing Regulatio ns amending Regulation 
(EC) No. 607/2009 laying dow n detailed rules for the applicatio n of Council Regulation 
(EC) No  479/2008 as regards protected designations of origin and geographical 
indications, traditional terms, labelling and presentation of certain wine sector products , 
G/TBT/N/EEC/264 , G/TBT/N/EEC/264/Add.1 , G/TBT/N/EU/571  (IMS ID 34520) 
The representative of the United States  shared her delegation's disappointment that, due to 
the EU's persistent failure to provide any information, it was necessary to once again raise this 
concern. At the previous TBT Committee meeting, the EU had not been able to provide a precise 
timeline for the approval of pending applications for tra ditional terms. She asked why it was not 
possible to provide any estimate or to provide information on the stage the applications were at. 
The US understood that one explanation was that there had been further work revising the relevant 
regulations. She as ked why the EU had not used the opportunity of the review and revision of the 
notified measure to include timelines and greater transparency with respect to traditional terms, as 
had been done for geographical indications where some timelines and transpare ncy had been 
provided. Assuming the EU did not plan to retroactively apply the new regulation to applications that 
had been lodged eight years previously, she asked the EU to confirm what rules applied to those 
applications. She said it would be helpful if  the EU be transparent about what had been done with 
respect to other applications so as to allow the US to see how US applications compared. In particular 
she asked that the EU share information on: how many applications for traditional terms had been 
lodged over the last eight years; how many of those applications had been approved, rejected or 
remain pending; what was the average time between application and a final decision; for pending 
applications, how long had they been waiting; and how many of the a pplications had come from 
member States. It was clear that US concerns with the revised measure went beyond traditional 
terms. They also related to EU efforts to restrict producers from using common descriptive tools 
such as "barrel aged" and certain wine bottle shapes for wine with geographical indicators when 
labelling and marketing their products. As the EU had notified the revised draft regulation, the US 
hoped that applications would be expeditiously approved, allowing for this longstanding item being 
removed from the Committee 's agenda.  
The representative of Argentina  raised concerns with the EU's regulations on protected 
designations of origin and geographical indications, traditional terms, labelling and presentation of 
certain wine sector products . The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/562 . 
The representative of Brazil supported the concerns raised by the US and Argentina. The 
terms contained in the regulation also affected Brazilian wine producers. The fact that the EU was 
still analysing the dossiers after over a decade showed that this measure was a non -tariff bar rier 
and didn't pursue any legitimate objective under the TBT Agreement. He requested that the EU share 
any updated information and the estimated time -frame related to the use of regulated terms for 
wines exported to the EU in Regulation (EC) No. 607/2009 and Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 
and revised regulations notified under G/TBT/N/EU/570  and G/TBT/N/EU/571 . 
The representative of the European Union  informed the Committee that an internal 
assessment on traditional terms had been undertaken with stakehold ers and experts from EU 
member S tates. This was in accordance with Article 114(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 
establishing a common o rganization of the m arkets in agricultural products . It was now part of the 
Draft Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) laying down rules for the application of Regulation 
(EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council and notified in G/TBT/N/EU/571 . 
The pending applications for traditional terms were still  under consideration and no precise timeline 
could be provided.  
                                                
20 For previ ous statements fo llow the thread under IMS ID 345  (under dates raised and references) . 
 G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 13 - 
 
  3.4.8   India — Electronics and Information Technology Goods (Requirements for 
Compulsory Registration) Order, 2012 , G/TBT/N/IND/44 , G/TBT/N/IND/44  Add.1 -5, 
G/TBT/N/IND/47 , G/TBT/N/IND/47 /Add.1 -3, G/TBT/N/IND/47/Add.1/Corr.1  (IMS ID 36721) 
The representative s of the European Union  and the United States  reiterated previ ously raised 
concerns .22  
The representative of Canada  supported the interventions made the EU and US . 
The representative of India responded to concerns raised. The full state ment is contained in 
G/TBT/W/583 . 
3.4.9   European Union — Revised Proposal for the Categorization of Com pounds as 
Endocrine Disruptors of 19 February 2013 by DG Environment G/TBT/N/EU/383 , 
G/TBT/N/EU/383/Add.1 , G/TBT/N/EU/384 , G/TBT/N/EU/384/Add.1 , G/SPS/N/EU/166 , 
G/SPS/N/EU/166/Add.1  (IMS ID 39323) 
The representatives of Canada  and Argentina  raised concerns with the EU's Revised Proposal 
for the Categorization of Compounds as Endocrine Disruptors. The full statements are contained in 
G/TBT/W/588  and G/TBT/W/563 , respectively.  
The representative of the United States  reiterated previously raised concerns regarding the 
EU's hazard -based approach to pesticide regulation and its implementation of criteria for identifying 
and banning endocrine -active substances.24 In addition t he US noted that the EU had not expla ined 
its objectives and stated that identifying hazards without identifying a scertainable risks or 
considering reasonable methods for managing risk may be more trade -restrictive than necessary.  
The representative of Australia  reiterated his delegation's position regarding the EU 's new 
regulation of setting criteria for the identif ication of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). He noted 
that while the April 2018 European Commission regulation for the identification of EDCs used in 
pesticides had been  discussed in the Plants, Animals, Food and Feed meeting of 23 -24 October 2018, 
his delegation was not aware of any change to the implementation date of 10 November 2018. His 
delegation would continue to engage with the EU to understand and minimise the impact of the 
regulation on its trade with Europe.  
The representative of Costa Rica  supported the concerns raised by other Members and 
reiterated that her delegation remained concerned with the approach adopted by the EU in 
Regulation 1077/EU. Costa Rica was of the view that it was a decision based on hazard criteria the 
use of the regula tion was based on risk assessment for endocrine disruptors. Costa Rica requested 
the EU to clarify whether it was based on sound scientific evidence.  
The representative of Colombia  supported the concerns raised by other Members and 
reiterated her delegatio n's position that the EU policy should take into account scientific evidence as 
well as processes and methods of production, the Codex Alimentarius and other international 
standards, and ecological and environmental factors that may be affected by that mea sure. Colombia 
requested the EU to establish criteria that were based on risk based assessment in order to avoid 
any unnecessary trade barriers.  
The representative of Brazil  supported the concerns raised by the United States, Canada and 
Argentina and stat ed that regulation on endocrine disruptors should be established according to 
scientific principles, taking all available data into consideration. The representative of Brazil stated 
that his delegation was of the view that prohibiting the use of a substan ce based on its potential 
impact on the endocrine system without sound scientific evidence would create inaccurate safety 
concerns and cause unnecessary trade restrictions. In addition, Brazil stated that the use of improper 
evidence would result in the id entification of endocrine active compounds that were not relevant to 
human health or the environment, and further that evaluations must be able to separate chemicals 
                                                
21 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 367  (under dates raised and references) . 
22 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.66 and statement circulated in full in G/TBT/W/484 ; and G/TBT/M/75 , 
para. 4.67 and  G/TBT/M/74 , para.  2.89. 
23 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 3 93 (under dates raised and references) . 
24 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.71 and  statement circulated in full in G/TBT/W/541  G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 14 - 
 
  that had the potential to cause harm due to their endocrine mode of action from those subs tances 
that did not pose a threat to human health. Finally, the representative of Brazil reiterated his 
delegation's position that the setting in the EU of MRLs and tolerance levels of those substances 
should be addressed according to the principles of the  SPS Agreement.  
The representative of Thailand  supported the concerns raised by other Members and 
reiterated previously raised concerns with the EU's hazard -based approach for identifying substances 
as endocrine disruptors. Her delegation was of the view t hat such criteria would result in the banning 
of more substances than before and this would constitute a disguised restriction on international 
trade. Thailand requested the EU to recognize the importance of risk assessment criteria to establish 
MRLs and i mport tolerance of endocrine disrupting pesticides according to the potency of substance 
and exposure assessment. Finally, Thailand requested the EU to adopt existing international 
standards to minimize the adverse impact on trade and to develop the draft criteria for derogation 
by determining the meaning and criteria for negligible risk and notify it to WTO for comments.  
The representative of Guatemala  remained concerned with the EU policy of setting up criteria 
for endocrine disruptors because her delega tion was of the view that these must be based on risk 
criteria and further, that the EU approach lacked any scientific basis as it was solely based on hazard. 
In addition, Guatemala clarified that as a tropical country, the use of certain products would st em 
from the specific climate conditions in Guatemala and from climate change and requested the EU to 
clarify the other options that they were considering in order to avoid any new barriers to trade for 
agricultural exports. The representative of Guatemala reiterated that her delegation remained 
concerned with the EU's efforts to reduce the residue limits of Iprodione as the latest notification 
from the EU to the SPS Committee ( G/SPS/N/EU/263 ) indicated that the MRL of Iprodione would be 
the limit determined under the provisions of para.1 Article 14 and Article 17 of EC Regulat ion 
396/2005. In addition, Guatemala reminded Members of the cancellation of national authorizations 
for SPS products that contained the active substance in the EU and stated that national 
authorizations for SPS products that contained that active ingredie nt were annulled under the 
implementation Regulation 2017/2091 of the Commission of 14 November 2017, that dealt with the 
non-renewal of the active substance Iprodione and notified also to the TBT Committee 
(G/TBT/N/EU/495 ). Finally, Guatemala requested the EU to clarify how that measure would reach 
its legitimate objective, how the EU would ensure that such measures do not create any unnecessary 
trade restrictions and how the impact on trade from these measures would be kept to a minimum 
in line with the SPS Agreement. The representative of Guatemala stressed that this measur e should 
not lead to a negative impact on trade for developing countries.  
The representative of Panama  raised concerns regarding the EU criteria for MRLs of endocrine 
disruptors. Although every Member was free to take measures to protect the health of citi zens and 
the environment, these should not constitute unnecessary barriers to trade. Panama noted that the  
new maximum undetectable trace levels for the EU were equivalent to prohibiting the product. His 
delegation was of the view that there was no t enough  scientific basis for that prohibition since it was 
based on a hazard approach assessment that was detrimental to various economies. Panama said 
these new limits would impact a whole series of products, and requested the EU to adopt a risk 
analysis approac h to ensure that the limits were in line with recognized international standards such 
as Codex to avoid adverse impact on international trade.  
The representative of New Zealand  remained  concerned that the EU's hazard -based approach 
to regulating substance s identified as endocrine disruptors posed an unnecessary barrier to trade 
and requested the EU to provide an update on plans to implement the derogation.  
The representative of Paraguay  expressed her delegation's view that the use of the hazard -
based approach would lead to unnecessary trade restrictions, and could not be reconciled with 
standards set forth by WHO. She stated that Paraguay was concerned about the negative effects 
that this would have for producers and requested the EU to ensure th at the criteria that prevail ed 
concerning tolerance for imports was based on a comprehensive risk assessment . 
The representative of Uruguay  supported the concerns raised by other Members  and affirmed 
his delegation's willingness in hearing the EU's respons es to those concerns.  
The representative of Ecuador  supported the concerns raised by other Members and stated 
that her delegation was concerned about the uncertainty generated by the measure imposed by the G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 15 - 
 
  EU, in view of the impact that it would have on ce rtain production sectors on which hundreds and 
thousands of families depend ed on economically.  
The representative of India recalled previously raised concerns regarding the EU Regulation 
on Endocrine Disruptors. India had expressed serious concerns on the  EU Regulation on a number 
of occasions, including meetings in Brussels. I ndia stated that globally, risk -based approaches were 
used to regulate pesticides but noted that some countries required both hazard - and risk -based 
approaches to enable decision -making. In addition, India noted that while a risk -based approach 
considered the exposure assessment of pesticides, the hazard -based approach regulated substance 
based on their intrinsic properties, without taking account of the exposure to the substance. Ind ia 
was of the view that such a departure from fundamental principles of the scientific risk assessment 
framework for regulatory decision -making without identifying the actual risk would not improve 
public health or environmental protection, but would have adverse consequences for sustainable 
agricultural production due to the removal of crop protection tools from the market, despite their 
established safety in use. Furthermor e, India stated that different risk m anagement responses by 
countries in regulating  endocrine disrupting chemicals as pesticides would not lead to any objective 
gains in respect of food safety but would only lead to trade disruption. India therefore stated that it 
would be necessary to develop guidelines that would facilitate Members to take risk management 
decisions to deal with EDCs as pesticides in order to overcome unnecessary trade barriers. Finally, 
India requested the EU to withdraw the hazard -based measure or consider other options available 
within the WTO SPS framework.  
The repr esentative of the European Union  responded that the scientific criteria used to identify 
endocrine disruptors for biocides and pesticides were now in place and that they would be applicable 
from 7 June 2018 for biocides (Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/2100 ) and for pesticides from 10 
November 2018 onwards (Regulation (EU) 2018/605).  In addition, the EU stated that the criteria for 
pesticides and biocides were the same in  practice and ensured a harmoniz ed approach that was 
based on the WHO definition of endo crine disruptors and required consideration of all relevant 
scientific information (including scientific publications), as well as the application of a weight of 
evidence approach. Furthermore, the EU stated t hat discussions with EU member S tates regarding  
the act of including the technical amendment to the clause on negligible exposure for plant protection 
products were resumed. She explained that n o qualified majority of member S tates at the meetings 
of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed held on 19 -20 July and 23 -24 October 
were in favour of such an amendment. Consequently, the EU clarified that no further discussions 
would  be held but reiterated her delegation's commitment to act in full transparency and to keep 
Members informed abou t further developments.  
3.4.10   Russian Federation — Safety of products for children and adolescents , 
G/TBT/N/RUS/29  (IMS ID 41825) 
The representative of the European Union  recalled that since 2014, her delegation had been 
requesting the Russian authorities to provide information on whether the EU comments issued in 
February 2014 on t he notification G/TBT/N/RUS/29  had been considered. To date the EU had not 
received a reply to these comments. She noted that a final measure, adopted in April 2017, and 
notified to the WTO in September 2018, was currently being analysed by the EU. She referred to 
Russia's explanation that the adopted Amendment 2 of the measure prohibited the use of "artificial 
leather" in insoles for children's shoes and that the related EAEU standard provided definitions for 
"artificial leather", "synthetic leather" and "composition leather"; did Amen dment 2 prohibit all three 
materials? The EU raised concern that these definitions deviated from international standards and 
practices (ICT, ISO and CEN) and were likely to create confusion between genuine leather and textile 
products, notably considering that the definition of "artificial leather" in the EAEU standard seemed 
to correspond to synthetic textiles. In her delegation's view, the prohibition of the use of such 
materials in insoles for children 's shoes would mean a ban on the use of synthetic or artificial 
materials, regardless of their chemical content and without any justified pursued health or safety 
objectives.    
The representative of the Russian Federation  informed the Committee that amendment No.2 
to the EAEU technical regulation on safety o f products for children and adolescents had entered into 
force on 25 September 2018. Addressing the EU's main concern regarding the use of artificial 
                                                
25 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 418  (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 16 - 
 
  materials in lining and insoles for children's shoes, he confirmed that the amendments allowed for 
the use  of all such artificial materials, except for artificial leather.  
3.4.11   Thailand — Draft Notification of the Alcoholic Beverages Control, Re: Rules, 
Procedure and condition for Labels of Alcoholic Beverages, issued under B.E. , 
G/TBT/N/THA/437  (IMS ID 42726) 
The representative of the European Union  raised concerns with Thailand's Ru les, Procedure 
and condition for Labels of Alcoholic Beverages. The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/568 . 
The representative of Japan , referring to Thailand's explanation at the previous meeting that 
three stakeholder consultations had been held, sought latest information on the measure including 
the schedule of those cons ultations, and requested that Members' comments be taken into account.  
The representative of New Zealand  acknowledged and supported Thailand's right to introduce 
new regulations to address specific public health concerns and appreciated that in seeking to address 
the harmful use of alcohol the technical regulation was directed towards achieving a legitimate public 
health objective. Nevertheless, her delegation remained concerned that the labelling requirements 
in their current form were unclear and may be d ifficult to implement in practice. Thailand was invited 
to update Members on progress on any intended revisions to the provisions and implementing 
guidelines.  
The representative of Guatemala , whilst acknowledging the need to protect the health of 
consumers  and supporting the legitimate objective of Thailand to reduce the levels of alcohol 
consumption amongst its population, considered that the measure may be more restrictive than 
necessary. She recalled that at the June 2018 meeting, Thailand had reported o n the review of the 
second version of the technical document and the evaluation  plan for the regulation. In this regard, 
her delegation requested further information concerning the comments received from the three 
sessions of consultations held. Thailand h ad also reported that it would be carrying out a long -term 
evaluation of the regulation; her delegation requested clarification concerning the date for that 
evaluation as well as results thereof. Finally, Guatemala asked if another public consultation woul d 
be held for a better clarification of the labelling requirements.  
The representative of Argentina  voiced agreement with the concerns raised and said that his 
delegation was closely following the legislative developments taking place in Thailand, includin g 
those concerning the alignment of the technical requirements in question.  
The representative of Thailand  responded to the concerns raised. The full statement is 
contained in G/TBT/W/586 . 
3.4.12   China — Regulations for the Supervision and Administration of Medical Devices 
(Order No. 650 of the State Council) , G/TBT/N/CHN/1022 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1023 , 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1024 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1025 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1026 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1029  (IMS ID 
42827) 
The representative of the Republic of Korea  reiterated concerns on the Chinese regulations 
regarding medical devices.28 The draft of the 'Amendments to the Medical Devices Supervision and 
Administration Regulations ' published in June 2018 by the  Ministry of Justice of China, indicated that 
China would recognize "self-inspection reports or inspection reports issued by qualified medical 
device inspection institutions entrusted in licensing Class 2 or Class 3 medical devices ". Korea 
requested China to include internationally -accredited or other competent laboratories outside of 
China as "qualified medical device inspection institutions entrusted " in its regulations.  
The representative of the European Union  raised concerns with China's regulation for the 
supervision and administration of medical devices. The full state ment is contained in G/TBT/W/569 . 
                                                
26 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 427  (under dates raised and references) . 
27 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 428  (under dates raised and references) . 
28 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.94.  
 G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 17 - 
 
  
The representative of China  said detailed explanation for most of the questions raised had 
been provided in previous meetings.29 In January 2018, China's Food and Drug Administration 
(CFDA) had released a guideline, with instructions on the acceptance of the clinical trials results of 
medical devices overseas as clinical evaluation materials. This guideline was to reduce duplication 
of clinical trials and speed up the marketing process. With rega rd to concerns about the short 
transitional period, long approval time and burdensome information, the regulation had simplified 
further the requirements for registration. Firstly, to set up and improve the classification measures, 
medical devices were cla ssified into three categories, based on the level of risk. Secondly, to simplify 
the requirements for clinical trials, certain devices w ere exempt from clinical trials, and t hirdly, to 
simplify the re -registration requirements . Following  this regulation, C FDA had published an 
implementation notice, providing a one -year transition period, and had offered some transitional 
measures for registration.  
In September 2018, the National Medical Products Administration published the new revised 
list for medical dev ices exempted from clinical trials, which included 1248 medical devices. This 
included 855 medical devices and 393 in vitro diagnostic reagents (IVD reagents). This increased 
the exemptions by 84 medical devices and 277 IVD reagents.  
3.4.13   Kingdom of Saudi Arabi a, Kingdom of Bahrain, State of Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, 
United Arab Emirates, Yemen — The Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf 
Draft Technical Regulation for "Requirements of Handling Energy Drinks" , 
G/TBT/N/ARE/262 , G/TBT/N/QAT/389 , G/TBT/N/SAU/669 , G/TBT/N/ARE/299 , G/TBT/N/BHR/426 , 
G/TBT/N/KWT/309 , G/TBT/N/OMN/23 8, G/TBT/N/QAT/423 , G/TBT/N/SAU/910 , G/TBT/N/YEM/29 , 
G/TBT/N/ARE/301 , G/TBT/N/BHR/428 , G/TBT/N/KWT/311 , G/TBT/N/OMN/240 , G/TBT/N/QAT/425 , 
G/TBT/N/SAU/912 , G/TBT/N/YEM/31  (IMS ID 44230) 
The represe ntatives of the European Union  and Switzerland  reiterated previously raised 
concerns.31 
The representative of the United States  supported the concerns raised by others. The US had 
submitted comments in 2015 and 2016. She requested that consideration be give n to the remaining 
previously mentioned concerns, in particular regarding the size and content of warning labels, as 
well as container size limitations. The GCC had not provided any technical information supporting 
the effort to regulate these products, no r information regarding the GCC 's concerns with energy 
drinks. It was the US' understanding that these regulations were still being developed and requested 
an update on the status of the regulatory process. The US welcomed further collaboration and 
bilater al engagement and thanked Saudi Arabia and Gulf Cooperation Council Members for their 
consideration of the concerns raised.  
The representative of the State of Kuwait , on behalf of the GCC, reported that the GCC  GSO 
was still drafting the regulation based on comments received by Members. Since the last meeting, 
no updates had been received from the GSO on this matter.  
3.4.14   European Union — Common Criteria for Information Technology Security 
Evaluation (Common Criteria) certification in the EU  (IMS ID 44832) 
The representative of China  reiterated previously raised concerns.33 
The representative of the European Union  repeated the responses provided at previous 
Committee meetings.34  
                                                
29 G/TBT/M/70 , paras. 2.160 -2.161.  
30 For pr evious statements follow the thread under IMS ID 442  (under dates raised and references) . 
31 G/TBT/M/75 , para.  4.96 and statement circulated in full in G/TBT/W/489 ; G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.9 7, 
G/TBT/M/74 , para.  2.89, respectively.  
32 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 448  (under dates raised and refere nces) . 
33 G/TBT/M/75 , para  4.99; G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.120; and G/TBT/M/73 , para. 2.85.  
34 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.100; G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.121; and statement circulated in full in G/TBT/W/490 .  
 G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 18 - 
 
  3.4.15   China — Administrative Measure on Cosmetics Labelling (AMCL) , 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1064  (IMS ID 45635)  
The representative of Japan  reiterated previously raised  concerns.36 She requested that China 
give due consideration to the concerns on labelling requirements. Since 2015, Japan had requested 
that manufacturer labelling should only present the information of the company with final legal 
responsibility; that for cosmetics efficacy claims, testing results should not be disclosed as it could 
include confidential information; and, that the "efficacy assessment testing organizations" should 
not be limited to institutions located in China. Test results obtained by over seas institutes or in -
house laboratories should be accepted.  
The representative of the European Union  reiterate previously raised concerns.37 
The representative of New Zealand reiterated previously raised concerns .38 
The representative of China  repeated the  response provided at previous Committee 
meetings.39  
3.4.16   China — Registration Fees for Drugs and Medical Device Products (IMS ID 46640) 
The representative s of the Republic of Korea  and Australia  reiterated previously raised 
concerns regarding China's discriminatory registration fees for drugs and medical device products.41 
The representative of China  repeated the response provided at the previous Committee 
meeting.42 
3.4.17   China — Interim Measures for Quality Management of Commercial Coal 
(IMS  ID 47743) 
3.100.   The rep resentative of Australia  reiterated  previously raised concerns .44 China was Australia 's 
second largest coal export market and  Australia  was a reliable, long -term supplier of high quality 
coal. 
3.101.   The representative of China  informed the Committee that the Inte rim Measures for Quality 
Management of Commercial Coal had entered into force in January 2015. Both imported coal and 
the domestic coal in China were required to meet the same standards as set out in the measures. 
Under China's laws and regulations, import ed goods were subject to inspection by China's Entry -Exit 
Inspection and Quarantine Bureau. This legal inspection could not be replaced by third -party 
inspection. The goods in bulk should be inspected in the unloaded port, pre -shipment inspection 
could not replace the legal inspection of goods in bulk in the port of entry.  
3.4.18   India — The Stainless  Steel Products (Quality Control) Order, 2015 , 
G/TBT/N/IND/50  (IMS  ID 48645) 
The representative of the European Union  raised concerns with India's Stainless Steel 
Products Quality Control. The full statement  is contained in G/TBT/W/570 . 
                                                
35 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 456  (under dates raised and references) . 
36 G/TBT/M/75 , para.  4.101 . 
37 G/TBT/M/75  para. 4.102; G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.123; and statement circulated in full in  G/TBT/W/491   
38 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.104; G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.124; G/TBT/M/73 , para. 2.91; G/TBT/M/72 , para. 
3.144; and G/TBT/M/71 , para. 2.155.  
39 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.105.  
40 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 4 66 (under dates raised and references) . 
41 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.106; and G/TBT/M/74 , paras. 2.126 and 2.127 , respectively . 
42 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.107;  and G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.128 . 
43 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 477  (under dates raised and references) . 
44 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.108.  
45 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 486  (under dates raised and references) . 
 G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 19 - 
 
  
The representative of India responded to the  concerns raised. The full statement is contained 
in G/TBT/W/584 . 
3.4.19   India — Draft Food Safety and Standards (Alcoholic Beverages Standards) 
Regulations, 2015 , G/TBT/N/IND/51 , G/SPS/N/IND/119  (IMS ID 49446) 
3.104.   The representative of the European Union  reiterated previously raised concerns.47  
The representative of Japan  requested that India provide the latest information on the 
timeline of the adoption and entry into force of the measure.  
The representative of India responded to the concerns raised. The full statement is contained 
in G/TBT/W/585 . 
3.4.20   Indonesia — Halal Product Assurance Law No. 33 of 2014 (IMS ID 50248) 
3.107.   The representative of the European Union  raised concerns with Indonesia's Halal Product 
Assurance Law. The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/571 . 
The representative of the United States  said that the US recogniz ed the importance to 
Indonesian c onsumers of knowing whether products were halal and wanted to work with Indonesia 
to ensure the law as implemented achieved this objective without creating any unnecessary barriers 
to trade. Given that the draft of the implementing regulation on Halal Prod uct Assurance would soon 
be signed and issued, she request ed that Indonesia notify this draft regulation to the TBT Committee 
prior to finalization  so as to allow  time for comments from stakeholders and to take those comments 
into consideration.  She also request ed that a sufficient transition time for stakeholders to provide 
feedback on, understand, and comply with requirements  be provided.  
She asked that Indonesia confirm that th e most recent version of the draft implementing 
regulation would allow for pha sed implementation of the Halal Law 's mandatory halal certification 
requirements, and that Indonesia would  continue to allow the s ale of non -certified products.  She 
also asked that Indonesia provide additional information about when halal certification requirements 
would  be applied to non -food and beverage products (including personal care products, cosmetics, 
and pharmaceuticals). She thank ed Indonesia for extending the recognition of foreign halal 
certification bodies so that halal -certified agricultural products entering Indonesia c ould continue 
uninterrupted during the  transition time and with implementation regulations still pending 
finalization. She r equest ed that Indonesia prov ide clear guidance on the government agency 
responsible for halal certification during the transition and phased implementation.    
Concerns remained with any mandatory requirement that both "halal" and "non-halal" 
products be labelled. While support ing providing consumers with the necessary informa tion to make 
informed decisions, mandating labels for both halal and non -halal information would  create confusion 
for consumers and be costly and challenging for both foreign and domestic companies to implement.  
The registration requirement for foreign halal certificates included in the implementing regulation 
for importers was cumbersome, duplicative, and more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve 
the objectives. These registration requirements did not seem to apply to local products. She 
requested this registration requirement be modified to reflect the fact that Indonesia 's Halal Product 
Assurance Agency ( "BPJPH ") would already be conducting verifications of foreign halal agencies 
issuing halal certificates  for imported goods.  
The representative of Brazil  shared the concerns raised by the EU and the US. Along with 
other Members, Brazil had reservations about the time -frame and the process of implementation of 
the law, which  would require  halal certificates for products traded in Indonesia in  2019 and onwards. 
Brazil thanked  Indonesia for having partially clarified, in the last meeting of the TBT Committee , that 
"non-halal" labelling for products containing "non-halal" substances  would not be necessary . He 
requested that Indonesia further clarify this understanding o f its new legislation, as well as the 
                                                
46 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 494  (under dates raised and references) . 
47 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.112; G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.140; and statement circulated in full in G/TBT/W/495 . 
48 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS I D 502 (under dates raised and references) . 
 G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 20 - 
 
  possibility of coexistence of halal and non -halal products. He also asked that an  update be provided 
on any recent developments on the  internal discussion s and the intention to notify this measure to 
the TBT Committee.  
The representative of Australia  reiterated previously raised concerns .49  
The representative of Indonesia  emphasized that Law No 33/2014 did not prohibit the sale 
and circulation of non -halal products, but rather underscored the importance of providing certainty  
on halal products. As the WTO M ember with the largest Muslim population, Indonesia needed to 
ensure the information on products circulated in the market was sufficient for assuring hala l integrity. 
Hence, the necessity to ensure the differentiation of halal and non -halal products to appease 
concerns from domestic stakeholders.  
For the implementation of Law no 33/2014, Indonesia needed the implementing regulation 
for operating the halal product assurance system. Government institutions were still discussing the 
following: the stages of products scope implementation covering food and beverages, and products 
other than food and beverages; If it was sufficient to provide non -halal informatio n in the form of 
pictures, marks and/or a statement where it was not necessary to put non -halal label for products 
containing non -halal substance s. This provision would take in to account protection and human right 
of vulnerable group particularly disabled people; and, Mutual Recognition Arrangements (MRAs) for 
halal certification scheme for consideration in product acceptance.  
Finally, he assured the Committee that the implementation of this Law would not limit the 
freedom of society to choose desired produ cts and that the Regulation would be in line with  the TBT 
Agreement.  
3.4.21   China — Formula Registration Regulation for Infant and Follow -up Formula, 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1165  (IMS ID 49350)  
The representative of the European Union  reiterated previously raised concerns.51 He 
requested that China ex tend existing marketing authoriz ations of products that are on the market 
and for which applications under the new rules are still pending.  
The representative of the United States  supported the issues raised by the EU. The US 
remained concerned with implementation requirements for registration of infant formula as had been 
noted in previous interventions. At the previous Committee meeting, China had indicated that more 
information would be made available by the current meeting. The US looked forward to receiving 
this information from the Chinese de legation.  
The representative of China  informed the Committee that this concern had been repeatedly 
raised in both the SPS and TBT Committees where most of the questions had been an swered. She 
made three points: f irstly, the Food Safety Law of China revised  in 2015 required registration of 
formulas of infant formula milk powder and the formula R&D report as well as other data to prove 
the formula was scientific and safe. The new registration measures stipulated that the examining 
agency would review the appl ication data, perform on -site inspectio n on the applicant on a case -by-
case basis, and conduct sampling inspections. This was to verify the authenticity of the data provided 
and the production capacity. It had happened that some companies withdrew their re gistration 
request when asked for on -site assessment and complaints regarding non -compliance had been 
received. Secondly, she confirmed that domestic and foreign companies were treated equally. 
Thirdly, concerning specific requirements, the former CFDA (no w the State Administration for Market 
Regulation) had issued several corresponding rules for the new regime, including the "Key Points for 
On-site Inspection and Judgment Principles of Product Formula Registration of Infant Formula Milk 
Powder (for Trial)" , and the "Items and Requirements of Product Formula Registration Application 
Documents of Infant Formula Milk Powder (for Trial)". Further details were available on the CFDA 
website.  
                                                
49 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.121.  
50 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 493  (under dates raised and references).  
51 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.123.  
 G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 21 - 
 
  3.4.22   Russian Federation – Rules of cement certification, G/TBT/N/RUS/48 , 
G/TBT/N/RUS/49  (IMS ID 49752) 
3.119.   The representative of the European Union  raised concern with the Russian Federation's Rules 
of Cement Certification. The full state ment is contained in G/TBT/W/572 . 
3.120.   The representative of Ukraine reiterated previously raised concerns. He said the Russian 
Federation's certification requirements for cement were clearly overly trade -restrictive and could 
contravene Article  5 of the TBT Agreement. At the previous meeting Russia had  informed the 
Committee that the draft amendments to the rules would be adopted by the end of summer 2018. 
Ukraine requested that Russia provide information on any developments made regarding the 
improvement of the application of the conformity assessment procedure for shi pments of cement 
from third countries and restoring conditions to allow for trade in cement again.  
3.121.   The representative of the Russian Federation  referred to the statements delivered at a 
previous Committee meeting .53 The grounds for introducing mandatory certification of cement 
remained the same. The draft amendments N o. 2 to the GOST to eliminate additional inspection 
control was under consideration by the Russian TBT competent authorities. He encouraged Members 
to engage with Russia on a bilateral level.  
3.4.23   Egypt — Manufacturer Registration System (Decree No. 43/2016 and Decree No. 
992/2015) , G/TBT/N/EGY/114 , G/TBT/N/EGY/115  (IMS ID 50554) 
The representative of the European Union  appreciated the exchange of information in the 
TBT Committee and with the competent ministry in Cairo concerning the state of play of the 
registration of EU companies with the Egypt ian authorities  in respect of the two ministerial Decrees 
(No. 991/2015: G/TBT/N/EGY/115  and No. 43/2016: G/TBT/N/EGY/114 ). Nevertheless, th e EU 
stated that t he continued inefficient functioning of the registration system still create d unnecessary 
obstacles to trade and cause d important decrease s in exports  of affected EU goods to Egypt . EU 
industry, in particular SMEs , continue d to report ser ious difficulties with regard to the duplication of 
procedures and  long delays in the registration process, in some cases extending for months or even 
more than a year. She said c eramic sector companies were particularly affected.  For transparency 
purposes, the EU requested Egypt to confirm that  a list of registered companies was publicly 
available, and to indicate where it could be found.  Further, t he EU asked  Egypt for an updated copy 
of the lists of registered EU companies and t he EU companies not yet registered.  
The EU reiterated previously expressed concerns. First, the EU asked Egypt to consider 
suspending the application of the measures, and review them in light of the principles and obligations 
of the WTO law and new notific ation under the TBT Agreement. Second, to improve the operation of 
the current registration system, the EU again invited the Egyptian authorities to consider some 
improvements, for example delegating the decisions on registration requests to sub -ministeria l level, 
setting strict deadlines, creating a publicly accessible online database of registered companies and 
providing an opportunity of appeal to companies in case of refused registration. Third, the EU 
requested that companies, which submitted complete documentation, be registered without further 
delay. Fourth, the EU said the need for repeated registrations by the same companies, for the same 
products, in various registries , should be re -considered. Once a company was listed as 'trusted 
importer' under Decree 991/2015, in the EU's view  this should give enough assurance of the quality 
and safety of its products. Finally, the EU invited the Egyptian authorities to inform the Committee 
on the steps taken to facilitate compliance with the registration requir ements by companies.  
The representatives of Switzerland  and Canada  shared the concerns raised by the EU.  The 
representative of Canada  said Canadian industry stakeholders were concerned that the registration 
requirements imposed by the General Organization of Exports and Import control were overly 
burdensome , creating delays and added costs for their industry.  
The representative of Egypt  explained that since the issuance of the Decree 43/2016 and its 
notification to the TBT Committee, Egypt had engaged with all interested Members in both 
multilateral and bilateral formats. This exercise contributed to Egypt's understanding of Members' 
                                                
52 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 497  (under  dates raised and references).  
53 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.155  
54 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 505  (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 22 - 
 
  concerns and consequently helped to improve the application of Decree 43. Egypt underscored that 
the sole purpose of Decree 43  was monitoring the Egyptian market and protecting Egyptian 
consumers from counterfeit products, and that full consideration had been given to ensure the 
Decree was not more trade restrictive than necessary. In respect of this consideration, imports had 
increased by 14% during the period January -November 2018 compared to the corresponding period 
of 2017 . He stated that Decree 43 was merely administrative in nature  to comply with specific 
technical regulations, without imposing further burdens on producers o r companies, and documents 
required for registration included nothing more than the document any credible entity should hold, 
which had been easily met by more than 2 ,000 exporting companies since the entry into force of 
the Decree. Moreover, Egypt stresse d that it had complied with the TBT transparency requirements 
every step of the process, since notifying the decree to the TBT Committee ( G/TBT/N/EGY/114 ) and 
requiring the concerned authorities to inform the companies in a timely manner whose registration 
is finalized. Egypt believed that Decree 43 was in full compliance wi th its co mmitments under the 
TBT Agreement. He took note of all the comments raised, and would convey them to capital and 
revert to the concerned delegations in due course.  
3.4.24   European Union — Quality Schemes for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs, 
G/TBT/N/EU/139 , G/TBT/N/EU/139/Add.1  and G/TBT/N/EU/593  (IMS ID 51255) 
The representative of the United States  raised concerns with the European Union's Quality 
Schemes for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs.  The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/595 . 
The representative of Uruguay shared the concerns regarding the trade and systemic 
implications of the European Union's protection and registration of the term "danbo" as a protected 
geographical indication – affirmed through the adoption of EU Implementing Regulation 2017/1901 
– to the point that his delegation had raised the issue for consideration at the level of the Council 
for Trade in Goods. He recalled his delegation's previous detailed explanations as to why Uruguay 
considered "danbo" to be a generic term that, as such, was  not eligible for registration as a 
geographical indication and may not have any limitations placed on its use. Indeed, a reading of 
point 7 of the standard CODEX STAN 264, adopted in 1966 and updated several times with the 
participation of the European Un ion and its member States, showed that the members recognized 
"danbo" as a generic term for referring to a good that could be produced in various locations as long 
as it satisfied the requirements set forth in the standard. In light of the foregoing, the E U was 
encouraged to reconsider the measure to avoid creating unnecessary trade restrictions and to take 
due account of the provisions of international Codex standards.  
The representative of the European Union  repeated the response provided in previous TBT 
Committee meetings.56 
3.4.25   The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Pen ghu, Kinmen and Matsu – Draft of 
the Organic Agriculture Act, G/TBT/N/TPKM/225 , G/TBT/N/TPKM/225 /Add.1 -2 (IMS  ID 51157) 
The representative of the European Union  reiterated previously raised concerns.58  
The representative of The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu  
responded that the implementing regulations were still under development and internal consultation 
and would be notified to the WTO for comments once finalized. He thanked the EU for holding 
bilateral discussions to explore arrangements that would address the needs for mutua l trade in 
organic agricultural products and assured of his delegation's continued efforts to work together on 
the matter.  
                                                
55 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 51 2 (under dates raised and references) . 
56 G/TBT/M/75 , paras 4.145 - 4.146 . 
57 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 511  (under dates raised and references) . 
58 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.112; G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.140; and G/TBT/W/495 . 
 G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 23 - 
 
  3.4.26   China — National Standards on Limits of Volatile Organic Compounds for Furniture, 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1094 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1095 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1096  (IMS  ID 50959) 
The representative of the European Union  recalled concerns raised in previous statements 
in the Committee concerning these notifications.60 In light of the ongoing reform of the 
standardization system in China, the EU asked China when the new consolidated standard(s) would 
be finalized and notified to the WTO, whether the announced consolidation would replace the 
previous ones ( G/TBT/N/CHN/10 94-1096), and whether its outcome would be a development of one 
new standard put in place of the previous ones. China was also asked to share information 
concerning the scope of consolidation: would the coverage of furniture product groups be the same 
as the previous standards, broader or narrower?  What limits of harmful substances would be covered 
by the consolidation? Her delegation remained open to hold technical discussions in Brussels on 
issues regarding furniture standards, as proposed by China in Jun e 2017. The EU reiterated its 
request that China designate the contact point for the organization of such a meeting.  
The representative of China  repeated the response provided in previous TBT Committee 
meetings.61  
3.4.27   Ireland  — Public Health (Alcohol) Bill 201 5, G/TBT/N/IRL/2  (IMS ID 51662) 
The representative of Argentina  reiterated previously raised concerns.63 He enquired 
whether the Senate had passed the Public Health (Alcohol) Bill on 17 October and if promulgation 
was the only step left. Given Argentina's concern about the potential effects of the new legislation, 
which was considered disproportionate to the legitimate objective of protecting human health, he 
requested that Ireland keep WTO Members informed of the law's entry into force and 
implementation. He also urged the European Commission to engage with the member States to 
ensure the prompt notification of these measures and their consistency with all applicable WTO 
obligations.  
The representative of Mexico  thanked the European Union for the recent bilateral meeting 
where an update on the status of the measure had been provided. Mexico reminded the Committee 
that the concerns on the initial bill focused on: labelling requirements – the inclusion of health 
warnings with no scientific basis; the setting of minimum prices; advertising restrictions; the physical 
separat ion of products at points of sale; and, restrictions on sales promotion techniques.  Mexico was 
now expressing its concern and surprise at having learned that, on 17 October, Ireland had published 
the final version of the Act without notif ying the new versi on of the text to Members for public 
consultation and without responding  to the comments made during the first consultation process. 
Mexico had learned that the final version of the Act contained amendments based on the comments 
received during the initial  public consultation. For this reason, Mexico called on the European Union 
to: (i) share the status of the official comments made by Mexico during the initial public consultation; 
(ii) share the status of the official response to the comments made by Mexic o; and, (iii) provide 
information on the status of the Act and the next steps to be taken by Ireland and the European 
Commission.  
The representative of the United States  fully supported Ireland 's objective of managing the 
public health challenges of excess ive alcohol consumption. She requested confirmation that, despite 
the request made at the previous TBT Committee meeting to notify the amendments made to the 
Public Health (Alcohol) Bill 2015, the measure was now finalized. Could Ireland provide informatio n 
about what aspects of the bill were subject to implementing regulations and their timelines and 
development process. The US asked that Ireland commit to notifying the implementing regulations 
to the WTO before their finalization, giving sufficient time f or comments to be taken into account. 
As had been previously noted, concerns focused on the impact of labelling provisions on US 
producers, including on their ability to reallocate products in Europe 's internal market. She asked 
that Ireland clarify that p roducts that had been labelled for other EU markets would be accepted, or 
                                                
59 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 509  (under dates raised and references) . 
60 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 4 .150, G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.171 and statement circulated in full in G/TBT/W/503 . 
61 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.151 . 
62 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 516 (under dates raised and references) . 
63 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.154 and G/TBT/W/551 .  
 G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 24 - 
 
  was Ireland proposing that producers relabel any product that first entered another European 
member state that they subsequently wished to send to Ireland for sale.   
The representati ve of Australia  reiterated concerns raised at the previous TBT Committee 
meeting.64  
The representative of New Zealand  said that while New Zealand acknowledged and 
supported Ireland's right to introduce new regulations to address legitimate public health ob jectives, 
there was concern that Ireland had not notified the amended bill to the TBT Committee despite it 
being recently passed domestically. New Zealand urged Ireland to notify the bill so as to allow 
Members to comment.  
The representative of Guatemala  shared his delegation's interest and on -going concern with 
the measure. He requested that the EU provide updated information on the internal discussion at 
the EU member State level and that the official opinion be shared with the Committee. He also 
requeste d clarification concerning the date of entry into force of the measure and the status of its 
notification to the WTO.  
The representative of the European Union  repeated the response provided at previous 
meetings concerning the internal notification process which Ireland had adhered to. Due to the 
severe public health implications, Ireland was obliged to enact the primary legislation at the earliest 
possible date. The Bill was signed into law on 17 October 2018 and was available at 
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2018/act/24/enacted/en/html . In addition to the procedure 
under the Directive (EU) 2015/1535, some of the labelling provisions (health warnings) were notified 
under anot her notification procedure laid down by Regulation (EU) 1169/2011 on food information 
to consumers for which the Commission requested further clarification. She said the labelling 
provisions of the Health Bill required secondary legislation. These implemen ting regulations would 
have to be notified to the European Commission under Regulation (EU) 1169/2011 and would also 
be notified to the TBT Committee. From that point t here would be a three -year lead -in period before 
these regulations and the relevant prim ary law became operational. Comments that had been 
received from WTO Members under the TBT notification procedure had been examined and replies 
would be shortly sent to relevant Members.  
3.4.28   Kazakhstan, Russian Federation — The amendments No. 2 to the Technica l 
Regulation of the Customs Union on Safety of Toys (TÐ ÌÑ 008/2011) , G/TBT/N/KAZ/7 , 
G/TBT/N/RUS/73  (IMS  ID 51465) 
The representative of the European Union  reiterated previously raised concerns regarding 
the amendments to the Safety Toy EAEU Technical Regulation.66 In addition he recalled that during 
the last Committee meeting, Kazakhstan had stated that the meeting of the Working Group had 
taken p lace on 18 June 2018 to discuss amendments to the technical regulation regarding the 
introduction of psychological and pedagogical examination of toys at the EAEU level. It was explained 
that Working Group discussion had focussed on how to strike a balance  between the interest of 
stakeholders in protecting children and the interest of foreign producers and exporters. The EU 
understood that that the Working Group also gave positive consideration to the ISO standard on age 
determination as an alternative.  
The representative of Ukraine  reiterated concerns on the stricter conformity assessment 
process on toy certification and requested that scientifically substantiated justification be provided . 
Ukraine called on Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation to bring th e provisions of the technical 
regulation on safety of toys in line with relevant international standards and practice.  
The representative of Canada  echoe d the concerns raised by other Members . Canada 
continue d to follow the measure with interest and would welcome any updates regarding possible 
revisions to the draft amendments, including with respect to the consideration of ISO standards for 
age-grading. Canada would also welcome the opportunity to see, review, and comment on any 
potential changes that migh t be co nsider ed. 
                                                
64 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.157.  
65 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 514  (under dates raised and references) . 
66 G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.178 and statement circulated in full in G/TBT/W/505 . G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 25 - 
 
  
The representative of the United States  said that the US associate d itself with the comments 
of other M embers and continue d to have concerns with this measure.  
The representative of Kazakhstan  informed the Committee that the ISO standard on age 
grading was currently being implemented into the national legislation of Kazakhstan. The national 
standard , based on the ISO standard , had been adopted on 5 November 2018 and would enter into 
force on 1 Ja nuary 2020. The C ommittee o f Public Health Protection was planning to initiate a 
discussion within the EEU working group on the possibility of implementing the ISO standard within 
the EEU technical regulation on safety of toys as a reference standard. Concerning the concerns 
raised by Ukraine, she referred the Committee to replies provided at previous C ommittee meetings . 
She noted that the TBT Agreement did  not prohibit a Member from applying conformity assessment 
requirements to toys  and d omestically produced toys were subject to th e same requirements as 
those imported. Kazakhstan reconfirm ed its strong commitment to WTO rules .  
The representative of the Russian Federation  said that Russia supported the efforts of 
Kazakhstan aimed at protect ing children’s health. He had taken note of  the concerns raised and 
would convey them to the Working Group of the Eurasian Economic Commission.  
3.4.29   Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi — East African Community alcoholic 
beverage standards, G/TBT/N/KEN/472 -477, G/TBT/N/KEN/479 , G/TBT/N/KEN/482 -483, 
G/TBT/N/KEN/556 -561 G/TBT/N/KEN/563 -565 G/TBT/ N/KEN/567 , G/TBT/N/UGA/434 -435, 
G/TBT/N/UGA/437 -441 (IMS ID 510 and 51967) 
The representative of the European Union  thanked Kenya for  the recently received reply to 
the comments previously submitted by the EU and invited other East African Community (EAC) 
members to further update the Committee on the status of the revision.  In this regard the EU 
encouraged all EAC members to adopt the standard in a harmonized way as national deviation from 
the regional standard would create additional barriers to trade. In addition, she recalled that the 
minimum time for the entry into force of the new technical regulations should be at least six months , 
and encouraged EAC members to provide an even longer transition period to allow companies to 
adapt to the new requirements.  
The representative of Kenya  repeated responses provided in previous TBT Committee 
meetings.68 He informed the Committee  that so far , the revised standards on Spirits, Sparkling Wine 
and Fortified Wines had been approved by the relevant EAC Sectoral Council of Ministers, and 
gazetted as EAC Standards in August 2018. He further informed the meeting that discussions on 
standards on Beers and Still Table Wine are ongoing at regional level. He also informed the 
Committee that Kenya, on behalf of the EAC Partner States, had provided detailed responses to the 
EU and US through the TBT National Enquiry Point to the enquiries concerning the standards on 
alcoholic beverages . 
3.4.30   Russian Federation — Medical Devices , G/TBT/N/RUS/51 , G/TBT/N/RUS/52 , 
G/TBT/N/RUS/53 , G/TBT/N/RUS/55  (IMS ID 52069) 
3.148.   The representative of the European Union  reiterated previously raised concerns .70 She asked 
that the Russian Federation clarify whether the Special Working Group of the Eurasian Economic 
Commission ensured that the registration procedures were the same for foreign and domestic 
importers of goods.  
3.149.   The representative of Ukraine  reiterated previously raised concerns .71 
3.150.   The representative of the Russian Federation  recalled its statement delivered at previous 
Committee  meetings. He confirmed that all mandatory requirements and conformity assessment 
procedures were applied equally to importers and domestic producers. Russia stood ready to give 
                                                
67 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 510  and IMS ID 519  (under dates raised and 
references) . 
68 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.139 and statement circulated in full in  G/TBT/W/544 . 
69 For previous statements fo llow the thread under IMS ID 520  (under dates raised and references) . 
70 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.166 . 
71 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.167.  G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 26 - 
 
  comments bilaterally to interested Members on the establishment of the single market of medical 
devices  in the EAEU.  
3.4.31   Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic — Pharmaceutical products - 
Resolution 1314 of the Government of the Russian Federation on determining compliance 
of medicinal products' manufacturers with the requireme nts of Good Manufacturing 
Practice (non -notified); draft decisions of the Board of the Eurasian Economic Union,  
G/TBT/N/RUS/54 , G/TBT/N/RUS/58 , G/TBT/N/RUS/63  (IMS  ID 52172) 
 
The representative of the Russian Federation  responded to the  concern raised by European 
Union by reiterating its statement delivered at the previous Committee meeting.74 He said that GMP 
systems of the Russian Federation and the Eurasian Economic Union complied fully with international 
standards and recommendations in this area. Referring to the question asked by the European Union 
at the previous Committee meeting he informed the Committee that amendments to the Federal 
Law "On the Circulation of Medicines" that had entered into force on 15 June 2018 significantly 
reduced the period of registration of new pharmaceutical products.  
3.4.32   China — Cybersecurity Law (IMS ID 52675) 
The representative of Japan  reiter ated previously raised concerns76 and requested China to 
notify the enforcement regulations to the TBT Committee and to consider comments from 
stakeholders. I n addition, Japan requested  China to provide adequate lead time from the completion 
of the regulations until their enforcement, and to implement the measur es in a transparent manner.  
The representative of the Republic of Korea  supported the concerns raised by Japan  and 
noted that Article 37 required an operator of core information of infrastructural facility within China 
to undergo mandatory security evaluat ion when taking important data out of a foreign territory, or 
when providing information with a foreign individual or organization from January 2019. It therefore 
requested China to explain the detailed regulation, which contained specific examples and cas es of 
"data with high level of safety risks ". In addition, his delegation requested China to clarify the 
meaning of "high level of safety risks " contained in Article 4.4 of the Guidelines for Data Cross -
Border Transfer Security Assessment which prohibit ed the "transfer of data with high level of safety 
risks – such as personal information and important data – to a foreign territory " as the meaning was 
unclear .  
The representative of the European Union  reiterated concern s raised in the previous TBT 
Committee  meeting .77 The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/509 . 
The representative of the United States  remained concerned with China 's widespread effort  
to impose "secure and controllable " requirements on ICT products, especially because the term 
remained  undefined. In addition, his delegation noted that  the final ver sion of the measure did not 
consider many stakeholders concerns , including those of the US . Furthermore, the US questioned  
the requirement that a process for conformity as sessment be  "secure and controllable ". Overall, the 
United States remain ed very conce rned about China 's approach to cybersecurity and its suite of 
measures that appear ed to be inconsistent with China 's national treatment obligations and  which, in 
the US view,  discriminate d against foreign technologies and firms in the name of information 
security.  
The representative of  Australia  supported  the concerns  raised by other Members and 
reiterated previous ly raised concerns regarding the unclear details of the Cyber Security Law.78 
                                                
72 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 521  (under dates raised and references) . 
73 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.169, G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.185 and statement circulated in  full in G/TBT/W/507 . 
74 G/TBT/M/75 , para 4.170; G/TBT/M/74 , para 2.186.  
75 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 526  (under dates raised and references) . 
76 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.172 and G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.196.  
77 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.173  and statement circulated in full in  G/TBT/W/509 . 
78 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.175.  G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 27 - 
 
  Australia note d that the measures should be  consistent with the TBT  Agreement, and should be 
implemented in a non -discriminatory manner and in such a way that they did not restrict  trade more 
than necessary. In addition, Australia requested China to clarify how th e measures would be 
implemented, and urged China to consider less trade -restric tive alternative measures that were  
reasonably available to achieve its objectives.  
The representative of  China  stated that the Cyber S ecurity law was a fundamental 
development in the field of cyber security in  China , as it had  marked a milestone in the history of 
national cyber security. His delegation was of the view that it was  entirely within the national 
sovereignty of all countries to formulate relevant laws and administrative regulations by using 
international practices as a reference and based on  national conditions, to manage the internet in 
accordance with th ose laws. China stated further that the purpose of implementing the Cyber 
Security law was threefold: to safeguard national sovereignty in cyber space, national se curity and 
public interest; to protect the rights and interests of the citizens, the legal persons a nd ot her 
organizations in China; and  to promote the applicati on of information technology . His delegation 
stated that the purpose of the Cyber Security law was  by no means to restrict market access of 
foreign enterprises, technol ogies and products in China, nor was the purpose to restrain the orderly 
and free flow of data. Finally, China concluded that liberalization remain ed the basic policy of China, 
and it wo uld continue to  open its doors to the outside world and  to safeguard cyber security in an 
open environment.  
3.4.33   European Union — Organic production and labelling - Maté (erva -mate) (IMS  ID 
52479) 
The representative of Brazil  reiterated  concerns raised at previous meetings.80 
The representative of the European Union  once again informed the Committee that Erva 
Mate was  currently excluded from the scope of the current EU organic legislation  "Regulation (EC) 
No 834/2007 on organic production  and labelling of organic products ". The European Union noted 
that, within the framework of the review of the EU organic legislation, the European Commission 
proposed to include Maté within the scope of the future EU Regulation on organic production and 
labelling. Regulation (EU) 2018/848 on organic production and labelling adopted on 30 May 2018 by 
the European Par liament and the Council included  Maté under its scope. Maté was listed in its 
Annex  I, which includes products closely linked to agriculture. Th e new Regulation would be  applied 
from 1 January 2021.  
3.4.34   China — Cyberspace Administration of China – Draft implementing measures for 
the Cybersecurity Review of Network Products and Services  (IMS  ID 53381) 
The representatives of Japan  and the United States  reiterated previously raised concerns.82 
The representative of the European Union  raised concerns with China's Cybersecurity Review 
of Network Products and Services. The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/591 . 
The representative of China  informed the Committee that the purpose of these measures 
was to: establish a system so as  to improve the secure and controllable level of network products 
and services; prevent the security risk of the supply chain; safegua rd national cyber security; and  
protect public interests. The system was also conducive to increasing confidence in the ma rket and 
for consumers for IT products and services.  
                                                
79 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 524  (under dates raised and references) . 
80 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.177.  
81 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 533  (under dates raised and references) . 
82 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.179 and G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.180; G/TBT/M/74 , paras. 2.215 and G/TBT/M/73 , 
paras. 2.22 3 respectively . 
 G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 28 - 
 
  3.4.35   China — Draft revised Encryption Law of the People's Republic of China by the 
Office of State Commercial Cryptography Administration (OSCCA) (IMS ID 53483) 
The representative of Japan  reiterated previously raised concerns.84  
The representative of the European Union  raised concerns with China's Draft revised 
Encryption Law . The full state ment is contained in G/TBT/W/593 . 
The representative of the United States  remain ed concerned  by what seem ed to be a wide -
spread effort by China to impose "secure and controll able" requirements, largely based on the Multi-
Level Protection Scheme (MLPS) system, on ICT products. The United States said that the MLPS was 
inflexibly prescriptive and could restrict the ability of consumers to purchase technologies established 
as safe  everywhere else in the world. Additionally, in the view of the United States,  the requirements 
raised national treatment concerns by mandating domestic IP and equipment usage in sectors 
deemed "critical". T his was of particular concern given the extensive  scope of projects classified as 
level 3 or above.  
The US said other Members ha d rules to ensure security of critical infrastructure, but did so 
without stifling international competition. The fact that China was now expanding the MLPS to include 
a wide ar ray of commercial sectors that did not constitute critical infrastructure raised further 
concerns for her delegation. She requested further clarification as to the linkage between MLPS and 
the Cybersecurity Classified Protection Scheme referenced in the Cy bersecurity Law. She noted that 
the US and other Members had commented on what appeared to be an MLPS -related draft standard, 
issued by China on 25 January 2018: "Information Security Technology – Guidelines for Grading of 
Classified Cybersecurity Protection". The United States  hoped that China would  take into account all 
stakeholder comments made on the draft standards related to MLPS, but more broadly, encourage d 
China  to adopt international standards instead of creating country -specific ones.  
The representative of China  repeated responses provided in previous Committee meetings.85 
3.4.36   Italy — Labelling requirements of the origin of grains used in the preparation of 
dried pasta  (IMS ID 53086) 
The representative of Canada  reiterated previously raised concerns.87 In particular, Canada 
expressed concerns with how Italy's country -of-origin labelling measure for pasta products came 
into effect in February 2018. It was Canada's understanding  that EU rules required member S tates 
to notify proposed labelling measures to the European Commission for a three -month consideration 
period, during which their compliance with EU rules were assessed. However, Italy's pasta measure 
was published in the Official Gazette of the Italian Republic  on 17 August 2017, after it was 
withdrawn from the notification process to the European Commission, which had not been 
completed. More importantly, despite repeated requests by Canada to both Italy and the European 
Commission, the measure ha d not been not ified to the TBT Committee, notwithstanding the 
measure's clear potential to impact trade, as well as the TBT Committee's decisions regarding 
transparency. His delegation noted its understanding that Italy's measure would  not be a llowed to 
co-exist under t he EU' s implementing regulation for labelling of primary ingredients coming into 
force in 2020 – however, Canada remain ed concerned that Italy might  choose to keep its labelling 
measure after April 2020. The representative of Canad a asked the EU what measu res were  available 
to ensure that It aly complied  with the implementing regulation .  
The representative of Argentina  reiterated concerns raised in previous TBT Committee 
meetings.88 He requested clarification on certain aspects of Regulation (EU) No. 2018/77 5 as to the 
requirements that labels display the origin of the primary ingredient of a food. In the context of not 
confusing the consumer, the specifics of the provision to label the origin of a primary ingredient as 
"EU" or "non -EU" were not clear to Arge ntina, as it was much more transparent to indicate the 
specific country of provenance. Argentina highlighted that n either the EU nor Italy ha d notified the 
                                                
83 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 534  (under dates raised and references) . 
84 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.183, G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.218; and G/TBT/M/73 , para. 2.216.  
85 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.185; G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.222; and G/TBT/M/73 , para. 2.220.  
86 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 530  (under dates raised and references).  
87 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.277.  
88 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.279 and statement circulated in full in G/TBT/W/552 . G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 29 - 
 
  regulations in question to the TBT Committee . Additionally, he also expressed concerns about the 
issue of the "coexistence"  or inconsistency of the COOL label ling regimes of the m ember States with 
what was established in article 38 of regulation 1169/2011.  
The representative of Brazil  said his delegation shared the concerns raised by Canada.  
The repre sentative of the European Union  reiterated responses provided in previous TBT 
Committe e meetings , including that the Italian measure state d that it would lose its effectiveness 
from the dat e of entry into application of Commission Implementing Regulation ( EU) No 2018/775 
(1 April  2020) and that the Commission' s implementing regulation should reduce the need for further 
resort to national provisions regulating origin indication.89 
3.4.37   European Union — Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 - non-renewal of approval of 
the active substance picoxystrobin G/TBT/N/EU/437  (IMS ID 53590)  
The repres entative of Brazil  raised concerns with the EU's non -renewal of approval of the 
active substance picoxystrobin. The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/564 . 
The representative of Canada  informed the Committee that picoxystrobin was an active 
ingredient used as a fungicide on a wide variety of crops cultivated in Canada and ex ported to the 
European Union. Canada reiterated its deep concern with the EU 's hazard -based approach in 
regulatory decisions for pest control products. Of particular concern was the European Union 's 
proposal to lower the maximum residue limit for picoxystrobin to the limit of analytical detection. 
This could negatively impact trade if no import tolerance was set. Canada sought concrete assurance 
from the EU that it would establish import tolerances based on a complete risk assessment, as set 
out in regulation EC 396/2005. He stressed the importance of the establishment of an import 
tolerance being based on all available data when reviewed, so as to avoid unwarranted trade 
disruptions. There was suffi cient data to complete a scientific risk assessment and noted that 
picoxystrobin was already registered in 65 other countries. He requested that the EU provide more 
information on timelines for setting import tolerances. Canada asked that the EU confirm th at any 
proposal for changes to existing MRLs would be notified to the SPS Committee, allowing sufficient 
time for comment. Canada would continue to follow this issue closely.  
The representative of Paraguay  said that the EU decision not to renew the approva l of 
picoxystrobin was of concern because the EU had not based this decision on scientific criteria, ignored 
international consensus, and the opinion of specialized agencies on non -toxicity in the use of these 
substances. This decision, as well as the new MRLs for this substance, notified to the SPS Committee 
would have a negative impact on Paraguayan exporters by restricting trade unnecessarily.  
The representative of the European Union  repeated responses provided at previous TBT 
Committee meetings.91 In ad dition, she informed the Committee that a draft measure lowering the 
MRLs for picoxystrobin to the limit of quantification (LOQ) had been  prepared and presented to the 
Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed. The European Union had notified th ird 
countries of the draft Regulation via the SPS procedure. Comments received from non -EU countries 
and stakeholders were available to the Standing Committee, where a summary of the key points 
raised was presented. The Standing Committee had given  a favou rable opinion on the draft, meaning  
that the revised MRLs were expected to be formally adopted and published in January 2019, and to 
apply from July 2019. Import tolerance requests however remained possible and would be assessed 
on a case -by-case basis by EFSA. Such requests would have to be supported by substantial new 
data addressing the concerns.  
3.4.38   European Union — Titanium dioxide: Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (CLP 
Regulation), Annex VI, Part 2 (IMS ID 53992) 
The representative of the United States  noted t he lack of con sensus within the EU as to the 
classification of Titanium Dioxide  (TiO2). She wondered whether any action was  even needed, given 
that the risks posed by the substance to workers had already been addressed via EU member S tates' 
                                                
89 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.281 and G/TBT/M/73 , para. 2.176.  
90 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 535  (under dates raised and references) . 
91 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.188.  
92 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 539  (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 30 - 
 
  guidance on occ upational exposure. She asked the EU to provide an update on the process for the 
potential TiO2 classification, as well as any potential amendments to the CLP Regulation to 
accommodate new classifications under Annex  VI or warning labels under Annex II. Wo uld there be 
opportunities through which the US  and other potentially impacted stakeholders might  be allowed 
to provide input s? 
She also recalled that, over the years, the US ha d raised transparency concerns regarding 
the EU's process to develop regulation s and standards for the registration and use of chemicals, both 
as substances and in products. The EU tended to notify the WTO  only after its own scientifi c and 
regulatory committees had  completed their years -long reviews, raising transparency concerns 
regarding consideration of international stakeholder input at an early and appropriate stage in the 
development of a regulation. For highly complex products, such as chemicals, the science of 
assessing hazards and risks was quickly evo lving and scientific stu dies could  take years. There was  
a missed opportunity to meaningfully integrate international participation and comments . This 
brought  the consultative intent of the EU's WTO notifications into question.  
She noted  once more the lack of consensus among EU member S tates, both for the 
classification and the potential need to have to update the CLP guidance on classification and 
labelling. She asked the EU: (i)  to be transparent in its deliberations ; (ii) to engage the US and other 
stakeholders in such deliber ations; and (iii) that the EU notify any amendments to the C LP Regulation 
to the WTO. This  would help to ensure a final classification based upon the best science that was  not 
unnecessarily disruptive to trade.   
The representative of Australia  stated that his delegation recognized the EU's right to 
regulate for public and occupational health and safety. Australia also recognized that appropriate 
classification and labelling for hazardous substances and mixtures could address legitimate public 
and occupation al health concerns. Australia asked the EU for an update on the possible classification 
of TiO2 as a carcinogen. TiO2 was a premium pigment used in the manufacture of a wide range of 
products, most commonly paint and coatings. Australia thus stressed the i mportance of ensuring 
that any EU regulation addressing concerns about the possible carcinogenicity of TiO2 when inhaled, 
should be proportionate and would not unduly restrict trade in goods which contain TiO2.  
The representative of the European Union  responded to the concerns raised. The full 
statement is contained in G/TBT/W/5 92. 
3.4.39   China — Certification requirements for processed foods , G/TBT/N/C HN/1209  (IMS 
ID 54793) 
The representative of the Republic of Korea  raised concerns with the requirement for a 
government certificate for all imported foods including low -risk processed, packaged foods. This was 
inconsistent with Codex guidelines and princip les. This requirement, which was not base d on 
scientific risk assessment  was more trade restrictive than necessary. Given the short transitional 
period until its entry into force in October 2019, China was asked to share the revised draft measures 
reflecti ng WTO Members ' comments in a timely manner.  
The representative of Mexico  thanked China for the bilateral meeting where Mexico had 
expressed concerns and sought clarification about the draft "Measures for the Administration of 
Certificates Attached to Food s Exported to China", notified on 19 June 2017 in G/TBT/N/CHN/1209 . 
These measures, which would enter into force in September 2019, introduced an obligation to submit 
a further certificate, in addition to those already required to obtain an import licence. Mexican 
industry representatives had informed the Mexican delegation  the previous day that they had 
received unofficial information indicating that the new certificate had been withdrawn. Accordingly, 
she requested that China confirm that this information was correct and to clarify whether the 
certificate's withdrawal appl ied only to certain countries or products. Should this information be 
incorrect, Mexico would continue to pursue its concern before the TBT Com mittee since it considered 
the m easures to have implications for various sectors and products, and especially for  tequila, which 
had been confirmed as one of the products included on the list of affected products for which the 
                                                
93 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 547 (under dates raised and references).  G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 31 - 
 
  new certificat e would be required. Including t equila in the list could set a precedent for the market 
presence of a flagship Mexican product a nd lead to negative perceptions of tequila in China.  
It was important to note that China already required various certificates for tequila, 
including, among others, a free sale certificate, a certificate of origin, a quality certificate for the 
exportation  of tequila, an international phytosanitary certificate and a certificate of export and 
authenticity. Requesting an additional new certificate could be viewed as unnecessary and would 
simply generate an additional administrative burden, as well as an incre ase in export processing 
costs. Therefore, Mexico requested that China inform the Committee whether or not the certificate 
would be introduced, and whether its withdrawal would apply to all products or only to certain 
products that had been removed from th e list. She also requested further information on plans to 
introduce the aforementioned certificate - what was the technical rationale that made the authorities 
believe that tequila should be included on the list of products affected by the measure. She in vited 
China to provide an explanation of the need for an additional certificate, which could cause lengthier 
time frames and higher costs for marketing processes, given the numerous certification 
requirements already required for this product.  
The represen tative of the United States  thanked China for its bilateral engagement to date 
on the concerns raised on the proposed official certification requirements for imported foods and 
also for its September 2017 announcement notifying WTO Members of the two -year transitional 
period for enforcement from 1 October 2017 until 30 September 2019. The notified measure entitled 
"AQSIQ Food Bureau 's Correspondence [2017] No.83 ", would require a range of imported food 
products to be accompanied by official certificates on a shipment -by-shipment basis – including 
processed, shelf -stable foods. At the previous TBT Committee meeting, China indicated that it was 
considering comments received from trading partners and would provide an update on the status of 
this measure following the reorganization of its former regulatory authority, AQSIQ. The US asked 
that China provide an update on the current status of the measure and looked forwa rd to continued 
engagement with China to assess whether the requirements of the proposed measure were 
consistent with legitimate food safety and health protection goals. She hoped that there would be a 
mutually acceptable agreement on reasonable requiremen ts for food imports.  
The representative of Switzerland  reiterated previously raised concerns.94 Given that the 
measure was scheduled to enter into force within 10 months, he called on China to provide further 
clarification on the implementation of the certi fication requirements for processed foods so as to give 
producers time to adapt to the new requirements. He thanked China for the bilateral exchanges and 
looked forward to further cooperation.  
The representative of Japan  reiterated previously raised concer ns.95 Japan expected that a 
sufficient transitional period would still be provided even if all concerns had been resolved.  
The representative of Guatemala  reiterated previously raised concerns.96 She asked if China 
was considering exceptions, in particular for low risk products such as processed products and 
alcoholic beverages. She also requested information on the new structure in the customs office that 
would make changes in the regulations clearer. Guatemala associated itself with the questions asked 
by Mexico concerning clarification on the new certificate. She thanked China for the bilateral 
meetings and steps taken to solve any concerns that were still outstanding.  
The representative of the European Union  supported the concerns raised by the Republic o f 
Korea, the United States and Mexico, and considered the proposed measure to be disproportionate. 
It would inevitably cause a massive administrative burden for businesses and authorities alike. The 
EU was committed to working with China and was confident that a solution could be found.  
The representative of China  repeated responses that had been provided at the previous 
meeting of the TBT Committee.97 
                                                
94 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.215 . 
95 G/TBT/M/75 , para 4.214.  
96 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.216.  
97 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.217 . G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 32 - 
 
  3.4.40   China — Catalogue of Solid Wastes  Forbidden to Import into China, 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1211 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1224 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1225 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1226 , 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1227 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1228 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1229 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1230 , 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1231 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1232 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1233 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1234  (IMD ID 
54598) 
The representative of Australia , whilst appreciating the importance of environmental 
protection and China's efforts to reduce pollution, nevertheless reiterated concerns regarding China's 
implementation of a range of measures that appeared more  trade restrictive than necessary to 
achieve the desired objectives. He said that a range of materials impacted by China's measures were 
valuable inputs to recycling supply chains rather than "rubbish" and that trade in those products 
allowed for the recov ery of materials which may otherwise end up in landfill. Australia urged China 
to reconsider the measures in such a way as to facilitate global environmental outcomes by allowing 
for commercially meaningful trade in quality recyclable inputs.  
The represent ative of New Zealand  reiterated previously raised concerns .99 
The representative of the United States  recalled its concerns regarding the negative trade 
and environmental impacts resulting from China's import ban on certain recovered materials, and 
accompan ying measures . The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/574 .  
The representative of the European Union  expressed support for the United States, Australia, 
and New Zealand in raising the issue. As her delegation supported China's current efforts in 
addressing valid environmental concerns, China was asked to provide fu rther clarification on the 
environmental justification and overall benefits of the announced ban on imports of all solid waste, 
in particular on how such restrictive measures were intended to alleviate those concerns, especially 
considering those wastes wh ich could be recycled in environmentally sound conditions in China. 
Regarding notifications G/TBT/N/CHN/1224 -1234, the EU stressed the importance of creating open 
and integrated circular economy value chains, adding that businesses needed stable and predictable 
legal environments, with clear and transparent enforcement  practices. She therefore reiterated her 
delegation's request for information on what methods China planned to apply to test the compliance 
with the required maximum levels of impurities. Were the maximum levels of impurities the same 
or higher than those applied to domestic production? Had China considered alternative measures to 
fulfil its environmental goals in a less trade -restrictive manner?  
The EU recalled China's announcement in April 2018 that 32 new types of scrap and waste 
would be added to the C atalogue of Prohibited Import Solid Waste and urged China to notify the 
measures under the TBT Agreement and to provide time for comments in order to ensure 
transparency. Recent draft revisions to the Law on Prevention and Control of Environmental Pollutio n 
by Solid Wastes suggested that China aimed at full withdrawal from global circular economy value 
chains by banning the import of all solid waste. The EU then expressed concern with the very broad 
scope of "solid waste" that it believed could lead to a bl anket ban on the import of recyclable 
materials. Her delegation supported the need to develop international standards for non -hazardous 
recyclable materials, in order to facilitate legal certainty and the development of efficient and global 
markets for suc h materials. As the measures pertaining to solid wastes appeared to be more trade 
restrictive than necessary to achieve the desired objectives, the EU requested China to reconsider 
them so as to allow for commercially meaningful trade in quality recyclable  inputs which would 
permit the promotion of the recovery of resources and global environmental outcomes. Finally, the 
EU urged China to notify any further restrictions in this area in light of its obligations under the TBT 
Agreement.  
The representative of Canada  echoed concerns of other Members and recalled his 
delegation's comments on China's restrictive standards on imports of scrap materials provided at 
the June 2018 TBT Committee meeting.100 Whilst not wishing to dispute China's goal of limiting 
harmful e nvironmental impacts resulting from contaminated waste material, Canada encouraged 
China to consider all possible mechanisms to address this specific problem while ensuring that 
mutually beneficial trade could continue in a predictable manner. He noted tha t since issuing these 
notifications for revised standards in November 2017, China had stated that it would instead ban 
                                                
98 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 545  (under dates raised and references).  
99 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.193; G/TBT/M/74 , paras. 2.236 -2.237.  
100 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.198.  G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 33 - 
 
  many of the products at the end of 2018 and 2019. Some products would not be banned and were 
subject to the revised standards, for instan ce recycled paper and cardboard. For those products, a 
precise definition of "carried waste" was requested as well as a more complete explanation of China's 
testing procedures for those standards.  
The representative of China  responded to the concerns raise d. The full statement is 
contained in G/TBT/W/579 . 
3.4.41   India — Amended regulat ion on toy imports,  G/TBT/N/IND/68  (IMS ID 546101) 
3.198.   The representative of the European Union  reiterated previously raised concerns with respect 
to the new obligation for imported toys to be in -country tested only by laboratories accredited by 
NABL.102 He requested India to follow up on applications for accreditation received from foreign 
laboratories and to clarify  if the se applications were being processed expeditiously. He also called 
India to consider allowing conformance to international standards - as before the amendment - as 
an alternative to the newly -introduced domestic standards on toys. The EU looked forward to 
responses and clarifications from the Indian authorities on these points.  
3.199.   The representative of China  remained concerned with India's amended regulation on toy 
imports.103 His delegation urged India to accept the ISO standards (i.e. ISO 8124) as opposed to 
the acceptance of India's own standards (i.e. IS9873). China further noted that the amendment did 
not recognize laboratories accredited under ILAC MRA as it only a ccepted those laboratories 
authorized by the Indian Government. His delegation requested India to provide a transitional period 
for the process and to accept the international standards for the recognition of ILAC MRA labs.  
3.200.   The representative of the United  States  reiterated previously raised concerns, particularly 
regarding the potential detrimental effect of India's amendment on trade.104 His delegation remained 
concerned with the burdensome nature of the amendment which harmed the ability of the US toy 
industry to access the Indian market. The US questioned the extent to which the amendment unfairly 
target ed imported toys and stated that India did not offer a credible explanation for departing from 
the "gold standard " of toy regulatory regimes that allowed t oy manufacturers to test to either the 
ASTM, ISO, or EN toy safety standards in the country of manufacture by a laboratory accredited 
under the ILAC system. The US requested India to provide detailed information on the safety 
concerns of imported toys that  led to the development of the new standard and further, information 
pertaining to in -country testing requirements. The US supported India's goal to replace the existing 
measure with a new regulation that would apply to all domestic and foreign toy produce rs, but 
requested India to notify this new regulation and allow interested parties to comment should it  
proceed with this replacement . 
3.201.   The representative of Canada  supported  the concerns raised by other Members regarding 
India's amended regulation on  toy imports.  
3.202.   The representative of India repeated the response provided at the previous Committee 
meeting105 and stated that the standard IS9873, in par ticular, parts 1,2,3,4 and 7 thereof, were  
identical to the  corresponding ISO standard (i.e. ISO8127 ). In addit ion, his delegation clarified that 
the standard IS15644 was  identical to the  corresponding IEC standard (i.e. IEC 62115 ). India 
reiterated that applications ha d been received by NABL for  the accreditation of foreign laboratories 
and were under process by the concerned authority.   
3.4.42   Viet Nam — Decree on the regulation on conditions for automobiles manufacturing, 
assembling importing and automotive warranty & maintenance services (IMS ID 549106) 
3.203.   The representative of Thailand  considered that th e application of Decree  116 was 
inconsistent  with the obligations under TBT  Agreement , including those related to transparency, 
unnecessary obstacle to international trade and national treatment. Since Viet  Nam had not pr ovide d 
                                                
101 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 54 6 (under d ates raised and references).  
102 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.203 -4.204.  
103 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.207.  
104 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.205 -4.206.  
105 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.209 -4.210.  
106 For previous statements follow the thread un der IMS ID 54 9 (under dates raised and references).  G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 34 - 
 
  any time for comments by M embers and a reasonable grace period, it was  important that Viet  Nam 
notify Circular  No 03, which laid  down rules and procedures for conformity assessment under the 
Decree 116. Therefore, Thailand urged Viet Nam to delay the implementation of Decree  116 in order 
to allow time for exporting countries to become acquainted with the se new requirements. Thailand  
also request ed Viet Nam to revise its inspection and testing requirements by lot, re -testing the same 
model of subsequent shipments and at different ports  of entry . Such revisions would  avoid a 
duplicative process , which could result in increase d cost and custom clearance time for importation 
and therefore create unnecessary obstacles to international trade. Moreover, Vietnamese domestic 
cars were treated more favourable in comparison to imported cars. Viet Nam's results of automob ile 
checking and certificate were  valid for three  years , whereas imported cars were  subject to lot -by-
lot inspection.  
The representative of Japan  reiterated previously ra ised concerns .107 Japan requested Viet 
Nam to  take into account comments from industry and immediately revise Decree  116 as it had 
seriously and adversely affected Japanese automobile exports to Viet Nam.  
The representative of the European Union  expressed h er delegation 's continued concerns 
with the compatibility  of Decree 116/2017 with WTO rules. She said that the EU also shared the  
concerns expressed by Thailand, Japan, and the US . She also expressed here delegation's regret  
that, irrespective of the fact that the Implementing Circular was issued in October 2017, the TBT 
Committee had not been notified on time about the Decree that ac tually entered into fo rce on 
1 January 2018. The EU recall ed that in line with Article 2.9 of the TBT Agreement, notification s to 
the WTO should  take place at an early appropriate stage, when amendments to the measure could  
still be introduced and that, in accordance with Article 2.9.4 of the TBT Agreement, reasonable time 
should be allowed, so that comments by WTO Members could  be taken into consideration. Moreover,  
she said,  the new testing procedures deviating from those based on internationally recognised 
UNECE type approvals, systematically imposed by t he Decree on each shipment, would  create 
unnecessary delays at customs an d impose additional costs to third country exporters, without 
providing any additional saf ety or consumer merit. This would,  in the long -run, harm their 
competitiveness vis -à-vis locally manufa ctured brands. The EU also recalled  that conformity 
assessment procedures should not be prepared, adopted or applied with a view to or with the effect 
of creating u nnecessary obstacles to trade. In light of all the foregoing considerations , the EU 
requested  Viet Nam to suspend the applicati on of the Decree and reconsider the comments provided 
by WTO Members in different fora. The EU also request ed Viet Nam to re-consult all stakeholders, 
in particular small volume importers of foreign cars.  
The representative of the United States  thanked  Viet Nam for its communication of 
8 November 2018 , informing that  automobile trade ha d resumed with its territory.  However, the US 
remain ed concerned with the  provisions contained in Decree  116, in particular  the Vehicle Type 
Approval (VTA) certificate and lo t-by-lot testing requirements. The U S request ed that Viet Nam 
resolve  remaining concerns with Decree  116 and Circular  3, including by publicly clarifying 
acceptable equivalent US documentation for new and used vehicles. The US also  welcome d Prime 
Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc' s Decision M emo (No. 1254) , dated 26 September , which coul d resolve 
US concerns with the lot -by-lot testing requirement for imported vehicles that imposed an 
unnecessarily costly  and burdensome process on US  exporters. She then asked Viet  Nam: (i) to 
inform what was  the implementation timeline for the Ministry of Transportation to make these 
proposed changes to the l ot-by-lot testing requirements; (ii)  to notify to the TBT Committee the 
implementing circular for Decree  116, Circular  3 (Circular No. 3/2018/TT - BGTVT), and an y changes 
to these regulations,  per its commitment to do so at the March TBT Committee meeting. This was, 
in the US's view, important since Circular  3 laid  out conformity assessment procedures,  including 
mandatory cer tification requirements ; and (iii)  to hold open comment periods for draft regulations 
and implementing decrees, and seriously consider all submitted comments in the creation of final 
regulations.  
The representative of Mexico  expressed her delegation's conc ern with the measure.  Mexico 
also shared the concerns expressed by other delegations . 
                                                
107 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.222 and G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.254.  G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 35 - 
 
  
The representative of Canada  expressed his delegation's appreciation for Viet Nam's bilateral 
engagement to answer some of Canada's questions. Canada also echoe d some of the concerns raised 
by othe r WTO Members regarding Vietnam' s Decree 116.  
The representative of Viet Nam  thanked the US for the bilateral meeting and Japan, the EU, 
Mexico and Canada for the ir comments. She stated that Decree  116 had been  developed and 
promulgated in accordance with Viet Nam law no.  80/2015/QS13 on promulgation of Nominative 
documents. During this process, s takeholders had been  consulted for comments, and many meeting s 
with automobile enterprises organized . Automobile imports had been delay ed for several months in 
the application of this decree because enterprise s had been waiting for the practical applied 
regulation and thus intentionally delayed their orders. At the same time, they had been preparing 
their procedures for automob ile imports  in accordance with Decree  116. Enterprises had then 
managed to meet requirements under Decree 116 and now imports had recovered up to 11,507 
units in all types of automobiles until September 2018 - higher than average monthly import volume 
in 2017 (8,000 units per month).  Viet Nam therefore considered that the provisions of D ecree  116 
did comply with international commitments and that it was unnecessary to postpone a new policy 
which ha d been applied normally by authorities and enterprises.  
3.4.43   Viet Nam — Cybersecurity Measures (IMS ID 544108) 
3.210.   The representative of Japan  expressed concern with Viet Nam' s Cybersecurity Law, which 
had entered into force in June 2018. This measure included  provisions which could hinder free flow 
of information and participation of foreign companies in the Vietnamese market. Japan continue d to 
request the details of the "cybersecurity condition"  under the draft law and clearance  of procedures. 
Japan recogniz ed that the dr aft enforcement regulations had  been subject to formal public comment 
since the beginning of November 2018 . Japan request ed Viet Nam to notify the enforcement 
regulations and consider comments from M embers. Japan also requested that Viet  Nam implement 
the law in a transparent manner not more trade -restrictive than necessary . 
The representative of the United States  said that, while Viet Nam's  Law on Cybersecurity 
already passed in the National Assembly on 12 June 2018 , the publication of the fi nal law  was still 
pending . She expressed her delegation's appreciation for Viet Nam's  8 November 2018 response to 
the US's concerns related to national cyberspace infrastructure, and the prohibited content in 
information systems. The US was still not sure , however,  of how the definition of national cyberspace 
infrastructure aligned  with international standard s, since this definition appeared  to be 
Viet Nam-specific. The US request ed the final Viet Nam law be notified to the TBT Committee, and  
that a ny implementing reg ulations also  be notified while comments could  still be taken into account. 
The US remained concerned that this Law was overly trade -restrictive . The US therefore continue d 
to encourage Viet Nam to consider a risk -based approach to cybersec urity, i.e. an approach  that 
would draw  from industry best practices, widely accepted definitions, and international standards. 
The US also  request ed Viet  Nam to consider the Common Criteria Recognition Arrangement (CCRA) 
certification process when prepari ng implementing measures for its Cybersecurity Law.  
The representative of Australia  said that his delegation  share d other Members'  concerns with 
a number of concepts in Viet Nam's  Law on Cybersecurity. Australia and other Members had  provided 
feedback on Viet Nam's draft Decree implementing this new law, noting interest in seeing a law that 
would support  increased part icipation in global e -commerce, and one that would enhance the 
business environment in Viet Nam, including by being transparent, clear and c ompliant with 
international trade commitments. Australia also question ed whether the requirements in the 
measure were really necessary to meet Viet Nam's  cybersecurity objectives. While Australia s hared 
the view that safeguarding cybersecurity was  a legiti mate policy objective of governments , it also  
had doubts as to whether the current Vietnamese  laws represent ed the least trade -restrictive 
manner to achieve that objective. Australia note d that it would be important for stakeholders to 
have a meaningful op portunity to comment on any draft implementing decrees and strongly 
encourage d Viet Nam to provide a public consultation  period . Australia would continue to provide 
comments to Viet Nam on the evolving draf t Decree, and thank ed Viet  Nam for its engagement on 
this matter.  
                                                
108 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 54 4 (under dates raised and references).  
 G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 36 - 
 
  
The representative of European Union  share d Member s' concerns on the potential for the 
Vietnamese C ybersecurity L aw to create unnecessary barriers to trade. Th law which would be 
applied from 1  January 2019  had not been notified to the WTO . The E U was concern ed with its vague 
terminology and broad scope , including , for instance, data localisation and local office requirements.  
According to recen t information, an implementing D ecree , expected to take effect from 1 January 
2019, detailing certain  articles of the Cybersecurity Law  had been drafted and was under 
consultation. This Decree included  provisions on the verification, assessment, auditing, and 
monitoring of information systems critical to national security. The E U thus requested Viet  Nam to 
notify this Decree  so to allow Members to analyse it in depth , allow reasonable time comments and  
for any eventual comments to be  taken into consideration. Viet Nam should  also allow for a 
reasonable interval of time between the pu blication and the enforcement of adopted measures . The 
EU therefore invited  Viet Nam to provide updated information on any plans to take into consideration 
comments from interested parties, including industry and stakeholders, in the preparation of the 
draft decree, as well as on the time -frame for its adoption. Some indications on the po tential 
development of further implementing measures for the Cybersecurity Law  would also be appreciated. 
The E U also encourage d Viet  Nam to develop and implement the Cybersecurity Law, as well as any 
further  implementing measures , in full respect of WTO p rinciples, such as non -discrimination and 
proportionality , and to take into consideration available international standards and best practices.  
The representative of  Canada  said that his delegation  continued  to suppor t the views 
expressed by other Members on this matter. Canada also asked Viet  Nam to notify the final measures 
to the TBT  Committee.  
The representative of  Viet Nam said that the  provision regulating  cybersecurity conditions in 
Cybersecurity  Law did not apply to tho se information systems which w ere critical information 
systems related to national security. In this law, no provision could hinder participati on of foreign 
companies in Viet Nam's  market. The requirement of cyber security conditions under this law appl ied 
to critical information system  of national security which mainly belong ed to government agencies. 
The storing of persona l data would not obstruct data flow and would  not hinder participation of 
foreign companies in Viet Nam's  market. The term "National Cyberspace Infrastructure " was de fined 
by Viet Nam's  competent authorities in accordance with practical application of science technology 
and information technology in Viet  Nam without impacting and creating burden for enterprises. 
Viet Nam's  laws prevent ed the dissemination of defamatory  information and could  cause economy 
management disturbance, social disorder and jeopardize national security. All the companies shall 
follow local regulations that were  prepared, adopted and applied to fulfil the legitimate objective of 
national security requirements. Viet  Nam welcomed  all comments from foreign representative s, 
agencies and companies during the development of an instructive document for the 
Cybersecurity  Law. 
3.4.44   European Union — Amendments to the Directive 2009/28/EC, Renewable Energy 
Directive (IMS ID 553109) 
The representatives of Malaysia , Indonesia  and Colombia  raised concerns with the European 
Union's Amendments to the RED Directive 2009/28/EC. The full stateme nts are contained in 
G/TBT/W/575 , G/TBT/W/565  and G/TBT/W/576 , respectively.  
The representative of Honduras  reiterated concerns raised in previous TBT Committee 
meetings.110  
The representative of Ecuador  expressed concern that Directive 2009/28/EC would 
discourage the use of first generation biofuels. This would unjustifiably affect countries producing 
palm oil destined for the EU market. Of particular concern was the inclusion of the criterion of 
"Indirect Land Use Change"  (ILUC). Existing methodologies for calculating ILUC lacked precision, 
and there were varied results in studies in the vegetable oil sector. She noted that ILUC was not an 
internationally accepted benchmark. She requested that the EU consider less trade -restrictive 
alternatives which recognized the considerable efforts made by developing countries in ensuring 
sustainable palm production and the commitment to continued advancement. According to studies 
carried out by the Ecuadorian Ministry of the Environmen t, palm had historically been responsible 
for barely 3% of deforestation in Ecuador, more often occupying areas set aside for other crops. 
                                                
109 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 553  (under dates raised and references).  
110 G/TBT/M/75 , para.4.241 . G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 37 - 
 
  Furthermore, both established plantations and new developments were covered by the Zero 
Deforestation policy adopted in Ecuador, which included plans and programmes subject to strict 
controls to ensure environmentally and socially responsible production. Ecuador would continue 
working on this issue bilaterally with the European Union authorities in Brussels.  
The represen tative of Costa Rica  informed the Committee that Costa Rica had been following 
the amendment process very closely and shared the EU's concern on the use of alternative energy 
and the necessity to reduce greenhouse gases so as to achiev e the objectives set in the Paris 
Agreement. Costa R ica was internationally recogniz ed for its standards for the improvement of 
quality of life and sustainable use of natural resources – 28% of the territory was under 
environmental protection and over half of the country cover ed by forest. According to FAO data, 
Costa Rica was the only tropical country that reversed deforestation and had successfully 
incorporated renewable energy in its production. A high percentage of energy was renewable through 
electric hydro energy, thermo -energy etc. Costa Rica had studied the proposed EU text and was 
trying to understand the approach for the promotion of the use of renewable energy, in particular 
the reduction on the use of bio combustibles that use palm oil and others. Their production pr ovided 
a high level of employment and income in Costa Rica. Fuels that were produced in such a way in 
Costa Rica did not affect the use of land and there was an assumption that this displaced the land 
use away from food production to forests leading to a h igh production of greenhouse gases. Limiting 
bio-combustible production using its primary material was based on the distinction between high 
risk bio -combustibles and low risk biofuels without the direct conversion of the land. Production in 
Costa Rica did  not correspond to the latter definition and given the specifics of production in Costa 
Rica, he asked that the EU consider the environmental standards at the international level that 
guarantee the compatibility of palm oil production with sustainable deve lopment. In a formal note 
to the EU, Costa Rica had suggested using the Roundtable on Palm Oil standard as an equivalent to 
the certification for primary raw material of low risk. Article 25 of the RCPO provided certification 
that had international recogni tion and guaranteed sustainable production of palm oil under a rigorous 
protocol to prevent deforestation, defend biodiversity. Based on the introduction of the concept of 
low risk bio fuel, he hoped the EU would recognize the specifics of production of pa lm oil in Costa 
Rica and across Latin America.  
The representative of Guatemala  reiterated concerns raised in previous TBT Committee 
meetings.111  
The representative of Thailand  shared the concerns raised by other Members. Thailand 
looked forward to palm oil being included in a fair, transparent and non -disruptive manner in the EU 
renewable policy framework.  
The representative of Argentina  agreed with other M embers that the renewable energy policy 
should be implemented in such a way as to avoid creating obstac les to trade. Of particular concern 
was the EU's intention to use ILUC considerations (even emissions were not taken into account) to 
classify certain raw materials as high ILUC risk, with biofuels produced with those raw materials then 
being phased out be tween 2023 and 2030. There was scant scientific or technical basis for the 
references or classification regarding high ILUC risk raw materials. Only a small amount of research 
had been done globally, with reviews of the background and few concrete studies on the issue. The 
estimates were based on predictions made with econometric models using historical series of market 
data that were too outdated to be able to determine future effects; and the selection of the sites of 
cropland expansion as well as the typ e of land where such an expansion would take place lacked 
technical scientific basis. Thus, the entire mechanism was arbitrary and discretionary. Another 
concern was on the classification of biofuels based on  predictive models of market behaviour and 
objec tionable agricultural expansion which could potentially result in inconsistencies with the WTO 
TBT Agreement. He requested that the EU adapt the directive, and its implementation , in line with 
WTO obligations.  
The representative of the European Union  recalled the  response that had been provided at 
the previous TBT Committee meeting , but also provided for an update of the next legislative steps .112  
                                                
111 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.239 -4.240 . 
112 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.245.  G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 38 - 
 
  3.4.45   European Union — Application of Regulation No. 1169/2011 and Regulation (EC) 
No 1924/2006 as regards the la belling of food products, in not prohibiting or examining 
the use of "pa lm oil free" labels (IMS ID 555113) 
The representatives of Indonesia  and Colombia  raised concerns with the EU's Application of 
Regulation No. 1169/2011 and Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 The full state ments are contained in 
G/TBT/W/566  and G/TBT/W/577 , respectively . 
The representative of Ecuador  shared the concerns raised by other Mem bers. The labelling 
of food as "palm oil free" had led to a negative campai gn against the product without  any technical 
or scientific justification  and was in fact deceitful . There was no nutritional or environmental evidence 
that palm oil products were  different from other similar products. This type of labelling containing 
overly general negative messages about palm oil , implied that it was un health y and inferior to other 
types  of vegetable oil , without any scientific evidence . It was not covered by the relevant annex of  
the treaty or of the European P arliament documents relating to nutritiona l qualities and food qualities 
and did  not respect regulations with respect to food labelling. It implied that palm oil was less 
sustainable than  other similar crops without considering  the specific approach of countries like 
Ecuador where palm oil was produced  in a sustainable manner . She requested that the EU reconsider 
regulating this type of negative labelling and to do so respecting EU regulat ions currently in force, 
such as 1924/16 and 16/2017 and  the European Parliament's regulations on negative publicity. The 
current approach was  damaging to the palm oil industry . It not only affected exporters but also 
European producers of foodstuff contai ning palm oil and others who are affected by this mass 
marketing strategy.  
The representative of Honduras  asked the European Union to provide information with 
respect to the implementation criteria used for the regulation.  
The representative of Guatemala  reiterated previously raised concerns .114  
The representative of Thailand  supported the concerns raised by other Members. Palm oil 
free labelling was discriminatory against palm oil compared to other products. He encouraged the 
EU to provide further clarifica tion, justification and scientific evidence.  
The representative of Costa Rica  shared the concerns raised by other Members with respect 
to the broad use of labels on the EU market containing wording such as "palm oil free". There was 
no scientific evidence to support labelling that indicated that products with palm oil were harmful to 
health. Therefore, this label could not be justified. The EU regulation allowing for this additional 
labelling was not in keeping with the TBT Agreement.  
The representative of  Malaysia  shared the concerns raised by other Members on palm oil 
free labelling. Malaysia would continue to monitor the development of the issue in the TBT 
Committee.  
The representative of the European Union  repeated responses provided in previous TBT 
Committee meetings.115 
3.4.46   Thailand — New certification requirements under the Thai Ministry of Finance's 
Ministerial Notification on Importation of Spirits into the Kingdom of Thailand (B.E 2560) 
(IMS ID 556116) 
The representative of the European Union  reiterated concerns raised in the previous TBT 
Committee meeting.117 The EU appreciated the extension of the grace period to submit samples or 
certificate of analysis within 30 days of importation (from 14 September 2018 to 14 March 2019) 
and asked Thailand  to confirm the Thai Excise Department 's intent  to set its own standards and 
accept producer self -certifications. On 10 October, the Thai Excise Department had shared, for 
consultation, the draft forms of Certificate of Analysis for distilled and fermented  spirits to be filled -
                                                
113 For previous st atements follow the thread under IMS ID 555  (under dates raised and references).  
114 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.252.  
115 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.256; G/TBT/M/74 , para. 2.46 and statement circulated in full in  G/TBT/W/476 . 
116 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 556 (under dates raised and references).  
117 G/TBT/M/75 , paras. 4.26 3-4.264.  G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 39 - 
 
  in by relevant certifying bodies in the countries of origin. The forms provided details on the limits 
for each regulated substance to be certified by those relevant certifying bodies. It was noted that 
the limits were similar to TISI limits and that no details had been provided regarding the analytical 
methods. The EU had recently provided comments on the draft forms to the Excise Department. The 
EU remained available to work with Thailand on the review of the standards, including thro ugh 
discussions at expert level on the regulated substances and the methods of analysis to address the 
differences between the standards of the Excise Department and internationally accepted practices.  
The representative of Japan  reiterated concerns raise d in the previous TBT Committee 
meeting.118  
The representative of Mexico  was particularly concerned about the Certificate of Analysis 
(CoA) that the Thai authorities were planning to introduce in March 2019 and that would be 
necessary to obtain an import li cence. Mexico's concern was underpinned by the following 
considerations:  
Regarding levels of methanol in Tequila: In accordance with the Certificate of Analysis, 
products had to comply with the provisions of the Decree on Industrial Product Standards of 19 68, 
Notification of the Ministry of Industry No. 2927 of 2001 on Distilled Spirits Standards (TIS 2088 -
2544), which established maximum permitted physical and chemical levels for alcoholic beverages 
and the associated test methods. The guidelines establish ed in this Decree presented significant 
difficulties for Tequila in the Thai market, primarily because the maximum level of methanol 
permitted under the Decree was lower than the maximum level of methanol permitted under Official 
Mexican Standard NOM 006 -SCFI-2012, Alcoholic Beverages -Tequila -Specifications.  
Lack of information on the CoA: The new certification measure had not been notified to the 
TBT Committee; this could constitute a violation of Article 2.9 of the TBT Agreement. Moreover, 
criteria and gu idelines for the implementation of the measure had not been made known. There was 
therefore significant uncertainty as to how the measure would be implemented.  
Analysis procedure: samples of alcoholic beverages had to be analysed by the Thai 
authorities us ing an extensive procedure that was unnecessary since the CoA could be issued by the 
authorities of the country of origin. This certificate could be attached to the product before it left the 
country of export thereby eliminating the need to issue one in T hailand – avoiding both time and 
costs of an additional procedure . 
In light of these considerations, and taking account of the provisions of Article 2.2 of the 
TBT Agreement, Thailand could be introducing measures that constituted unnecessary obstacles to 
trade since it intended to implement regulations that could be considered more restrictive than 
necessary. In view of the above, Mexico requested that Thailand share with the Committee (i) its 
reasoning and the basis used to establish such low maximum perm itted levels of methanol; and (ii) 
the status of the CoA notification issued to WTO Members and confirm whether the date of entry 
into force remained March 2019.  
The representative of New Zealand  reiterated concerns raised in the previous TBT Committee 
meeting.119 
The representative of Canada  supported concerns raised previously regarding Thailand's 
excise tax act of 2017, specifically pertaining to certain elements of the certificate of analysis 
required for imported alcoholic beverages. Canada was also of t he view that Thailand should formally 
notify the WTO of the new measures to provide a rationale for the proposed measures and a 
reasonable time for Members to comment.  
The representative of Australia  recogniz ed the right of governments to take measures 
necessary to protect public health. Nevertheless, Australia wished to emphasise the importance of 
compliance with the TBT Agreement and particularly the principle of national treatment and Article 
2.2 of the Agreement. Australian exporters faced ongoing uncer tainty regarding the implementation 
and certification requirements under the notification. It was understood that the requirements had 
                                                
118 G/TBT/M/75 , para.4.266.  
119 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.267.  G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 40 - 
 
  changed and Australia requested that these be notified to the TBT Committee to enable the 
engagement of trading partners.  Australian exporters were also concerned about the impact of the 
requirements on their business, particularly the cost involved in additional testing, and the 
potentially lengthy delays for test results.  
In addition, Australia noted that Thailand had cir culated a proposed Certificate of Analysis 
with two self -declaration options, which would require Australia 's regulatory body to certify that the 
goods meet the required Thai industrial standard. Certification of the composition of elements in 
liquor witho ut testing was against best practice and was unworkable in Australia. The proposed 
Certificate of Analysis required the inclusion of analysis of the liquor in accordance with an updated 
Thai Industrial Standard for Wine, Fruit Wine and other Fermented Beve rages (TIS 2089 -2544). 
Some proposed levels did not sufficiently account for naturally occurring elements or minimum 
detection levels in laboratory testing. In Australia, wine production was governed by Standard 4.5.1 
of the Australia New Zealand Food Stan dards Code. Australia would appreciate consideration of 
whether Thailand would recognize official certificates guaranteeing compliance with Australia 's 
requirements. Specifically, Australia asked for clarification on: (i) the expected implementation 
proces s for the option on the proposed certificate to submit products for testing to the Thailand 
Excise Department including costs, timeframes and import tax an d warehousing implications; and  
(ii) the length of validity of a Certificate of Analysis.  
The represe ntative of Chile shared the concerns expressed by previous speakers with respect 
to the regulatory system being introduced by Thailand. Chile was particularly concerned that the 
regulation had not been notified to the Committee and Thailand was invited to proceed with this 
notification given the affects it could have on the Chilean industry, which had expressed concern.  
The representative of Thailand  responded to the concerns raised. The full statement is 
contained in G/TBT/W/587 . 
3.4.47   China — Chinese Environmental protection control standards for imported solid 
waste as raw materials  (IMS ID 551120) 
The representative of Australia , whilst expressing appreciation for China's efforts to reduce 
pollution and pursue sustainable development, remained concerned about China's revised standards 
for certain waste and scrap imports. China's range of measures limiting import of waste and scrap  
materials appeared to be more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve the desired objectives. 
He therefore requested further information on the specific environmental protection objectives that 
the measures were designed to address, and urged China to  reconsider the measures in such a way 
as to facilitate global environmental outcomes by allowing for commercially meaningful trade in 
quality recyclable inputs. Australia noted previous comments that many of the contaminant levels 
were set at commercially  unviable levels and appeared different to the levels applied to China's 
domestic products. He also underlined that a range of materials impacted by China's measures were 
valuable inputs to recycling supply chains rather than "rubbish" and that trade in th ose products 
allowed for the recovery of materials which may otherwise end up in landfill. China was encouraged 
to engage with trading partners to improve and develop trade -facilitative standards for trade in 
recyclables, including standards meeting policy  objectives while also allowing for trade in recyclable 
materials, promotion of the recovery of resources and global environmental outcomes.  
The representative of Canada  continued to share Australia's concerns with the uncertainty 
for traders created by Ch ina's restrictions on the import of solid waste and recalled his delegation's 
comments provided at the previous TBT Committee meeting.121 
The representative of the United States  voiced support for the concerns raised by Australia.  
The representative of China  responded to the concerns raised. The full state ment is 
contained in G/TBT/W/580 . 
                                                
120 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 551  (under dates raised and references).  
121 G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.198 -4.199.  
 G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 41 - 
 
  3.4.48   Israel — Addendum to the Pharmacist Regulations (Cosmetics 5778 -2018)  (IMS 
ID 552122) 
The representative of the European Union  continued to raise concerns . The full state ment is 
contained in G/TBT/W/573 . 
The representative of Israel  informed the Committee that the purpose of the regulation was 
to open the market to more c ompetition while still maintaining the safety and quality of the cosmetics 
market in Israel. This was part of a broader effort to further lower barriers to the Israeli market to 
benefit consumers by improving prices and quality of goods. He had taken note of the issues raised 
and thanked Members for their interest and continued participation in the discussion. He asked that 
Members provide written copies of their statements delivered in the meeting.  
3.4.49   Viet Nam — Alcoholic Beverages G/TBT/N/VNM/126  (IMS ID 532123) 
3.251.   The representative of Mexico  express ed concern about the "Draft Law on Prevention and 
Control of Harms of Alcohol Use" which had been notified to the TBT Committee on 22 May 2018 in 
document G/TBT/N/VNM/126 . The draft l aw establishe d measures to prevent and control the harms 
of consuming alcohol, beer and other alcoholic beverages, including measures to reduce d emand, 
measures to control supply and measures to reduce the h arms of alcohol use. The draft l aw also 
establishe d labelling requirements for the sale of alcoholic beverages in Viet Nam.  Her delegation 
raised the following concerns: (i) the title of the dra ft law  could cause confusion as to its purpose ; 
(ii) the draft l aw contain ed regulatory restrictions that were more burdensome than necessary, which 
could infringe Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement ; (iii) the draft l aw contain ed provisions that lack ed 
clarity regarding their implications for product  cover age; (iv) requirements for obtaining licences to 
sell liquor on premises  appeared more burdensome than necessary; (v) the draft l aw should be 
focussed on safeguarding public health through measures that cont rol and regulate unrecorded 
alcohol, educate consumers about responsibility for excessive alcohol consumption and introduce 
penalties to ensure effective and more rigorous compliance in relation to alcohol abuse, without 
affecting the sal e or consumption o f the product; (vi) the draft l aw contain ed restrictions on 
advertising that could affect product sales ; and (vii) t he provisions could also have implications for 
other areas beyond  TBT, for example, the prohibition of both e -commer ce and sponsorships coul d 
represent unnecessary obstacles to trade in Viet Nam.  
3.252.   In light of the above, Mexico requested Viet Nam to:  (i) reconsider the title of the law, with 
a view to referring to the prevention of and fight against the harmful use of alcohol rather than 
simply to the use of alcohol, since the current title of the l aw could in itself have an indirect impact 
on the sale of a lcohol i n Viet Nam; (ii) r evise the draft to clarify its provisions and flesh out the 
information on the implications of the measures for products fall ing within the law's scope of 
application; and (iii) i ndicate whether Viet Nam ha d previously, and unsucc essfully, implemented 
other forms of less restrictive measures, and sta te its position on whether the l aw should focus on 
safeguarding public health without creating such onerous trade barriers for the sale of alcohol.  
3.253.   The representative of Viet Nam  thanke d Mexico for the bilateral meeting and said that the 
draft law on prevention and control of harm of alcohol use had been notified on 22 July 2018. Within  
the period, received comments had been replied to by competent agencies of Viet Nam. According 
to the procedures of promulgation of nominative documents, Viet Nam had finalized the draft law 
and submitted it to the National Assembly for adoption. Viet Nam  took note of Mexico's concerns 
and would deliver them to the relevant agency in capital for further consideration.  
3.4.50   Brazil — Draft Technical Resolution n° 51, 7 April 2017 on labelling of beverages, 
wine, and grape derivatives , G/TBT/N/BRA/719  and G/TBT/N/BRA/719/Add.1  (IMS ID 557124) 
The represe ntative of the European Union  reiterated previously raised concerns  and asked 
for an update of the adoption procedure for this technical regulation .125  
                                                
122 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 552  (under dates raised and references).  
123 For prev ious statements follow the thread under IMS ID 532  (under dates raised and references).  
124 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 557  (under dates raised and references).  
125 G/TBT/M/75 , para s. 4.3-4.5. G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 42 - 
 
  
The representative of Brazil  recalled that the process relating to this ordinance was still in 
progress and had been conducted in a very transparent manner, in accordance with the principles 
of the TB T Agreement. Two public consultations had already been held on this draft technical 
resolution, notified as G/TBT/N/BRA/719  and G/TBT/N/BRA/719/Add.1 . In response to a specific 
request from the EU, he reported that the period for comments of the second public consultation 
had been extended by an additional 37 days beyond the 60 days established in the draft. Those 
comments were currently under analysis by the technical authorities of the Brazilian Ministry of 
Agriculture. Moreover, he flagged the possibility of  a new public consultation on th e measure being 
held in 2019, which Brazil would duly notify to the Committee.  
3.4.51   India — Testi ng and Certification of telegraph (The Indian telegraph (Amendment) 
Rules, 2017) , G/TBT/N/IND/66  (IMS ID 558126) 
The representative of the United States  raised concerns with India's Testing and Certification 
of Telegraphs. The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/596 . 
The representative of India recalled that replies to some of the queries had been provided 
at the previous TBT Committee meeting. T he Rule was intended to safeguard user safety and the 
security of the network. He underlined that the scheme was non -discriminatory with respect to 
Original Equipment Manufacturers as it did not restrict testing to Conformity Assessment Bodies 
(CABs) locat ed in India (Telecom Engineering Center (TEC) -designated labs) but also allowed testing 
from internationally recognized CABs located in Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) partner 
countries worldwide. The date of enforcement for radio and wireline equipment  would be 1 January 
2019 and for the other categories of telecom equipment including IT and mobiles, the enforcement 
date was 1 April 2019. The TEC Notification TEC/10/2018 -TC dated 27 September 2018 contained 
this information. Test results from ILAC -accre dited labs would be accepted up to 31 March 2019, in 
order to offer flexibility in response to demands from industry. It was not feasible to continue the 
relaxation indefinitely. Concern on the overlap of a few products requiring testing under the CRO 
and under The Indian Telegraph (Amendment) Rules 2017 notified in G/TBT/N/I ND/66 , was still 
being worked on. He informed  Members that at no point would i ndustry be subjected to the rigours 
of duplicate testing requirements under the CRO and under "The Indian Telegraph (Amendment) 
Rules 2017".  
3.4.52   United States — TSA Certification on security screening equipment  
G/TBT/N/USA/1132  (IMS ID 559127) 
The representative of China  raised concerns with the US measure on TSA Certification on 
security screening. The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/581 . 
The representative of the United States  said that the complaint raised by China on TSA's 
Certification on Security Screening Equipment had been reviewed. Concerns raised by C hina would 
be conveyed to the appropriate US government officials. The TSA Certification on Security Screening 
Equipment program was developed under US Federal Acquisition Requirements (FAR), and was not 
a technical regulation, but rather, a government pro curement requirement. Therefore, she said it 
was not a matter for discussion under the TBT Agreement.  
4  EXCHANGE OF EXPERIEN CES 
4.1  Adoption of the Eighth Triennial Review  
The Committee adopted  the Report of the Eighth Triennial Review ( G/TBT/41 ).  
4.2  Organization of work in 2019  
4.2.  The Chairperson  summarised the discussion that had taken place during the informal meeting 
earlier in the week. She noted that there had been an initial discussion on how to organize the work 
of the Committee in 2019 and that it focused on the two thematic sessions plann ed in conjunction 
                                                
126 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 55 8 (under dates raised and references).  
127 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 55 9 (under dates raised and references).  G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 43 - 
 
  with the March 2019 Committee meeting (on good regulatory practice and conformity assessment 
procedures).  
4.3.  With respect to good regulatory practice , the thematic session would focus on "domestic 
committees, and other administrative mechan isms, that facilitated internal coordination on TBT". 
She said that Kenya had expressed willingness to share its experiences with its national coordination 
mechanisms. The United States and the European Union both expressed interest in contributing to 
the session. South Africa called for discussion on how internal TBT Committees were structured, and 
the terms of reference of such internal Committees.  
With respect to conformity assessment procedures , the March thematic session would 
focus on "post market co ntrols (e.g. market surveillance) and other pre -market controls" and "risk 
assessment". The US and the EU expressed interest in providing speakers. South Africa mentioned 
the importance of discussing the legislative framework that supported market surveill ance and post 
market controls. Members also discussed other topics related to conformity assessment procedures. 
Brazil highlighted the recommendation for a thematic session on "case studies of practical examples 
of how Members arrived at the acceptance of conformity assessment results". Brazil was preparing 
a paper on this topic and would see how it could fit this into the upcoming discussions. Indonesia 
mentioned the importance of accreditation, and called for discussion on the use of accreditation to 
facilitate acceptance of conformity assessment results, including in the context of MRAs. In addition, 
Canada mentioned that it was preparing for the thematic session on "incorporating standards by 
reference in regulation", planned for November 2019, and looke d forward to having speakers from 
a diverse set of Members.  The Chairperson said that it was encouraging that Members were already 
thinking beyond the March meeting and looking ahead to the other thematic sessions planned for 
2019.  
The Chairperson invited  Members to share their initial proposals for speakers and focused topics 
for all five thematic sessions foreseen in 2019, by a target date of 15 January 2019. These ideas 
could then be discussed at an informal meeting in early 2019.128 This would encourage Members to 
submit in writing, by 15 January, their initial proposals for speakers for all the thematic sessions 
planned for 2019. These were: (i) good regulatory practice and conformity assessment procedures 
in March 2019; (ii) transparency and the Ninth S pecial Meeting on Procedures for Information 
Exchange in June 2019; and (iii) standards and conformity assessment procedures in November 
2019. The Chairperson stressed that Member would have further opportunities to propose specific 
interventions and speak ers. Proceeding in this manner would enable the Committee to prepare 
outlines for programmes for these thematic sessions well in advance. This would help the Committee 
keep on top of its calendar of events set out in the Eight Triennial Review report. She suggested that 
the Secretariat keep a "running list" of proposals and ideas from Members, keeping track of 
suggestions that came from the floor.129  
It was noted that the discussion on Tuesday had also touched upon some of the other streams 
of work  set out i n the Eighth Triennial Review report. Notably how the Committee would organize 
its work to develop "non -prescriptive practical guidelines to support regulators in the choice and 
design of appropriate and proportionate conformity assessment procedures". She  suggested that 
the Committee reflect on this matter. Thematic sessions, in the past, had proven to be a good 
starting point for more focused work of the Committee – for instance the development of guidance 
documents, or other decisions. One example was th e adoption of a recommendation on the 
"Coherent use of Notification Formats" in 2014.130 This had grown out of a mandate in an earlier 
triennial review. The mandate was picked up in a proposal from one Member (the EU in this case) 
which had set out ideas on elements based on its experience. The proposal was subject to a round 
of comments from other Members after which the Committee requested the Secretariat to develop 
a draft, based on Members ideas, for the consideration of the Committee. The draft was furth er 
revised based on additional comments from Members, and was eventually adopted as a Committee 
recommendation. This was one approach that led to the successful adoption of a guidance document, 
in a relatively short period of time. It had taken one year fr om the initial proposals from Members, 
to adoption of the recommendation by the Committee. She encouraged the Committee to be flexible 
                                                
128 This meeting was subsequently scheduled for 8 February 2019.  
129 The document JOB/TBT/273  "Follow -up to the 8th Triennial Review: Aide -Memoire" was subsequently 
circulated on 20 December 2018.  
130 G/TBT/35  G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 44 - 
 
  in ways of advancing its work and noted that some issues before the Committee could be brought 
directly into standing ite ms already included in the regular agenda.  
The representative of Ecuador  supported an exchange of information on Good Regulatory 
Practice mechanisms. Thematic sessions were a very useful way of guiding and providing information 
on reform initiatives in developing countries. Ecuador was currently working on developing RIAs, 
through cooperation programmes to facilitate analysis in the implementation of new regulations. 
There was strong interest in including regulatory impact assessment as a thematic session topic in 
2019 to contribute to the analysis and on -going national debate.  She suggested that Members share 
how they developed analysis or quantification of the cost benefit of implementing an RIA.  
The representative of New Zealand  expressed interest in participating in the thematic session 
on good regulatory practice with its focus on national coordination by sharing New Zealand's tools 
and practices for regulators and notifiable measures. This was contained in the 8th Triennial Review 
proposal ( G/TBT/W/463 ).  
5  TECHNICAL COOPERATIO N ACTIVITIES  
The representative of Colombia  informed the Committee that they had organized a video 
conference workshop ear lier in the week with the support of the Department of Trade Agreements 
and Technical Rules of the National Board of trade of Sweden, to strengthen SPS and TBT Enquiry 
Points in Colombia. The workshop covered experiences and best practices by studying the 
methodology for the participation in the TBT Committee, identifying technical barriers and 
strengthening work with other government agencies and the private sector. She thanked the 
delegation of Sweden for their participation in the workshop to strengthen Colombia's enquiry point.  
The Secretariat provided updates to the Committee on the Enquiry Point Guide  and on ePing . 
The ful l statements are contained in G/TBT/GEN/253 . 
6  OBSERVERS  
6.1  Updates from Observers  
The representative of ISO informed the Committee that the draft document of ISO/IEC Guide 
59 on Good Standardization Practices would be circulated on 23 November 2018 to all ISO members 
and IEC National Committees for four  months for a vote and c omments. She stressed that WTO 
Members could comment on the draft Guide during the enquiry stage through their ISO and IEC 
members. At the end of the voting period, the Joint Working Group members of ISO/IEC Guide 59 
would review the results of the voting together with the comments received and agree on the next 
action.  
Updates were also provided from UNIDO  (G/TBT/GEN/ 254), UNECE  (G/TBT/GEN/ 255) and 
BIPM.  
6.2  Pending Requests  
The Chairperson  noted that the  list of observers, incl uding pending requests, wa s contained in 
document G/TBT/GEN/2/Rev.14 . In addition, she stated that document RD/TBT/1/Rev.6  provided  a 
compilation of the various bodies that ha d sought observ er status in the TBT Committee and whose 
requests were pending. Finally, the Chairperson noted that the Committee had requested a 
consultation with the Legal Affairs Division to clarify the existing rules and procedures on granting 
observer status to non -intergovernmental international organisations such as ILAC and IAF.  
A representative of the Legal Affairs Division of the Secretariat  made a presentation to the 
Committee. The full statement is contained in document  JOB/TBT/271 .  
The representative s of South Africa  and the United States  requested the Secretariat to circulate 
the statement.  
The representative of the European Union  clarified that the ISO and IEC had been granted 
observer status under the GATT TBT Committee's former rules at its meeting of 24 April  1980, and G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 45 - 
 
  that at that time the applicable rules for observers refer red exclusively to international organizations 
and not to international intergovernmental organizations. The EU  maintained that the change of the 
rules of procedures to international intergovernmental organizations proved intent of the Members 
to restrict and limit the definition of observers only to international intergovernmental organizations. 
As such, his deleg ation was of the view that the example of ISO and IEC could not be a valid 
precedent or justification for assessing new requests for observer status as they responded to a 
specific case that was decided before  the entry into force of the current applicable  rules of 
procedures. By the time the current applicable rules had been adopted, the ISO and IEC already had 
a settled status.  
The representative of the United States  said that her delegation did not support the EU 
statement that non -intergovernmental inte rnational organizations could not be granted observer 
status, especially considering that the TBT Committee was already composed of observers that were 
not wholly international intergovernmental organisations, such as the ISO and IEC. Her delegation 
reiter ated that both ISO and IEC conducted international conformity assessments and trade -
facilitative type systems with the IECEE CB Scheme of managing the ISO -CASCO. By being 
observers, these organizations benefited from an advantage that ILAC and IAF did not have. The US 
supported the applications of ILAC and IAF and expressed the view that if ISO and IEC were 
observers because they had cooperation agreements with the WTO, then ILAC or IAF should have a 
cooperation agreement with the WTO because they were alwa ys present for the Committee 
meetings.  
The representative of the European Union  clarified that the ISO and IEC had been granted 
observer status under the GATT TBT Committee's former rule s and that at its meeting of 
24 April 1980, the applicable rules for observers referred exclusively to international organizations 
and not to international intergovernmental organizations. The EU  maintained that the change of the 
rules of procedures to international intergovernmental organizations proved intent of the Membe rs 
to restrict and limit the definition of observers only to international intergovernmental organizations. 
As such, his delegation was of the view that the example of ISO and IEC could not be a valid 
justification for assessing new requests for observer s tatus as they responded to a specific case that 
was decided before  the entry into force of the current applicable rules of procedures. By the time 
the current applicable rules had been adopted, the ISO and IEC already had a settled status.  
The representati ve of the United States  responded that the Committee was presently 
considering about 60 STCs and noted that 40% of those related to problems with the acceptance of 
conformity assessment results. The US stated that the work of ILAC and IAF could assist in 
facilitating that trade and reducing those barriers.  
The Chairperson  concluded that there was no common ground with t he requests for observer 
status  and asked the Members to move on and to consider the full list of pending requests contained 
in G/TBT/GEN/2/Rev.14 .  
The representative from Afghanistan  supported th e application of SMIIC for observer status 
in the TBT Committee. She stressed that SMIIC was an affiliate institution of the Organization of 
Islamic Cooperation and functioned as a mechanism for the harmonization of standards among the 
OIC Countries. Also,  the goal of SMIIC was to eliminate technical barriers to. Moreover, SMIIC and 
the WTO TBT Committee shared the same objectives of eliminating technical barriers to trade 
through cooperation in the areas of standardization, conformity assessment, metrology , and 
accreditation. Afghanistan explained that SMIIC already abided by the rules of the TBT Agreement 
as it accepted and complied with the Code of Good Practice for the preparation, adoption and 
application of standards. Finally, the representative from A fghanistan underlined the importance to 
continue taking joint action in the fields of the Halal standards, certification and accreditation within 
the framework of SMIIC with the aim of preventing technical barriers to trade for the Halal product.  
The repr esentative from Pakistan  expressed his country's support for SMIIC as observer at 
the TBT Committee due to the crucial role that SMIIC, an affiliated organ of the OIC, played in the 
harmonization of standards and removal of technical barriers to trade amon gst its member states. 
Pakistan stressed that SMIIC also provided technical assistance to its member states who lacked the 
resources or the expertise to develop their standardization, accreditation, and certification 
mechanisms. As such, SMIIC supplied equ ipment and technical services on a cost -sharing basis to 
help its members to comply fully with their obligations under the TBT Agreement. As an active 
member of SMIIC, Pakistan believed that the aims of SMIIC and that of the TBT Committee were G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 46 - 
 
  congruent in  facilitating trade through the harmonization of standards, technical regulations, and 
conformity assessment procedures.  
The representative from Turkey  reiterated his delegation's support for the application of SMIIC 
for observer status made at the last me eting of the Committee. He explained that  SMIIC, which was 
established in 2010, wa s an affiliate institution of OIC, which ha d a membership of 57 countries over 
four continents. In addition, the representative from Turkey stressed that a s the intergovernme ntal 
standardization in stitution of the OIC, SMIIC aimed  at developing the infrastructures, economies and 
trade capacities of its member countries  and consequently enhancing intra and international trade. 
In fact, SMIIC's acceptance and compliance with the  Code of Good Practice for the preparation, 
adoptio n and application of standards wa s a clear indication of SMIIC's position . Moreover, Turkey 
added that s ince its establishment, the number of SMIIC Members ha d been steadily  increasing  and 
almost all membe rs of SMIIC were already either m embers or observers to the WTO and being an 
observer to the WTO TBT Committee would be an expected route for the SMIIC to follow.  He 
reiterate d Turkey's belief that participation of the SMIIC to the WTO TBT Committee with o bserver 
status would  contribute to the ultimate objective of eliminating technical barriers to trade through 
enhancing cooperation in the areas of standardization, conformity assessment, metrology and 
accreditation. Turkey cautioned that while SMIIC member  states would  be notified timely of the 
latest developments in int ernational trade, SMIIC would be able to take essential steps to assist its 
members to fulfil necessary requirements of the TBT Agreement or to be aware of certain technical 
barriers to trad e.  
The representative from Qatar  extended his country's support for SMIIC to be granted 
observer status in this Committee. He stressed that SMIIC provided a mechanism for harmonization 
of standards among the OIC countries with the objective of removing technical barriers to trade 
which i s in line with the purpose of the TBT Agreement.  
The representative of the State of Kuwait  supported the granting o f the application of SMIIC 
for observer s tatus.  
The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  expressed her country's support for 
grant ing observer status to SMIIC and underlined that the organization aimed to develop common 
standards among the 38 members of the OIC as a single market with the objective to ensure the 
protection of consumers, facilitate cross -border trade through eliminati ng trade barriers, ensure the 
inter-operability of products, and ensure innovation and technological development including 
environmental protection and business growth. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia strongly believed that 
granting observer status to the SMII C at the WTO TBT Committee would not only allow the SMIIC 
to benefit from the progress in the Committee work, but also to better understand and implement 
standardization, conformity assessment, metrology and accreditation in international trade. It would 
also enhance the WTO's legitimacy and strengthening its position as a central element of the 
structure of international economic governance.  
The representative of  Oman joined other Member states to express their country's support to 
grant observer status t o the SMIIC. Oman was of the view that SMIIC could contribute to the work 
of the Committee, particularly as it related to the harmonization of standards, technical regulations 
and conformity assessment procedures.  
The representative of  Jordan  supported gr anting observer status to SMIIC in the TBT 
Committee because SMIIC was the specialized agency in the areas covered by the work of the 
Committee.  
The representative of  Egypt  reiterated his delegation's support for SMIIC.  
The representative of  Tunisia  reinforced the support expressed by  other Members to grant 
observer status to SMIIC in the TBT Committee. He stressed that since its creation in 2010, SMIIC 
had played an important role in the development of infrastructure aimed at increasing the trading 
capaci ty of its members, and its work was aimed at helping develop their capacity to export, and to 
become more competitive.  
The representative of  Morocco  supported the request to grant observer status to SMIIC 
because the request showed the willingness of SMII C to follow the work of the Committee and to G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 47 - 
 
  ensure compliance with TBT rules. Morocco stressed that SMIIC was well placed to support over 15 
countries and help those countries to eliminate technical barriers through cooperation.  
The representative of  Indonesia  supported SMIIC as an observer in the TBT Committee due 
to the development of international Halal standards and the conformity assessment scheme by 
SMIIC that would facilitate trade and remove technical barriers.  
The representative of  Kenya  supported the US and South Africa in their statements of support 
for granting observer status to ILAC and IAF. Kenya's full statement is contained in document 
G/TBT/W/589 .  
The representative of  Brazil  stressed his delegation's support for ILAC and IAF as observers 
to the Committee due to the relevance of the two organizations ' work to the TBT Committee. Brazil 
proposed that the Committee should try to find a middle ground between the different positions 
presented by Members and try to find a way for the valuable work of ILAC and IAF to feed into the 
Committee.  
The representative of  Mexico  supported the arguments expressed by the US, South Africa, 
Kenya, and Brazil regarding the request for granting observer status to ILAC and IAF.  
The representative of  Australia  also supported the statements by the US, South Africa, Kenya, 
Brazil a nd Mexico to support the observer status for ILAC and IAF because both organizations carried 
out important work of high relevance to the TBT Committee.  
The representative of  Singapore  supported the application of ILAC and IAF.  
The representative of  Philip pines  expressed her country's support to include ILAC and IAF as 
observers to the WTO.  
The representative of  Indonesia  supported the applications of ILAC and IAF as observers in 
the TBT Committee since the ILAC and IAF facilitate d trade .  
The representative of  Malaysia  supported the application of ILAC, IAF and SMIIC as observers 
in the WTO TBT Committee.  
The representative of  New Zealand  supported the applications of ILAC and IAF and while her 
delegation recognized that ILAC and IAF were not intergovernmental organizations as envisaged by 
the rules under the TBT Agreement, she was of the view that the Committee had approved the 
observer status for other non -intergovernmental organizations in the past and the significant 
relevance of the work o f ILAC and IAF warranted recognition.  
The representative of  Chinese Taipei  reiterated his delegation's support for the application of 
ILAC and IAF for observer status.  
The representative of  the European Union  responded that his delegation agreed with the  
remarks made in support of some of the organizations mentioned. However, he stressed that his 
delegation had not yet taken a final position and would only revert to this issue at a later stage. The 
EU reiterated that his delegation was open to exploring t he ways in which ILAC and IAF could 
contribute to the work of the TBT Committee, for instance by participating with specific speakers in 
thematic sessions, as appropriate, and depending on the topic. However, this participation was 
different from the issue  of granting a permanent status of observers.  
The representative of South Africa  reminded the Committee of its proposal in the context of 
the Eighth Triennial Review131 on observer status and recommended that the Committee expedite 
its discussions on some r equests which had been pending for a long time.  
The Chair person  asked the Committee if the Members were in a position to grant ad hoc  
observer status to SMIIC and/or the ILAC and IAF at the current meeting .  
                                                
131 G/TBT/W/452 . section 1.4  G/TBT/M/76  
 
- 48 - 
 
  
The representative of  the European Union reiter ated that his delegation was not in a position 
to positively consider these applications at the current time.  
In response, the Chair person  concluded that the Committee was not in a position to grant ad 
hoc observer status to either the SMIIC or ILAC and IAF at the current time.   
7  REPORT (2018) OF THE  COMMITTEE ON TECHNI CAL BARRIERS TO TRAD E 
The Committee adopted its 2018 Report to the Council for Trade in Goods ( G/L/1281 ). 
8  DATE OF NEXT MEETING  
The next regular meeting of the Committee is scheduled for 6 -7 March 2019. It will be preceded 
by an informal meeting (thematic sessions) on 5 March.  
 
__________